“We Speak for Country”: Indigenous Tourism Development Options for Community Engagement in

Australia

Gabrielle Catarina McGinnis BA (University of San Diego, California, USA); MSc (New York University, New York City, New York, USA)

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology and Sociology

November 2018

This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Linkage Project: Project ID: LP120200393

I hereby certify that the work embodied in the thesis is my own work, conducted under normal supervision. The thesis contains no material which has been accepted, or is being examined, for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made. I give consent to the final version of my thesis being made available worldwide when deposited in the University’s Digital Repository, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 and any approved embargo.

X

Gabrielle C McGinnis

i FOREWORD

My name is Gabrielle McGinnis. I am a descendant of Chief Tatanka Iyotake, also known as “Sitting Bull”, and of the Sisseton Whappeton Sioux people in the United States of America. I was born in the Gallup Indian Medical Center and raised among multiethnic cultures in Gallup, New Mexico - where I grew up and made life-long friends of American Indigenous and non-Indigenous descent. Being of Sioux ancestry on my dad’s side, and born on Navajo country, I am proud to have grown up among diverse knowledges of Indigenous America. I am also proud of my Welsh heritage, as my mum is from the valleys of South Wales, where I visited my grandparents as a child. To this day, my parents continue to pass on their knowledge, and my grandparents’ knowledge, of country, language and culture to my sister and I, who hope to pass it onto our families for generations to come.

We moved from Gallup to Albuquerque, New Mexico, when I was ten years old after I had been accepted into the Albuquerque Academy. I spent seven years studying theatre, culture and wildlife conservation, dreaming of one day living and working at Australia Zoo with my childhood hero, Steve Irwin. I graduated from the Albuquerque Academy in May 2006 as a senior member of the Native American Council at my high school. As a senior student member of the Council, I was given a private smoking ceremony with my family, professors and staff of the Native American Council at the time of my high school graduation. The ceremony was presided over by Sioux Elder, Chief Thunderchief. It was at this time that I received my eagle feather and a blessing from Chief Thunderchief, which signified my journey into adulthood, college, and life thereafter. My discussions with Chief Thunderchief, and his blessing at my ceremony, further ignited my passion for my heritage, other Indigenous cultures, and a personal desire for a career that could empower Indigenous communities around the world. These passions thereby started me on my academic, professional and spiritual path towards enrolling in a PhD program in Australia.

Since graduating from high school, I received my Bachelor of Arts in Psychology (Animal Behaviour), Anthropology and Environmental Sciences from the

ii University of San Diego (USD), California, and my Master of Science degree in Tourism Management from New York University (NYU) in New York City. During this time, I engaged in various ethnographic, fieldwork, research and consulting studies and projects, as well as travelled the world learning about new and exciting cultures, wildlife and languages, befriending many locals along the way. In France and Cameroon (West Africa), I perfected the French language and met many wonderful, generous and hospitable locals who also spoke local and endangered languages, such as Provencal in Aix-en-Provence. The diverse cultures, the delicious foods, the pictorial countries and the warmth and hospitality of the locals on my worldly travels continued to fuel my love and passion for languages, wildlife, culture and community-based travel and tourism.

It was after my trip to Cameroon with the Africa Travel Association (ATA) in 2013 that I serendipitously received an email from my cultural heritage tourism professor at NYU, Sharr Prohaska, detailing a Sociology and Anthropology PhD opportunity with the University of Newcastle (UON) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The email originated from my current tourism supervisor, Tamara Young, and embodied everything I was passionate about: wildlife, tourism, language, heritage, empowering Indigenous communities and Australia.

The email detailed a practical PhD scholarship funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage project. This project not only required the production of a thesis, but a digital output and means for the Wagiman community of Pine Creek to map placenames, conserve ethnobiology, engage in tourism development and empower the community. The practicality of the PhD meant that my research would give back to the Wagiman community, plus the combination of my career skills, ambitions and passions drew me to the project. I applied right away and by 2014 I had been offered the scholarship.

Owing to the qualitative nature of my research, the focus of this thesis is to empower the Wagiman community by disseminating their voices and teachings onto paper in this manuscript, in the hope of empowering others who may endeavour to adopt and adapt this project in the future. The very notion and heart of the PhD is what granted me the opportunity to work as a PhD Researcher at the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) in the Sustainable Development for Tourism department from 2015-2016 and awarded me the

iii Research Higher Degree (RHD) Achievement Award in 2015 from the University of Newcastle.

After conducting fieldwork in the Northern Territory for three dry seasons and four years of academic research, you will hear the voices of many of the lovely people I have befriended and worked with in the field, who speak for country in this area of the Northern Territory. You now have the opportunity, and I hope the pleasure, of reading the thesis and viewing the websites and maps that the Pine Creek community and I have developed together. I hope that, in reading this manuscript, you will become as passionate about the Wagiman community’s heritage, country, language and histories and that you will learn as much from them as I have.

What I have come to know from both sides of my heritage, and from my personal and professional journey, is that language is of great importance to culture, identity and knowledge. People around the globe need to conserve endangered languages, such as those of the Navajo, Sioux, Welsh, Provencal and Wagiman peoples. Language is vital to the conservation of local cultures, environmental knowledges and the cultural identities of the people who speak them. I endeavour to incorporate as much of those languages into my daily life, as well as this thesis, whenever possible and appropriate. Ahéhee', Philámayaye, Diolch yn fawr, Mercé and thank you for reading my dissertation, and to everyone who played a role in my professional and personal journey thus far.

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank and acknowledge the Wagiman Elders past, present and future, for conducting research with me on country and passing down knowledge and expertise to me and now, also, unto you. I also would like to thank and acknowledge the Elders of the southwest region of Victoria for their support, participation and guidance in the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant project and thesis. I would also like to thank and recognise the Awabakal Elders past, present and future, for allowing me the opportunity to write this thesis in Newcastle, which is Awabakal country, a city that I have also called home for the past four years.

I would like to thank the Navajo/Dineh Elders past, present and future, of Gallup, New Mexico, whose country is also my birthplace and homeland. I also want to pay homage to my great-grandmother Ella and our Sisseton Whappeton Sioux ancestors, including Hunkpapa Chief Tatanka Iyotake, and my Welsh ancestors whose teachings continue to guide me throughout my life journey and are a source of inspiration to me every day.

I would like to thank my supervisors: Associate Professor Mark Harvey, Dr Tamara Young and Professor Ian D. Clark for their endless patience, guidance and thoughtful advice and friendship throughout my PhD career and without whom this PhD would not have been possible. I would also like to thank the Centre for 21st Century Humanities for aiding in the promotion of my work at the Newcastle Writer’s Festival in April 2018, as well as providing me with additional research work to further my PhD and academic studies. I would like to thank Dr Po-Hsin Lai for her caring support and friendship throughout my PhD studies and for furthering my academic experience during my time at UON. I also wish to thank Dr Amy Lovat (UON), who professionally proofread this thesis in accordance with the guidelines of the Institute of Professional Editors (IPED).

I would like to thank and acknowledge the ARC for funding this project’s fieldwork and UON for funding my PhD Scholarship. I would also like to thank the Endangered Languages Department for Theory and Application (ELDTA) at UON for providing me a workspace, support, promotion and further research and academic experience during my PhD studies.

v I would also like to give special thanks to the other partners of the ARC Linkage Grant, all of whom provided valuable contributions, expertise, guidance and support for the project: the University of Ballarat, Laura Kostanski and the Surveyor General of Victoria, Northern Territory Department of Lands and Planning, and the Pine Creek Aboriginal Advancement Association (PCAAA). I would also like to acknowledge the participation, support and importance of other organisations in the ARC Linkage Grant, including the Victorian Aboriginal Corporation for Languages (VACL), the Australian Aboriginal Protection Authority (AAPA), Glenn Wightman of the Northern Territory’s Herbarium, the NT Placenames Committee, Federation University, VICNAMES and the Office of Geographic Names (OGN) in Melbourne. I would also like to thank the Northern Territory Wildlife Park (NTWP), the Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association (PCHTA) and the Northern Land Council (NLC) for their participation and support in this study.

I would especially like to thank and acknowledge the Wagiman community of Pine Creek who have been my colleagues, mentors and friends during this study; namely, Teresa Banderson, Jabarl (George) Huddlestone, Daphne Huddlestone, Yvonne Muggleton, Phillippa Liddy, the dearly departed Lenny Liddy and Ivy Huddlestone, as well as the Wagiman “Guwardagun” Rangers. This project is dedicated to them and the future generations of Wagiman people who safeguard and sustain the knowledge within. I would also like to thank the Aboriginal Elders in Victoria for their contributions and support in the PhD.

I would like to thank the wider community of Pine Creek for their warm hospitality and friendship; namely, Pat Smith, Eddie Ah Toys, Amanda Denouel, Gaye Lawrence and Alain Denouel. I would also like to thank the staff of the Pine Creek City Council, Lazy Lizard Caravan Park, Mayse’s Café, Railway Resort, Pine Creek Hotel, Pussycat Flats, Pine Creek Museum and Library, and the Pine Creek Railway Museum, as well as the staff of the Katherine Tourist Centre for their support, participation and enthusiasm in this research.

I would like to thank my supervisor at UNWTO, Dr Dirk Glaesser, the Sustainable Development of Tourism department team and my other friends and colleagues at UNWTO for providing the opportunity to not only further develop my career in sustainable tourism and conservation, but to give the Wagiman people, the wider

vi community of Pine Creek and other rural and Indigenous nations the opportunity to be heard and to make a difference on a global level.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family and friends whose endless love and support have been my constant inspiration: my parents Patrick and Lynda, whose knowledge and teachings are an infinite well of love and encouragement. My sister, Megan, her husband, John, and my nephews Beckham and Boston, who challenge me and show me consistent love and support every day. I thank my friends around the world for fuelling my passion, hope and determination to seize the day every day. My “Newy” family who have made Newcastle a home and have shared in so many fun-filled memories through our PhDs and lives together over the past four years.

And to you, the reader, thank you in advance for taking the time to listen to the Wagiman people of Pine Creek, and their fellow residents, whose country they hope you come to visit one day soon.

vii INDIGENOUS READERS AND VIEWERS WARNING

Indigenous readers, please exercise caution as this manuscript contains names, images, videos and links to websites that may include the voices and images of deceased persons. Please also exercise caution as this manuscript contains links to web pages that have information about both male and female sacred sites.

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... v

Indigenous Readers and Viewers Warning ...... viii

List of Abbreviations ...... xvii

Abstract ...... xx

Chapter 1 Introduction: Terminology and Study Background and Aims . 1 1.1 Cultural Terms and Identities ...... 1 1.2 Study Background: Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant Project 4 1.3 Research Aims: Digital Engagement in Tourism Development for Wagiman Community Empowerment ...... 5 1.4 Thesis Outline ...... 9 Chapter 2 Critical Review: Indigenous People and Indigenous Tourism 12 2.1 Overview ...... 12 2.2 Indigenous Control in Tourism Development ...... 15 2.2.1 Drivers in Tourism Development: Why Indigenous Communities seek out Tourism 17 2.2.2 Government Support for Indigenous Employment and Entrepreneurship ...... 27 2.3 Indigenous Entrepreneurship: Issues and Opportunities for Ensuring Authenticity in Tourism Development ...... 37 2.3.1 Authenticity and Indigenous Destination Development ...... 39 2.3.2 Diversification of Tourism Products for Indigenous Control ...... 47 2.4 Digital Options for Indigenous Tourism Product Development ...... 53 2.4.1 Digital Marketing of Knowledge: Issues with Ethnomarketing ...... 60 2.5 Significance of this Study: Contributions to Literature and Practice ...... 63 2.6 Conclusion ...... 64 Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework for Indigenous Methodologies ...... 67 3.1 Introduction ...... 67 3.2 Methodological Terms ...... 68 3.3 A Participatory Approach to Indigenous Research ...... 71 3.4 Developing a Mixed-Methods Approach for Indigenous-led Tourism and Engagement ...... 75 3.5 Indigenous Methodologies ...... 78 3.5.1 Indigenising Methods in Tourism Development and Research ...... 85 3.5.2 Digital Mapping For Direct and Indirect Indigenous Involvement in Tourism ...... 87 3.5.3 An Ethnographic Approach to Indigenous Research ...... 90

ix 3.5.4 Building Bonds of Trust and Friendship in Indigenous Research and Development 93 3.6 Conclusion ...... 95 Chapter 4 Welcome to Country: Study Background and Tourism Inventory of the Pine Creek Area ...... 98 4.1 Introduction ...... 98 4.2 Aboriginal Tourism Market and Employment Trends in the Northern Territory and Southwest Victoria ...... 98 4.3 Current Tourism Products and Developments: Aboriginal Tourism and National Parks in the Top End ...... 99 4.4 Background: Pine Creek, Northern Territory, Australia ...... 105 4.4.1 Tourists to Pine Creek ...... 106 4.4.2 Current Tourism Products in Pine Creek, NT ...... 111 4.4.3 Aboriginal Involvement in Tourism in Pine Creek ...... 113 4.5 Conclusion ...... 115 Chapter 5 Methodology ...... 116 5.1 Introduction ...... 116 5.2 Research Participants, Methods and Tools ...... 116 5.3 Fieldwork in Wagiman Country ...... 128 5.3.1 2015 Pine Creek Fieldwork ...... 128 5.3.2 2016 Pine Creek Fieldwork ...... 135 5.3.3 2017 Pine Creek Fieldwork ...... 141 5.4 Conclusion ...... 147 Chapter 6 Engagement Findings: Working with the Wagiman Community 148 6.1 Introduction ...... 148 6.2 Decontextualised Versus Contextualised Questioning with the Wagiman Community 150 6.2.1 Factors Affecting Conversational Flow in Discussions in Pine Creek ...... 151 6.3 Factors Affecting First Time Interactions with the Wagiman Community ...... 152 6.3.1 Decontextualised versus Contextualised Structure of Questions and Topics ...... 152 6.3.2 On-Site versus Off-Site ...... 159 6.3.3 Use of Technology ...... 160 6.3.4 Additional Factors Examined: Types of People and Activities ...... 162 6.4 Follow-Up Interactions with the Wagiman Community ...... 163 6.4.1 Follow-Up Discussions: On-Site versus Off-Site ...... 164 6.4.2 Follow-Up Discussions: Previously Familiar Topics ...... 167 6.5 Summary of Discussions with the Wagiman Community ...... 170 6.6 Factors Affecting Conversational Flow in Discussions with the Non-Aboriginal Community 173

x 6.6.1 Non-Aboriginal Discussions: On-Site ...... 174 6.6.2 Non-Aboriginal Discussions: Types of People and Activities ...... 176 6.6.3 Non-Indigenous Discussions: Use of Technology ...... 177 6.7 Potential Wider Implications ...... 178 6.8 Building Trust and Forming Friendships ...... 181 6.9 Creating Options for Tourism Development and Empowerment ...... 184 6.10 Conclusion ...... 187 Chapter 7 Product Findings: Development of the Websites and App .. 188 7.1 Introduction ...... 188 7.2 Drivers in Digital Tourism Product Development and Interpretation of Heritage in Pine Creek 189 7.3 Community Empowerment through Digital Technology ...... 192 7.4 Wagiman Use of Technology ...... 193 7.5 Non-Aboriginal Use of Technology ...... 201 7.6 Pine Creek Tourists Use of Technology ...... 208 7.7 Findings from the Field: Community-Based Implications for DAIBK Integration in Pine Creek 210 7.8 Conclusion ...... 213 Chapter 8 Marketing Findings: Tourist Markets and Promotion of Wagiman Heritage for Tourism Development ...... 217 8.1 Introduction ...... 217 8.2 2016 and 2017 Pine Creek Tourist Survey Results ...... 219 8.3 Pine Creek Residents’ Marketing Strategies: Ethnomarketing versus Geomarketing ...... 225 8.4 Conclusion ...... 229 Chapter 9 Management Findings: Ongoing Impact of Research: Indigenous Tourism Website Management ...... 231 9.1 Introduction ...... 231 9.2 Monitoring and Assessment of Pine Creek Websites ...... 231 9.2.1 Tourism Website Analytics ...... 236 9.2.2 WCHA Website Analytics ...... 238 9.2.3 Summary of Visitor Analytics and Future Opportunities for the Websites ...... 239 9.3 Community Uptake of Technology and the Road to Empowerment ...... 243 9.4 Conclusion ...... 245 Chapter 10 Results Discussion: Comparative Analysis to Southwest Victoria 249 10.1 Introduction ...... 249

xi 10.2 Background: Lessons Learned from Tower Hill and the Grampians National Parks, Southwest Victoria ...... 250 10.2.1 Tourists to Southwest Victoria: Tower Hill and Geriwerd ...... 251 10.2.2 History of Tower Hill and the Grampians National Parks ...... 253 10.2.3 Aboriginal Involvement in Tourism to Southwest Victoria ...... 255 10.2.4 Indigenous Tourism Management in Victoria ...... 256 10.3 Implications from Victoria: Marketing of Indigenous Interpretation of Heritage 260 10.3.1 Southwest Victoria 2014 Field Visits and Resources Ethnography ...... 265 10.3.2 Southwest Victoria 2016 Field Visits and Resources Ethnography ...... 267 10.4 Comparison of Research Sites: Pine Creek, NT and Southwest Victoria ...... 268 10.4.1 Similarities Between the Two Case Studies ...... 270 10.4.2 Differences Between the Two Case Studies ...... 271 10.5 Conclusion ...... 272 Thesis Conclusion ...... 273

References...... 277

List of Indigenous Terms ...... 292 Wagiman Terms ...... 292 Djab Wurrung Terms ...... 293 Jawoyn Terms ...... 294 Sioux Terms ...... 294 Shawnee Terms ...... 294 Welsh Terms ...... 294 Wagiman Participants’ Technology Interview Database .. 295

Non-Aboriginal Participants’ Technology Interview Database 300

2016 Tourist Survey ...... 303

2017 Tourist Survey ...... 306

2016-2017 Tourist Survey Results ...... 309

Websites and App ...... 323

Fieldwork Instructions for the Wagiman Community of Pine Creek 324

Fieldwork Instructions for Other Researchers and Tourism developers 326

xii Google Mapping Instructions ...... 328

Video Editing Instructions ...... 330

Vimeo Upload Instructions for Wagiman Community Of Pine Creek 332

Vimeo Upoload Instructions for Tourism Website Videos 336

Website Video Upload Instructions for WCHA ...... 340

Website Video Upload Instructions for Visit Pine Creek .. 342

2017 Content Analysis of Indigenous Tourism Marketing Materials in Victoria ...... 344

List of Figures

Figure 1 Hinch and Butler (2007) Matrix for Indigenous Control in Tourism Development ...... 16 Figure 2 Butler's (1980) Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) ...... 40 Figure 3 Morales' (2005) Ethnomarketing Strategic Matrix (ESM) & 15 Cs of Ethnomarketing ...... 61 Figure 4 Indigenous Research Agenda According to Tuhiwai-Smith (2012) ..... 83 Figure 5 Katherine-Daly Region Visitors' Mode of Transport (Tourism NT, 2017b, p. 5) ...... 109 Figure 6 Questions Map for Successful Conversation Flow ...... 179 Figure 7 Questions Map for Unsuccessful Conversation Flow ...... 179 Figure 8 Questions Map for Mildly Successful Conversation Flow ...... 180 Figure 9 Word Cloud of Pine Creek's Tourists' Comments ...... 224 Figure 10 Domestic or International Tourists ...... 309 Figure 11 Australian States/Territories from Which Tourists Hailed ...... 309 Figure 12 Age Groups of tourists visiting Pine Creek ...... 310 Figure 13 Reasons Tourists Were Travelling to Pine Creek ...... 310 Figure 14 Travel Party Types of Tourists Visiting Pine Creek ...... 311 Figure 15 Tourists' Mode of Transportation to Pine Creek ...... 311 Figure 16 Had Tourists Visited Pine Creek Before ...... 312

xiii Figure 17 Reasons for Previously Visiting Pine Creek ...... 312 Figure 18 Tourists' Duration of Stay in Pine Creek ...... 313 Figure 19 Tourists' Accommodation in Pine Creek ...... 313 Figure 20 Tourists' Destinations on Their Way to Pine Creek ...... 314 Figure 21 Tourists' Destinations on their Way from Pine Creek ...... 314 Figure 22 Tourists' Technological Devices Used While Travelling ...... 315 Figure 23 How Tourists Obtain Information While Travelling ...... 316 Figure 24 How Tourists Obtain Information While Travelling to Pine Creek ... 317 Figure 25 Social Media platforms Used by Tourists Visiting Pine Creek ...... 318 Figure 26 Tourists' Interest in Pine Creek ...... 319 Figure 27 Tourists Having a Look around the Local Area ...... 320 Figure 28 Surrounding Attractions That Are of Interest to Pine Creek Tourists ...... 320 Figure 29 Word Cloud of Tourists Comments when Visiting Pine Creek ...... 321 Figure 30 Analysis of World Cloud ...... 322

List of Tables

Table 1 Aboriginal Involvement in Top End NT National Parks ...... 100 Table 2 Recorded Resident Interviews of 2015-2017 ...... 118 Table 3 PhD Fieldwork Timeline and Activities ...... 124 Table 4 Interviews of 2015 Fieldwork ...... 129 Table 5 Fieldwork Sites 2015 ...... 131 Table 6 Interviews of 2016 Fieldwork ...... 136 Table 7 Fieldwork Sites 2016 ...... 139 Table 8 Interviews of 2017 Fieldwork ...... 143 Table 9 Fieldwork Sites 2017 ...... 145 Table 10 Sample Questions for Decontextualised and Contextualised Interviews ...... 171 Table 11 Wagiman Elders’ Common Use of Technology ...... 194 Table 12 Younger Wagiman Residents' Use of Technology ...... 197 Table 13 Older Non-Aboriginal Residents' Use of Technology ...... 202 Table 14 Younger Non-Aboriginal Residents' Use of Technology ...... 205 Table 15 Tourists' Use of Technology in Pine Creek ...... 209

xiv Table 16 Summary of Tourist Survey Results 2016-2017 ...... 220 Table 17 Summary of Visitor Analytics for Both Websites ...... 240 Table 18 Similarities and Differences between Case Studies ...... 269 Table 19 Wagiman Participants Technology Interview Database ...... 295 Table 20 Non-Aboriginal Participants’ Technology Interview Database ...... 300 Table 21 Content Analysis of Indigenous-Related Content in Victoria's Tourism Marketing Materials ...... 345

List of Maps

Map 1 Aboriginal Languages of Australia (Horton, 1996) ...... 2 Map 2 Location of Wagiman and Jawoyn Countries According to Horton (1996) ...... 3 Map 3 Location of SW Victorian Language Groups According to Horton (1996) 4 Map 4 Top End Nature Parks ...... 102 Map 5 Australia and NT Tourism Attractions ...... 105 Map 6 Pine Creek and Top End Tourism Attractions ...... 106 Map 7 Pine Creek and Surrounds 2015 Fieldwork Location ...... 132 Map 8 Pine Creek and Surrounds 2016 Fieldwork Locations ...... 138 Map 9 Pine Creek and Surrounds 2017 Fieldwork Location ...... 144 Map 10 Surrounding Tourism Attractions in the Pine Creek Area ...... 219 Map 11 Aboriginal Language Groups of Victoria from VACL (2016) ...... 250 Map 12 Southwest Victoria Tourism Attractions ...... 252 Map 13 Sites of Indigenous Tourism Marketing in Victoria, Australia ...... 347

List of Plates

Plate 1 The Mandingalbay Yidinji people presenting their (P)PGIS/P3DM map at the IUCN World Congress, Sydney, 2014 ...... 88 Plate 2 Wagiman Interpretation at Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park ...... 103 Plate 3 Wagiman Interpretation at Djuwaliyn Hot Springs National Park ...... 103 Plate 4 Waradjan Cultural Centre’s Seasonal Calendar at Kakadu National Park, Photo by: Tamara Young ...... 108 Plate 5 Fading Tourism Signage in Pine Creek ...... 112

xv Plate 6 Crumbling Tourism Infrastructure - Walk Through Time ...... 113 Plate 7 Visit Pine Creek Homepage 2016 versus 2018 ...... 227 Plate 8 Visit Pine Creek's Events Page 2017 ...... 234 Plate 9 Visit Pine creek's Events Page May 2018 ...... 235 Plate 10 Static Displays of Culture at Tower Hill ...... 261 Plate 11 Deteriorating Plants and Signage at Geriwerd ...... 262 Plate 12 Brambuk Cultural Centre, Geriwerd 2014 ...... 263 Plate 13 Brambuk Cultural Centre Geriwerd, 2018 from Visit Victoria (2018) . 263 Plate 14 P3DM Map of Tower Hill ...... 264 Plate 15 P3DM Map of Geriwerd ...... 264

xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAPA Australian Aboriginal Protection Authority

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

ACT Australian Capital Territory

AIBK Australian Indigenous Biocultural Knowledge

AIATSIS Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies

ARC Australian Research Council

ATA Africa Travel Association

COSS ACT Council of Social Services

DAIBK Digital Australian Indigenous Biocultural Knowledge

ELDTA Endangered Languages Department for Theory and Application

ESRI Environmental Research Systems Institute

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GPS Global Positioning Systems

ICME Indigenous Cultural Micro-Enterprises

INSTO International Network of Sustainable Tourism Observatories

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature

KITMC Kangaroo Island Tourism Management Committee TOMM Tourism Optimisation Management Model

NLC Northern Land Council

NSW New South Wales, Australia

NT Northern Territory, Australia

xvii NT Northern Territory Placenames Committee Placenames Committee

NTWP Northern Territory Wildlife Park

NVS National Visitor Survey

NYU New York University

NZ New Zealand

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OGN Office of Geographic Names

P3DM Participatory 3D Modelling

PCAAA Pine Creek Aboriginal Advancement Association

PCHTA Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association

(P)PGIS (Public) Participatory Geographic Information Systems

QLD Queensland, Australia

S, MS, U “Successful”, “Mildly Successful,” and “Unsuccessful” Questioning

SA South Australia, Australia

SATC South Australia Tourism Commission

SME(s) Small-Medium Enterprise(s)

TALC Tourism Area Life Cycle

TAS Tasmania, Australia

TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge

TIES International Ecotourism Society

Tourism NT Northern Territory Tourism Board

TPY Tangglun Piltengi Yunti

TRA Tourism Research Australia

xviii UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme

UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization

UON University of Newcastle, Australia

U.S./ USA United States of America

USD University of San Diego

VACL Victorian Aboriginal Corporation of Languages

VIC Victoria, Australia

VICNAMES Victoria’s Placename Database

WA Western Australia, Australia

WCHA Wagiman Community Heritage Archive/ “Wagiman website”

WINTA World Indigenous Tourism Alliance

xix ABSTRACT

Indigenous communities around the world are becoming involved in tourism development to gain the social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits that the sector can offer. However, limitations in accessing resources, funding, support and skill-training may reduce many of the possible benefits of tourism development. These limitations may lead Indigenous communities to either not engage in tourism development or engage in options that may not best suit Indigenous people. The lack of suitable engagement options with Indigenous communities can lead to issues such as: commodification of culture; inauthenticity of cultural representation; loss of Indigenous knowledge, heritage and values; as well as the continuous deficit of social benefits, such as education and skill-training. This study aims to examine how alternative, digital options for engagement in, and control over, tourism development may mitigate these limitations and issues for Indigenous peoples and communities, while increasing the benefits of tourism development.

The research for this study was conducted with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia, who possess distinct representations of culture, identity and knowledge of country, as well as a broad range of data resources, including: collections of placenames; geographic data; ethnobiology data; interviews; and access to already established tourism infrastructures. These data resources support the evaluation of digital mapping and marketing of Wagiman knowledge through Google maps, websites and mobile apps as well as the feasibility of Indigenous tourism development, the conservation of local heritage, and potentially positive social benefits and political influence for the long term. The objective of this research is to determine:

1.) The options for engaging with the Wagiman participants in ways that benefit and empower the wider Wagiman and Pine Creek communities.

2.) Whether the Wagiman people of Pine Creek wish to engage in tourism development, and if so, what the options for engagement might be.

3.) Whether digital options for engagement in tourism development are viable for the authentic sharing, conservation and promotion of Wagiman heritage to

xx tourists, younger generations of Wagiman people as well as the wider Pine Creek community.

4.) If tourists visiting Pine Creek are interested in local and Aboriginal tourism attractions and/or would access Wagiman knowledge on digital platforms while travelling.

5.) How should digital tourism and heritage products be managed to advance longer-term sustainability.

This study finds that adopting Wagiman methodologies of research, such as oral knowledge-sharing on-site in Wagiman country, as well as through digital interpretation off-site, may help promote and conserve Wagiman, and wider community, heritage in Pine Creek. Digital options of Wagiman engagement in tourism may:

1.) foster local pride and empowerment by providing access to tourism and heritage resources, education and skill-training in research and development

2.) create stronger bonds of trust and friendship with outside researchers while conducting Wagiman-led research on-site and on-line

3.) promote awareness and authentic Wagiman heritage to tourists and locals

4.) diversify local tourism developments and

5.) create an integrated Wagiman and non-Indigenous co-management system for maintaining digital tourism products and heritage promotion for the long-term.

The findings of this study suggest that adopting Indigenous methodologies may help engage Indigenous people and communities in leading research and development through culturally appropriate options thus decolonising tourism research and development while promoting trust between researchers and communities for long-term heritage conservation and social empowerment.

This research is partly funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) grant that focuses more broadly on providing practical, digital outputs for archiving spatial, biocultural knowledge of Aboriginal communities in Australia.

xxi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: TERMINOLOGY AND STUDY BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Considerable care has been taken to use culturally sensitive and appropriate terminology in this thesis, and its digital outputs, especially when referring to Indigenous and/or Aboriginal people, topics and content. The terminology within this thesis aligns with the guidelines provided by the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Council of Social Services (COSS) (2016), Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (2012) and Creative Spirits (2018).

1.1 Cultural Terms and Identities

Non-Indigenous – This term refers to people and groups who are not of Indigenous descent, as well as any content or topics that are non-Indigenous in this manuscript on a global level (Creative Spirits, 2018).

Indigenous – This term is used to refer to Indigenous groups or topics and to Indigenous people on a global scale, as referenced by the “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (United Nations [UN], 2008) and Creative Spirits (2018).

Non-Aboriginal – This term refers to people and groups who are not of Aboriginal descent in the Australian context of this manuscript. This term is also used when referring to any content or topics that are non-Aboriginal in this manuscript (AIATSIS, 2012; COSS, 2016; Creative Spirits, 2018).

Aboriginal – This term is used to refer to Indigenous people in Australia in this thesis. As outlined in Creative Spirits (2018), this term is usually preferred over “Indigenous” and “Australian Aboriginal” when referring to people and groups in the Australian context.

1 Wagiman, Jawoyn, Worn Gundidj, Brambuk and Djab Wurrung – These names are used to denote each specific language/cultural group, respectively, and wherever possible and appropriate as suggested by COSS (2016), AIATSIS (2012) and Creative Spirits (2018). A detailed account of the specific Aboriginal language groups of Australia can be seen in Map 1, below, according to Horton (1996) of AIATSIS. Red boxes have been placed over the language areas that are the central focus of this study, namely the Wagiman and Jawoyn groups in the Top End of the Northern Territory (NT) and the Djab Wurrung, Brambuk and Worn Gundidj communities of Southwest Victoria.

Map 1 Aboriginal Languages of Australia (Horton, 1996)

Wagiman and Jawoyn Language Groups – The Wagiman community is one of the two main Aboriginal groups who reside in and around the Pine Creek area in the Top End of the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia. The other major Aboriginal community in Pine Creek is the Jawoyn group, who own and operate Nitmiluk National Park near the town of Katherine in the NT. Map 2, below, shows the location of these two language groups in the Top End and depicts Pine Creek as

2 a border town between Wagiman and Warray language groups. It is important to note that the border lines of language groups in these maps are not stationary and have shifted over time owing to various reasons, including: seasonal/rotational occupation and movements; communal movements; and colonisation in the area over time (Altman, 1987; Merlan, 1998; Prober, O'Conner, & Walsh, 2011).

Map 2 Location of Wagiman and Jawoyn Countries According to Horton (1996)

Worn Gundidj and Brambuk Language Groups – The Worn Gundidj community, also historically known as the area of the “Koroitgundidj” people, is the Aboriginal cooperative that manages the Tower Hill Wildlife Reserve located near Warrnambool in Southwest Victoria (Worn Gundidj Enterprises, 2015). In Map 3, below, this language group is referred to as the Gunditjmara language group. Brambuk is the name of the Grampians/Geriwerd National Park’s Cultural Centre in Southwest Victoria. It is co-managed by the Djab Wurrung and Jardwadjali communities of the area, whose languages groups depicted in Map 3 below cover the location of Geriwerd National Park (Parks Victoria, 2018).

3 Map 3 depicts the geographic location of these Victorian language groups according to Horton (1996). The difference in language groups, names and boundaries and how they have changed over time can be seen in Chapter 9 in Map 11, provided by the Victorian Aboriginal Corporation of Languages (VACL) (2016), which was published twenty years after Map 3 below.

Map 3 Location of SW Victorian Language Groups According to Horton (1996)

1.2 Study Background: Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant Project

This thesis was supported by an ARC Linkage Grant project “Aboriginal place names and ethnobiology: Enhancing interpretation of Indigenous culture and heritage”. The partners in the project were: Associate Professor Mark Harvey (Linguistics, University of Newcastle), Professor Ian Clark (Tourism, Federation University), Dr Laura Kostanski (Office of the Surveyor General – Victoria), the Department of Lands and Planning (Northern Territory), Office of the Surveyor General (Victoria) and the Pine Creek Aboriginal Advancement Association (PCAAA). The project examined the archiving of Aboriginal spatial heritage, and the production of a range of outputs from archived data. This thesis focuses on

4 the production of tourism outputs, as this was a principal target for the Aboriginal communities involved.

The project had two principal research areas: Pine Creek in the Northern Territory, as well as Tower Hill and the Grampians in Southwestern Victoria. These two areas are similar in that significant spatial heritage materials are recorded for both areas and there is potential for tourism development. However, their colonial histories are notably different, and the degree of integration of Aboriginal spatial heritage also differs, being greater and of longer time depth in Southwestern Victoria than in Pine Creek. Therefore, comparison between the two regions offers opportunities to investigate the comparative roles of various factors in distinct but related situations. This thesis focuses on Pine Creek as this was the research site with the greatest potential for development of new materials. The thesis includes a study of the communities and sites in Southwestern Victoria, as these provide an important comparative perspective.

1.3 Research Aims: Digital Engagement in Tourism Development for Wagiman Community Empowerment

Given the thesis focus on tourism outputs, my principal research questions in relation to the Pine Creek research are the following:

1.) What purposes do Indigenous people have when they engage in tourism? Particularly, do they see economic, social and biocultural benefits? 2.) What are the issues and opportunities for Indigenous people who engage in tourism research and development? 3.) What are the resources, support and funding options available to Indigenous people for tourism development and are they sufficient for Indigenous people to benefit in ways that suit them? Should the government be involved in said support and, if so, how should they be involved? 4.) What are the parameters of “authenticity” in Indigenous-controlled tourism development and how is this target best addressed through Indigenous- controlled promotion in tourism development?

5 5.) Can digital tools and resources aid in Indigenous-controlled tourism research and development for Indigenous empowerment, and if so, in what ways? 6.) How can Indigenous methodologies help foster empowerment for Indigenous people in tourism research and development, especially when using digital technologies?

These questions are addressed in both critical literature reviews of Chapters 1 and 2 as well as in the research methodologies, findings and conclusions of this study with the Wagiman people of Pine Creek in the Northern Territory of Australia.

The literature discussed in the following chapters demonstrates that Indigenous- based tourism can provide significant opportunities for community development, community empowerment and the conservation of heritage. There certainly exist opportunities for further research regarding Indigenous tourism and conservation, especially in relation to investigating ways to engage with Indigenous communities to ensure their participation and perspectives in initiating and controlling such tourism developments. Thus, the research questions guiding this study focus on how a specific Aboriginal community in Australia – the Wagiman community of Pine Creek – can participate and become empowered through tourism without sacrificing social and biocultural authenticity and value through the commodification of heritage and with the widest range of options for involvement.

Thie terms “commodification” of culture and/or heritage is used throughout the literature in tandem with inauthentic product development, promotion and management in cultural, heritage and Indigenous tourism practices (Chhabra, 2010; Cole, 2007; Foley, 2014; MacCannell, 1973; Timothy, 2011; Wang, 1999). Commodification of culture usually results from “outsiders” (i.e., non-Indigenous people) of host communities controlling the tourism product, management and promotion while exploiting cultural heritage and resources (Timothy, 2011). Such practices usually result in the misuse and/or misappropriation of intangible culture (such as cultural knowledge and values), which are often packaged as tangible tourism products and experiences. Such commodificaiton is common among

6 Indigenous tourism products around the world, including Australia (Foley, 2014; Timothy, 2011).

However, research shows that there may be opportunities to both commodify culture and preserve authentcity of heritage products in tourism if a socially focused value is placed on the commodification of the culture, rather than an economic-based value (Chhabra, 2010; MacCannell, 1973; Wang, 1999) as well as through the diversfication of tourism products (Hinch & Butler, 2007; Jacobsen, 2017). Diversification of tourism products is usually used to help address issues with authenticity, commodification of culture and stagnant tourism products. Indigenous tourism research and development requires a mixed-methods, participatory approach focusing on Indigenous control and leadership in the diversification of Indigenous tourism products (Hinch & Butler, 2007; Jacobsen, 2017; UNWTO, 2016a, 2016b).

The findings of the thesis show that applying digital maps to tourism websites may help create opportunities for more, authentic Indigenous interpretation in an interactive context, which I investigate with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek. Digital options for engagement and tourism development can not only create further awareness of the Wagiman knowledge, culture and natural resources, but can also increase the economic incentive for the Wagiman communities involved in tourism development and research.

Comparing the long-term effectiveness of tourism within the Wagiman community may help evaluate methods of digitising, mapping and marketing Indigenous knowledge in tourism. By integrating more authentic, Indigenous-controlled knowledge and values into the existing tourism infrastructures, development and management of Pine Creek, more Indigenous representation and perspectives could help diversify and innovate the current static product and promotion through digital application of knowledge. Using the online resources and methods available may better conserve and effectively market Indigenous heritage. This may, in turn, provide a greater sense of national identity, pride, knowledge and economic value to the community and their heritage (Eagles et al., 2002).

The development of tourism products was voiced by Wagiman residents of Pine Creek as a key development to preserve and interpret their rich heritage and they view the potential for sustainable tourism development as essential to the

7 conservation of spatial heritage. Within heritage conservation, the overarching research question guiding this study is:

 How can Indigenous communities participate and become empowered through tourism with the widest range of options for involvement? This requires consideration of the following two areas:

1. What are the current issues with achieving Indigenous control and leadership in tourism development? 2. How can Indigenous peoples benefit from and become involved and empowered through tourism development, conservation of heritage and Indigenous interpretation of knowledge? After careful examination of the current literature, these research questions have evolved to focus more closely on engagement and tourism development options for Indigenous communities:

1. How can researchers and tourism practitioners effectively engage with Indigenous communities for sustainable tourism development and heritage conservation? 2. Can technological options for engagement and tourism product development empower Indigenous communities? What factors have to be in place for success/empowerment to occur? 3. Who can and should develop, promote and manage digital Indigenous products for tourism development in rural, under-resourced communities? What options are there for effective, authentic and mutually beneficial, long-term promotion and management of digital tourism and heritage products in ethnically heterogeneous communities? This thesis aims to Indigenise tourism research and tourism development through digital engagement and promotion of Indigenous heritage for local empowerment and other social benefits. This research aims to offer the Wagiman people of Pine Creek a greater range of options in tourism for empowerment and agency through participation via digital technologies. In doing so, Aboriginal and other Indigenous tourism stakeholders and entrepreneurs on all levels around the world, may wish to engage in similar options for tourism development to be able to better control Indigenous tourism processes and provide a social, cultural and environmental, as well as economic, value-based system in tourism development

8 (Botterill & Platenkamp, 2012; Foley, 2008, 2014; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006, 2008, 2010; Hinch & Butler, 2007; Jacobsen, 2017; Morley, 2014; Oestreicher- Singer & Zalmanson, 2012; Simonsen, 2006; Whitford et al., 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014).

1.4 Thesis Outline

In order to address the aims of the ARC Linkage Grant project and to present the methodological, empirical and practical outcomes of this research, this thesis is structured as follows.

This introductory Chapter 1 provides cultural context of the thesis as well as background information on the aims and significance of the study and ARC Linkage grant project.

In Chapter 2, a critical review of the literature is discussed concerning Indigenous control in tourism for Indigenous social, cultural, environmental, as well as economic benefits. This chapter outlines the theoretical framework concerning Indigenous tourism definitions, concepts, drivers and issues, as well as current perspectives and debates in tourism research theory relating to tourism development.

In Chapter 3, a methodological framework is presented. This framework is concerned with integrating Indigenous methodologies of research and is based on further developing many of the existing tourism, anthropological, linguistic and sociological methods regarding ethnographic studies in Indigenous communities. This methodological framework presents an argument for Indigenised, ethnographic research and practice through a mixed-methods, participatory approach for the empowerment of Indigenous tourism stakeholders.

In Chapter 4, tourism trends for the Aboriginal tourism ventures in the Pine Creek area provide background context on the current tourism and Aboriginal tourism options available in the town’s surrounding region.

Chapter 5 presents the research project carried out in Pine Creek, in the Northern Territory, and discusses how the Indigenous methodologies (outlined in Chapter

9 2) were applied to Wagiman community engagement during my periods of fieldwork in the years 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Drawing on the methodologies of the fieldwork, Chapter 6 presents results regarding community engagement for local, Aboriginal empowerment in research and development. Based on the results presented in this Chapter 6, the thesis proposes an exploration of digital engagement opportunities between tourism stakeholders in Pine Creek.

Given the need to develop digital interpretation tools for ongoing use by the Wagiman community, Chapter 7 presents findings regarding the use of technology among the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek, as well as the methods used to develop the digital maps and websites with the community.

Chapter 8 presents further findings, this time in relation to the surveying of tourists visiting Pine Creek. These results provide implications understanding current tourist markets and, therefore, for the marketing of Wagiman heritage to tourists to the area.

Chapter 9 presents findings regarding the ongoing impact of the research, in particular, the website development and the managerial systems that were developed during and after fieldwork in Pine Creek. This chapter culminates the results of this study in Pine Creek with a discussion about community empowerment in the town, and the ongoing implications of research and tourism development within the Wagiman community.

Chapter 10 presents a comparative analysis of my findings in Pine Creek to the historical analysis of tourism development in Southwest Victoria, as per the ARC Linkage Grant project. This chapter discusses the long-term implications of the research in Pine Creek; namely, the digital interpretation of culture as an option for Aboriginal engagement in tourism, based on case studies of successful, and unsuccessful, Aboriginal tourism developments in Southwest Victoria. Details regarding the content analysis of Indigenous tourism marketing materials in Victoria are available in Appendix Q.

This thesis then concludes in Chapter 11 with a final synthesis of the findings of this study, including the implications of this thesis to wider research regarding

10 Indigenous tourism. This chapter discusses how this study contributes to the tourism literature regarding Indigenous tourism development and issues of Indigenous control for empowerment and sustainability in tourism development.

This thesis contributes to current research by investigating community-based and Indigenous-led tourism research and development for longer-term viability in community empowerment and heritage conservation in tourism. This thesis also contributes to tourism, and other fields of research, by examining the use and adoption of Indigenous methodologies, as well as Indigenous-led and controlled research and development. This thesis provides a practical approach to research in ways that give back to the community through digital outputs of local heritage and tourism development.

This thesis and its outcomes offer a pragmatic approach to Indigenous tourism research and development by diversifying the local, non-Aboriginal tourism product of Pine Creek, while Indigenising research and tourism development through digital Wagiman methods, perspectives and teachings. This thesis aims to empower the local residents of Pine Creek socially, culturally, environmentally and economically. The following chapter critically reviews literature on Indigenous tourism, with a focus on examining Indigenous control in tourism. This analysis provides further discussion on the methodological framework for Indigenous-led and pragmatic tourism development and research in Pine Creek with the Wagiman people and community.

11 CHAPTER 2 CRITICAL REVIEW: INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND INDIGENOUS TOURISM

“Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.”

- Tatanka Iyotake, Chief Sitting Bull of the Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux People

2.1 Overview

In this chapter, I introduce and review the current definitions, concepts and theoretical foundations in Indigenous tourism research, development and policy. I examine implications for Indigenous social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits and empowerment through digital engagement in tourism development. I begin by considering conceptual definitions of various forms of Indigenous, community-based tourism regarding the social empowerment potentiality of the sector, and report on the need for Indigenous control in tourism development. I then identify some of the main driving factors as to why Indigenous people seek out tourism for social and economic empowerment and employment. At the same time, I examine key debates regarding the role of government and other supporting bodies in Indigenous tourism development regarding the need for Indigenous control and efficient access to resources in tourism ventures.

I also examine Indigenous entrepreneurship and the importance of authenticity in Indigenous-controlled tourism development. I focus on Aboriginal interpretation of knowledge in tourism promotional materials and infrastructures and conclude this introductory chapter with a summary of theoretical foundations in tourism research. I introduce the specific frameworks that inform the aims and significance of this study and its focus on Indigenous control in tourism research and development. I also discuss the focus that the frameworks have on the need

12 for increased social benefits for communities, and the recent shift towards a social paradigm in the sustainability concept and its definition in the tourism sector.

According to Higgins-Desbiolles (2010), in her research into Indigenous tourism in South Australia (SA), social empowerment for Aboriginal stakeholders is essential in tourism development. She argues for political empowerment for Aboriginal communities through community-based tourism, which she labels “justice tourism”. Higgins-Desbiolles (2008) defines justice tourism as revolutionary tourism development because the perspectives of local communities’ “grassroots” efforts are central to sustainable development and community empowerment (p. 357). She also proposes that the focus of pro-poor, justice tourism can only be successful if the focus is shifted from economic, free- market concerns to those of sustainable and equitable social values of the marginalised communities. As such, justice tourism and its focus on community is key to the cultural and social sustainability of tourism development.

Social and cultural sustainability are two major factors that are taken into account in defining and realzing the concept of “sustainable tourism” among tourism academics, practitioners and policy makers. In terms of “sustainability” in tourism development, the UNWTO is a world-leader in the definition, concept and promotion of sustainable tourism, which they base on various resources from leading academics, practitioners and policy makers in the realm of sustainable tourism development.

According to the UNWTO (2005, para. 1), “sustainable tourism” can be defined as, tourism "that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities". Further, the UNWTO (2005, para. 4) claims that “sustainable tourism” should "respect the socio-cultural authenticity of host communities, conserve their built and living cultural heritage and traditional values, and contribute to inter-cultural understanding and tolerance". At the same time, sustainable tourism must provide "socio-economic benefits to all stakeholders that are fairly distributed, including stable employment and income- earning opportunities and social services to host communities” (UNWTO, 2005, para. 5). The UNWTO (2005, para. 6) also states that "sustainable tourism development requires the informed participation of all relevant stakeholders, as

13 well as strong political leadership to ensure wide participation and consensus building".

These definitions from the UNWTO (2005) have been developed in many policy papers based on case studies and action plans from around the world. Their focus has been to increasingly seek guidance, data and expertise from the destination level. This notion of working with local stakeholders on the ground, or at the grassroots level is central to the mission of the UNWTO (2004) program of “International Network of Sustainable Tourism Observatories” (INSTO), which seeks to measure and monitor tourism indicators and the various impacts of tourism at the destination level. Measuring tourism impacts at the destination level with INSTO provides opportunities for Indigenous communities to become involved in tourism policy and practice at all levels of government. However, the ability to fully engage in such government opportunities may be unavailable for many Indigenous communities, an issue that is discussed further throughout this chapter.

According to the UNWTO (2017a), the tourism sector continues to grow as a key social and economic driver in job creation and infrastructure development. The UNWTO (2017a) states that global, international tourist arrivals have grown from 674 million in the year 2000, to 1.2 billion in 2016. Of the 1.2 billion global international visitors in 2016, 308 million (or 25%) account for the Asia-Pacific region, which includes Australia, ranking third in the world behind Europe and the Americas.

While the UNWTO accounts for tourism as a whole, there is little information regarding global visitation or employment rates for Indigenous tourism. Conceptual definitions related to Indigenous tourism with regards to Indigenous control and benefits are discussed in the following sections of this literature review, regarding the negative and postitive impacts of tourism on Indigenous communities and the need for Indigenous control in tourism processes.

14 2.2 Indigenous Control in Tourism Development

According to Zeppel (2006) Indigenous ecotourism is a growing area in the tourism industry, whereby Indigenous peoples are participating in tourism product ownership and have managerial positions within Indigenous owned and operated tourism businesses. She suggests that this kind of tourism is usually developed in an effort to conserve heritage in an authentic way, while also improving the economy of the local community. Zeppel (2006) defines “Indigenous ecotourism” as: Indigenous tourism ventures are largely [developed] in response to the spread of tourism into remote and marginal areas, including national parks, nature reserves and tribal territories that are traditional living areas for many Indigenous groups. (Zeppel, 2006, p. 1)

She states that Indigenous ecotourism aims to preserve biocultural heritage and promote economic advancement through tourism within the host community (Zeppel, 2006). This attention to preserving biocultural heritage is of significance to this thesis and its focus on community empowerment through knowledge- sharing in tourism development and management, as well as in heritage conservation. In Zeppel's (2006) work with Aboriginal communities in Australia, and other Indigenous communities around the world, Indigenous ecotourism focuses on the sustainable development and advancement of Indigenous communities through authentic sharing of knowledge. Thus, according to Zeppel (2006), Indigenous ecotourism is essential to instilling a sense of identity, pride and confidence within marginalised Indigenous communities. This sense of empowerment and pride is reflected in the work of Hinch and Butler (2007) who discuss the importance of Indigenous control in (eco)tourism ventures.

The concept of control is central to the model of Indigenous tourism developed by Hinch and Butler (2007). They define Indigenous tourism as:

Tourism activities in which Indigenous people are directly involved either through control and/or by having their culture serve as the essence of the attraction. The factor of control is a key in any discussion of development... Whoever has control or exercises power generally determines such critical factors as the scale, pace, nature, and indeed, the outcomes of

15 development. Similarly, given the centrality of attractions in tourism, the extent to which the attraction is a manifestation of Indigenous culture is also a primary indicator of Indigenous tourism. (Hinch & Butler, 2007, p. 5- 6)

This definition differs from Zeppel (2006) as the focus is aimed more towards the level of control that can exist within various tourism products and ventures in Indigenous tourism. However, Indigenous ecotourism, according to Zeppel (2006), focuses on the Indigenous theme as well as the level of participation in tourism development and management.

Hinch and Butler (2007) developed a matrix for Indigenous control in tourism development, reproduced below in Figure 1. This model illustrates how an Indigenous tourism product can possibly not have an Indigenous theme at all, but still have Indigenous control or participation in its development and management.

Figure 1 Hinch and Butler (2007) Matrix for Indigenous Control in Tourism Development Hinch and Butler (2007, p. 6) explain that the further left side of the horizontal portion of the matrix denotes a lack of Indigenous control in tourism, while the further right side denotes more Indigenous control in tourism ownership, development and management. Further, the top portion of the matrix denotes an increase in Indigenous-related content, themes or activities in the tourism product and management processes. Alternatively, the bottom portion denotes a lack of Indigenous-related content in the tourism development and management systems. They also explain that there are various stages and levels between both sides of the matrix regarding Indigenous control and engagement in tourism

16 activities, including “the participation of Indigenous people as employees, advisory board members, and formal partners in development” (Hinch & Butler, 2007, p. 6).

Hinch and Butler (2007) state that Indigenous control should be high on the matrix for Indigenous tourism development. In this thesis, I argue that this can be made possible through the use of Indigenous-based methodologies in research and development, such as storytelling (Foley, 2008; Harvey, 2011; Jackson et al., 2014; Young, 2009). Indeed, Indigenous methods are also an important component of Zeppel’s (2006) call for the creation of a more sustainable tourism development and management scheme. In other words, Indigenous peoples should develop and manage their biocultural heritage for tourism in Indigenous ways, using Indigenous methods for social, cultural, economic and ecological benefit.

However, while Indigenous control is key to Indigenous empowerment in tourism, there are many factors that may hinder Indigenous control and sustainability over a tourism venture. Factors such as access to funding and other supportive resources need to be taken into consideration when developing an Indigenous- led tourism venture. Such support and resources are needed for the community to maintain sustainable control over the tourism product, promotion and management systems (Foley, 2008; Whitford, Bell, & Watkins, 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014).

2.2.1 Drivers in Tourism Development: Why Indigenous Communities seek out Tourism

On a global level, the Alliance for Renewing Indigenous Economies (2018) states that 28% of Native Americans live in poverty, Indigenous Canadians earn 30% less than other Canadians, and Maori children in New Zealand (NZ) are four times more likely to live in poverty than other non-Maori children. In the Australian context, Fuller, Buultjens, and Cummings (2005) find that the unemployment rate for Aboriginal people is roughly four times higher than that of the general population. More recently, Korff (2018) found that 18% of Aboriginal people were unemployed, which was three times more than the non-Aboriginal population in

17 Australia. He also found that 16% of unemployed Aboriginal people lived in cities while 23% lived in regional areas (Korff, 2017). Korff (2017, para. 3) suggests that this gap in employment may be owing to several factors, including “education, training and skill levels, poorer health, limited market opportunities, discrimination, and lower levels of job retention”. Korff (2018) also suggests that a general lack of financial literacy among Aboriginal populations, including money management and use of ATMs, may also be a contributing factor to the rate of unemployment among Aboriginal populations.

In a study carried out in partnership with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Morley (2014) states that, in Australia, Aboriginal self-employment grew from 4,600 in 1991 to 12,500 in 2011, which is approximately 172% in twenty years. In the tourism context, Tourism Research Australia (TRA) (2017a) reports that nearly 5% of Australia’s workforce is in tourism. However, TRA only provide statistics for male versus female employment and part-time versus full-time employment, with no information on Aboriginal employment in the Australian tourism industry. Despite this, there is clearly a growing trend for Aboriginal entrepreneurship in general and that the tourism sector has the potential to act as a social force for Indigenous entrepreneurs and communities (Foley, 2008, 2015).

However, as seen in the reports of TRA (2017a) and the previously discussed reports of UNWTO (2017a), there is a gap in the research from the national and global level regarding Indigenous involvement and employment in tourism. Evidently, further research is required to examine the drivers and inhibitors of Indigenous entrepreneurship and employment in the tourism sector, as well as the rate of, and need for, social and economic benefits to communities and individuals at the destination, national and global level.

In the Australian context, Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) discuss various drivers for development of Indigenous tourism. They follow Hinch and Butler (2007) in supporting the importance of Indigenous control in tourism. Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) provide an Aboriginal, social and economic perspective through in-depth interviews with seven Indigenous tourism business operators in Queensland (QLD), Australia. Their interviews sought to identify the main “drivers

18 and inhibitors” of Indigenous tourism ventures (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014, p. 149).

Whitford and Ruhanen (2014, p. 157-158) report that the three main drivers for Indigenous tourism business to succeed were: staff training and knowledge; evolving product development; and both public and private funding. They also find that the three main inhibitors to Indigenous tourism business success were: delay in government processes; lack of access to funding; and lack of access to resources (such as training and education), especially in financial and business operations. The need for thorough community engagement ranked fourth on their list of main drivers, while ineffective marketing of culture ranked fifth on the main inhibitors for Indigenous tourism success and sustainability in Australia. Further, the lack of community control over the tourism product and management systems ranked seventh on the list of inhibitors (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014).

Thus, Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) show that there is a lack of sufficient government support in Indigenous tourism in Australia, especially regarding entrepreneurial tourism ventures. Their studies in Australia illustrate that Aboriginal people recognise the potential for entrepreneurial success in the tourism sector (Ruhanen, Whitford, & McLennan, 2015; Whitford et al., 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016). However, much of the literature shows that realising entrepreneurial success in Indigenous tourism around the world, as well as in Australia, may not be straightforward owing to factors such as government support.

In another Australian study, Aboriginal researcher, Foley (2008), also discusses issues and drivers in Aboriginal entrepreneurship in Australia. Foley (2008) argues that economic factors are indeed a main drive for communities when undergoing tourism ventures and that social factors play a significant role in influencing the economic drive for tourism in Indigenous communities, while cultural factors play an important but underlying factor for pursuing tourism. Foley (2008) criticises the research into “Indigenous entrepreneurship” in Australia, arguing that it is not driven by “the need to provide for their communities or their ‘heritage’” (p. 423), and that:

the dominant intrinsic motivator found within empirical data on Indigenous Australian successful entrepreneurs was… the provision for their ‘family’…

19 when Indigenous Australia is experiencing such high rates of unemployment, poverty, sickness, incarceration and family dysfunction we need to become ‘self-reliant and socially cohesive’. (Foley, 2008, p. 423)

Foley (2008) argues that tourism is one of many sectors in which Aboriginal entrepreneurs venture to provide for themselves, their families as well as their communities. He explains that:

Indigenous Australians actively participating within the Australian economy can result in financial independence. This has often resulted in healthier well-educated second-generations, the product of functional households who are not welfare dependant or subject to low paying jobs, but rather financial independent people who are in control of their lives. (Foley, 2008, p.423)

Thus, it is clear that the benefits of Indigenous entrepreneurship can offer opportunities for Indigenous individuals and communities to become economic, political and social leaders in the tourism sector, as well as other sectors in a nation’s economy. However, Foley (2008) also strongly criticises Indigenous tourism in Australia, particularly regarding representation and identity, and reminds us that generalisations cannot be made regarding social and economic statuses of Indigenous peoples. Foley (2008) explains that “entrepreneurship” regarding Aboriginal people is difficult to define, yet he draws on empirical findings on Aboriginal entrepreneurship motivation and success as a social and economic factor. In this regard, he states that:

At the 2001 Census, there were 6089 Indigenous Australians aged 15 years and over who identified as self-employed. Of these, 2058 identified as employing other people 1845 were in urban areas, only 200 self- employed Indigenous people employed others in remote areas… As 72.6% of the Indigenous Australian population live in towns or cities, of the 6089 self-employed Indigenous Australians, only 1845 own Indigenous- operated businesses that employ people throughout urban and provincial Australia…This statistic is significant as it is an indicator of the limited entrepreneurial activity among self-employed people – not community organisations. (Foley, 2008, p. 429)

20 Foley (2008) demonstrates that Aboriginal entrepreneurship may be more successful in urban areas, rather than remote or rural areas, based on the statistics from the 2011 census. He also argues that entrepreneurship needs to be considered from an individualistic point of view rather than a community point of view. This is important because much of the academic literature in tourism focuses on community-based approaches and perspectives in Indigenous tourism rather than individual Aboriginal or Indigenous people’s reasons for engaging in tourism (Castleden, Garvin, & Nation, 2008; Cole, 2006a, 2007; Morley, 2014; Panek, 2014; Stewart, Jacobson, & Draper, 2008; Tobias, Richmond, & Luginaah, 2013). The tendency to generalise or collectivise Indigenous people into categories or groups is discussed later in section 1.3.2, especially in relation to government and policy.

While Foley (2008) argues that urban areas maybe more successful for entrepreneurs in Indigenous tourism than rural Australia, earlier research by Briedehann and Wickens’ (2004), regarding rural communities in South Africa, suggest that rural tourism can be sustained by increased local, private funding and management by developing small-scale tourism ventures in these communities with less government intervention and management. According to many scholars, private ownership can lead to enhanced long-term effectiveness in sustainable tourism development and conservation management (Briedehann & Wickens, 2004; Mahony & Zyl, 2002; Rogerson, 2004; Snowball & Courtney, 2010). According to Briedehann and Wickens (2004, p. 189), activities in rural/township tourism include “adventure tourism” and “cultural tourism”. They define rural areas as: [A]ny area that is primarily agricultural or natural environment where people live on homesteads or small groups of homesteads below 30 in number…any area that is obviously not urban. (Briedehann & Wickens, 2004, p. 194) As many global Indigenous communities tend to reside in rural settings rather than urban settings, it can be suggested that Indigenous communities engage in privately funded, community-based, small-scale tourism initiatives. However, revisiting Foley (2008) and the implications for such developments in Australia, the feasibility of rural tourism development is discussed further in Jacobsen’s (2017) work regarding Aboriginal small-medium enterprises (SMEs).

21 According to Aboriginal researcher, Jacobsen (2017), in his examination of relational practices in Aboriginal SMEs in remote Australia, argues that there are many communities in Australia who are marginalised and who may require more support from various stakeholders in tourism development than other, less marginalised communities. In contrast to Foley (2008) and following Briedehann & Wickens (2004), Jacobsen (2017) finds that many remote communities and individuals can be successful entrepreneurs in regard to developing SMEs for tourism purposes if they combine forces and resources within the community, as well as from outside the community. Jacobsen’s (2017) work implies that smaller endeavours in tourism development may be more successful in remote and rural areas from a community-based approach than developing larger individualistic endeavours in remote or rural areas. This is because the latter requires more support from less available resources outside the remote and rural community. Such resources are more readily available within urban areas and this may be one reason as to why entrepreneurship for individual Aboriginal people may be more successful in larger towns and cities (see Foley, 2008). However, as Foley (2008) argues, people need to be “socially cohesive”, which may result in collective, community-based success in tourism entrepreneurship (as suggested by Jacobsen, 2017).

Following Foley (2008) and Jacobsen (2017), it is clearly important for research scholars, practitioners and policy-makers to explore further resources and options in Indigenous and Aboriginal entrepreneurship, especially in remote and rural areas where there is often a lack of engagement or success in tourism entrepreneurship. Foley (2008) discusses entrepreneurship as difficult to define in Aboriginal tourism because of these context-specific cases between community and the individual in remote/rural and urban areas.

However, according to Morley (2014), there are some basic factors that can help determine the success of entrepreneurial endeavours for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal venturers in general, which can be applied to the tourism sector. Morley (2014) presents case studies at the local level to provide policy-makers with insights into some of the factors that affect the sustainability of entrepreneurial endeavours in Aboriginal communities. While Morley (2014) does not provide information on tourism specifically, his findings can be applied to the

22 tourism sector regarding information on Indigenous entrepreneurship. Morley's (2014) work can also be applied to non-Indigenous entrepreneurs in tourism and other sectors.

According to Morley (2014), “entrepreneurship” or “entrepreneurial enterprises” act as “stand-alone businesses” whose main functions and goals are to generate economic profit (p. 3). Morley (2014) outlines various factors among Indigenous entrepreneurial ventures, which correlate with few or no outcomes over the longer term. He reports that “poor organisational governance”, “lack of business planning and literacy” and lack of “sufficient ongoing support”, including public and private funding, have correlated with poor outcomes for Indigenous entrepreneurs (Morley, 2014, p. 2), as also seen in Korff (2017) and Whitford and Ruhanen (2014).

Morley (2014) claims that “community-based enterprises” have a “communal purpose” and, therefore, do not focus solely on making an economic, or individual profit (p. 4). Morley further (2014) states that “community-based” enterprises function more on a holistic level aiming to provide “political, social, cultural, environmental and economic” profits while continuing to implement basic business functions (p. 4). He explains that while these types of businesses do not usually gain many economic profits, they still provide social and cultural capital, which are critical for success among Indigenous ventures (Morley, 2014).

For instance, Morley (2014) notes that most of the successful Indigenous ventures in Australia are located in South-eastern Australia where there are better “Indigenous education outcomes, higher general population densities and a greater demand for goods and services” (p. 3). These examples substantiate Foley’s (2008) and Korff’s (2017) arguments that most Aboriginal entrepreneurs and successes are located in urban settings. Further, Morley (2014) reports that government assistance in providing funds, private sector services in “advice and ongoing support”, as well as linking “Indigenous businesses into supply chains of large companies and government agencies” are factors favouring success for Indigenous entrepreneurs (p. 2). This is important as government support cannot be focused on funding alone, but needs to include education, advice and mentoring for Indigenous venturers in general, as well as in the tourism sector. For Aboriginal entrepreneurs in Australia, it is clear that community and family

23 support, as well as strong social cohesion, is necessary for tourism enterprises to succeed (Foley, 2008; Jacobsen, 2017; Morley, 2014).

While Foley (2008) notes the economic importance of social benefits at the individual, entrepreneur level, Morley (2014) demonstrates how community- based ventures are more socially and culturally driven. This difference in value- based approaches shows that context-specific cases are important to consider. For example, urban settings may favour individual entrepreneurial success more than rural settings and individual values and interests may be greater reasons for engaging in entrepreneurship than wider community values or interests. While culture may or may not play a pivotal role in driving Aboriginal entrepreneurship, from the community or individual perspective, the unique cultural aspects of Indigenous tourism are a significant drawcard for many tourists, especially to Aboriginal experiences in Australia (Seaton, 2015; Young, 2009).

In a Tourism Australia report, Seaton (2015) states that 14% of international visitors to Australia engage in Aboriginal cultural experiences. According to TRA (2016), domestic visitors also engage in Aboriginal cultural experiences and, in 2016, Aboriginal cultural tourism visits rose 53%, and visits to Aboriginal sites rose to 27%. Clearly, Indigenous tourism is a strong 'pull factor' (Ashwell, 2015; Young & Lyons, 2011) for both international and domestic tourists within the Australian tourism market.

