Chapter One Introduction

1.0 Introduction

The concept of sustainable development has had a considerable impact on the study of tourism development, planning and management. As a subset of sustainable development theory, sustainable tourism planning has been seen by many as a means of maximising the positive and minimising the negative impacts of tourism activity on destination communities. Although the concept has received in-principle support from academia, government and industry, more critical viewpoints have emerged questioning the extent to which sustainability doctrine is actually put into tourism planning practice. Therefore this study investigated the transference of sustainable tourism theory to practice by examining the extent to which the sustainable tourism planning philosophy is utilised in the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland. Additionally the study sought to develop a theoretical framework to facilitate the application of sustainability principles to local tourism destination planning.

To provide a background to the research issue and objectives, this chapter begins with an overview of the recognised need for tourism destination planning, the subsequent emergence of sustainable tourism planning and the more recent arguments for utilising the strategic visioning approach to tourism destination planning. The research issue and gaps in the body of knowledge are addressed before the three research objectives of the study are articulated. Also provided is a brief overview of the research methodology and the key methods employed to address the research issue. The study context is then outlined detailing the significance of tourism to Australia and Queensland. Also examined is tourism within the Australian governmental system and more specifically local government planning for tourism in Queensland. The final section of the chapter outlines the structure of the thesis, providing a brief overview of the purpose and contents of each of the chapters.

1 1.1 Background

Tourism has had a profound impact upon destinations worldwide, and the 808 million international arrivals in 2005 indicate the magnitude and economic significance of global tourist activity (World Tourism Organization [WTO], 2006). Tourism can undoubtedly create positive economic returns for destination countries; foreign exchange earnings, employment growth, tax revenues, and can substantially stimulate the economy overall (Inskeep, 1991). In the years following World War II, with the recognised beginning of mass tourism, nations, states, cities and regional areas began actively promoting themselves as tourism destinations, committing considerable funds towards tourism development (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000). However by the mid 1960s other, more cautionary and critical viewpoints about tourism were being aired (Jafari, 1990). It had become evident that along with its positive returns, tourism activity also brought many negative influences to a destination, often adversely impacting upon the natural environment and social fabric of the destination community. Concerns over ecological impacts and a wish to preserve cultural identities arose as the somewhat uncontrolled growth of tourist facilities and movements threatened natural environments, burdened the limited resources of some destinations and the economic benefits were realised to be seasonal and somewhat uncertain. As Coccossis (1996, p.1) states, “The expansion of tourism has had a profound impact on many destinations. In some areas it has revitalised local economies whilst in others it has destroyed them; in some areas it has reinforced local identity whilst in others it has destroyed customs, traditions and social relations; in some areas it has helped protect environmentally sensitive areas whilst in others it has wrought havoc with local ecosystems and local resources”.

The negative impacts of tourism have primarily been attributed to inadequate or non- existent planning frameworks for tourism development. As Murphy (1985) noted, tourism was seized upon with little forethought concerning a viable tourism product, the social and environmental consequences of development, or the spill over effects into surrounding areas. The failure to proactively plan for tourism development has left many

2 destinations with a legacy of social and environmental consequences. The experience of such destinations has shown that it is often too late to reverse or redirect unwanted development once it has become established in a destination and these destinations will always suffer from environmental and social problems that are both detrimental to tourists and residents (Gunn, 1994; Hall, 1998). Therefore it has been widely advocated that tourism development should not be permitted to progress in an ad hoc manner without an overall guiding framework and predetermined strategies toward development objectives (Hall, 2000; WTO, 1994).

Various tourism planning approaches have evolved over the years including the economic, physical, environmental and community approaches, and as their names indicate, have tended to focus on specific aspects of destination planning and management. However the sustainable tourism planning approach has emerged as one of the most comprehensive and accepted approaches, and can generally be viewed as encompassing the key ideals of each of the previously mentioned planning methods. The sustainable concept arose in response to broader international concerns over ecological issues. It has been advocated for the tourism sector as a possible solution to the environmental and social degradation of the industry’s resources and due to the fact that tourism is a resource dependent industry (Cooper, 1995; Murphy, 1998).

The sustainable approach to tourism planning is based on the achievement of two prerequisites: a strategic and long-term orientation in tourism planning and multiple stakeholder participation in the planning process (Simpson, 2001). The first of these prerequisites requires strategic planning to supersede conventional planning approaches (Dutton & Hall, 1989). Strategy as it applies to sustainable tourism planning and development seeks to achieve three basic strategic objectives: conservation of tourism resource values; enhanced experiences of the visitors who interact with tourism resources; and the maximization of the economic, social and environmental returns to stakeholders in the host community (Hall, 2000). The second identified prerequisite is the engagement and participation of multiple stakeholder groups in the planning and decision-making process. This is considered a pivotal issue in a sustainable approach as

3 in typical planning processes stakeholders are consulted minimally near the end of the process, which leaves little chance for meaningful input into the process. Therefore authors such as Faulkner (2003) have claimed that the achievement of sustainable development objectives hinges on the adoption of a participatory model, involving the meaningful engagement of the community, along with industry stakeholders and relevant government agencies, with the objective of generating agreement on planning directions and goals. Based on these two identified prerequisites, under the sustainable approach tourism planning is strategic, that is it is proactive and adopts a long-term planning horizon, while also seeking out and being responsive to stakeholder needs (Hall, 2000; Ritchie, 1999).

While the theoretical concepts of sustainable tourism development have been well addressed in the academic literature, authors have recently begun to investigate practical processes, models and frameworks so that the sustainable tourism philosophy, encompassing the previously mentioned caveats, can be implemented at the destination level. One model which is beginning to receive attention for its underpinning sustainability philosophy is the concept of strategic visioning (Faulkner, 2003; Ritchie, 1999). Strategic visioning for tourism destinations has been described as a new but important extension of the more common process of strategic planning in tourism (Ritchie, 1999). Even though the direction for tourism development is implicit in a traditional strategic planning process, strategic visioning has a stronger emphasis on bringing together the views of the many and varied stakeholders of the destination community through collaborative and participative processes with the objective of establishing directions for tourism development in the longer term so the principles of sustainable tourism development are adopted as a fundamental philosophical foundation for the planning process (Ritchie, 1999). The process is founded on destination stakeholders being actively involved in decision making and planning for future development, through a publicly driven process based on stakeholder values and consensus. This consensus is expressed through the ‘sharing of a common vision’ which provides an agreed benchmark towards which both the general community and the tourism sector can more effectively direct their efforts (Faulkner, 2003; Ritchie, 1999).

4 While the ideal vision may not always be realized, the process does provide a means for ensuring that a longer-term perspective informs day-to-day decision-making, as opposed to ad hoc and centralised decision-making, which is an often-cited problem in tourism planning.

Although the concept of strategic visioning as a tourism destination planning process is relatively new, its theoretical underpinnings and empirical evidence from several practical applications, suggest that it may be a useful process for achieving the sustainable approach, while incorporating the caveats of strategic planning and multiple stakeholder participation. For example Faulkner (2003) reports that the development and articulation of a shared vision among Gold Coast stakeholders was the initial and most critical step in the consultative process that lead to the development of the destination’s tourism strategy. The objective was to develop a vision that ensured consensus among primary stakeholders and in turn provided a focus for the strategic planning process and a vehicle for mobilising cooperative action (Faulkner, 2003).

1.2 Research Issue

While the theory of sustainable tourism planning has been discussed at length in the literature, with numerous case studies attesting to the fact that tourism destinations have realised the error of their ways and are now embracing planning practices based on the philosophies of sustainability, some authors disagree. There have been suggestions that the tourism industry has been slow to adopt sustainability principles and actually put them into practice due to the fact that economic motivations are always given priority over social and ecological issues. The result being that the economic approach is still the dominant tradition towards tourism development and planning practiced in many countries and destinations (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998).

A further issue that the literature has overlooked is how the sustainable paradigm is actually applied in practice. It has been suggested that a preoccupation with defining the concept of sustainable tourism has seen the practical aspects ignored, with Garrod and

5 Fyall (1998) claiming that tourism researchers have spent so much time ‘squabbling’ over definitions that they have not considered how the concept might actually be implemented in practice. Similarly Faulkner (2003) finds that although participation and collaboration in tourism planning has been widely discussed in the literature, this has been at the expense of developing clear and concise formulas for how this can occur in practice. Where models have been proposed, such as strategic visioning, aside from some descriptive accounts they have not been examined in detail. Simpson (2001, p.4) also noted such discrepancies, “Whilst the concepts of stakeholder participation and strategic orientation are widely endorsed as valuable contributors to sustainable development, there have been no previous attempts to gauge the extent to which such considerations play their part in real world tourism planning processes”.

1.3 Research Objectives

The deviations between sustainable tourism planning theory and practice represent a significant gap in the body of knowledge. Therefore, the aim of this study was to firstly examine the extent to which sustainable development principles, including the identified prerequisites of strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are integrated into the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland. The second aim was to examine the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning model for integrating sustainability theory into tourism destination planning. The aims of the study were expressed through three research objectives:

6 3. To consider the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning approach for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism destination planning.

The study focused specifically on the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland, Australia (Figure 1.1). Although the integration of sustainable development principles into tourism planning for all types of destinations is vital; local tourism destinations were investigated for this study as it is at the local or community level where tourism’s negative influences are generally felt most acutely (Aronsson, 2000; Ashworth, 1995; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995; Tosun, 1998). A further factor is that the local level is often characterised by inadequate tourism planning frameworks and coordination between stakeholders, compounded by the fact that the local government authority has considerable influence over tourism development in the area. The literature also indicates that a strategic visioning process may be of considerable benefit to local level planning processes. Due to the researcher’s location local tourism destinations (equated with Shire Council areas) in Queensland, Australia were examined (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.1: The Location of Queensland

Northern Territory Queensland W estern Australia South Australia New South Wales Australian Capital Victoria Territory

Tasmania

Source: Wikipedia, 2005

7 Figure 1.2: Local Tourism Destinations (Local Government Areas), Queensland

Douglas

Thuringowa

Sarina

Redland

Gold Coast

Source: Queensland State Government, Department of Local Government and Planning,8 2004 To examine the research issues and address the stated objectives, a two-fold qualitative research process was developed (Chapter Five). Firstly, the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland were investigated utilising the most recent, publicly available tourism specific planning documents of each of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland (excluding the 32 Aboriginal Land Councils) (Figure 1.2). This stage of the research aimed to examine the extent to which sustainable development principles, including strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are incorporated into local tourism destination planning practices. To assess this a tourism planning process evaluation instrument developed by Simpson (2001) was used. Due to the focus of this particular study additional evaluative criteria were added to the instrument from the literature on sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration. This stage of the research also provided the sampling framework for the second phase of the study.

Building on the secondary data analysed in stage one, the second phase of the qualitative research process investigated the perceptions of destination stakeholders who had participated in the planning process for their destination. From the review of tourism planning documents conducted in stage one five case study tourism destinations were selected to sample respondents for the stakeholder interviews. These destinations were: Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City; Redland Shire; Sarina Shire and Thuringowa City (Figure 1.2). This stage of the research examined destination stakeholder’s perceptions of the tourism planning process and their views on the incorporation of sustainable development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into the planning process. This was considered an important aspect of the research as Faulkner (2003) has noted that the establishment of a more strategically focused and sustainability oriented model ultimately hinges on the degree to which leading players among the stakeholder groups embrace it and champion the cause. This phase of the research also examined destination stakeholder’s perceptions of strategic visioning and its applicability for local tourism destination planning.

9 1.4 Study Context

Tourism in Australia, although not large by world standards still makes a significant contribution to the nation’s export receipts. There were 5.2 million visitor arrivals to Australia during the year ended 30 September 2004, an increase of 11% relative to the previous year (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004). In the same period international visitors consumed $16.7 billion worth of goods and services, representing 11% of total exports, with forecasts predicting tourism export earnings for Australia to reach $27.9 billion by 2013 (Tourism Forecasting Council, 2004). While international tourism is a major source of tourism revenue for the country, domestic tourism generates A$38 262 million and in 2001 Australians took 74 585 000 trips and spent 289 644 000 nights away from home (Cooper & Ruhanen, 2005). Further the tourism industry employed 540, 700 people in Australia in 2002-03. Similarly tourism is a significant economic sector for the state of Queensland. Queensland is more dependent on tourism for employment and income generation than any other state in Australia, and tourism is Queensland’s largest and fastest growing export (Hall, 2003). In Queensland more people are employed in tourism than in agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining combined, with an estimated 10% of the workforce, or 135,000 people, working in tourism (Tourism Council of Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd). These tourism growth projections highlight the need for properly planned tourism growth and development and management of the industry’s future, particularly given the fact that much of Australia and certainly Queensland’s tourism product is based on environmental and cultural attractions, both of which are highly susceptible to tourism’s negative impacts.

Sustainable tourism has emerged as a significant concept in tourism policy statements in Australia (Hall, Jenkins & Kearsely, 1997). Hall (1998, p.21) notes that, “the principles of sustainable development have become a highly contentious issue in Australian politics…and controversy over tourism development indicate that the concept of sustainable development may have direct application to the Australian tourism industry”. In Australia, as with many other countries, the 1987 Brundtland report of the World Commission of Environment and Development, and the United Nations Agenda 21,

10 highlighted the detrimental impacts some forms of activity were having on the environment. In response to this the Commonwealth government released the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development in 1992, focused on implementing the recommendations of the Brundtland commission and Agenda 21. The strategy aimed to provide broad directions for government policy and decision making at the local, regional and national level, while facilitating a coordinated and cooperative approach to ecologically sustainable development (Commonwealth Government, Department of Environment and Heritage, 2005).

In terms of governmental structures for tourism; tourism is not explicitly mentioned in the Australian Constitution, so the legal responsibility for tourism has developed under the division of powers for those areas which impinge on the tourism industry, including quarantine, aviation, customs and excise, corporations and international trade (Hall, 2003; Ruhanen, 2005). Tourism in Australia is predominantly market driven and unlike other sectors, the federal government has not tried an interventionist approach towards tourism. Basu (2003) notes that the Commonwealth government is more directly involved in marketing rather than monitoring the growth of the industry, with facilitation and coordination of tourism occurring through its agency ‘Tourism Australia’. However in 2003 the Commonwealth released a tourism white paper, ‘A Medium to Long Term Strategy for Tourism’, a considerable undertaking and the first of its kind in Australia with consultations at approximately 50 locations around the country, two discussion papers accessed by 132,000 people and some 425 written submissions over a two year period. The white paper committed $235 million in new public investment increasing total direct expenditure on tourism to over $600 million, with the goal of positioning Australia as a world leader in the provision of tourism goods and services (Commonwealth Government, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2005).