According to a number of researchers, one of the attraction for tourists in Indigenous tourism relates to Indigenous interpretation of natural environments, with a focus being on Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) or, in the Australian context, Australian Indigenous Biocultural Knowledge (AIBK) (Luczaj, Koncic, Milicevic, Dolina, & Pandza, 2013; Pert et al., 2015; Schmiechen & Boyle, 2007). This usually takes the form of ecotourism-related ventures.

According to Donohoe & Needham (2006) one of the more formal and widely accepted definitions of “ecotourism” was coined in the 1980s by researchers such as Ceballos-Lascurain (1987) who refers to “ecotourism” as:

Traveling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and

24 its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations(both past and present) found in these areas

According to Donohoe & Needham (2006), this definition of “ecotourism” has since been constantly reinvented and has continued to evolve in order to allow for increasingly operational mobility to the theoretical concept of ecotourism. Furthermore, Donohoe & Needham (2006) find that the concept of ecotourism has aimed to include more ethical considerations in theory and practice including more aspects of the social and cultural benefits that can and should be offered to local people and communities. The increased consideration of social and cultural benefits to local communities is highlighted in today’s definition by the International Ecotourism Society (TIES).

TIES defines “ecotourism” as: "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education" (TIES, 2017). In this definition, “education” is meant to be adminstered to both employees and visitors (TIES, 2017). Further, TIES explains that ecotourism is currently focused on “uniting conservation, communities, and sustainable travel.” (TIES, 2017).

TIES (2017) notes that, more recently, the definition has come to include Indigenous communities and the need for cultural conservation and community empowerment. These directions are evident within the overarching purpose of ecotourism practices and principles, which are to:

Build environmental and cultural awareness and respect… Provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts… Generate financial benefits for both local people and private industry… Recognize the rights and spiritual beliefs of the Indigenous People in your community and work in partnership with them to create empowerment. (TIES, 2017)

Ecotourism is increasingly shifting its focus towards empowering local, Indigenous commuinities to gain environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits, while minimising any possible negative impacts at the destination. This shift in the definition of “ecotourism” towards empowering local, Indigenous communities helps to further Indigenise the term and concept of ecotourism as

25 well as provide support for including AIBK into tourism ventures as a means for conserving bioculture and empowering Indigenous peoples.

AIBK provides an Indigenous lens and perspective on the natural world and how the surrounding biota are central to the social and cultural constructs of various Indigenous communities in diverse ways (Pert et al., 2015; Schmiechen & Boyle, 2007; Stanner, 1979). AIBK is often shared with tourists in Indigenous tourism ventures through bushwalking tours, adventure tours and other ecotourism ventures (Fuller et al., 2005; Honey, 1999; Jacobsen, 2017; Ryan & Huyton, 2000a; Zeppel, 2006). On the basis of this data regarding Indigenous tourism markets, economy and AIBK, tourism can act as an increasingly important conduit for employment and entrepreneurial ventures, especially for Indigenous peoples (Foley, 2008, 2015; Fuller et al., 2005; Jacobsen, 2017; TRA, 2017a; Zeppel, 2006).

While the reasons for Indigenous communities to engage in tourism and develop tourism ventures are varied, the literature shows that many Indigenous stakeholders are drawn to the social, cultural, environmental and economic possibilities that the sector offers. Additionally, the tourism market, especially in Australia, favours Indigenous entrepreneurs and tourism venturers as Aboriginal knowledge and culture are significant drivers for tourists. For instance, Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) argue that while social and economic factors are key, being able to accurately and responsibly market Aboriginal culture and the natural landscape to tourists is also a main concern for the intrinsic value of culture and nature, as well as its economic value, in Aboriginal tourism ventures.

Additionally, and importantly, regardless of the drivers for Indigenous tourism, many entrepreneurs and communities are inhibited by the lack of resources, support and funding for safeguarding these drivers in social, economic, environmental and cultural gain (Foley, 2008; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006; Jacobsen, 2017; Morley, 2014; Whitford et al., 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014). Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) suggest that implementing more community-based approaches to development, such as seeking out hired professionals, can help avoid issues with government processes. Indeed, the research described in this thesis epitomises this approach as the Wagiman community called for expertise in creating a tourism product. This thesis aims to explore further options for

26 Aboriginal engagement in tourism development and research, as well as heritage conservation and community empowerment.

2.2.2 Government Support for Indigenous Employment and Entrepreneurship

The 2012 Larrakia Declaration on the Development of Indigenous Tourism was drafted by 191 delegates representing various Indigenous communities and tourism stakeholders from around the world at the first Pacific Asia Indigenous Tourism Conference in Darwin, NT, Australia (World Indigenous Tourism Alliance [WINTA], 2012). The Larrakia Declaration recognises that “…Indigenous people are marginalised, disadvantaged and remote from the opportunity for social, economic and political advancement” (WINTA, 2012). Thus, WINTA (2012) argues that Indigenous people in marginalised and remote communities require the ability and opportunity to:

determine the extent and nature and organisational arrangements for their participation in tourism and that governments and multilateral agencies will support the empowerment of Indigenous people….That governments have a duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples before undertaking decisions on public policy and programs designed to foster the development of Indigenous tourism. (WINTA, 2012, p. 2)

WINTA (2012) recognises that governments need to fully engage with Indigenous communities to ensure and safeguard Indigenous interests before developing any policies or implementation of tourism development with Indigenous peoples. However, there have been found to be many issues in engaging fully with Indigenous peoples (Foley, 2008, 2014, 2015; Ruhanen et al., 2015; Stanner, 1979; Whitford et al., 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014). As mentioned previously, there are many individualistic and context-specific cases where not everyone will either agree upon a tourism development or policy within an Indigenous community and, further, individuals may have different reasons for engaging in tourism in the first place (Cole, 2007; Foley, 2008; Simonsen, 2006; Whitford et al., 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014).

27 Indeed, Foley (2008) remarks, in contrast to WINTA (2012), that not all Aboriginal people are “poor”, “marginalised”, or “disadvantaged”, and that the tendency for academics and policy-makers to use “top-down” language to generalise and categorise Indigenous peoples contributes to furthering colonial ideologies, rather than empowering Indigenous entrepreneurs, people and communities in tourism. He states that:

The majority (70%) of Indigenous Australian [have the] ability to participate within the urban environment of Australia as individual, single, self- motivated persons. Aboriginal people do not have to cling to the collective group and be blindly stereotyped in such wide generalising statements! (Foley, 2008, p. 429)

While researchers such as WINTA (2012) and Whitford et al. (2010) argue that government bodies must play a crucial and active role in the development of Indigenous tourism, others note that governments should support Indigenous stakeholders only when, and if, called upon by Indigenous stakeholders (Foley, 2008, 2014, 2015; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014). Further, support should not only be in the economic form, but in the social form; that is, skill-training and education (see Korff, 2017; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014).

For example, a study by Whitford et al. (2010) in Queensland, Australia, examines Aboriginal tourism policies at the state and federal level from the years 1975-1999. They critique the focus on economic profit in Australian tourism policy and argue that government policy would better benefit Indigenous peoples involved in tourism if policy focused on the social, cultural and environmental benefits of tourism, in addition to the dominant economic narrative.

In their study, Whitford et al. (2010) find that the majority of the policies were “published in an ad hoc manner… [that] emphasise the commodification of Indigenous tourism… and are strongly reflective of an economic-rationalist ideology" (p. 151). Whitford et al. (2010) suggest that the focus on economic benefits in tourism leads to creating a competitive tourism sector on a global level, but can have serious economic, social, cultural and environmental consequences for Indigenous tourism stakeholders and communities. They suggest that governments should support Indigenous tourism ventures through education and employment of Aboriginal peoples into the tourism industry to ensure political,

28 social, cultural and environmental benefits, as well as economic benefits (Whitford et al., 2010).

Government involvement and support for Indigenous tourism, through increased education and employment of Indigenous peoples into the tourism industry, are current targets for many Australian tourism boards (Australian Government, 2011; Northern Territory Government, 2005; Tourism NT, 2014; Tourism Victoria & State Government of Victoria, 2013; UNWTO, 2010; Whitford et al., 2010). However, such employment targets have yet to be defined or measured, let alone achieved. According to the Tourism 2020 Strategy for Australia, increasing labour skills and participation of Indigenous peoples in tourism is the fifth out of six strategic areas for the 2020 vision for Australia (Australian Government, 2011).

Additionally, the national Tourism 2020 strategy provides “key deliverables” and “measurements” of those deliverables against their strategic areas in an effort to monitor and adjust their strategy for longer-term sustainability in tourism policy and practice (Australian Government, 2011). Tourism 2020 reports on the need for Australia to increase Indigenous participation and employment in tourism through the following deliverables:

> Strategies for tourism operators to fill labour vacancies in nominated tourism hotspots and other regions in each State and Territory; > Improved training opportunities for staff through the Service Skills Australia revised Tourism, Hospitality and Events Training Package; > An online tool for industry to consolidate information across tourism employment opportunities and assist transfer of labour and skills across Australia; > Facilitation of greater level of participation of Indigenous Australians in tourism businesses; > Improved information regarding visa rules to help tourism businesses engage overseas workers (Australian Government, 2011, p. 4). This thesis examines the points within the Tourism 2020 strategy, and particularly addresses the use of online tools for assisting in the transfer of knowledge and skills. Following Foley (2008), one may argue that the language used in these strategies/deliverables are “top-down” in nature, implying government control in “filling” or “employing” Aboriginal people. Ideally, Aboriginal people and

29 entrepreneurs should be “filling” and “employing” government support and other sources of funding in Indigenous tourism processes (Foley, 2008, 2014, 2015; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014).

The Tourism 2020 strategy for Australia plans to measure their deliverables in the following ways:

> Increase in the number of full-time and part-time jobs, as measured by ABS1 Tourism Satellite Account (and reported in TRA2 Tourism Scorecard and State of the Industry reports); > Change in number of Indigenous Australians employed in the tourism industry – indicator under development by TRA; > Track tourism labour productivity growth (TRA) (Australian Government, 2011, p. 4). While these national strategies, deliverables and measurements align well with the policies and practices for sustainable development in tourism according to the UNWTO, they still focus on the economic rationalist approach critiqued by Whitford and Ruhanen (2010). In contrast, the UNWTO aims to measure sustainable tourism policies and practices through the use of indicators that are broader than economic, taking into account environmental, social and cultural impacts, drivers and inhibitors at the destination, as well as at the regional, national and global level, which is evident through their INSTO (UNWTO, 2004). However, many of the more developed indicators from both TRA and UNWTO are economic indicators, while many of the social, cultural or environmental indicators are yet to be developed, let alone measured.

The deliverables, indicators and measurements for the Tourism Australia's 2020 Strategy are a step towards measuring and implementing sustainable tourism practices and increasing Aboriginal involvement and control in tourism, but there are still gaps and issues in procuring the data to satisfy said measurements, deliverables and strategies, especially from Indigenous participants and stakeholders who may not have access to resources, or who may be located in remote and rural settings where obtaining such data can be difficult.

1 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2 Tourism Research Australia

30 According to the “State of the Industry” updates on “Tracking Tourism 2020” for Australia from TRA, there is still a lack of information regarding Aboriginal people’s level of participation, employment and skill labour in the sector (Austrade, 2016). These gaps may be owing to the lack of thorough engagement with Indigenous entrepreneurs and stakeholders in tourism from the “top-down”; i.e., from the government bodies and the private sector, as well as a lack of access to government resources from the “bottom-up”; i.e., from within the community (Denzin, Lincoln, & Smith, 2008; Whitford et al., 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014). Clearly more effective and engaging communication strategies between policy-makers and Indigenous people or communities are needed in order for these gaps in data, research and practice to be filled and for sustainable tourism to be better measured and monitored for the long term.

Additionally, “bottom-up” language and strategies from Indigenous or Aboriginal organisations could aid in defining strategies and developing definitions and measurements in a sustainable manner (Whitford et al., 2010). However, it is evident in the literature that issues exist in engagement with local Aboriginal people from both Aboriginal policy-makers as well as from non-Aboriginal policy- makers. The lack of resources and timely deliverables, as well as the high level of bureaucracy from within Indigenous policy organisations, is critiqued in the tourism literature with regard to providing Indigenous and Aboriginal entrepreneurs with sufficient support for tourism development (Simonsen, 2006; Whitford et al., 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014).

For example, one of the Aboriginal respondents in Whitford and Ruhanen’s (2014) study explains:

At the end of the day we didn't want to be tied down to local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander politics, and that's where we were heading when we first kicked off there. (Whitford and Ruhanen, 2014, p. 160)

This example illustrates that even local, Aboriginal politics can hinder the development of Aboriginal tourism entrepreneurs and endeavours owing to various local agendas and discrepancies between Aboriginal groups in a given area, or individuals within an Aboriginal group and the cultural and social nuances that exist (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014). A ‘top-down’ approach still exists in Aboriginal tourism development in Australia. However, for sustainable tourism

31 development, ‘bottom-up’ approaches can be explored for benefits to be realised at the local individual and community level (WINTA, 2012).

Due to the government limitations regarding sources for funding, training and education, Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) note the benefits of engaging with an outside professional to assist in tourism development:

[I]t is fair to suggest that until government training and education programmes become more appropriate and relevant, Indigenous tourism businesses might consider utilising external professional specialist advice and assistance. (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014, p. 160)

Indeed, one of the Aboriginal participants in their study indicated the need for mixed-methods approaches in tourism research and development.

[W]e wanted to make sure that we were business focused, and we wanted to make sure we had a hand from a black and white perspective, because we had two white fellas on the board. But we had them there because of their business expertise. (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014, p. 160)

By engaging with outside specialists, Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) claim that there may be more opportunities for Indigenous communities to benefit socially and economically, as well as culturally, from the tourism sector, rather than relying on government processes and resources. Further, employing outside assistance may not only help speed up otherwise drawn out and delayed government processes, but also allows Indigenous tourism operators to maintain sustainable control over tourism development and management systems while gaining the expertise, education, training and funding needed for their businesses to succeed. These recommendations are a key consideration in the study described in this thesis, which employs me as an outside researcher to engage with the local Wagiman community to provide more options for community participation in tourism development as well as long-term heritage conservation online.

Following Hinch and Butler (2007), the research in this thesis contributes to developing tourism initiatives in ways by which leadership in Indigenous tourism development should come from the community and Indigenous stakeholders. Thus, in my study, this is achieved through a mixed-methods approach, whereby

32 the Wagiman community can engage their strengths, resources and knowledge bases to act as a basis for tourism development, and can call upon government bodies to support and accelerate their community-based ventures towards a more sustainable, long-term and empowering tourism venture. In order for this to occur, the review of literature presented in this thesis argues for thorough and consistent engagement and communication between government and Indigenous communities involved in tourism development in a mixed-methods approach, which is discussed below and in Chapter 3.

Simonsen (2006) and Botterill and Platenkamp (2012) also explore ‘bottom-up’ and ‘mixed-methods’ approaches in their research. They consider the issue of government involvement in Indigenous tourism development in their research on tourism evaluation theory. Simonsen (2006) discusses tourism development policy and the directions to take in its evaluation based on his Australian case studies from the Tjapukai community in Cape York, Queensland, as well as “Gagadju” (Kakadu) National Park in the NT:

The efficacy of collaborative arrangements in large-scale enterprises is limited by the presence of contrasting cultural values, social practices and economic circumstances, and recommends a greater emphasis on cross- cultural understanding and co-management in the development and management of Indigenous tourism enterprises. Acknowledging that small-scale ecotourism and cultural tourism ventures may be more appropriate… even these may not provide the expected benefits and calls for greater caution in Indigenous tourism development strategies. (Simonsen, 2006, p. 107)

Simonsen (2006) explains that both large-scale and small-scale Indigenous tourism ventures have their respective issues, regardless of their economic, environmental or cultural aspect or focus. However, he suggests that a more “cross-cultural co-management” scheme may be more appropriate, especially for smaller-scale business ventures. For example, for the Tjapukai community in Cape York, Queensland, co-management:

Recognizes the cultural legitimacy and the participation by individuals, and local and regional Indigenous organizations in developing civic capital and commercial capacity in the communities. (Simonsen, 2006, p. 117)

33 Botterill and Platenkamp (2012) follow Simonsen (2006) in advocating for more micro-ventures in Indigenous tourism. They suggest that the impacts of small, community-based tourism ventures may be minute, but could lead to larger empowerment potential and political relevance in the longer term, as previously discussed in regards to the rural tourism of Briedehann and Wickens’ (2004) research in South Africa, as well as Jacobsen's (2017) research of SMEs in remote Australia. However, Botterill and Platenkamp (2012) also argue that small-scale ecotourism enterprises may not produce the expected benefits hoped for in Indigenous micro-tourism enterprises. Clearly, a great amount of caution needs to be taken into account in developing strategies for this type of tourism due to governmental policies (Botterill & Platenkamp, 2012; Simonsen, 2006).

In Australia, the majority of Indigenous microenterprises in rural or lesser-known sites especially require public/private support and funding as well as resources for skill-training and employment in the sector (Fuller et al., 2005; Higgins- Desbiolles, Trevorrow, & Sparrow, 2014; Jacobsen, 2017; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014). Whitford et al. (2010) argue that more opportunities for Indigenous training in governance and management is required for a tourism venture to succeed in Australia. They state that:

The economic rationalist approach of the 17 policies is evident in the identification of obstacles preventing ATSI3 participation, such as inadequate capital and assets, lack of training and skills, lack of industry confidence and the identification of ATSI tourism as commercially fragile (Whitford et al., 2010, p. 176)

It appears that not much has changed in the realm of Australian policy in Aboriginal tourism. Four years after Whitford et al. (2010) published their research, Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) continue to focus attention to the need for support and resources from government bodies at all levels. This lack of political change suggests that governments cannot merely make policies for Aboriginal tourism but must find ways of following through on providing more reliable, practical resources to Aboriginal stakeholders. Whitford and Ruhanen

3 “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.” This term is no longer used owing to its generalised language (Creative Spirits, 2018). In the case of this study, I will focus on the “Aboriginal” aspect of this quotation and research as my case studies concern Aboriginal participation.

34 (2014) remark that the approach needed for policy to turn into action for the benefit of Aboriginal tourism stakeholders requires:

[A] more pragmatic approach to developing Indigenous tourism businesses. This approach needs to be adopted by both the private and public sectors. At the government level, policy invariably presents tourism as a panacea for Indigenous problems. Often such policy encourages unrealistic expectations while associated programmes apparently often only provide superficial assistance to realize these expectations. Undoubtedly, such programmes are too often utilized by governments as a means of demonstrating their commitment to addressing Indigenous issues. Moreover, government policy also covers an array of funding issues pertaining to Indigenous tourism businesses, including the call for Indigenous self-sufficiency. The results of this study suggested however, that there is still an expectation by numerous Indigenous tourism operators that obtaining government funding is often the only way to get started and/ or succeed in business. (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014, p. 162)

Following Whitford and Ruhanen (2014), there are pragmatic factors that affect the role that governments should play in Indigenous tourism development. While governments should provide communities with the necessary means for developing a successful, entrepreneurial venture in tourism (through, for example, funds, education and skill-training), it is also clear that such resources are not easily obtained or sustained. If they are, they are not acquired in a timely manner. This appears to be especially the case for smaller tourism ventures, who tend to rely on government involvement and support in order for their venture to succeed (Botterill & Platenkamp, 2012; Simonsen, 2006).

Additionally, smaller-scale tourism ventures may require long-term, ongoing government involvement and support in order for the ventures to sustain themselves. Thus, government support plays a crucial role in the successful development of small-scale Indigenous ventures, but it is also clear that there are context-specific cases and that some ventures may require more support and resources than others.

As observed in the literature, Aboriginal and Indigenous peoples have put a strong social and economic value on tourism development and entrepreneurship,

35 while governments have been reported to continue to remain focused on developing and measuring more economic-based impacts of tourism. Either governments need to prioritise thorough, expedited engagement with Indigenous communities and individuals (to provide reliable and effective resources for both social and economic gain), or Indigenous ventures can seek out alternative sources of funding, education and skill-training, such as a professional aid in order to realise their social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits from the tourism sector (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014).

Further, as thorough engagement is already called for by the literature and by policy-makers such as WINTA (2012), it is important for researchers, practitioners and policy-makers to explore innovative engagement options with Indigenous communities and individuals so that Indigenous voices and expertise may be heard and taken into account for national and global government policy to be made. A focus on innovative engagement through digital technologies is key to this thesis – in both its practical and theoretical outcomes – and is explored in more detail later in section 1.6.

As discussed earlier, Whitford et al. (2010) and Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) find that there has been little to no change in Australian policy regarding Aboriginal tourism stakeholders’ access to resources for skill-training, education and funding. However, this study’s research shows the potential for adopting Whitford and Ruhanen’s (2014) suggestion. Specifically, this thesis demonstrates how outside, professional employment from the Wagiman community of Pine Creek, coupled with the use of digital technologies, can result in thorough engagement for community empowerment.

In overall terms, Indigenous and Aboriginal tourism stakeholders, entrepreneurs and communities cannot and should not be lumped into one collective, general category; rather, there is a need for Indigenous-controlled, context-specific representation of Indigenous and Aboriginal peoples in tourism policy, practice and research to promote Indigenous control, ownership and entrepreneurial spirit in tourism development. This requires more empirical research at the local level, and for local-level case studies and operations to be heard and made relevant in practice and policy at the regional, national and global level.

36 The literature shows that tourism can act as a socially and economically empowering sector for Indigenous communities if there is effective communication and accessibility of knowledge and other resources between government and industry.

2.3 Indigenous Entrepreneurship: Issues and Opportunities for Ensuring Authenticity in Tourism Development

As outlined above, Foley (2008) argues against the common tendency towards generalisation of Indigenous peoples. He states that most of the representation of Indigenous peoples, particularly Aboriginal people, in tourism literature and practice should be classified as “misrepresentation”, given the typical generalisation of “Aboriginal” identity in the tourism sector (Foley, 2008; Young, 2009). Foley (2008) insists that Indigenous groups should be referred to by their language name instead of the grouping of diverse peoples and cultures into generic titles, such as “Indigenous” or “Aboriginal”. This argument aligns with the recent policies of COSS (2016), AIATSIS (2012) and Creative Spirits (2018), as presented earlier in Section 1.1 (Cultural Terms and Identities).

Foley (2008) relates generalisation issues to the social and economic status of Indigenous peoples as well. He states that:

[T]he existing knowledge base of the discipline of Indigenous entrepreneurship in Australia is very limited. This has not been helped by the fields of anthropology and sociology being historically limited in their understanding of Indigenous economic activity, unwilling or unable to accept the dynamic nature of Indigenous products. (Foley, 2008, p. 424- 425)

Foley (2008) suggests that there is ongoing misrepresentation of Aboriginal people in many fields of research and development. He also claims in his later research that Aboriginal people must be regarded as experts and co-creators of knowledge, rather than merely as participants or subjects of research (Foley, 2008, 2014, 2015). In his words:

37 It seems in the development of this discipline some non-indigenous scholars in their enthusiasm have forgotten the existence of the Indigenous position repeating historical errors showing the Indigenous as the exotic subject matter. The discipline needs to be inclusive. (Foley, 2008, p. 419)

Similar to Hinch and Butler’s (2007) model of Indigenous control in tourism development, there should also be Indigenous control over representation in tourism research as well as of Indigenous interpretation in tourism development (Barnes, 2007; Cole, 2007; Foley, 2014).

Regarding authentic Indigenous representation in tourism product development and promotion, WINTA (2012) emphasises that control of Indigenous tourism by Indigenous peoples is imperative to fostering community empowerment, as well as promoting authentic, diversified and sustainable Indigenous tourism developments. WINTA identifies three key areas to be considered:

 Recognising that while tourism provides the strongest driver to restore, protect and promote Indigenous cultures, it has the potential to diminish and destroy those cultures when improperly developed.  Recognising that, as the world becomes increasingly homogenous, Indigenous cultures will become increasingly important for tourism to provide differentiation, authenticity and the enrichment of visitor experiences.  Recognising that for Indigenous tourism to be successful and sustainable, Indigenous tourism needs to be based on traditional knowledge, cultures and practices and it must contribute to the well- being of Indigenous communities and the environment. (WINTA, 2012, p. 2) WINTA (2012) demonstrates that the lack of sufficient engagement between stakeholders in Indigenous tourism has the unfortunate potential, and tendency, to devastate cultures, especially when developments are made without proper and thorough Indigenous input and control. This is the case when Indigenous tourism is developed through 'top-down' rather than participatory approaches (Mowforth & Munt, 2007). Top-down approaches to tourism development and promotion usually result in commodification of culture and a lack of authentic

38 representation and identity within the tourism product and promotion regardless of the Indigeneity of the government body (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014; WINTA, 2012). This issue is further discussed in Chapter 3.

There are also the context-specific nuances between individuals within communities who can make policy decisions, as well as development which can be difficult to implement responsibly at the local level. According to Chhabra (2010), these nuances can also make the authenticity aspect of a tourism product difficult to define as many of the community members may have a different perspective as to what is ‘authentic’ or ‘true’ with a given Indigenous group or community. Chhabra (2010) bases his theoretical research regarding authenticity on the seminal works of MacCannell (1973, 1976) and Butler (1980).

2.3.1 Authenticity and Indigenous Destination Development

One way of analysing issues in authenticity is by developing a tourism profile, which can be done via the destination life cycles model. Butler (1980) coined the model for the “tourism area life cycle”, or TALC model, in his theoretical work regarding sustainable tourism development, promotion and management over the long term. His conceptual TALC model is foundational to understanding tourism destination life cycles the model has been used by various tourism researchers to sustainably manage, monitor, assess and adjust tourism development and management systems at the destination level (Butler, 1980; Gunn & Var, 2002). Butler’s (1980, p. 7) TALC model is presented in Figure 2, below.

39

Figure 2 Butler's (1980) Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) Many tourism researchers, policy-makers and practitioners have applied Butler’s (1980) TALC model to analyse and monitor the tourism product development and management growth at a destination. Butler (1980) claims that as the number of tourists increase over time, the destination goes through various periods of growth and decline with opportunities for rejuvenation. Such growth and decline can be applied to the concept of the diversification of tourism products, as discussed by Butler and Hinch (2007), in that the diversification of tourism products could arguably rejuvenate an otherwise declining tourism destination or product, especially in Indigenous tourism developments.

For instance, MacCannell (1976) analyses the concept of the destination life cycle in terms of attraction development. His analysis for tourism attraction development occurs in five stages: sight sacralisation and naming; framing and elevation; enshrinement; duplication; and social reproduction. Clark (2014) groups MacCannell’s (1976) stages in concordance with the destination life cycle theories of Butler (1980):

40  Sight Sacralisation and Naming – Corresponds with Butler’s (1980) “exploration” stage, which marks the beginning of tourism and visitation numbers to a certain area.

 Framing and Elevation – Corresponds with Butler’s (1980) “involvement” stage marking the increase in demand of visitation and the need for a structure of tourism industry, management and marketing.

 Enshrinement – Corresponds with Butler’s (1980) “development”, “consolidation” and “stagnation” stages marking the increase in visitation numbers, destination status and significance, and infrastructure/product development.

 Duplication – Focuses on the replication of the destination and its major significance through marketing materials and media.

 Social Reproduction – Occurs when the attraction has reached a high enough status of significance that other businesses and community organisations begin to name themselves after the attraction and model themselves after its significance (p. 4-5).

Clark (2014) posits that once an attraction has reached social reproduction it becomes a ‘favourite’ or famous site that is well-known to practically everyone. For example, Uluru in Central Australia is internationally renowned as a tourism site and socially constructed as a must-visit cultural destination (Young, 2009).

MacCannell (1973) suggests that the “back stage” of a tourism product is promoted to be the more “authentic” and, therefore, it will have greater appeal to the tourist. He claims that the “back stage” is presented in a way that doesn’t seem “rehearsed” or “forced” and will, therefore, be the closest tourists can come to the lives of the resident while visiting the destination. However, in the more recent work of Wearing, Stevenson, and Young (2010), they find that the “back stage” aspect of a cultural tourism product is often kept private from tourists so that the real lives and cultures of the residents are not at risk of commodification.

Wang (1999) and Chhabra (2010) also draw on MacCannell (1973) in their analyses of the stages, forms and evolutionary paths of “authenticity” as a concept. Both researchers explain the varying definitions of authenticity over

41 time, as well as the ramifications that communities experience as a result of commodification of culture and heritage in tourism.

For instance, Wang (1999) discussed the various forms of authenticity, namely objectivism, constructivism, postmodernism and suggest an alternative form of authenticity; namely, “existential authenticity”, which he classifies into two dimensions: intrapersonal and interpersonal. He finds that existential authenticity “[C]an explain a greater variety of tourist experiences, and hence helps enhance the explanatory power of the “authenticity-seeking” model in tourism” (Wang, 1999, p. 349).

Wang (1999, p. 361-363) describes intrapersonal, existential authenticity as referring to 1.) “bodily feelings” whereby “sensual” and “symbolic” aspects are central to the authentic tourism experience by an individual; and 2.) “self-making” whereby the tourist is seeking something exciting, new and different from the everyday experience. Alternatively, interpersonal, existential authenticity focuses more on 1.) “family ties” and the tourists’ desire to build a strong bond and “sense of togetherness” with others sharing in the experience; and 2.) “touristic commuicatas”, which focuses on building a strong, spiritual bond, social equality and sense of self and others together in the sacredness of the journey and the destination (Wang, 1999, p. 364).

Wang’s (1999) study of authenticity is culminated in his claim that a tourism object can be “unauthentic” but the desire to seek out authenticity on an existential level can be authentic and, therefore, can make an otherwise unauthentic experience, authentic to the tourist. He critiques the views of “historistic” authenticity, which claims that there is a point of origin in time when the heritage and/or tourism product was at its purest and more authentic form. He argues that:

The difficulty of this historicist conception of authenticity lies in the fact that the restless and infinite retreat of now will eventually make anything that has taken place in the world authentic. Thus, this concept needs to be transcended, and this awaits more thoughts. (Wang, 1999, p. 366)

Wang (1999) demonstrates the subjectivity of “authenticity” and how difficult it is to define as a concept owing to its fluid nature over time.

42 Chhabra (2010, p. 33) explains the various “schools of thought” regarding “authenticity”; namely, conventional/essentialist, negotiated, constructed/constructivist and subjective/existentialist. Chhabra (2010) defines “essentialist” authenticity as an objective concept whereby only heritage custodians can claim heritage items as “objectively” authentic. Further, Chhabra (2010) criticises the “museological” nature of this form of authenticity in that it tends to have a “frozen” and “museological” nature, even over time, thereby opening itself up to issues of “museumfication” or “commodification”, whereby there is no natural influence over the cultural item, despite cultural changes over time (Chhabra, 2010, p. 33).

Constructed/constructivist authenticity allows for the heritage item to be influenced by existing markets, giving rights of deeming “authenticity” to the tourist as well as the heritage custodian, thereby supporting commodification of heritage. Negotiated authenticity is an ideology that combines the two above forms of authenticity, whereby supply (heritage custodians) and demand (tourists) work together to secure the heritage authenticity of a tourism product. Chhabra (2010) states that, if commodified carefully, heritage can be preserved and also given an economic value. The recent works of du Cros and McKercher (2016) also highlight the potential positive impacts of commodification in cultural tourism in their “’umbrella approach”, whereby positive impacts are distributed evenly across all stakeholders. Finally, the subjective or existentialist authenticity ideology states that authenticity is fluid, not static, and continues to change meaning and form over time, thereby claiming that neither the objective or constructed form of authenticity are true concepts, and yet both are at the same time (Chhabra, 2010, p. 33-35).

Based on Wang (1999) and Chhabra (2010), it may be beneficial for Indigenous communities and entrepreneurs, who seek economic and social benefits through tourism, to engage in a negotiated approach to commodifying heritage and culture, whereby the culture is authentically presented by the Indigenous host in a social value-based approach to authenticity-seeking tourists in an economic venture like tourism.

Following Wang (1999), the “authenticity” of the commodified heritage items in a negotiated, social and economic tourism venture could follow an existentialist

43 approach to authenticity, which promotes the true evolution of the culture or heritage and how it has changed over time according to the Indigenous host venturer and community.

Additionally, tourists want to have more “authentic” experiences from cultural, Indigenous tourism ventures, and heritage custodians and tourism hosts want to preserve their traditions, values, culture, language and other forms of heritage, while providing enough economic standing to do so, through tourism development (Bull, 2010; Cole, 2007; Foley, 2014; MacCannell, 1973; Mohsin & Ryan, 2003; Ryan & Huyton, 2000b, 2002).

For example, Ryan and Huyton (2000a, 2000b) research tourists’ interest in Aboriginal experiences in Katherine, in the Northern Territory of Australia, and argue for more Aboriginal value and knowledge integration into mainstream tourism products and promotion in order to attract a wider market of tourists to a destination. While Ryan and Huyton (2000a, 2000b, 2002) suggest that tourists wish to have genuine encounters and experiences in Aboriginal tourism with Aboriginal communities, it is important to note that such encounters must be reciprocated by the Aboriginal communities themselves, and that authenticity does not only apply to the presentation of culture and heritage in the tourism experience, but also to the willingness for communities to participate and engage in tourism development and practice.

Clearly, as the various types and theories concerning authenticity have continued to evolve and change over time, it remains probable that so does the supposed authenticity of a heritage or tourism product. Authenticity, as a concept, remains a highly debated and researched topic in tourism, but requires more exploration from the perspective of the host rather than the tourist. This thesis contributes to the discussion of authenticity in tourism product development and promotion by exploring resident/host and Indigenous perspectives in heritage tourism research, development and management.

Sharpley (2014) studies the theoretical divide in sustainable tourism management between tourists’ perceptions and residents’ perceptions of tourism development calls for more qualitative, participatory research into resident perceptions. Much of the current tourism research focuses on the tourist gaze

44 and perceptions, but consideration of residents’ perspectives is important (Nunkoo, Smith, & Ramkissoon, 2013; Ryan, 2013; Wearing et al., 2010).

Wearing et al. (2010) build upon the notion of authentic tourism experiences from the tourists’ and host perspective. They suggest that the touristic “self” is shaped, moulded and influenced by place, value of place, and the sense of “self” at the destination and among the local communities. Tourists strive to engage in more authentic experiences at the host destination and wish to know the local landscape and culture as if they were residents. Additionally, local residents often wish to promote the most authentic, “unstaged” story about their history, culture and landscape to tourists, especially if they are Indigenous residents whose very language, culture and identity are intrinsically tied to the destination and its landscape.

Revisiting MacCannell (1973), Pearce and Moscardo (1986) take a community- based approach to authenticity in ethnic tourism. They claim that the authenticity “stages” of MacCannell (1973) are oversimplified and that it is the “relationship” between the tourist with the host that should define authenticity rather than the “roles” they play “back stage” or “front stage” in the tourism development scheme (Pearce & Moscardo, 1986, p. 129).

Foley (2014, 2015) engages both MacCannell (1973) and Pearce and Moscardo’s (1986) theories regarding the importance of host and tourist relationships in tourism. In his critique of Indigenous tourism in Australia, and its issues of (in)authentic product development and promotion to tourists, Foley (2008) criticises how Indigenous stakeholders have been viewed, written about and treated as a subject within tourism research and practice. This colonial view of Indigenous entrepreneurs furthers inauthentic Indigenous tourism production. If Aboriginal entrepreneurs are viewed as leaders in tourism production and promotion, then there may be greater opportunities for cultural heritage authenticity in Indigenous tourism development (Foley, 2008, 2014; Zeppel, 2006).

Foley (2014) provides an example of the appropriation of culture in his analysis of the didgeridoo as a commodified tourism product in Australia. He argues that the selling and marketing of didgeridoos in Australia has furthered the

45 commercialisation of Aboriginal heritage and loss of social and cultural value and identity in the process:

It seems this hollowed out log is played to authenticate the ‘Aboriginal experience’ and I have overheard international visitors at Healesville, Devonport and Freemantle exclaim in frustration, ‘not again, another fellow in a nappy doing a kangaroo dance’. So why has this instrument that was once geographically isolated to Northern Australia, and deemed sacred by many, now become the commercialised image of Aboriginal entertainment or tourist authenticity? Indeed, has the Australian Aboriginal tourism industry cheapened itself by ‘McDonaldising’ an icon; creating a myth of invented culture for the Didgeridoo, which has no known cultural capital or cultural heritage connection in the author’s knowledge to Tasmania let alone Jindabyne or Sydney as mentioned previously? (Foley, 2014, p. 57)

Foley (2014) explains how the Indigenous persona has become a commodity to be bought and sold in tourism. He explains how the “McDonaldisation” of the didgeridoo perpetuates colonisation through the homogenisation and generalisation of unique, individual of Indigenous peoples and their cultures, giving intrinsically valuable heritage a solely economic-based value and sacrificing the identities, knowledge bases and social/cultural constructs imbedded in said heritage. In his critique of Indigenous tourism in Australia, Foley (2014) discusses how Aboriginal people are constantly depicted in an archaic form for the pleasure of tourists who then buy culturally inaccurate products. Aboriginal people and their cultures have been simplified and generalised in order to make a profit.

Similarly, Cole (2006a, p.92), in her studies with Indonesian communities, states that such commercialisation and cultural generalisation “casts the culture in stone” or, following Chhabra (2010, p.33), “museumificates” heritage, thereby keeping it in the traditional, archaic setting rather than a post-colonial perspective. The issue of authenticity becomes an issue of identity for Indigenous peoples in tourism. Certainly, as noted by Barnes (2007), Indigenous peoples should be in charge of how they are represented and how their culture is interpreted in Indigenous tourism so as to keep their identities and heritage from further colonisation.

46 Barnes (2007) examines the historical development of tourism media images of Aboriginal people and their cultures compared to those of Native American peoples in the USA. She critiques the use of Aboriginal images stuck in the traditional context through her research on “One Pound Jimmy”, or Gwoja Tjungurrayi, and his media image in tourism to Australia’s Northern Territory in the early twentieth century. Barnes (2007) also suggests that Aboriginal people must participate and be in control of how their images, identities and cultures are represented in tourism media and marketing.

An overarching conclusion from the studies outlined above is that it is important for Indigenous people to control the level of commodification of culture and heritage in Indigenous tourism and decide what can and should be given an economic value as well as remain culturally, environmentally or socially valuable to the community. It is also important to not sacrifice the intrinsic social, cultural and environmental value and history of said heritage and culture, but rather tell the heritage story of how it was, how it currently is viewed and how it may even change over time. By focusing on the promotion of the social and cultural value of the heritage item and its history, Indigenous stakeholders can then possibly create a stronger and more sustainable economic value of the heritage item through the authentic storytelling of the heritage item for authenticity-seeking tourists, who will likely pay more and who may likely return to hear more about the heritage story in the future (Ashwell, 2015; Chhabra, 2010; Ryan & Huyton, 2000b, 2002; Timothy, 2011; Wang, 1999).

2.3.2 Diversification of Tourism Products for Indigenous Control

The UNWTO (2016b) emphasises the importance of authentic and diversified tourism products in Indigenous-based tourism as well:

At a time when the tendencies in the sector are evolving rapidly, with a surge in new forms of tourism, such as ecotourism, adventure tourism, gastronomic tourism, medical tourism, social tourism, educational tourism and others, a great variety of resources are being combined and demand for mixed products as well as specialized tourist attractions is increasing. (UNWTO, 2016b, p. 114)

47 This notion of increased diversification of the tourism sector requires unique and innovative approaches for tourism development and management, which, according to MacCannell (1973), should be based on an authentic approach to tourism development as well as promotion of the tourism product. The UNWTO (2016b) builds upon the need for mixed, diversified products for authenticity to be ensured and recommends that tourism developers should secure the intrinsic value of cultural products while also highlighting such products and their values in the tourism economy:

The importance of handicrafts as living culture should be highlighted, so as to reduce the risk of their disappearance or trivialization, without forgetting their importance as cultural production that can be promoted as a tourism resource and generator of income. For example, the incorporation of tourism circuits to visit craft workshops can provide tourists an authentic experience of traditional production methods, allowing them also to learn more about the local culture. (UNWTO, 2016b, p. 117)

While UNWTO (2016b) emphasises the importance of authentic experiences in local cultures, there is a fine line between the commodification of culture and providing an authentic experience. As previously discussed, tourism policy- makers and practitioners need to move away from an economic-centric focus on cultural tourism and, instead, promote the conservational aspects that tourism can offer, from an intrinsic level, regarding culture, tradition and even the environment. Taking a social-value based approach to Indigenous tourism development can help avoid the negative social impacts such as loss of identity and culture through commodification, at the destination (Foley, 2014; Hinch & Butler, 2007; MacCannell, 1973; Timothy, 2011).

For instance, Jacobsen (2017) explores the concept of diversification in the context of rural, remote Australian tourism SMEs. Jacobsen (2017) discusses two types of diversification: horizontal integration and vertical integration. He defines horizontal integration as “offering diverse products at the same stage of the value chain” and vertical integration as “offering products from different stages in the value chain” (p. 40).

48 Jacobsen (2017) states that there are five remote areas of the NT, including the Kakadu and Katherine-Daly regions that host several Indigenous owned and operated enterprises that have been operating for about four to six years or less. Jacobsen (2017, p. 40) analysed seventeen SMEs across remote Australia and found that 53% of products and tours were diversified. He also found that 30% of products were horizontally integrated over four to six years, while 17% of products were vertically integrated over the span of three or less years (Jacobsen, 2017, p. 40).

Jacobsen (2017) identified that there were twenty-nine tourist products and experiences offered by his sample size of SMEs, illustrating that there was high heterogeneity and diversity in products offered in Indigenous tourism in remote Australia. In other words, Jacobsen (2017) provides insight into the product and market of Indigenous tourism SMEs in Australia, the growth and decline of a destination’s life cycle (as discussed by Butler, 1980 and Hinch & Butler, 2007), as well as implications for integrating Aboriginal knowledge into existing and new tourism infrastructures.

Another case study that explores the potential for authenticity in the tourism product through diversification in Indigenous tourism can be seen in an Australian study by Higgins-Desbiolles et al. (2014), who examine an SME in South Australia. They found similar issues to those in Victoria regarding authentic and diversified development of the Aboriginal owned and operated Coorong Wilderness Lodge in South Australia. This tourism venture was found to have failed owing to non-Aboriginal interference and governance over Indigenous tourism development, management and design (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2014).

Bill van der Spelt is the manager of the Tangglun Piltengi Yunti (TPY), which is part of the Ngarrindjeri’s Murray Bridge Community Development and Employment Program. He was invited by the lodge manager, George Trevorrow, to help design the architecture of the lodge using Indigenous methods and skills. Bill and George submitted the design to the South Australian Tourism Commission (SATC), and Bill recounts the result of non-Aboriginal management intervention on their Indigenous tourism product:

I drew one of these accommodation units out, which is shaped like a fish. He thought that was a great idea. We then lodged it with the SATC who

49 turned around and took it on board, took it with them and probably three months later come back with a plan that didn’t look anything like that. We ended up with virtually a square box, very European style, had nothing to do with the area, had nothing to do with the restaurant or anything else. (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2014, p. 52)

Owing to non-Aboriginal control over Indigenous products and promotion, the lodge and its cultural value were overruled and commodified beyond recognition of its original, Aboriginal form and purpose. Instead, the SATC should have financially supported the Indigenous tourism venture and helped with its promotion, while keeping control over development, promotion and management in Indigenous hands (Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2014).

Alternatively, if the lodge had originally been a venture that was started and managed by the SATC, George and Bill could have followed Jacobsen (2017) and horizontally integrated and diversified the product by integrating more AIBK into the non-Aboriginal product, making the product more Aboriginal in content and value, while also integrating those skills and values into the development and management systems with the active participation from local, Aboriginal stakeholders.

Clark (2014) discusses issues with local Indigenous tourism stakeholder engagement in his review of similar cases from the United States of America (USA). He examines the work of Forristal, Marsh, and Lehto (2011) and their case study of Tecumseh/Historic Prophetstown located in Battle Ground, Indiana. The town is considered to be a significant site for Native American and white settler military history. “Tecumseh” was an historic Shawnee warrior who fought the US military at Battle Ground, Indiana. He was also brother to “Tenskwatawa”, a religious man who later became known as the “historic prophet” and symbol of community in the area (Forristal et al., 2011). This rich heritage makes Tecumseh/Historic Prophetstown a viable location for developing an Indigenous tourism economy.

Forristal et al. (2011) also discuss MacCannell’s (1976) and Butler’s (1980) destination life cycle stages to analyse the management and development of Tecumseh in their case study. Forristal et al. (2011) state that Tecumseh does not receive much visitation and is losing economic return and attributes this failure

50 to a variety of factors including the absence of MacCannell (1976)’s stages of site sacralisation or attraction, especially stage 1: naming, or the absence of distinctive naming in this case. They also claim that another reason for the lack of site development in Tecumseh/Historic Prophetstown stems from the dwindling public and private funding support for the Native American cultural centres and museums in the town.

Forristal et al. (2011) also suggest that this lack of support has seen the enthusiasm and involvement of the Native American population of the town slowly dissipate. There is also a lack of effective signage and interpretation of the site in the town or surrounding areas, which has further attributed to its downfall as an attraction or destination (Forristal et al., 2011). By not addressing foundational requirements for attraction development, Tecumseh/Historic Prophetstown was unable to develop a sustainable, long-term tourism management, product development and promotional structure, nor grow their tourism visitation numbers and economy (Clark, 2014; Forristal et al., 2011).

As part of Tecumseh’s tourism development strategy, it developed a website to promote the historical knowledge and heritage of the town and to draw more tourists to visit. However, Forristal et al. (2011) critique the website as having too much of an Anglo-centric focus, excluding any and all important Indigenous knowledge, story and identity from the tourism product and its promotion of the town, thereby failing to address the factors significant to tourism success, according to MacCannell (1976): stages 2 (framing and elevation); 3 (enshrinement); and 4 (duplication). Forristal et al. (2011) state:

[T]he site’s website is almost entirely focused on white settler’s agricultural history, and the majority of the attraction’s events are linked to an agrarian calendar…Additionally, there is no description of or a link to Historic Prophetstown on the official Indiana tourism website, http://www.in.gov/visitindiana . All in all, there is no consistent or agreed-upon framing and elevation of the site, physically, sociologically or electronically. (Forristal et al., 2011: 577) Forristal et al. (2011) note that “Tecumseh” still lacks an accurate and authentic depiction of the Native American heritage on their website. Forristal et al. (2011) argue that the developers should apply more Indigenous knowledge into the

51 product and promotion of the site to create a more consistent sociological framing for the destination and a more accurate and authentic depiction of the site for its “social reproduction” stage of MacCannell’s (1976) cycle:

In lieu of physical elevation, the Native American aspect of Historic Prophetstown could be electronically elevated or enhanced through its website (http://www.prophetstown.org) (p. 577)... To increase awareness of and reinforce the site’s intrinsic Native American connection, which is related to MacCannell’s elevation, historical images… could be incorporated into the design of attractive educational materials for area schools and educational literature to be distributed on site as well as its projected image on the website. (Forristal et al., 2011, p. 579)

Following the work of Higgins-Desbiolles (2006), the social dimension is relevant and important to the case studies of Tecumseh and Victoria in Forristal et al. (2011) and Clark (2014), respectively, as well as to MacCannell’s (1976) stages of attraction development. Focusing on a social approach may provide opportunities for Indigenous people to become engaged in tourism development and help lead it from the start of the process. Due to the lack of Indigenous engagement and involvement in Tecumseh, the website and the tourism product and promotion of the town lack Indigenous knowledge and control and has not progressed onto further stages in the destination life cycle and do not uphold a long-term, sustainable tourism development and management strategy. In their critique of the Tecumseh website, Forristal et al. (2011) and Clark (2014) call for a more collaborative and integrated approach to tourism product development and promotion, as discussed earlier in Morley (2014), Simonsen (2006) and Whitford and Ruhanen (2014).

Forristal et al. (2011) and Clark (2014) suggest that more Indigenous control and integration of knowledge into the website in Tecumseh, as well as the cultural centres of Tower Hill and Grampians in Southwest Victoria, could help revitalise the products and promotion strategies for the longer term, as well as conserve and promote Indigenous values and knowledge authentically for sustainable tourism management and development.

The need for diversified products adds to the discussion on mixed-methods approaches and suggests that more diversified, Indigenous-led tourism products

52 can help empower communities and create more authentic tourism products that will not only attract a wider market of tourists to the destination and economically benefit the community, but may also socially and culturally benefit the community by securing the values and knowledge that are authentic to the tourism products and promotion.

2.4 Digital Options for Indigenous Tourism Product Development

In recent years, tourism researchers and practitioners have started to explore more interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to developing, promoting and managing tourism products in efforts to innovate and diversify tourism markets while also conserving heritage for the long term (Brown & Weber, 2013; Franklin, 2007; McGinnis, Harvey, Clark, & Young, 2017; McGinnis, Young, Harvey, & Clark, 2017; United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), 2016; UNWTO, 2010; UNWTO & United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2012; Young & Maguire, 2017). Such developments have increasingly engaged digital forms in an effort to ensure sustainability, which, until recently, has been relatively unexplored in Indigenous tourism (Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Christen, 2005, 2006; McGinnis, Young et al., 2017).

Many researchers agree that effective monitoring and adjustment of tourism products and developments need to be included in the management processes in order for the products to be sustainable for the long term (Brown & Weber, 2013; Eagles, McCool, & Haynes, 2002; Gunn & Var, 2002; Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2014; Inskeep, 1991). Recently, monitoring and adjustment procedures have been made easier, more accessible and provide avenues for longer-term development and management through digital technologies (Brown & Weber, 2013; Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Christen, 2005, 2006; Cole, 2006b; Hunter, 2014; Leary, Wyeld, Hills, Barker, & Gard, 2008; Oestreicher-Singer & Zalmanson, 2012; Yeager & Steiger, 2013; Young & Hanley, 2011). Digital models offer Indigenous communities a wider range of options for participating in tourism development. Digital products may, therefore, increase the potential for social and economic benefits (Wearing et al., 2010), as well as political identity

53 (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010; Whitford et al., 2010) in Australia and around the world.

Following Botterill and Platenkamp (2012), modern advances in technologies can assist in alleviating issues in government dependency and involvement in tourism evaluation research. Many policy-makers are also advocating for the use of digital technologies in enabling and empowering communities to lead the tourism development process. Such advances are relevant in Indigenous tourism due to the lack of accessibility and communication between communities and policy- makers, as discussed earlier in this chapter.

Revisiting the Tourism 2020 Strategy for Australia, the strategy’s second key strategic area acknowledges that more competitive and innovative digital capabilities are needed to better market products to tourists, as well as create better engagement between government and industry (Australian Government, 2011). It can be argued that such technologies may also improve the engagement between policy and the individual or community who may be entrepreneurs in tourism development in the industry, as previously discussed.

Digital engagement options also align with UNWTO’s key aims and strategies for accelerating sustainable tourism engagement and marketing, as well as training and employment tools and resources for all stakeholders through innovative technologies (UNGA, 2016; UNWTO, 2014, 2016a, 2016b, 2017b). Creating digital options for sharing resources and knowledge may provide alternative, long-term and both time- and cost-effective options for policy-makers and communities to work together in conservation and tourism development (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Baud, Pfeffer, Sydenstricker, & Scott, 2011a; Brown, Kelly, & Whitall, 2013; Brown & Weber, 2013; Hunter, 2014; Kangaroo Island Tourism Management Committee (KITMC), 2000).

In the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2014, p. 7) report on Tourism and the Creative Economy, they suggest that the cultural economy and “creative industries” involve “knowledge-based creative activities that link producers, consumers and places by utilising technology, talent or skill to generate meaningful intangible cultural products, creative content and experiences”. The UNWTO (2016b, p.19-20) cites the OECD (2014) in their policy report on Peru and recommends that tourism developers should work with

54 communities to develop innovative technologies for promoting culture authentically. Their recent study finds:

Gain better knowledge of the cultures that have inhabited Peru, which could entail the development of manuals, brochures, updated webpages, and even the interpretation of archaeological and historical sites, with, for instance, sign posting for tourists…importance of introducing new technologies for the management of cultural tourism attractions should not be forgotten, taking advantage also of possibilities to disseminate greater awareness about cultural assets and sites. (UNWTO, 2016b, p. 117-118)

Clearly, the use of new technologies for heritage conservation, management and tourism promotion and policy is central to current sustainable tourism policy and practice worldwide. The use of digital technologies for community empowerment is also often discussed in the context of (public) participatory geographic information systems (GIS) mapping, also known as (P)PGIS. The “public” aspect usually refers to the public accessibility as well as contribution of GIS, or mapping coordinate, data to a participatory mapping project (Brown & Weber, 2013; “PPGIS.net,” 2017).

Brown et al. (2013), Brown and Kytta (2014) and Brown and Weber (2013) find that public contribution of GIS data can help validate and empower local, community mapping projects, especially when shared openly to other researchers, communities, practitioners and policy-makers. However, they also report that public access to mapping data may be restricted due to the communities’ cultural beliefs as well as government laws and policies for sharing GIS information.

Public access to GIS mapping projects and data can help inform the planning and policy processes of various developments from the top-down and bottom-up – from national policy agencies to community members and vice versa – and has aided in the community empowerment of various Indigenous communities around the world, as well as in Australia (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Baud, Pfeffer, Sydenstricker, & Scott, 2011b; Brown, 2012; Brown et al., 2013; Brown & Weber, 2013). Implications for digital mapping and sharing of Indigenous knowledge is explored further in section 2.5.2.

55 Liu (2017), Hanna, Rohm, and Crittenden (2011) and Valaitis (2005) suggest that knowledge can be useful and empowering for digital users, if content is shared in an accessible way. Indeed, current developments in technological innovations provide platforms for the rapid sharing of information that can make global community building possible (Castells, 2011; Oestreicher-Singer & Zalmanson, 2012).

For example, Oestreicher-Singer and Zalmanson (2012) explore digital business stratgies for social computing. They find that research and practice concerning social computing has had a strong “techno-centric” focus, whereby the social construct is viewed merely as “complementary” to the content industry. Aligning with previous discussions regarding the need for a more socio-centric focus in tourism economies, Oestreicher-Singer and Zalmanson (2012) also suggest that social aspects needs to be a more central focus for digital businesses, especially when analysing and predicting consumer behaviour on websites. This approach can be applied to Indigenous communities and is key to the research described in this thesis, as I work with the Wagiman people to examine the usage of digital technologies in Indigenous communities.

Regarding the use of digital technologies, Hanna et al. (2011) find that social media platforms have become popular media for knowledge transmission and consumer reinforcement, and a more integrated, systematic approach to promoting content on social media channels will create a more sustainable “ecosystem” and measurement system for monitoring digital, marketing performances in the long term. Hanna et al. (2011) suggest that digital knowledge-sharing platforms need to be used readily and frequently to create support for marketer/owner and consumer empowerment, especially in sustainable development for Indigenous Cultural Micro-Enterprises (ICME). This notion of communication and knowledge-sharing between “marketers/teachers/owners” and “consumers/students/tourists” supports the mixed-methods approach discussed earlier by Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) and Simonsen (2006). For example, Cardamone and Rentschler (2006) conclude in their study that:

…innovative use of recent technology (multimedia websites) are a common factor in ICME success, often due to remoteness in location as

56 well as Indigenous preference for their use as a means of communication…we note the intentional emphases on the nature of storytelling and cultural production… methodology from an Indigenous and western perspective, using the best of both traditions, as is relevant to entrepreneurial enterprises as much as to researchers. (Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006, p. 358)

Christen (2005, 2006) also explores digital technologies and knowledge-sharing in the Aboriginal context. They explore the use of digital technologies for conserving knowledge among Aboriginal communities in the NT as well as Adelaide, South Australia, respectively. Christen (2005) examine the accessibility capabilities of Aboriginal knowledge via DVD with the Warumungu people of the NT. She found that technology can provide opportunities in “monitoring access, preserving cultural knowledge, and reinforcing existing kinship networks”, while also introducing issues with “multiple reproductions, knowledge sampling, and unintended mobilizations” (Christen, 2005, p. 315).

Christen (2005) states that there are political implications regarding digital technologies including “accountability, ongoing systems of inequity, and overlapping access regimes involved in the always tense processes of cultural innovation” (p. 315). Further, in her 2006 study in South Australia, Christen (2006) developed a digital archive of teachings with the Pitjantjatjara Council titled: Ara Irititja: Protecting the Past, Accessing the Future—Indigenous Memories in a Digital Age. This archive was on exhibit in the South Australian Museum in Adelaide for a year-and-a-half and began in 1994 when “local anthropologist Ushma Scales, Pitjantjatjara elders Peter Nyaningu and Colin Tjapiya sought to capitalize on the growing awareness by museums and archives of the need to return cultural objects and human remains to their proper source communities” (Christen, 2006, p. 56).

The practical outcomes of my thesis include the development of a digital database was created for the community and by the community. The database includes limited access to some of the website’s pages, which can only be accessed via password at the discretion of the community. This project thus helps to protect the community’s heritage and language for long-term conservation, while also providing the community with an opportunity and avenue to explore the

57 “material, social and political ways in which collaboration is put into practice in ways that reclaim a space alongside the still hegemonic claims of digital elites” (Christen, 2006, p. 59). This notion of reclaiming space within the digital realm is explored in this thesis and in the development of the tourism and heritage websites with the Wagiman community.

Engaging with innovative and digital technologies for developing and marketing traditional, Indigenous knowledge, values and stories, can help close the gap in Indigenous and non-Indigenous tourism stakeholder engagement and foster the potential for community empowerment from the local to the international level (Brown & Weber, 2013; Christen, 2005, 2006; Hunter, 2014).

Recent studies illustrate that digital tools can provide opportunities for the repository of stories and maps. Such repositories may be useful for the long-term conservation of heritage. However, arguably, it is only useful if the community and other content followers are able to access this knowledge. Further, digital knowledge may only be useful in empowering local communities if the residents have the capacity to use and manage the programs and platforms that transmit local knowledge (Auld, 2002; Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Christen, 2005; Cole, 2006b; Ghose, 2001; Oestreicher-Singer & Zalmanson, 2012).

Existing research finds that skills and means for archiving, maintaining and managing such platforms are also required for long-term conservation to be successful (Blain, Levy, & Ritchie, 2005; Clark, 2002, 2009; Fuller et al., 2005; Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2014; KITMC, 2000; Leys & Vanclay, 2011; Pereira & Rodrigues, 2013; Pert et al., 2015). Thus, heritage conservation and education tools need to be further explored in Indigenous tourism research and practice.

Digital mapping of Aboriginal heritage can provide an interactive platform for sharing knowledge, especially spatial knowledge, through multimedia to tourists and community (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Brown et al., 2013; Brown & Weber, 2013; Hunter, 2014; McKinnon, 2005; Panek, 2014; “PPGIS.net”, 2017; Stewart et al., 2008). (P)PGIS mapping is discussed further in the methodological framework of this thesis presented in Chapter 3. According to Cardamone and Rentschler (2006), multimedia approaches to disseminating knowledge have been successful among Aboriginal entrepreneurs and users because multimedia approaches allow for communication by sound and imagery, as well as text.

58 Cardamone and Rentschler (2006) find that multimedia approaches have great potential to integrate Aboriginal methodologies of sound and image-based learning systems alongside more Western text-based learning systems and methodologies.

Pereira and Rodrigues (2013) find that mobile, digital learning can be useful in empowering people provided that there is good connectivity, adequate technical support, and a strong interactive feature for better communication between “teacher” and “student”. This finding aligns with (P)PGIS and participatory approaches in tourism research and practice around the world, aiding in efforts to foster more opportunities for rural, community development and empowerment (Baud et al., 2011b; Brown & Weber, 2013; Panek, 2014; Pocewicz, Nielsen- Pincus, Brown, & Schnitzer, 2012; “PPGIS.net”, 2017).

The interactivity between consumer (the tourist) and marketer/owner of knowledge (the host communities) can be explored through a digital platform (Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Christen, 2005, 2006; Hunter, 2014; Robertson & McGee, 2003; Ryan & Huyton, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Yeager & Steiger, 2013; Young & Hanley, 2011). Digital sharing and interactivity can create enhanced options for Aboriginal involvement in tourism, resulting in local empowerment as both “teachers/marketers” and “students/consumers” of Aboriginal knowledge bases (Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Pereira & Rodrigues, 2013). But creating platforms that can be used readily and frequently to create support for marketer/owner as well as consumer is important for the sustainable development of Indigenous tourism and empowerment of the community (Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Hanna et al., 2011).

Digital interactions can provide enhanced options for the sharing Indigenous knowledge bases about local areas to both non-Indigenous residents and tourists. Additionally, the digital transmission of Indigenous knowledge can provide opportunities for individual and community skill-building in website design, marketing and mapping of country within the Indigenous community, especially among the Elders (Auld, 2002; Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Ghose, 2001; Hanna et al., 2011; Valaitis, 2005; Zeppel, 2006).

Thus, Indigenous knowledge-sharing on various technological platforms creates opportunities for Indigenous involvement in tourism on a global to local scale for

59 the longer term in tourism product development (Ghose, 2001; Hanna et al., 2011). As Cole (2006a) argues, such involvement can lead to various types of empowerment for Indigenous communities: economic, social, cultural and political. This study suggests that engagement with digital platforms for knowledge-sharing adds an additional form of empowerment: technological.

In order to develop engaging digital interaction between Indigenous and non- Indigenous locals, as well as tourists, there needs to be a similar level of technological capabilities as well as active engagement among all stakeholders. This is particularly important for digital platforms to work as heritage conservation and tourism marketing and management tools in the longer term (Hanna et al., 2011; McGinnis, Harvey, et al., 2017; Valaitis, 2005). Digital promotion strategies for marketing and managing digital heritage are discussed in the following section.

2.4.1 Digital Marketing of Knowledge: Issues with Ethnomarketing

MacCannell (1973, 1976) reminds us that it is important to know your market in order to create a sustainable and authentic tourism product and management system. Knowing your market requires constant monitoring and assessment of target markets and being able to develop and manage the tourism product according to market analyses. This also means knowing how to best position a product for the market. In relation to Indigenous product development, this also requires further exploration into responsible marketing strategies, especially in areas where there may be many complex and diverse stakeholders in the tourism promotion and development system.

According to Morales (2005), “ethnomarketing” can be considered as the “cultural dimension of marketing…reaffirming marketing’s contextual character, in which culture is assumed to conduct and guide the entrepreneurial success” (p.178- 179). He also explains it as: “marketing for homogeneous ethnic groups under the great cultural diversity that characterizes current cultures” (Morales, 2005, p. 180). Morales (2005) presents the four main principles of ethnomarketing as: “ethnicity, ethnoconsumerism, cultural dimensions of markets, and marketed oriented organizational culture” (p. 178). He explains that, within these four

60 principles, marketed culture is practiced, viewed and consumed on three levels, the cultural, the social and the individual level. Morales (2005) synthesises his theories, findings and principles of “ethnomarketing” through a “15 Cs Ethnomarketing Strategy Matrix (ESM)”, as illustrated in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 Morales' (2005) Ethnomarketing Strategic Matrix (ESM) & 15 Cs of Ethnomarketing Morales’ (2005) ESM and 15 Cs of ethnomarketing provide a framework for engagement between stakeholders in the sharing of cultural knowledge. However, he makes the point that this ESM is useful for homogenous ethnic groups, and he does not explore the ESM, 15 Cs or four main principles of ethnomarketing in an ethnically heterogeneous context. These aspects can be further explored in the context of the various and unique Aboriginal cultural systems in Australia (Ryan & Huyton, 2000a, 2000b, 2002).

Morales (2005) claims that Australia has done very little in marketing its multiculturalism. While Aboriginal culture has been central to Australian tourism promotion since the 1970s, it has long been a stereotyped and homogenised image of Aboriginal culture and it is only in recent years that diversity of Aboriginal culture and cultural experiences have been marketed as an Australian tourism product (Ali, 2009; Australian Government, 2011; Christen, 2006; Dyer, Aberdeen, & Schuler, 2003; Hon. Louise Asher MP, 2013; Northern Territory Government, 2005, 2014; Ryan & Huyton, 2000a, 2002; Schmiechen, 2006; State Government of Victoria & Tourism Victoria, 2013; Tourism NT, 2014; Tourism Victoria & State Government of Victoria, 2013; Victoria & Victoria, 2013; Whitford et al., 2010; Young, 2009; Zeppel, 2006).

61 Thus, there has been some change in Australian tourism promotion to that discussed by Foley (2008) and his critique that the majority of Aboriginal tourism marketing in Australian tourism policies and strategies have been more general, referring simply to “Indigenous/Aboriginal” people of a certain destination rather than a specific tribe, group, culture or identity. It remains important to recognise that this is most likely owing to the vast variety of Indigenous groups and identities that can exist within a particular state, region or even city/township of Australia, as well as various issues regarding Aboriginal identity and displacement of country as a result of colonisation throughout the nation (Altman, 1987, 1989; Carment, 1984; Crick, 1990; Dawson, 1881; Foley, 2014; Merlan, 1998; Read, 2000; Stanner, 1979; Wearing et al., 2010).

This thesis offers a new, alternative approach to the homogeneously focused ethnomarketing by introducing a “geomarketing” approach for ethnically heterogeneous communities. Geomarketing focuses on promoting the destination and its wealth of ethnic, cultural and social identities and teachings rather than focusing on specific ethnicities, cultures or societies at the destination. Further, geomarketing focuses on the social aspects of the wider community at the destination while promoting the physical, natural and biocultural connection of the land and country of the destination to that of the people who live there. The latter is an important aspect of Indigenous methodologies, which are central to this thesis and discussed further in section 2.5.

Overall, by providing increased options for engagement and skill-sharing among marginalised Indigenous communities in tourism development, communities may gain more social value (Wearing et al., 2010) and political identity (Higgins- Desbiolles, 2010; Whitford et al., 2010) in Australia. Foley (2014, 2015) explains that there is much to learn from Indigenous communities; however, Indigenous product offerings are usually only taken at face value. As a result, the “belonging” stories and significance of many tourism products and developments have been lost and commodified beyond recognition to the traditional owners (Foley, 2014; Read, 2000).

With these critiques in mind, this research was designed in consultation with Indigenous communities. This research ensures that the stories behind the place, artefact and language are central to Indigenous knowledge and value systems

62 (Clark, 2008; Hunter, 2014; Jackson et al., 2014; Lepp, 2007, 2008; Read, 2000; Russell, 2005; Smith, 2012; Young, 2009). The methodological process of the study and the outcomes of the research, therefore, prioritise Indigenous stakeholders as leaders of tourism product development and ongoing managers of the product and its promotion. By doing so, Indigenous communities can help preserve their cultural heritage, the authenticity of the product, and conserve the inherent value of the culture and knowledge. This ensures that the Aboriginal stakeholders "speak for country" and that we, as researchers, are co-creators in the development of tourism products that are reflective of the social and cultural values on individual communities.

2.5 Significance of this Study: Contributions to Literature and Practice

This study addresses the parameter of Indigenous-themed content by integrating Indigenous knowledge bases, values and perspectives into existing non- Indigenous tourism product, promotion, development and management processes through the use of Indigenous methodologies and innovative technologies. Indigenous-control and theme are high on Hinch and Butler’s (2007) matrix in this research, as the Indigenous content is produced by the Indigenous community through virtual storytelling on digital platforms such as videos, maps and websites. Further, virtual storytelling includes information about the post-colonial tourism infrastructure and history; i.e., railway and cattle droving from Indigenous perspectives, thereby diversifying the current, non-Indigenous tourism content and taking an existential authentic approach, following Wang (1999) and Chhabra (2010), as well as Barnes (2007) and Foley (2014).

My research with the Wagiman community contributes to the literature by focusing on the Wagiman community’s leadership, innovation and potential empowerment though authentic, Indigenous-controlled tourism development and methodologies. This research explores further options in tourism development and management in Pine Creek by applying and transmitting knowledge bases, values, identity, language and other heritage onto digital platforms for longer-term conservation and distribution, thus addressing issues raised in the Tourism 2020

63 Strategy of Australia, as well as providing regional, national and global entities, such as UNWTO, with digital, community-based data for measuring social, cultural, environmental and economic sustainability in tourism development.

My study also includes a significant comparative component examining materials from an area of Australia with a very different colonial history to Pine Creek – Southwest Victoria. There is considerable literature on Indigenous tourism development, management and interpretation of culture and promotion at various tourism ventures, National Parks, rock art sites and other Indigenous locations in Southwest Victoria (Clark, 2002, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2014; Clark & Heydon, 2002). Comparing these two very different areas – Pine Creek and Southwest Victoria – provides an opportunity to assess how the role of particular factors in Indigenous tourism varies across situations. I return to discuss these factors in more detail in Chapter 10, which compares the two case study regions in full.

Since the late 1990s, tourists to Australia have been interested in engaging in Indigenous-related tourism ventures in order to learn more about the destination and the cultural aspects that may be offered (Ryan & Huyton, 2000b). In recent years, these cultural aspects have been promoted as AIBK (Pert et al., 2015) with the aim of fostering economic growth for the local, Indigenous communities (Clark, 2002, 2014; Whitford et al., 2010). However, engagement with AIBK is not straightforward, especially regarding Indigenous community involvement (Clark, 2002, 2011, 2014; Foley, 2014; Fuller et al., 2005; Pert et al., 2015). Without Indigenous community engagement and leadership in tourism product development and promotion, issues of authenticity can arise and lead to unsustainable tourism ventures and management systems in the long term (Cole, 2007; Foley, 2014; Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2014; Timothy, 2011).

2.6 Conclusion

Based on the literature analysed in this chapter, there is a “Catch-22” scenario regarding the use of digital tools for tourism development, heritage conservation and, importantly, social empowerment. Digital tools can be used in a bottom-up approach to circumnavigate and avoid political processes and government control over access to resources for tourism venturers. However, skill-training,

64 education and accessibility to digital tools are still required and sought from funding bodies and government resources by entrepreneurs and communities. As seen in the cases of Tecumseh (Forrsital et al., 2011) and Southwest Victoria (Clark, 2002, 2014), the lack of maintenance and care of tourism infrastructure requires an exploration of more innovative, time- and cost-effective methods for preserving heritage while interpreting the stories behind the heritage items for longer-term sustainability.

These issues in resource procurement, management and government support may be alleviated because, as Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) and Simonsen (2006) suggest, Indigenous, Aboriginal communities could employ a professional tourism consultant to carry out Indigenous-controlled research and development, while also working with established ventures in the community to integrate Indigenous knowledge and control into management systems in a collaborative, co-management approach. The professional tourism consultant may possess the funds, skills, education and tools to impart to the Indigenous community, who can impart their skills, education, teachings and resources unto the aid in a participatory, co-management approach to research and development, which would otherwise be inefficient through government bodies and processes.

Additionally, the wider community may have the infrastructural resources and support as well as skills and education to co-manage the Indigenous-led product, promotion and management processes in tourism, which could accelerate the Indigenous entrepreneurs, community and tourism venture towards a wider, regional, national and even global presence in tourism practice and policy (Botterill & Platenkamp, 2012; Cole, 2006a, 2006b; Simonsen, 2006; Whitford et al., 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014). This co-creation of digital Indigenous tourism products can be relatively cost- and time-effective and could empower the Indigenous stakeholders and the wider communities, as well as conserve local heritage for the long term.

Digital technologies can help bridge the inhibitors, gaps and issues in Indigenous tourism development, by providing Indigenous people and communities with a means of communication with policy-makers and practitioners, both inside and outside the community for social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits. Digital technologies also provide the Indigenous people and community with a

65 means for disseminating an authentic form of local knowledge and heritage for conservation and tourism purposes that can Indigenise and diversify previously non-Indigenous or non-Aboriginal tourism products, while also providing a malleable mouthpiece for Indigenous stakeholders to have control over having their individual and collective voices heard, their teachings and stories told and their engagement in tourism development realised based on their level of desire or confidence to engage in tourism development.

This thesis argues that public participation may help empower local communities by improving and sharing skillsets and knowledge bases between communities and outsiders in tourism development, technological usage, biocultural conservation as well as research. It also follows the works of Christen (2005, 2006) by limiting public access to culturally sensitive material in various GIS data; for example, sacred sites and stories, which may only be accessible to the community and not yet to the outside world. Following the discussion of Foley (2008) and Whitford et al. (2010), issues such as public access to heritage is a context-specific case to this research, which may be adopted and adapted for future research in other Indigenous or Aboriginal communities.

66 CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR INDIGENOUS METHODOLOGIES

“It's time for fire, smoke and leaves, the only mosquito repellent we need Pay respect to the North, the South, the West and the East Pay respect to the spirit of this old country…When the winter seeps into my bones, and I hear the call from the North, I will go…”

– Xavier Rudd of the Wurundjeri people, from his song “Storm Boy”

3.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter, the research aims were presented following a review of academic literature concerning why Indigenous people and communities seek out tourism as a means for social, economic, cultural and environmental empowerment, as well as the feasibility and level of control that Indigenous people have, and should have, in tourism development and research. This investigation into the tourism literature illustrated the need for more Indigenous control and options of engagement in tourism development for community empowerment, especially the need for mixed-methods and Indigenous methodologies in tourism research and development.

This chapter builds upon the review of tourism literature by investigating geographical and anthropological literature regarding both participatory and ethnographic research methods. The research presented in this chapter suggests that an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach to tourism research and practice helps to explore the potential for Indigenous-led methodologies in tourism research, and the ways by which Indigenous-led development can empower local Indigenous communities (Franklin, 2007; Young & Maguire, 2017). In this study, I consider the “active conversation method” (Lepp, 2007, 2008) and examine “decontextualised” versus “contextualised” questioning (Flynn, 1984, 1987, 2007) as part of the foundation for the methodological

67 framework of this thesis and its positioning as research that is Indigenous-led informed by Indigenous methodologies (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012).

In exploring types of questions and levels of engagement in my research with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek, this thesis aims to provide options for community empowerment in tourism research and tourism development, as well as continue to build bonds of trust and friendship with the Wagiman community in Indigenised research (Denzin et al., 2008; Russell-Mundine, 2012; Tomaselli, Dyll, & Francis, 2008; Young & Maguire, 2017).

As outlined in Chapters 1 and 2, the purpose of this study is to investigate options available to the Wagiman community for participating in and, more importantly, leading tourism development in Pine Creek for heritage conservation. The methods adopted for this study reflect this aim by implementing Indigenous methodologies for tourism research and development. The sections below examine literature that inform this methodological approach and framework.

3.2 Methodological Terms

The following terms and their concepts/definitions are used throughout my research and thesis. They provide a foundation for, and summary of, my mehodological framework regarding Indigenous methodologies and Indigenous- led research and practice in tourism development in Pine Creek.

”Yarning” – This is a largely Indigenous method used to orally pass down knowledge between generations in the form of “storytelling” (Carment, 1984; Clark, 2008; Hunter, 2014; Jackson et al., 2014; Robertson & McGee, 2003; Russell-Smith et al., 1997; Russell, 2005; Young, 2009). This study’s main focus will be on applying the Indigenous methodology of “yarning” to engaging Indigenous people in research focused on Indigenous-led sustainable tourism development. According to Cole (2006b, 2007), Foley (2015), Russell-Mundine (2012) and Tuhiwai-Smith (2012), this Indigenous methodology focuses on the stories of the research participants and, therefore, can lead to community identity,

68 pride and empowerment when managed for Indigenous people, by Indigenous people.

“Effective/Successful” Questioning – In this study, “effective” or “successful” questioning is measured by how well the conversation or discourse flowed between researchers and, therefore, how engaged and active the participants were during the interview process, especially in leading the interview topics and place-settings (Harrill, 2004; McGinnis, Harvey, & Young, 2015; McGinnis, Young, & Harvey, 2016; Nakata, 2004; Russell-Mundine, 2012; Smith, 2012; Tomaselli et al., 2008).

In this study, this type of questioning is denoted by “contextualised” versus “decontextualised” questions, which imply that more place-based, on-site and relaxed form of questioning (i.e., contextualised) is more successful than formal, generalised, structured questioning (i.e., decontextualised) (Flynn, 1984, 1987, 2007). These terms and concepts are used throughout my theoretical framework to describe levels of engagement with members of the Wagiman community in this study.

GIS – This stands for Geographic Information Systems. According to the Environmental Research Systems Institute (ESRI), GIS is:

[The] framework for gathering, managing, and analyzing data. Rooted in the science of geography, GIS integrates many types of data. It analyzes spatial location and organizes layers of information into visualizations using maps and 3D scenes. With this unique capability, GIS reveals deeper insights into data, such as patterns, relationships, and situations— helping users make smarter decisions. (ESRI, 2017)

(P)PGIS or (Public) Participatory GIS is described by “PPGIS.net” (2017) as “how GIS technology could support public participation for variety of possible applications”. (P)PGIS is interdisciplinary in nature and has been used by several rural and Indigenous communities around the world to archive heritage, preserve knowledge and, significantly, to foster empowerment through sustainable (tourism) development (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Brown, 2012; Brown et al.,

69 2013; Brown & Weber, 2013; KITMC, 2000; “PPGIS.net”, 2017; Stewart et al., 2008).

“PPGIS.net” (2017) explains that, if appropriately utilised, PGIS:

[C]ould exert profound impacts on community empowerment, innovation and social change. More importantly, by placing control of access and use of culturally sensitive spatial information in the hands of those who generated them, PGIS practice could protect traditional knowledge and wisdom from external exploitation.(“PPGIS.net”, 2017)

This notion of empowerment through Indigenous controlled and generated spatial content on digital platforms is key to my research and is explored further in this study.

Ethnomarketing and Geomarketing – According to Morales (2005), “ethnomarketing” can be considered as the “cultural dimension of marketing…reaffirming marketing’s contextual character, in which culture is assumed to conduct and guide the entrepreneurial success” (Morales, 2005, p. 178-179).

On the other hand, “geomarketing” is a more socially and ethnically inclusive tourism marketing strategy for heterogenous ethnic groups and destinations, and an approach that focuses on the spatial and wider social, cultural or “Indigenous/Aborginal” landscape of the destination, rather than that of a specific group, i.e., “Wagiman” (as discussed in Section 1.1, above , and in Cultural Terms and Identities). In this study, I use an ethnomarkteing strategy to market the Wagiman Community Heritage Archive website, and propose the concept of “geomarketing” to market the Visit Pine Creek website.

AIBK/Digital AIBK (DAIBK) – As discussed in Chapter 2, AIBK is an acronym for “Australian Indigenous Biocultural Knowledge”, and is the Australian term used in place of the more global term, “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” (TEK). AIBK/TEK refer to the Indigenous, cultural nuances and knowledge associated with the biological and natural landscape and resources of a given group and

70 area (Pert et al., 2015; Schmiechen & Boyle, 2007). This study introduces the concept of DAIBK whereby Aboriginal biocultural knowledge is shared and interpreted via digital platforms such as websites, apps and digital mapping systems i.e. Google Maps.

Ethnobiology – This refers to Indigenous knowledges and names of flora and fauna. There is limited research on using ethnobiology for marketing and mapping of Indigenous spatial knowledge, especially for tourism development (Leary et al., 2008). This study will, therefore, explore the potential for conserving ethnobiological knowledge through tourism development, especially online. The Wagiman Plant and Animal Book by Liddy et al., 2006 was digitised as part of the ARC Linkage Grant project and is now available to the Wagiman commiunity on the WCHA website. The birds page of the book is accessibile to the public and is included on the tourism website as many tourists to Pine Creek are avid birdwatchers, as highlighted in the ARC Linkage Grant.

3.3 A Participatory Approach to Indigenous Research

Participatory research has been used in various fields of research when working with Indigenous communities. According to Tobias et al. (2013), and their health geographies research with First Nation communities in Canada, a “community- based participatory research (CBPR)” approach is vital to community empowerment and ethical standards in research, practice and policy. They find that:

Decreasing the persistent health disparities between Indigenous and non- Indigenous populations in Canada can only be achieved with the voices of communities whose lives are affected. These communities must become equal partners in understanding and developing action on the health and social problems with which they are the experts... this (CBPR) methodology can be used to preserve and transfer Indigenous knowledge to new generations. Preserving and protecting this knowledge is integral to guiding the development of strategies toward improving and maintaining community health and well-being. (Tobias et al., 2013, p. 137)

71 While Tobias et al.’s (2013) study is concerned with health and medicine, his points about community voice and equal partnership, as well as preserving and protecting Indigenous knowledge for generations to come, is relevant to tourism as well and are key points of focus within this thesis and research project.

However, developing such participatory approaches and delivering on Indigenous-led research and projects can be time-consuming (Tobias et al., 2013). It also takes time to develop strong bonds and relationships with Indigenous communities as rushed research in the past, resulted in the taking and commodifying of Indigenous knowledge through non-Indigenous control of research and development (Tobias et al., 2013). Given the opportunities and challenges of CBPR described by Tobias et al. (2013), the study described in this thesis was based on extended periods of fieldwork over a four-year period. During this time, bonds and relationships were formed between members of the Wagiman community, allowing for them to become equal partners in the research and the research outcomes. The specific methodologies of the research are described further in Chapter 5.

The significance of building trusting bonds with Indigenous communities who are the subject of research is also discussed by Cochran et al. (2008). They reference an Indigenous Alaskan, saying: “Researchers are like mosquitoes; they suck your blood and leave” (Cochran et al., 2008, p. 22). The fact that Indigenous people have long been the subject of research has led to the “significant distrust of researchers”, especially within Aboriginal communities in Australia, where research was historically aimed at “managing” Aboriginal people through the “politics of colonial control” (Cochran et al., 2008, p. 22).

Thus, non-Indigenous methods of academic research have not benefitted Indigenous people in the past. Neither has government control or dependency, as discussed in section 1.3.2. Whether or not Indigenous stakeholders choose to rely on government for resources and support, community-based endeavours will also take a long time to produce if engaging with outsiders of the community. By engaging more with community-based resources, tools, funding and researchers, there may be opportunities for community-based research and development to come to fruition for the benefit and the leadership of Indigenous participants.

72 However, as noted by Tobias et al. (2013), not all members of a community may want to be involved in research or development; some may not feel comfortable with participating, they may not agree on methods or outcomes of the research, and they may not wish to be involved in development with other members of their community. These societal obstacles make delivering research and development in a timely manner difficult. However, hearing everyone’s point of view, voice, and providing every individual with the opportunity and option to engage in research and development within the community remains vital to community.

Cochran et al. (2008) report on their participatory research into ethics in public health. Cochran et al. (2008) state that defining ethical research approaches and methodologies tends to lie with academics and researchers, but that researchers "in health and human services have recently been advised to give greater consideration to the influence of culture on their science" (Cochran et al., 2008, p. 23). Thus, social aspects and values of research and development should be made a priority in Indigenous research and development.

Therefore, following Tobias et al. (2013) and Cochran et al. (2008), it is possible that the research or project does not involve everyone in the community directly, but that some people can be indirectly involved in certain aspects of the community project, based on an individual's personal skills, choices and wishes. In fact, a project can be researched and developed directly by those who wish to be more involved in the project, while those who do not wish to be directly involved in the project outcomes using or benefitting from the project and research in the end, if the project is designed given back to the community. This adds to the discussion of “context-specific” aspects, on which there needs to be a greater focus in policy, research and development (as discussed in Chapter 2).

Based on the works of Tobias et al. (2013) and Cochran et al. (2008), “participatory research” can be conceptualised as research that is applied through equally shared methodologies, between researcher and community, in a collaborative approach rather than an outside force being imposed upon the host community. Rather, outside forces (such as professional assistance) can be employed by the community if desired (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014, see Chapter 2). Importantly, participatory research can instil a sense of pride or empowerment among the communities (Adams et al., 2014; Ban, Picard, & Vincent, 2008; Bull,

73 2010; Castleden et al., 2008; Cochran et al., 2008; Cole, 2006b; Eagles et al., 2002; Higgins-Desbiolles & Whyte, 2015; Leys & Vanclay, 2011; Liamputtong, 2009; Minnaert, Maitland, & Miller, 2007; Tobias et al., 2013).

The concept of participatory approaches aligns with mixed-methods approaches, in that both research directions allow stakeholders to share and interact freely with one another in order to learn from each other and become mutually empowered. Mixed-methods can allow participants and researchers to combine strengths in research methodologies, while sharing knowledge and expertise with one another. This approach can foster stronger bonds of trust and friendship, as well as options for community development and empowerment (Denzin, 2009; Nunkoo et al., 2013; Tomaselli et al., 2008; Yeager & Steiger, 2013).

Participatory approaches have been used in a variety of fields of research as a means for empowering local, Indigenous and Aboriginal communities. This can be seen in the research of Adams et al. (2014) and Ban et al. (2008) in their ecological research, Bull’s (2010) work in ethical research with Aboriginal communities, Castleden et al.’s (2008) work with photo-voice in sociology and medicine, Cochran et al.’s (2008) work in public health, Leys and Vanclay’s (2011) work in land-use policy, and Tobias et al.’s (2013) work in human research ethics.

However, it has also been found that a divide in formal education and experience can challenge a researcher’s ability to engage with local Indigenous communities and, therefore, also limit potential for empowerment for Indigenous communities in sustainable tourism development (Higgins-Desbiolles & Whyte, 2015). These challenges in effective and accurate tourism research, engagement, participation and development within Indigenous communities, if not addressed, can endanger community rights, as well as lead to greater commodification of culture, and other common issues associated with Indigenous tourism development (as discussed in Chapter 2).

74 3.4 Developing a Mixed-Methods Approach for Indigenous-led Tourism and Engagement

Researchers Nunkoo et al. (2013) contribute to the discussion on community- based perspectives and mixed-methods approaches in tourism research. In their longitudinal, theoretical study of tourism literature regarding residents’ perceptions in the tourism literature, they define a “mixed-methods approach” to be “based on both quantitative and qualitative approaches” (Nunkoo et al., 2013, p. 8), whereby most of the mixed-methods research either used qualitative findings to support and develop quantitative models or used qualitative and quantitative approaches concurrently to find and analyse data. They note an increase in the use of mixed-methods research in tourism over the past decade and argue for increased studies engaging mixed-methods, especially in tourism research concerned with host communities. A mixed-methods approach can create a more “multidimensional” research design that produces more verifiable data (Nunkoo et al., 2013, p. 12).

Nunkoo et al. (2013) also suggest that a mixed-methods approach in tourism research and development can help create a better “understanding of how tourism and the social lives of residents are embedded within specific contexts”, which “is vital in producing meaningful explanations of residents’ attitudes to tourism” (p. 19). Thus, utilising mixed-methods in tourism research and practice may help better understand how social empowerment and benefits can be advanced for the community.

The notion of social empowerment through mixed-methods research in tourism is also discussed by Cole (2006a, 2006b, 2007). Cole (2007) describes the importance of sharing knowledge in empowering Indigenous communities in Indonesia through effective engagement and communication among the tourism stakeholders of the community. She discusses how focus groups between tourists, researchers and community can contribute to better tourism education and development (Cole, 2006b, 2007). She suggests that this can be done through the sharing of knowledge in the tourism industry and the sharing of the community’s knowledge about the host destination through Indigenous methodologies such as “storytelling” (Cole, 2006a, 2007). Cole (2006b, 2007)

75 states that, in her research, semi-structured interviews with community members aided in sharing knowledge bases in the focus group, which contributed to the community’s sense of empowerment and pride in acquiring her expertise in tourism development. Cole's approach to Indigenous research informs the method engaged in my research with the Wagiman community (see Chapter 5).

The use of mixed-methods and community engagement is also supported by the UNWTO (2010, 2016b) and adopted in their work in Peru and Europe. The UNWTO (2010, 2016b) follow Simonsen (2006) and his suggestion for “co- management” approaches. The UNWTO (2016b) states that effective collaboration and communication between tourism stakeholders can come from both the “bottom-up” and “top-down” to help foster pride and empowerment among all involved in the tourism developments. The UNWTO (2016b) developed “models for collaboration” among Indigenous communities in Peru and recommend that tourism developers take social and cultural, context-specific measures into account to:

Work with communities to help reach consensus about the possibility of interacting with tourists; Empower those communities to organize and manage their own resources, offered as products; Revive and conserve cultural practices at risk of distortion and/or disappearance (languages, handicrafts, dances, music, agricultural practices, etc.; and, Design ways to make those resources of value to cultural tourists, with support from the community, the State, international cooperation or specialized agencies, with community members in the role of protagonist, guide and service provider in the intercultural dialogue. (UNWTO, 2016b, p. 117)

As discussed in Chapter 2, this approach can be considered “top-down,” as are many policy languages (Foley, 2014; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006, 2008, 2010). However, UNWTO (2016b) acknowledges this fact and states that development and research can no longer be implemented solely through “top-down” approaches and, rather, policy-makers should learn to incorporate “bottom-up” development and research to planning and policy-making, since these plans and policies will be impacted at the destination, ground, community and individual level. They suggest that Indigenous peoples and communities are the “protagonists” in tourism research and development, as well as policy-making

76 decisions (UNWTO, 2016b). This follows the notion of Indigenous control in tourism, as discussed in Hinch and Butler (2007), Whitford et al. (2010); Whitford and Ruhanen (2014), and others (see Chapter 2).

The UNWTO (2016b) conducted research in Peru, which can be adopted and adapted by various communities around the world. They note, however, that their model for community-based tourism development is context-specific and should be made flexible and applicable according to specific communities’ circumstances and wishes. The UNWTO (2016b) promotes the use of mixed- method approaches in the form of government support and resources in Indigenous-led research and value-based developments. They also note, importantly, that such approaches require effective engagement with communities in order for the tourism developments to foster empowerment at the community level as well as the global level.

According to the UNWTO and UNEP (2012), a sustainable tourism venture requires constant communication between all stakeholders, as well as transparency, and ongoing support through education, awareness and training in tourism management. The UNWTO and UNEP (2012) further suggest that if there is good communication between public, private and community-based stakeholders in tourism development and management, that skills and knowledge will be shared between all stakeholders within this communication, and that everyone benefits from each other’s’ knowledge, skills and contributions (see also Cole, 2007, Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014; and Botterill & Platenkamp, 2012, as discussed in Chapter 2, as well as Indigenous “storytelling” methodologies above). This sharing of knowledge can, in turn, foster a sense of pride among the participants in the management process, thereby empowering them to make decisions in management and policy within tourism enterprises (Higgins- Desbiolles, 2006; UNWTO & UNEP, 2012; Whitford et al., 2010).

The WINTA (2012), aligns with UNWTO & UNEP’s (2012) suggestions for better communication and mixed-methods research approaches between Indigenous tourism stakeholders:

That equitable partnerships between the tourism industry and Indigenous people will include the sharing of cultural awareness and skills

77 development which support the well-being of communities and enable enhancement of individual livelihoods. (WINTA, 2012, p. 3) This notion of equitable partnerships by WINTA (2012) is also explored in the Australian context at the community and individual level. Foley (2008, 2015) and Jacobsen (2017) claim Aboriginal SMEs may also foster pride among the community’s entrepreneurs through effective engagement options in tourism development and Indigenous-led research and methodologies. Foley (2008, 2014, 2015), Jacobsen (2017) and Higgins-Desbiolles (2006, 2008, 2010) agree that utilising Indigenous methods for sharing information transparently and cooperatively through storytelling can aid in sharing skillsets, knowledge and expertise between stakeholders for community empowerment and sustainable tourism development.

Both Foley (2014, 2015) and the UNWTO (2016b) propose tourism as an Indigenous enterprise. They claim that Indigenous tourism can, and should be, promoted more authentically by, and for, Indigenous participants from Indigenous perspectives through storytelling and other Indigenous methodologies. Indigenous methodologies are discussed further in the following section.

3.5 Indigenous Methodologies

Following the works on Indigenous-controlled tourism by Hinch and Butler (2007), the typological research of Nielsen & Wilson (2012) regarding “Indigenous tourism” or “Indigenous-driven tourism” can be conceptualised into four separate positions to help identify the level of Indigenous “presence, role and voice” in tourism research and development (p.67). The four positions of indigenous involvement are classified as follows.

The first position of research is labelled as “invisible,” whereby there is an outside focus on Indigenous people in research but a lack of Indigenous voice or participation in said research (Nielsen & Wilson, 2012, p.69). Nielsen & Wilson (2012) conceptualise this “invisible” type of research based on early anthropological research of the 1970s 1980s and earlier (p.69).

The second position of research is classified as “identified” whereby there is a promotion of more Indigenous benefits from tourism, but there is still a lack of

78 Indigenous involvement or leadership in the research process (Nielsen & Wilson, 2012, p.69). Nielsen & Wilson (2012) attribute this position to the issues of authenticity which were discussed earlier in relation to promotion of Indigenous peoples in tourism in Section 1.3.1.

The third position is classified as “stakeholder” whereby Indigenous people are still the focus, may have some increased involvement or participation, but their presence is still limited and objectified (Nielsen &Wilson, 2012, p.69). Nielsen & Wilson (2012) focus on the opportunities, challenges, barriers and options for Indigenous engagement in tourism research and development from the early 2000s.

Finally, the fourth position is conceptualised as “Indigenous-driven” tourism research whereby Indigenous people are in control of their involvement in tourism research and development and are in charge of the benefits that may be derived from involvement in tourism (Nielsen &Wilson, 2012, p.69). Nielsen & Wilson (2012) follow the research of Foley (2008) in this fourth position of Indigenous driven research by focusing on the promotion of more Indigenised research methodologies in tourism development, especially regarding the social and economic benefits such as capacity building which is discussed further in Section 2.5.1.

Research regarding Indigenous methodologies in tourism research and development is relatively new and is still being conceptualised in order to be put into operational functions for tourism development and Indigenous empowerment. A recent study by Chambers & Buzinde (2015) criticizes tourism literature and theory in that it rarely is put into action. Based on their critical review of the tourism literature regarding decolonisation of tourism research, Chambers & Buzinde (2015) suggest that even though current research has done well to unveil the issues of postcolonial tourism research and development there is a lack of Indigenous-driven research and development in current tourism discourse which they claim is still “predominantly colonial” (p.1).

However, more recent research by Holmes, Grimwood, King and the Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation (2016) in Canada follow the suggestions of Chambers &Buzinde (2015) and break the dominant “post-colonial” narrative in Indigenous tourism research and development by integrating and focusing on the voices and

79 stories of the Denosoline people. The Denosoline people act as leaders in tourism research and development in their boreal forest and the protected areas within. Holmes et al. (2016) utilise community-based, participatory, narrative-based methods with the Denosoline people of Canada to help foster Denosoline empowerment in matters of Indigenous tourism practice and policy in the area. This Indigenous methodology-based study is revisited in the works of Grimwood, King, Holmes and the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (2017) in an effort to further decolonise Indigenous tourism research planning and development in the lands of Denosoline people of Canada. This study also follows the works of Chambers & Buzinde (2015) by attempting to put decolonisation methodology theory into practice with the Denosoline people of Canada. They find that decolonisation of research can be possible through Indigenous-based research methodologies i.e. narratives and participatory, community-based tourism research, planning, and development.

This study by Grimwood et al. (2017) also helps realise the conceptualisation of tourism knowledge-based systems as examined in Tribe & Liburd (2016). Tribe & Liburd (2016) also follow the works of Hinch and Butler (2007) and Chambers & Buzinde (2015) by incorporating more Indigenous-knowledge based systems and methodologies into tourism research and discourse for more sustainable tourism research and practices. Tribe & Liburd (2016) argue that Chambers & Buzinde (2012) study regarding the dominant post-colonial voice in tourism research and development can be decolonised through Indigenous knowledge- based systems in a sociological approach to tourism research and development. Tribe &Liburd (2016) define “Indigenous knowledge” based systems to be based on the following:

knowledge originating from specific cultural, geographical and traditional circumstances that are ontologically tied—not only to—but within the self… a specific community…and postcolonial perspectives... Often embedded in oral traditions, indigenous knowledges are passed on from generations through cosmologies, diaspora, storytelling, arts, crafts, spirituality, language and classification systems. The explicit inclusion of indigenous tourism knowledges in this system offers a site of resistance against possibilities of marginalisation, exploitation and oppression in

80 tourism which may be at the hands of nation states, or politically dominant ethnic groups that are actively or passively legitimized by the more established forms of knowledge production (p.52).

Integrating more Indigenous knowledge-based value systems and narratives can help foster community empowerment, benefits in tourism development and decolonisation of tourism research and development. Interesting, Tribe & Liburd (2016) also discuss the advent of “web 2.0” in their discourse on sociological and ontological research in tourism (p.51). They argue that:

Web 2.0 knowledge stems from new technologies, connections, institutions, networks and practices with other forms and norms of knowledge… web 2.0 refers to the principles and practice of facilitating information sharing and social interaction by users generating, altering and uploading web-based content… thriving on a pluralist epistemology, knowledge production is a matter of continuous reflexivity of the producers, acquirers and users. Web 2.0 thrives on multi-, inter- and extra- disciplinary knowledge by a network of actors who form a coalition of participants working together on a common task (p.51).

Tribe &Liburd (2016, p.51) take a participatory, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and community-based systems approach in their discourse on “web 2.0” as does Holmes et al. (2016) and Grimwood et al. (2017) on their anthropological research and development projects in Canada. They argue for the incorporation and evolution of studies in anthropology and sociology, as does Neilsen & Wilson (2012), into tourism discourse and practice in order to decolonise research and empower Indigenous peoples in tourism development. While researchers Nielsen & Wilson (2012), Chambers & Buzinde (2015) Holmes et al. (2016), Grimwood et al. (2017) and Tribe & Liburd (2016) all argue for Indigenous methodologies and knowledge based systems for the decolonisation of research and the emancipation of Indigenous peoples in research and development, Tribe & Liburd (2016) also call for the incorporation of innovative, reflexive, participatory technologies in tourism discourse and development, which, in my study, is coupled with anthropological, sociological and Indigenous methodologies and narratives of the Wagiman people of Pine Creek for community empowerment in tourism development. The concept of reflexivity in anthropological, Indigenous-

81 driven tourism research and development is explored further in this thesis in section 2.5.3.

Based on the above discussion, Indigenous methodologies and narratives are increasingly used in anthropology and sociology in an effort to decolonise research and are increasingly explored in tourism discourse. However, Indigenous methodologies are surprisingly underutilised in tourism research and development, especially with Aboriginal communities in Australia. As discussed by Foley (2008), Tobias et al. (2013) and Cochran et al. (2008), Indigenous methodologies have been used in a variety of other sectors and fields of research, such as agriculture, environmental sciences, health and ethics. Cole (2006) provides examples from tourism development and research with Indigenous communities in Indonesia to discuss the importance of community-based participatory approaches in tourism research for community empowerment. In the Australian context, Higgins-Desbiolles (2006, 2008, 2010) explains how tourism can empower Aboriginal communities through a socially-focused approach and from active participation from the community level for community empowerment to be fostered. However, the adoption of Indigenous-led and controlled research methodologies in tourism requires further exploration.

Maori researcher Tuhiwai-Smith (2012) focuses on Indigenous-led research and methodologies in her theoretical work regarding the decolonisation of research methods. She critiques “Western, scientific methods” as being those of the “other”, of being too objective, judgemental and establishing a “superiority” over those being “researched”. In this regard, Tuhiwai-Smith (2012) compares academic research with the furthering of colonisation.

Tuhiwai-Smith (2012) combines the methods of scientific research with those of Indigenous research, stating that her “Indigenous Research Agenda” model, in Figure 4 below, is:

Similar to scientific research in that it aims to do “good for society” in research. Differs in that it mentions healing, decolonisation, spiritual and recovery which give political interest rather than objective Western scientific interest. (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012, p. 122)

82

Figure 4 Indigenous Research Agenda According to Tuhiwai-Smith (2012)

This model for decolonised methodologies emphasises the leadership, control and use of Indigenous methodologies by and for Indigenous people in tourism research as well as other research fields and sectors. Also, it aligns with the mixed-methods approaches discussed by Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) and Nunkoo et al. (2013), as well as participatory approaches discussed by Simonsen (2006), Morley (2014), Tobias et al. (2013) and Cochran et al. (2008). Figure 4 shows the strong social and political aspect to Indigenous research, which reflects the importance of social as well as economic impacts of tourism policy and practice discussed in Chapter 2. Based on the decolonising methodologies of Tuhiwai Smith (2012), this thesis argues for Indigenous leadership in tourism research and development through Indigenous methodologies. Additionally, based on Tuhiwai Smith (2012), this thesis considers an autoethnographic, reflexive and participatory approach to tourism research and development with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek.

83 In an historical sociological context, Stanner’s (1979) research with AIATSIS from 1938-1973 adds to the discussion about social and political influences and their effects on Aboriginal people and research in Australia. His eighteen essays are foundational in today’s anthropological research with Aboriginal communities. His essays not only detail the social, economic, cultural and environmental values that are unique and vital to the lives and identities of the many Aboriginal language groups in the Northern Territory of Australia, but also demonstrates the Indigenous methodologies that he adopted through his self-narrative storytelling, and the exploitative social disruptions Aboriginal people have experienced with early European settlers in Australia over time. Stanner (1979) notes the importance of the Aboriginal narrative in ethnographic research:

In Aboriginal Australia there is an oral history which is providing… a coherent principle of explanation… It has a directness and a candour which cut like a knife through most of what we say and write. We would have to bring this material—let me be fashionable and call it ‘ethnohistory’—into the sweep of our story.

Stanner (1979) remarks here upon the need for oral, Indigenous methodologies within the researcher’s self-narrative. Similarly, other researchers have noted that Indigenous methodologies around the world tend to take the form of “storytelling” or, in the Aboriginal context, in Australia, “yarning” (Carment, 1984; Clark, 2008; Hunter, 2014; Jackson et al., 2014; Robertson & McGee, 2003; Russell-Smith et al., 1997; Russell, 2005; Young, 2009).

Storytelling methodologies are becoming increasingly important for the empowerment of communities (Liu, 2017; UNWTO, 2017b). Civics educator, Liu (2017) comments (in his TED talk series): “story is the catalytic agent for changing the status quo”, and “stories are weapons for the endless contest of legitimacy.” Stories have been used to educate and empower generations of Indigenous communities about land, culture and environment, as most of their knowledge is, and was, traditionally passed down orally rather than through written word (Denzin et al., 2008; Hunter, 2014; Robertson & McGee, 2003).

Thus, applying Indigenised methods into tourism discourse allows for more diverse and unexpected insight into findings (Botha, 2011; Franklin, 2007; Lepp,

84 2007, 2008; Liamputtong, 2009; Smith, 2012). By Indigenising tourism research and utilising more Indigenous, qualitative, participatory research methodologies, there can be more opportunities for Indigenous community empowerment (Cole, 2006b, 2007; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006, 2008, 2010; Nunkoo et al., 2013; Smith, 2012; Zeppel, 2006). The following section examines studies where such methodologies have been engaged to produce positive outcomes for Indigenous communities.

3.5.1 Indigenising Methods in Tourism Development and Research

According to Foley (2008, 2015) and Jacobsen (2017), Indigenous SMEs can foster pride among themselves as entrepreneurs by utilising Indigenised methods for sharing information transparently and cooperatively through storytelling. By utilising storytelling methodologies of the landscape, culture, language, environment, beliefs and relatives, Indigenous people can share skills, educate each other and younger generations, and provide more options for engagement, employment and capacity building in sustainable tourism development (Crick, 1990; Foley, 2014, 2015; Jacobsen, 2017; Kostanski & Churchill Fellowship Report, 2012; Lepp, 2007, 2008; Louis, 2006; Nunkoo et al., 2013; Read, 2000; Smith, 2012).

According to McGinty (2002), “capacity building” or “community capacity building” (CCB), has its roots in the concept of “community development” and is:

…one in which its residents work together for social order, setting goals and carrying through with these goals. This was achieved if communities established mechanisms to define and enforce public roles and responsibilities; set up communications, leadership and training for those jobs, made decisions about policy, and established networks for exchange. The point is made that in most communities this is done without outside intervention. Where professional workers are appointed, they needed to deliver services in a way that enhanced people's autonomy, self-respect, and their ability to work things out for themselves. While community development required input from outside experts, control needed to be located firmly within the community. (McGinty, 2002, p. 3)

85 McGinty (2002) calls for social value-bases and cohesion in Indigenous tourism development, as discussed by Foley (2008), Morley (2014), Higgins-Desbiolles (2006, 2008) and others. Similar to Whitford and Ruhanen (2014), McGinty (2002) finds that communities may require “input from outside experts” while maintaining Indigenous control over the tourism processes (as discussed by Hinch and Butler, 2007).

Jacobsen (2017) and Foley (2014, 2015) also observe that there are sufficient skill bases among Indigenous tourism stakeholders to sustainably maintain a tourism entrepreneurship or SME. They argue that if people work together as communities, individuals and family to support one another they can combine their respective knowledge, expertise, skills and talents to make it work to peoples’ benefits (Foley, 2014; Jacobsen, 2017). However, smaller communities can often be significantly affected when skilled individuals shift residence or change careers (Botterill & Platenkamp, 2012; Clark, 2014; Simonsen, 2006; Whitford et al., 2010; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014) (see Chapter 2).

Maintaining the consistent skillsets required to support tourism ventures often presents major challenges for smaller Indigenous communities over the longer term (Botterill & Platenkamp, 2012; Foley, 2014; Jacobsen, 2017; Simonsen, 2006). Additionally, most knowledge keepers within Aboriginal communities are Elders, they are aging, increasingly immobile and, therefore, many Aboriginal communities are at risk of losing knowledge, language and heritage due to limited on-site visitation opportunities and various issues with accessibility to country (Altman, 1989; Crick, 1985, 1990; Stanner, 1979). Issues in mobility call for more mixed-methods approaches to solving on-site visitations of country (Botha, 2011; Tobias et al., 2013). This thesis argues that creating off-site digital knowledge systems for the community and by the community can help address such issues through virtual interaction, engagement and visitation of country. (Botha, 2011; Castleden et al., 2008; Foley, 2008, 2014, 2015; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010; Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2014; Higgins-Desbiolles & Whyte, 2015; McGinnis, Harvey, et al., 2017; McGinnis, Young, et al., 2017; Morley, 2014; Tobias et al., 2013; Yeager & Steiger, 2013).

As discussed by Tobias et al. (2013) and Cochran et al. (2008), with regards to research, direct engagement with tourists may also be an issue as this option

86 may not be welcome or possible within certain Indigenous communities, or among certain individuals of that community. Therefore, other options for engagement need to be explored and can be provided by digital, virtual technologies (as discussed in Chapter 2). Digital options for cultural interpretation have recently begun to take shape through digital mapping of knowledge and skill-sharing in an effort to transmit Indigenous wisdom authentically and transparently, monitor the impacts of the destination on the environment and people, and to empower the community and improve biocultural conservation (Brown & Weber, 2011; Brown & Weber, 2013; Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Christen, 2005, 2006; Hunter, 2014).

3.5.2 Digital Mapping For Direct and Indirect Indigenous Involvement in Tourism

Through (P)PGIS/GIS mapping management and implementation, local Indigenous communities can adopt the skills and confidence they need to pursue further tourism management objectives in the community (Brown & Kytta, 2014; Brown & Weber, 2013; Christen, 2005; Hunter, 2014; Kostanski & Churchill Fellowship Report, 2012; Pocewicz et al., 2012; “PPGIS.net”, 2017; Yeager & Steiger, 2013). (P)PGIS methods have been implemented in the Mandingalbay Yidinji communities in Queensland, Australia (“PPGIS.net”, 2017) as well as Kangaroo Island, Australia (KITMC, 2000), which have been successful in influencing policy-making decisions.

The Mandingalbay Yidinji community presented their P3DM4 model at the IUCN World Parks Congress in Sydney, Australia, which I attended in 2014 (see Plate 1, below).

4 3-Dimensional Participatory Mapping

87

Plate 1 The Mandingalbay Yidinji people presenting their (P)PGIS/P3DM map at the IUCN World Congress, Sydney, 2014 During their presentation, Nelson Mandela’s grandson congratulated them on their achievements and reiterated the importance of community mapping of country for protecting heritage and claiming back traditional ownership of country. The Mandingalbay Yidinji community’s mapping project demonstrates the possibilities of political influence on a local and global level; however, the community had not yet explored the options for digital mapping and Indigenous tourism development, which could potentially help further such local and global political influences for longer-term community empowerment (Brown & Weber, 2013; Hunter, 2014; “PPGIS.net”, 2017).

Digital mapping options for tourism development and community empowerment have been explored among the communities of Kangaroo Island, Australia (KITMC, 2000). Kangaroo Island’s Tourism Optimisation Management Model (TOMM) was developed as a result of an empirical study regarding resident’s perceptions of tourism and rural planning development on Kangaroo Island, Australia in the year 2000 (KITMC, 2000). The study engaged a mixed-methods approach whereby researchers interviewed and surveyed residents about if and where they would be interested in developing the island for tourism purposes. The researchers used public participatory mapping approaches through Google Maps to upload their interview and survey data onto a digital mapping platform,

88 in order to quantify their qualitative data and to provide the community with a tool for further tourism planning consultation (KITMC, 2000).

The Kangaroo Island study has served as a benchmark for tourism-related, digital, participatory mapping since its inception in the year 2000, and has influenced and informed political entities on the local and global level on sustainable tourism development and innovation. For example, global entities such as UNEP, UNWTO and IUCN have referenced the Kangaroo Island TOMM as a sustainable tourism management tool for monitoring tourism planning and development at the destination level (Eagles et al., 2002).

While the TOMM is viewed as a successful model for sustainable tourism development and management via digital mapping technology, it was not applied among rural, Indigenous communities who may not have the access to or knowledge of such technologies as the largely non-Aboriginal community of Kangaroo Island did. Higgins-Desbiolles (2008, 2010) discusses the KITMC (2000) and criticises the short-term effectiveness of the model. Higgins- Desbiolles (2008, p. 353; 2010, p. 118) criticises the tendency of this model to be labelled as the “best practice” model in sustainable development in tourism, yet it lacks monitoring and adjustment of the model itself since its inception in 2000. According to Higgins-Desbiolles (2008, 2010), the TOMM may aid in monitoring tourism development at the destination level through digital mapping, but the model itself must also be continually monitored to evolve and innovate over time. This is something that should be further explored in mapping and marketing for sustainable community-driven tourism development in Aboriginal communities and is considered in the outcomes of this thesis.

As most Aboriginal knowledge is shared orally between generations (as discussed above), Aboriginal storytelling can align well with digital transmission of knowledge, through the use of video and audio-recorded content (Botha, 2011; Cardamone & Rentschler, 2006; Hunter, 2014; Stanner, 1979; Zeppel, 2006). Such digital content can be very useful for Indigenous tourism development as digital content can be accessed for longer-term on websites, mobile apps and digital maps by the Indigenous communities, as well as tourists, to learn more about the rich heritage of a destination through Aboriginal perspectives and interpretation (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Bull, 2010; Cole, 2007; Denzin et

89 al., 2008; Foley, 2014; Hunter, 2014; Jackson et al., 2014; Rigney, 2001; Smith, 2012; Waitt, 1999; Young, 2009).

For example, the Stz’uminus First Nation peoples of Ladysmith, British Colombia, Canada, have started digitally mapping Indigenous oral heritage on Google as a means of protecting heritage, land and fishing practices (Hunter, 2014). This digital mapping is also engaging their youth for more tourism employment options and creating better bonds with their ancestral and post-colonial neighbours (Hunter, 2014). This notion of creating bonds within the community adds to the discussion of Tobias et al. (2013) regarding participatory approaches to research and is explored further in the following section regarding (auto)ethnographic approaches to Indigenous research.

3.5.3 An Ethnographic Approach to Indigenous Research

The methodological approach of this study builds upon the mixed-method, social and economic value-based development approaches discussed in Chapter 2. Most anthropological and sociological research follows an ethnographic approach that is increasingly being adopted in tourism research and practice (Altman, 1987, 1989; Crick, 1990; Denzin, 2009; Foley, 2014; Franklin, 2007; Harrill, 2004; Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003; Stanner, 1979; Tribe, 1997; Zeppel, 2006).

Crick (1985, 1990) discusses the historical evolution of ethnographic research and how anthropological and linguistic research has changed from a more “exploitative” venture to that of a “self-reflexive”, sharing or “cultural exchange” venture. Indeed, some of the earliest recorded ethnographic research in Australia is that of Dawson (1881), whose work is seminal in understanding Aboriginal cultures, but, more importantly, the social and cultural exchanges, roles and influences that early Europeans had with the Aboriginal communities of Victoria. Yet, as noted above, his research could be criticised for the colonial methodologies (as discussed earlier, with reference to Foley (2008, 2014) and Tuhiwai-Smith (2012) (see Chapter 2).

Ethnographic research is common in anthropology and has evolved over time to become more autoethnographic in nature. Since Crick’s (1985) study is over thirty

90 years old, ethnographic research requires more recent exploration as well as application within tourism research.

According to Tomaselli et al. (2008), auto-ethnographies are “reflexive” and tend to ask more questions than answer them. Tomaselli’s (2008, p. 347) discusses how his work with the San Bushmen in the Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa “changed” him. His experiences with the San Bushmen required him to not only accurately and responsibly record and report on the cultural traditions and lives of the San Bushmen, but also reflect on his own role within the community, his experiences with the San Bushmen and the bonds they formed together (Tomaselli et al., 2008). His autoethnographic research aligns well with Indigenous methodologies of research in that Tomaselli uses personal narratives; i.e., storytelling, to disseminate the knowledge he has learned from his Indigenous colleagues. According to Tomaselli et al. (2008):

Ethnography is not simply a collection of the exotic “other”; it is reflective of our own lives and cultural practices even when discussing another culture. Auto ethnography involves the use of cultural richness for self- reflection and understanding the nature of the encounter… Instead of only questioning why people react as they do to the presence of researchers, we must also question social assumptions about the nature of research. (p. 348)

Tomaselli et al.’s (2008) notion of questioning the “self” as well as the “other” is also discussed by Maori researcher, Tuhiwai-Smith (2012), on “decolonizing methodologies”. Notably, she also addresses the social importance and significance in Indigenous research following the previously discussed literature.

Tuhiwai-Smith (2012) discusses how tourism research and development has been focused on “trading the other” as an exchange of goods and knowledge. She notes the tendency for tourism to “sell Indigenous knowledge and goods to other, outside cultures and peoples” (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012, p. 92-93), but states that it is important to give Indigenous knowledge back to communities, especially to the younger generations of Indigenous peoples (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012). She also argues that taking a reflexive, subjective approach to research and recognising the “spiritual” aspect of Indigenous methodologies, especially when researching on “country”, can help decolonise research and Indigenise

91 methodologies in tourism and other sectors and fields of study. Such “spirituality” within Aboriginal identity and landscape is also emphasised by Stanner (1979).

In his ethnographic work with Aboriginal communities in Australia, Stanner (1979) highlights the importance of on-site, contextualised visits and questions:

Anyone who, understandingly, has moved in the Australian bush with Aboriginal associates becomes aware of the fact. He moves, not in a landscape, but in a humanised realm saturated with significations. Here ‘something happened’; there ‘something portends’. Aborigines, seeing the signs, defer to the significations; and, watching other do so, seem to understand why…All things now significant for men, then took on their values…all exponents became the constants they now are. Until then, all had been somewhat indeterminate; after then, all became determinate. Those categories of understanding are contemporary, as they must be the underlying eschatological conception is thoroughly aboriginal. (Stanner, 1979, p. 131)

The need for on-site discussions follows from Indigenous people’s understanding that the landscape is sentient and interactive. The best quality interaction is always when the participants in the interaction, the people and the country, are in physical proximity. Additionally, the researcher is transcended into an Aboriginal way of thinking, knowing, doing and feeling. Following Tomaselli et al. (2008), taking on an Aboriginal lens Indigenises the researcher as well as offering opportunities to change how they see the world, the people, the land, and even the project and research, thereby driving the researcher to bond with the locals and give back to the community (in contrast to the extractive, disengaged research of the past criticised by Foley, 2008, 2014; Tobias et al., 2013; and Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012).

Tuhiwai-Smith’s (2012) Indigenous research agenda focuses on the need to decolonise methodologies in order to politically and socially empower Indigenous peoples in tourism research as well as policy and development. She emphasises the importance of Indigenous methodologies in research and suggests that Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers and tourism stakeholders need to work together to create a beneficial tourism product for all (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012). She states that:

92 Sharing is a good thing to do…it is a human quality….To create something new through that process of sharing is to recreate the old, to reconnect relationships and to recreate our humanness. (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012, p. 110)

This notion of sharing knowledge bases is central to ethnographic, mixed- method, participatory research as used in my thesis. Sharing knowledge is also central to reflexive, or autoethnographic, research, which is examined further in the following section.

3.5.4 Building Bonds of Trust and Friendship in Indigenous Research and Development

Researchers, including Denzin et al. (2008), Nakata (2004), Tomaselli et al. (2008) and Tuhiwai-Smith (2012), advocate for Indigenous-led research methodologies and the “reflexivity of the outsider”, which is an ethnographic concept of research coined by Russell-Mundine (2012). “Reflexivity” encourages the outside researcher to evaluate their potential positive and negative contributions within the community and the research being done (Russell- Mundine, 2012). “Reflexivity” also provides avenues for the researcher to develop stronger bonds of trust and friendship with the community by conducting a more ethnographic approach to research and allowing the Indigenous participants to lead the research process (Denzin et al., 2008; Nakata, 2004; Tomaselli et al., 2008; Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012).

Tuhiwai-Smith (2012) and Nakata (2004) suggest that these bonds of friendship can also be formed through the Indigenisation of research methods. Tomaselli et al. (2008) further suggest that self-reflexivity of the “other” in ethnographic research can aid in Indigenising research, while building bonds of trust and friendship as well. Indigenous leadership in Indigenous and community-based research and development can help avoid the negative impacts of tourism development on the community (Higgins-Desbiolles & Whyte, 2015; Lepp, 2007, 2008; Zeppel, 2006), as well as build bonds of trust and friendship between “outsiders” and the community (Stanner, 1979; Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012).

93 However, knowing exactly how to build bonds of trust and friendship with local, Indigenous communities and individuals is currently lacking in tourism research. By exploring ethnographic, self-reflexive research in other fields, such as ethics, anthropology and linguistics, one can gain a sense of the methodological approach to engaging with communities in a manner that empowers Indigenous people through the observation and adoption of Indigenous methodologies while also building bonds of trust and friendship. For instance, psychologist Flynn (2007) follows the work of Stanner (1979) and discusses certain methodologies that can be explored when working with Indigenous communities on-site and how to overcome the educational divide between researchers and communities.

Flynn (2007) explores the divide in skillsets and training between generations of people as well as “decontextualised” versus “contextualised” thinking and reasoning. Flynn (1984, 1987) explores different methods for reasoning, thinking and researching, as well as the skills and educational training involved for these different methods. Flynn (1984, 1987) claims that formal skill-training and education is required for decontextualised, scientific research and that capacities in decontextualised questioning do not inherently develop in the absence of training. While his work does not consider Indigenous communities in particular, nor tourism development, his psychological research and theories can be applied to the discussion of outsider methodologies and the need for more Indigenous- based methodologies in tourism development and research.

It appears, from many studies, that the default mode for questioning is contextualised questioning, which is less structured. Therefore, contextualised questions tend to be more inherently successful in engaging most people. By placing contextualised questioning more centrally within existing research methods, research methodologies can become more diverse and Indigenised (Lepp, 2007, 2008; Liamputtong, 2009; Smith, 2012).

For example, Lepp (2007) advocates for “active conversation”, which he defines as the qualitative process of:

‘active’ interviews, informal conversation and participant observation…more of a conversation than an interview…empower the respondent to direct the

94 conversation within an area of interest specified by the researcher…allows for the injection of new, and often unexpected, ideas. (Lepp, 2007, p. 879) In his work with the Bigodi village in Uganda, Lepp (2007, 2008) explains that active conversation is a viable method of empowering communities in leading research methodologies, while also creating bonds of trust and friendship between the researcher and community members using ethnographic, Indigenous-led methodologies of storytelling and conversation.

3.6 Conclusion

In this study, a reflexive and autoethnographic approach is used to not only convey the lives, histories and teachings of the Wagiman people of Pine Creek, as they were passed onto me, the researcher, but also to reflect on how I was, in turn, affected by this research following the reflexive and ethnographic work of Tomaselli et al. (2008). In this thesis, I use self-reflection narrative regarding how I shared my life, histories and teachings of my Sioux and Navajo heritage with the Wagiman people, how strong bonds of friendship were formed as a result of this exchange of heritage and knowledge, and how I have changed as a tourism researcher because of these experiences with the Wagiman people and wider community of Pine Creek.

In Chapter 2, the level of government involvement and support, the authenticity of the product, or the level of diversification of products at the destination, it is clear that Indigenous tourism ventures should be based on a social value system at the local, national and global level of government, industry, community and individual. Social factors were identified to be main drivers in Indigenous tourism development, as well as a gap in policy-making decisions to date. Social factors have also been discussed to be intrinsic to the concept of authenticity and the diversification of tourism products in Indigenous tourism development and research all in a context-specific manner of the society norms, values and identities at the destination. This chapter has furthered understanding of these social aspects in tourism development, in the context of the influence in Indigenous-led methodologies in tourism research, particularly that which follows an ethnographic and participatory approach.

95 As seen from the reviews of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, the social aspect of tourism impacts is the overarching tie-in to the economic, cultural and environmental impacts at the destination, it is clear that tourism should take a social value-based approach, especially in Indigenous tourism where the economic, cultural and environmental factors are closely aligned and intrinsically part of the social fabric of Indigenous individuals and communities. When coupled with digital technologies from the start of the development process, social values in Indigenous tourism can be expressed, disseminated, shared and, possibly, conceptually measured and developed and their impacts monitored, at the destination and global level for sustainable tourism development and empowerment economically, culturally and environmentally in return.

Based on the literature, a participatory and mixed-methods approach in skill- sharing is proposed through the use and leadership of community-based Indigenous methodologies. This thesis presents a “context-specific” case that draws on the long-term research and engagement with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek, whereby the Wagiman residents of Pine Creek expressed an interest in participating in tourism development in the area and were looking for opportunities to do so, as per the ARC Linkage Grant. This thesis (and the ARC Linkage Grant that informs the broader study) evolved from the Wagiman people’s leadership and call for participation options in tourism. This research utilises Indigenous methodologies of research and prioritises social value for tourism development. Wagiman interpretation of country evolves through storytelling, which has been digitally recorded and saved in an online repository. However, as noted in this chapter, Indigenous methodologies are relatively unexplored in the tourism research, especially research aimed at engaging and empowering Indigenous communities in tourism development.

This thesis engages ethnography and reflects upon the nuances of this case study and research and how it may not have only helped to empower the community, but build bonds of trust and friendship and empower the researcher through skill-sharing and cultural exchanges in a reciprocal and equal manner, as called upon by the literature. In the next chapter, I introduce the case study of Pine Creek in the Northern Territory of Australia by examining the Top End’s current tourist markets and level of Aboriginal control and engagement in the

96 current tourism infrastructure of the area. The current markets and tourism options in Pine Creek are then compared to established Indigenous tourism developments in Victoria (as discussed in Chapter 2) for the purpose of meeting the objectives of ARC Linkage Grant, and my overarching thesis for Indigenous- led research and development in Pine Creek.

97 CHAPTER 4 WELCOME TO COUNTRY: STUDY BACKGROUND AND TOURISM INVENTORY OF THE PINE CREEK AREA

“…We learn to respect the Elders who hand on the Law. The Elders guard the Law and the Law guards the people. This is the Law that comes from the mountain. The mountain teaches the dreaming.”

– Guboo Ted Thomas of the Yuin People, Koori Elder

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the current state of tourism market trends in Australia, broadly, and in the Top End and Pine Creek of the Northern Territory, and the Southwestern communities of Worn Gundidj and Geriwerd in Victoria, specifically. This chapter, thus, introduces the case studies of my research, with a focus on background information on Pine Creek and Southwest Victoria, their people and their country.

4.2 Aboriginal Tourism Market and Employment Trends in the Northern Territory and Southwest Victoria

As discussed in Chapter 2, tourism is a significant contributor to the national economy of Australia. The 2016 National Visitor Survey (NVS) found that in the Northern Territory, 1.5 million visitors spent $2.1 billion on tourism activities (TRA, 2016), while the state of Victoria had 21.7 million visitors who spent $12 billion. Additionally, TRA (2016) states that the increase in domestic adult couple (14%) and family (12%) travel in the country also saw a 14% rise in nights spent in caravan parks and commercial camping grounds in 2016.

In 2017, TRA (2016) found that domestic visitation numbers increased to 1.6 million in the Northern Territory, but tourists spent less ($1.8 billion) than in 2016

98 – while, in Victoria, domestic visitation numbers also increased to 23.8 million in 2017 and spent more ($13.8 billion) than in 2016 (Tourism NT, 2017a; TRA, 2017b). TRA (2017b) reports that Australians were engaging in more nature- based activities in 2017, including: visits to National Parks (which increased by 12%); bushwalking (which increased by 9%); engaging in water-based activities and sports (which increased by 12%); and attending local, community-based events (which increased by 14%) in 2017.

While the 2017 NVS does not provide information on Indigenous tourism activities for the year, the 2016 report demonstrates the increasingly significant role Indigenous tourism plays within the Australian tourism economy. This focus on Indigenous tourism development was further discussed as a key strategic priority in the Tourism 2020 strategy (Australian Government, 2011) (see section 1.3.2). Following the analysis of the literature in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, a key issue in Indigenous tourism in Australia (and globally) is the level of Indigenous control. This issue, therefore, requires further exploration in relation to the Northern Territory and Victorian case studies researched in this thesis. Ownership and participation in Indigenous tourism in NT and Victoria are discussed in the following sections within the broader context of Aboriginal tourism in Australia.

4.3 Current Tourism Products and Developments: Aboriginal Tourism and National Parks in the Top End

The National Parks surrounding Pine Creek have a relatively recent history of Aboriginal ownership, which continue to develop through Native Title and Land Claim applications and processes (Office of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, 2017). Table 1, below, summarises the history of the establishment of National Parks surrounding Pine Creek and the level of Aboriginal control and management of these parks. The geographical distribution of the parks can be seen in Map 4.

99

Table 1 Aboriginal Involvement in Top End NT National Parks

National Park Date Established Aboriginal Date Aboriginal Ownership/Management Ownership/Management Established

Kakadu Late 1970s Owned by the Bininj/Mungguy Late 1970’s: Aboriginal title owners leased land National Park people and jointly managed by trusts to the Director of National Parks for joint Parks Australia (Australian management. 50% of Kakadu is “Aboriginal land” Government: Department of the under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Environment, 2012; Parks Territory) Act of 1976. The rest is under claim for Australia, 2013). Aboriginal ownership (Australian Government: Department of the Environment and Energy, 2018).

Nitmiluk Late 1970s Owned by the Jawoyn people and 1989: Jawoyn ownership of Nitmiluk and National Park jointly managed by Parks and established Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Wildlife Commission of the Park lease to the NT government and joint Northern Territory (Australian management with the NT Parks and Wildlife Government: Department of the Commission (Parks and Wildlife Commission of Environment, 2012). the Northern Territory, 2014).

Litchfield 1991 Located on the ancestral lands of The Litchfield National Park Stakeholder National Park the Koongurrukun, Mak Mak Reference Group was established in 2010 and

100 Marranunggu, Werat and Warray comprises of representatives from the four peoples and managed by the Aboriginal groups as well as representatives from Parks and Wildlife Commission of Tourism NT, Tourism Top End, the Batchelor the Northern Territory (Australian Tourism Development Group, tour operators, the Government: Department of the Northern Land Council (NLC) and Park staff Environment, 2012; Northern (Northern Territory Government, 2015). The Park Territory Government, 2018a). is managed by Parks and Wildlife in consultation with the stakeholder reference group in accordance with the Native Title Act (Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, 2016).

Umbrawarra Late 1970s Wagiman people jointly manage Since 1978, the Wagiman people have been Gorge Nature the park with the Parks and working with the NLC to apply for land claims Park Wildlife Commission of the over Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park. Since Northern Territory (Northern 1999, the Parks and Wildlife Commission have Territory Government, 2018b). been the management authority over Umbrawarra in consultation with the Wagiman people and NLC (Northern Territory Government, 2018b; Office of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, 2017).

101 Douglas Daly 1970s Owned by the Wagiman people 1999: The Hot Springs were accepted in an Hot Springs/ and jointly managed by the Parks Upper Daly/Douglas Land claim application Djuwaliyn and Wildlife Commission of the settlement by the Aboriginal Land Rights Northern Territory. Amendment Act 2002, which did not include Umbrawarra (see above) (Office of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, 2017).

Map 4 Top End Nature Parks

102 The joint management and ownership of these Top End parks have a controversial history. For example, while the Wagiman people of Pine Creek have some control over the management of Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park and Douglas Daly Hot Springs/Djuwaliyn, there is a lack of cultural interpretation at these parks, aside from an interpretive billboard, as seen in Plate 2 and Plate 3, respectively, below.

Plate 2 Wagiman Interpretation at Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park

Plate 3 Wagiman Interpretation at Djuwaliyn Hot Springs National Park

103

Further, the majority of tourist attractions (i.e., museums, caravan parks, gardens), at the parks and in the Pine Creek area are owned and operated by non-Aboriginal people. Therefore, there are opportunities for the Wagiman people to have control over other, interpretative and innovative tourism development and processes. This is a key topic guiding my engagement with the Wagiman community for this thesis and its findings that government engagement, to date, has not been efficient or fully beneficial to the Wagiman. This accords with the research presented in the Chapter 2 literature review.

However, the Wagiman people are active managers of country and maintain the environmental upkeep of Umbrawarra and Djuwaliyn parks through the Wagiman “Guwardagun” Ranger Program. This program also helps to maintain and manage the land and roads of the Pine Creek area, designated through the Wagiman Aboriginal Land Trust (Northern Land Coucil, 2018). The Wagiman Elders are active members of the Wagiman Ranger Program, providing the younger generations with the knowledge and skills needed to look after country, including knowledge about sacred sites, dreaming, plants and animals, and especially fire management (Huddleston et al., 2010; Northern Land Council, 2018). This knowledge is passed down from Wagiman Elders to younger Wagiman people orally through storytelling and being "on country"; i.e., visits to biocultural and historical areas of interest and importance, as well as interactions with (and learning about the management of) local flora and fauna (Huddleston et al., 2010; Jackson et al., 2014; Liddy et al., 2006). The Wagiman Ranger Program is funded by the NLC, providing significant opportunities for environmental management and heritage conservation for the Wagiman Rangers and community (NLC, 2018). However, as per the ARC Linkage Grant, in recent years, the Wagiman Elders have been looking for further economic opportunities within the tourism sector that can allow them to participate in the protection, management and sharing of their heritage and country and heritage in a manner that best suits their needs, and provides sustainable economic, environmental, social and cultural futures (McGinnis et al., 2015).