Although the Commonwealth’s direct powers for tourism under the Constitution are slightly abstract, the States do have considerable responsibility for many facets of tourism. The States and Territories are primarily responsible for infrastructure and facility development, planning and regulation and as with the Commonwealth

11 government, promotion and marketing both internationally and domestically. The State tourism authorities also fund regional tourism organizations (RTOs), which are responsible for regional marketing and promotion and assist in developing and managing tourism at a regional level (Appendix One). Within each tourism region, local tourism authorities (LTAs) market visitor services and attractions for their specific local area, which are generally based around Shire Council government boundaries, and in turn receive funding from their respective Shire Councils and industry members. The Australian public sector tourism system is presented in Table 1.1, using the Queensland public sector tourism structure as an example of the RTO and LTA network.

Table 1.1: Public Sector Tourism Structure Government Public Sector Queensland Public Sector Tourism Structure Tourism Structure Structure Commonwealth Tourism Australia - Government State and Territory State Tourism Tourism Queensland Governments Authorities Brisbane Marketing Regional Tourism Bundaberg Region Ltd Organisations Capricorn Tourism (Appendix One) Fraser Coast South Burnett RTB Gladstone Area Promotion & Development Gold Coast Tourism Bureau - Mackay Tourism Ltd Outback Queensland Tourism Authority Southern Downs Tourist Association Toowoomba & Golden West RTA Tourism Sunshine Coast Tourism Tropical North Queensland Tourism Whitsundays Townsville Enterprise Shire Council Areas Local Tourism Each of the 125 Shire Council areas in Associations Queensland generally has at least one LTA. (Appendix Two)

This myriad of government involvement in tourism, as can be expected, causes considerable overlap of aims, objectives and responsibilities, and has resulted in a somewhat uncoordinated approach to tourism development, management and planning in Australia. At each level of government, Commonwealth, State and Territory, regional and local, there has been a tendency and an inherent organisational mandate to focus on

12 promotion and product development, usually in that order. It has been noted that a preoccupation with marketing in Australia, at the expense of research, strategic planning and other activities has been to the detriment of a more balanced and rational approach to the development of the tourism industry (Faulkner, 2003). Hall (2003, p.200-201) provides an interesting commentary that illustrates the overemphasis on tourism marketing in Australia. He writes that, “The transfer of funds from policy, planning and research to the promotional functions of state government agencies led the then Director of the Bureau of Tourism Research, Dr Bill Faulkner, to comment publicly on the emergence of ‘advertising fundamentalism’, whereby research programs were being downgraded to spend more money on advertising. As Faulkner commented: it is unlikely that research into, for instance, the environmental and social impacts of tourism would be carried out under the market forces regime, even though the problems in these areas could eventually render the tourism product of particular regions unsaleable. That Dr Faulkner hit a raw nerve with his comments was indicated by the reply of the New South Wales Minister of Tourism… who stated that: to accuse the commission of ‘advertising fundamentalism’ merely highlights deficiencies in Mr Faulkner’s own research into this subject. Over a decade later such a debate remains very relevant, and the minister’s comments reflect a deep division as to the role and character of government involvement in tourism in Australia and as to the future nature of tourism development. More often than not, success in tourism in Australia is measured in terms of numbers of visitors and their expenditure rather than the net benefits to be gained from tourist visitation and associated tourism development”.

It would not be unrealistic to suggest that little has changed in what could effectively be called a ‘marketing vs. management’ mentality in Australia. However it is increasingly being noted in public sector tourism organizations that there is a need for planning to gain the maximum return on assets and investments, as well as minimising the negative

13 impacts of tourism activity. This can be seen with Tourism Queensland recently changing the description of their core activities from destination marketing to destination management, although the realities of this shift in emphasis are still to be proven. Similarly, although Hall et al (1997) have claimed that the concept of sustainability has had a substantial impact on planning ideas and philosophies in Australia, the actual change in approach is still somewhat questionable and as such was addressed in this study.

The above discussion has briefly highlighted some of the complexities of tourism management and planning in Australia generally. However due to the focus of this study it is necessary to look more closely at tourism planning and management at the local level, or Shire Council area, bearing in mind the issues discussed previously. Local government has a critical role to play in tourism development and increasingly this role is extending beyond the traditional duties of funding their LTA (Richins & Pearce, 2000). Local government is closest to many of the problems associated with tourism development and to the demands of residents (Aronsson, 2000), and as such Hall (2003) considers local government best suited to coordinate tourism development at the local level. However Hall (2003) does go on to note that the role of local government in tourism has tended to be neglected by State and Commonwealth governments and at times by the tourism industry. This can be attributed in part to the fact that local government does not derive its power from the Commonwealth Constitution but from its relevant State government constitution. Despite this local government still has considerable influence over tourism within its constitutional responsibilities of land-use planning, development applications for tourism-related land uses, and provision of local infrastructure and public amenities.

Despite the inherent difficulties local authorities have been called upon to play a greater role in the planning and management of tourism within their area. A Tourism Council of Australia and Tourism Queensland (nd) report notes that, although most local government authorities have formulated statements applying to tourism, these are found in a variety of guises such as meeting minutes and other planning documents which act,

14 by proxy, as partial guidelines for the development of tourism. The report states that local government must have clear goals and policies for tourism and should adopt a specific policy document for tourism. A number of reasons for this are cited: councillors may be replaced every four years but a policy document can ensure continuity of commitment to tourism; forward planning and budget allocations for tourism are essential for the integrated and coordinated approach needed for sustained business growth and operation; industry sector representation in an area may change, thus altering emphasis and thrust; and a policy document ensures that industry, local and regional tourism organisations, state government agencies and the local council work together to benefit the community (Tourism Council of Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd). Other key issues highlighted in the report include; the fact that residents will be far more inclined to support the development of tourism if they are given the opportunity to voice their opinions, concerns and aspirations, and that to be successful in achieving balanced development of tourism in any locality or region, there must be substantial local government input and involvement. It is also noted that the tourism development plan should be a strategic document, giving the direction and focus stakeholders need as a basis for decision-making.

The 1997 Queensland Integrated Planning Act (IPA) also impacts upon tourism planning at the local destination level in Queensland. The purpose of the IPA is to balance community well being, economic development and the protection of the natural environment by providing a framework for managing growth and change within the State (Table 1.2). Although the IPA does not explicitly address tourism, the planning scheme outlines the development outcomes sought for the local government area as a whole: allocates land for different uses; indicates the location and nature of major infrastructure; and, identifies areas or places that constrain the use of land due to their environmental value or their adverse effects on development (Queensland State Government, 2004). Further, community consultation is encouraged under the IPA and is considered by the Local Government Association of Queensland (2003) as an essential part of local government decision-making processes.

15 Table 1.2: Queensland Integrated Planning Act- Ecological Sustainability Principles Protection of ecological process and natural systems 1. Air quality 2. Nature conservation 3. Land maintenance 4. Water quality Economic development 5. Economic activity 6. Resource availability 7. Energy efficiency 8. Resource usage 9. Affordability Maintenance of community well-being 10. Community needs 11. Infrastructure efficiency 12. Public safety 13. Heritage conservation 14. Public spaces 15. Amenity 16. Community harmony Source: Queensland Government, Department of Communication and Information, Local Government, Planning and Sport (2000)

1.5 Thesis Structure

The remaining chapters of this thesis build upon the issues briefly introduced in this chapter. Chapters Two, Three and Four outline the literature review conducted for the study. Figure 1.3 diagrammatically represents the key literature themes of the thesis, with the sustainable development philosophy perceived as underpinning the concepts of strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration in tourism planning which collectively provide the foundation for the concept of strategic visioning.

Chapter Two introduces the underpinning philosophy of this thesis, the concept of sustainable development. The application of the concept to the tourism destination context is examined, and the key definitions and issues are addressed. The caveats to the sustainable tourism planning approach: a strategic orientation towards tourism planning and enhanced levels of multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process

16 (Simpson, 2001), are introduced. The current state of the sustainability debate is also considered including the identified need to move the sustainability concept towards practice.

Figure 1.3: Thesis Literature Themes Sustainable Development (Chapter Two)

Strategic Planning (Chapter Three) Stakeholder Participation (Chapter Three)

Strategic Visioning (Chapter Four)

Chapter Three further explores the two identified caveats to the sustainable approach to tourism planning. Firstly the need for strategic tourism planning is addressed, including an examination of the evolution of tourism planning approaches and the strategic planning concept as it has been applied in the organizational context. The second caveat, stakeholder participation and collaboration in planning is addressed including an overview of the evolution of public participation in planning and the extension of this concept to tourism. The key stakeholders in tourism destination planning are examined in addition to the more recent calls to move beyond participation and engage in multiple stakeholder collaboration and cooperation.

Chapter Four looks at the strategic visioning concept. Beginning with a discussion of the organizational applications of vision and the extension of this concept by Senge (1990) to the notion of shared vision and learning organizations, the use of vision in the community context is also examined. Finally the use of strategic visioning as a tourism destination planning tool is considered, as is the more recent view that visioning can contribute towards the achievement of sustainability.

17 Figure 1.4: Thesis Structure

Chapter One Introduction

Chapter Two Sustainable Tourism

Chapter Three Strategic Planning & Stakeholder Participation

Chapter Four Strategic Visioning

Chapter Five Methodology

Chapter Six Chapter Seven Objective One Results Objective Two & Three

Chapter Eight Discussion

Chapter Nine Conclusion

Chapter Five outlines the research methodology employed for the study including the researcher’s constructivist theoretical perspective, which in turn dictated the ontology, epistemology and methodology underpinning the study. The two-phase qualitative research process is also outlined. The first stage of the research found that 30 destinations had a tourism plan and these were assessed utilising content analysis and underpinned by the use of a tourism planning process evaluation instrument developed by

18 Simpson (2001). The second stage of the research involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 31 destination stakeholders in five local tourism destination case study areas in Queensland. Case study destinations selection was based on the outcomes of stage one of the research. This stage examined destination stakeholders’ perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process, as well as stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning as a planning model.

Chapter Six addresses the results of the first objective of the study. The overall results of the planning document analysis are presented to illustrate how local tourism destinations in Queensland met with the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument. The individual analysis of each of the local tourism plans is also detailed to demonstrate the extent to which they match the evaluative criteria of the instrument. From the individual analysis, each of the plans are quantitatively weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria, to allow for the selection of case study destinations as per the second objective of the study. Importance-performance analyses are also presented for both destinations that did have a tourism planning document and those that did not, to assess any correlation between the importance of tourism to the destination and undertaking local level tourism destination planning.

Chapter Seven provides the results of the second and third research objectives of the study. This chapter presents the results and analysis of the 31 interviews conducted with stakeholders from the five case study destinations regarding their perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are incorporated. Additionally the interview results regarding stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning as an alternative planning practice are discussed, with more detailed results presented for the two destinations which have previously undertaken a strategic visioning process (Redland Shire and Gold Coast City).

19 Chapter Eight draws together the findings of the two results chapters. In addressing the research objectives it was found that sustainability is not the underlying approach to local tourism destinations in Queensland as evidenced by an over emphasis on economic concerns, short-term planning horizons and the exclusion of key stakeholder groups from the process. To address these issues a conceptual framework of the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning is proposed as a possible means for ensuring sustainability philosophies including strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are incorporated into the local tourism planning process. The applicability of the framework, identified in both the literature and confirmed by stakeholder respondents was considered in light of the challenges identified in the research of incorporating sustainability principles into a local tourism planning process.

Chapter Nine provides a concluding overview of the study, and demonstrates the significance of the research and the contribution to the body of knowledge. In addition the contribution of the study to local level tourism planning practice is discussed, with implications for further research suggested, particularly the testing and refinement of the proposed strategic visioning framework.

1.6 Chapter One Summary

This chapter has introduced the key concepts and issues associated with this study. The concept of sustainable tourism planning is seen as a means of maximising the positive and minimising the negative impacts of tourism activity on destination communities. Despite the merits of such an approach, some authors have questioned whether the doctrine is actually being put into practice, alluding to preoccupations with economic returns at the expense of environmental and social issues. Additionally other authors have cited a dearth of practical planning models for integrating sustainability theory concepts into practice. It is this theory and practice gap that this study has addressed through three research objectives and a two-phase qualitative research method.

20 While any number of contexts could have been utilised to examine the research issue, local tourism destinations in Queensland, Australia were selected as the research sample for this study. Like many countries tourism is an important economic activity in Queensland. Further the local tourism destination level is recognised as the most susceptible to the negative impacts of tourism and has therefore been purported as an appropriate level to utilise sustainable planning approaches. Chapter Two introduces the sustainable development concept and its application to tourism destination planning.

21 Chapter Two Sustainable Tourism Development: The Underpinning Concept

2.0 Introduction

The concept of sustainable development, although not specifically targeted at tourism development, has undoubtedly had a considerable impact on the tourism sector. Sustainable development aims to ensure the provision of lasting and secure livelihoods, which minimise resource depletion, environmental degradation, cultural disruption and social instability (Hall, 1998). The notion of sustainable tourism development has arisen as a possible solution to the environmental and social degradation of the industry’s resources and due to the fact that tourism is a resource industry which is dependent on nature’s endowment and society’s heritage (Murphy, 1994). Although there is considerable polarization in viewpoints and definitions of sustainable tourism, it is recognised that achieving sustainability in a tourism context requires: a strategic orientation towards tourism planning and enhanced levels of multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process (Simpson, 2001).

This chapter introduces the underpinning philosophy of the thesis, the concept of sustainable development. The evolution of sustainability and its application to tourism development is examined, as are some of the key definitions, principles and issues associated with the notion of sustainable tourism development. The two acknowledged caveats of a sustainable approach: strategic planning and stakeholder participation are also introduced, before considering the state of the sustainability debate. Finally the need to move the sustainability concept from theory to practice is discussed.

2.1 The Sustainable Development Concept

The term sustainable development first arose in the 1980 World Conservation Strategy (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), although some claim that the concept goes back much further (Butler, 1998; Conway, 1998; Malthus,

22 1986; Rohe 1997). For much of the post-war period, the desire and push for change and economic development was unchallenged (Bramwell & Lane, 1993), and it was not until the 1970s that concerns emerged over the exploitation of the natural environment and the links between environment and development (Buhalis & Fletcher, 1995; Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002). The failure of economic development growth models to take into account the ecological consequences of economic expansion (Hardy & Beeton, 2001) saw sustainable development emerge as a means and/or philosophy to rectify the past and alter current industrial behavior by shifting the focus from the achievement of short-term economic growth goals at the expense of environmental and social concerns.