104 4.4 Background: Pine Creek, Northern Territory, Australia

The township of Pine Creek is located in what is commonly known as the “Top End” of the Northern Territory of Australia. Pine Creek lies on the Western side of the Stuart Highway, which runs from Darwin in the Top End down to Alice Springs in the “Red Centre” of Australia (see Map 5). Pine Creek is located at the junction of the Stuart and Kakadu Highways, roughly 230km from the city of Darwin, 90km from the town of Katherine, 61km from the world-famous Kakadu National Park, 68km from the Nitmiluk National Park, and 163km from Litchfield National Park. Geographically, Pine Creek is located close to some of the most famous and visited tourist destinations in Australia. Map 5 and Map 6 below illustrate the geographic location of Pine Creek in relation to these Top End tourist attractions and major cities of NT.

While no tourism statistics are available for the town of Pine Creek, regional statistics highlight the significance of tourism in the Top End, some of which were discussed above (see Aboriginal Tourism Market and Employment Trends in the NT and Southwest Victoria).

Map 5 Australia and NT Tourism Attractions

105

Map 6 Pine Creek and Top End Tourism Attractions

4.4.1 Tourists to Pine Creek

According to Tourism NT (2018), 50% of overnight visitors in the NT were interstate visitors. Since March 2017, 66% of NT visitors visited the region known as the Top End. Notably, this ranked higher than visitors in Central Australia, where Uluru-Kata-Tjuta National Park is located, which accounted for 41% of NT visitors since March 2017. Twice the number of domestic visitors to the NT were recorded in the Top End during this time than in Central Australia, who, alternatively, received approximately twice as many international visitors than the Top End since March 2017. Notably, domestic visitors spent $1.12 billion AUD for all-purpose expenses in the Top End, while domestic visitors spent $552 million AUD for all-purpose expenses in Central Australia (Tourism NT, 2018).

Additionally, Tourism NT (2018) also reported that the Greater Darwin area (230km north of Pine Creek) received the most domestic visitors (766,000) in the NT since March 2017. This is most likely due to the fact that Darwin is the capital city of the NT and is the main port of entry for most international and domestic

106 flight arrivals in the NT, followed by Alice Springs in Central Australia, which recorded the second most domestic visitors to the NT (337,000) since March 2017. Further, Tourism NT (2018) noted that the Katherine-Daly region – where Pine Creek and Nitmiluk National Parks are located – was the third most visited region in the NT by domestic visitors with 279,000 people visiting the region since March 2017.

In terms of international visitors to NT regions, the Lasseter region in Central Australia, where Uluru is located, recorded the most visitors since March 2017 with 167,000, followed by the Greater Darwin area with 126,000 visitors, then Alice Springs-MacDonnell region with 122,000 visitors, and the Katherine-Daly region (where Pine Creek is located) with 35,000 international visitors since March 2017. The Kakadu-Arnhem region received 32,000 international visitors during this time. While Kakadu National Park is a major tourist attraction in the Top End of the NT, it is clear from the recent statistical data reported by Tourism NT (2018) that the Katherine-Daly region is a growing tourism destination, especially among domestic, interstate visitors touring the Top End of the NT.

According to Tourism NT’s regional profile of Katherine-Daly, there was a total of 339,000 overnight visitors reported for the year of 2017, most of whom were domestic (304,000), intra-territory (182,000) tourists visiting on holiday (153,000) and staying an average of 3.8 nights in the region, while spending an average of $459 AUD per trip (Tourism NT, 2017b).

Tourism NT (2017b) also reports on what time of year tourists are visiting the Top End, where domestic tourists are travelling from, who they are travelling with, what age group they belong to, what transport they are using to get to the region, where they are travelling to, what accommodation they are staying in, and what activities they are engaging in within the region. Given that these data are not available for Pine Creek, part of this project was to collect similar data for Pine Creek during fieldwork. The method for collecting this data is presented in Chapter 5, while the findings of this data are presented in Chapter 7. The full presentation of the data can be seen in Appendix G.

The regional profile for the Katherine-Daly area reports that 30% that domestic tourists, specifically intra-territory visitors, stay in the region during the dry season months of June, July and August. The Top End does not follow the traditional four

107 seasons calendar of the year. In fact, according to the Aboriginal calendar at the Waradjan Cultural Centre in Kakadu National Park, there are six seasons: monsoon season/wet season (January-March); “Knock ‘em down” storm season (April-May); cooler but humid season (May-June); cold weather season/dry season (June-August); hot dry season (August-September); and pre-monsoon season/“the build-up” (September-December), as seen in Plate 4 below.

Plate 4 Waradjan Cultural Centre’s Seasonal Calendar at Kakadu National Park, Photo by Tamara Young The cooler, dry season is the most temperate time of year to visit the Top End of the NT as September, October and November are typically hot and humid and locally known as “the build-up” to the wet season, which usually occurs from December to February before the hot and humid months of March, April and May when the wet season transitions into the dry season (Prober et al., 2011; Woodward, 2010). According to Tourism NT (2017b), on a three-year average from 2015 to 2017, international tourists (42%) tended to visit the region during the hot and humid “build-up” months of September, October and November.

Tourism NT (2017b) also reports on average from 2015-2017, that in the Katherine-Daly region, 54% of domestic visitors were from within NT and tended to travel alone (33%), while 36% of domestic visitors were inter-state and 10% of visitors were international in the Katherine-Daly region in 2017. Of the interstate

108 visitors, 34% travelled as adult couples and tended to originate from New South Wales (NSW), (37,000), followed by Queensland (28,000) and then Victoria and Tasmania (TAS) (25,000). Of the international visitors, 80% tend to travel either alone or as adult couples, and tend to originate from Germany (7,000), followed by the United Kingdom (UK) (4,000), and then France, New Zealand (NZ) and the USA (3,000) (Tourism NT, 2017b).

Further, on average, from the year 2015-2017, most (33%) interstate visitors tend to be within the oldest demographic of age 65 and older, while intra-territory visitors were recorded to be either aged 15-29, or 40-54, accounting for 36% each of intra-territory tourists (Tourism NT, 2017b). Most (39%) international visitors were recorded in the youngest demographic of age 15-29 (Tourism NT, 2017b). Concerning the mode of transportation of visitors to the Katherine-Daly region over the three-year average of 2015 to 2017, Figure 5 below shows that the majority of visitors from the NT travelled by private vehicle or rental car, as did most inter-state visitors and international visitors (Tourism NT, 2017b).

Figure 5 Katherine-Daly Region Visitors' Mode of Transport (Tourism NT, 2017b, p. 5) These statistics from Figure 5 show that there is a strong leisure driving market in the Top End of the NT. The rise in leisure driving is inversely correlated with the number of overnight stays in the Katherine-Daly region, as reported by Tourism NT (2017b). They claim that the NT accounts for 57% of the leisure driving market in Australia, while 77% of domestic and international visitors combined are staying an average of three nights or less in the region (Tourism NT, 2017b).

109 On average, from 2015-2017, most international Katherine-Daly visitors (90%) travelled onto the Greater Darwin area, as did the majority of interstate (76%) and intra-territory tourists (6%) to the region.

Notably, the Daly-Thamarurr sub-region of the Katherine-Daly, where Pine Creek is located, ranked the third most visited within the region at 21% after Elsey (25%), where Elsey National Park is located (approximately 180km SE of Nitmiluk and Katherine), and Katherine (55%), where the entrance to Katherine Gorge and Nitmiluk National Park is located. Most international visitors (40%) to the Daly- Thamarurr region stayed in a commercial caravan park or camping ground, while most interstate visitors stayed in other accommodation (31%), including “other non-commercial property such as free camping or roadside rest stops, private accommodation (not friends or family) guest houses/bed and breakfasts, accommodation in FIFO location, hospital-related accommodation and not stated”, and intra-territory visitors tended to stay in hotels (28%) (Tourism NT, 2017b, p. 8).

In terms of tourist activities within the region, Tourism NT (2017b) recorded that the majority of tourists to the Katherine-Daly region (from 2015-2017) tended to dine out at restaurants, visit National Parks, visit family and friends, as well as engage in bushwalking activities. Tourism NT (2017b) further reports that visitation to Nitmiluk National Park and Edith Falls in the Katherine-Daly region have grown from 246,000 to 268,000 and 113,000 to 120,000 visitors, respectively, since 2015. As both attractions are within 100km of Pine Creek, these visitation numbers can be related to and explored within Pine Creek, which was not mention in the statistical analysis of Tourism NT (2018) or Tourism NT (2017b) but is explored in this study (see Chapter 8).

As seen from the reports of Tourism NT (2017b, 2018), Pine Creek is located in close proximity to some of the most visited tourism attractions in Australia, the Northern Territory and the Top End itself. Pine Creek’s proximity to these highly visited areas provide opportunities for developing tourism products that can be accessed by these surrounding markets. As a destination, Pine Creek boasts a unique and diverse tourism product as evident in its distinctive heritage; i.e., the history and culture of both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents of the area.

110 4.4.2 Current Tourism Products in Pine Creek, NT

Pine Creek is a small town with a current population of roughly 330 people (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2016). The town’s population dropped significantly in the late 1990s (by approximately 50%) when the gold mines located in the hill country around the town closed down. Since then, reflecting global trends in the transition from traditional industry to service industries, Pine Creek has diversified its economy by focusing increasingly on tourism and urban developments. These developments include the regular maintenance of museums, historical buildings, interpretive signs, accommodation and caravan parks, and other attractions, such as the Water Gardens and a small reptile house located in the Lazy Lizard Tourist Information Centre. In 2017, the town’s recreational centre and tennis courts were renovated and are open to the community as well as tourists visiting the town. Pine Creek also houses two petrol stations, which are important stopping points for tourists driving the vast distances between NT towns and cities.

The majority of tourism-based products and promotion in Pine Creek focus on the railway and mining heritage of the town. In the 1870s, the “Old Telegraph Line” was being developed in conjunction with the Old Railway Line” as a means of connecting the top of Australia to the South, namely the Top End of the NT down to Adelaide in South Australia (Pine Creek Railway Resort, 2018a). It was during these constructions that rich ore minerals, including gold, were discovered in Pine Creek, thereby opening up the area to European settlement over time (Pine Creek Railway Resort, 2018a). Many Chinese immigrants were employed to work the railway, telegraph lines and mines while also establishing settlements of their own in the area over time. This strong Chinese heritage is especially visible in old Chinatown located behind the southwestern hills of Pine Creek. This is where the Chinese immigrants used to mine for gold. The railway and mining tourism products tend to take the form of static displays of paraphernalia interpreted by plaques, which degrade over time (see Plate 5 below).

111

Plate 5 Fading Tourism Signage in Pine Creek There is also evidence of Aboriginal quarries around Pine Creek, as many of the local rocks and stones have been used for making tools, such as axes, for centuries by the Aboriginal groups of the area (Pine Creek Railway Resort, 2018a). According to the ABS, in 2016, 149 people in Pine Creek identified as Aboriginal, which accounts for approximately 45% of the Pine Creek population. With the extensive history and population of Aboriginal people in the town and surrounding area, there is a significant gap in the tourism product of Pine Creek where Aboriginal histories are not central to the town’s tourism heritage interpretation and the current tourism product.

There is one Aboriginal tourism feature in the town, which was constructed as a community-based school project in the early 2000s, called the “Walk Through Time”. This collection of mosaics depicts the cultural and historical heritage of Pine Creek over the years and includes the non-Aboriginal, colonial heritage of the town featuring prominent Pine Creek miners and pastoralists of the 1960s (Pine Creek Railway Resort, 2018b). The Walk Through Time feature is a static display showcasing Aboriginal plants and animals and non-Aboriginal history. Unfortunately, to illustrate the lack of attention given to this single Wagiman interpretation of country, this feature is disintegrating and obviously poorly maintained, as seen in Plate 6 below.

112

Plate 6 Crumbling Tourism Infrastructure - Walk Through Time In 2016, the local council replaced the signs on the historical buildings with newer versions; however, throughout the extended period of my research, nothing has yet been done to repair or renovate the Walk Through Time mosaics, leaving the one Aboriginal-focused tourism product wanting for revitalisation. Many of the Aboriginal members of the Pine Creek community have sought alternative means for engaging and developing tourism products that showcase their heritage, in their way, and in ways that can be sustainable for the long term.

4.4.3 Aboriginal Involvement in Tourism in Pine Creek

Of the 149 Aboriginal people residing in Pine Creek, most tend to identify as part of either the Jawoyn or Wagiman language groups (ABS, 2016; Pine Creek Railway Resort, 2018a). The Wagiman Elders consider Jawoyn land to be located on the eastern side of the Stuart Highway and old railway line, while Wagiman country is considered to be located on the western side of the highway and railway. However, these boundaries are blurry, and based on post-colonial structures and have continued to change and shift over time due to further colonisation and development in the area (Merlan, 1998; Stanner, 1979). These areas, which are significant to the Wagiman people of Pine Creek, were mapped in my research and can be seen in the fieldwork sites presented in Chapter 5.

The Aboriginal people mostly reside within two Aboriginal communities located in the Pine Creek area. One is situated on the north-eastern border of the main town

113 while another, Kybrook Farm, is located eight kilometres southwest of Pine Creek along Umbrawarra Road towards Umbrawarra Nature Park. Both communities have a fluctuating population of 25-60 occupants, who tend to move between Darwin, Katherine and Pine Creek throughout the year.

The research described in this thesis emerges from ongoing research and engagement with the Wagiman community. Since the late 1980s, my principal supervisor, Associate Professor Mark Harvey, has been working with the Wagiman Elders on linguistic and anthropological research to help pass on their language and knowledge to future generations and researchers. Based on the ARC Linkage Grant, the Wagiman people have expressed an interest in developing tourism products as an opportunity to pass on knowledge about Wagiman culture, including language and knowledge of the local landscape, flora and fauna, and Indigenous histories of the railway and droving.

As outlined in the ARC Linkage Grant proposal, this thesis and project concern Wagiman heritage specifically due to its unique representation of the area and lack of Wagiman-controlled tourism products and promotion opportunities, which are more available to the Jawoyn community who own and operate the successful tourist parks of Nitmiluk. The ARC Linkage Grant proposal entailed conversing with the Wagiman people of Pine Creek to develop digital materials aimed at generating tourist visitation to Pine Creek, while educating the public on the Wagiman peoples’ unique and vibrant knowledge, values, landscape and bioculture through virtual storytelling.

Following Foley (2008) regarding drivers in Indigenous tourism (as discussed in section 1.3.1), my research with the Wagiman community seeks to provide options for community development and empowerment as, currently, the main means for economic income for the Indigenous communities of Pine Creek are typically provided through welfare or the Wagiman (Guwardagun) Ranger Program. This research is spearheaded by the Pine Creek community and supported by the PCAAA, in Kybrook Farm, the Wagiman (Guwardagun) Ranger Program of the NLC, as well as the Australian Aboriginal Protection Authority (AAPA) and Ethnobiology department of the NT government in Darwin.

My research in Pine Creek is also supported by a comparative analysis to Aboriginal tourism development and management in Southwest Victoria. As part

114 of the ARC grant, a comparison study between the level of Aboriginal control in tourism initiatives in Pine Creek and Southwest Victoria may aid in providing further insight into sustainable tourism development for Indigenous tourism in Australia.

4.5 Conclusion

As discussed above, as part of the ARC Linkage Grant, the Wagiman residents decided to explore options for increasing tourist visitation to country and sharing their culture with tourists. The Wagiman indicated an interest in developing a product that was virtual, and accessible digitally using maps and on websites. In my results discussion chapter, Chapter 10, I draw on the work carried out in Tower Hill and Geriwerd where their cultural centres’ websites were developed for disseminating knowledge about their country and culture to tourists. The main purpose of these websites is to provide information about how to get to the parks, where to stay, the natural and cultural history of the area, including European history, as well as the Aboriginal significance of the plants, animals and landscape of the regions.

In the chapters that follow, I present data on how my research project in Pine Creek included developing practical outcomes for the Wagiman community through the construction of digital maps and websites of their stories, which was completed as part of my PhD project and published in 2017. In addition to the type of information provided in the Southwest Victoria websites, the websites I developed with the Wagiman also include post-colonial history and cultural information from a Wagiman perspective; i.e., Wagiman people taking the railroad between Pine Creek and Darwin as well as histories about their lives on cattle stations and camping throughout the country on holiday. Such digital options for tourism involvement and engagement is an overarching focus and contribution of my thesis and my research with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek. The specific details of the methods of this study, including how I engaged with the Wagiman community, the non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek, and tourists visiting the town, are explored in the following chapter.

115 CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY

“I speak language to you, you learn. I’ll show you country. I’ll teach you Wagiman way.”

- Theresa Banderson, Wagiman Elder of Pine Creek

5.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the “Wagiman way” of conducting research and tourism development on country. As discussed in Chapter 4, the Wagiman community of Pine Creek is in close proximity to major tourism attractions in the Northern Territory of Australia. These attractions include the Kakadu and Nitmiluk National Parks, both of which have become iconic Aboriginal tourism sites in the Top End, a result of their co-ownership and co-management with local Aboriginal groups, such as the Jawoyn people.

In this chapter, I outline the research design and research methods used to engage with Wagiman community members and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek, NT. I also outline methods used to gain an understanding of tourist motivations and experiences in Pine Creek. These methods are discussed to frame the theoretical and practical outputs of this study and the broader ARC Linkage Grant project.

5.2 Research Participants, Methods and Tools

Following the literature reviewed and presented to develop a methodological framework (outlined in Chapter 3), it was found that Indigenous-led tourism research and development methodologies were most appropriate for working with Indigenous communities, such as the Wagiman community of Pine Creek.

All fieldwork was conducted during the dry winter months of June-August in 2015, 2016 and 2017 (see seasonal calendar in Plate 4 in Chapter 4) owing to the temperate weather and climate during this time, which was a favourable time of

116 year for the Wagiman Elders to travel through the bush, show people country and document their teachings.

Following the previous work of the principal investigator of this study, Harvey (1991, 1999, 2011) and Liddy et al. (2006), as well as the Indigenous methodologies described by Lepp (2007, 2008), Tuhiwai-Smith (2012), Stanner (1979) and Cole (2007) in the previous chapters, interviews with the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek took two forms: semi-structured, recorded interviews; and informal, in situ conversational interviews, which were documented in the form of note-taking with the permission of the interviewees. Most of the informal, in situ interviews, as well as audio-recorded, formal interviews were used for the purpose of providing data for the thesis. All formal, video-recorded interviews were used to provide content for the websites and maps, as well as data for the thesis. Table 2 illustrates the formal and informal recordings of fieldwork from 2015-2017.

Importantly, many of the informal interviews with the Wagiman people took place during lunch in the bush (i.e., "on country") as well as road trips while I was driving. Therefore, recordings could not be made as the Wagiman people wanted to simply talk during the meals and I had to drive while talking with the Wagiman people and could not record at the same time. These interviews were later recorded through note-taking, either during lunch or after driving had finished for the day.

Notably, many of these conversations with the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek in 2017 focused on generating feedback on the websites and maps and publishing them online. Therefore, many of these conversations were casual and included more participant observation methods, such as note- taking and photo-taking, rather than formal interview recording.

117 Table 2 Recorded Resident Interviews of 2015-2017

Thesis Data Thesis Data and Product Content

Non-Aboriginal Wagiman Non-Aboriginal Wagiman

2015 - Alistair and - Beth in the park (audio) - Elijah at the - Jimmy, Irene and Tammy at Ooloo Fieldwork Gaye in the - Debbie and Peggy at Peggy’s store, - Jimmy, Irene and Tammy at Grove Hill, library house (audio) bakehouse, Burrundie, Ban Ban and Tamarind Creek (audio) - Debbie and Tammy in the and (video) - Amy at her park (audio) Chinatown - Jimmy, Irene and Tammy Claravale Road house - Debbie at Debbie’s house (audio and and Crossing (video) (audio) (audio) video) - Jimmy, Irene and Tammy Umbrawarra Road - Jimmy and Irene in the park and Gorge and Caravan Park (audio and (audio) video) - Jimmy, Irene and Tammy at - Jimmy, Irene and Tammy at Cornpatch Grove Hill, Burrundie, Ban - Lenny and Mark in Katherine (video) Ban and Tamarind Creek - Jimmy, Irene and Tammy at Djuwaliyn (audio) (video) - Jimmy, Irene and Tammy - Tammy and Vikki at Pine Creek Railway Umbrawarra Road and Gorge Museum and railroad (video) and Caravan Park (audio) - Tammy, Vikki and Shelly at Black Cat (video) - Penny at PCAAA (audio) - Tammy, Vikki Shelly and again with Sally at Cornpatch (video)

118 - Tammy at Tammy’s house (audio) - Tammy, Irene, Shelly and Vikki at Umbrawarra Road Gorge and Caravan Park (audio) - Jimmy, Irene and Tammy at Djuwaliyn (audio) - Tammy, Vikki, and Shelly at Tammy’s house (audio) 2016 - Elijah at - Debbie at Debbie’s house - Jimmy at the bogey hole (video) Fieldwork the store (audio) - Tammy and Irene corroborees, Gungarak (audio) - Debbie, Jimmy, Louis and dreaming and Tammy’s birthplace (video) Tammy (video but no audio as - Tammy and Louis at Emerald Springs, Hayes this was turned off, notes were Creek, Butterfly Gorge and Djuwaliyn (video) taking after the conversation - Tammy and Louis at Grove Hill, Willywagtail in order to keep a record of the Dreaming, Hawkhide and Burrundie road interview) (video) - Louis at Butterfly Gorge (video - Jimmy, Irene, Tammy and Louis Gungarak camera battery died so used Dreaming and Claravale Road (video) audio recording here)

119 - Penny at PCAAA (audio) - Irene, Tammy and Louis Adelaide River and - Tammy at the Laundromat Old Highway (video) (audio) - Louis and Tammy at Cornpatch, Douglas- - Tammy at her house (audio) Daly and Rixon Station (video) - Tammy and Louis at Emerald - Louis and Tammy at Custard Apple, Airstrip, Springs, Hayes Creek, Water and Old Highway (video) Butterfly Gorge and Djuwaliyn - Louis and Tammy at the Northern Territory (video and audio) Wildlife Park (NTWP) (video) - Louis and Tammy at Dorisvale Station (video) 2017 - Jimmy Tammy and Debbie on - Jimmy Tammy and Debbie on Claravale Fieldwork Claravale Road (video and Road (video and audio) audio) - Tammy at Tammy’s house (video and audio) - Tammy at Tammy’s house - Tammy, Jimmy, Vikki and Sally Old Highway (video and audio) and Adelaide River (video by Vikki and me) - Jimmy, Tammy, Vikki along Ban Ban Springs road and station and Grove Hill (video by Vikki and me) - Jimmy Tammy and Andrew along Ban Ban Springs and Burrundie road (video)

120 Participant observation was also used to understand the lived experiences of the residents and tourists at Pine Creek, which were recorded through photo and note-taking following the ethnographic research literature (see section 2.5.3).

From 2015-2017, eleven Wagiman people engaged in semi-structured interviews, informal interviews and participant observations. Of these eleven interviewees, six identified as Wagiman Elders. In Aboriginal culture, an Elder is a leader and well-established, older member of the community or language group who safeguards the country, knowledge and heritage of the group. Also involved in interviews were seven non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek who were involved in semi-structured interviews and informal interviews, and participant observations in this study’s research. Interviews were recorded using audio- recording and video camera devices.

After working with the Wagiman community during the three fieldwork periods in 2015, 2016 and 2017, a total of 165 video/audio recordings and 150 sites were mapped. The mapped sites were uploaded to the tourism and WCHA websites that I created as part of the research and ARC Linkage Grant project outcomes. These recordings and maps were uploaded to Vimeo, Google Maps and the websites for tourists and the Wagiman community to view for many years to come.

Additionally, following the works of Hunter (2014) and “PPGIS.net” (2017) (discussed in Chapter 2), as well as previous work carried out by Associate Professor Harvey with the Wagiman peoples (Harvey, 1991, 1999, 2011, 2016; Liddy et al., 2006), the NLC and the AAPA, GIS data was also recorded with the Wagiman community as part of my study and ARC Linkage Grant. The “GPS tour” app was used to collect GIS data while Google Maps/Google Earth Professional were used to analyse the GIS data and present it on the websites. The websites were created using the website development platform wix.com. Reasons why these particular platforms were selected stem from the results relating to local use and knowledge of digital media, which are presented in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of this thesis.

The Vimeo video channel platform was used to present the video and audio- recordings on the digital maps and websites since they provide an accurate and inexpensive transcription/subtitle service, which is useful for data collection,

121 analysis and for convenient use and education for tourists and the Wagiman community. Following Cardamone and Rentschler (2006), and their study concerning multi-media use, the websites contain options for Aboriginal viewers to engage with the knowledge online via text, video and audio. The transcription/subtitle services provide opportunities for various digital engagement options online as the videos can be viewed and understood with or without sound. The text-based data of subtitles could be provided in conjunction with multimedia data for the Wagiman community and other researchers to use for language documentation and heritage conservation research purposes.

As part of the fieldwork for this study, observations were made during the attendance of two NLC meetings in Djuwaliyn in 2015 and Pine Creek in 2016 where both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek, Katherine, Darwin and surrounds were also in attendance. Further, while located off-site and outside of fieldwork visits, virtual contributions, consultations and observations concerning the earlier version of the tourism website were made during and after a Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association (PCHTA) meeting in 2016 where Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek, Katherine and surrounds were physically present. The results of this meeting and second website stem from engagement with the community and are explored further in Chapter 6, Chapter 7 and Chapter 8.

During the fieldwork in Pine Creek in 2015, 2016 and 2017, a total of 265 tourist surveys were also collected and analysed. Following the survey formats of Tourism NT (2014, 2017b, 2018) and TRA (2017b) (discussed in Chapter 4), the paper-based surveys of tourists in Pine Creek consisted of twenty questions regarding: tourist demographics; where they were coming from in the NT; who with; their reason for travelling; their transportation, their accommodation; the (technological) devices they used and social media platforms they engaged with to locate information when travelling in general as well as to Pine Creek; what sites they were visiting in the town and the surrounding area; and where they are travelling within the NT. The results from the surveys were analysed using Survey Monkey and Microsoft Excel.

While visiting Darwin and Katherine, paper-based, electronic and photographic GIS, ethnobiology and ethnographic data were collected from AAPA, Glenn

122 Wightman, the Northern Territory Archives, the Darwin National Library, the Northern Territory Wildlife Park and the Katherine Tourism Board to support this thesis and the ARC Linkage Grant project’s methods, websites and mapping content.

These field visits and data materials were provided with the express permission of the communities, who are the owners and knowledge keepers of the information, heritage and the significance within. They were also approved by the HREC (H-2015-0038) and follow their ethics guidelines (Human Research Ethics Committee, 2015) as well as those of AIATSIS (2012).

The use of desktop materials and research from Southwest Victoria regarding the Djab wurrung, Worn Gundidj and Brambuk communities of the region and the tourism histories, impacts and developments of the area are supportive of this study’s fieldwork in Pine Creek. The seventy-five paper-based marketing materials collected for content analysis of Indigenous tourism marketing in the southwest region of Victoria, as well as photographic data from site visits support the findings of this thesis regarding Aboriginal interpretation of culture and heritage in tourism in Pine Creek, which can be found in Appendix Q.

I also use the websites of Tower Hill and Geriwerd’s cultural centres to make implications for website redevelopment in the area, as well as website development for the Wagiman community in Pine Creek, NT. I also engaged in conversations with the Djab wurrung Elders, VACL, VICNAMES and OGN, and analysed the paper-based and electronic materials from these entities, to support my findings. The Victorian visits and resources helped to inform the methodologies and development practices related to tourism for the town of Pine Creek.

Table 3, below, illustrates a timeline of research and fieldwork for the PhD thesis and ARC Linkage Grant. The table helps introduce the people I interviewed, the resources used, plus other research activities that I conducted that were relevant to the study. Table 3 below also shows the fieldwork approach used to address the aims of this study in accelerating Indigenous methodologies in tourism research as well as providing options for Aboriginal engagement in the tourism sector

123 Table 3 PhD Fieldwork Timeline and Activities

Fieldwork Fieldwork Location Interviews with Interviews Other Fieldwork Activities Time Aboriginal with Non- Period Residents Aboriginal Residents

July 2014: - Ballarat, Victoria 2 informal n/a - Collection of desktop research materials in

2 weeks - Tower Hill Wildlife interviews – Victorian Aboriginal tourism history as well as Reserve, Victoria participant microtoponymy, place names and (P)PGIS - Geriwerd National observations research Park, Victoria with managers of - Site visits to Tower Hill and Geriwerd cultural cultural centres centres to assess Aboriginal interpretation of culture and heritage at the centres as well as the level of authenticity and commodification of heritage in their tourism products. - Inventoried cultural interpretation and condition at Tower Hill (see Plate 10 and Plate 14) and Geriwerd (see Plate 11, Plate 12 and Plate 15). July – - Darwin, NT 11 Wagiman 7 - Inventoried tourism interpretation and condition in August - Pine Creek, NT people Pine Creek.( see Plate 2, Plate 3, Plate 5, and 2015: and its surrounds ( Plate 6) see Map 7 )

124 7 weeks - Katherine, NT 6 of which were 3 of which - Attended a Northern Land Council Meeting and Wagiman Elders were lunch at Djuwaliyn Hot Springs where the Jawoyn

1 of which was informal Tourism Minster from Katherine was present and informal welcomed to country by the Wagiman Elders. I received my welcome to country during this meeting as well.5 - In Darwin, met with APAA, Glenn Wightman of the Herbarium, the NT Archives and Darwin Library for additional desktop research resources. - Assessed the Aboriginal interpretation of culture and Pine Creek information available at the Katherine Tourist Information Centre July- - Darwin, NT 5 Wagiman 5 - Conducted a tourist survey of 119 tourists in Pine

September - Pine Creek, NT people 4 of which Creek and Katherine Tourist Information Centre. 2016: and surrounds ( 4 of which were were - Attended a Northern Land Council meeting at the 8 weeks see Map 8 ) Wagiman Elders informal Pine Creek recreational centre about local native - Katherine, NT land titles and claims.

5 Welcome to country for the Wagiman people means being blessed by the Elders as water from the hot springs in poured into the Elders’ hands and patted on your head while he/she sings his/her blessing. This is to “protect you from country” as you are an outsider being welcomed onto Wagiman country.

125 - Conducted informal interviews coupled with participant observations regarding Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents’ technology use. October - Ballarat, Victoria 2 informal n/a - Collected 75 marketing materials at the tourist 2016: - Melbourne, interviews and information centre in Ballarat for content analysis

1 week Victoria participant of Aboriginal interpretation and Aboriginal related - Penshurst, observations content in the region and state’s tourism Victoria with the Djab promotional materials at the centre Wurrung Elder - Met with Laura Kostanski of VICNAMES to go and his son who over thesis outline and possible draft of manages placenames paper for separate publication. Brambuk

June- - Darwin, NT 5 Wagiman 7 - Conducted another round of tourist surveys of 146

August - Pine Creek, NT people 4 of which tourists to Pine Creek, totalling the tourist survey 2017: and surrounds ( 3 of which were were count of 2016-2017 to 265 tourist surveys 8 weeks see Map 9) Elders informal altogether. - Katherine, NT - Conducted more informal interviews and participant observations with the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek regarding their technology use. The responses from 2016

126 and 2017 were placed into a table and placed into Survey Monkey for analysis. - Conducted a community meeting which resulted in the launch of the tourism website: Visit Pine Creek as well as the Wagiman Community Heritage Archive site (WCHA) - Created training materials for the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal community to use in order to: 1.) conduct more fieldwork in my absence 2.) upload and manage content to the tourism and WCHA websites - Trained Wagiman people in video-taping, interviewing and developing/managing websites.

127 5.3 Fieldwork in Wagiman Country

During Pine Creek fieldwork, selective and snowball sampling methods were used to recruit participants to this study based on the previous methods used by the principal investigator and his linguistic research with the community (Liamputtong, 2009; Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012; Yuling, 2011). For instance, Wagiman Elders and non-Aboriginal business owners who had conducted previous research with Associate Professor Harvey were interviewed, and they then recommended other participants in the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities to talk to about tourism and heritage. The Wagiman Elders who had been involved in Associate Professor Harvey's earlier linguistic research led this study’s research process and brought other Wagiman people, mainly family members, along to engage in this study’s research and tourism developments.

The recorded, formal interviews with the Wagiman Elders followed the proposals of Tuhiwai-Smith (2012) in that Wagiman research methodologies led the interview processes. The Elders recorded their teachings through yarning (a storytelling methodology, see Chapter 3) while on-site across Wagiman country in order to share these teachings with Wagiman people, other residents of Pine Creek and tourists.

5.3.1 2015 Pine Creek Fieldwork

From June to August 2015, I conducted interviews with the following residents of Pine Creek:

 5 Wagiman Elders  3 Wagiman residents (Aged >45)  3 Wagiman residents (Aged <45)  4 Non-Aboriginal people (Aged >45)  3 Non-Aboriginal people (Aged <45). As discussed above, these interviews took the form of both formal, recorded (audio/video) semi-structured interviews, as well as informal, conversational participant observations, which involved some note-taking. Recordings of the formal interviews were used for two purposes: (1) generating content for the

128 tourism website and maps, these tended to focus on local heritage; or, (2) collecting qualitative data on Wagiman and non-Aboriginal perceptions of tourism and their desires for alternative tourism options, such as digital integration of Wagiman knowledge onto Google Maps and websites.

Recordings of the formal interviews tended to take place in the surrounding country, or bush, of Pine Creek with the Wagiman residents. When interviewing the non-Aboriginal residents, we tended to stay in the town of Pine Creek. Recordings of the informal interviews tended to take place in town as well as in the surrounding areas of Pine Creek with the Wagiman residents. Again, non- Aboriginal residents also tended to stay in Pine Creek for these types of interviews. The reasons why the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents were interviewed either in town or in the surrounding areas varied with the topic of discussion as well as the connection to country, and this is explored further in the results of Chapter 6. Table 4 highlights the specific people interviewed during fieldwork in 2015.

Table 4 Interviews of 2015 Fieldwork

People Interviewed: Formal (audio/video recorded) and Informal (observation/note-taking) Wagiman Elders Residents Residents Over 45 years of Under 45 years of age age Tammy Vikki Bridget Jimmy Peggy Shelly Debbie Richard (informal ) Penny Louis Irene Non- Residents Residents Aboriginal Over 45 Years of Age Under 45 Years of Age Gloria Alistair Elijah Amy Anonymous6 (informal) Brian (informal interview) Ronald (informal)

6 This participant requested that their data be presented anonymously in the thesis.

129 Throughout the 2015 fieldwork period, Wagiman Elders took me on visits to various sacred sites, dreaming sites, cattle stations and camping grounds that are significant sites for the Wagiman people. These places are where Tammy, Jimmy, Irene and their family members had been born, grown up, lived, worked and/or died. Some of these sites are also heritage-listed sites and marked as tourist attractions in the Pine Creek area. The heritage-listed sites in and around Pine Creek are managed by the National Heritage Trust of the Northern Territory Government, a government-based organisation that provides the interpretive signs at the heritage sites and buildings in and around Pine Creek. The deterioration of these signs is noticeable and was previously discussed in Chapter 4 (see Plate 5).

Tammy, Jimmy and Irene led me on these field trips as they had the most knowledge of the area and were available and willing to lead the research process "out bush". Debbie sometimes joined us, but she was also busy working at PCAAA in Kybrook and is involved the Wagiman Ranger Program at Lewin Springs (discussed above). Whenever Jimmy was working, Tammy and her daughter, Vikki, and her granddaughter, Shelly, came on visits to places that were of interest to them. Most of the trips were led and guided by the Wagiman Elders who would also decide where to go the next day after the end of a trip. If a specific place was in mind, the Wagiman Elders were asked to visit those particular sites, otherwise they were asked of the places they would like to visit, and they would decide on the trip for the following day. Table 5 below highlights the sites visited on the 2015 field trips in and around the Pine Creek area. The specific locations of these sites have been deliberately left out of Table 5 as well as unlabelled in Map 7, at the discretion and wishes of the Wagiman community, especially sacred and dreaming sites. It is common practice that only people who have already been taken on-site by the Elders, and only people of certain genders, are allowed to visit and know about particular sacred sites (Stanner, 1979)

130 Table 5 Fieldwork Sites 2015

Sites Visited in 2015 with the Wagiman Residents of Pine Creek7 Sacred Sites Dreaming Sites Cattle Stations Camping Grounds Tourist Attractions Other - Douglas- - Black Eagle/Diwana - Ooloo Station - Black Cat - Umbrawarra Gorge - Katherine Daly Hot Dreaming - Ban Ban - Ooloo Crossing Caravan Park Hospital ( to Springs/ - Shooting Star Springs - Douglas Daly - Pine Creek Railway interview Louis) Djuwaliyn Dreaming - Bonrook Tourist Museum - Tammy’s house - Bat/Jiniminy Dreaming Station Park/Cornpatch - Douglas Daly - Debbie’s house - Eye Dreaming - Claravale - Hayes Creek Tourist - Peggy’s house - Man/Nyappo Dreaming Station - Tamarind Creek Park/Cornpatch - Turtle Dreaming - Old Claravale - Bonrook Station - Hayes Creek - Man’s foot /Nyappo Homestead - Claravale - Old Grove Hill Dreaming - Rocky Crossing Pub/Hotel - Cod Dreaming Station - Shilling Hole - Douglas-Daly Hot - Burrundie Springs/ Djuwaliyn - Flat Rock Sites Visited in 2015 with the Non-Aboriginal Residents of Pine Creek - Ah Toys Store, Pine - Amy’s house Creek - Lazy Lizard - Pine Creek Old Tavern Bakehouse - Pine Creek - Chinatown Mining Plant

7 Sites listed under the National Heritage Trust are: Burrundie; Pine Creek Railway Museum; Old Grove Hill Pub; Ah Toys Store; Old Bakehouse; and Chinatown. All dreaming and sacred sites are listed with AAPA.

131

Map 7 Pine Creek and Surrounds 2015 Fieldwork Location Throughout the 2015 fieldwork and visits to country with the Wagiman Elders, twenty-three sites were visited and approximately sixty video/audio recordings were made for creating digital options for the Wagiman Elders to record and tell their stories, the purpose of these recording being to teach younger generations of Wagiman people over time8, as well as an interpretative method for teaching tourists about the area.

Following the research on existential authenticity by Wang (1999) and others (see section 1.4.1), this study includes a focus on post-colonial heritage of Wagiman people in Pine Creek, and the surrounding area, as well as their traditional knowledge of plants and animals and sacred or dreaming sites. Post-colonial heritage of non-Aboriginal people is the central component of the current tourism infrastructure of Pine Creek. Therefore, this study aims to bring an Aboriginal focus and lens to the current post-colonial tourism infrastructure of the town. The post-colonial history of cattle droving, gold mining and the railway are strong components of the social and historical fabric of the local identity and economic

8 GPS coordinates for the video and audio recordings were collected using the “GPS Tour” app. These coordinates were then inputted into Google Maps and given text-based metadata, such as a title, a description and a link to the video/audio recording on Vimeo if applicable. Some coordinates also contain photos that I took with the Wagiman peoples while on-site.

132 systems of this part of the Top End for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents alike (see Chapter 4). This inclusion of an Aboriginal lens to the current tourism infrastructure of Pine Creek also follows the discussion regarding diversification of tourism products by Hinch and Butler (2007), Jacobsen (2017) and Simonsen (2006) in Chapter 2.

As also established above, Pine Creek is known for its post-colonial heritage in gold mining, uranium mining, tin mining as well as railway and telegraph construction in the Top End during the 1800s. Much of these endeavours were carried out by Chinese migrants who worked the mines and railway during this era. Extensive knowledge about Chinese heritage and local, post-colonial history of Pine Creek lies with the non-Aboriginal resident Elijah and his family who have lived in the area for several generations. Elijah and his family have been local celebrities for decades, and regularly appear on television and radio programs, as well as other media channels, that report on the history of Pine Creek.

Non-Aboriginal residents, such as Elijah, were also invited to be interviewed for the project and to contribute to the website and its video, audio and mapping content regarding local heritages, histories and identities. Following the collaborative approaches of Morley (2014) and Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) and the digitisation of knowledge in Forristal et al. (2011), Cardamone and Rentschler (2006) and Christen (2005, 2006), the purpose of the tourism website is to unite an otherwise marginalised, and promotionally static and fragmented, host community through an integrated and collaborative marketing scheme that promotes any and all heritages of the Pine Creek area.

Thus, during my 2015 fieldwork period, approximately twenty-one video/audio recordings were conducted with Elijah, a non-Aboriginal, Chinese resident and leader in the Pine Creek community. Elijah is one of the last remaining knowledge-keepers of Chinese heritage in the Top End of the NT. The video and audio recordings with Elijah are now available on the tourism website. His recordings focus on our visit to Chinatown, which is located on the southern outskirts of the town, which are also visible in Map 7.

The focus of the 2015 fieldwork was primarily on collecting Wagiman-based data for creating maps and websites. The other main focus of the 2015 visit was to

133 explore the desire and capability of the communities in developing a tourism website that promotes and conserves their heritage.

Thus, during the 2015 fieldwork, I was also involved in meetings with the Town Council where council members were consulted about the ARC Linkage Grant project and thesis project. The meetings were mainly attended by the non- Aboriginal community, but one of my study participants, Violet, a Wagiman Elder, was also there representing PCAAA and the Wagiman Ranger Program. Everyone was interested in the project and wanted to participate and support it as much as they could, given their respective knowledge of the area’s heritage and role within the council and tourism industry of the town.

It was also during this 2015 visit that some time was spent in Darwin meeting with:

 Glenn Wightman, the ethnobiologist on the ARC Linkage Grant who provided some reading material and good insights into how to develop a good format for sharing ethnobiology knowledge on a website;  The AAPA, who granted access to previous research data and publication with the Wagiman Elders and the Pine Creek area. This data included maps and Wagiman placenames of the area, as well as audio recordings of previous on-site visits with past Wagiman Elders, such as Jimmy’s father, Jimmy Sr., and Debbie’s father, Paulie;  The Northern Territory Archives and National Library of Darwin where data from past research in the area was found and included maps, coordinates, placenames, audio recordings, publications and notes about Aboriginal, Wagiman and non-Aboriginal histories, interrelationships and tourism developments in the Pine Creek area over the past fifty years. I also found these data resources in the Pine Creek Library along with a PhD thesis from research conducted on Aboriginal histories of Pine Creek in the 1990s. These fieldwork tasks and methods created a foundation for Wagiman-led and community-based research and tourism development for the town of Pine Creek. These components of my study were explored further during the 2016 fieldwork research, which incorporated more linguistic and anthropology-based methods and tasks in recording and yarning about placenames. My return to the field was

134 important for several reasons and meant that I could engage with more community members. For example, Louis, one of the Wagiman Elders, was sick in Katherine during 2015, but was back home and ready to commence fieldwork with me in 2016. Louis has had extensive experience working in anthropological and linguistics research with Associate Professor Harvey over the past thirty years.

5.3.2 2016 Pine Creek Fieldwork

Following the contextualised research of Flynn (1984, 1987, 2007) and emphasising Stanner’s (1979) important point regarding working on-site with Aboriginal people, in 2016, I spent the dry winter months of July to September recording more stories on-site with five Wagiman Elders; namely, Louis, Tammy, Jimmy, Ivy and Debbie. However, Jimmy and Irene, who I interviewed in 2015, were working more with Debbie on the Wagiman Ranger Program in 2016 and so were not as available for bush trips this year.

Associate Professor Harvey was working closely with Louis in 2016, as Louis was now out of hospital and living back in the Pine Creek “town camp”. Louis still needed to use a wheelchair when getting in and out of the car during on-site visits in 2016, but most of the research this year was spent in the car with Louis, Mark and Tammy. During this time, we visited some of the same places as in 2015, but we also visited new areas of interest as well that Mark and Louis wanted to see and record stories about based on their previous linguistic, ethnobiological and (micro) toponymy research of the area. Tammy was also interested in these places and thought of other places for us to visit during our time spent with Louis and Mark.

The 2016 fieldwork covered areas of linguistic and placename interest this year, which were important to Louis and Tammy and their lives spent “out bush” as young pastoral industry workers. Louis has more linguistic knowledge about the placenames, sacred sites, histories and plants and animals than the other Wagiman Elders and is considered to be one of the last remaining fluent speakers of the Wagiman language within the community. Mark and Louis had worked together in the past, going on-site to areas of significance to Louis and his family.

135 Those sites were revisited this year with the help of Tammy who added more context from her life, experiences and stories to the linguistic, cultural, historical and environmental/biological research of the area. Louis and Tammy directed where to go, what to record, and how to say and interpret certain names, words and environmental features and creatures in Wagiman that are integral to the cultural landscapes.

From July to September 2016, interviews with the residents of Pine Creek included:

 5 Wagiman Elders  3 Wagiman people (<45 years of age)  3 non-Aboriginal residents (>45 years of age)  2 non-Aboriginal residents (<45 years of age). The specific people who were interviewed in Pine Creek throughout my 2016 fieldwork can be seen in Table 6 below

Table 6 Interviews of 2016 Fieldwork

People Interviewed: Formal (audio/video recorded) and Informal (observation/note-taking) Wagiman Elders Residents Over Residents 45 years of age Under 45 years of age Tammy Vikki (informal) Penny Jimmy Sally (informal) Debbie Louis Irene Non- Residents Residents Aboriginal Over 45 Years of Age Under 45 Years of Age Gloria (informal) Alistair (informal) Elijah Amy (informal) Anonymous (informal)

136 Consultations with Wagiman people in the 2016 period of fieldwork also focused on the development of the websites, but none of the younger Wagiman people engaged on-site on trips “out bush” this year as they were either busy working in the Wagiman Ranger Program, or were working and studying in Katherine or Darwin. Consultations occurred with the non-Aboriginal residents of the community about the format, style and content of the tourism website. None of the non-Aboriginal residents were interviewed this year regarding heritage, as they indicated that they had contributed as much as they wanted or could to the research in the first year about their knowledge and heritage in the area.

After collecting data, website and mapping content from my fieldwork in 2015, development on the tourism website and digital maps of Wagiman country began to be mapped on Google Maps and placed on wix.com with the video and audio recordings throughout 2016. Before returning to Pine Creek in June 2016, a draft of the tourism website, as well as a draft of a separate Wagiman archive, were developed to be shown to the community for feedback and further input. The implications for creating the second website are discussed in detail in Chapter 8.

In 2016, the second website, the Wagiman Community Heritage Archive (WCHA), was put into development and, during interviews with the community, feedback was received from the older and younger Wagiman residents on what content they would like on there, how it should be designed and presented, and what could be seen by whom. The Wagiman Elders and other Wagiman participants provided feedback on the tourism website, as well as the WCHA, for further development to be discussed in the following year. Older and younger Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents were interviewed and consulted in 2016 regarding their feedback on both the websites’ content, layout and design as they had been developed further than last year.

During fieldwork from July to September 2016, eighty-nine sites were visited, and their stories recorded.9 Out of these eighty-nine sites and stories, seventy-two of the sites and stories were new areas and topics of interest compared to last year’s visits. These visits also included a visit to the Northern Territory Wildlife Park in

9 A Canon Legria video camera was also used this year, but this camera only recorded onto videotapes. These videotapes were later digitised onto my laptop and university computer and were uploaded onto Vimeo for sharing onto the tourism and Wagiman websites.

137 Darwin, where a staff member helped show Louis and Tammy around the enclosures and helped record their stories about the different animal species there. The 2016 on-site visits can be seen in Map 8 below. A list of the fieldwork sites visited in 2016 is provided in Table 7 below. Following the sites listed for 2015 in Table 5, the list for 2016 does not give specific locations owing to the discretion and wishes of the Wagiman community, especially regarding sacred and dreaming sites (for the same reasons as identified above). Labels have been left out of Map 8 below for the same reason.

Map 8 Pine Creek and Surrounds 2016 Fieldwork Locations

138 Table 7 Fieldwork Sites 2016

Sites Visited in 2016 with the Wagiman Residents of Pine Creek10 Sacred Sites Dreaming Sites Cattle Stations Camping Grounds Tourist Attractions Other - Douglas- - Rainstone Dreaming - Boning Yard - Sawmill camp and house - Northern Territory - Lewin Springs – Daly Hot - Fly Dreaming - Alex Rory - Custard Apple Wildlife Park: Wagiman Ranger Springs/ - Kangaroo/Garndalu Billabong - Medicine Camp Aquarium Station Djuwaliyn Dreaming - Sawmill - McDonald Airstrip - Northern Territory - Bloodwood - Mermaid/ - Joey Dreaming Stockyard Crossing Wildlife Park: Trees/ Bolomin Malingyin - Bat/Jiniminy Dreaming - Dorisvale - Emerald Springs Nocturnal House - Deadman Creek Dreaming - Bogey hole Dreaming Station - Hayes Creek - Northern Territory - Ironwood - Kangaroo - Blue Tongue - Emerald Springs - Douglas Daly Tourist Wildlife Park Trees/Nerran /Garndalu Lizard/Gungarak - Douglas Station Park/Cornpatch - Umbrawarra Gorge - Jimmy’s Dreaming Dreaming and Stockyard - Hayes Creek Caravan Park birthplace - Wormi Devil - Fenton Station - Butterfly Gorge - Emerald Springs - Tammy’s Dreamings - Ban Ban Springs - Tamarind Creek - Hayes Creek birthplace - Devil Dreaming - Claravale - Claravale Crossing - Butterfly Gorge - Tammy’s mum’s - Willywagtail Dreaming Station - Shilling Hole - Douglas Daly burial site - Billabong Dreaming - Rocky Station - Burrundie Tourist - Tammy’s house - King Brown/Jabuga - Old Banji/Rixon - Hawkhide Park/Cornpatch - Debbie’s house Dreaming Station - Possum camp - Hayes Creek - Rag Burning - Turtle Dreaming - Adelaide River - Bridge Creek - Old Grove Hill Corroborree - Green Ant Dreaming Rodeo - Green Ant Creek Pub/Hotel - Pine Creek - Mermaid Dreaming - Douglas Daly - Burrell Creek - Douglas-Daly Hot Corroborree - Old Man Foot/Nyappo Research Farm - Black Rocks Springs - McDonald Airstrip Dreaming - Low Bridge in Adelaide - Adelaide River Pub - Tammy’s place in - Shilling Hole River - Old Highway Adelaide River No Sites Visited in 2016 with the Non-Aboriginal Residents of Pine Creek

10 Sites listed under the National Heritage Trust are Burrundie and Old Grove Hill Pub. All dreaming and sacred sites are listed with AAPA.

139 My initial site visits in 2015 focused more on the Elder’s personal life stories and implications for tourism developments with little information about the dreaming sites there. However, in 2016, more information about these same sacred and dreaming sites was collected, as well as information about the ethnobiology and placename information of the surrounding areas. Personal life stories were also a major focus of my research in 2016, but more of the stories were from Louis’ perspective rather than Jimmy’s (as Jimmy was busy working on the Ranger Program in 2016). This is likely owing to Louis and Mark’s long-term standing with one another over the past thirty years of research and my recent work with Tammy in 2015 when we had shared stories about both our families, countries and cultures with one another and become friends along the way.

An additional part of the fieldwork of this study in 2016 was to distribute a survey to tourists, the purpose being to investigate motivations and experiences of tourists visiting Pine Creek. After receiving feedback from Pine Creek residents (who helped draft and administer the survey), the final survey (which included more technology-based questions as well as demographic analysis of Australian visitors) was developed. The 2016 and 2017 surveys can be found in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. The results of the surveys can be found in Appendix G.

Nine tourism businesses in Pine Creek assisted me in recruiting tourists visiting Pine Creek to take part in the survey. These businesses allowed me to leave recruitment flyers and paper copies of the survey at their establishments. Some locals also went a step further and actively helped administering the surveys to tourists. Recruitment of tourists took place at the following Pine Creek tourism establishments:

 Pussycat Flats Tourist Caravan Park  Diggers Rest Motel  Laundromat  Railway Museum  Lazy Lizard Grocery Store and Petrol Station  Mayse’s Café  Railway Resort

140  Pine Creek Museum  Katherine Tourist Information Centre. The employees at these establishments administered the surveys to tourists, but also provided me with feedback on how to improve the surveys and explore further details that they, as tourism operators, would like to know about their customers and markets. For example, an anonymous participant and accommodation owner in Pine Creek suggested that I add which state or territory Australian visitors were from. This addition to the survey could be beneficial to her business allowing her to know more specific details about the Australian, domestic tourist markets to her establishment and to the town in general. The community’s feedback on the 2016 tourist surveys was taken into account, as was the feedback from the tourists’ results. An amended survey was created and administered to tourists in 2017. This tourist survey can be found in Appendix F.

From July to September 2016, 119 tourists visiting the Pine Creek area completed the paper-based surveys, which were no more than one page long, front and back.11 The survey results were uploaded to Survey Monkey for analysis. The full analysis of the 2016 surveys can be found in Appendix G.

In early September 2016, meetings were held with AAPA and Glenn Wightman from the Herbarium in Darwin for further desktop research and the collection of resource materials in ethnobiology, placename/map data and previously recorded Wagiman stories in the area. I then returned to Newcastle to continue analysing the data and building the websites. I returned to Pine Creek for a final period of fieldwork in 2017, discussed below.

5.3.3 2017 Pine Creek Fieldwork

In October of 2016, only a few months after returning to Newcastle after my second period of fieldwork, news arrived that Louis had passed away. He was the most fluent speaker of the Wagiman language in the area and, therefore, the potential for further language research was limited. However, owing to his extensive research with Associate Professor Harvey and the recordings we made

11 Surveys were collected from July to mid-August. Tourist numbers began to decrease at the end of August, when the dry season ends and the build-up to the wet season begins.

141 together in 2016, Louis and the Wagiman language have the potential to live on through our digital tools and transmission of knowledge, heritage and language.

The few fluent speakers of Wagiman sometimes use the language among themselves, but it is fairly rare to hear it spoken nowadays. Some younger people are believed to have a passive understanding of the language; for instance, they can understand it when they hear it spoken, but they don't tend to speak it themselves. Similarly, Wagiman children tend to know only a few words. Most Wagiman people now communicate in Kriol, or Aboriginal English (Wilson, Knowledge Management Group, & Ministry of Social Development, 2001).

For this reason, higher instances of Kriol/Aboriginal English were used in my research with the members of the Wagiman community of Pine Creek. The Elders would speak the language among themselves, interspersing it with Kriol/ Aboriginal English, but the children and grandchildren tended to only speak Wagiman when the Elders spoke it. Even then, the children and grandchildren did not speak Wagiman much and used more Kriol and Aboriginal English to converse with the Elders.

Upon returning to Pine Creek for my final fieldwork period in June 2017, I had completed the website development, which involves two separate websites (discussed in Chapter 7) and had been completed for final feedback from the community. Prior to making the websites "live" was the transfer of website management to the community as well. I showed the research participants, both Wagiman and non-Aboriginal, how to use the maps and videos, both in town and on country.

During my fieldwork period in 2017, I interviewed the following residents of Pine Creek:

 3 Wagiman Elders  4 Wagiman residents (>45 years of age)  6 Wagiman residents (< 45 years of age)  5 Non-Aboriginal residents (>45 years of age)  3 Non-Aboriginal residents (< 45 years of age). Table 8 below illustrates the specific people who I interviewed in my third and final period of fieldwork in 2017.

142 Table 8 Interviews of 2017 Fieldwork People Interviewed: Formal (audio/video recorded) and Informal (observation/note-taking) Wagiman Elders Residents Residents Over 45 Years of Age Under 45 Years of Age Tammy Vikki Penny Jimmy Beth Shelly Debbie Ron Jessica Vanessa Rick Andrew Sally (informal) Non-Aboriginal Residents Residents Over 45 Years of Age Under 45 Years of Age Gloria Alistair Elijah Amy Anonymous Bobby (informal) Lisa Ben

143 My time in the field in 2017 was spent finalising the websites in consultation with the community, as well as training the younger Wagiman how to record stories of their Elders. For example, after Vikki had learned from me how to record Jimmy and Tammy’s stories, she joined us on many other trips “out bush” recording stories, and later she started to ask them questions as I had done in previous road trips. This allowed for more knowledge-sharing between both me, the researcher, and the community in bond-forming and skill-training, which, in turn, allowed for more Wagiman people to control and lead the interview process by the end of this trip (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 3).

From June to August 2017, I revisited twelve sites and visited twenty-one new sites for the purpose of recording stories, as seen in Map 9 and Table 9 below. Again, neither the table nor the map below indicate detailed locations of particular sites, especially sacred and dreaming sites, under the discretion of the Wagiman community.

Map 9 Pine Creek and Surrounds 2017 Fieldwork Location

144 Table 9 Fieldwork Sites 2017

Sites Visited in 2017 with the Wagiman Residents of Pine Creek12 Sacred Sites Dreaming Sites Cattle Stations Camping Grounds Tourist Other Attractions - Douglas- - Frog/Jabarlng Dreaming - Old - Peanut - Adelaide - Lewin Springs – Daly Hot - Black Wallaroo Dreaming Claravale Farm/Yumbarnyang River Pub Wagiman Ranger Springs/ - Kangaroo/Garndalu Dreaming Homestead - Shilling Hole - Old Station Djuwaliyn - Diver Duck/Barrakbarrakjang - Ban Ban - Green Ant Creek Highway - Firesticks or Chicken - Kangaroo/G Dreaming Springs - Bridge Creek - Umbrawarra hawk/Garrkkany arndalu - Shilling Hole Station - Grove Hill Gorge - Axe Rocks Dreaming - Green Ant Hill Dreaming - Burrundie - Old Grove - Freshwater - Black Eagle/Diwana - Flat Rock Hill Pub Crocodile/Yakba Dreaming - Burrundie Flower13 - Brolga Billabong - Deadman’s Creek - Black-headed - Tammy and her Python/Gunyukban Dreaming husband’s old house - Cicada/Nirriman Dreaming in Adelaide River - Bird Dreaming - Borderline sites and - Old Nyappo Devil Dreaming greeting ceremonies - Grandmother Dreaming between Wagiman, - Bellyache Hill/Jakjagin Warry and Dagoman - Turtle Dreaming language groups - Tammy’s house No Sites Visited in 2016 with the Non-Aboriginal Residents of Pine Creek

12 Sites listed under the National Heritage Trust are Burrundie and Old Grove Hill Pub. All dreaming and sacred sites are listed with AAPA. 13 This flower is part of the Darnatj or Coral Tree (Erythrina vespertilio); when the red flower blooms it means that the eggs of the yakba or freshwater crocodile have been laid and are ready for eating (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017).

145 At the end of the 2017 fieldwork trip, I presented and launched the websites to the community of Pine Creek. Jaime, from the Pine Creek Town Council organised a town meeting, inviting both Wagiman and non-Aboriginal members of the town community to attend. The meeting and my presentation of the websites resulted with the community launching the websites and celebrating this collaborative achievement.

After the launch of both websites, I worked on analysing the paper-based tourist surveys from 2016 and 2017. In 2017, a total of 146 tourist surveys were completed by tourists during the busiest visitation months of June, July and August. The total number of surveys from 2016 and 2017 was 265. They were consolidated and placed on Survey Monkey for a thematic analysis (Liamputtong, 2009). The recruitment of tourists to participate in the 2017 surveys took place through the same Pine Creek establishments as in the previous year (as identified above).

The focus of my interviews with the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek during the 2017 fieldwork period focused on their use of technology. The information from these interviews were placed into a database of technology usage and capabilities of my study participants. This database included information from previous semi-structured interviews of 2015 and 2016, as well as the technology-use-focused interviews carried out from June to August in 2017. A content analysis of the interviews was conducted, and results were placed into Survey Monkey and thematically analysed using this tool. The interviews focused on technology use were conducted to measure the communities’ interest in, and capabilities relating to, technological devices and software. An important part of this process was to find and train a suitable candidate(s) to manage the tourism website and the Wagiman website after my final departure from Pine Creek in August 2017.

The findings from the interviews regarding the use and capabilities of digital sharing and promotion of Indigenous knowledge are presented in the findings in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8. An analysis of the use of technology by both Wagiman and non-Aboriginal interviewees are presented in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively.

146 5.4 Conclusion

This chapter presented the methods carried out for this study as well as the tools used for gathering and analysing data from the fieldwork periods of 2015, 2016 and 2017 in Pine Creek, NT with the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal communities. The active conversation methods, as well as the participatory observations and ethnographic recordings of my work with the residents of Pine Creek, illustrate the potential and need for community-based approaches to tourism research, specifically, the Indigenising of tourism research.

As the Wagiman participants led the research process of this study and its methods, there is potential for Wagiman people to become empowered and benefit further from this study and its practical outcomes. However, the level of engagement with the Wagiman community and specific processes of how Indigenous-led tourism research can work is explored further in the following chapter.

147 CHAPTER 6 ENGAGEMENT FINDINGS: WORKING WITH THE WAGIMAN COMMUNITY

“We speak for country.”

– Daphne Huddlestone, Wagiman Elder of Pine Creek

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents results of my research regarding decontextualised versus contextualised questioning. Based on literature presented in Chapter 3, particularly works of Flynn (1984, 1987, 2007) and Lepp (2007, 2008) regarding active conversation methods for community engagement and empowerment, this chapter examines the Indigenising of methods to pursue on-site research with Wagiman Elders and their families. This chapter discusses and analyses findings regarding the concepts of trust and bond-building with the Wagiman community. I also draw on the reflexivity works of Russell-Mundine (2012), Tomaselli et al. (2008) and Tuhiwai-Smith (2012), as discussed in Chapter 3, to reflect on my place within the research process. Based on these findings, particularly in relation to the ways with which to engage the Wagiman community for their benefit and empowerment in tourism research, a case is presented for research into digital options for Indigenous-led tourism development. I argue, in this chapter, that digital options may offer more beneficial and suitable engagement opportunities between tourism stakeholders and Indigenous communities.

As discussed in Chapter 2, there may be various gaps in skill-training and education among Indigenous, rural and marginalised communities in relation to tourism. This may be due to a lack of government support and resources for residents to engage sustainably in, and benefit from, tourism development. However, as also discussed in Chapter 2, there are strong knowledge bases and biocultural resources among Indigenous communities, the knowledge of which tends to be passed down through oral storytelling by the Elders of the community.

148 As part of the ARC Linkage Grant, the Elders of the Wagiman community called upon this research project for Indigenous tourism development in Pine Creek. They have been engaged leaders in the research process and in the development of practical outcomes emerging from this study. The practical outcomes of my research (i.e., the two websites) developed through engaged research with the Wagiman community have been developed for safeguarding their heritage, language, and teachings for younger Wagiman generations, as well as sharing selected knowledges with tourists to Pine Creek.

Utilising Wagiman methods helped bridge any existing educational and skill- training gaps in Indigenous-led research between the Wagiman people and me, the “outsider” researcher, or mamin.14 In the spirit of skill-sharing between the Wagiman community and me, this study utilised Indigenous-led tourism research where the Wagiman Elders and their families showed their land, shared their knowledge, expertise and heritage, while being asked questions through the “active conversation” with the Elders and their families (Lepp, 2007, 2008).

The Wagiman community of Pine Creek have been actively involved in linguistic, anthropological and environmental research questions and methods as they have conducted this kind of research with anthropologists and linguists regarding culture and language conservation; the NLC, regarding land claims and native titles; and the Wagiman Ranger Program, regarding landscape and environmental management. The Wagiman community have been involved in this kind of research for thirty or more years; however, they have not yet had the opportunity to lead the research and development process, especially in tourism- based research or development. Until 2015, when I commenced my study, the Wagiman community were not familiar with tourism-based research or various options available to them for tourism development.

14 Wagiman word for “white man”.

149 6.2 Decontextualised Versus Contextualised Questioning with the Wagiman Community

This study explores the premise that the greater the degree of spatial and temporal specificity, the more likely a question is to be successful in stimulating conversation. This method of contextualised questioning was explored for engaging with the Wagiman community, who began to lead the interview process by suggesting places to visit, as well as research and development for tourism purposes. The Elders took me on-site to various places around their country to tell their stories and answer contextualised questions through active conversation, which helped create stronger bonds of trust and friendship between the Elders and I, as well as empower the community in tourism research and development.

Contextualisation is the critical variable, and not change of speech register; e.g., formal versus colloquial. Decontextualised questioning is commonly associated with formal speech registers. Many of the older members of the Wagiman community have limited capacities in the formal registers of Australian English, and many of the Elders may speak anywhere from three to four Indigenous Australian languages as their first languages, plus some form of Indigenous Australian English or Kriol, which they learned growing up and working on cattle stations in the area.

For example, one of the first questions I asked Wagiman Elders was “What are your thoughts of tourists and tourism in the area?” in a formal register of Australian English. However, the respondents gave one-word answers such as “mmm. yeah.” and did not develop the conversation any further. Some even turned to their fellow respondent and asked a question in Wagiman to them, confused about the question.

Such limited responses to a question of this nature could be owing either to their limited contextualisation, or to the unfamiliar register, or to a combination of both. This finding relates to using Indigenised methodologies when working with Aboriginal communities. This example illustrates that the formal nature of questioning in social interviewing from a non-Indigenous perspective can prove difficult to understand lived experiences.

150 I also found that decontextualised questioning in familiar registers was no more successful than decontextualised questioning in unfamiliar registers. For example, when I asked, “Them tourist mob, what you think about them here in Pine Creek?” The respondents responded more fully than in the previous, formal instance, but did not develop the conversation further. They responded with answers such as “them alright” or “all good. Yeah.” The critical variable differentiating the two preceding example questions is the presence of specific spatial terms – “here” and “in Pine Creek” – in the successful question” as opposed to the presence of a non-specific spatial term – “in the area”.

The use of “active conversation” was applied after a number of failed attempts of using the formal questions (i.e., decontextualised questions) with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek. The following section presents the results from fieldwork with the Wagiman community and how various factors in the topics of conversation may, or may not, have stimulated conversational flow in order to build bonds of trust and friendship as well as community confidence in leading tourism research and development.

6.2.1 Factors Affecting Conversational Flow in Discussions in Pine Creek

Based on interviews with both the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek, the findings of my study reveal that the contextualisation of the question, the topics and the flow of conversation were owing to:

1. Whether the interviewees were non-Aboriginal or Wagiman participants; 2. Whether the interview was an initial or follow-up discussion; 3. Whether questions were decontextualised or contextualised; 4. Whether the interviews took place on-site (i.e., "on country" as discussed in Chapter 3) or off-site; 5. Whether technology was used or not during interviews about technology. Findings show that engaging with Wagiman residents versus non-Aboriginal residents was one of the major factors affecting conversational flow. Within my engagements with Wagiman people, first-time versus follow-up discussions about previously unfamiliar topics was also a major contributing factor affecting the participants’ leadership of the discussion and conversational flow.

151

6.3 Factors Affecting First Time Interactions with the Wagiman Community

This section discusses the various factors of contextualisation that contributed to conversational flow among the Wagiman participants during first-time interactions. Such factors include:

1.) Decontextualised versus contextualised structure of questions 2.) Topics discussed including: a. Tourism b. Personal and cultural stories c. Flora and fauna d. Technology e. General questions and self-travel throughout the area. 3.) On-site versus off-site discussions 4.) The use of technology versus general discussions about technology.

6.3.1 Decontextualised versus Contextualised Structure of Questions and Topics

Before commencing fieldwork in Pine Creek, discussions about possible interview questions were developed in consultation with academic professionals, including the Aboriginal staff at the Wollotuka Institute for Indigenous Education at the University of Newcastle. My first visit to the Wagiman community took place in the town centre of Pine Creek with two of the Wagiman Elders.

Both Elders were asked the same decontextualised questions about tourism in the area. For example,

Me: What are your thoughts of tourists and tourism in the area?

Debbie: ah.15

15 All quotations of conversations are based on audio and video recordings and transcripts, most of which can be found online on the Vimeo platform for Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association: https://vimeo.com/user49195792 . All are being archived with AIATSIS.

152 As tourism is not a familiar topic among the Wagiman community, decontextualised questions about more familiar topics were tested regarding community and culture. For example,

Me: What is your role in the community?

Tammy: Um…

This was then rephrased to be more conversational and contextualised. For example,

Me: Okay. Last time we talked I was trying to get used to who everybody is and how everyone's related. Can you tell me a little bit about your family?

Debbie: Oh, my family, there. Well you mean my people, my dad. Dad used to work at station, especially dad used to go out station and we used to stay with our grandparents. Yeah, to go to school.

More contextualised questions were also asked about tourism and tourists with the Wagiman community in 2015. For example,

Me: What kind of tourists do you see?

Tammy: That come there now (points to caravans) that tourism there that walk around in it. (in the town) and that bird…

Debbie: yeah every afternoon you can hear that uh...what’s that big one?

Tammy: Galah. We call them wilik-wilik

…

Me: You think we've got enough tourists? Or might be better if we got more? If we got not as many?

Debbie: oh um. Especially when it’s like this month. June and July you get a lot of tourists that come from down South. They ask you question like if you...if there are some Indigenous people...they used to do corroboree. They dance. They talk to people about country…Because I think it's better off when like Aboriginal learn them about bush medicine or bush tucker and like we don't know what will happen to this country you know? And people will be struggling for- you know?

153 The second, contextualised method of questioning led to further discussions about tourists and tourism in the area, as well as the local fauna and bioculture. While the contextualised questions inspired more conversational flow in general, the conversation about tourism quickly turned into a conversation about a more familiar topic for the Wagiman participants – local fauna and bush medicine.

Both women “speak for country” and are regarded as leaders within the Pine Creek Aboriginal community. For example,

Debbie: For me, my dad went so I'm the next one up for country.

Jimmy: Yeah. She King. But I know this country. She needs to learn this country.

According to the Wagiman Elders, even though Tammy and Jimmy are significantly older than her niece Debbie, Debbie’s father was the “King” of the community and so, after his death, Debbie became “King”. However, as Debbie is younger and does not know as much history about the land, language and families as Tammy, and Tammy’s brother, Jimmy, do, Debbie was often accompanied by either Tammy or Jimmy, or both, during the interviews and site visits from 2015-2017. For example, when I attended one of the NLC meetings in the town, Jimmy gave the opening welcome to country speech and mediated the entire meeting with the NLC. While Debbie was present at the NLC meeting, she did not “speak for country” during this particular meeting, Jimmy did. For example,

Jimmy: I want to thank you all for coming to this meeting. The NLC. Welcome to Pine Creek. To my country.

Yeah when them NLC come. They always ask me about this land. They come to me about country. I have that knowledge.

There is no doubt a certain amount of politics and local law within the Wagiman community, as well as between Wagiman and the non-Aboriginal residents and councils of the Pine Creek area, which makes engagement in research challenging. However, as I spoke to Debbie and invited her "out bush" with us many times, as did Tammy and Jimmy, it was up to her if she wished to come or not. Many times, she could not because she was not home, was working with the Rangers or at Kybrook in the kitchen, or she was interested at the time. During

154 first-time interviews with the Wagiman Elders and people in 2015, many conversations focused on local flora and fauna as well as personal stories.

In terms of flora and fauna, the following questions were initially asked. For example,

Me: What do you call a “kangaroo” in Wagiman? Do you use that animal for anything?

Tammy: Kangaroo? Him go * hand gesture for hopping* hop hop hop.

When more local jargon and language is used when referring to animals and plants, more conversational flow could be fostered. Importantly, during this initial meeting with the Wagiman Elders, they speak the Wagiman language while discussing local flora and fauna, which encouraged me to learn Wagiman words and phrases. The use of Wagiman words and phrases led me to Indigenise my research questions and discussions from that point forward. For example,

Me: What you call ‘em tree in language? Them bolomin16? What you do with them tree?

Tammy: Him called wakkala17. Use em for make em mattress. Wrap em up and keep em warm at night. Em good for sleeping.

Indeed, Tammy and Jimmy reiterated the importance of teaching the young ones “language” so that they would know the stories and the country better as well. The Wagiman Elders, especially Tammy and Jimmy wanted to teach me “language” as well and began to do so by teaching her the names of the plants and animals that we would encounter in the bush. While the majority of the interviews were recorded in Kriol and Aboriginal English so that tourists and young Wagiman could understand the stories of the area, the Elders also thought it important to record some stories, especially dreaming stories, in Wagiman as well and to record ethnobiology studies of placenames and plants and animals in Wagiman with Louis as well.

16 “The white-trunked ghost gums and other white gums” (Liddy et al., 2006). 17 “The focal term for paperbark…also used to refer to paper money, and pieces of paper…refers to the long, thin leaved species that generally grow along large rivers and fringing billabongs such as M. argentea, M. sericea and M. leucadendra. These species have soft bark which is easily removed in large, usable sheets” (Liddy et al., 2006).

155 More contextualised questions with the Wagiman about flora and fauna provided greater insights into the biodiversity, ecological and conservational health of the region. For example, when discussing goannas with Tammy, findings show that their numbers are dwindling due to the invasive cane toad species, which is now common in the area:

Tammy: Tell people that tree. That culture you know?

Me: So, you like to tell other people too? About the honey? And the fish?

Tammy: Yeah. I like to tell people about honey, sugar bag grass. Goanna too. They would say ‘what that name?’ for goanna and we say ‘walanjya’

Me: Walanga?

Tammy: wal-an-ja

Me: Walanjya.

Tammy: yeah. And them blue tongue too. They’d say, ‘call him now’ I reckon, and I say ‘gungarak’ Blue tongue. But we don’t see them blue tongue. Or that goanna. Because of that frog. That wortngong frog now…Yeah all been killed. No goanna. Goanna left now with blue tongue.

Me: Oh no! They left because of the frogs?

Tammy: Yeah. They have that big mob here. In the ground underneath. When rain come, they all come out. Them big one too.

By applying local bioculture and language into the research process and questions, more conversational flow was inspired with the Wagiman participants, who led the Indigenisation of the interviews by incorporating more language and teaching me, the researcher about the Wagiman names and significance of plants and animals in the area.

When asked about cattle stations and working on the homesteads, the Wagiman people I spoke to also lead this process and inspired more conversational flow as this work was strongly tied to family history and personal narratives about the cattle stations and activates there. For example,

Me: Can you tell me a little bit about this place here Jimmy?

156 Jimmy: Well, his father used to manage this old house, this homestead here…And we used to have camp there…used to camp every year. Knock all them tree down now. That road wasn't here. The road, a bit further up, a long way from the house. We used to work here. That old yard there, look, when I was a kid. Far in, you see that there?

Me: Yeah, way down there.

Jimmy: It used to be an old yard there. We used to work…Bring all the cattle from the yard...Where pig yard there, over there. And goat yard up here…We had a big place, clean place. Not all this weed and growth now. We had with...Big shed in that - Big turtle shed. We used to have several to 11 of them. We used to work here...We used to pump water from the billabong...To the tank. And we had a garden that would've been right here. Right here… Cabbage, melon, pumpkin...And sweet potato...Used to grow 'em right here.

Notably, the above conversation with Jimmy occurred on-site on Claravale Road where Jimmy walked the old homestead as he relayed information about what the place used to look like, illustrating his picture-perfect memory of the area. The conversation with Debbie occurred off-site at her house in Pine Creek. For example,

Me: Was that at Claravale Station or?

Debbie: Well when mom and dad was together, yeah, we used to stay at Claravale. Go down Jinbat and Jabiru area. That’s where my dad ... where ... when he was a kid.

While she was willing to talk about this familiar subject and its relevance to her family history, she did not provide as much detail as Jimmy had on-site at Claravale. This may be due to various factors: 1.) that Jimmy had more knowledge of country and was more comfortable being on video; 2.) that Debbie was off-site during the conversation above and was usually shy during videotaped conversations; and 3.) that the conversation with Jimmy was videotaped for the website, while the conversation with Debbie was audio-recorded for the thesis research. If she had been on-site, perhaps she would have provided more descriptive narrative as she did when visiting and videotaping at Umbrawarra

157 gorge about the local flora, which she did mostly in Wagiman language. However, even in this case, she was shy to be videotaped and turned the conversation over to Jimmy shortly after filming. For example,

Debbie: *laughs from shyness*… the mango flower come. So yeah, especially during the wet season.

Me: This is the green plum yeah?

Debbie: Yeah, green plum. Man, this is pretty good plum here. Is good Vitamin C. And it's good for eating and it's healthy. You can do it (to Jimmy)

Jimmy: this one here? It is real strong you know? You can make firewood too, break them leg and…

Jimmy continued to lead the conversation above at Umbrawarra Gorge while Debbie listened nearby. Debbie was more active in conversations on-site than off-site but was still shy in front of the video camera and tended to show more confidence during audio-recorded interviews off-site and on-site. This demonstrates the context-specific nature of fieldwork and research within Aboriginal communities and the importance of not using the findings as a one- size-fits-all solution for all individuals or communities, as discussed in Foley (2008) in Chapter 2 and Tobias et al. (2013) and Cochran et al. (2008) in Chapter 3.

However, when audio-recorded discussions or participant observations were made on-site at places such as the Peanut Farm along Claravale Road, Debbie was more active in the conversation than she was off-site at her house. For example,

Debbie: What they been growing here? Them fruit?

Jimmy: Yeah, they been growing everything. Peanut, chili, pumpkin, all that.

Debbie: Oh, that’s real good eh.

Notably, Debbie led this discussion about the Peanut Farm by asking the Elders questions as I had been doing throughout the road trip in the area. This shows that, even with Debbie in the conversations above, the on-site interviews were

158 shown to stimulate conversation more than off-site interviews, especially when talking about a certain place of significance.

6.3.2 On-Site versus Off-Site

Being on-site, at the place of discussion, was found to be the most important factor in generating active engagement and conversational flow with the Wagiman community in Pine Creek. For instance, Umbrawarra National Park is a popular tourist destination located 29km outside of Pine Creek. It is also a significant biocultural site and destination for the Wagiman. When asking questions about Umbrawarra Gorge and the tourism activities there, i.e., walking, hiking, rock climbing, and swimming, it was more successful to go to Umbrawarra Gorge and see what the tourists and locals were doing there rather than talk in Pine Creek about such activities. The following example was conducted off-site in the town camp in Pine Creek with the Wagiman Elders:

Me: What do you think about putting a lookout at Umbrawarra Gorge?

Tammy: Um, yeah. That would be good.

Asking the same question on-site, at Umbrawarra Gorge in 2015 generated much more in-depth discussion about tourism development, than it did while in Pine Creek. The following example was conducted on-site in the caravan park at the entrance to Umbrawarra Gorge National Park:

Me: Do you think we should put a lookout here? (Pointing to a flat top above the gorge only a few metres away)

Tammy: Yeah! That would be good.

Vikki: We could also put some shelter,

Shelly: a BBQ too would be good.

Irene: Yeah. Get em big one too. For them tourists to sit there.

Being on-site and, therefore, contextualised at Umbrawarra allowed the participants to lead the conversation about the site and possible tourism developments that could be put in place at the park. Being on-site generated a conversational flow about an otherwise unfamiliar topic (tourism) owing to the

159 contextualisation of the topic being at the place of discussion, a place that is well- known to the Wagiman community.

6.3.3 Use of Technology

Much of the knowledge of the Wagiman community in Pine Creek is provided by the Elders, and many places of interest are not easily accessible during the wet summer season. Interviewees were enthusiastic about visual digital technology, such as Google Earth, which facilitates off-site engagement. Google Earth and other similar applications can facilitate off-site engagement due to its interpretational, participatory, knowledge-sharing capabilities.

Initial discussions about digital maps and websites with Wagiman community members were in a general, decontextualised manner. For example,

Me: Do you think it would be good to develop a website about your culture for tourists to see?

Tammy: (asked Debbie a question in Wagiman, not understanding my question.

Debbie: (to Tammy) You know? Them computer. For people to see stories.

Tammy: *nodded*.

This initial conversation with the Wagiman Elders demonstrated that the Elders were not familiar with discussing topics about technology, especially the older Elder, Tammy. Debbie explained “computer” and “websites” to Tammy in both Wagiman and Kriol and Tammy began to understand but did not contribute further to the conversation during this initial chat. This initial conversation, however, showed the vital need for Elders and younger generations of Wagiman people to engage with one another about technology during research. This conversation also showed the need for me to adopt Wagiman and Kriol language in order to communicate more thoroughly and properly with the Wagiman Elders, especially when talking about unfamiliar topics such as tourism and technology.

160 Importantly, this conversation also shows that researchers should engage with a wide range of participants in a collaborative approach within the Wagiman community, and in research with similar Aboriginal communities, following Simonsen (2006) and Whitford and Ruhanen (2014). In this case, a collaborative approach between the Wagiman Elders and the other Wagiman community participants allowed for the younger generations to work closely with the older generations to discuss and develop tourism and technological options for engagement for the community as well as aid me in translating technological jargon into language that the older generations could better understand.

During the same trip in 2015, three participants from three different generations viewed digital maps and the website with me, who developed the maps and website. Tammy, her daughter, Vikki, and her granddaughter, Shelly, could interact with the website and maps. I asked questions based on content development. For example,

Me: Do you think we could put Wakdo here on this map for tourists to see?

(Vikki and Shelly pointed to the area on the map and spoke in Wagiman for Tammy, who seemed to be having difficulty understanding. Once Vikki and Shelly had explained, Tammy answered)

Tammy: Ah, yes…that would be good…and the Hot Springs? We put them here (points to computer screen) them stories.

When the Wagiman participants viewed and experienced the technological capabilities of digital maps and websites for sharing knowledge, they became more enthusiastic about technology and were able to share their respective skillsets on the topic. For the Elders, this initial discussion and encounter with digital mapping of country required some explanation from me, and from the younger generations who are more familiar with computer technologies and could explain the initial process in Wagiman language. The younger generations could explain to the Elders the basics of the technological applications and terms, while the Elders could visualise the country they know well on a digital platform and converse about the sites with me and the younger generations of Wagiman people. The digital technology contextualised the otherwise “off-site” discussion to seem more “on-site” and, therefore, allowed the older participants to engage

161 more in the conversation once the technological was available for them to view and use.

6.3.4 Additional Factors Examined: Types of People and Activities

During the 2015-2017 fieldwork in Pine Creek, it was found that questions about the types of tourists were of least interest to the Wagiman participants. For example,

Question about the types of tourists visiting the area

Me: What types of tourists would you like to see here?

Jimmy: Yes. All OK.

Various versions of this question were asked a few more times during the research process sometimes with more specific activities being mentioned. For example,

Question about the types of tourists and their activities

Me: Would you be happy to see tourists swimming here? Would you be happy to see people from outside Australia, coming to swim here?

Louis: Yes. All good.

The type of tourist did not seem to be a factor of interest for further discussion for the participants from the Wagiman community. This could be due to various reasons such as the lack of awareness of the different types of tourists that exist, i.e., cultural tourists, backpackers, Grey Nomads, school groups, nature tourists, or campers. Or, it could be owing to the general lack of variety of tourist types visiting the area as most people travelling through Pine Creek and the area are typically Grey Nomads and backpackers. As the Wagiman tend to not engage directly with tourists, it is also difficult to know at first glance if the tourists are Australian (domestic) or international tourists. They might also not find it important to consider what kind of people are visiting the area.

The types of tourist activities were also not a major factor in inspiring conversational flow as these topics didn’t seem to be very interesting to the Wagiman community either. Since the main tourist activity in town seems to be

162 directed towards more non-Indigenous tourism products, i.e., Miners Park and Railway/Pine Creek Museums, as well as the fly-in and fly-out nature of the tourists to Pine Creek, there is a lack of engagement between tourists and the Wagiman community resulting in a lack of awareness or knowledge of each other’s activities. For example,

Debbie: Yeah, it's good, you know? But do full-time that's alright, but you know when tourist's coming and the tourist's come and go away.

Further, when discussing tourists on-site at areas of Wagiman significance, the Wagiman community seemed equally uninterested in tourist activities as they seemed to be fairly similar to Wagiman activities at the site, i.e. swimming at Djuwaliyn or Umbrawarra Gorge. This could also be due to a lack of activity options available for both tourists and community on-site, as most include swimming, walking/hiking or camping.

Interestingly, this shared experience of activities on-site may not be of significance to the Wagiman community during conversations, but tourists may be interested in knowing that they have shared interests and activities with the local Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of the area in order to “live like a local” and engage in more authentic, local activities as discussed by MacCannell (1973) and Pearce and Moscardo (1986) in his research regarding authenticity, which is discussed previously in Chapter 2. Such interests from the tourists could help foster more indirect, yet active engagement with the Wagiman community through the use of storytelling technology, which was explored further in my follow-up research with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek in 2016 and 2017.

6.4 Follow-Up Interactions with the Wagiman Community

During the 2015-2017 fieldtrips and interviews with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek, the research methods evolved from decontextualised, researcher- led discussions to more contextualised, participant-led conversations. However, decontextualised methods and questions were revisited during the 2016-2017 fieldtrips to examine the effectiveness of follow-up discussions and increasing familiarity with previously unfamiliar topics, i.e., tourism on fostering conversational flow and participant-led research. This provides the research and

163 the participants with a longer-term perspective of the study and its project, while also raising particular issues with on-site visitation in the long-term, especially among elderly participants.

During initial conversations with the Wagiman community of Pine Creek, as discussed above, the conversations tended to focus more on people, sites and activities of the past and present – these topics were usually about flora and fauna, community, histories, tourists’ and their activities in the area, etc. However, follow-up discussions are useful in that past- and present-based conversations about heritage are put into a longer-term, futuristic perspective and context through increased focus on tourism and technology development with the community.

Notably, technology provides avenues for future research, development and dissemination of knowledge off-site since on-site visitations and contextualisation of knowledge becomes more difficult, especially for the Elders of the community as discussed previously in Chapter 4.

6.4.1 Follow-Up Discussions: On-Site versus Off-Site

While some of the follow-up discussions were decontextualised or off-site, they pertained to previously conducted on-site discussions, which helped generate more conversational flow and inspired more follow-up discussion on-site again at the place in question.

For example, conversations at Umbrawarra Gorge in 2016 continued to focus on previously discussed tourism developments at the same caravan site where we initially discussed tourism developments in 2015, even when questions were not specifically addressing tourism developments in the area:

Me: Do people come here a lot? What do they do?

Jimmy: Them tourists come look (points to caravans in the site) and they walk and swim. But we gotta make them bigger one here you know? (points to area near site where we talked about developments for shelter before) gotta get em big shelter, toilet, everything.

164 While this question did not specifically mention tourists or tourism, the Wagiman Elders decided to talk about them and about the developments they want to put in place in the area. Jimmy also took the conversation in another direction from the question and, therefore, led the interview process towards a discussion about tourism developments at Umbrawarra rather than what people do in the park.

As discussed in Chapter 4, there are issues with on-site visitation due to the immobility and lack of resources available to the Elders of most Indigenous communities. This is also an issue for the Wagiman Elders. The 2016 discussions with Jimmy at Umbrawarra Gorge showed that he had a desire to provide tourists with access to some sites based on both the existing tourism infrastructure available, as well as his own accessibility and convenience for engaging with tourists. Jimmy explained that he would be interested in taking tourists out onto country near Umbrawarra Gorge as this is close to his home in Kybrook Farm and he has experience leading the younger generations of the Wagiman community on such tours through the Wagiman Ranger Program’s “Culture Camp”. As discussed in Chapter 4, the Culture Camp takes younger Wagiman out onto country and educates them on Wagiman language for plants and animals as well as their use for food and medicine. A similar culture camp was developed for the Pine Creek Health Clinic’s nurses and doctors in 2016, which took experienced and educated medical professionals out onto country to learn Wagiman medicine and resources. For example,

Jimmy: Through the rocks, along that little path you know? But I’m too old now. It is up to them young ones now... I bring them here and show them country, teach them language with that Culture Camp you know? And they have the knowledge now… It is up to the young ones to do it. But a lot of them don’t know you see? They don’t know the country, the stories. They gotta learn ‘em.

While Jimmy expressed interest in taking tourists onto country, he explained that he is getting too old and does not have the energy or mobility to take so many people out onto country anymore. He hopes that one day the younger Rangers and generation of Wagiman will do this, but he says that they need to learn more about country and hopes that the videos we record for the Wagiman website will help with this.

165 Wagiman Elder Tammy felt the same way as she was happy to tell tourists at the Djuwaliyn18 Hot Springs about the dreaming there and the holidays she used to take out there with her family as a young girl, camping and fishing and making tea from the springs at the site. However, she explained that she does not have a car to go out there all the time and talk to tourists so she hopes that the videos she created with us will be useful for tourists visiting the springs as well as her children and grandchildren in the years to come. For example,

Tammy: I been talking to them tourists here.

Me: Yeah you did? What you been telling them? You been showing them the same places you been showing me here? You been telling them that story? That dreaming?

Tammy: Yeah. I been tell them. Big mob of them now. I been tell them about how we used to come here you know? Like I been telling you now. I tell them about how we used to camp here. Fishing. Making them tea from that hot water. I show them how too.

Me: Ah really?

Tammy: Yeah. I make em tea and we sit here and have nice talk. About them trees. Birds. Them makmak … you know? Take them down to the water and protect them from country. Like we did with you. Remember? Me and Vikki and Beth? We pour that water down on your head and sing. Used to make good money doing all that.

Me: Yes! I do remember. I loved that. It was really lovely. So good that you would talk to them too and tell them stories. Why did you stop? Why you don’t still talk to them tourists no more?

Tammy: Don’t have em car. (laughs) can’t walk here. Too far. I’m too old now (laughs). We need to get em car. Maybe from council.

The Wagiman Elders and their families continued to converse between themselves and with me about further tourism development options for the lookout and caravan site at Umbrawarra Gorge, as well as engaging with tourists at Djuwaliyn Hot Springs. It follows the work of Foley (2008), Morley (2014) and

18 This place name is Jiwarlun in the standard Wagiman orthography.

166 Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) that Aboriginal interests in getting involved in tourism do have an economic value-based approach, but they also have a strong social, environmental and cultural-based approach, as seen in the above discussions regarding their lives working on country and discussions about flora and fauna. Debbie also signified the importance of tourism for the community:

Debbie: Yeah that's what going to long term, I don't want to get royalty. Spend it in the country, buying stuff that we need.

Debbie emphasised the importance of economic income, but for the social and communal good of the Wagiman people in Pine Creek.

In the follow-up discussions of 2016 and 2017, these conversations started to include more implications for technological developments in order to create more participation options for the Elders and community in tourism development. The discussion of technology was even apparent in interviews about more familiar topics such as flora and fauna during our follow-up conversations in 2016 and 2017.

6.4.2 Follow-Up Discussions: Previously Familiar Topics

In recent years, Tammy has become more active in the Wagiman Ranger Program and has encouraged her children and grandchildren to take part in the program. In 2017, Tammy’s son Andrew became an active member of the Wagiman Ranger Program and tries to engage in grass clearing, sustainable burning, and other maintenance of the country’s landscape on a daily or weekly basis. In her words, Tammy explains,

Tammy: I been tell him he should work them Rangers. He working there now. He likes it yeah.

Debbie manages the Ranger Program and Station, which is located along the Claravale Road at Lewin Springs. This site is also a sacred, dreaming site and of great importance to the Wagiman people where Tammy tells me they had a wangga19 many years ago. Debbie manages the program with another Wagiman

19 Wangga, Jimmy and Tammy tell me, is a ceremonial dance that takes place along cultural, or language group, borderlines when two different tribal groups are passing through on their

167 leader of the community, Violet, who is the mother of PCAAA’s manager, Penny. Debbie and Violet are the most active members of the Wagiman Ranger Program and tend to go to work at the station and on country every day throughout the dry season. Violet explains,

Violet: It is just us here now. Most of the time. Just me and Debbie. But we work hard.

Discussions that utilised technology during the interview provided more significant responses than discussing the technology in a decontextualised manner. More skill-sharing opportunities between the older and younger generations also helped the Elders understand the mechanics of digital platform use and knowledge-sharing. Such skills tended to improve as did the conversational flow the more we used technology and discussed its capabilities for storytelling, heritage conservation and tourism development in our follow-up discussions.

When discussing a familiar topic, i.e., flora and fauna, with Debbie and the Rangers, these conversations were coupled with the use of GIS technology in 2016-2017 research, which led to discussions about planning the conservation and safeguarding of Wagiman country. I showed Debbie a video from “PPGIS.net” (2017) about the Mandingalbay Yidinji community’s P3DM mapping project, which was presented at the IUCN Congress in 2014, as discussed in Chapter 3. Debbie showed enthusiasm about such a project and how the Rangers could become involved in something similar for protecting Wagiman country. Findings suggest that the digital maps and websites can be used as educational and conservational tools within the Wagiman community. For example,

Me: Here is that video I was telling you about. About the mapping project for the Ranger program. (Shows video)

Debbie: Yeah. Alright.

travels. The wangga is a social greeting between the two groups, indicating that they are sharing their country with one another. They exchange “gifts” such as clapsticks and food while also singing and dancing. Afterwards, the two groups then go their respective ways (see also Marett, 2005).

168 Debbie: They get ranger too…Hmmm…I know him! I’ve seen him!...He was at that ranger, we met up in Darwin… Ah yeah. It’s good eh. Good to care for country. Rangers do that…We can do something like that.

By applying the use of technology into the interviews, more conversational flow could be inspired and future plans for wildlife and biocultural conservation of the area could be made.

I also applied and received a filming permit from the NTWP, who worked with me, Louis and Tammy to record Wagiman teachings about local wildlife. The NTWP is located on the outskirts of Darwin and was the longest trip “out bush” that I had done with the Elders. We left very early in the morning and came back later in the afternoon on the same day. Therefore, we did not see the entire NTWP, but focused on the main attractions namely the Nocturnal house and the Aquarium. As many of the Wagiman peoples’ stories in the bush were focused on camping and fishing, they were interested in seeing the Aquarium the most out of the NTWP attractions. For example,

Louis: they got them marnamnyan in there. Them Barramundi. Big one too. Wanna cook him up *laughs*

Tammy: They got them jiniminy them little bat I been telling you about. Him Wagiman story.

Also, many of the Wagiman people’s creation and dreaming stories are focused on bats and other nocturnal fauna and so the nocturnal house was an important visit for them at the NTWP as well.

During the drive home from the NTWP in late August 2016, we began to see some big clouds forming on the horizon around Pine Creek. Louis and Tammy remarked on the strangeness of the clouds being there this early in the build-up as the build-up season does not normally start until September-October. We even saw some drops of rain on the windshield as we were pulling into Hayes Creek, which is about 30km north of Pine Creek. For example,

Louis: Big rain coming now. Is early too. Too early.

Tammy: Aw yeah. Look them big clouds there now. Going get em rain soon. Is early yeah.

169 When I left Pine Creek for Darwin in the first week of September 2016, it was already hot and humid and sticky, and I was most looking forward to being back in Newcastle and to returning to a much milder climate in Pine Creek in 2017.

6.5 Summary of Discussions with the Wagiman Community

Table 10 below provides a summary of the decontextualised and contextualised questions that were asked of the Wagiman community during the 2015-2017 field visits to Pine Creek. The table includes a section regarding general conversation as well as self-travel, which was not previously discussed in this chapter. Concerning general conversation and self-travel, it was found that these topics and terms were also more successful on-site than off-site when discussing places that the Wagiman community used to travel when they were younger. Additionally, the general conversational words and phrases depicted in Table 10 below, i.e., “why” versus “how come”, were more successful when they were more contextualised and provided specific information and examples about the topic of the conversation while also using more local jargon and language.

170

Table 10 Sample Questions for Decontextualised and Contextualised Interviews

Decontextualised Questions – generalised, Contextualised Questions – specific, informal, formal, non-localised, no conversational flow- localised, conversational flow - mostly led by mostly led by me participant Tourism - What are your thoughts of tourists in the - What do tourists do here? area? *mention specific - What things would you like to show tourists developments - What kind of tourism is offered in Pine here? Creek? - Would you like to have a trail here? Where - What kind of tourism development would you should we put them trail? like to see? Personal and Cultural - What is your role in the community? - Can you tell me a little bit about your family? How are you all related? *mention - What was your dad’s job? names/relations - What is that place we went to yesterday - Your dad old Paulie been working here? What work him been doing? called in Wagiman? - That gubam we saw yesterday, with them willy- wagtail dreaming, what him called in language? Flora and Fauna - What does this animal/plant/place mean to - Does wamu have dreaming? Him got story? Can you? you tell me them story? * use local language and jargon - How are the animals/plant traditionally - What things did them old people do with that used? gangaman?

171 Computers - Are you skilled in computers? Phones? - Do you use a computer? What things you do - What are your thoughts on creating a on them mobile? * show apps and website, map and mobile app as a tourism - Them tourists like to use them computers and websites product that can bring money to the mobiles with them websites and maps, would you community? like to have them videos we been taking on the - The website will be visible to everyone, is computer for tourists and young ones to look at? that OK? - Can we put them Jabarlng dreaming we did video of on them computer for tourists to see? Is it OK for tourists and whole world to see them videos on them computer?

General/ Self-travel - Why? - How come? *provide examples and - Where did he go? - Which way he been going? specifics - How did he get here? - Did he come here on train or nothing? - What did he do here? - What things he been doing here? He been working here? - Who did you come here with? - You been bringing them kid here or which ones? - How long did it take to walk? - You been foot walking how long? 3 day? 2 days?

172 The contextualised questions in Table 10 tended to be written and spoken in Kriol and include Wagiman words and terms. Within these contextualised questions, it was found that the location of the discussion; the specificity of topics, people, places and activities; and the use of technology were factors in generating discourse, especially during follow-up discussions about future developments with the community.

Elders tended to converse more about the past and present rather than the future in initial discussions both on-site and off-site. When we initially discussed future developments such as tourism and technology, they were enthusiastic about such developments but related most of these discussions to younger family members. The Elders brought their younger family members along on-site visits, showing them country and working together to discuss and use technology, especially when off-site, or discuss other tourism developments when on-site. Similar discussions were also conducted with the non-Indigenous residents of Pine Creek, which are explored in the following section.

6.6 Factors Affecting Conversational Flow in Discussions with the Non-Aboriginal Community

During fieldwork in 2015-2017, it was found that the non-Aboriginal residents also engaged better in active conversation and led the discussions about tourism and history of the town and surrounding area. They also tended to engage in conversations that were conducted on-site, but the level of engagement and conversational flow did not seem to be as affected by first-time versus follow-up discussions as with the Wagiman community. This may be due to non-Aboriginal residents’ tendencies to engage more in decontextualised conversations, especially regarding tourism development, since many of the non-Aboriginal residents own or operate tourism-related businesses in the town and are familiar with the topic.

173 6.6.1 Non-Aboriginal Discussions: On-Site

One non-Aboriginal resident of Pine Creek, Elijah, spoke about his family store in Pine Creek. Here, decontextualised, active conversation was used with Elijah, who led most of the discussion. Elijah is more familiar with decontextualised types of questions owing to his extensive contact with the media and other Pine Creek “outsiders” over the years, who wish to know more about Chinese heritage in Pine Creek and the surrounding area. The following conversation took place at his family’s store in Pine Creek town.

Me: …they started gold booming in Pine Creek from…?

Elijah: …there was over 2000 Chinese in Chinatown at the back of Pine Creek here. I don't know if you know about that. It was just over the hill there…they even had a Chinese temple or Chinese joss house there, they had a Chinese joss house there. They had a Chinese cemetery there…

During this discussion with Elijah in 2015, he continued to talk about Chinatown’s history as well as the gold mining history of the town. He discussed his family history and the recent tourism developments over the years with very little instigation or questioning from me. However, the discussion about Chinatown was still baseline and more detailed conversations followed from our on-site visit to Chinatown.

Shortly after this decontextualised conversation, Elijah took me to Chinatown to further illustrate the important Chinese heritage of the area. The following conversation took place at the ruins of the Chinese temple in Chinatown where Elijah was trying to remember if there were 2000 or 700 Chinese people living there, as there is a current debate on the number of Chinese people who inhabited the area at the time of the gold rush. For example,

Elijah: There was about 2000 Chinese. I think 2000 would have been more likely because they wouldn't have a Chinese Temple for just so few people. You know what I mean?

Me: Yeah, right

Elijah: They only built it because there were so many people here…Because I don't know whether you know the Buddhism thing, they

174 in the morning and night they used to burn incense and stuff like that. A nest there, but it's just been all knocked down, and stuff like this, you know?...So, just so you wouldn't know it was here in the middle of the woods.

Me: No, no idea, and here it is

Elijah: That's be where it is and then they'd pour powder out here where they marked the group, I suppose, with the rocks from the river or whatever it is.

Me: Wow. So, they come here and meditate and pray?

Elijah: Yeah, that's right. When I went to school in 1954, I stayed with my grandmother and she used to have, you know, like a table, an incense table, they used to...She'd burn incense everyday there, and really my uncle, who used to be in charge of the temple, obviously in Chuwang Dao, he was out here, and he only died about three years ago. He had a fall and stroke, but he used to every day, that's right up to 2010.

Me: Wow.

Elijah: He used to do all his practise there and down…And then over behind the flat, there used to be a Chinese cemetery...

While discussions with Elijah were emphasised by being on-site, decontextualised questions and discussions off-site inspired more conversational flow with Elijah than they did with Tammy and Jimmy. Most “on-site” discussions with the non-Aboriginal participants occurred in Pine Creek town, where most of the non-Aboriginal heritage is located and based within their tourism establishments.

Being on-site with Elijah, a non-Aboriginal resident, gave a more inspired conversation about his life, his family and the Chinese culture that is also built into the local landscape of Pine Creek. He provided more specifics about the practices and daily life in Chinatown, as well as the people who lived there than he did during conversations in his store in Pine Creek.

175 6.6.2 Non-Aboriginal Discussions: Types of People and Activities

When discussing types of people and activities with the non-Aboriginal residents of Pine creek, such topics and questions inspired slightly more conversational flow from the non-Aboriginal community than from the Wagiman community. For example,

Me: What types of tourists do you get coming to Pine Creek?

Elijah: We get all kinds from all around the world. Mostly Aussies. But we get all kinds here.

The difference in the level of conversational flow on the topic of tourists to the Pine Creek area could be based on the greater level of decontextualised familiarity among the non-Aboriginal community, as well as the fact that the non- Aboriginal community has closer contact with tourists on a daily basis than the Wagiman community has and, therefore, the non-Aboriginal residents may have a little more interest or experience on the topic to contribute to the conversation.

The opposite is true when asking non-Aboriginal people about areas where pastoral activity is predominant, i.e., Claravale Road. The topic of the trees, creeks and camping spots along the way to the crossing did not inspire much conversational flow with the non-Aboriginal residents, but topics about cattle stations and camping at Claravale Crossing did. For example,

Me: Yeah, we visited the old Shilling Hole on Claravale Road. You been there?

Anonymous: Where’s that? That billabong along the side of the road? No not really.

Me: Yeah, we saw the old homestead out there in Claravale.

Anonymous: Oh yeah. That old Alex Rory place? Or the other one? That old one is owned by the…now. They spent a lot of money out there. There is that other guy who lives out there too, what’s his name…yeah been working there for years.

Both topics inspired conversational flow among the Wagiman community as previously discussed. However, importantly, most discussions about Claravale

176 road occurred off-site with the non-Aboriginal community while most occurred on- site for the Wagiman community, which could be a contributing factor to the non- Aboriginal residents’ less conversational input about activities in that area.

6.6.3 Non-Indigenous Discussions: Use of Technology

In terms of technology, it was found that it was equally useful to use technology when discussing technological options with the non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek. Both Wagiman and non-Aboriginal communities have a general lack of technological resource and skill but are both interested in knowing more about technology and its capabilities for empowering the community, the findings of which are discussed in detail in Chapter 7. The Wagiman community was more interested in technology’s ability to map country and tell stories, while the non- Aboriginal community was more interested in the technology’s capabilities for providing more interesting and engaging tourism products for visitors to the town and region.

The following conversation took place in Pine Creek’s Lazy Lizard Tavern on my first day back in 2017. I spoke with one of the Pine Creek Council officials, who is a member of the non-Aboriginal community of Pine Creek. She said,

Jenna: Oh great! The website is done?! That is fantastic! I think it will really help out with things around here. The town really needs this. I think it will absolutely help boost tourism to the town. Let’s set a date for you to present to the community!

A few days later when I met with Jenna at the Pine Creek Town Hall, I demonstrated the website with her, and she expressed that she was amazed at how “professional” it looked. I asked her if there was anyone in the council or around town who was good with computers and she said that one man, Brian, was fairly good with websites and that he would be good to talk to. When I spoke to him, he claimed he was good at using technological devices, but was not versed in design or website management. Eventually, the community led me to Gloria, who, at the time, was Treasurer of the Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association, had the most access to technological devices, software and Wi-Fi out of other residents in town and who was most enthusiastic in managing the

177 website for and with the community. More findings regarding the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal community’s use of technology and management of digital products is discussed in Chapter 7.

6.7 Potential Wider Implications

The importance of contextualisation and on-site location to successful engagement with Wagiman community members suggests that these may be relevant factors to successful engagement with Indigenous communities in other areas of the world. I found that the more localised and specific the questions were, the more the conversations flowed. However, the “wordier” the questions were, the less likely they were to inspire conversational flow. Therefore, asking simpler and more specific and localised questions will allow for the conversation to flow better between participants in Indigenous research.

Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the formula for better conversational flow based on the five factors presented above. The rate of success for conversational flow is indicated by “S” (successful) in Figure 6, “U” (unsuccessful) in Figure 7 and. “MS” (mildly successful) in Figure 8. “S” indicates a fuller flow of discussion. “MS” indicates a flow of discussion with further prompting required by me. “U” indicates no flow of discussion with one word or no word responses from the participant.

178

S U

follow up and first time and on-site on-site follow up and off- first time and off- site site

general specificspecific localization localizationlocalization general general specific and activities andand activitiesactivities localization and localization and localization and specific or general activities general activities activities

Figure 6 Questions Map for Successful Conversation Flow Figure 7 Questions Map for Unsuccessful Conversation Flow

179

MS

first time follow up

on-site off-site on-site off-site

general specific specific general general specific localization and localization and localization and localization and localization and localization and specific activities general activities activities activities specific activities general activities

Figure 8 Questions Map for Mildly Successful Conversation Flow

180 Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 show that while the criteria for specificity of the person discussed did not greatly affect conversational flow, the specificity of the activity and the location, as well as the location of the discussion itself, determined the success of conversational flow as well as the experience of the interviewee with being asked such questions. The main findings suggest that asking specific, simple, localised questions were more engaging than generalised, complex, non-localised questions. Further, more general and localised questions were more engaging than specific, non- localised questions. This is due to the fact that most of the questions and answers were spatially focused and required more accurate localisation in order for conversation to flow. Additionally, questions about technology were best answered by using the technology in question, thereby allowing for more interactive, skill and knowledge-sharing opportunities between researchers and participants. Opportunities for knowledge and skill-sharing online and on-site between researchers and participants led to more opportunities for fostering strong bonds of trust and friendships as well. The diagrams pictured in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 could be applied to Indigenous communities around the world and may inspire further research into engaging with Indigenous stakeholders for community empowerment. Researchers from both within, but especially outside, the community can use these diagrams to better contextualise their questions, foster bonds of trust and friendship with participants, and inspire leadership from participants in research and interviews in a way that is most beneficial to them, the project and/or the community.

6.8 Building Trust and Forming Friendships

In my research, I not only draw from the experiences and stories of the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal participants, but also from my own personal and professional experiences with the communities. I examine and seek possibilities of giving back to the community in a beneficial way that equals the amount of time and information provided to me by the participants. This chapter provides the context of a “trust-building” story between the Wagiman community and me following the reflexivity works of Tomaselli et al. (2008), Russell-Mundine (2012), Tuhiwai-

181 Smith (2012) and Nakata (2004), discussed earlier in Chapter 4. The trust- building and bonds of friendship that I made with the Wagiman community as well as the non-Aboriginal community of Pine Creek were made possible by the principal investigator’s long-standing relationships with the Wagiman and broader Pine Creek community.

Another reason may be owing to my personal and cultural background, which is also Indigenous, but Indigenous U.S. American from the southwest state of New Mexico – a place where the climate, historical and cultural aspects are similar to that of the Northern Territory. The following accounts of my 2015-2017 field sites take a “storytelling” approach that aligns with Indigenous methodologies of the Wagiman people I worked with as well as my own, personal, cultural background as an Indigenous American.

This conversational flow and exchange of skillsets and knowledge can give the Indigenous participant a sense of pride and ownership to the tourism development process of the area, as well as the transmission of cultural and natural knowledge to and from younger generations. This sharing of pride and knowledge helps forge special bonds of trust and friendship due to the many good conversations and trips “out bush” for on-site visits, as discussed in Stanner (1979) in Chapter 3. These bonds were forged throughout the fieldwork trips but were orally expressed near the end of the 2015 fieldtrip and the 2017 fieldtrips.

At the end of the first fieldwork trip in 2015, I visited Jimmy and Tammy at their houses and presented them with presents as a thank you, and to say goodbye. Tammy and Jimmy expressed their comradery as follows:

Tammy: We show you country. We teach you language. You have that knowledge now. You Wagiman now.

Me: Thank you so much for showing me country. I am so honoured.

Later, in 2017, when I had to present the websites to the Indigenous and, largely, non-Indigenous audience in the town hall of Pine Creek, I went to pick up the Wagiman Elder, Tammy, and her son, Rick, to take them to the town hall. Along the way, I expressed my anxiety in having to present to the Pine Creek community. Tammy responded accordingly:

Me: Tammy, I am so nervous. I don’t really know why, but I am scared. 182 Tammy: why you scared? You don’t need to be scared. You Wagiman. You with Wagiman. You on Wagiman country. You be alright. You have the knowledge.

Similar bonds of friendship were fostered among the non-Aboriginal residents near the end of my 2017 fieldwork visit. For example,

Anonymous: I don’t know what I’ll do with myself when you leave. My heart will ache every time I walk past your bungalow and you’re not there.

Amy: You are truly one of my best friends out here. We will have to be Facebook friends and stay in touch. You’ll come back and visit right?

The Elders took me to the same places and talked about the same things as they do with their family members, some of whom joined us on our trips. I was honoured to discover the extent to which I was being inducted into the Wagiman community and into the Elders’ respective families while also being a guest in their country.

While there were tear-filled goodbyes with Tammy, my anonymous participant and Amy at the end of my 2017 fieldwork, there were also laughs shared on our memories of past trips and hopes for many more to come on Wagiman country – a country of which, according to Tammy and Jimmy, I am now also a keeper, making me a member of the Wagiman community. In his words, Jimmy told me,

Jimmy: You have that knowledge now. You come back and we can do more. It has been a real good time. Thank you.

I will honour and cherish these stories, trips and people every day. We are enthusiastic to share our findings and websites in the hopes that they can lead to more Indigenous, digital knowledge-sharing and creation for tourism development and community empowerment.

Conducting research on-site not only generated more conversational flow and data for research, but also created strong bonds of friendship between me and the residents of the community – bonds that, as expressed by Amy, are hoped to be further fostered through technological, off-site interaction, i.e., Facebook. These bonds of trust are ongoing as I keep in contact with both the Wagiman and

183 non-Aboriginal community of Pine Creek electronically on Facebook, Twitter and through texting and email.

6.9 Creating Options for Tourism Development and Empowerment

The Wagiman people and I shared personal and cultural stories about our families, cultures and homelands, especially where there were points of similarity. We also exchanged skillsets in order to develop a community archive and tourism website. The Elders provided their expertise of the landscape, language and culture, while I provided knowledge about video-recording, mapping and website development. The younger generations of Wagiman participants acquired both skillsets from the Elders and me while also providing the same skillsets to each in return. The younger generations would help the Elders with mapping, video- recording and website development while assisting me with more information about Wagiman heritage and country.

These trips were usually led by Tammy, but Jimmy engaged on a few when he felt up to the task. Vikki accompanied us on most of these trips as well since she was recording increasingly more of the stories herself. If Vikki came, that usually meant Shelly and Sally, her daughters, would come too, and on one occasion her son as well. Even Tammy’s son, Andrew, who works with the Rangers, decided to come on a trip through Burrundie with Jimmy and Tammy near the end of this fieldwork trip. This was the first time Andrew had engaged in this research, so it was good to see the youth become increasingly engaged in recording stories with the Elders during the 2017 trips.

Debbie engaged on a couple of trips, especially out to Lewin Springs where she works with Violet, but since Debbie was very busy working, she suggested to take her daughter, Jessica, on some of the trips in her stead. Jessica was enthusiastic for these trips with the Elders and spoke about some further possible tourism developments in the Umbrawarra Gorge area, as well as some ideas for the Wagiman and tourism websites. She provided feedback on the websites and, like the Wagiman Elders and youth interviewed before her, she found them to be well organised and to have a great amount of knowledge for her to enjoy watching and sharing with her children in the years to come.

184 Near the end of the 2017 trip, I had taken Tammy and Jimmy and their families out for one more trip to the area of Burrundie, which lies east of the Stuart highway between Adelaide River and Pine Creek. During this final field trip “out bush”, the Elders expressed interest in participating in tourism development in the town – to add more Indigenous narrative and context to the current infrastructure – and to lead tours around town. For example,

Tammy: I been thinking. We could do them tours you know? In them Water Gardens. Teach tourists names for birds and them wamu. What you think?

Some also expressed interest in making a cultural centre for the tourists to visit. Debbie said,

Debbie: that’s right. Yeah I been telling them people. We gotta put in a culture centre you know? Show people Wagiman culture and all that. Yeah. That would be good.

They also expressed interest in promoting and sharing information on the website. This would be the most indirect role in tourism for people who do not wish to be actively involved in tours or with tourists every day.

Vikki: Yeah, we could do like what you been doing with us. Drive out, record stories and put them on that computer. Them websites.

Some of the younger Wagiman expressed interest and experience in the Wagiman Ranger Program where they can actively work to conserve their land. Shelly told me,

Shelly: When I am older, I want to work with the Ranger program. Look after country and everything. I like being outside.

Wagiman Elders and residents also expressed the desire to develop tourism infrastructure and use the (P)PGIS maps we created together to show country to tourists. Vikki said,

Vikki: Them maps are good. They can click, on the button you know? Watch that video. That would be good. Tourists can see then. See our country.

185 The Wagiman people began to express further developments and management options for the websites and maps we created together. As a result of these conversations, many of the maps and videos on the Wagiman website are password protected if they contain sacred site information. These videos and maps are not available on the tourism site.

Among the non-Aboriginal community, there is a greater proportion of older people than younger people. Most of the young, non-Aboriginal people in town who work in the tourism industry are backpackers who are international and are only in town for the dry season. All non-Aboriginal participants showed interest in the tourism website but did not show particular interest in the Wagiman website. For example,

Me: Yeah, I’ve been working with Tammy and her family and we have created a tourism website and a Wagiman website together.

Ben: Oh yeah. A tourism website would be great for the town.

They were, however, enthusiastic about the Google Maps on the tourism website as they may allow tourists to stay longer in the town. For example,

Jenna: Oh wow. Yes. The tourists could take these day trips that you have here on the maps and stay in town longer.

Anonymous: You have all the town’s heritage sites on the maps right? And the tourists like Jill’s book shed too you know? Is she on there?

To conclude, both Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents expressed enthusiasm for the tourism website and maps, while the Wagiman expressed interest in the Wagiman website, which was developed and consulted with the Pine Creek community in 2016. While they all expressed interest in technological options for tourism engagement and development, the residents’ use of technology also needs to be explored. Findings regarding digital accessibility and capabilities in tourism participation, development and management among the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents, young and old, of Pine Creek are discussed further in the following Chapter 7.

186 6.10 Conclusion

In this chapter, I identified various factors regarding the ways by which conversational flow and bond-building took place between myself and the Wagiman community during my three periods of fieldwork in the years 2015 to 2017. Conversational flow between myself and the participants was based on whether or not it was the first time we were having a discussion about a certain topic at a certain place and whether or not this discussion was with the Wagiman or non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek.

These findings align with Indigenous methodologies (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 3) for control over research and development processes from the start. My findings suggest that Indigenous-led-controlled-driven and based narrative research methodologies, when coupled with technological resources and tools, may help foster empowerment, pride and other benefits for the participants, individuals, families and community of Pine Creek. The advent of technology in Indigenous-controlled tourism research and development is explored further in the next chapter, especially in regard to the concept of participatory research and Indigenous empowerment, which follows the interdisciplinary, anthropological and sociological discourse of researchers such as Tribe & Liburd (2016) as discussed in Chapter 3. The results of this chapter also provide new avenues of practical research outcomes in terms of giving back to the community, becoming part of the community and developing tourism and technology options for engagement the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek.

My findings in this chapter are further discussed and analysed in the context of technological uptake and skill-sharing among the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal tourism stakeholders of Pine Creek in the following chapter. Discussing the use and availability of technology among residents and tourists helps to gauge the level of empowerment that may or may not be experienced among the residents of Pine Creek.

187 CHAPTER 7 PRODUCT FINDINGS: DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEBSITES AND APP

“These views may change if we all walk this way The youth steer the ship as this generation fades…”

– Xavier Rudd of the Wurundjeri group from his song “Generation Fade”

7.1 Introduction

The previous chapter explored how to engage with Wagiman people in Pine Creek in order to find out how the Wagiman people would like to engage in tourism development and research. Through Wagiman-led methodologies of recording stories on-site, we worked together to develop the content and framework for creating digital maps, websites and apps for sharing Wagiman teachings with tourists and younger people in the community.

In this chapter, I analyse the potential for digital engagement among the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek. This examination of technological engagement contributes to the literature discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 regarding skillsets and digital options for empowerment in Indigenous communities. Investigating the level of technological engagement in the Wagiman community of Pine Creek follows the works of Cardamone and Rentschler (2006) and Christen (2005, 2006) regarding digital capabilities for tourism development in Aboriginal communities. This chapter presents results from formal and informal interviews about technology with the Wagiman and non- Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek from the fieldwork periods of 2015-2017. During these interviews, we discussed the current technological resources available to the communities, their use of technology and their current capabilities to develop and manage a digital tourism product.

I summarise the implications of the technology interviews through the development of databases of the interviews’ results from both the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal participants of Pine Creek. The full databases of these interviews 188 can be seen in Appendix C and Appendix D. The technology interviews led to discussions about further improvements for community uptake of technological knowledge and skills in Pine Creek. This chapter concludes by exploring options for integrating Indigenous knowledge onto existing, possibly non-Aboriginal tourism platforms and infrastructures for sustainable tourism product promotion and management.

7.2 Drivers in Digital Tourism Product Development and Interpretation of Heritage in Pine Creek

The Wagiman community expressed interest in developing apps for digital interpretation of heritage. Therefore, an investigation into the technological capacities of the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents, as well as tourists to the area, was needed. This investigation helps to ensure appropriate decisions were made in the development and management of digital interpretation of local heritage. Jimmy told me,

Jimmy: Yeah, we can have those birds there. On the phone? People can look and find em and say oh yeah that’s wilik wilik or like that.

The following factors were found to be the main reasons and drivers for developing a digital option for tourism development with the Wagiman community. These are based on my formal and informal conversations with the Wagiman residents of Pine Creek, as well as my observations while working in Pine Creek and its surrounds from 2015-2017.

As discussed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 6, digital options for visiting country off- site are explored as many of the Wagiman Elders are not physically mobile to do bushwalks, tours or on-site visits on a daily basis due to their age, ailments and/or lack of adequate transport.

Many of the younger Wagiman people do not know enough about the country or the language due to the Elders’ lack of transport and mobility, i.e., the Elders have limited capacity to take their children and grandchildren "out bush" on a regular basis. The Elders want the young ones to learn about country, but they say that the young ones are either not interested, are too lazy, don’t stay in Pine Creek

189 long enough to learn about country, or simply because they do not have the transport for taking them “out bush”. For example,

Jimmy: I take my grandkids out. Show them country. Teach them knowledge. But they don’t always go. They don’t know anything. They too lazy or what. They need to have that knowledge. Need to teach them language. They take them car, but they always break them you know? And I have to get money and fix em up. Tammy: Na them young ones in school. They can’t come with us today…Na she living in Darwin now. Can’t come with us this year. However, when speaking to the younger Wagiman participants in this study, they talked to me about their avid interest in learning more about country and language. They also showed active interest when listening to the Elders’ stories and also began to show some confidence to tell the stories themselves, with some encouragement and support from the Elders.

Jessica: I would like to do the trips. But I don’t have a car. Vikki: Yeah I can tell them story now. About them little cheeky bat? Mum you good at telling that story. You should tell it….Alright I’ll tell it. When the younger Wagiman participants were asked what they would like to do with their lives/careers, they said that they would like to be in the Ranger Program and look after country. They also said that they wanted to go to school and learn more about filming after doing video-recording with me and the Elders on trips. Some also wanted to make soaps, bracelets and other products to sell to tourists in town. However, these vocations changed every time they were asked what they wanted to do and, so, daily bushwalks with tourists was not an option that appealed to some of the Wagiman people in this study during our chats. For example,

Shelly: I want to work with them Rangers one day. Look after country…I like to make bracelets. I could sell them to tourists here, in Pine Creek. Beth: I used to make soaps. Sell them to tourists in town on Sunday, who know them Sunday markets? I don’t do that now. Don’t know why. Just don’t. Vikki: I like these trips you know. They good. Good to hear them stories. Good to see Mum on the videos and maps. I would like to learn how to

190 film. I may go back to school in Darwin and learn one day, so we can do these trips like you do here now. The younger Wagiman participants, however, did spend a lot of time on technological devices and commented that they cannot find much about the Ranger Program or about Wagiman language and heritage online. For example,

Jessica: I am always looking online for information about the Rangers. But can never find anything. This website could be good. I would look at it all the time.

I asked them if they would like to be able to see the Elders telling their stories online, find maps of their country, and learn more about Wagiman plants and animals online. They were very enthusiastic for this option, especially when I showed them the tourism and WCHA websites. They liked the idea of tourists knowing more about it as well but were more interested in learning more about it themselves so they might be able to tell and show tourists about their country one day. for example:

Jessica: These are great (websites, maps, videos) can see Mum telling stories. See them animals there. I would like to hear these stories. I want to know about these places and see them too.

Vikki: I can learn to do what you do, you know? And show them tourists country one day.

Other Wagiman people interviewed in my study said that they did not feel comfortable or confident enough to engage with tourists on country on a daily basis. For example,

Irene: Na too shy.

Tammy: My son, he work in the Ranger program. But he not go every day. I don’t think he would like to talk to tourists. Him can’t talk.

Tammy: Would you ask that man for me?... I am too shy.

However, this notion began to change near the end of the 2017 field trip. The Elders expressed interest in giving “bushwalks” through the Water Gardens in the centre of Pine Creek town. They expressed interest in talking to the tourists about

191 the plants and animals as well as the history of the town from their perspective, i.e., taking the train to and from Darwin. For example,

Tammy: Yeah. We could get em vest? You know? Walk around. Tell them stories about them birds and them wamu. You know?... Do the railway thing I been telling you? That would be good eh?

The youth also expressed more interest in what I did with them and how they would like to do what I did with the Elders one day. They expressed interest in going back to school in Darwin and Katherine to learn more about how to conduct research and film the stories. This is good in acquiring the technical knowledge of creating the digital tourism products. However, acquiring the Wagiman knowledge on country from the Elders is equally as, if not more, important for creating the heritage-based tourism product, as Jimmy expressed earlier. For example:

Penny: I did a little bit of website design in a previous position. One of the standard basic ones, nothing too high tech like they do nowadays. Yeah. Would be good to use wix.com…Haven’t done it in a long time.

As Penny recommended the use of wix.com as a website development platform in this interview above, and because Penny may be a strong candidate for managing the websites after my final time in Pine Creek in 2017, I then proceeded to use wix.com for the creation of the websites.

7.3 Community Empowerment through Digital Technology

As mentioned in Chapter 6, the Wagiman community of Pine Creek found digital options for engagement in tourism development and research to be a viable method for the community to share their heritage. However, there are various issues that exist in terms of the community’s technological skillsets, resources and knowledge, especially among the Elders of the Wagiman community. Such issues include: a lack of access to various hardware and software products; a lack of consistent maintenance of hardware and software products; and a lack of knowledge on how to use hardware and software to their fullest capabilities. I

192 found that these same technological issues extended into the non-Aboriginal residents of the Pine Creek community as well.

Examining the technological issues that exist in Pine Creek provided an opportunity for me and the residents of Pine Creek to turn these technological issues into potential opportunities for community empowerment and engagement. The community and I explored opportunities for empowerment via skill and resource-sharing among the Pine Creek residents – Wagiman and non- Aboriginal, young and old. Further, options for knowledge, resource and skill- sharing between the residents of Pine Creek and outsiders visiting and working in the town, like me, may also aid in improving technological capabilities among the residents and fostering community empowerment.

Since a main objective of this study (and ARC Linkage Grant) is to develop digital outputs for the recording of Wagiman heritage, it is important to examine the extent of technological engagement within the communities of Pine Creek as well as tourists to the area. As outlined in the literature review Chapter 2 and Chapter 4, digital options for engagement may empower local, Indigenous communities. Digital engagement may provide options for Indigenous control and less government intervention. Further, digital storytelling can align well with Indigenous methodologies if there is sufficient accessibility and use of digital tools among the individuals of the community. For this reason, a focus of the interviews and surveys conducted in Pine Creek from 2015-2017 was to determine Pine Creek’s feasibility of accessing, utilising, as well as developing and managing digital platforms of heritage for tourism and conservational purposes.

7.4 Wagiman Use of Technology

The findings reveal that there were some contrasts and similarities between the Wagiman Elders and younger Wagiman people in how they engage with technology. The focus related to access to hardware, which devices are used and for what purposes, access to software, and which software is used and for what purposes. The full database of the interviews regarding the Wagiman peoples’ usage and uptake of technology can be found in Appendix C.

193 The following Table 11 provides a summarised version of the full database in Appendix C. Table 11 highlights the Wagiman Elders’ common use of technology as well as the lack of literacy skills, i.e., writing among some of the older Elders of the community.

Table 11 Wagiman Elders’ Common Use of Technology

Use of Technology Wagiman Elder Responses

Own mobile, smart phones or tablets that Jimmy: Yeah I have em mobile. I they bought in the local store and would got him in Lazy Lizard shop.

share with the family and friends. Tammy: Them young ones. They take em phone and tablet and play games on them.

Use a pay as you go option for paying for Tammy: I top up in the shop. Or data. Post Office. My son go too.

Only use their phones or tablets for Tammy: I had em mobile for making phone calls. calling. But them young ones broke

it. Too bad. I use them tablet now. Call em Vikki, Beth, brother. …

Me: You play them games or use them Facebook? You know? Them social media?

Tammy: No. Just call em.

Check on health, banking and Tammy: I don’t use em mobile no. transportation physically, or face to face I remember when the bus comes. I

Memorise country and schedules so had get a ride to Katherine for hospital. no need for maps or convenience apps I get em money from the post office. Cash money.

Debbie: No, I just know where to

go. I remember like my mum. She walks everywhere. She always has,

194 She knows this country. Me too. I drive though. I got them Ranger truck and I got my own car now too.

Did not report using Microsoft Office or Me: Do you use them computer for other programs writing? Typing? Like this? You

ever use this program? (shows Microsoft Word and other Office apps)

Tammy: Which one that one? No. I never seen this. I can’t write. So, I can’t use computer.

Interestingly, Wagiman Ranger Elders and people used Google Maps and internet for looking up country. They also had some experience emailing. For example,

Debbie: Yeah sometimes I use them Google Maps to look up country. Wagiman country. For them Rangers

I have em mail. That one Hotmail you call it?

Violet: Here, I will give you my email. It is the Wagiman Rangers email. You can send me the links to the website and maps and to the survey results if you like?

I like using that Google Maps. Mainly for the Rangers. It’s good eh?

In 2017, I tested the websites on mobile devices such as iPads and iPhones during interviews in Pine Creek, driving in the bush and on-site at the place where we had visited in 2015 and 2016. When I plugged my iPhone and iPad into the console of the vehicle to connect my Google Maps to the car, the Elders found the technology to be very interesting and were happy to see that their routes “out bush” could be directed from within the car on Google Maps as well. For example,

195 Tammy: Ah yeah. Them maps are good eh. So, you don’t get lost *laughs*. Good for them tourists here too. She talk. Oh. That’s good eh. She been telling you where to go.

Tammy was also interested in the reverse camera on the car which shows up on the console when backing up. She showed this to Louis during our 2016 trips on country. For example,

Tammy: (to Louis) Watch marluga,20 them camera look. When they do the back-back

Sadly, Louis had passed away, as had Jimmy’s wife, Irene, before my return to Pine Creek in 2017. Jimmy was still mourning Irene as she had passed away only two months before I had arrived. While Irene was not Wagiman, she always accompanied him on our trips “out bush” and was happy to tell as many Wagiman stories in Kriol and in Wagiman as she could. Irene was shyer than the other Elders, but with help and guidance from Tammy, her sister-in-law, Irene was interested in telling Wagiman stories too.

Louis had passed away in October 2016. When Jimmy accompanied us on our trip to Adelaide River in 2017, he took some convincing from Tammy and her daughter, Vikki, and granddaughter, Sally. But, once he was “out bush” and we were having lunch in Adelaide River, he expressed how happy he was to have come on the trip. For example,

Jimmy: this was good this trip. This was a very good trip. Made me feel good. I like being out on country.

During lunch, I also showed Jimmy the websites, maps and videos we had created together. I had warned Jimmy that there would be images and voices of those who had passed away on the videos and websites, namely Louis and Jimmy’s wife, Irene. Jimmy was most enthusiastic to watch videos about Louis owing to the fact that sufficient time had passed, at which point Jimmy was able to watch Louis and hear his voice. He said,

Jimmy: Oh. Hello old friend. Old Louis. Yeah it’s OK. Look. That old mulaga.