The concept is credited as gaining international momentum and recognition following the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development (WECD), known as the Brundtland commission. Although widely criticized in the intervening years (MacLellan, 1997; Mowforth & Munt, 1998) the WCED (1987, p.43) first coined the often-quoted definition, that sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The commission also developed the first of the many principles of sustainability including: a need for holistic planning and strategy making; the importance of preserving essential ecological processes; the need to protect both human heritage and biodiversity; development to occur in such a way that productivity can be sustained over the long-term for future generations; and the need for a better balance of fairness and opportunity between nations (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002; Hall, 1998; Murphy, 1994; Swarbrooke, 1998). The Brundtland report received almost universal acceptance by governments, industry and the public, and has since spawned a vast array of refinements, applications and policies (MacLellan, 1997; United Nations, 2003).

The sustainable development discussion was further conceptualized in 1992 by the United Nations with Local Agenda 21 (LA21), a plan of global, national and local action for every area in which humans impact on the environment. Reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in 2002 (United Nations, 2003), LA21 highlighted that the transformation to a more sustainable world is linked to a visionary

23 political leadership, supportive administrations, networks of experience sharing, alliances with non-governmental organisations and local industry, and effective community mobilisation (Voisey, Beuermann, Sverdrup & O'Riordan, 1996). One of the key principles of LA21 is that sustainability can only be achieved through planned, democratic, cooperative means, including community involvement in decisions about the environment and development (Jackson & Morpeth, 1999; Ritchie & Jay, 1999).

2.1.1 A Contentious Philosophy

Sustainable development, having been on the global agenda in some form for over two decades is, broadly speaking, an accepted concept (Baker, 2006; Brown, 1995; Dalal- Clayton & Bass, 2002; Mawhinney, 2002; Rao, 2000; Reid, 1995; Sofield, 2003; United Nations, 1998). Support for the concept has been attributed to the appealing semantics of the term, which offers the attractive, although somewhat contradictory, possibility of continuing economic development that does not unduly strain the earth’s environmental, socio-cultural or economic carrying capacities (Aronsson, 2000; Weaver & Lawton, 1999). Sustainable development implies built environments become more liveable through the substantial re-use of existing manmade and natural resources, ecosystems become healthier, economic development becomes more responsive to the needs of place rather than furthering the profits of a powerful few, and the benefits of improved environmental and economic conditions become more equitably distributed (Barke & Towner, 2003; Berke, 2002). Farrell (1999) refers to the ‘sustainability trinity’, of equal consideration to the economy, society and the environment, which has been described as an ethical requirement for social responsibility for present and future generations (Berke, 2002; Dutton & Hall, 1989; Ireland, 1997).

The sustainability concept received bureaucratic and business support because it did not reject economic growth, but actually suggested that economic growth could enhance environmental protection through a free market (Hardy & Beeton, 2001). As Bramwell and Lane (1993, p.1) observe, “sustainability brought the cautious but sometimes negative thinking of the conservationist together with the positive but sometimes heedless

24 world of the developer”. The international acceptance of sustainable development can also be credited to its emergence at a time when scientific, economic and environmental problems were converging, fuelled by a rapidly growing conservation movement (Beaumont, Pederson & Whitaker, 1993; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Harris & Leiper, 1995; McKercher, 1993).

Despite the general acceptance of the underlying philosophy, definitional debates have, and continue to, dominate discussion of the sustainable development concept (Barbier 1987; Steer & Wade-Gery, 1993). Some have claimed that the concept of sustainable development is ambiguous, and some have even described it as an oxymoron (Hempel, 1999; O’Riordan, 1978). Much of the criticism levelled at the broader concept of sustainable development is reflected in the sustainable tourism development literature.

2.2 The Sustainable Tourism Development Concept

Chapter One highlighted the considerable size and importance of the tourism industry to the world’s economy and due to its magnitude, tourism’s potential to contribute to sustainable development is considered to be substantial (Hunter, 1997). Despite this tourism was not specifically addressed in LA21. However tourism’s global economic importance and significant use of natural resources saw the World Tourism Organization (WTO) introduce an action plan for sustainable tourism development- ‘Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry’ (Wall, 1997). In 1999 the WTO further developed a global code of ethics for the responsible and sustainable development of international tourism which included nine articles outlining the basic rules for governments, tour operators, developers, travel agents, workers, as well as communities and the tourists themselves (Neto, 2003; WTO, 2001). Within this context it was observed that tourism can effectively contribute to sustainable development when: “…it operates within natural capacities for the regeneration and future productivity of natural resources; recognises the contribution that people and communities, customs and lifestyles, make to the tourism experience; accepts that these people must have an equitable share in the economic

25 benefits of tourism; and is guided by the wishes of local people and communities in the host areas” (Eber, 1992, p.7).

The application of sustainable development ideologies to the tourism sector, while certainly influenced by the broader sustainability debate, also evolved alongside the increasing dissatisfaction with the negative environmental and social impacts of tourism activity (Figure 2.1). The notion of ‘sustainable tourism’ arose in recognition of the inherent tensions and frictions created by the interactions between the tourism industry, visitors, the environment and the host communities. Described as a ‘tourism centric’ view (Hunter, 1995), sustainable tourism advocates the management of all resources upon which tourism depends in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems (Murphy, 1994). Butler (1998, p.27) notes, “the term ‘sustainable tourism’, rightly or wrongly has become widely accepted as meaning tourism that is developed and operated in such a manner as to follow these principles”.

Figure 2.1: The Evolution of the Sustainable Tourism Concept

Recognition of the The birth of the Growth of the concept potential impacts of the concept of green of sustainable tourism boom in mass tourism tourism

Growth in the concept of visitor management

Recognition of the importance of community participation

1960 1970 1980 1990

Source: Adapted from Swarbrooke, 1998

Sustainable tourism is intended to be a positive and proactive approach to tourism development, attempting to ensure the long-term viability and quality of both natural and

26 human resources (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Hughes, 1995; Sharpley, 2000; Swarbrooke, 1998). Unlike sustainable development which is underpinned by the concept of development, sustainable tourism has changed its focus from the traditional notions of environmental ethics, quality of life and cultural integrity with growth and progress, to include business viability and customer satisfaction (Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Muller, 1994; Prosser, 1994). Here sustainable tourism can be considered a means of alleviating the economic deterioration arising from poorly planned and managed tourism development in an attempt to maintain, in perpetuity, the characteristics that make it a desirable place for residents to live and tourists to visit (De Lacy, Battig, Moore & Noakes, 2002; Manning & Dougherty, 2000).

2.2.1 Defining Sustainable Tourism

While sustainable tourism has attracted a high level of support at the conceptual level (MacLellan, 1997), there is little agreement in defining the concept. This can no doubt be attributed to the fact that sustainable tourism has been described as ambiguous, vague, parochial, sectorial, a cliché, a mythical concept, and a ‘lion’s den’ of semantics (Butler, 1993; Hunter, 1995; McKercher, 1993; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Muller, 1994; Orams, 1995; Robinson, 1999; Swarbrooke, 1998). Different perceptions and interpretations of sustainable development principles and their application to the tourism sector have also played an important role in the way in which sustainable tourism has been defined within the literature, hence numerous authors have offered definitions (Archer, Cooper & Ruhanen, 2004; Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Buckley, 1996; Cater & Goodall, 1992; Cronin, 1990; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Harris & Leiper, 1995; House, 1997; Inskeep, 1991; Swarbrooke, 1998). This has stemmed criticisms that academics have been inwardly focused on defining and debating the concept which has confused researchers, visitors, residents, businesses and governments alike, and not contributed in any meaningful way to considerations of how the concept might be put into practice (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Orams, 1995; Swarbrooke, 1998). Garrod and Fyall (1998, p.200) argue that, “unless these definitions can be translated into something that is meaningful in practice, they

27 remain at best academic curios, at worst a threat to the achievement of genuinely sustainable tourism”.

The most commonly cited definition, and the one used to guide this research is the WTO (1998, p.19) definition that sustainable tourism development, “…meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading to the management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems”. To move beyond the search for a unitary and precise definition Bramwell (2004) calls for a need to view sustainable tourism development as a social and political construct and as a terrain of discourses. It can be seen as similar to concepts such as democracy, liberty and social justice where there is a readily understood ‘first-level of meaning’, but around them lie a number of fundamental contestations. While there is debate over the concept’s definition, there is more agreement regarding the principles of sustainable tourism.

2.2.2 Underpinning Principles

Sustainable tourism has come to represent and encompass a set of principles, policy prescriptions, and management methods, which chart a path for tourism development such that a destination’s environmental resource base (including natural, built, social and cultural features) is protected for future development (Welford & Ytterhus, 2004). Sustainability is often referred to in terms of the metaphorical ‘triple bottom line’, referring to the consideration of economic, social and environmental goals and outputs. In this respect the WTO (1993, p.11) considers that tourism is sustainable when it “improves the quality of life of the host community; provides a high quality of experience for the visitor; and maintains the quality of the environment on which both the host community and the visitor depend”.

28 The United Nations (2003) propose a set of 18 core principles for sustainability (Appendix Three) including broad based stakeholder participation and control, equitable distribution of benefits, a long term planning horizon, and acceptable scale of development. These principles are set as overarching goals and objectives of the tourism sector, that is, practices destinations should aim to achieve to meet the principles of sustainable tourism development. It is generally acknowledged that, in conjunction with such broad principles, there are a number of implications or basic elements critical to the sustainable tourism development agenda. Bramwell and Lane (1993) note that there is a need for holistic planning and strategy formulation, preservation of ecological processes, protection of human heritage and biodiversity, and sustained productivity over the long term to benefit future generations. Ritchie (1999) also identifies several planning related aspects necessary for sustainable tourism development including the need for a long-term planning horizon; an integrated and cumulative perspective of environmental, social and economic impacts, integrating tourism planning and development in the broader social, economic and environmental planning agenda of the destination and ensuring an approach to tourism planning and development that reflects the broader trends and expectations with regard to the level of community consultation involved. These implications reflect the requirement that strategic planning and stakeholder participation are fundamental in achieving, or attempting to achieve sustainable tourism. As such, these concepts are briefly introduced here and discussed in further detail in Chapter Three.

2.2.2.1 Strategic Planning for Sustainable Tourism

The WTO (1983, p.10) have claimed “the absence of planning and failure by the public sector to assume responsibilities…has been responsible for most of the negative results of tourism development”. As such strategic tourism planning is considered imperative to ensure that a destination’s resources are managed and sustained for the future and the different interests such as environmental, financial, community and tourist satisfaction are addressed (Hall 2000; Hardy & Beeton, 2001). Wahab and Pigram (1997) claim it requires a broad vision, which encompasses a larger time, and space frame than what

29 would be traditionally required in normal tourism planning and decision-making. Cooper (1995) concurs noting that there is a clear synergy between the adoption of sustainable tourism principles and the disciplined, longer-term perspective provided by the strategic planning of both destinations and markets. Strategy in the case of sustainable tourism planning and development seeks to achieve three basic strategic objectives: conservation of tourism resource values; enhanced experiences of the visitors who interact with tourism resources; and the maximisation of the economic, social and environmental returns to stakeholders in the host community (Dutton & Hall, 1989; Hall, 2000).

Sustainable tourism offers the means for a more holistic framework for planning, policy and development than has previously been the case, while ensuring that tourism’s benefits are equitably distributed between all stakeholders (Harrison & Husbands, 1996; Page & Thorn, 2002; Wall, 1997). It requires a “social process through which ways of thinking, ways of valuing and ways of acting are actively constructed by participants” (Healey, 1997, p.29). As a result sustainable tourism planning is seen as a multiple stakeholder process in which individual interests are brought together in order to decide over the ‘tourism commons’ such as facilities for the tourists and the local population (Briassoulis, 2002). As defined by the WTO (2004, p.7): “Sustainable tourism development requires the informed participation of all relevant stakeholders, as well as strong political leadership to ensure wide participation and consensus building. Achieving sustainable tourism is a continuous process and it requires constant monitoring of impacts, introducing the necessary preventive and/or corrective measures whenever necessary. Sustainable tourism should also maintain a high level of tourist satisfaction and ensure a meaningful experience to the tourists, raising their awareness about sustainability issues and promoting sustainable tourism practices amongst them”.

30 2.2.2.2 Stakeholder Participation for Sustainable Tourism

Amongst the literature on sustainable tourism there is widespread agreement that broad based and multiple stakeholder participation, particularly that of the local community, in the tourism planning process is essential (Berke, 2002; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Caffyn & Jobbins, 2003; Eligh, Welford & Ytterhus, 2002; Gee & Fayos-Sola, 1997; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Holland, 2000; Lankford & Lankford, 2000; Marien & Pizam, 1997; Murphy, 1988; Pforr, 2001; Richards & Hall, 2000; Robinson, 1999; Sadler, 2004; Swarbrooke, 1998). As Singh (2003) notes, no form of tourism development, however ingeniously conceived, can foster sustainability if it fails to respect the needs and aspirations of the local people. Therefore, the achievement of sustainable development objectives is considered to hinge on the adoption of a participatory model, involving the meaningful engagement of the community, along with industry stakeholders and relevant government agencies (Faulkner, 2003). The interaction amongst the stakeholders of a tourism destination, can also be described in terms of collaboration or synergies (Aas, Ladkin & Fletcher, 2005; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Buhalis & Cooper, 1998; Laws, Scott & Parfitt, 2002; Reed, 1999), that is: “A process of joint decision-making among autonomous, key stakeholders of an inter-organizational, community tourism domain to resolve planning problems of the domain and/or to manage issues related to the planning and development of the domain” (Jamal & Getz 1995, p.188).

Sustainability has been viewed as an overarching framework which can dramatically shift the practice of local participation from dominance by narrow special interests towards a more holistic, inclusive and empowered view (Berke, 2002; Sadler, 2004). It is also credited with promoting the consideration of the economic, environmental and social impacts of tourism (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Murphy, 1988; Pforr, 2001) and can facilitate a common sense of ownership and direction for the myriad of stakeholders, while at the same time sharpening the guiding objectives of the destination (Cooper, 1997). These issues will be further explored in Chapter Three.

31 2.3 The State of the Sustainability Debate

The lack of a widely accepted definition has caused some confusion over what sustainable tourism actually means (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998), and the differing viewpoints on the concept have led many to question the validity of achieving sustainability. Hunter (1997) notes that however attractive the notion of sustainable tourism is as a balanced development option, difficult questions remain to be addressed: How the concept can be achieved? How is it determined when sustainability has been achieved? What does protecting the resource base mean? What are the needs of future generations? (Beckerman, 1992; Hunter, 1997; Lele, 1991; Liu, 2003; McMinn, 1997; Sofield, 2003; Stabler, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998). The difficulty and inherent subjectiveness in these questions has seen some claim that it is an intellectually appealing concept with little practical application (Wheeler, 1993); or that completely sustainable tourism is most likely a myth, as development requires environmental and social sacrifice to some degree and therefore we can only hope to make tourism more sustainable than it was before (Aronsson, 2000; Basu, 2003; Butler, 1998; Goodall & Stabler, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998).