20 Wagiman word for “old man” used as a term of endearment and respect. 196 Warnings regarding the presence of deceased peoples’ images and voices are present on both the tourism and Wagiman websites. I asked Jimmy if it was alright to show Louis on the video and on the website for the families and tourists to see and he said that it would be very good to have him on there to tell his story. He responded that,

Jimmy: Yeah, it is OK. It is good to see him. Have him telling stories.

The Wagiman Elders and youth enjoyed that day also because Vikki and Sally learned to record Jimmy and Tammy’s stories on the video-camera during this trip. Vikki did the majority of the recording on this trip to Adelaide River, which made them all proud and happy to do more recording on future trips. Vikki even expressed her wish to go back to school in Darwin and learn about film-making so she can record more stories when I leave.

While assessing the Elders and older Wagiman residents’ use of technology, I began to get a sense of how the younger generations of Wagiman people in Pine Creek also use technology. They tend to share their devices with one another or use them to call one another. During my fieldwork from 2015-2017, I also interviewed the younger Wagiman residents, whose results are summarised in

Table 12 below.

Table 12 Younger Wagiman Residents' Use of Technology

Use of Technology Younger Wagiman Residents’ Responses

Borrow Elders devices and plans, Sally: Grandma, can I use the tablet? but some bought devices Penny: Yeah, some of the young ones around here go on including laptops online. eBay and buy laptops and phones and other things.

Send text messages on behalf of Vikki: (in a text) Hi Gabi. Vikki here. I am sending this the Elders. message for Mum. She wants to know if you are able to come at 11:00 instead of 10:00 today.

Tammy: I never went to school. Mum wouldn’t let me. I wanted to go, but she said no: you stay here. Work with me. I never learn to read or write.

197 Use devices for texting their family Sally: I like to play them games. You go any games on your and friends, listening to music, phone? On your iPad? (Opens snapchat app and plays with watching videos, playing games, visual effects i.e. colourful writing and face filters.) using the internet and social Vikki: Yeah I got em Facebook. Use that to talk to family, media such as Facebook and friends in Pine Creek and Darwin. Snapchat. Shelly: I like to watch them YouTube. Watch them music videos. Sometimes just surf the net on Google.

Jessica: I am always online looking for information about the Wagiman Rangers. Would be good to have that website with all the animals and all the trips you did. Are you going on any more trips? Can I come next time? When you going?

Use more convenience apps for Penny: Yeah, I got them Commonwealth app for banking. banking and transportation It’s good eh? Real easy. I also check the net for bus times.

Use the net, in the iPad, for booking flights and thing like that you know?

Use programs like Microsoft Penny: Yeah, I use Microsoft everyday here (PCAAA). Office, mainly Word, in school or Outlook, word, power point all that. at work. Shelly: Yeah we use word in school. For projects and things.

Vikki: Yeah, I used that in school and when I worked you know. Yeah.

Beth: Yeah, when I was a nurse. I go to school now in Katherine. Use them there.

Be familiar with Google Maps as a Vikki: Na. I just know you know? From all these trips we program, but rarely used it been doing with Mum and Uncle all these years. I know that because they also memorized Google Maps is good though. I know people who use it. country from their Elders. Shelly: Na. I remember from going out with Uncle and the Rangers.

198 The younger Wagiman people were very curious about technology and some of the much younger ones were very interested in playing with the technological devices that I used for my fieldwork research with Tammy. Sally was curious about my video camera, which I used to record her grandmother’s stories. I showed her how to record a video and she learned how to do so on her first try. Sally also played with my mobile phone and showed me how to use certain, colourful text and special effect settings on Snapchat that I did not know existed. We taught each other how to engage with technology in fun and innovative ways, thereby improving one another’s skillsets in technology and empowering one another through this sharing of skillsets, as proposed by Cole (2007) in Chapter 3.

I found that, generally, the Wagiman people involved in this study tended to use their devices and social media profiles for strictly personal reasons. They tended to use them for professional reasons if they were members of the Wagiman Ranger Program or the PCAAA, or if they used them at school or work.

I also found that the Wagiman people I spoke to were not currently or regularly using digital maps. The overarching reason given was that they have sophisticated “mental maps” of country. When I showed Wagiman Elders the Google Maps application while driving through the Northern Territory and demonstrated how Google Maps could be used as a means for sharing knowledge, they expressed keen interest in the application and the opportunities it could provide. The Wagiman youth that I spoke to were more familiar with Google Maps and its application for travelling. All the Wagiman people in this study were enthusiastic about using such GIS applications, such as Google Maps, for knowledge-sharing. For example,

Vikki: Oh, that’s good eh? You can just click on the black dot and the video will come up. That’s good. We can watch Mum and Uncle.

Tammy: Oh yeah. Look that one. The video is there now. That is where I been showing you that flat rock.

(In the car with Google Maps hooked up to the console and speakers) Tammy: Oh, listen that one now. Look there. The map is on the screen. That’s good eh?

199 The Wagiman people I spoke to were skilled in using software programs, such as Microsoft Office, owing to their attendance at school as well as any work or professional activities they may have engaged in. Penny, the manager of PCAAA, had the most extensive experience using such programs professionally and suggested I use wix.com in the first place, as seen earlier in this chapter.

She also has access to a variety of technological tools, including mobile phones, tablets, laptops and desktops and related programs and applications, including Office, Adobe, social media, Wix website design program and Google Maps. In her words,

Penny: Oh yeah. I got a mobile and a tablet which I use for apps like Facebook and banking and stuff. I’m always on Facebook (laughs). I got two laptops at home. One for like watching movies and stuff. And I got this desktop here (at PCAAA).

Her mother, Violet, is the current manager of the Wagiman Ranger Program alongside another Elder. Both have access to laptops and desktops and, therefore, tend to use them for professional activities such as emailing, mapping and looking up information about Wagiman country on Google.

Violet: Yeah. I got a computer in there now. (Points to office at Lewin Springs Ranger Station). I mainly use it for email, but I also use it to look at country using that Google Maps.

I used this program for website development in this study and offered the option for developing a training course for the community to learn how to use wix.com. The training course would include other software programs, such as Microsoft Office and Google Maps. The majority of participants, especially the elderly or computer illiterate, said no or maybe, while those who had some experience with technologies were interested in knowing more about various software programs. These interested participants also tended to have the necessary hardware in order to learn more about software programs and training.

As a result of this increased familiarity with Google Maps, the community decided to create maps on the websites using Google Maps instead of MapInfo Professional or ArcGIS, which were other options offered to the community. Since

200 they were not familiar with these programs, the Wagiman community and I agreed to use the more user-friendly and interactive option of Google Maps.

In order to use the application as a means for sharing knowledge, the Wagiman Elders and other participants from the Wagiman community requested training. The research team showed the Wagiman Elders and people how knowledge can be created step-by-step in Google Maps. This process generated camaraderie between the youth and the Elders by allowing the youth to translate the process to the Elders while learning how it is done at the same time. This small act of knowledge-sharing provided an opportunity to empower the youth as well as the Elders in skill and knowledge-sharing. The younger people were able to share technical skills with the Elders, at the same time as learning more from me about technology, and from the Elders about country.

As for managing the websites and maps, the four participants voted for the Wagiman Rangers to manage the websites. Three participants voted for traditional Elders to manage the websites, especially the WCHA. However, as the majority of traditional Elders I spoke to were not computer literate, they voted for Mark, my principal supervisor, to manage the tourism and WCHA websites. The Wagiman Rangers also thought that the Elders, or one of the younger community members, should manage the website. After further discussion with the wider community of Pine Creek, mutual agreement was made to have an experienced member of the community manage the WCHA and tourism websites. The management of both websites was based on the Wagiman interviews above as well as the non-Aboriginal interviews in the following section.

7.5 Non-Aboriginal Use of Technology

While conducting interviews and observations with the Wagiman community in 2015-2017, I also conducted interviews and observations with seven non- Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek. These interviews examined if there were many differences or similarities between the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents in terms of device ownership, software knowledge/skills, and purpose of use. I investigated the difference in skillsets to see if there is a gap in accessibility to technology through funding/support. Further, I wished to examine

201 if there is a gap in technological use through education or skill-training opportunities, which may have been available to the non-Aboriginal residents through their extensive engagement in tourism in Pine Creek. I investigate these gaps in opportunities for technological use and engagement to explore the level of empowerment that may be obtained through engagement in tourism development and management in Pine Creek.

I found that the non-Aboriginal community used Google Maps more often than the Wagiman community. They tended to travel further afield within the Northern Territory and Australia more often, as well as internationally to Asia, Europe and North America. Notably, approximately 14% of the non-Aboriginal residents who were interviewed were not Australian by birth but came from France.

Full details of the non-Aboriginal interviews can be seen in the database of interviewees’ responses in Appendix D. Table 13 below highlights the responses of the older non-Aboriginal residents and their use of technology.

Table 13 Older Non-Aboriginal Residents' Use of Technology

Use of Technology Older Non-Aboriginal Residents’ Responses

Own mobile phones, tablets and Lisa: Yeah I went to Katherine and got my laptops which they would buy in laptop there. I bought the other one online town, in Katherine or online and though.

would share with family members Anonymous: No. I bought my phone just here.

Use mobile to communicate with Anonymous: that family just called. Looks like friends, family and customers they are going to be coming in late (to the

motel). Lisa: Yeah. I talked to my daughter just now. She’s on her honeymoon in Bali and loving it.

Ben: I called an old mate a while back. He is coming in today. Will be nice to see him.

202 Use the desktop computers in the Gloria: Yeah! We could put the site up on the library to use the internet desktops in the library. Tourists are always going in there to use the internet. A lot of Pine

Creek people do too. Sometimes I go in there and use it when I’m not home.

Use data plans to pay for their mobile Lisa: Yeah I got a data plan. Its’ usually $55 internet data per month, if not more. Depending on when

and where I use it and how much (laughs).

Use their devices to play games, Lisa: Oh yeah I’m always playing games on access social media, namely the iPad. Reading books too. Listen to music.

Facebook and TripAdvisor, listen to Anonymous: I use TripAdvisor for the music, and watch/take videos and customers. photos. Lisa: Ah see look. I’ve got photos of my

grandson on my phone. He’s so cute see him? Hold on I’ve got a video of him playing with his dad watch.

Use Microsoft Office (especially Anonymous: Gabi, I’ve drafted the letter, but Word) as well as Google Maps, but I cannot print it. I don’t know what’s wrong with still required some basic technical the thing, but it just won’t print. Can you get it skills in using their devices, such as to work? printers. Lisa: Yeah I use Google Maps sometimes. When I’m going somewhere new or something.

Gloria: Oh yeah. I’ve got Microsoft Office. I use it for Council all the time…yeah Google Maps is great! I use it when I go on trips abroad sometimes.

Do not use website design programs Ben: nope never heard of it. What does it do? like wix.com.

203 Elijah: Oh, that sounds great. What is that? Is that how you made these? Oh well that’s wonderful.

Gloria: No, I haven’t. But I’m happy to try. How does it work? Can you show me? Is it easy?

Use convenience apps for banking, Ben: Na. I usually just go to the bank in health and transport as well as Katherine or the Post Office here.

engage face to face Gloria: yes. I’ve got the commonwealth app.

Anonymous: You can transfer it to me whenever. I’ll get a notice or an alert on my phone when it comes through.

Lisa: Yeah. I use the apps on my iPad for booking flights. I live right next to the hospital here, so I just go there unless it is serious then I go to Katherine.

Use Google Maps when travelling or Gloria: Yeah Google Maps is great! I use it for professional use. when I go on trips abroad sometimes

Elijah: Yeah, that Google Maps. The Railway Resort they got that now on their website.

While the older, non-Aboriginal residents may have more access to technological devices and programs, it appears that they are not as regular in using them as the Wagiman residents are, especially the young Wagiman people. In order to compare between the younger generations in Pine Creek, I also interviewed a couple of the younger non-Aboriginal residents of the town regarding their technology usage. Table 14 below highlights the responses of the younger non- Aboriginal residents and their use of technology.

204 Table 14 Younger Non-Aboriginal Residents' Use of Technology

Use of Technology Younger Non-Aboriginal Residents’ Responses

Share their mobile devices with the Amy: Oh yeah. I got my phone here. I older non-Aboriginal residents and also bought the laptops online and the tablet I bought them in town, in Katherine or got in Katherine. Bobby and I share all of online. them most of the time.

Use the same mobile devices for the Amy: Yeah we watch movies on them. same reasons as the older residents, Listen to music, play games. But he is but used games and social media more always playing games on his tablet. I am

on Facebook, but I don’t check my email often. Bobby is always on Snapchat and Facebook and Instagram you know?

Use convenience apps for health, Alistair: Yes. I use the phone for banking and transportation more, banking. On the app. Booking flights. I do including Google Maps. like to look at Google Maps. When I am

looking for places you know? I use that one.

Amy: Yeah. I use that Fitbit now. Trying to stay in shape. I also love playing the Pokémon one you know? I’ll try not to use it too much when we go to dinner tonight (laughs).

Use Microsoft Office, mainly Word, in Amy: Yeah. I use word for my job you school or professionally as well. know? And when I am looking for jobs. I

use for the resume. Alistair: Uh yes. I use it. For business.

Excel. I also use the Photoshop and Adobe for my art, which I sell to people.

205 The non-Aboriginal residents also used their devices and social media accounts for personal and professional reasons. The older residents used their devices and accounts and software programs more for their professions than the younger non-Aboriginal residents.

I also found that younger, non-Aboriginal residents tended to use technology for games and social media, plus convenience apps for banking and transportation. Technological use by the older, non-Aboriginal participants included Microsoft Office, social media, texting, calling, emailing and taking photos and videos. Such usage was also found with the younger, non-Aboriginal interviewees, but this group tended to use social media more and have a better conceptual understanding of it.

For instance, the older members of the non-Aboriginal community were less skilled in the use of social media platforms during the 2015 visit to Pine Creek. However, such use of social media had improved in 2016 owing to the realisation of the fuller potential of such platforms for tourism and hospitality purposes. For example,

Anonymous (2015): Why should I get that Facebook? It won’t do anything. I will hardly use it.

Anonymous (2016): I have Facebook now. I rarely use it or look at it, but it has brought more people. I have some good reviews on there too. The Railway resort has Instagram now too. Everyone is using social media now.

In 2015, many of the older, non-Aboriginal interviewees had used Google Maps for professional use as well as TripAdvisor, but only realised the use of Facebook and Instagram for professional use by 2016. Even then, more skills and use of the social media platforms can be made and applied in order to realise the full potential and empowerment of the social media platforms for tourism purposes.

The non-Aboriginal community were generally not interested in engaging in a software training course, except for one elderly resident, who already had the necessary hardware and some software capabilities. For example,

206 Gloria: Yes. I have a few laptops and tablets at home. I need to use them more and practice these programs more though. It would be good to have a training course for the community.

Ben: Na. We had a training course for the computer a few months back in 2016, but it didn’t last long. Hardly anyone went. I went a couple times but that was it. I didn’t get much from it.

Indeed, in 2017, I found that the town council had advertised and organised a monthly computer training seminar for the older members of the Pine Creek community. This seminar was only offered for a couple months as there was not a big attendance for the training seminars. Further, the seminars were attended predominantly by the non-Aboriginal residents and none of the Wagiman Elders had attended the course. When I asked the Wagiman Elders why they did not attend, they explained that they did not know how to read or write very well and so did not think a computer course would be of use to them. For example,

Tammy: I don’t know. I cannot read so I didn’t want to go.

As the course was advertised solely to the elderly of the community, none of the younger Wagiman or non-Aboriginal people attended the course either. For example,

Vikki: Na. It was for them old people.

Amy: Na. I wasn’t interested. Have too much to do and I am pretty Ok with all that stuff.

If the course had been open to younger generations as well as the elderly, then the seminar might have had a bigger and better attendance and could possibly still be in operation.

Based on the discussions with the non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek, they thought that someone from the Wagiman community, possibly from PCAAA, should manage the WCHA. Also, they thought that the tourism businesses and/or the Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association (PCHTA) should manage the tourism website. For example,

Lisa: Yeah. I think anyone who can or wants to should do it from their community. Maybe PCAAA?

207 Alistair: It would be good if the Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association managed the website.

The most willing, enthusiastic and technologically capable person on the PCHTA committee was chosen to manage the website for the destination and the community. This decision was agreed upon by the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal community members of Pine Creek. She said,

Gloria: Yes! I would love to do it. This is something we could all benefit from.

This resident had the most devices and the most variety of devices and was skilled and interested in becoming more skilled in using certain software programs including Vimeo, Google Maps, and wix.com for managing the tourism website.

Gloria: It’s so good you showed me how to use Vimeo and Wix. I have uploaded one of the videos from our poetry slam to the website now. It is fun!

These were programs that the manager of PCAAA was already skilled in using. As a result, the manager of PCAAA was also named co-manager for the tourism website as well, since much of the heritage content on the tourism website is Wagiman-based.

Penny: Yeah. If I’ve got the time. Would be good. Let me know when it is up and running and where it is at, and yeah, we will see how we go. But, yeah, should be OK. I would be happy to help with both. If Gloria is doing the tourism one that is good. She will be good at that. I can handle the Wagiman one no worries. I’ll have a look at it this afternoon. See if we can try something?

7.6 Pine Creek Tourists Use of Technology

I also conducted a tourist survey in 2016 and 2017, which posed questions about tourists’ usage of technology while travelling. These questions are similar to the ones asked of the Pine Creek residents, but their implications align more with my discussion on marketing the digital products of Pine Creek and Wagiman heritage

208 rather than community empowerment through digital technology. Full details of the tourist survey results are presented in Chapter 8.

Table 15 below highlights the technological-related results of the Pine Creek tourist surveys of 2016 and 2017.

Table 15 Tourists' Use of Technology in Pine Creek

Criteria Most Responses Second-Most Third-Most Responses Responses Age 56% Age 55 and 14% Age 35-44 13% Age 45-54 up Devices Used 52% iPhone 41% Android 35% Laptop When Travelling Get Info When 72% (41%) Maps 61% (38%) 54% (34%) Travelling (to Word-of-Mouth Road Signs Pine Creek) Social Media 67% Facebook 41% Google + 25% TripAdvisor

The results of the technological portion of the tourist survey demonstrate that most of the people visiting Pine Creek aged 55 and up use iPhones when travelling, use paper-based maps when travelling in general, as well as to Pine Creek, and use Facebook when travelling. Notably, Google platforms and TripAdvisor were also the most used social media channels for tourists travelling to Pine Creek. As discussed previously, these channels, including Facebook, were also the main channels used by the non-Aboriginal residents and business owners or Pine Creek. As also discussed previously, the younger Wagiman residents use Facebook frequently, which provides opportunities for digital engagement between Wagiman residents, non-Aboriginal residents and tourists through social media channels like Facebook.

Facebook and other social media channels are frequently accessed via iPhones among the non-Aboriginal and Wagiman residents of Pine Creek. This use of social media on mobile devices provides opportunities for app development and engagement between tourism stakeholders in Pine Creek. As Android and laptops were also top results from tourist to Pine Creek, it is possible that Google Play apps and websites could be used as engagement tools between the residents of Pine Creek and tourists to the town as well.

209 Once the Wagiman websites were fully developed, the tourism website was transformed into a Google Play app for Androids, and other smart devices that are connected to the Google Play store. The app was created using the My Mobile App app in wix.com. My Mobile App is a third party affiliate of wix.com, which can transform your wix.com website into a mobile app for iPhones in the Apple store for a price, or for Androids and other smart devices in the Google Play store for free.

To test the My Mobile App service, I applied for the tourism website to be transformed into a free mobile app in the Google Play store for no charge to the Pine Creek community. After three months, the website was approved by My Mobile App and Google Play and was made available for free download in the Google Play store in August 2018. I emailed the Pine Creek website managers about its availability and posted it to Facebook and Twitter. The Pine Creek community and others engaged most with the Facebook post and expressed their happiness for the app through the Facebook channel, including the website managers Gloria and Penny, who were tagged in the Facebook post.

7.7 Findings from the Field: Community-Based Implications for DAIBK Integration in Pine Creek

Findings from interviews with the Wagiman Elders indicate that many of the Wagiman people who live in rural areas would rather tell stories about the land and heritage to their kin, rather than interact directly with tourists. This may be owing to interactions with tourists in the past not being as efficient or fruitful as they may have hoped. Some of the Elders have since developed signs for tourism interpretation and for managing their sacred sites – some of which are in very close proximity to tourist parks. Signage has not been very efficient as many tourists still tend to venture into the sacred sites, mainly by accident. An example can be seen in the discussion with Tammy, below, taken at the Douglas-Daly Hot Springs in July 2015:

Tammy: Yeah. That's why we all move them (tourists) over there *points to designated Tourist Park*. They make a big round billabong. You can see that water boiling up. It's really hot. And them tourists still go there.

210 Tell them, don't go there, bring them here *points to Tourist Park*…there have cold water and warm water. But at night, they still go around.

But sometimes you can't see them. You know people will go around the other way and they won't see the sign.

They have that, they've put in that thing, mobile? With the walk, that thing go like that *makes beeping/stopping sign with hand*.

Many of the Wagiman Elders and younger Wagiman people that I spoke to expressed concern over tourists visiting sacred sites and wanted to make sure that tourists knew where they could and could not go, through the maps. As far as video content was concerned, the Wagiman people also did not want to have sacred site information available to tourists. Following Christen (2005) and Christen (2006) in Chapter 2, the participants decided that password protections would be good to have in place on the Wagiman website. For example,

Me: are there sites you don't want tourists to see?

Debbie: yeah some… like… plus um… like for me and Auntie in that way we don’t like talking about men stuff...it’s for women. Don’t have things to say things about men and men don’t say things about for women.

Me: like the ones you've been telling me about the railroad and about the birds and plants and have that put up on a website or on the phone for tourists to look at?

Debbie: put em on that computer, but other stuff you know like Wagiman.

Tammy: not of scared site. We don't talk about men only talk about women site

Me: do you have any views on tourists?

Penny: I’m not really into it, but um, I guess any type of tourism ventures would be a bonus to the people so, it’ll showcase a lot more of the landscape and stuff like that, so I think it is great!

Me: Is there anything you wouldn’t want tourists to see or do out here?

Penny: I guess as long as they know where they can and can’t go. Um…I’m not sure if there are any sacred sites or anything like that…make

211 sure they’re not going where they shouldn’t be. That would be my only thing to address.

Me: And what about putting them on the website? Showing them where there are sacred sites, would that be OK?

Penny: I probably wouldn’t see a problem with it, but you probably need to speak to the Elders about it. Like Jimmy and Tammy and them. See how they feel about that.

Jimmy: We can show them birds, trees, country. Them cattle stations we’ve been doing, but sacred sites, we keep those just Wagiman, just us.

Tammy: Yeah, I wouldn't mind telling them, but we bit frightened. To lose my going, and to lose something. You know, tourists might say, ‘Oh, it's not really’, you know? Keep it closed. Can't tell anybody about it. Tourists, you know? They will make a big mess, you know.

The Elders and younger Wagiman people expressed a fear of people physically visiting sacred sites as well as hearing the stories, which mainly depended on the gender of the tourist, but also, the behaviour or reaction tourists may have to the sacredness of an area. This shows that the Wagiman people were more interested in safeguarding their social and cultural values rather than undertaking a possibly economically beneficial endeavour. This was especially true with regard to tourism at sacred sites. This notion of social benefits in tourism development adds to the discourse on the importance of the social value-based approach in Indigenous tourism (discussed throughout this thesis as well as in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3).

As seen earlier in this chapter, when interviewing the younger Wagiman people of Pine Creek, I found that many expressed interest in becoming a Wagiman Ranger. A couple of younger members of the Wagiman community, Jessica (age 19) and Penny (age 34), also expressed interest in website design, content and management. They especially expressed interest in the content and management of the “Wagiman Website”, which we designed with the Wagiman Elders in tandem with the “Tourism Website”.

The Wagiman interviews of 2016 and 2017 not only measured the use and capabilities of technology and software among the Indigenous and non- 212 Indigenous residents of the Pine Creek community, but also measured who the residents believe would be appropriate managers of the websites, videos and maps we created together as a community. As discussed in Chapter 6, many of the respondents from both the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents indicated that someone who can and will manage the websites – who has the capabilities to do so – should do it. More respondents from the Wagiman community indicated that Mark or the Wagiman Rangers should manage the websites and maps, but both Mark and the Rangers agreed that Penny from PCAAA would be a more appropriate candidate for managing the websites. The rest of the Wagiman community then agreed that she would be a good choice.

At the end of the 2017 fieldwork trip, Penny became the manager/owner of the Wagiman Community Heritage Archive website: www.wagiman.website/ on behalf of the larger Wagiman community of Pine Creek. Gloria, who is Treasurer of the PCHTA, was the most qualified and enthusiastic person on the council who was interested and capable of managing the tourism website: www.visitpinecreek.com. She was elected to co-manage the tourism website with Penny. The successful transfer of the “Wagiman Website” to the Wagiman community of Pine Creek, as well as the successful Indigenous and non- Indigenous co-management and transfer of the “Visit Pine Creek” tourism destination website, supports our argument for DAIBK integration into existing tourism structures for Indigenous tourism management and empowerment.

7.8 Conclusion

The Wagiman community of Pine Creek called upon digital options for engaging with tourists, yet my findings reveal that they require more resources for creating digital products for tourism development and heritage conservation. In order to overcome issues of hardware and software resources and capabilities, I argue that stakeholders can effectively communicate with one another to share skills and knowledge bases across generations and communities. Further, the employment of outside support to supply the required resources and skills can help create a community-based tourism product sustainably as long as the control of the product development process belongs to the community and not the

213 outside support (as suggested by Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014, and McGinty, 2002 in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of this thesis).

In terms of technology, I found that using the technology in question during conversations was integral to increasing the uptake of technological knowledge and skills as well as inspiring conversational flow on the topic of technology. Using the website and mapping platforms during conversations helped show the Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents the possibilities that website design and digital mapping can offer in diversifying tourism products and conserving heritage for longer-term as discussed by Clark (2014) and Christen (2005, 2006) in Chapter 2. The option of creating a digital archive of knowledge, for tourists and the community, through mapping, was previously discussed and called upon by the Pine Creek communities before my PhD began. When I arrived, I provided further options as to which programs could be used, how they could be used to promote heritage and conserve knowledge and how the Wagiman could be involved in tourism in a way that may best suit their expressed needs and desires from the local tourism industry.

The non-Aboriginal community tended to have more access to computer hardware, while the Wagiman Elders largely did not. The non-Aboriginal community tended to use their devices and software applications for professional uses and personal use, while the Wagiman people, especially the Elders, tended to use them for more personal usage. This was especially the case with social media profiles, which the non-Indigenous tended to have for both personal and professional use, while the Wagiman youth tended to use solely for personal reasons. The non-Indigenous community also tended to spend more on data and data plans in particular, while the Wagiman spent less and tended to use “pay as you go” options. This may be owing to the fact that many of the non-Aboriginal residents and participants are owners and workers in the tourism services offered in the town, while the Wagiman tend to be unemployed, at school, or work with the Wagiman Ranger Program.

The understanding and usage of Microsoft Office was stronger in the non- Aboriginal community than in the Wagiman community, but the older, non- Aboriginal participants still had some trouble fully understanding how computers work. For example, one particular, older, non-Aboriginal participant needed help

214 figuring out how to connect her desktop computer to her new printer. This is a fairly simple process for those who are more computer literate. While the older, non-Aboriginal participants tend to be tourism business owners and are more literate with computers than the Wagiman Elders, they still required some further basic skill-training in the use of computers and other technologies following the issues discussed in Whitford et al. (2010), Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) and McGinty (2002) in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.

The majority of the Wagiman residents who I spoke to were undecided about a training course, while the majority of non-Aboriginal residents were not interested. The only ones who were interested in a training course were those who possessed access or ownership to the necessary hardware or software, and those who had the necessary funding to obtain said hardware and software. Indeed, many residents did not attend the Microsoft Word training seminar that the town council had previously offered to the elderly community in 2016. As younger people in Pine Creek are more literate and more computer literate than the older members, the council may not have seen much reason to open up the seminar to them. However, as seen from the technological interviews of both the Wagiman and the non-Aboriginal community, perhaps a more extensive training course in the use of Microsoft Office could benefit youth and elderly as well as Wagiman and non-Indigenous alike if marketed more widely and diversely to the youth as well as the elderly.

Younger members of the Wagiman community who I spoke to indicated that they were especially skilled in using technological devices, programs and applications such as Snapchat, Microsoft Word, Excel and Adobe, which many of the older and younger non-Indigenous residents and tourists were not as skilled or familiar with using. Many of the older and younger non-Aboriginal residents may not have even heard of certain programs or applications, like wix.com or Snapchat, which some of the Wagiman youth and Elders had not only heard of, but had previous experience using.

While the findings here show that there are gaps and issues in accessing technology as well as learning how to use the software of certain programs, it is clear that employing an outside professional assistance (as suggested by Whitford & Ruhanen, 2014, in Chapter 2) can help bridge these gaps and issues

215 in hardware and software accessibility and training. Before I left Pine Creek in 2017, I left training materials for the website managers and Wagiman and non- Aboriginal community to use to conduct further research on-site in the bush, create and upload video content for Vimeo and the websites, as well as create and upload GIS content for Google Maps and the websites. These materials are available in Appendix I, Appendix J, Appendix K, Appendix L, Appendix M, Appendix N, Appendix O and Appendix P. The training sheets cover instructions on how to engage in fieldwork as a member of the Wagiman community, as a tourism developer or outside researcher, how to edit videos using Adobe Premiere Pro, how to upload videos to Vimeo, Google Maps and wix.com, and how to create maps using Google Maps. If the websites are to succeed in empowering the community and attracting tourists to the destination, they will need consistent management, adjustment and revitalisation – this can be done through the community’s continuation of the project, adding more stories and coordinates to the maps and websites for generations to come.

After the capabilities of technology were assessed within the community of Pine Creek as well as the tourists, finding out the best way to market the digital knowledge to tourists in Pine Creek needed to be explored as well. The process of marketing digital, Indigenous tourism products and integrating Aboriginal, Wagiman knowledge into the existing tourism management systems are discussed in the following Chapter 8.

216 CHAPTER 8 MARKETING FINDINGS: TOURIST MARKETS AND PROMOTION OF WAGIMAN HERITAGE FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

“I will follow the white man’s trail. I will make him my friend, but I will not bend my back to his burdens. I will be cunning as a coyote. I will ask him to help me understand his ways, then I will prepare the way for my children, and their children. The Great Spirit has shown me – a day will come when they will out run the white man in his own shoes.”

- Many Horses, a Teton Lakota Chief

8.1 Introduction

This chapter draws from the findings of the previous two chapters regarding Wagiman people’s engagement in tourism development through technology; namely, the development and promotion of tourism and heritage websites and apps. This chapter follows the literature discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 regarding authenticity in Indigenous tourism promotion through the use of Indigenous methodologies and Indigenous-led interpretation of heritage in tourism development, promotion and management by evaluating the use of ethnomarketing versus geomarketing strategies. This chapter also presents the findings of the tourist surveys in Pine Creek to support the marketing strategies the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents’ discussed with me during my fieldwork in 2015-2017 regarding the websites.

Lessons from Victoria regarding Indigenous interpretation of heritage in tourism promotional materials is discussed in Chapter 10. A content analysis of 2017 Indigenous tourism promotional materials in Victoria is provided in Appendix Q. The content analysis and discussions regarding Victoria are part of the ARC Linkage Grant and act as supportive references and case studies to the

217 developments, promotional strategies and management systems explored in this study in Pine Creek.

This chapter aims to provide a market analysis of the current tourism opportunities in Pine Creek. Through a tourist market analysis of Pine Creek, and the formal and informal interviews with the residents of Pine Creek, marketing strategies of the Pine Creek community websites are formed for sustainable tourism promotion and management. These strategies aim to help the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents diversify the town’s current tourism product through Indigenous interpretation of local heritage, as well as benefit and empower the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek.

The design of the tourist survey completed by visitors to Pine Creek in 2016 and 2017 aligns with Ryan and Huyton (2000a, 2000b, 2002), who surveyed tourists in Katherine regarding their “active information seeker” tendencies to gauge what kind of tourists were interested in Aboriginal or natural attractions and experience in the area. This survey’s design also follows that of Moscardo and Pearce (2016), whose work on ethnic tourism in Australia analyses tourists’ interest in engaging in authentic Indigenous tourism experiences. However, my design, almost twenty years after Ryan and Huyton (2000a, 2000b, 2002), incorporates questions about tourists’ technological use. I examine their technological use to gauge the feasibility of tourist–Wagiman engagement online, rather than in person, which is implied as a future area of research and development by Ryan and Huyton (2000a, 2000b, 2002), as well as Moscardo and Pearce (2016).

The findings from the 2016 and 2017 surveys of tourists in Pine Creek illustrate that, of the 265 of survey respondents, the majority can be categorised as Grey Nomads (56% of respondents), who indicated that they were Australian and travelling by caravan on holiday as a couple. As discussed in Chapter 3 following TRA (2017b), Grey Nomads denote domestic/Australian tourists, aged 50 or over, who travel by caravan in rural and remote areas of Australia, usually in couples, as part of their retirement/recreational holiday plans. The Grey Nomads visiting Pine Creek indicated staying in caravan parks or some form of commercial camping ground in Pine Creek and the surrounding areas. They tended to stay for less than a day, or one day, when they would frequent the museums in Pine Creek before moving onto Darwin, Kakadu and Katherine or

218 onto the surrounding areas of Pine Creek, mainly Edith Falls, the Hot Springs and Umbrawarra Gorge, which can be seen in Map 10 below.

Map 10 Surrounding Tourism Attractions in the Pine Creek Area

8.2 2016 and 2017 Pine Creek Tourist Survey Results

Table 16 highlights the main findings of the tourist survey results from 2016-2017. The table provides information about the top three response rates on each question within the surveys. A full account of the survey results can be found in Appendix G. As discussed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7, the tourist survey results follow the format and content of the tourist surveys administered by Tourism NT (2017b) and Tourism NT (2018), the insights from which were previously discussed in Chapter 3. The Pine Creek tourist surveys provide demographic information about tourists visiting the town and its surrounding areas, as well as:

 why they travelled to Pine Creek  with whom  how they were travelling there  where they were staying and for how long  where else they were visiting on their travels to/through Pine Creek  how they find information while travelling (to Pine Creek)  what devices and platforms they are using when they travel and why  what interests them in Pine Creek and its surrounds.

219 Table 16 Summary of Tourist Survey Results 2016-2017

Criteria Most Responses Second-Most Responses Third-Most Responses Nationality 52% International 48% Australian Australian Tourists 26% New South Wales (NSW) 19% Victoria (VIC) 16% Queensland (QLD) Age 56% Age 55 and up 14% Age 35-44 13% Age 45-54 Reason for Travelling to Pine Creek 80% Holiday 12% Friends or Family 9% Other21 Travel Party 51% Adult Couple 21% Family Group 14% Friends Mode of Transportation 43% Caravan/RV 36% Off-Roading/4WD 24% Standard Vehicle Been to Pine Creek before 66% No 34% Yes Reason for Previous Visit to Pine Creek 63% Holiday 24% Other 8% Employment Duration of Stay in Pine Creek 39% Less than a day 29% 1 Day 17% 2 Days Accommodation 45% Caravan Park 31% Hotel/Motel/Inn/Resort 14% Other Places Visited in the NT (plan to visit) 73% (66%) Darwin 69% (60%) Katherine 52% (44%) Kakadu Devices Used When Travelling 52% iPhone 41% Android 35% Laptop Get Info When Travelling (to Pine Creek) 72% (41%) Maps 61% (38%) Word-of-Mouth 54% (34%) Road Signs Social Media 67% Facebook 41% Google + 25% TripAdvisor Interest in Pine Creek 65% Railway Museum 38% Miners Park 31% Pine Creek Museum Visiting Places in the Area 77% Edith Falls/Leiliyn 43% Hot Springs/Djuwaliyn 32% Umbrawarra Gorge

21 “Other” was usually chosen for people “just passing through”, “fuelling up on food and fuel” or, rarely, those specifically interested in “birdwatching”. 220 Grey Nomads tended to indicate their knowledge about Pine Creek’s existence owing to previous trips through the Top End, word-of-mouth from NT locals and fellow tourists, or from friends and family in the area. Grey Nomads who were relatively new to the Top End indicated finding Pine Creek mostly by using road signs along the Stuart Highway or maps. Rarely did they use technology to find information when travelling or when travelling to Pine Creek in particular. However, they did indicate interest in local history and culture by their interest in the Pine Creek museums and parks. Notably, not many indicated an interest in Aboriginal culture in Pine Creek.

Tourists aged 35-44 made up 14% of respondents. This group tended to travel with families either by caravan or 4WD. They also tended to be Australian, but many were also international tourists travelling the Top End from Europe. They tended to only stay for a night before moving onto Darwin, Katherine or Kakadu. The majority seemed interested in visiting Kakadu after staying in Pine Creek. These tourists tended to use technology more than the Grey Nomads, indicating a use of websites and social media (TripAdvisor) when travelling, but tended to use word-of-mouth, maps and road signs when travelling to Pine Creek in particular. They carried iPhones with them, as well as Androids, but also used laptops and tablets/iPads when travelling (to Pine Creek).

Introduced in the results of Chapter 7, tourists who participated in the surveys in Pine Creek engaged with technology being using the following devices when travelling, in general, as well as to Pine Creek:

 52% used iPhones while travelling  41% used Androids  35% used laptops  29% used iPads.

Notably, 24% indicated using GPS or Tom Tom devices while travelling in general. Respondents indicated that they mainly obtain information while travelling from maps (72%), word-of-mouth (61%) and road signs (54%). Forty- two percent stated that they use websites and mobile apps, while 39% use GPS. I also found that 41% of respondents stated they used maps to find information

221 about Pine Creek, while 38% used word-of-mouth and 34% used road signs. Fourteen percent used GPS and 13% used websites and mobile apps.

There is a gap of 29% between people who usually use websites and mobile apps when they travel and those who used them to find information about Pine Creek. There is also a 25% gap between people who usually use GPS and those who used it to find information about Pine Creek, while the use of maps was dominant in both cases. These gaps are most likely due to the lack of information about Pine Creek online, especially as a tourism destination in the NT. However, with the creation of the new, official tourism website, these gaps may change and lessen over time. When tourists were surveyed about their social media presence, 67% of respondents indicated that they use Facebook, while 41% use Google+ and 25% use TripAdvisor. Every business in town has a Facebook and TripAdvisor account now, which may help increase its social media and other online visibility over time.

When tourists were surveyed about what attractions they were interested in seeing in the town, 65% indicated interest in visiting the Railway Museum, 38% in visiting the Miners Park and 31% in visiting the Pine Creek Museum. Also, 28% indicated an interest in “other” options, which mainly consisted of:

 specific areas for food and sleep, such as Mayse’s Café or Pussycat Flats Caravan Park  birds  not interested/only passing through.

Out of the 265 of survey respondents, only 22% indicated interest in Aboriginal culture. This may be due to several factors, including the current lack of Aboriginal cultural interpretation in Pine Creek (as previously discussed in section 3.4.2). Another reason for this limited interest may be the extensive array of Aboriginal experiences offered to tourists in the surrounding areas of Kakadu and Nitmiluk National Parks, which are already well-established Indigenous tourism ventures in the NT and major draws to tourists visiting the Top End (as previously discussed in Chapter 4). In other words, Pine Creek is not currently established or promoted as a destination where Indigenous culture is central to the experience. In this sense, Pine Creek is in the early stages of Butler’s (1980)

222 TALC model; i.e., exploration or development, especially as an Indigenous tourism destination (see section 1.4).

However, 23% were interested in the Water Gardens of Pine Creek, which is a centrally placed landmark of Pine Creek where many species of wild birds and flying foxes gather during the day and night. However, relatedly, only 18% of respondents indicated interest in animals and 14% in plants. This lack of interest in the town may stem from the lack of Aboriginal representation of heritage or tourism in the town, the lack of Aboriginal-based experiences in the town, as well as the over-representation and commodification of culture in the surrounding areas of the NT. This makes it difficult for tourists to “actively seek” Aboriginal experiences in Pine Creek, since they may not be aware of the availability of such options in the town, especially when there are such options available nearby in Kakadu and Katherine – destinations that many Pine Creek tourists were either on their way to visit or had already visited before arriving in Pine Creek.

Interestingly, respondents in the 35-44 age group indicated more interest in Aboriginal culture, as well as natural attractions including birdwatching and the water gardens. This is an interesting find because, according to Ryan and Huyton (2000b), this group aligns with the “active information seekers” in their study who frequent natural attractions in the Top End and indicate interest in authentic Aboriginal tourism experiences. Further, cultural tourism researchers such as Timothy (2011) find that older, more educated tourists in this age category as well as in the Grey Nomad category, are more interested in cultural tourism including Indigenous tourism experiences, which are considered authentic. This thesis’ findings align with Ryan and Huyton (2000b) in that few Grey Nomads were categorised as “active information seekers” as they did not indicate much interest in Aboriginal culture nor natural tourist experiences such as birdwatching or the water gardens. Many of the Grey Nomads may not have indicated an interest in Aboriginal culture in Pine Creek owing to the lack of Aboriginal cultural interpretation, tourism infrastructure or promotion in Pine Creek, aside from the “Walk Through Time” feature discussed in Chapter 4.

Thus, if Aboriginal cultural experiences are digitally interpreted in Pine Creek’s current tourism infrastructure, i.e., museums, then both markets can be targeted and diversified simultaneously – the Grey Nomads may become more interested

223 in technology and Aboriginal culture owing to their interest in frequenting the museums of Pine Creek and the active information seekers can gain an authentic Aboriginal experience by visiting the established museums in the town, as well as the tourism website, which includes a page for birdwatchers that also highlights the Aboriginal names and knowledge of the birds in the area (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017).

When asked to provide any feedback on their experiences in Pine Creek, most respondents gave positive feedback, especially about the upkeep and cleanliness of the town, the friendliness of the locals and residents, the greatness of the local heritage as well as a hope and a promise to return and stay longer next time. A full account of tourist feedback can be seen in Appendix G; however, below is a word cloud generated using Survey Monkey, highlighting the most common words, phrases and terms used in the tourists’ comments on the surveys.

Figure 9 Word Cloud of Pine Creek's Tourists' Comments

As seen in Figure 9 above, tourists to Pine Creek had mainly positive feedback on the town, the local residents and the tourists’ visits to Pine Creek using words such as: “lovely”; “nice”; “good people”; “friendly”; “thank you”; “life”; “welcoming”; and “awesome”. Notably, the tourists also note the main tourism offerings, ventures and attractions in the town, as well as the town’s condition and how it is viewed by the tourists, such as “Lazy Lizard”; “gold”; “Pine Creek”; “Pussycat Flats”; “town”; “spot”; “hooded parrots”; “place”; “caravan park”; “signs”; “history”; “little”; “accommodation”; and “railway museum”. Also, the tourists note the

224 surrounding attractions that bring them to Pine Creek: “stop”; “travelling”; “Litchfield”; “Kakadu”; “Darwin”; and “touring NT”. Importantly, the tourists hardly mentioned anything about “Aboriginal”-, “Indigenous”-, or “Wagiman”-related content in their comments, even when discussing travelling to surrounding areas, such as Kakadu, suggesting that their lack of mention of Aboriginal-related content is owing to the lack of Aboriginal interpretation in the town, as discussed in Chapter 4.

While the survey yielded results for what tourists are looking for when visiting Pine Creek, more information was needed from the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents about how they would like to market their heritage of the area to tourists. As discussed in the results in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, interviews with members of the Wagiman community in Pine Creek indicate that, overwhelmingly, the development of AIBK and the integration of this knowledge digitally (DAIBK) into the existing tourism infrastructure is a viable option for engaging with tourists. This alternative allows for greater opportunities to benefit the Wagiman community as well as the non-Aboriginal community who manage the tourism industry in Pine Creek, who provided feedback on how they would like to market their heritage, teachings and websites to tourist in Pine Creek and beyond instead of failing in their own stand-alone entrepreneurial ventures by integrating into the existing tourism infrastructures of the town, following Foley (2008), Morley (2014), Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) and Botterill and Platenkamp (2012), discussed in Chapter 2.

8.3 Pine Creek Residents’ Marketing Strategies: Ethnomarketing versus Geomarketing

A separate Wagiman website focused on fully archiving Wagiman knowledge about local plants, animals, history, cultural sites and placenames. It was developed after digital engagement took place during a meeting in March 2016 with the PCHTA. I was working in Spain during this time and so communicated with Pine Creek residents via email. As discussed in Chapter 7, many of the Wagiman Elder did not use email, but some of the younger Wagiman people and the non-Aboriginal people did. The non-Aboriginal people tended to use it more

225 frequently for business, as discussed in Chapter 7, so I emailed Alistair, the head of the PCHTA, about the current tourism website skeleton. He said that they were having a meeting in March and he would show it to the Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal members of the PCHTA and provide me with feedback from the meeting. The following email correspondence with Alistair resulted in the development of a separate, Wagiman-focused website and a rebranding of the tourism website to be more culturally inclusive and less ethnocentric in nature:

I tried to show the website to the committee, but after a quick reaction from a Jawoyn lady to the fact that Pine Creek is also on Jawoyn land, well, I have to say that unfortunately there wasn't much more comment about it. I totally understand the point of this lady, who would like to see everybody working together, and I agree. The unfortunate reason, believe it or not, in a big place like Pine Creek, is "Politics". The upcoming of a local election, let say....transformed the behaviour of some people on the committee, who were more interested in the Jawoyn vote, than any constructive conversation. But, beside this unfortunate attitude, I believe that a website about Pine Creek will have to be more inclusive of all side of its community. So, the best would probably be to set up a different website to promote Pine Creek generally speaking, and that Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association also contribute to the Wagiman website. What do you think about this Wix team? Is it hard work to set up a website? Anyway, things have been slow here, somehow for some political "reasons", and things will not have much change by the time you come in July. I hope you'll enjoy the Spanish Spring.

Interestingly, the notion of a separate website for the Wagiman people came from one of the non-Aboriginal residents, showing a strong social cohesion in an otherwise politically marginalised area. These political issues, even with Aboriginal organisations and groups, align with the research discussed in Chapter 2.

During my field visits later that year in 2016 and 2017, drafts of the website(s) were shown to the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek who provided detailed and insightful feedback as to what needed to be changed, what could be added, and what can and should be viewed and by whom. As indicated

226 in the email above, one major change that needed to be made to the tourism website was the reference to “Wagiman country” on the home page. The website now reads “welcome to country”, which makes the website more socially and culturally inclusive, illusive and more geographically focused. This was an acceptable change for both tribal groups of the area as well as the non- Indigenous members of the town. These changes can be seen in Plate 7 below.

Plate 7 Visit Pine Creek Homepage 2016 versus 2018 To respect the wishes of the Jawoyn residents of Pine Creek, all specific reference to “Wagiman country” and heritage was removed from the tourism site and rephrased to be more socially, ethnically and culturally inclusive. The website now only mentions “Indigenous or Aboriginal” heritage and stories, even though the content is still dominated by Wagiman stories, people, language and heritage. This did not seem to matter to the Jawoyn, but the specific reference to “Wagiman country” in regards to Pine Creek was of concern.

This is, interestingly, contrary to the Cultural Terms and Identities section of this thesis, as well as the works of Foley (2008) in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. They state that Aboriginal people should be promoted and referred to specifically by their language group name if possible to further the potential of

227 social benefits in tourism and other sectors. However, in the case of tourism marketing in Pine Creek, the specific term “Wagiman” needed to be socially and culturally generalised to “Aboriginal” or “Indigenous” in order to strengthen a social value base of the heterogeneous, Aboriginal community in Pine Creek. This finding supports the work of Morales (2005) in Chapter 2, as ethnomarketing strategies also seem to not work in the ethnically heterogeneous community of Pine Creek. Therefore, alternative marketing strategies, or geomarketing strategies, were developed, as introduced in Chapter 2.

The geographically-specific tourism website of Pine Creek had to be made more socially and culturally inclusive in order to avoid social or cultural conflicts, omissions or offense, thereby taking on a more “geomarketing” approach to cultural promotion for tourism development. The tourism website also contains the current tourism product of the strong non-Aboriginal and Chinese-based heritage about the local railway and gold mining developments since the 1800s.

However, in order to showcase the strong Wagiman heritage of the area and to honour the Wagiman peoples’ wishes, expressed in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, I created a second website with the Wagiman people: the WCHA or “Wagiman website”. This website acts as a community tool of knowledge-sharing, which has an extensive database of all the videos, maps and audio files that we recorded in 2015-2017 fieldtrips and, as per the suggestion of the PCHTA lead, is linked to the tourism website.

Following Christen (2005, 2006), many of the web pages and videos are password protected and are only accessible by the Wagiman community owing to the sacred site information and culturally sensitive content contained therein. The current “Wagiman Plant and Animal Book” is also mostly password protected as the community hopes to create another tourism product from this book that can be sold to tourists in town and online.

Currently, only the bird page of the Wagiman Plant and Animal Book is publicly accessible and is linked to the tourism website, as there are many avid birdwatchers that come to visit the town and local area, as seen in the 2016-2017 tourist survey results in this chapter and in Appendix G. The WCHA does state: “Welcome to Wagiman country” and is designed almost identically to that of the tourism website. The Jawoyn do not seem to mind this as the Wagiman Archive 228 is specifically marketed towards Wagiman people without much explicit reference to Pine Creek as a destination.

The tourism website especially markets a more geographical focus of the destination, by highlighting the heritage maps on three out of the seven pages of the tourism website and marketing “Pine Creek” as a destination on seven out of the seven web pages. Only one out of the seven tourism web pages contains Wagiman-specific content. The WCHA contains “Wagiman” content on five out of the five web pages. By marketing each website in this way, we managed to accommodate all stakeholders in this study and in the tourism development of the Pine Creek and the surrounding areas, while also conserving and sharing Wagiman knowledge and language with tourists and younger generations of the community.

8.4 Conclusion

From my interviews, I found that in order to accommodate all stakeholders, the tourism website had to be geographically specific but socially, ethnically and culturally generic. There were no social, ethnic or cultural issues with having an ethnomarketed Wagiman website as long as it was not specifically referring to Pine Creek as their country.

Insights from my research with the Wagiman and other Pine Creek residents can provide the community and website managers with important information regarding how to market Pine Creek and its otherwise unknown rich Aboriginal heritage to tourists. I shared the results of the tourist survey with the tourism website managers in order for them to better assess areas of opportunity and weakness in their current tourism infrastructure and marketing strategies. As the manager of the WCHA is also co-managing the tourism website, we decided to share the results with her as well in order for her to participate fully in tourism development and promotion discussions at her convenience.

As a result of my interviews with the Wagiman community and the non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek, many of the participants in this study showed were most enthusiastic about marketing the Wagiman heritage and knowledge on a destination website for Pine Creek. With the websites, the Wagiman Rangers can 229 further map their country and use the maps as evidence for other community, conservation, and environmental developments in the area as well as policy- making decisions on land use. The youth can learn the Wagiman language, especially regarding plants, animals, and placenames for the sites I visited with the Elders. They can learn language through the videos and plant and animal book, which are available on the websites. The Elders can be involved in “bushwalks” through their country via virtual tours on a daily basis and can even provide this knowledge during the tourist off-peak (wet) season, when the climate is not suitable for bushwalking through the area.

The non-Aboriginal tourism businesses can follow the diversification of products works of Hinch and Butler (2007) and Jacobsen (2017) and market a fresh perspective to their railway and mining heritage in the town. They also benefit by allowing the tourists to stay longer in the town and spend more money while they go out on the same bush trips I went out on with the Wagiman after watching the videos in town and while viewing the maps on their mobile and vehicular devices in Google Maps, which provides adequate reception when “out bush” in the surrounding Pine Creek area. The ongoing implications of managing the websites that were developed and promoted based on interviews with residents of the Pine Creek and tourists to the area are discussed in the following chapter.

230 CHAPTER 9 MANAGEMENT FINDINGS: ONGOING IMPACT OF RESEARCH: INDIGENOUS TOURISM WEBSITE MANAGEMENT

“Was received in bundagaree, With a heart opening deep sleep, Melaleuca dreaming, Old woman could see me, Was received in bundagaree, With a heart opening deep sleep, The eagles remind me of the centre of my family…”

– Xavier Rudd, from his song “Bundagen”

9.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I present my findings and analysis for ongoing community management of the WCHA and tourism websites. These findings and assessments align with the notion of diversification of tourism products as well as AIBK integration into tourism development, promotion and management, which were discussed in Chapter 2. The implications of these findings in this chapter reiterate the importance of Indigenous control over Indigenous tourism products and promotion, with a specific focus on Wagiman control of the tourism website. I also argue the need for researchers to give back to the community in tourism research and development with Aboriginal and other Indigenous communities.

9.2 Monitoring and Assessment of Pine Creek Websites

After consultations with the Wagiman community are completed in 2018, the community may then pitch to have either the online plant and animal book or the entire WCHA website submitted as an app to purchase from the app store and sold to tourists. The WCHA and online Plant and Animal Book were completed in May 2018. The community is still being consulted regarding the development of mobile app replications of both of the websites: WCHA and Visit Pine Creek. During my 2015-2017 fieldwork, the creation of mobile apps for tourists and

231 community members was called upon and desired by the Wagiman and non- Aboriginal community of Pine Creek. Now that both websites and a tourism app are completed, the production of a mobile app version of the Wagiman website, especially the plant and animal book, can be made using the same platform as the websites – Wix.com and the tourism app My Mobile App, a third-party system for creating app versions of Wix websites.

The development of a hardcopy version of the book to sell to tourists in the stores in Pine Creek as well as online as an e-book through the tourism website, is also being discussed further with the community. Such developments may aid in fostering more online engagement, promotion and social and economic development within the community.

I am still listed on wix.com as a contributor to both websites. Recently, a new admin and co-manager has been added to the tourism website and is someone I believe to be one of the Elders who is also co-managing the Wagiman Ranger Program. I can see if and when the websites have been altered and who is visiting and managing the websites in real time as well as view recorded statistics. I have installed the wix.com app titled “Visitor Analytics” to gauge the level of visitation to the websites online.

Unfortunately, when accessing the WCHA website in September 2018, the domain was no longer available, meaning that the subscription to the domain: http://www.wagiman.website/ had not been renewed. Instead, the Wagiman website or WCHA can now be accessed from the unofficial domain: http:// https://pcaaa7.wixsite.com/wagimanpinecreek/ until the domain subscription is renewed. When creating the official domain: www.wagiman.website/, wix.com charges $5 a year for the renewal. Either PCAAA has forgotten to renew, is not interested in renewing, is not aware of the need to renew, or does not have the funds to renew the subscription.

Based on my earlier interviews with the community and the need for further technological skill-training, it can be predicted that the manager is not aware or has forgotten of the need to renew the domain this year. Hopefully, the domain will be renewed in the near future as this is the one being promoted on the tourism website and other social media and marketing channels both within and outside the community and their tourism businesses. Otherwise, the WCHA website has 232 not yet been altered by the Wagiman community. There may also be changes to the level of privacy of the videos as hierarchical changes within the Wagiman community and further consultations with the Elders of the community may indicate a more favourable possibility of making certain videos and maps and book pages available to the public.

As for the tourism website, I noticed alterations to the home page and events page as of May 2018, in preparation for Pine Creek’s annual Gold Rush event, which starts in June every year. Flyers for the event have taken centre place on the events page of the tourism website and the alignment of the monthly newsletters has been altered to be horizontal instead of vertical, as it was previously designed. Plate 8 and Plate 9 shows these alterations. Plate 8 depicts the original events page, while Plate 9 depicts the current, altered page by the community and its website manager/admin.

233

Plate 8 Visit Pine Creek's Events Page 2017

234

Plate 9 Visit Pine creek's Events Page May 2018 Also, the “Welcome to Country” textbox on the homepage (see Plate 7 in Chapter 8), has been taken down completely from the tourism website by the managers of the Visit Pine Creek site. I do not know if Gloria, the original manager, or Violet, the new admin from the Ranger program, made this change on purpose, if they did so with or without consultation from the rest of the residents of the community, or if it was an editing mistake, but this is something to look into further.

Overall, it is good to see that the community is using and updating the tourism website according to their big tourist-draw events such as the Gold Rush Festival in June, and to see them using the website as a marketing and informational tool for both tourists and the community to benefit from. Notably, one video has also been added to the heritage videos page of the tourism website featuring one of

235 the Jawoyn residents telling a story at Pine Creek’s reunion story-time festival in January 2017.

While the future management of the websites is an issue requiring further research, it seems that the websites, especially the tourism website, is being used and updated by the community and may continue to diversify and grow as a marketing and educational tool for both Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents as well as tourists for many years to come. According to the visitor analytics tool on wix.com, the following statistics can be found regarding site visitation to the tourism and WCHA websites, respectively.

9.2.1 Tourism Website Analytics

The visitor analytics app for the tourism website was installed on 12 January 2018, at which time it has recorded 266 page visits:

 116 “home” page visits  30 “things to do” page visits  26 “accommodation” page visits  24 “events” page visits  19 “getting around” page visits  14 “others” page visits  11 “heritage” page visits  10 “about” page visits  eight each for “maps” and “Wagiman Site” page visits.

The website has endured a 39% bounce rate, whereby visitors have viewed one page and have not gone on to explore more pages on the website. This rate may be due to various instances including showing people that the site merely exists and then closing out of it without going further into the pages. It may also be due to the fact that the pages with larger content, such as “heritage”, may take a long time to load or may not be of interest to visitors who may have other priorities such as finding food or accommodation in town for the night.

The site has also recorded eighty-six site visitors since its instalment. Of those eighty-six visitors, seventy-eight have been classified as “unique” or new visitors,

236 leaving eight repeat visitors to the website. As the majority of the pages visitors have been from Australia (71), and from the state of NSW (53), the site is most likely recording my own visitations to the site as well as those of tourists since Pine Creek received many tourists from this state in my 2016-2017 survey results. Notably, six visits have been from the Top End area and could be recording the residents of Pine Creek and their visitations to the site. Additionally, other visitors to the website have been recorded from:

 Germany (six website visitations)  USA (three website visitations)  Canada (one website visitation)  China (one website visitation)  Malaysia (one website visitation)  New Zealand (one website visitation)  UK (one website visitation) and  Ukraine (one website visitation).

It took some time to find this visitor’s analytic information as wix.com has updated its design on the dashboard and the backstage/admin pages. It is good to see that the community is not only using and updating the website, but that more residents, especially from the Indigenous community, are coming forward to participate in managerial and production roles on the websites and the town’s tourism development.

These findings align with those of Tourism NT (2017b, 2018) in Chapter 4 regarding the rate of international tourists to the Top End. These international visitor engagements online show a potential for engagement in person at Pine Creek, especially since much of the tourism content on the website is for people staying there, i.e., accommodation, food and beverage, etc. As of September 2018, there have been eleven app openings of the tourism app, which was published in August 2018. Further, as of 14 September 2018, there is one follower on the Vimeo account for Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association where the Wagiman and other non-Aboriginal videos are uploaded. This is a slow growth of online presence for the tourism site and app, but as time goes forward in the long term, the ratings and followings may grow as long as the community

237 continues to promote and use the site themselves as well, following the literature in Chapter 2 of Cardamone and Rentschler (2006), Hanna et al. (2011) and Oestreicher-Singer and Zalmanson (2012).

9.2.2 WCHA Website Analytics

The visitor analytics app is also available and running on the WCHA website’s dashboard and was installed on 23 January 2018. Since then, the site has recoded 298 page visits:

 90 “home” page visits  47 “plants” page visits  37 “other” page visits  29 “animals” page visits  24 “Wagiman plants and animals” page visits  21 “birds” page visits  14 each for “material culture” and “weapons and implements” page visits  12 “Wagiman maps” page visits  10 “Indigenous stories” page visits.

The site has endured a 38% bounce rate, whereby visitors visit one page and then leave instead of going on to explore more pages. This high bounce rate could be due to the large amount of password protected pages within the plant and animal book pages and maps, as well as the password protected videos that tend to occur in the Indigenous stories page.

The site has had a total of seventy-five visitors, forty-four of which are classified as “unique” or new visitors, ergo thirty-one of the visitors are repeat visitors. As many visitors have been from Australia (67), it could be that the members of the community have either forgotten or never received the password for accessing those pages, maps and videos. However, as most of the hits have been from NSW (58), this seems unlikely. Only two hits have been from the Top End of the Northern Territory. Other website visitors have been from:

 USA (two website visitations)  France (one website visitation)

238  Mexico (one website visitation)  Norway (one website visitation)  Russia (one website visitation)  Thailand (one website visitation) and  UK (one website visitation).

As only two hits have been from the Northern Territory, it seems that the site has yet to become a popular tool among the Wagiman community. This may be owing to the continuous lack of reliable hardware and software applications within the community, as discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 7. However, this trend may also change as young ones grow up and require more knowledge about country, which the current Elders may not be able to give due to increased lack of transportation, old age or even passing. The site may even become a more useful tool to outside academics and researchers who wish to study more with the Wagiman community and may be able to further this particular research or evolve the website as a conservational and educational tool for and with the community.

9.2.3 Summary of Visitor Analytics and Future Opportunities for the Websites

A summary of the visitor analytics of both websites can be seen in Table 17 below.

239 Table 17 Summary of Visitor Analytics for Both Websites

Visit Pine WCHA Analytics Creek Analytics Visitor January 12, January 23, 2018 Analytics App 2018 Installed Total Site Visits 266 298 Site Pages Home 116 Home 90 Visited22 Things to Do 30 Plants 47 Accommodation 26 Other 37 Events 24 Animals 29 Getting Around 19 Wagiman Plants and 24 Animals Other 14 Birds 21 Heritage 11 Material Culture 14 About 10 Weapons and Implements 14 Maps 8 Wagiman Maps 12 Wagiman Site 8 Indigenous Stories 10 Bounce Rate 39% 38% Total Site 86 75 Visitors 78 new/unique 44new/unique, 8 repeat 31 repeat Site Visitor Demographics23 National 71 67 NSW 53 58 Top End, NT 6 2 International Germany 6 USA 2 USA 3 France, Mexico, Norway, 1 Russia, Thailand, and UK each Canada, China, 1 Malaysia, New each Zealand, UK, and Ukraine

22 Ordered from highest to lowest rate on each website. 23 Ordered from highest to lowest rate on each website. 240 As both websites are fairly new and have only been live for one year, it would be good to increase the page visitation rates and decrease the bounce rates on both websites by having the residents and business owners of the Pine Creek community reciprocate and promote the destination and Wagiman websites on their respective tourism websites and social media pages. It would also be good for the PCHTA to showcase the website on their Facebook page and other social media channels. I proposed such strategies to the community during the launch of the websites in July 2017, and hope that one day they may explore these options for promoting the websites and their town’s tourism and heritage.

Additionally, I contacted the tourism board of the Northern Territory to inform them about the website and app to see if they would be interested in promoting it on their website and marketing channels and materials. I never heard back from them, but as Gloria is an active member on the Pine Creek council, as well as the Victoria Daly Regional Council, perhaps she can see if they might be interested in contacting the tourism board of the NT and promoting the website on wider, regional as well as national tourism and policy channels and platforms. Following Tobias et al. (2013), Tuhiwai-Smith (2012) and Whitford and Ruhanen (2014) on participatory approaches, as well as Higgins-Desbiolles et al. (2014), Barnes (2007), Foley (2008, 2014), Morales (2005), Oestreicher-Singer and Zalmanson (2012) and Cardamone and Rentschler (2006), such collaborative marketing strategies could help foster further community empowerment for both the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek and could inspire other communities to do the same in the future.

The websites that I developed for this study are merely the beginning for the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal communities of Pine Creek. During our discussions from 2015-2017, we also talked about the possible development of a trail for tourists to use in the coming years. This is an idea that was first developed by Mark as well as the Wagiman Elder, Roy, who works the cattle stations at Jindare near Umbrawarra Gorge. When I had an informal interview with Roy, he discussed putting in water bores for tourists to access clean water during the four- to-five-day walk from Hayes’ Creek to Umbrawarra Gorge. This potential walk would be called the “Four Gorge Trail” and would encourage tourists to stay in Pine Creek at the beginning and end of the trail walk. During the walk, tourists

241 could access the Wagiman videos, maps and plant and animal book as they traverse the country with a local guide and learn about Wagiman heritage along the way. This idea was developed by Roy and Mark and was welcomed by the non-Aboriginal and Wagiman people of Pine Creek during our conversations. For example,

Jimmy: Yeah. A trail would be good. Them tourists can come here (Umbrawarra Gorge) see them dreaming, them rocks, stay here in the caravan park. We will make it bigger too.

Penny: Oh yeah. A trail would be good eh. Tourists can see the landscape. See Wagiman country.

Gloria: That sounds wonderful. The tourists could stay longer in town then.

Elijah: Oh yeah, that would be splendid to put in a trail through there yeah. They need to get fresh water though.

The possibility of a trail in the Wagiman area was also discussed with Gecko Tours, the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the NT, the NLC and AAPA. All of whom gave good advice, ideas and welcomed the idea. There are various issues regarding cattle station land leases, native title and land clam agreements with putting in a physical tourism infrastructure through this part of the Top End and is one reason why the development of a website was first pursued as this would cost less time and money, as per the discourse in Chapter 2. However, with adequate funding, the trail implementation could become a possible post- doctorate for me and would allow for further, long-term tourism engagement and development with the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek as well as the further upkeep, adjustment and diversification of the current Wagiman tourism product; namely, the maps and websites that would showcase the trail and allow for bookings and other promotional use, as well as interpretation on the trail itself as mobile apps and mobile-friendly websites. These are further options for research and development with the Pine Creek community in the coming years.