2.3.1 Sustaining Tourism or Sustainable Tourism?

Some have seen sustainable tourism as a panacea for the ‘evils’ of mass tourism activity. It has been suggested that sustainable tourism requires the replacement of mass tourism activity with small-scale developments and enterprise (Clarke, 1997; Liu, 2003; Simpson & Roberts, 2000), spawning the notions of alternative, appropriate, responsible, green, nature, community-based, rural, or soft tourism, often incorporated within the banner of ‘ecotourism’ (Blank, 1989; Boo, 1990; Fennell & Eagles, 1990; Haywood, 1988; Holland, 2000; Kariel, 1989; Krippendorf, 1987; Lane, 1989; Murphy, 1985; Pezzey, 1989; Singh, Theuns & Go, 1989). The notion of ecotourism is viewed by many as a beneficial by-product of the sustainability agenda due to the idea that ecologically fragile areas can be protected with the financial returns of ecotourism activities (Diamantis & Ladkin, 1999; Neto, 2003; Wight, 2003).

32 Although a widely acknowledged concept (Blamey, 2001; Boo, 1990; Campbell, 1999; Cater & Lowman, 1994; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Fennell, 1999; Honey, 1999; Lindberg, Wood & Engeldrum, 1999; Weaver, 1998), the notion that ecotourism is synonymous with sustainable tourism has received considerable criticism. Wall (1997, p.46) notes that, “The interchangeable use of the terms ecotourism and sustainable tourism…displays an inadequate understanding of both terms for, clearly, not all forms of ecotourism are sustainable and not all sustainable tourism needs to be in natural areas”. The idea also shows a divergence from sustainable development theory, which is based on the substantial re-use of existing manmade and natural resources (Barke & Towner, 2003). Concern has also been expressed that such activities are actually more harmful than conventional ‘mass’ tourism as the average ecotourist is more demanding environmentally than the mass tourist who may not need to visit remote locations, and whose needs and wastes can be more readily planned for and managed in large numbers incorporating economies of scale (Butler, 1993; Fyall & Garrod, 1997; Harris & Leiper, 1995; Kirstges, 2003; Lück, 2003; Simpson & Roberts, 2000; Wall, 1997). It is also widely claimed that ecotourism is simply a profit-driven, marketing gimmick to attract new visitor segments and give green credentials and moral rectitude to tourist activities (Butler, 1998; Croy & Hogh, 2003; Dewhurst & Thomas, 2003; Diamantis & Ladkin, 1999; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Harris & Leiper, 1995; Hunter, 1995; McKercher, 1993; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Muller, 1994; Neto, 2003; Swarbrooke, 1998; Wheeler, 1997). Therefore Swarbrooke (1998) cites a need for more critical evaluations of existing thinking and techniques in the area of sustainable tourism, and believes that there are too many ‘sacred cows’ that are not being challenged, such as the assertion that small-scale tourism is inherently more sustainable than mass tourism, regardless of the environment in which it takes place.

Sustainable tourism calls for adherence to the broader sustainability concept in all types of tourism activities, by all segments of the tourism industry and by all scales of tourism (Butcher, 1997; Clarke, 1997; Diamantis & Ladkin, 1999; Farrell & Twining-Ward,

33 2005; Husbands & Harrison, 1996; Inskeep, 1991; Neto, 2003; WTO, 1995). The challenge, however is that as a goal it sounds both right and viable, but that as an objective, it may not be so easily attained (McMinn, 1997; Slee, Farr & Snowdon, 1997), particularly in the context of a capitalist society (Aronsson, 2000; Singh, 2003). However it should not be conceived in terms of a device by which to measure the appropriateness of a particular tourism activity, nor should it be used as a means to legitimise the use of newly discovered tracts of the world, but rather as a philosophical base and idealised global target to which all forms of tourism must aspire (Godfrey, 1996; McMinn, 1997).

2.3.2 The Policy and Practice Response

Sustainability issues have become a key driver of the social and political agendas in many countries (Berke, 2002; Jayawardena, 2003), and initiatives such as LA21 are considered to be the primary framework for establishing tourism development plans around the globe (Harrison, Jayawardena & Clayton, 2003). The public sector has assumed much of the responsibility for leading the move towards developing more sustainable forms of tourism, and Hunter (1997) notes that it is difficult to imagine the formulation and implementation of any approach to sustainable tourism in the absence of strong local authority planning and development control. This is due to the fact that the public sector usually has a mandate to represent the whole population, not just particular interest groups or stakeholders; it has the requisite legislative framework for action; it is seen to be impartial without commercial interests; and because it is not constrained by short term financial objectives it should be able to take a longer term view (Sinclair & Jayawardena, 2003; Swarbrooke, 1998). Despite this, it has been noted that the application of sustainability will depend on the government’s values and ideologies (Godfrey, 1998; Hall, 1998; Liu, 2003; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; McMinn, 1997; Weaver, 2006).

A number of authors have documented the growth in sustainability policy statements, strategies, guidelines and initiatives from national, regional and local governments, tourism organizations, businesses and local communities (Augustyn, 1998; Bramwell,

34 2004; Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Jepson, 2004). Cooper (1997) also claims government are integrating sustainability principles into policy as evidenced by a changing perspective from the short (1 to 5 year planning horizons) to long term (10 to 20 year planning horizons), which in turn has seen the adoption of a strategic approach to both markets and destination planning and management.

However government at all levels has received criticism for hijacking, and even abusing the sustainable term, to legitimise tourism development, achieve self-serving outcomes, and even as a political slogan (Bramwell, 2004; Hempel, 1999; MacLellan, 1997; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Stabler, 1997; Wall, 1997). Government policies and plans for sustainable tourism development have been described as little more than statements of platitudes and rhetoric, backed by glossy images (Berke & Manta Conroy, 2000; Pforr, 2001; Pigram, 1990; Slee et al, 1997). There are “many apocryphal accounts of governments, as well as destination communities, paying lip-service to sustainable tourism in order to gain funding with a view to applying it to economic development through tourism. It is little wonder, therefore, that the term sustainable tourism is derided as a monumental oxymoron” (Stabler, 1997, p.4). There have also been criticisms that governments have adopted sustainable tourism development ideologies with “so much enthusiasm but so little real action” (Butler, 1997, p.119).

The role of government is such that they are encouraged to grow tourism as a means of economic development and growth, and policies pursued are therefore most suited to the interests of the national economy and the tourism industry (Bramwell, 2004; Dymond, 1997). Bramwell (2004, p.32) notes that as a result, “governments frequently talk ‘green’ but, in practice, usually give priority to economic growth over environmental protection”. Consequently sustainable tourism policies may give the appearance of a paradigm shift but in reality are focused on traditional concerns of economic returns (Butler, 1991; Dovers & Handmer, 1993; Harrison et al, 2003; Wight, 2003). This has been found to be the case in Australia, where despite suggestions that sustainability is a ‘motherhood’ issue (McKercher, 1993), economic goals are given a far higher priority than social and environmental concerns in state and national government’s tourism policy agenda (Hall,

35 1994). Studies of Scotland (MacLellan, 1997), Southern Europe (Bianchi, 2004) and Sweden (Aronsson, 2000) have aired similar criticisms noting that policy is overtly focused on economic growth targets with sustainability addressed only to the extent that it does not challenge the core pillars of free markets and profit maximisation. Spain has also received criticism for its policies (Barke & Towner, 2003; Bianchi, 2004; Hunter- Jones, Hughes, Eastwood & Morrison, 1997) where the term has been adopted more in name than in actual practice, and new development still shows little sign of learning from the negative experiences of many Spanish destinations. While overriding economic objectives are obviously an issue, some have also attributed such problems to a general lack of understanding by government of the principles underlying sustainable tourism development (Harrison et al, 2003; MacLellan, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998). The role of the government in sustainable tourism planning will be further addressed in Chapter Three (section 3.3.3.1).

The private sector of the tourism industry has also been the target of much criticism regarding sustainable tourism, despite the reports of some operators within the hospitality, transport and attractions sectors introducing environmental measures such as energy conservation, recycling and waste reduction, and triple bottom line accounting (Checkley, 1992; Dwyer, 2005; Jayawardena, 2003; Murphy, 1998; Swarbrooke, 1998). Harris and Leiper (1995) however, warn against assuming this is the norm. In the UK the public sector have designed initiatives to encourage voluntary action at the level of the individual business although this has focused mainly upon the production of good practice guides emphasising the compatibility of environmental policies with business success. It has been claimed that this may be the best way of stimulating business interest in environmental concerns (Dewhurst & Thomas, 2003; Dutton & Hall, 1989; Hall, 2000; Middleton & Hawkins, 1998). Others, however, are not so complementary of such sustainability initiatives. Wheeler (1994, p.651), a strong critic of sustainable tourism, notes that, “just a never-ending series of laughable codes of ethics: codes of ethics for travellers; codes of ethics for tourists, for government and for tourism businesses. Codes for all, or more likely codeine for all”. Such statements highlight that despite such initiatives, the private sector has no pervasive or deep embrace of the

36 concept aside from its use as a marketing or re-branding tool, which serves self-interests of financial sustainability (Eligh et al, 2002; Weaver, 2006).

Policy and practice progress towards sustainable tourism development can be seen in an excerpt from Swarbrooke (1998, p.vii), “In recent years, the concept of sustainable tourism has taken centre stage in the tourism world. So much has been written and spoken about sustainable tourism that one could be forgiven for thinking there is nothing left to say on the subject. However, for all the words, there are still relatively few examples of successful sustainable tourism initiatives…in other words we have failed to put theory into practice. Even where attempts have been made to turn words into action, the results have generally been very limited”. Trousdale (1999) also acknowledges that despite the widely acknowledged need for more sustainable development in tourism, there remains a large and growing gap between sustainability doctrine and actual achievements.

2.3.3 Sustainability Indicators and Measurement Models

The gap between theory and practice can be attributed to the fact that while it is relatively easy to conceptualise and proselytise about the need for sustainable tourism development, it is far more challenging to develop an effective, yet practical measurement process (Murphy, 1998). However, as sustainability is increasingly being viewed as “a necessity, not just an ‘ethical option’ for tourism development” (Cabrini, 2004, p.2), a series of instruments and tools have been developed. Although not without criticisms (Butler, 1997; Coccossis & Parpairis, 1995; James, 2001; Liu, 2003; McMinn, 1997; Rigby, Howlett & Woodhouse, 2000; Swarbrooke, 1998; Velikova, 2001), the concepts of thresholds and carrying capacity have been proposed as providing practical ways to understand the net effects of the positive and negative impacts associated with tourism (Bosselman, Peterson, Craig & McCarthy, 1999; Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert &

37 Wanhill, 2005; D’Amore, 1983; Dymond, 1997; Pigram, 1990; Quattrone, 2002; Rigby et al, 2000).

Indicators for sustainability have also been proposed in an attempt to determine critical levels of tourism activity on a place (Barke & Towner, 2003; Basu, 2003; Dymond, 1997; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Rebello & Baidal, 2004; Weaver, 2006). It is claimed that indicators of sustainable tourism can be used as an early warning system to trigger planning and management strategies, thus preventing irreversible tourism impacts. The WTO (1995) have developed a range of sustainable tourism indicators for site protection, stress, use intensity, social impact, development control, waste management, planning process, critical ecosystems, consumer satisfaction and tourism contribution to the local economy. The use of indicators, particularly at the local level, has been recommended to provide benchmarks of change and progress (James, 2001). A further area, which is receiving increasing attention, is sustainability accreditation (or ecotourism accreditation). A plethora of programs have emerged over recent years such as Green Globe 21, the European Blue Flag Campaign and the WWF’s PAN Parks program (Harris, Griffin & Williams, 2002), designed to provide formal assessments and benchmarks of an organization’s sustainability performance.

A variety of sustainability tools and models have also been proposed in an attempt to monitor progress towards sustainability. Some of these include: demand/visitor management strategies, land use and environmental impact assessments and socioeconomic indicators (Ashworth, 1995; Buhalis & Fletcher, 1995; Deery, Jago & Fredline, 2005; Fyall & Garrod, 1997; Manning & Dougherty, 2000; McCool, 1993; McCool & Lime, 2001; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Rebello & Baidal, 2004; Stabler, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998; Westlake, 1995). Models such as the ‘tourist ecological footprint’ (Hunter, 2002), barometer of tourism sustainability (Ko, 2001), tourism optimisation management model (McCool & Lime, 2001), sustainability assessment maps (Ko, 2005), and codes of conduct and good practice (Twynam & Johnston, 2002), among others, have also been recommended.

38 It has been suggested that, despite the model or approach taken, the tourism industry should adopt a safe minimum standard approach to development which aims to minimise the risk that irreversible changes will foreclose development opportunities for future generations (Liu, 2003; Pigram, 1990). There is some degree of consensus that a holistic and iterative strategic framework for planning the future development of an area is required, which assesses development on an ongoing basis to identify impacts and provide information to guide subsequent responses (Dymond, 1997). Such a framework has been seen as the responsibility of the public sector as it is often suggested that local authorities are most appropriate for assuming responsibility for sustainable development as they provide an existing and critical operational link between ministerial and legislative directives and the varied components of the operating tourism industry (Aronsson, 2000; Ashworth, 1995; Dymond, 1997; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995).

2.3.4 Factors for Success

The WTO (2004, 2000) have identified a range of success factors for achieving sustainability, most of which centre on stakeholder participation in tourism destination planning. It is considered necessary that the local community has the opportunity to participate and that cooperation exists between stakeholders, in addition to a commitment to the environment and monitoring mechanisms to ensure the continuous improvement of the process. These WTO success factors have been supported in other studies (Butler, 1997; Dutton & Hall, 1989; Evans 1997; Lew & Hall, 1998; Nitsch & van Straaten, 1995).

The planning horizon is also considered a vital factor in achieving sustainability and it has been noted that there is a need to overcome, the often reverted to, short-term perspective (Cooper 2002; Jepson, 2004; Lew & Hall, 1998; Swarbrooke, 1998; von Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003). For this reason the notion of vision and visioning is believed to be a contributor to sustainable tourism planning success. Page and Thorn (1997) note the need for a national vision for tourism to guide efforts to achieve sustainable tourism at the regional and local level, and Jayawardena (2003) has found a vision is necessary to

39 connect with stakeholders. Beatley (1995) also considers visioning a necessary planning technique due to the future oriented requirements of sustainable tourism planning. Planners and their communities must foresee and shape the scope and character of future development, identify existing and emerging needs, and fashion new or amend existing plans and policies to ensure that those needs will be met and that communities will be able to continually reproduce and revitalise themselves (Berke, 2002). Such efforts entail feedback, learning, and adaptive change through trial and error in which communities generate knowledge and discover practical applications toward sustainability (Berke, 2002). To build this knowledge base Fyall & Garrod (1997) suggest that defining the concept of sustainable development and establishing it as an objective of the tourism industry is in fact the first step in achieving genuinely sustainable tourism.

Sustainable tourism planning, as discussed, also requires at a minimum stakeholder involvement and participation, but ideally cooperation and collaboration. To ensure the success of such efforts it is necessary to understand and diffuse the power base of particular stakeholder groups through the empowerment of the local community (Bianchi, 2004; Brown & Essex, 1997; Hunter, 1997; Jamal & Getz, 1995; von Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003), otherwise “sustainable tourism simply recycles old methods such as participation in a new language” (Crouch, 1994, p.98).

A holistic approach to destination management has also been identified as a key factor arising from the sustainable tourism development agenda (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Faulkner, 2003; Ritchie, 1999). A destination management approach not only incorporates strategic planning and broad based stakeholder participation, but also recognises the need for planning that is not driven solely by a destination marketing perspective. As Faulkner (2003, p.50) notes, “one of the more obvious implications…is the need for a more comprehensive, integrated and holistic approach that goes beyond the traditional focus on destination marketing to take into account a broader range of environmental, social and economic issues”. The tendency to adopt a market orientation towards tourism planning was noted as a challenge in many countries including Australia (Chapter One).

40 Other aspects of success have also been identified in studies of sustainable tourism and the sustainable tourism planning process including the need to: gain political support; establish appropriate organizational structures; ensure experienced, knowledgeable and involved local authorities; and secure adequate funding and resources (Brown & Essex, 1997; Hunter, 1997; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995; Nitsch & van Straaten, 1995). Butler (1997) also identifies the need for clarification of the effects of changes associated with tourism compared with other forms of development, and regulation and control of the rate, type and level of development, while Lew and Hall (1998) add the need to readdress the value orientation so that tourism impacts take precedence over market economics.

2.4 Moving the Sustainability Concept Towards Practice

The sustainable tourism concept is fraught with debate, disagreement and contention. However it is the position taken by many, and the one used to guide this research, that sustainable tourism is not a product, but a necessary philosophical base to underpin and provide direction for tourism destination planning. While accepting that actual sustainability may only ever be approached rather than permanently achieved (Butler, 1997; Milne, 1998), Beatley (1995) advocates that the difficulties associated with sustainability should not paralyse us into complacency or non-action. He highlights the role of planners in “promoting the dialogue about sustainability and in conceiving public- policy solutions that promote sustainability” (Beatley, 1995, p.392). The notion that inaction is unacceptable is supported by Bramwell and Lane (1993, p.3) who note that, “One must ask what the alternatives are to developing more sustainable tourism- presumably either sit back and do nothing or else to criticise without offering any realistic, practical ways forward. Both alternatives seem likely to…allow the negative effects of tourism to increase further in scale”.

41 While there is opportunity for academic debate and discourse regarding the concept, this must take second place to the development of practical tools, particularly in the area of planning, for destination planners, managers and their communities to address sustainability, “it is easy to discuss sustainability but…the time has come to walk the talk” (Bramwell & Lane, 1993, p.4). A key problem is that there is a ‘grey’ area of rhetoric between sustainability principles and translation into workable objectives and standards (Goodall & Stabler, 1997) and to overcome this a number of authors have noted the need to move on from the conceptual debate and given consideration to the actual practice of sustainable tourism development (Fyall & Garrod, 1997; Liu, 2003; Pearce & Turner, 1993; Slee et al, 1997; Welford & Ytterhus, 2004).

2.5 Chapter Two Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of the sustainable tourism development concept, and more importantly critiqued the state of the sustainability debate to help place the research issue in the context of current international perspectives on the topic. There is obviously considerable debate regarding sustainable tourism and its practical application. While it is important to acknowledge this, it is considered that the sustainable tourism development concept does offer guidelines and philosophies by which current and future tourism development decisions can be measured against. By utilising a sustainable development approach to planning at least some progress can be made towards ensuring economic, environmental and social aspects are given, ideally equal, but at least due consideration. This is surely better than no action at all (Bramwell & Lane, 1993).

It was identified that a potential inhibitor is moving the sustainability concept from theory to practice. Although it may appear that progress is being made in this area, studies such as Jepson’s (2004) highlight that while planning documents are increasingly identifying sustainable development as their conceptual basis, this is not carried through into actual policies and programs. Therefore if sustainability is to move beyond a vague idealism, the task ahead for planners is to translate theory into practice as the gap is

42 growing rapidly between sustainability doctrine and actual achievements (Berke, 2002; Trousdale, 1999).

In spite of these challenges, the sustainable tourism development concept has received more acceptance as a broad framework for planning than as a quantifiable and achievable objective. Similarly the requirement that strategic planning and stakeholder participation must underpin a sustainable approach to tourism planning has received some level of agreement amongst authors. Chapter Three examines the concepts of strategic planning and stakeholder participation as contributors to sustainable tourism in more detail.

43 Chapter Three Strategic Planning and Stakeholder Participation as Contributors to Sustainable Tourism

3.0 Introduction

The negative impacts of tourism activity have primarily been attributed to inadequate or non-existent planning frameworks for tourism development. Therefore it has been advocated that tourism planning is vital to offset the harmful, and attempt to maximise the positive, impacts that tourism can have on a destination community. While several different approaches have evolved, tourism planning based on the philosophies of sustainability has emerged as one of the most comprehensive approaches. However, two critical concepts have been identified as precursors to a sustainable approach to tourism planning: a strategic orientation towards tourism planning and enhanced levels of multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process (Simpson, 2001).

This chapter examines the concepts of strategic planning and stakeholder participation. Although inextricably linked in the context of sustainable tourism development, each of these concepts has evolved from a distinct and considerable body of literature. This chapter firstly discusses the need for tourism planning and the various tourism planning approaches that have emerged, before examining the notion of strategic tourism destination planning, including an overview of the organizational origins of strategy and strategic planning. Secondly stakeholder participation in tourism planning is discussed. Beginning with an overview of public participation and citizen democracy ideologies, the evolution of these concepts to tourism is examined. The three key stakeholder groups in tourism destinations, the government, the industry and the resident community are also addressed, as well as the more recent calls to move beyond the notion of participation to engage in stakeholder collaboration and cooperation in tourism destination planning.

44 3.1 Impetus for Tourism Destination Planning

In the ‘boom’ years following World War II, increased leisure time, higher disposable incomes, migration and rapid advances in transportation technology saw unprecedented levels of international travel. Governments around the world soon recognised the potential of their natural and cultural assets as attractors for travellers and in turn stimulants for economic development (Coltman, 1989; Cooper & Pigram, 1984; Crouch & Shaw, 1992; Goeldner, 1992; Harrison, 1992; Holloway, 1994; Yau & Chan, 1990). Murphy (1985, p.155) claims that as a result countries were “lured…into the business with little forethought concerning a viable tourism product, the social and environmental consequences of development, or the spill over effects in surrounding areas”.

The approach to tourism development was essentially myopic both in terms of economic objectives, which were seen to be a self-justifying end, and in terms of planning (Archer, 1997; Coccossis, 1996; Goeldner, 1992; Lickorish & Jenkins, 1997; McKercher, 1992; Murphy, 1985; Spanoudis, 1982). The rapid pace and confidence associated with tourism activity often meant that responses to impacts were matched by ad hoc responses reflecting the optimism (Bosselman, Peterson, Craig & McCarthy, 1999; Briassoulis, 2002; Hall, 1998; Cooper & Jackson, 1989; Young, Richins & Rugimbana, 1993). Little if any thought was given to the structured development of destinations and the idea of such planning was an unpopular idea (French, Craig-Smith & Collier, 1995; Gunn, 1988). Where planning was utilised it was perceived as simply a process to select a hotel or resort site, ensure there was transportation access to the area, and to organise a tourist promotional campaign (Inskeep, 1991). The WTO (1994, p.iix) note that “These uncontrolled developments may have brought some short-term economic benefits but over the long term have resulted in environmental and social problems and poor quality tourist destinations…it is obviously better to plan for controlled development initially, and prevent problems from arising in the first place”.

45 3.1.1 Tourism Planning

Planning essentially refers to thinking and making decisions about current and future activity (Ackoff, 1970; Bryson & Einsweiler, 1988; Koontz, 1958; Lang, 1986; Ozbekhan, 1969; Sawyer, 1983; Snyder & Glueck, 1980; Steiner, 1969; van Gunsteren, 1976; Wilkinson, 1997). Physical planning is a practice that has taken place for centuries (Gunn, 1994), and Mason and Leberman (2000) claim that modern physical or urban planning can be traced back at least two hundred years to the United Kingdom, where town planning emerged as the population became increasingly urbanised and industrialized, and the associated environmental and social problems escalated.

While physical planning is still primarily concerned with residential, commercial and industrial land uses there has been a move away from the preparation of ‘master’ plans which are seen to be too rigid and not feasible to implement over an extended period (Butler & Hall, 1998; Healey, 1997; Inskeep, 1991). More recent approaches focus on planning as an ongoing, flexible process, conducted incrementally with continuous monitoring and feedback on the effects of implementation, in order to influence decision making for the next stage of development (Inskeep, 1991; Mason & Leberman, 2000). In this context planning is increasingly encompassing a wider range of considerations, including environmental protection, commercial and corporate interests and public opinion, which have previously been considered outside a physical planners domain (Dredge, 1999). Gunn (1994) further supports the move towards ‘new’ planning and notes that a broader and more effective planning philosophy is being employed and frequently terms such as public involvement, participatory planning, grass roots planning, and integrative planning are being linked to modern planning. Lang (1986) describes this as a ‘learning adaptive model of planning’ and suggests it is capable of creating a sense of commonality which may motivate actors to seek new forms of collaborative action; and in turn build capacity to respond effectively to changes as well as generate change when necessary.

46 In the context of tourism, planning broadly refers to the anticipation and regulation of change to mitigate negative development issues through the promotion of orderly development and increasing the social, economic and environmental benefits of tourism to an area, while satisfying the needs of residents and guests (French et al, 1995; Inskeep, 1991, 1988; Jansen-Verbeke, 1992; Jenkins, 1991; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Murphy, 1985; Timothy, 1999; van Harssel, 1994). It can also be viewed as a decision-making and organizational process for determining and designing preferred future tourism development (Chadwick, 1971; Fridgen, 1991; Haywood, 1988; Inskeep, 1991; Poon, 1993; Veal, 1994). The experiences of early tourism destinations highlight the fact that completely unregulated or unplanned tourism development will almost certainly lead to the degradation of the physical and social resource base upon which tourism and the destination community depends (Butler, 1980; Doxey, 1975; Formica & Uysal, 1996; Gunn, 1994; Hall, 2000; Inskeep, 1991; Lundberg, 1972; Manning & Dougherty, 2000; Smith, 1992; Veal, 1994). Therefore destinations with carefully planned development are likely to experience the most success in terms of high tourist satisfaction level, positive economic benefits, and minimal negative impacts on the local social, economic, and physical environments (Timothy, 1999). In this context a tourism destination is broadly defined as a physical space in which a visitor spends at least one night and includes tourism products such as support services and attractions (WTO, 2004). Destinations may further be defined by geographical or political boundaries (Bieger, 1998; Capenerhurst, 1994; Pearce, 1989).

Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1971) identify a number of reasons why public authorities might instigate tourism planning including; to launch or develop the tourism industry in an area with the objective of the plan being to initially assess opportunities for tourism development; to organise regional development around an existing resort and/or to protect resources; to control spontaneous development by individual entrepreneurs; to protect and enhance the resources of the area; and, to integrate tourism development into the overall policies of regional and economic planning. Hall (1998, p.244) reiterates the importance of integrating tourism within the wider planning process in order to “promote

47 certain goals of economic, social and environmental enhancement or maximisation that may be achieved through appropriate tourism development”.

The processes and techniques of planning have had to adapt to ever increasing rates of political, social, cultural, economic and environmental change and as such there has been a significant evolution in tourism planning paradigms from narrow concerns with physical planning and promotion to a more balanced form that recognises the need for greater community involvement and environmental sensitivity (Getz 1987; Gunn, 1977; Inskeep 1991; Murphy 1985; Pearce, 1989; Timothy, 1999; Tosun & Jenkins, 1998). The various tourism planning approaches have been described in terms of evolutions of government policy (Airey, 1983; Cooper, 1995; Din, 1992; Getz, 1986; Godfrey, 1996; Hall, 1998; Lundberg, 1972), platforms (Jafari, 1990), and as a series of methodologies developed in response to dissatisfaction with planning efforts (Jain, 2000; Tosun & Jenkins, 1998). Based on the traditions of tourism planning originally proposed by Getz (1986) and further conceptualised by Hall (2000), five approaches to tourism planning are considered: economic, physical, environmental, community and sustainable.

Table 3.1: Overview of the Evolution of Tourism Planning Time Tosun & Hall (1998) Jafari (1990) Getz (1986) / Current Study frame Jenkins (1998) Hall (2000) 1950- Unplanned Streamlining Advocacy Boosterism Economic 1960s development of policies era 1960- Supply Marketing and - Economic Physical 1970s oriented supply 1970- Demand - Cautionary Physical and Environmental 1980s oriented spatial 1980- Integrated - Knowledge- Community Community 1990s based 1990- Collaborative Pubic- private Public Sustainable Sustainable 2000… partnerships platform

Jafari (1990) proposes a series of platforms, which encapsulate the evolving perspectives of tourism and it’s associated impacts. The first is considered the advocacy platform, which arose following World War II where economic reconstruction and expansion of tourism underpinned favorable views of tourism development. The cautionary platform

48 emerged in the early 1970s and challenged the advocacy platform with the negative consequences of tourism. Sociologists and anthropologists began to criticize the overt emphasis on tourism economics and this spawned a major increase in academic research on tourism. The third platform, adaptancy, which arose in the 1980s addressed alternative forms of tourism and focused on new, green, responsible, and soft tourism which was argued to have fewer negative impacts. Jafari’s (1990) final platform is the knowledge based platform which, arising in the 1990s aims to position itself on a body of knowledge and learn from the mistakes of the past. However Jafari (1990) does add the caveat that no one platform has replaced another and all can be found concurrently in the tourism literature.