242 9.3 Community Uptake of Technology and the Road to Empowerment

Following the results from Chapter 7, the knowledge gap between the older and the younger of Pine Creek could be owing to several factors, including: the greater amount of exposure and experience with such devices and applications on a daily basis; the more recent release date on certain applications; the tendency to keep up-to-date on such applications and trends; and the general target age group that some applications may be more relevant for. A lack of available funds and income to the Wagiman community also limits their ability to access the compatible hardware for accessing certain software applications in order to build their training skills and empower themselves as individuals and as a community.

The Wagiman community currently do not have as many options in employment, nor the same income levels as the non-Aboriginal tourism business practitioners, and consequently cannot afford to buy as many compatible hardware or software as the non-Indigenous community. Economic limitations of this kind can negatively affect Wagiman community members, especially the youth, and may not help foster empowerment or pride among individuals. However, digital platforms of knowledge can allow Wagiman youth the opportunity to empower themselves and others by learning about their country from their Elders on mobile devices and programs that they access on a daily basis. However, issues in Wi- Fi access can cause the Wagiman people to spend more on data rather than afford a wireless internet modem, which currently are only available at PCAAA in Kybrook as well as some non-Aboriginal businesses and in many non-Aboriginal homes in the area.

These developments can empower the Wagiman and non-Indigenous communities of Pine Creek to educate each other about country and technology across generations. The Wagiman Elders and Wagiman Ranger Program offer avenues to empowerment for the younger Wagiman people due to their extensive knowledge of the land and its biodiversity. The Rangers have also helped empower and educate members of the non-Indigenous community. For instance, many of the Wagiman Elders and Rangers took the staff of the town clinic onto

243 country to learn about Wagiman bush medicine. However, while the Ranger Program offers options for community education and empowerment, the Wagiman community may require further resources and skill-training in using programs such as Microsoft Office to share knowledge digitally.

The older non-Aboriginal residents have offered skill-training to older non- Indigenous residents of Pine Creek but could extend this offer to the non- Indigenous and Wagiman youth as well as the Wagiman Elders of the community since many of the older non-Indigenous residents were not interested in such training. However, as many of the older non-Aboriginal residents also required further skill-training and resources in hardware and software, it is possible that the non-Aboriginal and Wagiman community could employ a skilled professional to come and train both communities in technological use and application. The youth of the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal communities could help me, the hired professional, train the older members of the community, as the younger Wagiman people helped me use Google Maps with the Wagiman Elders and as the younger non-Aboriginal people helped me use social media applications with the older non-Aboriginal residents of Pine Creek. With the help, skill-training and resources of a hired professional, both communities could help empower one another to learn about country and share it digitally with each other and with tourists.

The tourism and Wagiman websites help overcome issues of support availability by making both knowledge bases accessible to both communities and useable across all ages. It includes multimedia content such as text, picture, audio and video transmission of knowledge for all learning capabilities. These websites could, therefore, help be a source of community empowerment for longer-term in Pine Creek if effectively and regularly managed and updated by the community owners and managers, as well as regularly used by the community and tourists.

Following Christen (2005, 2006), the Wagiman Elders and I agreed that web pages with culturally sensitive GIS information should be password protected and that only the community should be given the password(s) for accessing those GIS data and/or videos. However, outsiders are encouraged to contact the community to ask permission to view the protected data, which may or may not be granted based on the discretion of the community and the outsider’s reasons for accessing the data. While the data may not seem “accessible”, opportunities for

244 more involved, thorough and effective community engagement is encouraged through this system in order to ensure more culturally responsible and sustainable use of the data as directed by the community.

The creation and promotion of such websites may not only help the Wagiman and wider Pine Creek community diversify their tourism products and look after country but may also help tourists realise more about Pine Creek’s rich and diverse heritage both in the town and online. Tourists may also realise that there are Aboriginal and natural experiences to actively seek out when visiting Pine Creek on-site and online. The success of the “Tourism Website” especially showcases the potential for DAIBK integration into the existing tourism infrastructure via marketing and the possibility for such integration to be applied and replicated across Indigenous communities of Australia and the world (as discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4). However, careful marketing strategies must be considered and applied on a context-basis to a destination that can and does benefit all stakeholders of all races, creeds, religions and ethnicities in the destination area.

9.4 Conclusion

Digital tools for transferring local knowledge bases have a number of purposes for the community: (1) increases the range of engagement options for the communities in tourism development; (2) to conserve local knowledge bases for younger generations as they are active mobile and computer users who can learn more about country and heritage; (3) to provide economic support for their families; and (4) foster options for community-based social and economic development and empowerment for the longer term. As a result of my conversations with the Wagiman Elders and their families, as well as the Jawoyn and non-Aboriginal business-owners and residents of Pine Creek, a tourism website was developed to showcase the underrepresented Wagiman culture and knowledge of the town and surrounding area.

Following McGinty (2002), the concept of CCB is explored in my study with the Wagiman community in Pine Creek, whereby the Wagiman and non-Indigenous residents work together to “establish networks for exchange” via a digital platform:

245 Google mapping and website development. Further, while the community employed me as an “outside expert” in technological, Indigenous tourism developments, the control of the study and developments remains “firmly within the community”. The community “works things out for themselves” even after my departure from Pine Creek and are making further developments and changes to the websites. Additionally, I have acquired a great skill and knowledge-set of country, plants and animals from the Wagiman Elders and other residents of Pine Creek, which I am applying to my current studies and future career in Indigenous biocultural and tourism-related research and development.

Consultations with the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal communities of Pine Creek provided interesting results for this thesis as well as the larger research project. This particular process of Indigenous tourism product development, promotion and consultation underwent various reformations before the current and agreed upon website(s) were formed and successfully accepted and implemented by the wider Pine Creek community. The PCHTA now has a more Indigenous aspect to their tourism developments and the PCAAA now has a digital archive for Wagiman heritage, which can be replicated or include Jawoyn and other tribal groups languages, stories and maps in the future. By engaging in more geomarketed heritage in the tourism website and more ethnomarketed heritage in the Wagiman community archive, the Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents of Pine Creek were able to diversify their tourism products and promotion in a socio-culturally inclusive manner, while the Wagiman residents were able to fully share and conserve their knowledge and heritage digitally for many generations to come.

My research found that Wagiman and non-Aboriginal co-management can be developed through the sustainable application, promotion and conservation of AIBK and vital Indigenous values and heritage. Such promotion can now be undertaken via digital platforms using geomarketing strategies that are inclusive for ethnically and culturally heterogeneous communities. Benefits of DAIBK include: the creation of opportunities for longer-term heritage conservation; ongoing knowledge-sharing; and horizontally and/or vertically integrating said knowledge into local, established tourism infrastructures and management systems, following Jacobsen (2017). These benefits can help create more

246 options for Indigenous employment, diversified non-Indigenous and Indigenous products, as well as create authentic Indigenous experiences for “active” and even ‘inactive” information seekers and other tourists, following Ryan and Huyton (2000a, 2000b, 2002).

The members of the Wagiman community that I interviewed were enthusiastic for more DAIBK integration as it allows them to be involved in tourism in a way that benefits them, on their terms, through the development and management of their AIBK tourism product and promotion. Through geomarketing and targeting niche markets, such as Grey Nomads and backpackers, more active information seeking tourists may be more inclined and interested in engaging in Indigenous tourism in Pine Creek as well as Victoria and other regions of Australia and the world.

By integrating Wagiman knowledge into the tourism developments of the town virtually, their knowledge is not only conserved and passed on for many generations to come, but it also makes the Wagiman people a more active member of the tourism community and can provide further options and developments for the Wagiman people to become more active in tourism in the town in the future. For example, the online Wagiman plant and animal book can also be sold as hard copies in the town for the avid birdwatchers who come to visit. The Elders can talk with the council and PCAAA about doing bushwalks through the town’s Water Gardens and get paid as bush guides there, as Tammy proposed in 2017. They can also possibly do walks and talks at Umbrawarra where Jimmy expressed interest in 2017 in giving tours if he is still mobile enough for it. Tammy also expressed interest in 2017 in giving talks and tours at Douglas Daly Hot Springs, if she has a car to get there. Debbie also expressed interest in building a cultural centre in the town in 2017 for tourists to buy bracelets, soaps and other souvenirs while learning more about country from Wagiman Elders.

Now that the Wagiman individuals are more active members in the tourism community of Pine Creek through their virtual presence and leadership in marketing Pine Creek as a “destination” rather than a “stop-over”, perhaps these resources (vehicles, centre, guiding certificates, etc.) can be made more available to them from the non-Aboriginal business owners and town council as

247 well as the Rangers and PCAAA, who are all promoted on the tourism and WCHA websites.

Additionally, with consistent monitoring and adjustment of digital products and their promotion, further diversification of the products can take place and can make sure that the tourism content remains innovative, while also conserving knowledge, values and heritage of the Indigenous community. This can be possible through continuous Indigenous control, engagement and involvement in the development, promotion and management processes of tourism, which could help foster community empowerment and social, as well as, economic vitality for all in the years to come.

248 CHAPTER 10 RESULTS DISCUSSION: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO SOUTHWEST VICTORIA

“I don’t just create literature, I create a cultural product, as Australian writers do, because we are reflecting to the world who we are as a nation.”

– Dr Anita Heiss of the Wiradjuri people in New South Wales, Australia

10.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the case study of Pine Creek in relation to the case studies in Southwest Victoria (see section Study Background: Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project). The two regions provide significant comparisons in Indigenous tourism development in Australia, which assists in considering factors affecting Indigenous tourism development and management of wider, national and global importance. The longer history of Aboriginal tourism developments in Victoria provides a lens to the study and developments in Pine Creek. The cases from the Worn gundidj and Brambuk communities in Victoria illustrate the potential for digital interpretation of cultural, Aboriginal knowledge in tourism. These case studies also provide data on longer-term heritage conservation and tourism management under Aboriginal control, as discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. The following sections provide background information on the cases studies in Victoria (as discussed for Pine Creek in Chapter 4) as well as a comparative analysis between the study in Pine Creek and the developments in Victoria for long-term tourism management and heritage conservation.

249 10.2 Background: Lessons Learned from Tower Hill and the Grampians National Parks, Southwest Victoria

The Worn Gundidj and Brambuk communities in Southwest Victoria have had longer involvement in tourism development and could benefit from redevelopments to their tourism products, promotion and management for Indigenous community empowerment to occur. One of the research aims of the ARC Linkage Grant proposal is to compare and contrast the methods, development and management of Indigenous tourism in my study of Pine Creek, to those of the established tourism ventures in Southwest Victoria in an effort to create sustainable, digital options for tourism engagement and development in Pine Creek, as well as possible future tourism engagement and redevelopment in Southwest Victoria.

Southwest Victoria is an Aboriginally diverse region of the state and is home to various Aboriginal language groups (see Map 11 below).

Map 11 Aboriginal Language Groups of Victoria from VACL (2016) The above map, and various other research materials, were collected from the VACL to provide insight into Aboriginal histories, identities and also tourism ventures in Australia. Such materials include the Dictionary of Aboriginal Placenames of Victoria (Clark & Heydon, 2002) as well as An Historical

250 Geography of Tourism in Victoria, Australia, Case Studies (Clark, 2014). These works provide valuable insights into the microtoponymy24 of Aboriginal Victoria and how tourism affected the Aboriginal landscape and was affected by the incorporation of Aboriginal knowledge into tourism developments. This literature was also used by Kostanski (2012) to help develop VICNAMES – a placename database managed by the Office of Geographic Names (OGN) in Melbourne, which acts as a public participatory platform that (re)incorporates Aboriginal placenames, knowledge and identity to the region’s tourism, rural and urban developments and infrastructures.

In the following section, case studies from Southwest Victoria are examined to give insight into long-term management sustainability in Indigenous tourism. These case studies present key issues in tourism management, especially Indigenous tourism management, and Indigenous engagement and entrepreneurship in tourism ventures. In particular, this review considers the work of Clark (2002, 2009, 2011, 2014) and Clark and Heydon (2002).

10.2.1 Tourists to Southwest Victoria: Tower Hill and Geriwerd

Two communities and parks in Southwest Victoria, the Worn Gundidj community of Tower Hill and the Brambuk community of the Grampians/Geriwerd, are the focus of the comparative research conducted for my thesis. Map 12 below illustrates the geographic location of these communities in relation to Ballarat and Melbourne, the two major cities and tourist attractions in the southwest region where I conducted my site visits in 2014 and 2016.

24 “Microtoponymy” literally: the study of small placenames. In this case, it refers to names of features that are part of a larger geographical entity, i.e., name for the bank on a lake, for a feature on a bank of a lake, or a waterhole in a river, or the name of a feature on the side of a mountain (Clark, 2011).

251

Map 12 Southwest Victoria Tourism Attractions

Following the tourist market analysis of the Top End in Chapter 4, I also undertook a tourist market analysis of the southwest region of Victoria. According to TRA (2015b), the majority of tourists visiting Tower Hill stayed at friends and relatives property (694,000 tourists) while 437,000 tourists stayed in caravans or camping accommodation. Conversely, the majority of tourists visiting the Pine Creek area tend to stay in caravans and caravan parks while holidaying across the Northern Territory (Tourism NT, 2014). Notably, TRA (2015b) listed visitors interested in heritage and culture in the Tower Hill region as “np” or “not published” as the estimate was considered “unreliable”.

Similarly, tourists visiting the region of the Grampians/Geriwerd are also mainly domestic holiday travellers, aged 55 and over, couples, interested in food and wine tourism, and drive to the area (TRA, 2015a). However, the majority of the statistics available from TRA (2015a) were also listed as “np” so it is difficult to determine if these are the majority markets in the Grampians region. Notably, TRA (2015a) indicated that these potential Grey Nomads visiting the Grampians stayed in caravan and camping accommodation (164,000 tourists) and indicated friends and relatives accommodation as “np”.

252 Based on the research, tourism development acts as a key player in the economy of Victoria. In order to explore the current and future options available to the Aboriginal communities of Southwest Victoria in tourism development, the section below examines the history of tourism development at Tower Hill and Geriwerd regarding the historical social and geographic characteristics of colonisation and tourism development in these areas.

10.2.2 History of Tower Hill and the Grampians National Parks

Tower Hill was established as Victoria’s first National Park in 1892 after it had undergone massive deforestation for farming and quarrying use. In 1961, it became a State Game Reserve under the management of the Wildlife and Fisheries Department of Victoria who started to restore the land back to its original, native vegetation and landscape by using the 1855 paintings of German landscape artist Eugene von Guerard and the 1881 ethnographic accounts of James Dawson, who had studied the languages and biocultures of many of the Aboriginal groups of the region. By the early 1980s, the park had been fully restored and native flora and fauna been had successfully reintroduced for conservational purposes as well as tourist attractions to the park (Clark, 2011, 2014; Dawson, 1881; Parks Victoria, 1963; Worn Gundidj Enterprises, 2015). In 2002, the park introduced the co-management of the visitor centre on the main island with the traditional owners of the Worn Gundidj Aboriginal Cooperative and Park Victoria. The Visitor Centre provides tourists with information about the local native flora, fauna and Aboriginal heritage through interpretative displays of artefacts and bushwalking tours (Worn Gundidj Enterprises, 2015).

Since 2002, the Worn Gundidj Aboriginal Cooperative, who live near the park, manage the park’s visitor centre in partnership with Parks Victoria. The Worn Gundidj Cooperative is formed by the descendants of the Gunditjmara Nation including the Koroit-gunditj and Peek Whurrong people who traditionally hunted, lived and camped in this area (Clark, 2011, 2014; Dawson, 1881; Parks Victoria, 1963; Worn Gundidj Enterprises, 2015). Tower Hill is located 18km west of the seaside town of Warrnambool, which lies 12.5km west of where the Great Ocean Road and Prince’s Highway meet – all of which are considered popular tourist

253 attractions in Victoria. Tower Hill is also located approximately 92km south of the Grampians/Geriwerd National Park, another major tourist attraction in the state.

The Grampians National Park, also known by its Aboriginal name as Geriwerd, is associated with various Aboriginal groups. The arrival of European settlers, in the 1830s, introduced wheat farming and other pastoral activity to the area. It was during this time that Geriwerd was given the name “Halls Gap”, which is the name of the town located on the Eastern border of the park today where the Brambuk Aboriginal Cultural Centre is located. Since the 1850s, and well into the 1900s, the gold rush started to take place in the region, during which time there was extensive gold mining, and towns, including Ballarat, developed. Ararat was an established gold mining town during this time and is located 53km east of the Grampians. In 1857, the gold-rush brought Chinese miners to Ararat, where today tourists can visit the Gum San Chinese Heritage Centre. Wine production also became a popular industry in the area in the 1800s and now the Grampians is known as the birthplace of Australia’s sparkling wine industry, drawing many tourists to the area for its wine as well as its rich post-colonial and Aboriginal heritage (Ali, 2009; Parks Victoria, 2018; Visit Victoria, 2018).

Today, the Brambuk Aboriginal Cultural Centre, located in Hall’s Gap in Geriwerd, serves as a major tourist attraction and hails itself as the longest running Aboriginal cultural centre in Australia, owned and operated solely by the Brambuk Aboriginal community. This community is comprised of various Aboriginal groups including the Jardwadjali and Djab Wurrung peoples (Parks Victoria, 2018; Visit Victoria, 2018).

Due to the extensive anthropological research in this area, mainly by Dawson (1881), there is significant material on Indigenous culture in the Southwest Victorian region as well as histories about the local peoples, cultures, languages, customs and how they have changed over time due to colonisation, migration as well as environmental policies and National Park development (Clark, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014; Clark & Heydon, 2002; Parks Victoria, 2018). Owing to Victoria’s extensive, recorded Aboriginal history, the region offers an opportunity for comparing the historical events in Victoria to the more recent histories and events as well as present day and future tourism developments in Pine Creek in this study, as per the ARC Linkage Grant.

254

10.2.3 Aboriginal Involvement in Tourism to Southwest Victoria

Tower Hill did not indicate a significant Aboriginal population in the town with zero out of eighty-one people identifying as Aboriginal in the 2016 census (ABS, 2017). Additionally, there was no statistical information regarding community profiles for the south-eastern portion of the Grampians Park; however, the larger region of the Grampians, namely Horsham, yielded more statistical results regarding Aboriginal peoples living in the area and their employment status and vocations.

According to the ABS (2017), 1.4% of the total population of the Grampians identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Peoples, which is far less than the Aboriginal population in Pine Creek, NT (outlined above). Of the Aboriginal people living in these areas, 115 were employed in the private sector and forty- one in the government sector in the Grampians. Also, the ABS (2017) notes that 44.9% of the Aboriginal population of the Grampians work full-time, 20.9% work as community and personal service workers, 12.3% as managers and 11.2% worked in local government administration. However, occupations in tourism and hospitality are not listed among the top industries for employment of Aboriginal peoples in the Grampians (Horsham).

Older statistics based on the residential demographics of Tower Hill, in the encompassing rural locality of Illowa, and the Grampians are based on the ABS (2018) Census for 2011. They show that the median ages of these two communities were between 30-50 years of age. They also show that the Indigenous population of these regions were under-represented with 0.7% of Illowa (Tower Hill) and 1.2% of the Grampians populations identified as Aboriginal. Their languages were also not commonly spoken in these areas, with English, German, Italian, Afrikaans and Cantonese as the main household languages. The main industries in both communities were in cattle farming at 6.6% in Illowa and 14.8% in the Grampians. However, the food and restaurant businesses were employing 4.8 % of Aboriginal people in Illowa and 3.1% in the Grampians. There was a decrease in Aboriginal populations and tourism employment in the Tower Hill area, with a slight increase in Aboriginal populations in the Grampians and a slight decrease in tourism employment in the area (TRA,

255 2015a, 2015b).These findings from TRA (2015a, 2015b) follow Foley (2008) and his critique of entrepreneurship success in rural/remote Australia, whereby more rural/remote communities were less successful in sustaining entrepreneurships than urban people and communities as seen in Chapter 2. These rates provide insights into the potential need for Aboriginal involvement and interpretation in the tourism industries of the region.

Based on the tourism research concerning employment of Aboriginal peoples in the sector in both the Pine Creek and Southwestern Victorian regions, it is interesting to note that there are more Aboriginal people present in Pine Creek than in Southwest Victoria, yet there is a wider range of employment options in the smaller Aboriginal communities in Victoria than in the larger Aboriginal community of Pine Creek in the NT. This could be due to the larger overall population, and greater accessibility to tourism resources, support, funding, infrastructures and markets in Southwest Victoria regarding Indigenous tourism over time, as tourism has been in place for a longer in Victoria than in the Top End of the NT. Further comparisons between these regions in Australia are assessed in the following section for the purpose of the study and the ARC Linkage Grant.

10.2.4 Indigenous Tourism Management in Victoria

Clark’s (2014) findings from Southwest Victoria indicate that many of the “stand- alone” Indigenous tourism ventures did not succeed owing to a range of issues. In my personal communications with Clark in 2017, he wrote to me that more than twenty-two independent, Indigenous tourism ventures opened and closed in Southwest Victoria, including:

 Kirrit Bareet Cultural Education Centre in Ballarat opened and closed twice as a cultural centre, education centre, retail shop, and art gallery.

 Hamilton Aboriginal Keeping Place opened and closed.

 Several appearances of tourism activities around the Lake Condah Mission station area including six stations at Corranderk, Ebenezer, Lake Broga, Maloga, Ramahyuck and Lake Tyers.

256  A keeping place in Shepparton opened and closed.

 Galeena Beek cultural centre at Healesville in outer Melbourne opened and closed.

 There are several in Gippsland and Far East Gippsland that opened and closed.

 Bataluk cultural trail in Gippsland, which shows potential for digital AIBK integration, had mixed success as a trail.

According to Clark (2002, 2009, 2011, 2014), these tourism ventures have an approximate success rate of 40% over the past four to five decades. Clark (2014) examined eight tourism sites in Victoria that originally focused on the natural components of the tourism product. Tourism at each of these eight sites declined before they began to introduce more AIBK into their tourism products, promotion and development. Clark (2002) found that tourism at two rock art sites in Southwest Victoria had declined significantly owing to on-site, complex management systems that did not consistently monitor and assess its product – a basic requirement for success in tourism ventures.

Owing to many issues in management, as well as clashes in cultural sensitivities between the Aboriginal peoples and the non-Aboriginal settlers of Southwest Victoria in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, only a handful of attractions in Southwest Victoria have reached their full destination potential of social reproduction (Clark, 2014; MacCannell, 1976) (see section 1.3.1). For example, in Bunjil’s Shelter, Black Range Scenic Reserve, Clark (2002, 2009) states that this is one of two rock art sites, of which there were ten in total, that was derived from an Aboriginal name referring to the creation spirit that resides there, “Bunjil”. The site’s name changed many times over the years owing to “confusion” and the increase of “Eurocentric” naming in the area in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This site has been regarded as a sacred rock art site for centuries by the local Djab wurrung and Jardwadjali owners.

However, once the site was open to the public in the late 1950s, vandalism started to occur at the site resulting in the destruction of the art, as well as the surrounding rock of the caves. In the 1960s, Aldo Massola, Curator of Anthropology at the National Museum of Victoria, closed off the rock art portion

257 of the site and decided it would be best to withhold the location of the rock art sites to the public. Instead, a guest book was placed at the site for the public to use and was a “great success” according to Massola (Clark, 2002).

However, in the late 1960s and into the 1970s, further efforts to expand information about the sites location and significance were conducted in an attempt to preserve the archaeological and cultural significance of the sites. However, these efforts were conducted without any prior input, consultation, participation or knowledge from the local Aboriginal communities. It wasn’t until 1984, that the site was opened up to tourism again through the inception of the Grampians National Park and engaged in consultation, guidance and employment, including and especially management, of the rock art sites and other sites in the park by and with the local Aboriginal communities.

However, the use of Indigenous knowledge without community consent, involvement or control creates problems. Such as when the portrayal of Indigenous rock art without effective community engagement led to the commodification of Aboriginal culture, loss of authenticity and a need to reclaim Aboriginal knowledge and identity within the destination (Clark, 2002, 2014). Clark (2014) suggests that sites, such as Bunjil's Shelter, require improvement in more authentic AIBK tourism products in order to be more sustainable for the longer term, which could aid in diversifying local, existing and established tourism ventures succeed in the longer term as well.

In relation to digital options for Indigenous engagement in tourism, Clark (2014) found that DAIBK offers greater integration opportunities than static, traditional methods of interpretation. He offers an example from Lal Lal Falls in Victoria, where AIBK was promoted via online visitor information and internet travel guides:

Although the Aboriginal significance of the site has been understated in previous site promotion and off-site interpretation, visitor information and travel guides on the Internet are beginning to focus on the site’s Indigenous values…Lal Lal Falls…has undergone a fundamental transition from being the ‘top tourist attraction’…in the Buninyong region… to an attraction ‘virtually forgotten’ in 2001, only to remerge in 2012 to be the leading natural attraction in the Ballarat district. (Clark, 2014, p. 42-43)

258 Lal Lal Falls did not initially adopt the Aboriginal values of the land and product on which the tourism business was based, and the destination experienced a significant decline. Once it began to integrate Aboriginal values of the land and culture, visitation to the site began to increase and become a stronger focus of tourism in the region. Tourism at other sites in Southwest Victoria, such as Bunjil's Shelter, could also benefit from DAIBK integration options such as a digital replication of the artwork or digital interpretation off-site or near the site since the site itself is fragile and needs more protection and preservation owing to its unsustainable tourism past (Clark, 2014). Thus, Clark's research illustrates that digital, Indigenous interpretation of Indigenous products can help rejuvenate an otherwise declining tourism site or destination (see Butler, 1980) as well as provide options for Indigenous engagement, participation and control in tourism development (Butler & Hinch, 2007).

As illustrated in these case studies, many Indigenous tourism ventures are found to have failed in long-term management owing to the isolated nature of the sites/ventures, inauthentic interpretation and commodification of heritage, as well as static/undiversified products and promotion predominantly managed by non- Indigenous people using non-Indigenous methods (Clark, 2014). This is also the case with the tourism infrastructure at Pine Creek, which was crumbling and fading owing to neglect and harsh climates and requires Wagiman perspectives integrated into the current tourism infrastructure to diversify the town’s tourism product and promotion, as examined in Chapter 4.

Further exploration is needed to not only conserve heritage and apply authentic interpretations through digital means, but to empower the community through economic and social value of their heritage as seen in Forristal et al. (2011), Clark (2014) and the Tourism 2020 strategy by the Australian Government (2011) in Chapter 2. These case studies reconfirm the importance of Aboriginal control over the tourism product development. They are essential to this thesis and my engagement with the Wagiman community in Pine Creek in developing a co- created tourism product that they continue to own and manage.

To address the research aims of this study, the concept of DAIBK integration is introduced in this thesis. This concept focuses on the digital sharing and integration of Aboriginal knowledge and value bases into new and existing

259 tourism management and development processes. DAIBK focuses on community engagement for fostering community empowerment and heritage conservation.

There is emerging research that advocates for the sharing of Indigenous heritage through digital media in Aboriginal communities in Australia (Clark, 2011; Pert et al., 2015). For example, Clark (2011b) gives an historical account of tourism to the Worn Gundidj community of Tower Hill in Southwest Victoria. He states that there is an extensive database of Indigenous microtoponymy that can be used in the current tourism infrastructure. Pert et al. (2015) discuss AIBK datasets through digital mapping and sharing of this knowledge. They digitally mapped sufficient quantities of AIBK, but they do not consider this methodology in the context of sustainable, community-based tourism in Indigenous communities in Australia. Instead, their research was used mainly as an Indigenous conservation project and archiving method.

This thesis, therefore, considers both the methodologies and the outcomes of DAIBK as a way to develop Indigenous tourism in ways that engage and empower local communities. These developments were explored in the development of websites with the Wagiman community in this thesis. Digital developments of cultural interpretation of knowledge in Victoria are explored further and are based on my site visits to the Worn gundidj cooperative at Tower Hill Wildlife Reserve and the Brambuk Cultural Centre of Geriwerd/the Grampians National Park in Southwest Victoria. These site visits and their implications for DAIBK are detailed in my ethnographies below.

10.3 Implications from Victoria: Marketing of Indigenous Interpretation of Heritage

Since my initial site visits to Southwest Victoria’s Tower Hill and Grampians National Parks in 2014, the parks have made strides towards more authentic and Indigenous-led interpretation at their parks. The management of the Brambuk Cultural Centre is now managed by a local Djab wurrung man and future Elder. Their website contains more digital interpretation of local Aboriginal knowledge that is aligned with the historically diverse cultures of the area. Tower Hill’s

260 website has been fully redeveloped since 2014. They know include digital maps of the area as well as the 3D model they had in the cultural centre.

The digital maps provide more information about the Aboriginal history and culture of the area in a more authentic, less static and more innovative way. While our two target communities for the ARC Linkage Grant project have made progress, the content analysis of the tourism marketing materials of Victoria have shown less progress throughout the greater part of the region and state. Melbourne is also leading in providing more digital interpretation of Aboriginal culture, led by Aboriginal people, but many other Indigenous tourism enterprises are still produced and promoted in a commodified manner.

In 2014, I visited the cultural centres of Tower Hill and Geriwerd, and noted similar issues seen in Pine Creek regarding the static interpretation of heritage and deteriorating signage. Additionally, some Aboriginal interpretation was inauthentic and pertained more to the dot paintings and didgeridoo music of the groups in the NT instead of the local Victorian groups of Geriwerd. Plate 10 and Plate 11 below depict the deterioration and static display of Aboriginal culture that was present in 2014.

Plate 10 Static Displays of Culture at Tower Hill

261

Plate 11 Deteriorating Plants and Signage at Geriwerd Since my visit in 2014, the cultural centre had a complete renovation, remodelling and change in management. As of 2016, the centre is managed by the Djab Wurrung Elder’s son. The building’s architecture includes more cultural interpretation depicting cockatoo dreaming, which is central to the Brambuk community, culture and landscape of Geriwerd (Parks Victoria, 2018). Plate 12 shows the photo I took during my 2014 visit while Plate 13 shows the renovated “building with an undulating roof that represents the wings of a cockatoo and the mountains of Geriwerd” (Visit Victoria, 2018). Notably, the new cultural centre at Brambuk has incorporated more multimedia displays, a dreaming theatre and other more innovative, interactive cultural interpretation than the static displays of Aboriginal culture seen during my visit in 2014 (Parks Victoria, 2018; Visit Victoria, 2018).

262

Plate 12 Brambuk Cultural Centre, Geriwerd 2014

Plate 13 Brambuk Cultural Centre Geriwerd, 2018 from Visit Victoria (2018) There are websites and maps currently in place for Indigenous tourism purposes at the Grampians and Tower Hill, but they could also benefit from more digital interpretation of their spatial heritage. For example, the cultural centres of both Tower Hill and Geriwerd showcase 3D maps of the parks, which is usually the first step in (P)PGIS mapping techniques in small, Indigenous communities (“PPGIS.net”, 2017). However, these 3D models of their country do not include any information or cultural interpretation of the land, which can be seen in Plate 14 and Plate 15 below.

263

Plate 14 P3DM Map of Tower Hill

Plate 15 P3DM Map of Geriwerd To further conservation efforts at the cultural centres of Tower Hill and Geriwerd, their maps can be placed on digital platforms, which will have longer-term efficacy in conservation of their spatial knowledge and heritage and has the capabilities of providing more interactive cultural interpretation to their maps and country.

264

10.3.1 Southwest Victoria 2014 Field Visits and Resources Ethnography

I was based in the regional centre of Ballarat during my two field visits to Southwest Victoria in July 2014 and October 2016. The town of Ballarat is very proud of its Victorian history and focuses its tourism development around the Victorian heritage buildings of the town as well as its strong gold-mining history of the world-famous site, Sovereign Hill.

While the post-colonial heritage tourism is strong within the city of Ballarat, there are some remnants of the Aboriginal, Djab wurrung, history of the town and area. Such remnants are visible mainly through the Aboriginal placenames, which, owing to the efforts of the OGN, VICNAMES and VACL, have increasingly been integrated into the tourism infrastructure across Victoria. However, some placenames, which are derived from Aboriginal languages, may not be accurately or authentically named due to the changes in the area from colonisation over time.

For example, there is a lake in the centre of Ballarat called “Lake Wendouree”. Professor Ian Clark, the secondary investigator on the ARC Linkage Grant, is an historian of Aboriginal placenames, tourism, ethnobiology and microtoponymy in the region and told me the story about the naming of the lake. When the British arrived at the lake during colonisation in the eighteenth century, they found a Djab wurrung woman fishing for eels in the lake. They asked her, in English, what she calls this place. The woman stood and yelled at the British men: “Wendouree! Wendouree!” The British colonists then decided to name the lake “Wendouree,” thinking this was its name. However, Wendouree in Djab wurrung means “go away!” and so, the authentic, Aboriginal name of the lake was now replaced with this Aboriginal word for a different meaning. The naming of Aboriginal placenames requires further efforts in authentic interpretation and conservation of Aboriginal languages and names as told by Aboriginal communities and researchers. The lack of authentic Aboriginal naming and interpretation of culture was also visible in the National Parks I visited during my first trip to Victoria in 2014. This visit was important to the research project and thesis in that it was part

265 of my education and introduction to the broader, ongoing research and to understand the past and current Aboriginal tourism products, interpretation of culture and management of Aboriginal tourism ventures in Australia.

Professor Clark later took me to the Worn Gundidj heritage area of Tower Hill National Park. Professor Clark has conducted previous research with this community and the cultural centre situated at the park. His research mainly focuses on the history of the landscape and of the Indigenous tourism developments of the area over time. However, when I visited the cultural centre of the Worn Gundidj, Tower Hill Park, there was not much interpretation about this history or of the Aboriginal history of the area. I took photos of the artefacts, souvenirs and cultural interpretation at Tower Hill, as well as the surrounding infrastructure of the centre and the natural landscape of the park. I found similar issues of Indigenous tourism product development and heritage conservation at the Brambuk Cultural Centre at the Grampians National Park, which I visited shortly after Tower Hill.

After leaving Tower Hill, we visited the Grampians National Park, or Geriwerd, a prominent National Park that is frequently visited by tourists from around Australia and the world owing to its natural beauty and Indigenous cultural significance (Ali, 2009; Australian Government: Department of the Environment, 2006). The Brambuk Cultural Centre was larger than that at Tower Hill and showcased cultural interpretation both indoors and in the surrounding outdoor courtyards and pathways. However, many of the natural, ethnobiological and cultural interpretation at the centre were found to be inauthentic and poorly managed as interpretive signs were faded and their corresponding plants were either dead or mislabelled. All my photos on this trip were taken with my iPhone 4S and uploaded to my university laptop and desktop after my return to my hotel in Ballarat and to the University of Newcastle to use supportive materials for analysing Aboriginal tourism products and promotion in Pine Creek and implementing more integrated Aboriginal knowledge and content into existing tourism infrastructures.

I also met with VACL, who provided me with further reading materials on Aboriginal languages of the southwest region and implications for Indigenous place naming in tourism development and language conservation through

266 education and marketing. I returned to Newcastle with many research materials for my comparative study in Pine Creek. When I had returned to Newcastle, I also analysed the Worn Gundidj and Brambuk centres’ websites to make comparative analyses between marketing strategies for Indigenous tourism developments in Victoria and Pine Creek.

10.3.2 Southwest Victoria 2016 Field Visits and Resources Ethnography

After my first field site visit in 2014 and my second fieldwork visit in Pine Creek in 2016, I returned to Melbourne and Ballarat for follow-up collection of materials and resources regarding sustainable Indigenous tourism development and management. The first field site focused more on the interpretation of Indigenous culture and knowledge through marketing and mapping and well as the historical, colonial–Aboriginal relations in the region. In 2016, my visit focused more on the management strategies for Indigenous tourism development and the historical trend of stand-alone Indigenous tourism ventures being unsustainable in the region. I also focused on the rate and strategies of Indigenous tourism marketing in the region to see if there were any implications for the failure of Indigenous tourism in the past and present, and if there are opportunities for sustainability and success in fostering Indigenous community benefits from tourism in the area in the future.

The Djab Wurrung Elders and I discussed Indigenous culture and the need for sustainable tourism development though Indigenous control and leadership in the processes. We also shared our stories about their culture and my culture as a Sioux descendent of Tatanka Iyotake, while sharing smoked eel they had caught earlier. Before the book launch began, they conducted a smoking ceremony to cleanse us and welcome us to country. My engagement with the Djab wurrung community helped foster bonds of friendship and provided further support for cultural interpretation and website marketing for the Wagiman community, who I would see again in 2017.

When I returned to Ballarat, I visited the tourism information office in the city centre where I collected seventy-five tourism brochures and marketing materials

267 for my content analysis. This content analysis considers the nature of Indigenous tourism marketing in Victoria, especially Southwest Victoria, which is presented in Chapter 7. Upon my return to Newcastle, I also re-evaluated the websites of the Worn Gundidj and Brambuk cultural centres, which had changed considerably since 2014. These changes are due to the recent appointment of Jeff, a Djab Wurrung Elder, as Manager of the Brambuk Centre of Geriwerd, which aligns with recent Victorian tourism policy advocating for increased Aboriginal leadership and authentic, innovative interpretation of culture in Indigenous tourism ventures (Hon. Louise Asher MP, 2013; State Government of Victoria & Tourism Victoria, 2013; Tourism Victoria & State Government of Victoria, 2013).

The materials, resources and case studies I collected in Southwest Victoria were paper-based as well as online resources regarding the history of Victoria, especially the Aboriginal history of tourism developments, heritage conservation, and placenames of the southwest region. For this thesis, I also utilise GIS and marketing data and materials to conduct a content analysis and provide case studies for comparative analysis between Indigenous tourism development and management in Southwest Victoria and in Pine Creek.

10.4 Comparison of Research Sites: Pine Creek, NT and Southwest Victoria

There are various similarities and differences between the communities of Pine Creek in the Northern Territory, and Tower Hill and Geriwerd in Southwest Victoria. Table 18 below summarises some of the key similarities and differences between these two case studies, as outlined in the ARC Linkage Grant.

268 Table 18 Similarities and Differences between Case Studies

Similarities Differences

- Cluster 2, lesser-known, Pine Creek SW Victoria destinations(Jin, Weber, & - The “Aboriginal” - Gold mining Bauer, 2012) population heritage is older - Rural, not remote demographic is - Longer history of - Many tourism ventures in identified as integrating the area are based on post- greater traditional colonial gold mining. according to the Aboriginal - Many Indigenous tourism recent Censuses heritage and ventures in these areas are of 2011 and knowledge into based on ecotourism 2016. tourism ventures. markets, including bush- - No Wagiman (Since the 19th walking and traditional flora Cultural Centre century). and fauna heritage at in Pine Creek. - Greater social National Parks. and economic - Similar tourist markets: activity and “Grey Nomads.” opportunities in - Deteriorating interpretation the form of signage and lack of cultural centre management of management. interpretative, static - Communities displays. already have - Potential for incorporating websites and more authentic, digital, maps developed Indigenous-led storytelling by the community methodologies for tourism for tourism developments and purposes. community empowerment.

The similarities help establish an overall research domain in terms of current destination development stages, issues in tourism product maintenance and participation options for the local Aboriginal communities, tourist markets, tourism attractions and opportunities for Indigenous integration into established tourism infrastructures and management systems. The differences between these communities allow the exploration of the current issues in further detail based on the history of tourism development at each of these communities, which are explored more in the following sections.

269 10.4.1 Similarities Between the Two Case Studies

Pine Creek, Tower Hill and Geriwerd have experienced similar stages of tourism attraction development as “lesser-known sites” and can be considered as “cluster 2” destinations whereby they: (1) Have a history or current status of specialized industry within the area, namely gold mining and National Park development; (2) Most of the industry suppliers are located nearby or within these regions, namely the gold miners and park owners and managers; and (3) Most of the distributors of the tourism products originate from the area or nearby cities or regions, such as Darwin, Kakadu and Katherine in the NT and Ballarat, Warrnambool and Melbourne in Southwest Victoria (Clark, 2014; Jin et al., 2012; MacCannell, 1976).

Pine Creek, Tower Hill and Geriwerd are not major cities or popular tourism destinations that can accommodate or receive thousands of tourists all year round, as “Cluster 1” or “well-known sites” can (Jin et al., 2012). However, the surrounding areas of Pine Creek as well as Tower Hill and Geriwerd can accommodate and do receive thousands of tourists on a seasonal basis, which remote, rural and underdeveloped areas may not be able to offer due to a lack of infrastructure and resources (Butler & Hinch, 2007; Forristal et al., 2011; Gartner, 1996; Jin et al., 2012; MacCannell, 1976; Timothy, 2011; Tourism NT, 2017b, 2018). Also, the current tourist markets to Pine Creek and Southwest Victoria may be more interested in interactive engagement with Indigenous culture than static displays of culture and heritage and may stay in the area longer, thereby contributing more to the local economy (Tourism Australia, 2007).

There are certain tourist markets that are currently attracted to the Pine Creek, Tower Hill and Geriwerd areas; namely, older, more educated, upper-middle class visitors for cultural heritage tourism (Ryan & Huyton, 2000b; Timothy, 2011; Tourism NT, 2012, 2014, 2017b, 2018; Tourism Victoria & State Government of Victoria, 2013). Additionally, more domestic than international travellers visit Pine Creek, the Grampians and their surrounds (Ali, 2009; Tourism NT, 2012, 2014, 2017b, 2018; Tourism Victoria & State Government of Victoria, 2013). There are also opportunities in these three areas for international backpackers visiting the parks and looking for work in the hospitality and tourism services (Carson, 2008;

270 Mohsin & Ryan, 2003; Ryan & Huyton, 2000b; Tourism NT, 2017b, 2018; Young, 2009).

There are various issues concerning the tourism product and promotional strategies of Pine Creek, Tower Hill and the Grampians, including: (1) deteriorating signage and lack of interpretation of heritage at National Parks; (2) some signage at these parks are either lacking in Aboriginal context or portray inaccurate interpretation; and (3) little to no management of Indigenous spatial knowledge and conservation. Both communities could possibly benefit from more interactive, innovative and digital options for engaging in tourism development and sharing heritage and knowledge with tourists. However, there are certain differences that exist between the communities of Pine Creek and Southwest Victoria, which could aid in my comparative analysis between the two case studies.

10.4.2 Differences Between the Two Case Studies

While Pine Creek, Tower Hill and Geriwerd share similar circumstances in tourism development, Southwest Victoria has a longer history of tourism developments, gold-mining and colonisation, which began in the nineteenth century (Clark, 2011, 2014; Dawson, 1881; Parks Victoria, 1963, 2018; Visit Victoria, 2018). Such changes occurred later in the Pine Creek area, in the nineteenth century and continue to the present day (Pine Creek Railway Resort, 2018a).

Further, regarding the demographics of the local populations, there is a greater and more diverse number of residents of European-descent in Tower Hill and Geriwerd, including Greek and Italian people. Pine Creek has a greater Aboriginal population (40%), than Southwest Victoria (0-1.4%). However, there are more options for Aboriginal employment in Southwest Victoria than in Pine Creek in the tourism sector, with approximately 45% employed full-time in the Grampians area (TRA, 2015a).

This could be owing to the fact that there is a strong integration of Aboriginal heritage into the National Parks of Tower Hill and Geriwerd in the parks’ cultural centres, which are managed by and employ Aboriginal owners (Parks Victoria,

271 2018; Visit Victoria, 2018; Worn Gundidj Enterprises, 2015). The Wagiman- owned parks in the NT do not include cultural centres, but have billboards erected at the entrance to the parks’ trails denoting the dreaming or other Wagiman culture that is significant to each park (NLC, 2018; Northern Territory Government, 2018b). The Wagiman people are employed as Rangers to maintain the natural landscape of the parks, but they are not employed to provide oral cultural interpretation for tourism purposes at their parks (Huddleston et al., 2010; NLC, 2018).

10.5 Conclusion

During my discussion with Debbie, a Wagiman Elder in Pine Creek (see Chapter 6), she expressed interest in developing a cultural centre of Wagiman heritage for tourists in the town. However, given the long-term implications seen in Victoria in this chapter, as well as the discussion of support and resources in section 2.2.2, Wagiman-controlled and managed development of a cultural centre may not be a viable option for long-term sustainability. This is especially true given the transient nature of Wagiman peoples’ interest and availability to engage in tourism on a daily basis (see Chapter 6). Therefore, as seen in Victoria (see 2.4.1), more collaborative, innovative co-management of integrated Aboriginal tourism and heritage products via websites and videos were developed for and by the Wagiman and non-Aboriginal community in Pine Creek.

While there is a larger Aboriginal population in Pine Creek, there seems to be more opportunities for employment in tourism and other sectors for Aboriginal people in the rural regions of Southwest Victoria. However, owing to Victoria’s longer history with colonisation, the Aboriginal tourism ventures in the area have gone through various periods of decline and rejuvenation (see section 2.4.1). The most recent period of rejuvenation includes the application of digital interpretation of knowledge and culture at the National Parks of Tower Hill and Geriwerd for longer-term tourism management. Additionally, the management takes a collaborative approach (see section 2.2.2) and allows for the integration of digital Aboriginal knowledge into established tourism ventures, such as the Brambuk Cultural Centre at Geriwerd, under Aboriginal control (see section 2.5).

272 THESIS CONCLUSION

“For us, warriors are not what you think of as warriors. The warrior is not someone who fights, because no one has the right to take another life. The warrior, for us, is one who sacrifices himself for the good of others. His task is to take care of the elderly, the defenceless, those who cannot provide for themselves, and above all, the children, the future of humanity.”

– Tatanka Iyotake, Chief Sitting Bull of the Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux People

To revisit my research questions as presented in Chapter 1 of this manuscript, my thesis has investigated how Indigenous communities can participate and become empowered through tourism while avoiding commodification of heritage with the widest range of options for involvement possible. My thesis explored this notion by focusing on the current issues regarding Indigenous control and leadership in tourism development, as well as Indigenous peoples’ benefits from becoming involved and empowered through tourism development, conservation of heritage and Indigenous interpretation of biocultural and spatial knowledge. I have reviewed the existing research literature in tourism to argue that Indigenous peoples can possibly achieve empowerment and other benefits from tourism development by the below proposals.

Following Tuhiwai-Smith (2012), Stanner (1979) and Lepp (2007, 2008), Indigenous-led interviews are significant in the research process while using Indigenous methodologies and on-site visitation, when possible, to effectively engage with researchers and other tourism and heritage stakeholders. When on- site visitation is not possible, Indigenous peoples can benefit from technological and digital options of storytelling and mapping to preserve their country, heritage and empower others for generations to come.

Following Foley (2008, 2014, 2015), Whitford et al. (2010), Whitford and Ruhanen (2014), Christen (2005, 2006) and Simonsen (2006), my research found that it is a viable option for Indigenous peoples to use technological or digital options for engaging with tourists and wider members of the community, as well as younger

273 generations of Indigenous peoples if there is sufficient, regular and culturally appropriate access to technological resources, funding and skill-training, as well as regular usage of digital technologies and resources for heritage transmission and tourism product development, promotion and management.

Following Clark (2014), Hinch and Butler (2007), Foley (2008, 2014), Pearce and Moscardo (1986), Chhabra (2010), Simonsen (2006) and Barnes (2007), my research focused on the development, promotion and management of Indigenous tourism and heritage products. Further, I focused on how these products should be controlled by Indigenous peoples and communities by incorporating Indigenous knowledge, values and content into existing, established and, possibly, non-Indigenous tourism infrastructures. Such integration of Indigenous knowledge could diversify existing products while authentically promoting Indigenous content, knowledge, values and identity to tourists and others.

Following Tobias et al. (2013), Simonsen (2006), Whitford and Ruhanen (2014), Morales (2005) and Botterill and Platenkamp (2012), my thesis finds that in terms of management, regular and frequent monitoring, innovation, adjustment and assessment of (digital) tourism products is vital. Further tourism marketing and management strategies need to be developed and redeveloped through effective and frequent communication between, and co-management by, community- based stakeholders of Indigenous and non-Indigenous descent. This is especially important for ethnically heterogeneous communities, which may require more geomarketing-based strategies instead of ethnomarketing strategies for tourism products, promotion and management.

Following Tomaselli et al. (2008) and Foley (2008, 2014), the findings of my study, from both Pine Creek and Victoria, have provided evidence for the potential of Indigenous community empowerment through digital engagement, product development and promotion in tourism as well as heritage conservation. My fieldwork in Pine Creek, totalling nine months over a three-year period, allowed me to build bonds of trust and friendship with the Wagiman community as a result of our many trips "out bush" and "on country", which were led by the Wagiman Elders and their families. Our “active conversations” elicited strong conversational flows and the ability for me to share my culture, history, land and

274 story with them in return. These conversations also allowed for tourism development and participation options to arise for the Wagiman Elders and their families and friends. Throughout this study, the Wagiman community were enthusiastic and active in their consultation, design and leadership in developing the digital maps of their country as well as the videos for telling their stories online for the community and tourists alike. The non-Aboriginal residents also became enthusiastic about the website and have been active in promoting the research and websites to tourists in the town, knowing that it will help reinvigorate their tourism product, infrastructure and connection to the Wagiman community as well.

Through this camaraderie and spirit of collaboration, the community has begun their road to empowerment and the Wagiman people have begun to make future plans for tourism participation in the town. The non-Aboriginal residents, the Wagiman Rangers and the Pine Creek town council have also begun to make future plans for tourism development in the town with the promotion and use of the maps and websites in each of their businesses. This community-based venture could spark future plans for Indigenous tourism development in the larger Victoria-Daly area, and could eventually lead to informing other practitioners and policy-makers in the Northern Territory, and in broader Australia and internationally, to consider the introduction of digital options for sustainable, Indigenous-controlled, tourism development.

In saying this, however, this study has also found that it is important for mixed- methods research approaches to be applied when engaging with Indigenous communities for tourism development. Such methods are important for inclusivity in the research process, as well as for a transparent and mutual understanding of how each stakeholder wants to play a role in the development and promotion of a tourism product and for each to gain the desired benefits from playing their part in the process. If Indigenous stakeholders wish to create a product for non- Indigenous promotion, then it is important that both understand how the Indigenous-led product should be promoted in a way that does not compromise the “Indigeneity” and social value of the product. This will allow for Indigenous- led promotion as well, using non-Indigenous methods, skills, tools or means. Integration of AIBK includes integration of Indigenous value systems into the

275 promotion and management of the product that they created. This is a vital aspect for creating a social value-based, non-commodified, authentic, diversified, mixed- method, participatory tourism product for community empowerment that can be adopted and adapted by Indigenous and other ethnically heterogeneous communities around the world.

“That’s my story now. Thank you.”

– Jabarl Huddlestone, Wagiman Elder of Pine Creek

276 REFERENCES

ACT Council of Social Services (COSS). (2016). Preferences in terminology when referring to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples. Gulanga Good Practice Guides. Retrieved from www.actcoss.org.au Adams, M. S., Carpenter, J., Housty, J. A., Neasloss, D., Paquet, P. C., Service, C., Walkus, J., & Darimont, C. T. (2014). Toward increased engagement between academic and indigenous community partners in ecological research. Ecology and Society, 19(3), 5. Ali, S. (2009). Indigenous cultural tourism at the Grampians. Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd. Alliance for Renewing Indigenous Economies. (2018). Research: Restoring tribal economies: Summary of Hoover Institutition's renewing indigenous economies research initiative. Retrieved from https://indigenouseconomies.org/research/ Altman, J. (1987). Hunter-gatherers today: An Aboriginal economy in north Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Altman, J. (1989). Tourism dilemmas for Aboriginal Australians. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 456-476. Asher, Hon. L. MP. (2013). New strategy to boost Aboriginal tourism in Victoria. Melbourne, Australia: State Government of Victoria. Retrieved from www.premier.vic.gov.au. Ashwell, J. (2015). Going bush? Factors which influence international tourists' decisions to travel to remote Australian destinations. Tourism Management, 46, 80-83. Auld, G. (2002). The role of the computer in learning ndjébbana. Language Learning and Technology, 6(2), 41-58. Austrade. (2016). State of the industry. Tracking Tourism 2020. Retrieved from https://www.tra.gov.au/tra/2016/soi/tra.gov.au/reports/soi2016/t2020- supply.html#employment Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). 2016 Census QuickStats: Pine Creek. Retrieved from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2 016/quickstat/ILOC70400106?opendocument Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2017). 2016 Census of Population and Housing: Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Peoples Profile (Grampians). Retrieved from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2 016/communityprofile/21501?opendocument Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2018). 2011 Census QuickStats: Illowa and the Grampians. Retrieved from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2 011/quickstat/GL_VIC2565?opendocument&navpos=220 , http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/cen sus/2011/quickstat/21501?opendocument&navpos=220 Australian Government. (2011). Tourism 2020: Whole of government working with industry to acheive Australia's tourism potential. Australian Government, Tourism Australia.

277 Australian Government: Department of the Environment. (2006). Grampians National Park (Geriwerd), Victoria. Retrieved from environment.gov.au Australian Government: Department of the Environment. (2012). CAPAD 2012 Northern Territory Summary. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitmiluk_National_Park#cite_note- CAPAD2012NTSum-1 Australian Government: Department of the Environment and Energy. (2018). Kakadu National Park: Park Management. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/national-parks/kakadu-national- park/management-and-conservation/park-management Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). (2012). Guidelines for ethical research in Australian Indigenous studies. Canberra: AIATSIS. Bahaire, T., & Elliott-White, M. (1999). The application of geographic information systems (GIS) in sustainable tourism planning: A review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(2), 159-174. Ban, N. C., Picard, C., & Vincent, A. C. J. (2008). Moving toward spatial solutions in marine conservation with indigenous communities. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 32. Barnes, J. E. (2007). Resisting the captured image: How Gwoja Tjungurrayi ("One Pound Jimmy") escaped the 'Stone-Age'. Aboriginal History, Monograph, 16, 83-134. Baud, I. S. A., Pfeffer, K., Scott, D., & Sydenstricker, J. (2011). Developing participatory ‘spatial’knowledge models in metropolitan governance networks for sustainable development. Literature Review. Bonn: EADI, Change2Sustain. Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination branding: Insights and practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 43(328), 328-338. Botha, L. (2011). Mixing methods as a process towards indigenous methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(4), 313-325. Botterill, D., & Platenkamp, V. (2012). Key concepts in tourism research. London: SAGE Publications.Retrieved from http://newcastle.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1534953 Briedehann, J., & Wickens, E. (2004). Rural tourism – Meeting the challenges of the new South Africa. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 189- 203. Brown, G. (2012). Public participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: Reflections on a decade of empirical research. URISA Journal, 25(2), 7-18. Brown, G., Kelly, M., & Whitall, D. (2013). Which 'public'? Samplings effects in public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) systems for public lands management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(2), 190-214. Brown, G., & Kytta, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, 122-136. Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2011). Public participation GIS: A new method for national park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(1), 1-15.

278 Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2013). Using public participation GIS (PPGIS) on the Geoweb to monitor tourism development preferences. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(2), 192-211. Bull, J. (2010). Research with Aboriginal peoples: Authentic relationships as a precursor to ethical research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 5(4), 13-22. doi:10.1525/jer.2010.5.4.13 Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist area life cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer, XXIV(1), 5-12. Butler, R., & Hinch, T. (2007). Tourism and Indigenous peoples issues and implications (1st ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Cardamone, M., & Rentschler, R. (2006). Indigenous innovators: The role of web marketing for cultural micro-enterprises. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11, 347-360. Carment, D. (1984). Cultural resource management in Australia's Northern Territory: Problems and prospects. The Public Historian, 6(3), 39-48. Carson, D. (2008). The 'blogosphere' as a market research tool for tourism destinations: A case study of Australia's Northern Territory. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 111-119. Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture (Vol. 1). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Castleden, H., Garvin, T., & Huu-ay-aht First Nation. (2008). Modifying Photovoice for community-based participatory Indigenous research. Social Science and Medicine, 66(6), 1393-1405. Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1987). The future of ecotourism. Mexico Journal, January, 13-14. Chambers, D., & Buzinde, C. (2015). Tourism and decolonisation: Locating research and self. Annals of Tourism Research, 51(1), 1-16. Chhabra, D. (2010). Sustainable marketing of cultural and heritage tourism. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Christen, K. (2005). Gone digital: Aborginal remix and the cultural commons. International Journal of Cultural Property, 12, 315-145. Christen, K. (2006). Ara Irititja: Protecting the past, accessing the future— Indigenous memories in a digital age. A digital archive project of the Pitjantjatjara Council. Museum Anthropology, 29(1), 56-60. Clark, I. (2002). Rock art sites in Victoria, Australia: A management history framework. Tourism Management, 23, 455-464. Clark, I. (2008). The northern Wathawurrung and Andrew Porteous, 1860–1877. Aboringal History, 32, 97-108. Clark, I. (2009). Naming sites: Names as management tools in Indigenous tourism sites — an Australian case study. Tourism Management, 30(1), 109-111. Clark, I. (2011). Reconstruction of Aboriginal microtyponymy in western and central Victoria: Case studies from Tower Hill, the Hopkins River, and Lake Boga. In H. Koch & L. Hercus (Eds.), Aboriginal placenames (207- 221). Canberra, Australia: ANU Press. Clark, I. (2014). An historical geography of tourism in Victoria, Australia: Case studies. Warsaw/Berlin: De Gruyter Open Ltd.

279 Clark, I., & Heydon, T. (2002). Dictionary of Aboriginal placenames of Victoria. Northcote, Vic: Victorian Aboriginal Corporation for Languages. Cochran, P. A. L., Marshall, C. A., Garcia-Downing, C., Kendall, E., Cook, D., McCubbin, L., & Gover, R. M. S. (2008). Indigenous ways of knowing: Implications for participatory research and community. American Journal of Public Health, 98(1), 22-27. doi:http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.093641 Cole, S. (2006a). Cultural tourism, community participation and empowerment. In M. K. Smith & M. Robinson (Eds.), Cultural tourism in a changing world: Politics, participation and (re)presentation, 89-103. Buffalo, NY: Channel View Publications. Cole, S. (2006b). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629-644. Cole, S. (2007). Beyond authenticity and commodification. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 943-960. Creative Spirits. (2018). Appropriate words & terminology for Aboriginal topics. Retrieved from https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/media/appropriate- terminology-for-aboriginal-topics Crick, M. (1985). 'Tracing' the anthropological self: Quizzical reflections on field work, tourism, and the Ludic. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice, 17, 71-92. Crick, M. (1990). Aborigines, tourism and development: The Northern Territory experience. Wiley, 61(2), 203-205. Dawson, J. (1881). Australian Aborigines The languages and customs of several tribes of Aborigines in the western district of Victoria, Australia (Primary source edition ed.). Melbourne, Australia: George Robertson. Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9, 139- 160. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodolgies. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc. Donohoe, H. M., & Needham, R.D. (2006). Ecotourism: The Evolving Contemporary Definition. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(3), 192-210. du Cros, H., & McKercher, B. (2016). Cultural Tourism (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Dyer, P., Aberdeen, L., & Schuler, S. (2003). Tourism impacts on an Australian indigenous community: A Djabugay case study. Tourism Management, 24, 83-95. Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. D. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas: Guidelines for planning and management. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). (2017). What is GIS? Retrieved from https://www.esri.com/en-us/what-is-gis/overview Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932-1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 29-51. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171-191.

280 Flynn, J. R. (2007). What is intelligence? Beyond the Flynn Effect. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Foley, D. (2008). Indigenous (Australian) entrepreneurship? International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 2(4), 419-436. Foley, D. (2014). Too many didgeridoos. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 17(2), 56-71. Foley, D. (2015). Enterprise and entrepreneurial thinking: It's a black thing! In K. Price (Ed.), Knowledge of life: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia, 118-140. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Forristal, L. J., Marsh, D. G., & Lehto, X. Y. (2011). Revisiting MacCannell's site sacralization theory as an analytical tool: Historic Prophetstown as a case study. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(6), 570-582. Franklin, A. (2007). Chapter 9 - The problem with tourism theory. In I. A. P. Morgan (Ed.), The critical turn in tourism studies (131-148). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Fuller, D., Buultjens, J., & Cummings, E. (2005). Ecotourism and indigenous micro-enterprise formation in northern Australia: Opportunities and constraints. Tourism Management, 26, 891-904. Gartner, W. C. (1996). Tourism development: Principles, processes, and policies. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Ghose, R. (2001). Use of information technology for community empowerment: Transforming geographic information systems into community information systems. Transactions in GIS, 5(2), 141-163. Grimwood, B. S. R., King, L., Holmes, A., & the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation. (2017). Decolonizing tourism mobilities?: Planning research within a First Nations community in northern Canada. In J. Rickly, K. Hannam, & M. Mostafanezhad (Eds.), Tourism and leisure mobilities: Politics, work, and play, (232-247). New York, NY: Routledge. Gunn, C., & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases. New York, NY: Routledge. Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 4(3), 1-9. Harrill, R. (2004). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(3), 251-266. Harvey, M. (1991). Glottal stop, underspecification, & syllable structures among the top end languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 67-105. Harvey, M. (1999). Place names and land‐language associations in the western top end. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 19(2), 161-195. Harvey, M. (2011). Lexical change in pre-colonial Australia. Diachronica, 28(3), 345-381. Harvey, M. (2016). Stones and grinding: Wagiman ethnogeology. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1, 12-23. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). More than an "industry": The forgotten power of tourism as a social force. Tourism Management, 27, 1192-1208. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2008). Justice tourism and alternative globalisation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(3), 345-364. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2010). The elusiveness of sustainability in tourism: The culture-ideology of consumerism and its implications. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(116), 116-129.

281 Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Trevorrow, G., & Sparrow, S. (2014). The Coorong Wilderness Lodge: A case study of planning failures in Indigenous tourism. Tourism Management, 44(Supplement C), 46-57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.02.003 Higgins-Desbiolles, F., & Whyte, K. P. (2015). Tourism and human rights. The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and Sustainability (105-116). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Hinch, T., & Butler, R. (2007a). Introduction: Revisiting common ground. In R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and Indigenous peoples: Issues and implications, 1-12. New York, NY: Routledge. Holmes, A., Grimwood, B. S. R., King, L., & the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation. (2016). Creating an indigenized visitor code of ethics: The development of Denesoline self-determination for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8-9), 1177-1193. Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Horton, D. R. (1996). The AIATSIS map of Indigenous Australia. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/features/map/ Huddleston, J., Liddy, L., Liddy, M., Sullivan, L., McMah, A., Huddleston, D., . . . Corrigan, L. (2010). Majalin Guwardagun - guna. TRaCK Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge, Wagiman Guwardagun Rangers, Northern Territory Government, University of Newcastle Australia, E. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government National Water Commission, & Australian Government Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (Eds.) Human Research Ethics Committee. (2015). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. National Health and Medical Research Council.University of Newcastle Australia Hunter, J. (2014). Oral history goes digital as Google helps map ancestral lands. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/oral-history-goes- digital-as-google-helps-map-ancestral- lands/article19566302/?service=mobile Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. International Ecotourism Society (TIES). (2017). The definition. Retrieved from http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism Jackson, S. E., Douglas, M. M., Kennard, M. J., Pusey, B. J., Huddleston, J., Harney, B. Liddy, L., Liddy, R., Sullivan, L., Huddleston, B., Banderson, M., McMah, A., & Allsop, Q. (2014). "We like to listen to stories about fish": Integrating Indigenous ecological and scientific knowledge to inform environmental flow assessments. Ecology and Society, 19(1), 43. Jacobsen, D. (2017). Tourism enterprises beyond the margins: The relational practices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander SMEs in remote Australia. Tourism Planning & Development, 14(1), 31-49. doi:10.1080/21568316.2016.1152290 Jin, X., Weber, K., & Bauer, T. (2012). Impact of clusters on exhibition destination attractiveness: Evidence from Mainland China. Tourism

282 Management, 33(6), 1429-1439. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.01.005 Kangaroo Island TOMM Management Committee (KITMC). (2000). Tourism optimization management model TOMM Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Retrieved from http://www.utok.cz/sites/default/files/data/USERS/u28/TOMM%20Touris m%20optimisation%20management%20model.pdf Korff, J. (2017). Aboriginal employment, jobs & careers. Creative Spirits. Retrieved from https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/aboriginal- employment-jobs-careers Korff, J. (2018). Aboriginal economy: Selected statistics. Creative Spirits. Retrieved from https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/ Kostanski, L.(2012). Crowd-Sourcing Geospatial Information for Government Gazeteers.United Nations Economic and Social Council. Tenth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geogrpahical Names. E /CONF.101/CRP16. Leary, B., Wyeld, T., Hills, J., Barker, C., & Gard, S. (2008). Digital songlines: Digitising the arts, culture and heritage landscape of Aboriginal Australia. In Y. Kalay, T. Kvan, & J. Affleck (Eds.), New heritage: New media and cultural heritage (294-303). London & New York: Routledge. Lepp, A. (2007). Residents' attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda. Tourism Management, 28, 876-885. Lepp, A. (2008). Attitudes towards initial tourism development in a community with no prior tourism experience: The case of Bigodi, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), 5-22. Leys, A. J., & Vanclay, J. K. (2011). Social learning: A knowledge and capacity buidling approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy, 28, 574-584. Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand. Liddy, L. G., Martin, L. D., Huddlestone, J. G., Liddy, L. J., Liddy, H. I., McMah, C. G., . . . Wightman, G. (2006). Wagiman plants and animals: Aboriginal flora and fauna knowledge from the mid Daly River basin, Northern Australia. In Department of Infrastructure (Ed.), Northern Territory Botanical Bulletin (30). Darwin and Diwurruwurru Jaru, Katherine. Liu, E. (2017). How to get power. We Humans. Retrieved from https://ideas.ted.com/how-to-get-power/ Louis, R. P. (2006). Can you hear us now? Voices from the margin: Using Indigenous methodologies in geography research. Geographical Research, 45(2), 130-139. Luczaj, L., Koncic, M. Z., Milicevic, T., Dolina, K., & Pandza, M. (2013). Wild vegetable mixes sold in the markets of Dalmatia (southern Croatia). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 9(2), 1-12. MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. The American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603. MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. New York, NY: Schoken.