3.1.1.1 Economic Approach to Tourism Planning

The economic approach is recognized as not only one of the first approaches to tourism planning, but is said to have been the dominant tradition towards tourism development and planning since the early 1960s (Getz, 1986). Depicted by Getz (1986) as ‘boosterism’, it is based on the ‘simplistic’ assumption that tourism development is inherently good and of automatic benefit to the hosts so little if any attention is given to the negative impacts of tourism activity. This can be attributed to the fact that a tourism destination’s success is invariably measured in terms of economic returns, and is based on the assumption that cultural and natural resources are commodities to be utilised for tourism development (Kaiser & Helber, 1978).

Under the economic tradition, tourism is seen as an industry which can be used as a tool by governments to achieve certain goals of economic growth and restructuring, with planning emphasizing the economic impacts of tourism and its most efficient use to create income and employment benefits for regions or communities. One of the main characteristics of the economic approach is the use of marketing to attract the type of visitor who will provide the greatest economic benefit to the destination, given the destination’s specific tourist resources. Getz (1986) actually describes this approach as a form of ‘non-planning’ as where planning does occur it focuses on forecasting tourism

49 demand for the sole purpose of promotion and development as opposed to ensuring levels of demand are appropriate to the resources and social carrying capacity of a region. In retrospect the emphasis on this type of tourism planning can be attributed to the fact that it evolved in a period where the positives of tourism were highly publicised and neither the tourists nor the host community were aware or yet had reason to be concerned about the impacts of tourism (Bhatia, 1986; Krippendorf, 1982; Murphy, 1985).

3.1.1.2 Physical Approach to Tourism Planning

Considered to have evolved alongside the economic approach, the physical (or land-use) planning approach reflected a supply orientation towards development due to high levels of tourist demand (Baud-Bovy, 1982; Choy, 1991). As with the economic, the physical approach also demonstrated a lack of understanding or unwillingness to consider the negative impacts of tourism development. Most tourism development plans were based around detailed surveys and appraisals of the physical resources of the destination; primarily concerned with land use planning for specific resort complexes, hotels and visitor areas (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1971). Destination resources were carefully analysed and combined with market surveys to produce an attractive image of future tourism development, defining the necessary infrastructures and pointing out favourable locations for the various facilities which was primarily for the benefit of investors and developers (Baud-Bovy, 1982; Choy, 1991; Getz, 1986; Godfrey, 1996). In this way planning became isolated, site-specific and non-integrated ventures, with little or no concern about possible spin-off effects of proposals and projects on adjacent areas or environments (Murphy, 1985).

Later approaches to physical planning reflected a growing recognition of tourism’s ecological base and the need for development to be based upon certain spatial patterns that would minimise the negative impacts of tourism on the physical environment. To address the natural resources of a region and the capacity or limitations of sites to withstand tourism infrastructure the concepts of physical and social carrying capacity, environmental thresholds and acceptable or desirable rates of change became an issue

50 (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998). Based on the work of geographers and land-use planners, tourism planners sought to manipulate travel patterns by concentrating or dispersing tourists in specific areas (Doswell, 1997; Hall et al, 1997; Pearce, 1989). While these plans did begin to address the natural resources and travel patterns that occur within a tourism destination, they failed to give attention to all attributes of the destination.

3.1.1.3 Environmental Approach to Tourism Planning

While the physical approach provided some early considerations of the impact of tourism activity on the destinations natural resources, the environmental approach to tourism planning gained force as the effects of tourism activity became tangible and recognisable (Krippendorf, 1982). As the global conservation movement of the late 1960s and 1970s gained momentum, tourism as a highly visible industry came under close scrutiny for its impacts on the environment. During this period attention was forced away from a purely economic and physical planning focus and began to address environmental concerns (Godfrey, 1996). Host communities were forced to come to terms with the irreversible and damaging effects of tourism on the environment, particularly in the larger tourist areas where the negative effects of tourism on the environment had become very visible: haphazard and unplanned building and settlement, architectural destruction of the landscape, and the disturbance of the balance of nature (Krippendorf, 1982).

Throughout this phase the relative failure of the previous planning approaches which had focused heavily on the positives of tourism became evident and led to the development of a more comprehensive planning approach which recognised the importance of external ramifications and where possible the need to accommodate them (Choy, 1991; Edington & Edington, 1986; Romeril, 1989; Smith & Jenner, 1989). The environment in most cases is the tourism product and people travel to an attraction or destination because of its climate, its scenic beauty, or its manmade attractions (Kaiser & Helber, 1978). It was realised that if the environment were overly degraded, tourists would no longer visit and that it would therefore be in the best interests of the industry to protect the environment in order to protect their livelihood. In an attempt to build suitable interactions between

51 tourists and the natural environment, Ocko (1990) claims that environmentally sensitive, responsible, low-impact, alternative and ecotourism emerged as some of the new labels that allow for ‘guilt-free’ travel (Chapter Two, section 2.3.1).

3.1.1.4 Community Approach to Tourism Planning

In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, as the numbers of tourists grew it was acknowledged that not only was tourism having irreversible and damaging effects to the natural environment, but it was also harming host communities and cultures. Tourism’s potential as an economic force had been seized upon by government at all levels, but the result has been top down planning and promotion that left destinations with little input over their own destinies (Murphy, 1985). In addition, local residents while suffering the negative impacts of tourism activity often did not receive any of the positive economic returns of tourism. As Akis, Peristianis and Warner (1996, p.481) note, “governments, perhaps persuaded by foreign entrepreneurs assurance of streets paved with gold, took little trouble to consult with local residents”. The community approach to tourism planning recognised the need to develop more socially acceptable guidelines for tourism expansion while also addressing the need for local control over the development process (Murphy, 1985). Considered a form of ‘bottom up’ planning, residents are the focal point of the tourism planning exercise rather than the tourists, and the community, which is often equated with a region of local government, is regarded as the basic planning unit (Hall, 1998).

One of the key components of the community approach is the notion that in satisfying local needs it may also be possible to satisfy the needs of the tourist, as tourism more than any other industry relates to the total community, as it is a feature or combination of features of that community that attracts tourists (Blank, 1989; Gunn, 1994; Hall, 1998; McIntosh & Goeldner, 1986). The community approach to tourism planning stemmed from the recognition that the community, and indeed a range of stakeholder groups should participate in the tourism planning process. This concept is further discussed in section 3.3 of this chapter.

52 3.1.1.5 Sustainable Approach to Tourism Planning

While reflecting the growing international debate on sustainable development generally (Chapter Two), the sustainable approach to tourism planning in effect began to draw together the distinctive approaches of the economic, physical, environmental, and community approaches to tourism planning (Potts & Harrill, 1998). This is due to the fact that sustainable development has the primary objective of providing lasting and secure livelihoods, which minimise resource depletion, environmental degradation, cultural disruption and social instability (Hall, 1998; Page & Thorn, 1997). Sustainable development has also been advocated for the tourism sector as a possible solution to the environmental and social degradation of the industry’s resources and due to the fact that tourism is a resource industry which is dependent on nature’s endowment and society’s heritage (Murphy, 1994).

The sustainable approach to tourism planning is based on a set of fundamental principles and prerequisites including cooperation, industry coordination, consumer awareness of sustainable and non-sustainable options, the preservation of ecological processes, protection of human heritage and biodiversity and sustained productivity over the long term for future generations (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Dutton & Hall, 1989). The two that have been identified as the most crucial (Simpson, 2001), and are the most relevant to this study, are strategic planning that incorporates stakeholder participation and collaboration. These will be discussed in section 3.2 and 3.3.

The move towards strategic tourism destination planning was investigated by Cooper (1995) who identified stages in the evolution of strategic planning in the offshore islands of the United Kingdom (Table 3.2). Cooper concluded from his study that “the prevailing philosophy of sustainable tourism development in the 1990s is being reflected in the adoption of strategic planning at many destinations”; evidenced by the strategic initiatives been implemented in response to the changing problems facing the industry (Cooper, 1995, p.194). Further it was found that the experience of the islands demonstrates that the strategic planning process is a difficult one for tourist destinations

53 as they do not function in the same way as companies and therefore other considerations have to be built into the process- in particular consideration of the differing stakeholders values and opinions.

Table 3.2: Evolution of Strategic Tourism Destination Planning Stage Characteristics and Initiatives Stage 1: Unplanned period • Predates formal tourist boards (prior to 1935) • Official tourist policy replacing private initiatives and local chamber of commerce publicity Stage 2: Annual plans, • Development of annual plans, budgets and some early strategies budgets and early • Implementation of public sector tourist boards strategies (post World War II) Stage 3: Strategic • Strategies developed, funded and led by public sector boards planning (from 1980s • Strategies reactive- crisis management- perceived threats onwards) • Characterised by top down management and minimal consultation Source: Cooper, 1995

3.1.1.6 Which Tourism Planning Approach in Practice?

While the above discussion alludes to a chronological progression with one planning approach superceding its predecessor, as suggested by some authors (Table 3.1), others have claimed that in reality this is not the case (Jafari, 2005, 1990). Due to the economic benefits generated by tourism activity Getz (1987, 1986) notes that the economic approach is still practiced in many countries and destinations, further claiming that adopting an economic focus is when the real damage to the environment occurs. According to Getz (1987, p.10), “Boosterism is still practiced and always will be, by two groups of people: politicians who philosophically or pragmatically believe that economic growth is always to be promoted and by others who will gain financially by tourism. They will go on promoting it until the evidence mounts that they

54 have run out of resources to exploit, that the real or opportunity costs are too high, or that political opposition to growth can no longer be countered. By then the real damage has usually been done”.

More recent work by Hall (1998) supports Getz’s notion that economic goals are given priority over social and ecological issues and economic motivations are still foremost in tourism planning. Simpson (2001) however, finds that while elements of each approach can still be discerned in contemporary tourism development processes, it is possible to detect an increasingly common adherence to sustainable tourism planning, through the adoption of strategic planning principles (Cooper, 1995).

3.2 Strategic Planning as a Contributor to Sustainable Tourism

Strategic planning is recognized as one of the most important contributors to the sustainable tourism planning approach (Dutton & Hall, 1989; Hall, 2000; Simpson, 2001). While tourism planning per se has been utilized in various forms and based on a variety of approaches (section 3.1.1), the sustainable approach to tourism planning requires destinations to move beyond traditional planning approaches and engage in longer term strategic planning. Strategic planning is a widely accepted organizational management technique that offers theories and concepts, which can be applied to strategic planning in the context of a tourism destination.

3.2.1 The Strategic Planning Concept

The strategic planning concept reputedly evolved from studies of warfare in B.C. times where military strategies were formulated with the aim of exploiting competitors’ weaknesses through objectives, missions and plans, to achieve an advantageous situation and ultimately win the battle (David, 1999; Eden & Ackerman, 1998; Joyce & Woods, 1996; Macmillan & Tampoe, 2000; Makridakis, 1990; Oliver, 2001; Quinn, Mintzberg & James, 1988). This resonates with modern applications of the concept as Porter (1996, p.62) defines strategy as, “the creation of a unique and valuable position, involving a

55 different set of activities...to choose activities that are different from rivals”. It is effectively a pattern of purposes, policies, programs, actions, decisions or resource allocations that define what an organisation is, what it does and why it does it (Ansoff, 1988; Bryson, 1995; Campbell, Stonehouse & Houston, 1999; Chandler, 1962; Hart, 1992).

Modern thinking on business strategy was first applied in the United States and Europe in the late 1950s and 1960s as cultural, economic and political events began to change the dynamics and demands of the marketplace, forcing organizations to reconsider their practices and products (Ansoff, 1979; Forster & Browne, 1996; Fredrickson, 1990; Joyce & Woods, 1996; Macmillan & Tampoe, 2000). The solution was seen to lie in strategic planning- a rational, analytical thought process, taking into account the opportunities offered by the environment, the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation, culminating in a detailed specification of both the long-term aims of the organisation and the specific strategy for achieving these aims (Abell, 1980; Ansoff, Declerck & Hayes, 1976; Heracleous, 1998; Hussey, 1999; Kotler, Adam, Brown & Armstrong, 2001). Strategic planning has been described as “a comprehensive plan of action that sets a critical direction, and guides the allocation of resources to achieve long term objectives” (Schermerhorn, 1996, p.160).

The concept of strategic planning is a cornerstone of conventional management theory. It has proven to be an essential prerequisite for successful organisations (Miller & Cardinal, 1994) since the 1960s when the Harvard Business School developed the first of numerous strategic planning models (Andrews, 1971; Ansoff, 1991, 1988; Chandler, 1962; Drucker, 1955; Dyson, 1990; Evans, 2000; Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993; Kotler, Haider & Rein, 1993; Macmillan & Tampoe, 2000; Miles & Snow, 1978; Mintzberg, 1990; Phillips & Moutinho, 2000; Porter, 1990, 1985, 1980; Steiner, 1979; Whittington, 2001). The vast body of literature on strategic planning has not led to a single school of strategic thought or to an agreed set of concepts that will work well in all circumstances (Camillus, 1996; Eden & Ackerman, 1998; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). However there is some level of agreement that there are a number of

56 different types of strategy that can be applied to manage both internal and external environments and that strategic planning involves the formulation of long-term goals followed by the allocation of resources to achieve these goals (Chandler, 1962; David, 1999; Ginter & Duncan, 1990; Helms & Wright, 1992; Macmillan & Tampoe, 2000; Porter, 1987).

A strategic plan will usually describe the present and planned directions and priorities, consider the scope or domain of action within which the organisation will try to achieve its objectives, while taking into account the skills, resources or distinctive competencies to be used to achieve its objectives. In addition it is considered necessary to address within the plan the advantages that the organisation expects to achieve vis-à-vis its competitors through its skills and resource deployments; and the synergies that will result from the ways the organisation deploys its skills and resources (Birla, 2000; Bryson, 1995; Schendel & Hofer, 1979). The concept of stakeholders is important in strategic planning (Eden & Ackerman, 1998), and as Simpson (2001) finds, a strategic planning approach should identify critical stakeholder values, use these values to articulate a broad vision for the future, establish generic goals which will contribute to a realization of vision, establish specific objectives to bridge the gap between current status and generic goals, and assign priorities, responsibility and control systems to monitor implementation effectiveness.

Vision, mission statements, and goals and objectives are all important components of the traditional strategic planning process (Covin, Slevin & Schultz, 1994; David, 1989; Graham & Havlick, 1994; Mintzberg & Quinn, 1996; Pearce, 1982; Pearce & David, 1987; Richards, 1986). However the concept of vision is most relevant to this study. Vision can be expressed as a picture or description of the nature of the organisation’s business as it is intended to be at some time in the future (Hussey, 1999; Korac- Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1998; Nanus, 1992; Wolf & Gering, 1998). Generating an organizational vision has generally been viewed as the capacity of a chief executive officer or other ‘visionary leader’, with the vision expected to guide the organization and sustain it during turbulent times (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Brache & Freedman, 1999;

57 Camillus, Sessions & Webb, 1998; Frisch, 1998; Gupta, 1984; Westley, 1992; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). As such vision is seen as created in the mind of a leader and followers will react positively to it when it reflects their values, shows an ideal future, and provides direction for future behaviour (Nanus, 1992; Thoms & Greenberger, 1998). In reaction to criticisms of the traditional strategic planning process, namely its structure and inability to deal with the unpredictability of the real world, the concept of vision has evolved to that of an emergent and collective process for long-term planning (Mintzberg, 1994). It was also realised that creating a sense of purpose through a shared vision can bind people together and propel them to fulfil their, and ideally the organizations, aspirations (Mintzberg et al, 1998; Nutt & Backoff, 1997; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross & Smith, 1994; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). The concept of strategic visioning is further explored in Chapter Four.

3.2.1.1 Public Sector Applications of Strategic Planning

Although typically the domain of the private sector, the public and non-profit sectors also utilise strategic planning in an attempt to understand their external and internal contexts and to develop effective strategies to link the two and respond effectively to changes in their environments (Berry & Wechsler, 1995; Bryson, 1995; David, 1999; Wortman, 1979). While traditionally concerned with policy, resources and program management (Allison, 1979), public agencies, like other complex organisations, operate in turbulent environments that impose numerous, rapidly changing demands, requiring substantial adaptive capacity (Gargan, 1993; Nutt & Backoff, 1992; Wechsler & Backoff, 1987). However while the private sector is oriented towards action in pursuit of profit, public sector planning is more focused on advocating broader and more diverse participation in the planning process, understanding its stakeholders, and determining the opportunities and threats to a community (Bracker, 1980; Bryson, Van de Ven, & Roering 1986; Denhardt 1985; Eadie 1983; Gregory & Keeney, 1994; Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993; Quinn, 1980; Rubin, 1998).

58 One of the greatest challenges facing public sector planning resonates with tourism destination planning and that is the diversity of stakeholders that public organisations must involve in decision-making and implementation phases of strategic planning. As opposed to the more defined stakeholder groups of the private sector such as shareholders, employees, and customers, in the public sector the focus of attention is on how to organise collective thought and strategic action within a network in which no one person, group, organisation, or institution is fully in charge (Nutt & Backoff, 1995, 1992). It is considered more difficult to organise an effective strategic planning process when dealing with shared power, and in the public sector, effective strategic planning is a collective phenomenon typically involving a diverse set of stakeholders, sponsors, champions, facilitators, teams, and task forces in various ways and at a various times (Bryson, 1995; Bryson & Roering, 1987). This diversity also makes it more difficult to identify strategic issues and objectives to satisfy all stakeholders (Bower, 1977; Whorton & Worthley, 1981). Although time consuming, attention must be given to all stakeholder groups as the key for success in public organisations is the satisfaction of these groups to ensure they adopt the strategies and support implementation. The issue of stakeholders is further addressed in section 3.3.3.1 of this chapter.

3.2.2 Strategic Tourism Destination Planning

The scope of strategy and strategic planning can be extended to destinations, which are not organisations, but rather a complex mix of individuals, enterprises and natural and built environments (Haywood, 1990; Haywood & Walsh, 1996; Heath & Wall, 1992; Tribe, 1997). Despite the differences, strategic planning is not dissimilar to that of the private sector as it attempts to answer the questions of: Where are we now? Where do we want to get to? How do we get there? (Hall, 2000).

Tourism destination strategic planning involves making a sequence of choices and decisions about the deployment of resources committing a destination to a future course of action (Brownlie, 1994). It requires a deliberate, integrative and formalised plan which will permit the destination to adapt quickly to changing situations and develop

59 information, planning and control systems to monitor and respond to this change (Chon & Olsen, 1990; Cooper, 1995). Strategic planning at a destination level also involves identifying participants in the planning process, establishing structures for undertaking the process, formulating a vision, mission statements and objectives, and agreeing on a timeframe for the completion of the various planning stages (Haywood, 1990; Keane, Ó Cinnéide & Cunningham, 1996).

In the specific context of a tourism destination, strategic planning should be designed to develop tourism optimally, in terms of local income, employment generation and maintaining local control, while minimising the negative effects of tourism development on the environment and social fabric of the community (Atherton, 1992; Butler & Waldbrook, 1991; Fletcher & Cooper, 1996; Gunn, 1988; Inskeep, 1991; Theobald, 1994; Timothy, 1999).

Hall (2000) notes that strategy in the case of sustainable tourism planning and development seeks to achieve conservation of tourism resource values, enhanced experiences of the visitors who interact with tourism resources; and the maximisation of the economic, social and environmental returns to stakeholders in the host community. The process will involve physically developing: a comprehensive and integrated plan of action for tourism at the destination; a clearly articulated set of goals and objectives which provide the focus for the plan of action; the establishment of systems for monitoring and evaluating progress towards goals and objectives; and, an approach to planning which assesses the existing and anticipated opportunities and threats within the environment (Faulkner, 1994).

3.2.2.1 Process Benefits and Challenges

There are a number of benefits and motivations for adopting a strategic approach to tourism destination planning. It has been said that a strategic plan provides a sense of purpose, ownership and support for both the industry and the public sector, which can lead to a framework for cooperative action and policies (Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur,

60 1998). Importantly it also emphasizes the need for both short and long term objectives which can accommodate changing circumstances, and which the sector can be judged against in the future (Cooper, 1995; Faulkner, 1994; Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur, 1998).

However the complex nature of tourism destinations offers a number of strategic planning challenges and as a result Cooper (1995) claims that strategic tourism destination planning is still the exception rather than the rule. One inherent challenge is the composition of tourism destinations, with a range of public and competing small to medium sized private sector organizations (Cooper, 1995; Hall, 2000; Mason & Leberman, 2000). This contributes to the challenge of identifying the vast number of stakeholders that must be considered in a strategic planning exercise (Farrell, 1999). The diverse nature of destinations has resulted in strategic planning often being put into the ‘too-hard basket’ (Hall et al, 1997). As Cooper (1995, p.192) notes, “[destinations] do not function in the same way as companies and therefore other considerations have to be built into the process”.

A further challenge is the tendency towards ad hoc, short-term and tactical tourism planning, particularly by the private sector where success is judged by short-term profitability and volume growth (Athiyaman, 1995; Bozeman & Straussman, 1990; Cooper, 1995; Haywood, 1990; Ring & Perry, 1985). The public sector has traditionally been viewed as responsible for higher-order planning, but they too have been found guilty of lacking a strategic view (Cooper, 1995; Dredge & Moore, 1992; Page & Thorn, 1997). As Jenkins (1991, p.62) notes, “ad hoc responses to tourism opportunities and problems do not constitute a policy for tourism, they merely provide short-term solutions to essentially long-term problems”. Faulkner (1994) reports that in the Australian tourism public sector there has been a fixation with advertising at the expense of a more balanced strategic approach for the destination. Similarly a WTO study of over 1600 tourism related plans found that in the majority of plans, profit was given priority over social aspects and little provision was made for environmental protection (Wilkinson, 1997). A further challenge is that when destinations have been in the growth stages of the destination life cycle, success has obscured the longer- term view, while a declining

61 destination may have difficulty in justifying the overhead costs of an expensive planning exercise (Hall, 2000).

Ritchie (1994) attributes many of these challenges to the use of traditional, prescriptive approaches to strategic planning where the public sector owns the strategy and determines what is best for the destination. He questions whether such an approach is suitable and suggests the need for more dynamic and evolutionary approaches such as destination visioning. This requires the envisioning of a destination image, communicating it to stakeholders and empowering them to enact on the vision. Moutinho (2000) and Page and Thorn (1997) also support the need to look to the future and shape it into a strategic vision. The use of strategic visioning as a destination planning tool is addressed in Chapter Four.

3.3 Stakeholder Participation as a Contributor to Sustainable Tourism

Stakeholder participation is the second identified prerequisite of the sustainable tourism planning approach (Caffyn & Jobbins, 2003; Dutton & Hall, 1989; Hall, 2000; Simpson, 2001). Sustainable development objectives hinge on the adoption of a participatory model, involving the meaningful engagement of the community, along with industry stakeholders and relevant government agencies in the strategic planning process (Faulkner, 2003). Originating from the notions of participatory democracy and citizen empowerment, such an approach sees a move away from government dissemination of decisions towards ‘bottom up’ planning where a broader base of decision makers contribute to tourism planning (Simpson, 2001).

3.3.1 Public Participation in Planning

The quest for a greater degree of public participation in planning, policy and decision- making is considered to be one of the major social movements of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s particularly in countries such as North America and Canada (American Society of Planning Officials, 1956; Burton 1979; Community Planning Association of

62 Canada, 1966; Draper, 1978; Elder, 1975; Gibson, 1975; Sewell & Phillips, 1979). Public participation is effectively a component of the democratic system that permits non-elected members of the community to exercise some control over decisions that affect their lives (Burton, 1979; Wates, 2000), and is based on the recognition that citizens are the best judges of their own interests (Brohman, 1996; Thompson, 1970). It has been viewed as a process of change, growth and learning that builds people’s confidence, capabilities, skills and ability to cooperate, and as a means of arriving at decisions more efficiently (Benwell, 1980; Draper, 1978; Wates, 2000; Williams, Penrose & Hawkes, 1998). Public participation is also credited with creating cohesiveness within a community and overcoming the problems of centrally formed, top-down policies, which have been criticised for favouring dominant stakeholders (Elder, 1975; Roberts & Bradley, 1991; Wates, 2000).

Fagence (1977, p.3) notes, “society dictates that meaningful attempts should be made to reshape the traditional decision-making processes to accommodate strategies of citizen participation, and it has attracted high emotional content so that any denial of opportunities for citizen involvement is challenged as a betrayal of the democratic tradition”. Two worldviews shape the discussion of public participation- elite democracy and participatory democracy (Gibson, 1975). Elite democracy theory is primarily concerned with maintaining a competent and stable government, and public participation is limited to the election of leaders for public office. In contrast participatory democracy theory advocates that the purpose of democracy is to ensure that the individuals who will be affected make decisions, thus requiring collective decision-making leading to an envisioned future by such individuals (Gibson, 1975). While elite and participatory democracy may be at opposite poles, public participation is generally not seen as a replacement of traditional decision-making processes, but as a collaborative partnership with interaction between traditional planners or elected leaders and the general public. Godschalk and Mills (1966) note however that this partnership requires both planners to be open to working with citizens and citizens to be active and competent in planning.

63 It seems obvious that such a process will be fraught with impediments. Authors such as O’Riordan (1978, p.153) claim that mass public participation is idealistic and “in a representative democracy it is impractical and unnecessary; in a political culture with a tradition of elitism, it is out of the question”. It is further claimed that participation will always be a product of the power and value orientations of the dominant political groups and remains a product of established interests and predominantly under their control (Dahl, 1961; Lang, 1986; O’Riordan, 1978; Pretty, 1995). In an attempt to maintain established power decision makers may use token gestures of participation to placate the public’s desire for participation. Arnstein’s (1969) widely cited model of citizen participation in decision-making discusses three levels of participation from an illusion of participation, to various degrees of token participation such as informing, consultation and placation, to empowerment through partnerships, delegated power and citizen control.

Figure 3.1: Ladder of Citizen Participation

8. Citizen Control 7. Delegated Power Degrees of citizen power 6. Partnership 5. Placation 4. Consultation Degrees of tokenism 3. Informing 2. Therapy Nonparticipation 1. Manipulation

Source: Arnstein, 1969

Aside from power, a range of other impediments to public participation have been identified including: the type of involvement a member of the general public can actually have in a participative process; the level and intensity of participation; and, who should participate in the process and to what extent (Almond & Verba, 1965; Milbrath, 1965;

64 Mogulof, 1970; Pretty, 1995; Roberts, 1974; Sproule, 1995). Further challenges relate to the resource requirements and the efficiency of a prolonged and fragmented planning process (Fagence, 1977; Sewell & Phillips, 1979).

Despite the challenges, Simmons (1994) notes that the public’s right to participate in the planning of activities that affect their daily lives has become a widely accepted principle throughout the democratic world. As such the public’s involvement has been sought in planning for a diverse range of issues including urban development, housing, transport, energy, parks and recreation, resources management, and regional development. As tourism has risen in significance and is an industry, which makes such considerable demands on a community’s resources, it too has faced the call for increased public scrutiny and involvement (Seekings, 1980; Simmons, 1994). As Murphy (1985, p.172) states, “public participation as a form of political action has modified existing institutions and planning procedures to affect social change and environmental preservation, so its extension to tourism (as an activity so interwoven with community life) becomes inevitable”.

3.3.2 Community Participation in Tourism Planning

The term community is recognised as contentious and problematic (Bahaire & Elliott- White, 1999; Capenerhurst, 1994; Dalby & Mackenzie, 1997; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999; Joppe, 1996; Long, 1991; Long & Glendinning, 1992; Sofield, 2003; Sproule, 1995; Wilson, 1999), yet for the purposes of this study will be used to refer to the people or residents of a place where tourism occurs (Burr, 1991; Haywood, 1988; Keogh, 1990; Murphy, 1985). Community involvement in planning and decision making for tourism development has become an ideology of tourism planning, akin to the participatory philosophy outlined previously (Fagence, 1977; Murphy, 1988; Smith, 1977; Tosun & Timothy, 2003). Participation in tourism planning reputedly originated in Canada as a result of the difficulties experienced in implementing plans for national parks. These difficulties occurred as there was little or no interaction between the public and officials, and planning decisions were seen by the local people as being imposed from the outside

65 (Keogh, 1990; Long & Glendinning, 1992). Further evidence of the need to involve the public in tourism planning stemmed from the plethora of tourism impact and resident attitude studies conducted on destination host communities (Allen, Hafer, Long & Perdue, 1993; Allen, Long, Perdue & Kieselbach, 1988; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Burns, 1996; Canan & Hennessy, 1989; Davis, Allen & Cosenza, 1988; Dowling, 1993; Doxey, 1975; Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Hernandez, Cohen & Garcia, 1996; Keogh, 1990; King, Pizam & Milman, 1993; Lindberg, Dellaert & Rassing, 1999; Liu, Sheldon & Var, 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; Madrigal, 1993; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Murphy, 1981; Murphy & Andressen, 1988; Pearce, Moscardo & Ross, 1996; Pizam, 1978; Prentice, 1993; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Smith & Krannich, 1998; Um & Crompton, 1987).