283 Mahony, K., & Zyl, J. V. (2002). The impacts of tourism investment on rural communities: Three cases studies in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 19(1), 83-103. Marett, A. (2005). Songs, dreamings, and ghosts: The Wangga of North Australia. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Martin, K., & Mirraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and indigenist re‐ search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27(76), 203-214. McGinnis, G., Harvey, M., Clark, I., & Young, T. (2017). Australian Indigenous tourism: Integration of knowledge vs. independent ventures. Paper presented at the BEST-EN Think Tank XVII, Mauritius. Retrieved from http://www.besteducationnetwork.org/Papers_Presentations/15605 McGinnis, G., Harvey, M., & Young, T. (2015). Rules of engagement: An examination of methods for community consultations in research: A case study in Pine Creek, Australia. Paper presented at the Heritage for Tourism and Hospitality in Industry Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Retrieved from https://heritagetourismhospitality.org/2015/23-hthic2015/speakers/202- gabrielle-mcginnis McGinnis, G., Young, T., & Harvey, M. (2016). New approach on creating shared value in corporate social responsibility: Effective engagement with Indigenous stakeholders for community empowerment. Paper presented at the BEST-EN Think Tank XVI, Berlin-Eberswalde. Retrieved from https://www.besteducationnetwork.org/Proceedings_TTXVI McGinnis, G., Young, T., Harvey, M., & Clark, I. (2017). Indigenous communities: Potential empowerment though digital engagement. Paper presented at the Council for Australasian Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) Conference, Dunedin, NZ. Retrieved from https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=849661933133855 ;res=IELBUS;subject=history McGinty, S. (2002a). Community capacity building. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2002/mcg02476.pdf McKinnon, J. (2005). Mobile interactive GIS: Bringing Indigenous knowledge and scientific information together. A narrative account. School of Earth Sciences. Victoria University of Wellington. Wellington, NZ. Merlan, F. (1998). Caging the rainbow: Places, politics, and Aborigines in a north Australian town. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaiʻi Press. Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2007). Social tourism and its ethical foundations. Tourism Culture & Communication, 7, 7-17. Mohsin, A., & Ryan, C. (2003). Backpackers in the Northern Territory of Australia - Motives, behaviours, and satisfactions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 113-131. Morales, D. P. (2005). Ethnomarketing, the cultural dimension of marketing. Pensamiento & Gestión, 18, 177-206. Morley, S. (2014). Success factors for Indigenous entrepreneurs and community-based enterprises. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Australian Insitute of Health and Welfare.

284 Nakata, M. (2004). Indigenous Australian studies and higher education. The Wentworth Lectures, 1-20. Retrieved from https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/docs/presentations/2004- wentworth-nakata-indigenous-australian-studies-higher-education.pdf Neilsen, N., & Wilson, E. (2012). From invisible to Indigenous-driven: A critical typology of research in Indigenous-tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19(1-9), e5. Northern Land Council. (2018). Wagiman. Retrieved from https://www.nlc.org.au/our-land-sea/caring-for-country/ranger-groups- map/wagiman Northern Territory Government. (2005). Northern Territory Indigenous Economic Development Strategy. Northern Territory Government. Northern Territory Government. (2014). China Market Activation Plan II. Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia: Northern Territory Government. Northern Territory Government. (2015). Litchfield National Park: Experience Development Plan. Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory. Retrieved from https://dtc.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/262109/litchfield- experience-development-plan.pdf Northern Territory Government. (2018a). Litchifeld National Park Fact Sheet. Batchelor, Northern Territory, Australia: NT Government Retrieved from https://nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/200073/litchfield-national- park.pdf Northern Territory Government. (2018b). Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park Fact Sheet. Batchelor, Australia: NT Government. Retrieved from https://nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/200081/umbrawarra-gorge- nature-park-fact-sheet.pdf Nunkoo, R., Smith, S. L. J., & Ramkissoon, H. (2013). Residents' attitudes to tourism: A longitudinal study of 140 articles from 1984-2010. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 5-25. Oestreicher-Singer, G., & Zalmanson, L. (2012). Content or community? A digital business strategy for content providers in the social age. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 37(2), 591-616. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1536768 Office of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. (2017). Aboriginal Land Commissioner. Retrieved from https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/aboriginal-land- commissioner-annual-report.DOCX Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2014). Tourism and the creative economy. Paris, France: OECD. Panek, J. (2014). How participatory mapping can drive community empowerment - A case study of Koffiekraal, South Africa. South African Geographical Journal, 1-13. Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory. (2014). Nitmiluk National Park: Plan of Management, July 2014. Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory. Retrieved from https://dtc.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/260496/Nitmiluk- NP_Plan_July2014.pdf Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory. (2016). Litchfield National Park: Plan of Management, December 2016. Northern Territory

285 Government. Retrieved from https://parliament.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/433938/327- Plan-of-Management,-Litchfield-National-Park.pdf Parks Australia. (2013). Kakadu National Park. Retrieved from http://www.parksaustralia.gov.au/kakadu/index.html, http://www.parksaustralia.gov.au/kakadu/plan-your-trip/when-to- come.html, http://www.parksaustralia.gov.au/kakadu/plan-your- trip/phone-and-web.html, https://parksaustralia.gov.au/kakadu/about/ Parks Victoria. (1963). Tower Hill Wildlife Reserve. Retrieved from http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/tower-hill-w.r Parks Victoria. (2018). Brambuk - The National Park and Cultural Centre. Retrieved from http://www.visitvictoria.com/regions/Grampians/Things-to- do/Aboriginal-Victoria/Arts-and-culture/Brambuk-The-National-Park-and- Cultural-Centre.aspx Pearce, P. L., & Moscardo, G. M. (1986). The Concept of authenticity in tourist experiences. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 22(1), 121-132. doi:10.1177/144078338602200107 Pereira, O. R. E., & Rodrigues, J. J. P. C. (2013). Survey and analysis of current mobile learning applications and technologies. ACM Computing Surveys, 46(2), 27:21-27:35. doi:10.1145/2543581.2543594 Pert, P. L., Ens, E. J., Locke, J., Clarke, P. A., Packer, J. M., & Turpin, G. (2015). An online spatial database of Australian Indigenous biocultural knowledge for contemporary natural and cultural resource management. Science of Total Environment, 534, 110-121. Pine Creek Railway Resort. (2018a). Our history. Retrieved from http://www.pinecreekrailwayresort.com.au/about-us/our-history Pine Creek Railway Resort. (2018b). Things to see and do. Retrieved from http://www.pinecreekrailwayresort.com.au/what-to-see-do/events Pocewicz, A., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Brown, G., & Schnitzer, R. (2012). An evaluation of internet versus paper-based methods for public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). Transactions in GIS, 16(1), 39-53. PPGIS.net. (2017). The practice. Retrieved from http://www.ppgis.net/ Prober, S. M., O'Conner, M. H., & Walsh, F. J. (2011). Australian Aboriginal peoples' seasonal knowledge: A potential basis for shared understanding in environmental management. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 12. Read, P. (2000). Belonging: Australians, place and Aboriginal ownership. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rigney, L.-I. (2001). A first perspective of Indigenous Australian participation in science: Framing Indigenous research towards Indigenous Australian intellectual sovereignty. Kaurna Higher Education Journal, 7, 1-13. Robertson, H. A., & McGee, T. K. (2003). Applying local knowledge: The contribution of oral history to wetland rehabilitation at Kanyapella Basin, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 275-287. Rogerson, C. M. (2004). Urban tourism and small tourism enterprise development in Johannesburg: The case of township tourism. GeoJournal, 60, 249-257. Ruhanen, L., Whitford, M., & McLennan, C.-l. (2015). Indigenous tourism in Australia: Time for a reality check. Tourism Management, 48, 73-83.

286 Russell-Mundine, G. (2012). Reflexivity in Indigenous research: Reframing and decolonising research? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19(1), 85-90. Russell-Smith, J., Lucas, D., Gapindi, M., Gunbunuka, B., Kapirigi, N., Namingum, G., Lucas, K., Giuliani, P., & Chaloupka, G. (1997). Aboriginal resource utilization and fire management practice in western Arnhem Land, monsoonal northern Australia: Notes for prehistory, lessons for the future. Human Ecology, 25(2), 159-195. Russell, L. (2005). Indigenous knowledge and archives: Accessing hidden history and understandings. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 36(2), 161-171. Ryan, C. (2013). Book review: The tourist gaze 3.0. Tourism Management, 36, 234-236. Ryan, C., & Huyton, J. (2000a). Aboriginal tourism - A linear structural relations analysis of domestic and international tourist demand. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 15-29. Ryan, C., & Huyton, J. (2000b). Who is interested in Aboriginal tourism in the Northern Territory, Australia? A cluster analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 53-88. Ryan, C., & Huyton, J. (2002). Tourists and Aboriginal people. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 631-647. Schmiechen, J. (2006). Indigenous tourism research agenda: Key directions for the future 2005 - 2008. Retrieved from http://base.socioeco.org/docs/indigenoustourismresearchagenda.pdf Schmiechen, J., & Boyle, A. (2007). Aboriginal tourism research in Australia. In R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and Indigenous peoples: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Routledge. Seaton, L. (2015). Tourism Australia Indigenous short film aims to increase international tourism numbers. Retrieved from http://www.tourism.australia.com/en/news-and-industry-tools/latest- news/tourism-australia-indigenous-short-film.html Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management, 42, 37-49. Simonsen, R. (2006). Joint ventures and indigenous tourism enterprises. Tourism Culture & Communication, 6(2), 107-119. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodolgies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London, UK: Zed Books Ltd. Snowball, J. D., & Courtney, S. (2010). Cultural heritage routes in South Africa: Effective tools for heritage conservation and local economic development? Development Southern Africa, 27(4), 563-576. Stanner, W. E. H. (1979). White man got no dreaming: Essays, 1938-1973: Canberra, ACT: Australian National University Press. State Government of Victoria, & Tourism Victoria. (2013). Victoria's 2020 tourism strategy. State Government Victoria, Tourism Victoria. Stewart, E. J., Jacobson, D., & Draper, D. (2008). Public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS): Challenges of implementation in Churchill, Manitoba. The Canadian Geographer, 52, 351-366. Timothy, D. J. (2011). Cultural heritage and tourism. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

287 Tobias, J. K., Richmond, C. A. M., & Luginaah, I. (2013). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) with Indigenous communities: Producing respectful and reciprocal research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 129-140. doi:10.1525/jer.2013.8.2.129 Tomaselli, K. G., Dyll, L., & Francis, M. (2008). "Self" and "other". In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Tourism Australia. (2007). Destination visitor survey: Strategic regional research - Northern Territory - Indigenous cultural experiences: Summary of results. Belconnen, ACT: Tourism Australia. Tourism NT. (2012). Central Australia Indigenous tourism visitors: Central Australia visitor profile and satisfaction survey. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/C3199561/Downloads/central-australia-visitor-profile-and- satisfaction-survey-summary%20_northern-territory%20(2).pdf Tourism NT. (2014). Tourism NT regional report: Katherine and surrounds. Retrieved from http://www.tourismnt.com.au/en/research/regional-profiles Tourism NT. (2017a). Northern Territory tourism - Latest visitor data: Year ending June 2017. Tourism NT. Retrieved from http://www.tourismnt.com.au/corporate/research/latest-visitor-data Tourism NT. (2017b). Tourism NT regional profile - Katherine-Daly. Retrieved from http://www.tourismnt.com.au/en/research/regional-profiles Tourism NT. (2018). Northern Territory Tourism - Latest Visitor Data. Retrieved from Darwin: http://www.tourismnt.com.au/en/research/latest-visitor-data Tourism Research Australia (TRA). (2015a). Tourism region profiles, 2015: Central Highlands, Victoria. Austrade. Retrieved from https://www.tra.gov.au/tra/2016/Tourism_Region_Profiles/Region_profile s/index.html Tourism Research Australia (TRA). (2015b). Tourism region profiles, 2015: Western Victoria. Austrade Retrieved from https://www.tra.gov.au/tra/2016/Tourism_Region_Profiles/Region_profile s/index.html Tourism Research Australia (TRA). (2016). Travel by Australians. Australian Government. Retrieved from https://www.tra.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/185/NVS_onepager_Septembe r2016.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y Tourism Research Australia (TRA). (2017a). Tourism satellite account. Austrade. Retrieved from https://www.tra.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/254/Tourism%20Satellite%20A ccount%202016-17.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y Tourism Research Australia (TRA). (2017b). Travel by Australians. Tourism Research Australia. Retrieved from https://www.tra.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/244/NVS%20Summary%20- %20YE%20Sep%202017.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y Tourism Victoria & State Government of Victoria. (2013). Victoria's Aboriginal tourism development strategy 2013-2023. Melbourne, VIC: State Government of Victoria. Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638-657. Tribe, J., & Liburd, J. J. (2016). The tourism knowledge system. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 44-61.

288 Tuhiwai-Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London, UK: Zed Books Ltd. United Nations (UN). (2008). United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. New York, NY: United Nations. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2016). Promotion of sustainable tourism, including ecotourism, for poverty eradication and environment protection. New York, NY: United Nations. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2004). About. INSTO: World Tourism Organization International Network of Sustainable Tourism Observatories. Retrieved from http://insto.unwto.org/about/ United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2005). Definition. Retrieved from http://sdt.unwto.org/content/about-us-5 United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2010). Practical guide for the development of biodiversity-based tourism products. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2014). Local climate change adaptation guide for Pangandaran Pangandarn regency, Indonesia, prepared as part of the project: "Sustainable tourism through energy efficiency with adaptation and mitigation measures in Pangandaran, Indonesia" (STREAM). Madrid, Spain: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2016a). Beijing declaration on sustainable tourism as a driver of development and peace. Beijing, China: UNWTO. Retrieved from https://custom.cvent.com/E5C28A0D212A415D9AD3C8B699EBC072/fil es/event/D99C4650F33042799C5884D453E2F194/55bc45eda565492a8 816458b4c243735.pdf United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2016b). Tourism and culture partnership in Peru: Models for collaboration between tourism, culture and community. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2017a). UNWTO tourism highlights 2017 edition. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO. United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2017b). UNWTO tourism video competition. Retrieved from http://lmd.unwto.org/unwto- tourism-video-competition-2017 United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) & United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2012). Tourism in the green economy: Background report: World Tourism Organization. Valaitis, R. K. (2005). Computers and the internet: Tools for youth empowerment. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(5), 1-11. Victorian Aboriginal Corporation of Languages (VACL). (2016). VACL map. Retrieved from http://www.vaclang.org.au/Resources/maps.html Visit Victoria. (2018). Aboriginal Victoria: Brambuk - the National Park and cultural centre. Retrieved from http://www.visitvictoria.com/Regions/Grampians/Things-to-do/Aboriginal- Victoria Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook. (2017). Wagiman community heritage archive. Retrieved from www.wagiman.website/ or www.pcaaa7.wixsite.com/wagimanpinecreek. Waitt, G. (1999). Naturalizing the 'primitive': A critique of marketing Australia's indigenous peoples as 'hunter-gatherers'. Tourism Geographies: An

289 International Journal of Tourism, Space, Place and Environment, 1(2), 142-163. Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349-370. Wearing, S., Stevenson, D., & Young, T. (2010). Tourist cultures: Identity, place and the traveller. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd. Whitford, M., Bell, B., & Watkins, M. (2010). Indigenous tourism policy in Australia: 25 years of rhetoric and economic rationalism. Current Issues in Tourism, 4, 151-181. Whitford, M., & Ruhanen, L. (2014). Indigenous tourism businesses: An exploratory study of business owners' perceptions of drivers and inhibitors. Tourism Recreation Research, 39(2), 149-168. doi:10.1080/02508281.2014.11081764 Whitford, M., & Ruhanen, L. (2016). Indigenous tourism research, past and present: Where to from here? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8-9), 1080-1099. Wilson, C., Knowledge Management Group, & Ministry of Social Development. (2001). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, 1999, Zed Books, London. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 17, 214-217. Woodward, E. L. (2010). Creating the Ngan'gi seasons calendar: Reflections on engaging indigenous knowledge authorities in research. In M. Christie & H. Verran (Eds.), Learning Communities international journal of learning in social contexts Australia (2), 125-137. Teaching from Country. Retrieved from http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/inc/tfc/docs/Seasonal_calendar_Emma_Wood ward_TfC.pdf World Indigenous Tourism Alliance (WINTA). (2012). The Larrakia declaration on the development of indigenous tourism. Darwin, NT: ATEC, PATA, Tourism NT. Retrieved from http://www.winta.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/08/The-Larrakia-Declaration.pdf Worn Gundidj Enterprises. (2015). Tower Hill Reserve: History and heritage. Retrieved from http://www.worngundidj.org.au/?q=tower-hill/about- reserve Yeager, C. D., & Steiger, T. (2013). Applied geography in the digital age: The case for mixed methods. Applied Geography, 39, 1-4. Young, T. (2009). Welcome to Aboriginal land: The Uluru-KataTjuta National Park. In W. Frost & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and National Parks: International perspectives on development, histories and change (128- 140). London, UK: Routledge. Young, T., & Hanley, J. (2011). Virtual mobilities: Backpackers, new media, and online travel communities. Newcastle Business School, Faculty of Business and Law. University of Newcastle. Young, T., & Lyons, K. (2011). Cultural learning or learning culture? backpacker experiences with Aboriginal culture and the implications for volunteer tourism.CAUTHE 2011: Tourism, creating a brillian blend. Adelaide, South Australia. Retrieved from https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:181 73

290 Young, T., & Maguire, A. (2017). Indigenization of curricula: trends and issues in tourism education. In Handbook of Teaching and Learning in Tourism, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK: 455-463. Retrieved from https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:312 38 Yuling, A. (2011). Sustainable employment in indigenous tourism: A qualitative analysis of Australian indigenous tourism policy. Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing, China. Zeppel, H. D. (2006). Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management. Cairns, Australia: CABI.

291 LIST OF INDIGENOUS TERMS

Wagiman Terms

 Bolomin – Wagiman name for white ghost gum trees (Eucalyptus (Corymbia) bella) (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017)  Gangaman – The generic Wagiman name for the plains or antilopine kangaroo (Macropus antilopinus) (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017)  Gubam – Wagiman word for “hill” or “hill country”  Guwardagun – This is part of the official name of the Wagiman Ranger Program: “Wagiman Guwardagun Rangers” and is the Wagiman name for the Daly River. The name is derived from the Wagiman word “wardan”, which translates to “salt water crocodile” as there are many who inhabit the river in this region of the NT (Huddleston et al., 2010; Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017)  Jabarlng – Wagiman name for frogs in general, but can be used to refer to the invasive cane toad (Bufo marinus) as well (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017)  Jiwarlun – Djuwaliyn - Tjuwaliyin – Wagiman name for the Douglas-Daly Hot Springs where a sacred female site is located. Men are asked not to go to the sacred female site when visiting the Hot Springs.  Makmak – also known as Bamdakkan or by its call-name Gurnangartngart, is the Wagiman name for the white-bellied sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) who features prominently as a dreaming figure at Umbrawarra Gorge National Park (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017)  Mamin – “white man”, “tourist”, “outsider”. This term was mainly used by members of the Wagiman community to discuss people of European descent  Wakdo – Wagiman place name(s) for springs located in the surrounding Pine Creek area. These springs, in particular, are part of the crow

292 dreaming story (The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017)  Wakkala – Wagiman name for grey paperbark trees (Melaleuca argentea) (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017)  Wangga – A ceremonial dance, which takes place along cultural borderlines when two different language groups are passing through on their travels. According to the Wagiman Elders, wangga acts as a sort of peaceful greeting between the two groups, indicating that they are sharing their country with one another. They exchange “gifts” such as clapsticks and food while also singing and dancing. Afterwards, the two groups then go their respective ways (Marett, 2005).  Wamu – Wagiman name for the black flying fox (Pteropus alecto) (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017).  Wilik-wilik – Wagiman name for the Galah bird (Cacatua roseicapilla). Its Wagiman name is based on the sound of its call (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017)  Wortngong – Wagiman name for the large water frog (Cyclorana australis) who gets its name from the sounds it makes after the first rains. This is also the common Wagiman name for the invasive cane toad species (Bufo marinus) (Liddy et al., 2006; The Wagiman Communities of Pine Creek and Kybrook, 2017)

Djab Wurrung Terms

 Bunjil – Djab wurrung name for the creation spirit that resides at Bunjil’s Shelter in the Grampians National Park in Southwest Victoria (Clark, 2014).  Lal Lal – Referred to as “la-al la-al” by the local Aboriginal people to denote falling water or waterfalls (Clark, 2014).  Wendouree – “go away”. This is also the name of the lake in Ballarat which was “misnamed” by the Europeans who were colonising the area while asking a local Djab wurrung woman what she calls the lake.

293

Jawoyn Terms

 Leiliyn – Jawoyn name for Edith Falls, located in Nitmiluk National Park between Katherine and Pine Creek, NT.

Sioux Terms

 Philámayaye – Thank you  Tatanka Iyotake – Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux Chief “Sitting Bull”. A prominent historical figure, warrior, and holy man in (Native) American history and my ancestor

Shawnee Terms

 Tecumseh – Name of the Shawnee Native American warrior and prophet who is the namesake of the town of Tecumseh/Historic Prophetstown in Indiana, USA. He was also brother to “Tenskwatawa”, a religious man who later became known as the “historic prophet” and symbol of community in the area (Forristal et al., 2011).

Welsh Terms

 Diolch yn fawr – Thank you

294 WAGIMAN PARTICIPANTS’ TECHNOLOGY INTERVIEW DATABASE

Table 19 Wagiman Participants Technology Interview Database

Participant Age Devices Location Activities Social Data Software Training Website(s) Group of Media Payment Course Management Purchase Interest Vote Tammy Elder 1 Tablet, In town Calling family in None $20,30 or none Maybe Wagiman lost Pine Creek, 50$ Rangers for mobile Adelaide River, credit/prep WCHA and Katherine and aid/pay as young ones Darwin; Dictate you go for tourism texts via Eva and Shelly; Jimmy Elder Share 1 Was here Calling family and None $35-45 none Maybe Mike mobile kids who are in credit/ with wife Darwin for college prepaid, Irene pay as you go Louis25 Elder Share 1 n/a Calling family in None Paid by none n/a n/a mobile Pine Creek Peter with son Peter Beth Youth 1 mobile, In town Calling; Internet; Facebook; $25-35 Word, No Wagiman used to Convenience apps: Google + credit/prep Outlook Rangers use banking, aid/pay as (at work desktop transportation, you go and at health, etc. school) work/sch ool

25 Participant passed away before full interview and database could be made. Missing fields are indicated by “n/a”.

295 Shelly26 Youth 1 mobile In town and Texting family and Facebook, Paid by Word (at n/a n/a Share Darwin friends. Calling Instagram, Tammy school) Tammy’s family; Use tablet Snapchat, and/or Eva tablet. and phone for YouTube Use internet, games, desktop watching videos, at school and social media. Use desktop for Microsoft word at school and other programs. Eva Youth 1 mobile Post office, Calling and texting YouTube, $25-35 Google Maybe Wagiman she or Lazy family and friends in Google + credit or Maps Rangers shares Lizard shop Pine Creek and prepaid as with in town Darwin; Texting; you go Tammy; Watching videos; Shares Music; Convenience apps.; Tammy’s tablet Games; Reading news/articles/books etc. Ron Elder Used to In town – Calling; Watching none $25-35 none Maybe, I have One of the have available videos; Music credit, some training young ones mobile there prepaid, and want to phone, pay as you know more tablet, go laptop – kids took sim and batteries

26 Participant went back to Darwin before full interview could be completed. Missing fields are indicated by “n/a”.

296 and now broken Dolly Elder 1 mobile In town Calling and Texting YouTube $35-$45 Google Yes Mike (own), family, friends and credit/prep My Maps share 1 for work as Ranger; aid/pay as tablet, 1 Watching videos; you go iPod/MP Music; 3 Player Homework/Professi with onal Use; Internet; Jessica Maps; Games; Reading; Taking photos; Torch/mirror/miscell aneous apps; Looking up country on Google Vikki Elder 1 mobile Calling and texting YouTube $25-$35 Google Maybe Kybrook Farm family in Pine Creek credit/prep Maps for WCHA, and Darwin and for aid/pay as Wagiman work as Ranger; you go Rangers for Watching videos, tourism Music, Games, Taking photos Jessica Youth 1 mobile, In town Calling and texting Facebook, $25-$35 Word, Yes Mike shares 1 family and friends; Instagram, data plan Adobe tablet, 1 Social Media; Snapchat, Photosho iPod/MP Watching and YouTube p, Google 3 Player taking videos and Maps with pictures; Music; Dolly, Internet; uses 1 Convenience apps;

297 laptop, 1 Games; Maps; desktop Reading; from Torch/mirror/miscell school aneous apps

Rick27 Youth none n/a None None n/a none Maybe Tammy for Wagiman website and Elijah for tourism website Andrew Youth none n/a None None n/a none No Tammy or Jimmy for Wagiman website and Elijah for tourism website Vanessa Youth 1 mobile, In town Calling; Texting; Facebook, $25-$35 Google No Traditional 1 laptop (mobile) Emailing; Social Google+, credit/ Maps Elders and online - Media; Watching YouTube prepaid/ Crisco and taking videos pay as you (laptop) and photos; Music, go Internet, Convenience apps; Games, Jobs; Reading;

27 Rick and Andrew were Wagiman youth who are also illiterate and did not have any devices or therefore active use of technology.

298 Torch/mirror/miscell aneous apps Penny Youth 1 mobile, Desktop Calling and texting Facebook; $55 + Uses Maybe Initially 1 tablet, 2 from work family and friends; Twitter; credit/ Microsoft thought NLC laptops, 1 and rest Emailing on desktop Instagram; prepaid/ office and or Rangers; desktop from store and laptops; Social Pinterest; pay as you web She then Media; Uses tablet Snapchat; go design volunteered to and laptop to watch YouTube; program manage videos and play Google +; on laptops WCHA; Was games; Music; TripAdvisor and happy for Homework/professi ; Seek desktop. Gloria to onal use; Travel; Word; manage the Taking photos and Excel; tourism videos; Reading; PowerPoi website Maps; Internet; nt; Convenience apps; Outlook; Torch/mirror/ Publisher; miscellaneous Adobe apps. Acrobat; Google Maps; wix.com;

299 NON-ABORIGINAL PARTICIPANTS’ TECHNOLOGY INTERVIEW DATABASE

Table 20 Non-Aboriginal Participants’ Technology Interview Database

Participant Age Device Location of Activities Social Data Software Training Website(s) Group s Purchase Media Payment Course Management Interest Vote Anonymous Older 1 In town Calling family and Facebook $200-215 Outlook, No Whoever can mobile, friends and (personal per month Word do it. Penny 1 laptop customers; Texting and data plan for WCHA and family and friends; business); PCHTA for Emailing TripAdvisor tourism customers; Social (business) website Media for personal and business, Internet, Convenience apps; Taking photos; Travel; Torch/mirror/miscell aneous Lisa Older 1 In town and Calling, texting and No +$55 per Outlook, No Wagiman mobile, borrow from emailing family and month Word, people for 1 laptop daughter friends; Watching data plan Excel, WCHA and (borrow and taking videos PowerPoi someone who ed) and photos; Music; nt; Adobe has got Homework/professi Acrobat; something to onal use; Internet; Google do with Convenience apps; Maps tourism for the Maps; Games;

300 Reading; Travel; tourism Torch/mirror/miscell website aneous apps Amy Youth 1 Calling and texting Facebook, +$30 per Outlook, Maybe Wagiman like mobile, family and friends; Instagram, month Word, Jimmy for 2 Emailing (rarely); TripAdvisor data plan Excel, WCHA and laptops Social Media; ; YouTube PowerPoi someone from Watching and nt; Adobe PCHTA for taking videos and Acrobat tourism photos; Music; and website Internet; Photosho Convenience apps; p; Google Maps; Games; Maps Reading; Travel; Torch/mirror/miscell aneous apps Elijah Older 1 n/a Calling and emailing No +$30 per Word; Maybe Gloria mobile, family and friends month Google 1 laptop and colleagues; data plan Professional use; Internet; Convenience apps; Reading; Gloria Older 1 In town and Calling and texting Facebook, $35-45 Word, I already have Penny, mobile, in Katherine and emailing family, YouTube, per month PowerPoi some training Rangers, 1 tablet, and online friends and TripAdvisor data plan nt; Adobe but want to Mike, 2 laptop colleagues; Social ; Google + Acrobat; know more; someone who comput Media; Watching Google Yes can manage ers, and taking videos Maps; WCHA and desktop and photos; she Professional use; volunteered to

301 (borrow Internet; Vimeo; manage the ed) Convenience apps; wix.com tourism Maps; Reading; website Torch/mirror/miscell aneous apps Alistair Youth 1 In town and Calling and texting No +$50 Word, Maybe Wagiman mobile, online and emailing family credit PowerPoi people for 1 laptop friends and nt; Google WCHA and customers/colleagu Maps; PCHTA for es; Watching and Adobe tourism taking videos and Acrobat website photos; and Professional use; Photosho Internet; p; Convenience apps; wix.com Maps; Reading Ben Older 1 At work and Calling and texting No +$55 None No Up to the mobile, in town family and friends; credit Wagiman 1 Internet people and laptop, tourism 1 people desktop (borrow )

302 2016 TOURIST SURVEY

Tourist Survey in Pine Creek, Northern Territory, Australia This survey forms part of the PhD research project Wagiman Spatial Heritage. Ms. Gabrielle McGinnis, a postgraduate student in anthropology at the University of Newcastle, is leading this project with the support of her supervisors Mark Harvey (University of Newcastle) and Tamara Young (University of Newcastle). The Australian Research Council (Linkage Project 120200393) financially supports this study and the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2015-0038) approves this project. Participation in this research is entirely voluntary, anonymous and confidential. Findings from this survey will be analysed and presented in a research thesis and other academic outputs. If you would like more information about the Project, please contact the PhD researcher, Gabrielle McGinnis at [email protected] and/or her supervisors Mark Harvey at [email protected] and Tamara Young at [email protected] . If you have any questions or concerns about your contribution to this study, please contact the Human Research Ethics Administration of the University of Newcastle, Australia at [email protected]

Tourist Survey for Pine Creek, Northern Territory, Australia What is your nationality?

What is your age group? ☐ 18-24 ☐ 25-34 ☐ 35-44 ☐ 45-54 ☐ 55+

What is your reason for ☐ Holiday ☐ Visiting Friends or relatives ☐ Business ☐ Education travelling? ☐ Employment (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other(Please specify):

What is your travel party ☐ Unaccompanied ☐ Adult couple ☐ Family group type? ☐ Friends travelling together ☐ Tour group ☐ Work Colleagues (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other (Please specify):

What is your mode of ☐ Bus ☐ Caravan/Recreational vehicle ☐ Off-roading 4X4 transport to Pine Creek? ☐ Standard vehicle (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other(Please specify):

Have you been to Pine Creek ☐ Yes ☐ No before?

If yes, what was your reason ☐ Holiday ☐ Visiting Friends or relatives ☐ Business ☐ Education for visiting before? ☐ Employment ☐ Other(Please specify):

303 Tourist Survey for Pine Creek, Northern Territory, Australia

How long do you plan to stay ☐ Less than a day in Pine Creek? ☐ 1 day ☐ 2 days ☐ 3 days ☐ 4 days ☐ 5+ days

If staying overnight, what is ☐ Caravan Park/Commercial camping ground your accommodation? ☐ Hotel/Motel/Resort/Motor Inn ☐ Rented Accommodation ☐ Other commercial accommodation ☐ Friends or relatives property ☐ Caravan/ Non-commercial camping ☐ Other private accommodation ☐ Other ( Please specify):

Where have you been so far ☐ Darwin ☐ Kakadu ☐ Katherine Daly on this visit to the Northern Territory? (please tick all that apply)

Where are you planning to ☐ Darwin ☐ Kakadu ☐ Katherine Daly travel to in the Northern Territory? (please tick all that apply)

What are the main ways that ☐ GPS ☐ Guidebooks ☐ Guided tours ☐ Maps ☐ Media/Social you obtain information when Media ☐ Online travel agent ☐ Road signs ☐ Signs/Plaques travelling? ☐ Tour package ☐ Travel agent ☐ Website/Mobile App ☐ Word-of- (please tick all that apply) mouth ☐ Other ( Please specify):

How did you find out about ☐ GPS ☐ Guidebooks ☐ Guided tours ☐ Maps ☐ Media/Social Pine Creek? Media ☐ Online travel agent ☐ Road signs ☐ Signs/Plaques (please tick all that apply) ☐ Tour package ☐ Travel agent ☐ Website/Mobile App ☐ Word-of- mouth ☐ Other ( Please specify):

What is of interest to you in ☐ Aboriginal culture ☐ Animals and plants ☐ Mining Park ☐ Railway Pine Creek? Museums ☐ Water Gardens (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other:

Are you having a look around ☐ Yes ☐ No the local area?

If yes, what places are of ☐ Umbrawarra Gorge ☐ Edith Falls/Leliyn ☐ Douglas Daly Hot Springs interest to you? ☐ Hayes Creek ☐ Depot Creek ☐ Butterfly Gorge (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other:

Please provide any further comments you have about

304 Tourist Survey for Pine Creek, Northern Territory, Australia Pine Creek and your experience here

Please leave your email below if you would like to be contacted for any follow up surveys or questions about traveling in the Top End.

Thank you for participating! Enjoy your stay in Pine Creek and have a safe and happy journey through the NT!

305 2017 TOURIST SURVEY

Tourist Survey in Pine Creek, Northern Territory (NT), Australia This survey forms part of the PhD research project Wagiman Spatial Heritage. Ms. Gabrielle McGinnis, a postgraduate student in anthropology at the University of Newcastle, is leading this project with the support of her supervisors Mark Harvey (University of Newcastle) and Tamara Young (University of Newcastle). This project is supported by the Australian Research Council (Linkage Project 120200393). The University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the project (H-2015-0038). Participation in this research is entirely voluntary, anonymous and confidential. Findings from this survey will be analysed and presented in a research thesis and other academic outputs. If you would like more information about the Project, please contact the PhD researcher, Gabrielle McGinnis at [email protected] and/or her supervisors Mark Harvey at [email protected] and Tamara Young at [email protected] . If you have any questions or concerns about your contribution to this study, please contact the Human Research Ethics Administration of the University of Newcastle, Australia at [email protected]

Tourist Survey for Pine Creek, Northern Territory (NT), Australia What is your nationality?

If Australian, which ☐ ACT ☐ NSW ☐ NT ☐QLD ☐ SA ☐ TAS ☐ VIC state/territory are you ☐WA from?

What is your age group? ☐ 18-24 ☐ 25-34 ☐ 35-44 ☐ 45-54 ☐ 55+

What is your reason for ☐ Holiday ☐ Visiting Friends or relatives ☐ Business travelling? (please tick all that apply) ☐ Education ☐ Employment ☐ Other (Please specify):

What is your travel party ☐ Unaccompanied ☐ Adult couple ☐ Family group type? ☐ Friends travelling together ☐ Tour group ☐ Work Colleagues (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other (Please specify):

What is your mode of ☐ Bus ☐ Caravan/Recreational vehicle ☐ Off-roading 4X4 transport to Pine Creek? (please tick all that apply) ☐ Standard vehicle ☐ Other (Please specify):

Have you been to Pine ☐ Yes ☐ No Creek before?

If yes, what was your ☐ Holiday ☐ Visiting Friends or relatives ☐ Business reason for visiting before? ☐ Education ☐ Employment ☐ Other(Please specify):

306 Tourist Survey for Pine Creek, Northern Territory (NT), Australia

How long do you plan to ☐ Less than a day stay in Pine Creek? ☐ 1 day ☐ 2 days ☐ 3 days ☐ 4 days ☐ 5+ days

If staying overnight, what ☐ Caravan Park/Commercial camping ground is your accommodation? ☐ Hotel/Motel/Resort/Motor Inn ☐ Rented Accommodation ☐ Other commercial accommodation ☐ Friends or relatives property ☐ Caravan/ Non-commercial camping ☐ Other private accommodation ☐ Other ( Please specify):

Where have you been so ☐ Darwin ☐ Kakadu ☐ Katherine far on this visit to the NT? (please tick all that apply)

Where are you planning to ☐ Darwin ☐ Kakadu ☐ Katherine travel to in the NT? (please tick all that apply)

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Which devices do you use Android iPhone Tablet iPad Laptop Desktop while travelling? ☐ GPS/TomTom (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other (Please specify):

What are the main ways ☐ GPS ☐ Guidebooks ☐ Guided tours ☐ Maps ☐ Media/Social that you obtain Media ☐ Online travel agent ☐ Road signs ☐ Signs/Plaques information when ☐ Tour package ☐ Travel agent ☐ Website/Mobile App ☐ Word-of- travelling? mouth (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other ( Please specify):

How did you find out ☐ GPS ☐ Guidebooks ☐ Guided tours ☐ Maps ☐ Media/Social about Pine Creek? Media ☐ Online travel agent ☐ Road signs ☐ Signs/Plaques (please tick all that apply) ☐ Tour package ☐ Travel agent ☐ Website/Mobile App ☐ Word-of- mouth ☐ Other ( Please specify):

☐ ☐ ☐ If you chose social media Facebook Google+ Instagram for either of the above, ☐ LinkedIn ☐ Pinterest ☐ TripAdvisor which platforms do you ☐ Twitter ☐ Yelp ☐ YouTube use? ☐ Other ( Please specify): (please tick all that apply) What is of interest to you ☐ Aboriginal culture ☐ Animals ☐ Plants ☐ Miners Park ☐ The in Pine Creek? Railway Museum ☐ Pine Creek Museum ☐ Water Gardens (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other ( Please specify):

Are you having a look ☐ Yes ☐ No around the local area?

307 Tourist Survey for Pine Creek, Northern Territory (NT), Australia If yes, what places are of ☐ Umbrawarra Gorge ☐ Edith Falls/Leliyn ☐ Douglas Daly Hot Springs interest to you? ☐ Hayes Creek ☐ Depot Creek ☐ Butterfly Gorge (please tick all that apply) ☐ Other:

Please provide any further comments about Pine

Creek and your experience here

Please leave your email below if you would like to be contacted for any follow up surveys or questions about traveling in the Top End.

Thank you for participating! Enjoy your stay in Pine Creek and have a safe and happy journey through the NT!

308 2016-2017 TOURIST SURVEY RESULTS

Figure 10 Domestic or International Tourists

Figure 11 Australian States/Territories from Which Tourists Hailed

309 Figure 12 Age Groups of tourists visiting Pine Creek

Figure 13 Reasons Tourists Were Travelling to Pine Creek

310 Figure 14 Travel Party Types of Tourists Visiting Pine Creek

Figure 15 Tourists' Mode of Transportation to Pine Creek

311

Figure 16 Had Tourists Visited Pine Creek Before

Figure 17 Reasons for Previously Visiting Pine Creek

312 Figure 19 Tourists' Duration of Stay in Pine Creek

Figure 18 Tourists' Accommodation in Pine Creek

313

Figure 20 Tourists' Destinations on Their Way to Pine Creek

Figure 21 Tourists' Destinations on their Way from Pine Creek

314

Figure 22 Tourists' Technological Devices Used While Travelling

315 Figure 23 How Tourists Obtain Information While Travelling

316 Figure 24 How Tourists Obtain Information While Travelling to Pine Creek

317

Figure 25 Social Media platforms Used by Tourists Visiting Pine Creek

318

Figure 26 Tourists' Interest in Pine Creek

319

Figure 27 Tourists Having a Look around the Local Area

Figure 28 Surrounding Attractions That Are of Interest to Pine Creek Tourists

320

Figure 29 Word Cloud of Tourists Comments when Visiting Pine Creek

321

Figure 30 Analysis of World Cloud

322 WEBSITES AND APP

 Visit Pine Creek/ Official Tourism Website of Pine Creek: http://www.visitpinecreek.com

 Wagiman Community Heritage Archive (WCHA)/ Wagiman website:

http://wagiman.website/

 If this domain is not available, it is most likely due to the un-renewed subscription for the domain name. In which case, the WCHA can be accessed from: https://pcaaa7.wixsite.com/wagimanpinecreek

 Visit Pine Creek App in Google Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appswiz.visitypineycree kdhahi

323 FIELDWORK INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE WAGIMAN COMMUNITY OF PINE CREEK

 NEED:

o Car, preferably 4WD

o Video camera with SD card slot

o 64GB SD card in the camera

o Good microphone – Rode is best

o GPS tour app on smart phone

o Optional: camera phone to take extra pictures

o **You can also take videos using your smart phone if you cannot get a hold of a professional video camera and microphone**

 INSTRUCTIONS:

 Go “out bush” with the Elders

 Stop at point of interest along the way e.g. Dreaming sites, sacred sites, camping grounds, cattle stations, birthplaces of family members, burial places of family members, places where family used to work and live and camp

 Get out of the car and film the Elders talking about these places.

o Make sure camera cover lens is off

o Make sure Rode microphone is turned ON

o Turn the power on the camera

o Once you can see clearly through the lens/frame, press the record button so that the red circle appears on the screen.

o When you are done, press the same red button again and the green play/pause button will appear on the screen showing you that the recording is done, and that the camera is paused.

324 o Close up the camera, keep the microphone turned ON for convenience purposes, and turn the camera power OFF to save battery.

 Before you get back in the car, get your GPS tour app out on your phone

o Calibrate the app by moving your phone in a circular motion

o Once coordinates are displayed and have stopped moving ( make sure you are also standing still) take a screen shot of the coordinates by pressing on the power button and the middle button on your iPhone at the same time until you hear a camera click noise and a quick flash on the screen on the camera.

o Then go into your photos app and make sure you have a photo of the screen of your coordinates.

 Once you have your coordinate’s photo taken, either take some pictures of the area, if you wish, and then get back in the car and move onto the next spot to repeat the steps above.

 Feel free to then send the videos onto Phillippa28 at Kybrook for the Wagiman website and Gaye Lawrence for the tourism website

28 Names have been blacked in this thesis to ensure the animosity of the participants in this study. 325 FIELDWORK INSTRUCTIONS FOR OTHER RESEARCHERS AND TOURISM DEVELOPERS

FIELDWORK INSTRUCTIONS:

 NEED:

o Car, preferably 4WD

o Video camera with SD card slot

o 64GB SD card in the camera

o Good microphone – Rode is best

o GPS tour app on smart phone

o Optional: camera phone to take extra pictures

o **You can also take videos using your smart phone if you cannot get a hold of a professional video camera and microphone**

 INSTRUCTIONS:

 Go “out bush” with the Elders

 Stop at point of interest along the way e.g. Dreaming sites, sacred sites, camping grounds, cattle stations, birthplaces of family members, burial places of family members, places where family used to work and live and camp

 Get out of the car and film with the Elders talking about these places.

o Make sure camera cover lens is off

o Make sure Rode microphone is turned ON

o Turn the power on the camera

o Once you can see clearly through the lens/frame, press the record button so that the red circle appears on the screen.

326 o When you are done, press the same red button again and the green play/pause button will appear on the screen showing you that the recording is done, and that the camera is paused.

o Close up the camera, keep the microphone turned ON for convenience purposes, and turn the camera power OFF to save battery.

 Before you get back in the car, get your GPS tour app out on your phone

o Calibrate the app by moving your phone in a circular motion

o Once coordinates are displayed and have stopped moving ( make sure you are also standing still) take a screen shot of the coordinates by pressing on the power button and the middle button on your iPhone at the same time until you hear a camera click noise and a quick flash on the screen on the camera.

o Then go into your photos app and make sure you have a photo of the screen of your coordinates.

 Once you have your coordinate’s photo taken, either take some pictures of the area, if you wish, and then get back in the car and move onto the next spot to repeat the steps above.

 Feel free to then send the videos onto Phillippa at Kybrook for the Wagiman website and Gaye Lawrence for the tourism website

327 GOOGLE MAPPING INSTRUCTIONS

GOOGLE MAPPING INSTRUCTIONS:

 NEED:

o Gmail account

o Access to Google Maps that are on the websites

 INSTRUCTIONS:

 Open or create a Google account and select “My Maps”

 If you have been granted access your shared maps should show up here. If not, then please accept access to the maps in the emails sent to you previously.

 To edit an existing place mark, click on the place mark in the legend on the left-hand side or on the map itself. Click on the pencil icon and you can start editing the place mark information.

 To create a new place mark, simply input your coordinates - usually from your GPS Tour app photos/notes from your fieldwork.

 Once this is done a green place mark should appear, if you need to place it elsewhere simply drag and drop it where you want it to go.

 Click “Add to map”

 It will then appear in the layer. To move it to another layer simply drag and drop it into the layers bellow or above.

 If you need to create a new layer, click “add layer” at the top left corner of the legend and a new one will appear on the bottom of the legend. Edit the title of your layer here and drag and drop your place mark in the legend into this layer.

 Edit your place mark using the pencil icon and give it a title and description. If you have a video of this are, then add the URL of your

328 Vimeo video here. You can also upload photos from your computer onto the place mark as well if you desire.

 If you need to delete a point, simply click on it and click on the rubbish bin icon and your point will disappear from the map and the legend.

 Make sure it says “All changes saved in drive” at the top of the legend below exiting from the map. This will automatically save changes made to maps attached to the websites as well.

 If you have any issues, contact Gaye or Phillippa or follow the tutorials on Google on how to use Google Maps.

329 VIDEO EDITING INSTRUCTIONS

 NEED:

o Adobe Premiere Pro

 INSTRUCTIONS:

 If you need to edit a video and create a clip before uploading it to Vimeo, then you can create a clip and edit the video in Adobe Premier Pro.

 Open the Adobe premiere pro software.

 Once it is open go to “File” then “New” then ‘Project”

 A box will appear where you can choose the name of your project and then the file where you want to save your project. Once you have chosen these, click OK

 Various windows will then appear in the program.

 Go to “file” and then “Import”

 Choose the video you wish to edit.

 It will then open in the premiere pro software as a small window in the “project” window.

 Double click the video file in this window and it will appear in the window on the right-hand side with a timeline underneath it.

 Here you can play, stop and pause the video in the program.

 Use the “add marker” icon which should be the first icon on the timeline bar below the video to choose where you wish to start and stop your clip within the video.

 Play the video and add a marker at the start of your clip. Then add another mark at the end of it.

330  Right click the first marker and choose “Mark in” then right click the second marker and choose “mark out”. A grey coloured bar should then appear on the timeline, this indicates where your clip will be made.

 Go to the “Clip” menu and choose “make sub clip”

 A window will then appear, and you can give your clip a name for saving. Click OK.

 Your clip will then appear in the first window next to your larger video file. Double click on the clip and it will appear in the second window with the timeline. You can then watch your clip and edit further if need be.

 When you are satisfied with the clip, right click the small window of the clip file in the first “project” window. Scroll down to the end and click “Export media”.

 A new window will appear. If no changes need to be made to the file type, go ahead and click export. Your clip will then be made and saved to the file where you saved and created your premiere pro project in the beginning.

 Open Vimeo and choose upload video as well as the appropriate privacy settings. Then select your clip to upload and you’re done.

 If you have any issues, please feel free to watch tutorials on YouTube on “how to make clips in Adobe Premiere Pro.”

331 VIMEO UPLOAD INSTRUCTIONS FOR WAGIMAN COMMUNITY OF PINE CREEK

 NEED:

o SD card from fieldwork camera with videos saved on it

o Laptop or Desktop computer

o Access to Vimeo account: Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association

. Or send videos to Phillippa/PCAAA who can upload the video to Vimeo and the website

o Optional: Adobe Premiere Pro program on computer for video editing if needed

 INSTRUCTIONS:

 Carefully take your SD card out of the video camera after you have returned from filming “out bush”

 Place your SD card into the SD card slot on your laptop or desktop computer

 Once the SD card file appears on your computer under the “My Computer” files, open the SD card files.

 Open files: PRIVATE – AVCHD – BDMV – STREAM - here you should find your video files.

 Select the files you wish to save and upload to Vimeo and save them to your computer in desktop or my documents or wherever by selecting the videos and copying and pasting them to your desktop/laptop computer

 Go to www.vimeo.com on the internet

 Log on

332 o If there are any issues logging on, contact Phillippa at Kybrook for the Wagiman website or contact Gaye Lawrence for the tourism website

 Once logged on, click on the “upload” button

 Here you will be asked to upload files and to select a privacy. Select whichever privacy you think is appropriate for the videos you are uploading:

o If there are videos about sacred sites and dreaming, please select privacy: “requires a password to view video” and type in the password: wagiman201729

. If they are female scared sites, the password should be: wagiwoman2017

. If they are male sacred sites, then a new password will need to be created for these videos, I suggest wagiMAN2017

o If they are videos about family history and cattle stations and the like that you don’t mind the world and tourists seeing, then select “anyone can view”

o If there are videos that you would like to upload but you think require some editing, open up that video file in Premier Pro and edit the video there (see instructions for VIDEO EDITING)

 Select which video files you want to upload, and Vimeo will start uploading them.

 When you see the video uploading, feel free to provide a title for the video, a description, a privacy, and a language for the video and click save. Do this for each video you are uploading.

 Once your videos are uploaded you can start adding more information in the “settings”

29 Passwords have been blacked out to ensure privacy for the community 333  In “Basic” be sure to:

o Add a “mature” content rating if there are any adult language or themes mentioned in the video.

o Click save

 In “Privacy”:

o Under “Where can this video be embedded” be sure to choose: “Only on sites I choose” and then type in: wagiman.website for the Wagiman website and visitpinecreek.com for the tourism website.

o Under “What can people do with this video” deselect “Download it” then click save then move onto uploading them onto the Wagiman Website.

o Click save

 In “collections”

o Check which year the video was created in the albums section or create a new year album if the year is not already listed.

o Click save

 In “Embed”

o See the menu on the right-hand side of the screen

o Deselect “share” and “embed” as well as everything under “your details” and “custom controls” except “show Vimeo logo”. Deselected options will show up Grey. Selected will be blue.

o Click on Settings at the top of the menu

 In “Advanced”

o Click on Rev transcriptions under “Upload captions and subtitles” this will then take you to the Rev website where you can order transcriptions/subtitles for the video. These tend to charge $1 a minute. They will also ask you if you would like to upload a Vimeo or YouTube file. Choose this option as the transcriptions/subtitles will automatically appear on the video when they are finished.

334 Once you have purchased your transcriptions for your video return to Vimeo

. If the video already has a caption file uploaded under “Enable captions and subtitles” make sure they are checked to ON

. It is likely that the transcriptions/subtitles may not be perfect when they appear on the screen. If this is the case, you can edit them by clicking the cloud icon “download” on the transcription file under “enable captions and subtitles”.

 Once you have downloaded the text file, which will likely appear in “notepad” you can edit the script there. It is best to listen and watch the video and read along as it plays so that you can edit the script based on what is being said in the video.

 Once you have finished editing save the file on your computer, preferably in the same folder as your original video file and upload it to Vimeo by clicking on “choose file” under “upload captions and subtitles” once it is uploaded be sure you turn off the old transcript and turn on the new file you have uploaded. Feel free to add the language and the “caption” options to the right-hand side of the file information as well.

o Under “Creative Commons License” choose “Attribution”

o Click save

 Your video is now up and running on Vimeo and is ready to be added to the websites.

 See Instructions for WEBSITE UPLOAD.

 If you have any issues with this process contact Phillippa at Kybrook or contact Gaye Lawrence.

335 VIMEO UPOLOAD INSTRUCTIONS FOR TOURISM WEBSITE VIDEOS

 NEED:

o SD card from fieldwork camera with videos saved on it

o Laptop or Desktop computer

o Access to Vimeo account: Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association

. Or send videos to Phillippa/PCAAA who can upload the video to Vimeo and the website

o Optional: Adobe Premiere Pro program on computer for video editing if needed

 INSTRUCTIONS:

 Carefully take your SD card out of the video camera after you have returned from filming “out bush”

 Place your SD card into the SD card slot on your laptop or desktop computer

 Once the SD card file appears on your computer under the “My Computer” files, open the SD card files.

 Open files: PRIVATE – AVCHD – BDMV – STREAM - here you should find your video files.

 Select the files you wish to save and upload to Vimeo and save them to your computer in desktop or my documents or wherever by selecting the videos and copying and pasting them to your desktop/laptop computer

 Go to www.vimeo.com on the internet

 Log on

336 o If there are any issues logging on, contact Phillippa at Kybrook for the Wagiman website or contact Gaye Lawrence for the tourism website

 Once logged on, click on the “upload” button

 Here you will be asked to upload files and to select a privacy. Select whichever privacy you think is appropriate for the videos you are uploading:

o If there are videos about sacred sites and dreaming, please select privacy: “requires a password to view video” and type in the password: wagiman2017

. If they are female scared sites, the password should be: wagiwoman2017

. If they are male sacred sites, then a new password will need to be created for these videos, I suggest wagiMAN2017

o If they are videos about family history and cattle stations and the like that you don’t mind the world and tourists seeing, then select “anyone can view”

o If there are videos that you would like to upload but you think require some editing, open up that video file in Premier Pro and edit the video there ( see instructions for VIDEO EDITING)

 Select which video files you want to upload, and Vimeo will start uploading them.

 When you see the video uploading, feel free to provide a title for the video, a description, a privacy, and a language for the video and click save. Do this for each video you are uploading.

 Once your videos are uploaded you can start adding more information in the “settings”

 In “Basic” be sure to:

337 o Add a “mature” content rating if there is any adult language or themes mentioned in the video.

o Click save

 In “Privacy” :

o Under “Where can this video be embedded” be sure to choose: “Only on sites I choose” and then type in: wagiman.website for the Wagiman website and visitpinecreek.com for the tourism website.

o Under “What can people do with this video” deselect “Download it” then click save then move onto uploading them onto the Wagiman Website.

o Click save

 In “collections”

o Check which year the video was created in the albums section or create a new year album if the year is not already listed.

o Click save

 In “Embed”

o See the menu on the right-hand side of the screen

o Deselect “share” and “embed” as well as everything under “your details” and “custom controls” except “show Vimeo logo”. Deselected options will show up Grey. Selected will be blue.

o Click on Settings at the top of the menu

 In “Advanced”

o Click on Rev transcriptions under “Upload captions and subtitles” this will then take you to the Rev website where you can order transcriptions/subtitles for the video. These tend to charge $1 a minute. They will also ask you if you would like to upload a Vimeo or YouTube file. Choose this option as the transcriptions/subtitles will automatically appear on the video when they are finished.

338 Once you have purchased your transcriptions for your video return to Vimeo

. If the video already has a caption file uploaded under “Enable captions and subtitles” make sure they are checked to ON

. It is likely that the transcriptions/subtitles may not be perfect when they appear on the screen. If this is the case, you can edit them by clicking the cloud icon “download” on the transcription file under “enable captions and subtitles”.

 Once you have downloaded the text file, which will likely appear in “notepad” you can edit the script there. It is best to listen and watch the video and read along as it plays so that you can edit the script based on what is being said in the video.

 Once you have finished editing save the file on your computer, preferably in the same folder as your original video file and upload it to Vimeo by clicking on “choose file” under “upload captions and subtitles” once it is uploaded be sure you turn off the old transcript and turn on the new file you have uploaded. Feel free to add the language and the “caption” options to the right-hand side of the file information as well.

o Under “Creative Commons License” choose “Attribution”

o Click save

 Your video is now up and running on Vimeo and is ready to be added to the websites.

 See Instructions for WEBSITE UPLOAD.

 If you have any issues with this process contact Phillippa at Kybrook or contact Gaye Lawrence.

339 WEBSITE VIDEO UPLOAD INSTRUCTIONS FOR WCHA

 NEED:

o Access to Vimeo account: Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association

o Access to Wix accounts Visit Pine Creek and Wagiman Community Heritage Archive

 INSTRUCTIONS:

 You should still be logged onto Vimeo after uploading videos there, if not, log on to Vimeo using the log on credentials above.

 Log onto wix.com.

 Choose “manage site” and the “edit site”

 Once you are on the editor page of the website, select the “indigenous stories” page from the dropdown choices in the upper left-hand corner on the Wagiman website. And “heritage” page on the tourism website.

 The Indigenous stories and Heritage pages should then pop up.

 Scroll down to the very bottom of the page.

 Copy and paste the textbox from the previous entry and move it down below the original until pink lines appear to show you everything is lined up correctly.

 Select the text in the textbox by double clicking in the box so that it becomes highlighted. Then start typing in the title and description of the video you are uploading

 Once this is done, go to the “+” sign on the left-hand side of the page

 Select “video” and then select “Vimeo video”

340  A video box should then appear on the page, move the video box over to where you would like it to appear - below the previous video on the page and next to your textbox description.

 Click the “settings” button on the video box and here you will see a field where you can place the Vimeo URL of your video.

 Go to you Vimeo page and copy the URL of the video you uploaded

 Return to your Wix page and paste the URL in the Vimeo URL field.

 Click save

 Your Vimeo video should now appear in the Vimeo box on your wix.com page.

 Go to the “save” button in the upper right-hand corner of the Wix page and then click publish.

 Your new video should now appear on the Wix website. Repeat the steps above if you are adding more than 1 video. If the additional videos you are adding are of the same trip and content as the previous video, there is no need for a new textbox, just place the video directly below the previous video and add the Vimeo URL as above.

 If you have any issues with the process above, contact Phillippa at Kybrook or Gaye Lawrence.

341 WEBSITE VIDEO UPLOAD INSTRUCTIONS FOR VISIT PINE CREEK

 NEED:

o Access to Vimeo account: Pine Creek Heritage and Tourism Association

o Access to Wix accounts Visit Pine Creek and Wagiman Community Heritage Archive

 INSTRUCTIONS:

 You should still be logged onto Vimeo after uploading videos there, if not, log on to Vimeo using the log on credentials above.

 Log onto wix.com.

 Choose “manage site” and the “edit site”

 Once you are on the editor page of the website, select the “indigenous stories” page from the dropdown choices in the upper left-hand corner on the Wagiman website. And “heritage” page on the tourism website.

 The Indigenous stories and Heritage pages should then pop up.

 Scroll down to the very bottom of the page.

 Copy and paste the textbox from the previous entry and move it down below the original until pink lines appear to show you everything is lined up correctly.

 Select the text in the textbox by double clicking in the box so that it becomes highlighted. Then start typing in the title and description of the video you are uploading

 Once this is done, go to the “+” sign on the left-hand side of the page

 Select “video” and then select “Vimeo video”

342  A video box should then appear on the page, move the video box over to where you would like it to appear - below the previous video on the page and next to your textbox description.

 Click the “settings” button on the video box and here you will see a field where you can place the Vimeo URL of your video.

 Go to you Vimeo page and copy the URL of the video you uploaded

 Return to your Wix page and paste the URL in the Vimeo URL field.

 Click save

 Your Vimeo video should now appear in the Vimeo box on your wix.com page.

 Go to the “save” button in the upper right-hand corner of the Wix page and then click publish.

 Your new video should now appear on the Wix website. Repeat the steps above if you are adding more than 1 video. If the additional videos you are adding are of the same trip and content as the previous video, there is no need for a new textbox, just place the video directly below the previous video and add the Vimeo URL as above.

 If you have any issues with the process above, contact Phillippa at Kybrook or Gaye Lawrence.

343 2017 CONTENT ANALYSIS OF INDIGENOUS TOURISM MARKETING MATERIALS IN VICTORIA

During 2016-2017, I conducted a content analysis regarding the level of Indigeneity in concordance with authenticity in the promotional materials available to tourists in Southwest Victoria. The content analysis of Victoria illustrates the current marketing strategies of the state and its regions and provides possible avenues for DAIBK integration into tourism marketing and management systems in the area.

During my visit to Ballarat’s Tourist Information Centre in October 2016, I collected seventy-five tourism marketing materials for my content analysis concerning current Indigenous tourism promotion and AIBK/DAIBK integration in Southwest and wider Victoria. Materials included brochures, magazines, pamphlets, flyers and road maps. During my content analysis I searched for key words and phrases to help identify and analyse the “Indigeneity” and authenticity aspect of the marketing materials. Such keywords included:

 “Indigenous”  “Aboriginal”  “Sacred”  “Traditional”  “Elders”  “bush tucker”  Various Indigenous words, placenames and name of peoples, groups and languages.

The above words or phrases are what I classify as “Indigenous-related” materials in the content analysis.

To examine the current engagement with DAIBK, I also searched for the above words in concordance with various technological/digital words and phrases including:

 “Digital”  “GPS”

344  “GIS”  “Map(s), Map(-pping)”  “Website”  “Email”  “Mobile”.

A summary of the results of my content analysis can be seen in Table 21 below:

Table 21 Content Analysis of Indigenous-Related Content in Victoria's Tourism Marketing Materials

All Content Analysed Rate of Notes Occurrence Solely acknowledged the 8% Tended to occur at the Indigenous/traditional owners beginning of the of the land in brochure or at the beginning or end of a specific section on Indigenous-related tourism. Had dedicated section on 8% 5% actively and Indigenous tourism specifically marketed Indigenous dreaming and/or flora & fauna as part of the tourism product. Advertised Indigenous tour 16% 3 of these, 4%, were operators or ventures based in New South Wales (NSW). Total Marketing material 49% Tended to be focused on containing Indigenous-related arts and crafts, national content and state parks, rock sites, and cultural centres Indigenous Content Rate of Notes Analysed Occurrence from Indigenous materials Mentioned, advertised and/or 19% Digital mapping included mapped Indigenous tourism the geocaching trails and and culture routes/walks that were advertised in the materials. Explained the Indigenous name 21% Many of the towns in of a town or its significance Victoria have Indigenous names, but the

345 Indigenous significance of the name is rarely explained or elaborated upon. Specifically mentioned the 27% This occurred in both management/co-management rural and urban settings of Indigenous peoples in in Victoria. National/State Parks, Cultural Centres or Art Galleries Indigenous tourism and culture 43% Tended to have websites businesses online presence and emails for the most e.g. websites, emails, apps part. Integrated AIBK into the current 57% This tended to occur in tourism infrastructure the marketing materials for bigger cities like Melbourne.

As many of the brochures were marketed by region, the following map in Map 13 highlights the areas of Victoria that integrated some form of Indigenous-related information, culture, knowledge or recognition into their marketing materials. It is important to note that even though the percentages in Table 21 provide insight into the level of Indigenous tourism marketing in Victoria, many tourism ventures and businesses in these materials could still have an Indigenous Australian component to them without marketing it as such. Alternatively, the business could not have an authentic Indigenous Australian component to their business but market it as having one.

346

Map 13 Sites of Indigenous Tourism Marketing in Victoria, Australia As seen in Map 13, seventy-four places marketed Indigenous-related content in the marketing materials and brochures for Victoria in 2016. Out of these seventy- four places, fifteen are National or State Parks and reserves while seventeen are cultural centres (including those in National Parks) or museums/galleries. The remaining forty-two are miscellaneous ventures usually focused on art and culture found in rural towns and areas. Additionally, approximately 18% of the sites are located in urban Melbourne.

According to the content analysis only 8%-16% of all the materials analysed promoted Indigenous tourism ventures. Out of these Indigenous-promoted materials, 57% included AIBK integration into existing tourism infrastructures, which mainly occurred in Melbourne. This means that, on average, 18% of all materials promoted AIBK integration into existing tourism management systems. As discussed in my content analysis and Clark’s (2002, 2009, 2014) case studies, there is a significant lack of Indigenous-led tourism marketing in Victoria as well as AIBK integration into tourism infrastructure and marketing.

According to the content analysis, there are some forms of digital transmission of Indigenous tourism and knowledge through online bookings or GPS use on Indigenous trails and National Parks, but there is still a significant lack of AIBK and DAIBK products and promotion in the majority of Victoria’s tourism materials 347 that are promoted or represented by Indigenous-led ventures. If more digital applications of tourism product development and promotion are made by and for Indigenous stakeholders, perhaps more information about AIBK can be applied to these materials. This could allow for more integration of Indigenous knowledge as well as more options for Indigenous entrepreneurship and involvement in tourism development and management. However, tourists’ willingness and interest to engage in Indigenous tourism is also a factor to consider when potentially integrating AIBK into tourism management and marketing systems. I explore this notion in Pine Creek, NT.

348