The legacy of an overemphasis on economic benefits, with little attention given to negative impacts, has led to what has become a well accepted call for the destination community to be actively involved in the tourism planning and decision making process (section 3.1.1.4) (Ap, 1992; Blackstock, 2005; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Cooke, 1982; Hohl & Tisdell, 1995; McIntyre, 1993; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Murphy, 1985; Oppitz, 1997; Rosenow & Pulsipher, 1979; Simmons, 1994; Simpson, 2001; Tosun & Timothy, 2003). This is based on several premises including the rationale that if residents have to endure the negative impacts that tourism brings, they should be given every opportunity to benefit from the positive impacts, which are generally economic (Haywood, 1988; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Woodley, 1993). Further, residents are regarded as the rightful custodians of an area, and their needs should not be overridden by outside interests (Din, 1993; Marsh & Henshall, 1987; Williams, 2002). As such, overall development goals and priorities should be identified by residents to alleviate the perception of open-ended growth and lack of control as it has been found that when host-tourist encounters sour, the industry has a tendency to deteriorate and negative effects accrue on the community’s social structure (Capenerhurst, 1994; Cooke, 1982; Costa & Ferrone, 1995; D’Amore, 1983; Din, 1993; Go, Milne & Whittles, 1992; Gunn, 1994; Haywood, 1988; Keogh, 1990; Long & Glendinning, 1992; McIntosh & Goeldner, 1986; Potts & Harrill, 1998; Richins, 1995; Woodley, 1993). Murphy (1985, p.153) noted that the tourism industry is

66 like no other as “it relies on the goodwill and cooperation of the local people because they are a component of the destination experiences. Logically if development and planning are at cross purposes with the wishes of the host community, resistance and hostility are likely to occur”.

Ritchie (1993) therefore advocates resident responsive tourism, where those who are affected by tourism development have the opportunity to be involved in the planning and development processes. Such engagement is necessary so that a true consensus on the preferred directions of future development, and the actions necessary to achieve this, can be developed (Faulkner, 2003). Consequently the tourism planning process would attempt to reinforce positive and mitigate negative impacts by taking into consideration the needs of both the tourists and the resident population. Such an approach recognises that the opinions, perspectives and recommendations of non-industry stakeholders are just as legitimate as those of the planner or the industry ‘expert’. Gunn (1994) similarly claims that planning is too important to be left to the planners, and that planning must encompass a wide constituency, with the role of the planner being to bring all of the divergent parties together and to help them see how their particular interests are involved in the development of the tourism destination (Go et al, 1992).

3.3.3 Stakeholder Participation in Tourism Planning

Sustainable tourism requires destination planning, development and decision-making to be cross-sectional and integrated. While the public participatory approaches primarily advocate the involvement of the community, a sustainable tourism planning approach requires a wide range of stakeholder participation to be canvassed in relation to future tourism development (Potts & Harrill, 1998; Ritchie & Jay, 1999; Simpson, 2001; Smith, 1984; Walsh, Jamrozy & Burr, 2001). In the organizational context a stakeholder is defined as any group or individual that can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organisation’s objectives and/or anyone who have or believe they have a vested interest or can claim legitimate ownership and rights in a corporation’s activities (Clarkson, 1995; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1999, 1984; Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Jones

67 & Wicks, 1999; Lang, 1986; Starik 1994; Winn, 2001). It is acknowledged in this context that failing to incorporate participation from all stakeholder groups will result in the failure of an organization (Clarkson, 1995; Sautter & Leisen, 1999).

Stakeholder theory was pioneered by Freeman (1984), who suggested that an organization is characterised by its relationships with various groups and individuals; including employees, customers, suppliers, governments and members of the community. The underlying premise of stakeholder theory is that firms are required to acknowledge that stakeholders are persons or groups with legitimate interests in the organization, which must be recognised whether or not the organization has any interest in the stakeholder (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jones, 1995; Sautter & Leisen, 1999). Freeman (1984, p.46) notes that, “to be an effective strategist, you must deal with those groups that can affect you, while to be responsive, you must deal with those groups you can affect”, and stakeholder theory recognises that various groups can and should have a direct influence on managerial decision making (Sautter & Leisen, 1999; Timur & Getz, 2002). Stakeholder theory has been considered a useful approach to address the principles of sustainable tourism planning (Bramwell & Sharman 1999; Costa, 2001; Gee & Fayos- Sola, 1997; Roberts & Simpson, 2000; Robinson, 1999; Sadler, 2004; Timur & Getz, 2002; von Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003).

3.3.3.1 Tourism Destination Stakeholders

As with general business settings, tourism destinations have a variety of stakeholder groups that must be consulted in all stages of planning and decision-making. The co- existence of multiple stakeholders is one of the defining characteristics of a tourism destination, with stakeholders in a destination both competing and collaborating (Aas et al, 2005; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Buhalis & Cooper, 1998; Laws, 1995; Laws et al, 2002; WTO, 2004). These stakeholders may include: the government (international, national, regional and local); government departments with links to tourism; international, national, regional and local tourism organizations; tourism developers and entrepreneurs, tourism industry operators; non-tourism business practitioners, and the

68 community including local community groups, indigenous people’s groups and local residents (Brown, 1991; Burns, 1998; Farrell, 1986; Freeman 1984; Roberts & Simpson, 2000; Sautter & Leisen, 1999; Simpson, 2001; Wahab & Pigram, 1997). For the purposes of this study three broad stakeholder groups will be examined: the government, tourism industry and the resident community of the destination.

The tourism sector unquestionably requires planning and management and this is often viewed as the responsibility of the relevant government authority of the destination. Government involvement originally stemmed from an interest in tourism’s economic advantages, and as Middleton (1974) finds, governments justified their intervention in tourism to capitalise on the taxes paid by organizations, the indirect taxes paid by visitors and the employment tourism generated. Government’s have been active in the development and promotion of towns, regions and countries (Ashworth & Goodall, 1990; Bramwell, 1994; Charlton & Essex, 2000; Faulkner, 1994; Joppe, 1996; Laws et al, 2002; Murphy, 1985), but over time, their involvement has extended beyond economic concerns and revenue generation to address the physical and social ramifications of tourism activity. As the negative impacts of tourism began to overshadow the positive, and anti-tourism sentiment grew, government level planning was instigated in an attempt to control tourism development and mitigate the undesirable socio-economic and environmental impacts (Inskeep, 1988).

The public sector is generally considered to be the most appropriate body to lead the move towards developing more sustainable forms of tourism. This is due to the fact that it usually has a mandate to represent the whole population, not just particular interest groups or stakeholders; it is seen to be impartial without commercial interests and because it is not constrained by short term financial objectives it should be able to take a longer term view (Swarbrooke, 1998). However the government has received numerous criticisms for its management of the tourism industry. One of the main criticisms is that governments have imposed top-down planning on the tourism destination and have failed to adopt truly participative processes (Cooper, 1995; Keogh, 1990; Molotch, 1976; Murphy, 1985; Reid & Sindiga, 1999). Governments have also received criticism for

69 their lack of will to implement planning and policy, with Vogel and Swanson (1988) noting that government resources are limited and policies are made incrementally with little overall direction or coordination and elected officials will often take a short-term view to get re-elected. Go et al (1992) also see the lack of political will as a common failing in strategy implementation and claim that this is often the biggest single deterrent to tourism development, particularly at the community level. Additionally Madrigal (1995, p.87) finds that “the political organisation of most communities is often dominated by individuals benefiting either directly from a specific development alternative (property owners, investors) or indirectly as a result of overall growth (realtors, bankers, property owners)”, and advocates the need to dismantle the local growth machine in favour of more participatory planning.

Despite its inefficiencies, the various levels of government are generally recognised as the best equipped to administer the tourism planning process, particularly when their comprehensive organisational structure is contrasted with the factional and fragmented nature of the tourism industry (Simpson, 2001; Timur & Getz, 2002). Akis et al (1996) also note that some degree of government control may be necessary to prevent too dense a concentration of development, or the grosser forms of environmental degradation. In addition, strong leadership is imperative to coordinate the wide range of diverging concerns, address distorted balances of power, and implement future oriented strategies (Trousdale, 1999). However, this control should not supersede cooperation and collaboration with other stakeholder groups.

Local government in particular has a key role to play in tourism destination planning and management, often because it is at the local level where the impacts of tourism are felt most acutely and it is the local authority that deals with land use planning (Bouquet & Winter, 1987; Conlin, 1996; Dredge & Moore, 1992; Farrell, 1986; Godfrey, 1998; Hunter, 1995; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999; Joppe, 1996; Kemp, 1992; Madrigal, 1995; McKercher & Ritchie, 1997; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995; Pearce, 1989; Simmons, 1994; Walzer, Deller, Fossum, Green, Gruidl, Johnson, Kline, Patton, Schumaker & Woods, 1995). Timothy (1998) claims that planning for tourism development usually

70 requires critical, local knowledge, something that is often lacking in large, distant capital cities among leaders who are less familiar with regional cultures and local conditions. However local government officials often find themselves in a quandary when it comes to planning for tourism development because conflicts of interest frequently arise over how land will be developed (Madrigal, 1995; Williams et al, 1998), with Canan and Hennessy (1989) noting that conflict generally arises where the local governmental authority often favours a small elite pro-growth coalition. Additionally local authorities are not required to look at the wider implications of development outside their boundaries when making planning decisions and as a result the implications for the regional tourism product can be ignored, and the view of tourism intrinsically local and internally focused (Dredge & Moore, 1992).

The private sector operators of the tourism industry are often viewed as the villains in tourism, due to the perception that they are solely concerned with their profits and as a result adopt short-term perspectives (Swarbrooke, 1998). The industry has been fortunate in that most tourism planning has been oriented toward business interests and economic growth, with the prime motive being commercial and economic gain, both on the part of the private sector entrepreneurs and governments (Doswell, 1997; Murphy, 1985). As a result criticisms have been leveled at how the industry develops the physical and tangible elements of its product and even through to its specific business operations (Mair, Reid & Taylor, 2000; Swarbrooke, 1998). However despite the criticisms, it is the private sector that provides the vast majority of infrastructure and services that the tourism destination relies upon, and in this respect has a significant role to play in the move towards more sustainable forms of tourism.

Cooperative alliances between public and private sector stakeholders have been cited as necessary to effectively address development impacts and plan for sustainable tourism (Fagence, 1996; Jamal & Getz, 2000; Janssen, Kiers & Nijkamp, 1995; Timothy, 1998). According to Cooper, Fletcher, Gilbert and Wanhill (1993, p.130) “the development of tourism will not be optimal if it is left in the hands of private sector entrepreneurs, for they are motivated by profit and loss. However, if tourism development is dominated by

71 the public sector then it is unlikely to be developed at the optimal rate from the economic point of view. Therefore it is imperative that private and public sector involvement in tourism planning is balanced to ensure a sustainable balance is achieved”. Poetschke (1995) recognizes that willing and active cooperation between the public and private sectors is often difficult to achieve due to fundamentally different operating philosophies. However, this cooperation is vital as the public sector depends on private investors to provide services and construct tourist facilities, conversely, private investors require government approval of, and support for, most projects (Timothy, 1998).

The residents of the destination community, as discussed, are considered one of the key stakeholders in tourism planning and decision-making. This has occurred as politicians, government officials and tourism entrepreneurs have tended to overemphasise the economic factors, and overlook the negative environmental and social impacts. It is also claimed that if residents have to endure the negative impacts that tourism brings, they should be given every opportunity to benefit from the positive impacts, which are generally economic (Woodley, 1993). As Simpson (2001) noted, for sustainability to be achieved local residents must be permitted to identify salient issues of concern; be the ones to determine the pace and scale of development and the development must coincide with the community’s aspirations and abilities. However if the community is to be considered a legitimate stakeholder group, then it requires direct and meaningful participation in decision-making to engender a sense of ownership over resulting decisions. With this sense of ownership comes support for its implementation. Importantly residents who concur with the tourism goals and objectives set for their region are more likely to be happy with the outcomes which ensue, and the possibility of sustainable development choices being made will be considerably enhanced (Leslie, Harrison & Logan, 2000; Murphy, 1988, 1981; Williams et al, 1998).

3.3.4 Stakeholder Collaboration in Tourism Planning

The sustainable approach to tourism planning requires a strategic process incorporating the participation and involvement of a variety of destination stakeholders. With such a

72 variety of stakeholders in strategic planning, the issue of cooperation and collaboration between these groups becomes critical and can be a major factor in determining the success of the planning process and ultimately the success of the destination (Minca & Getz, 1995; Murphy, 1985). Many authors have seen public participation as the key to successful tourism planning, however it has been said that a collaborative and cooperative approach, where all stakeholders become party to, and share decision making responsibility for destination planning is more likely to result in acceptable and successful policies and programs (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Brook, 2000, Farrell, 1986; Gunton & Flynn, 1992; Hall, 1999; Maitland, 2002; Minca & Getz, 1995; Tremblay, 2000a). Collaboration is defined as the pooling of resources (information, labour, etc), by two or more autonomous stakeholders, to solve a set of problems, which neither can solve individually (Aldrich, 1976; Gray, 1985). Stakeholders establish these relationships and interactions to address a common issue or problem domain and engage in an interactive process to seek solutions, which go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Gray, 1989; Gray & Wood, 1991; Selin, 1999). Collaboration is essentially an emergent process where groups learn to manage their changing environments with joint ownership of decisions and a collective responsibility for progress (Jamal & Getz, 1995). It can also help stakeholders appreciate their common interests and realize the advantages to be gained by working together as opposed to competing with each other (Williams et al, 1998).

Stakeholder collaboration embraces the participative processes recognised as a core principle of sustainable development, particularly when a wide and representative range of stakeholders from the local community are able to play an active role and strive together for common objectives (Caffyn, 2000; Robinson, 1999; Selin, 1999). Achieving a reasonable degree of consensus on desired directions for tourism development is considered an important ingredient for long-term success (Ritchie, 1988), and as the destination community encompasses multiple, interdependent stakeholders who often hold divergent views on tourism development, collaboration theory is useful for managing tourism related issues at the destination level (Jamal & Getz, 1995; Reed, 1999). It is also noted that as destination areas grow and the associated problems with

73 this increase, government leaders, resource planners and entrepreneurs will be incapable of dealing with the problem if each acts in isolation (Parker, 1999). According to Getz and Jamal (1994), collaboration theory offers insights into a dynamic and flexible process, which provides for joint decision-making through multi-stakeholder involvement within a temporary or longer-term structure. The process requires direct dialogue among participating stakeholders, which has the potential to lead to negotiation, shared decision- making and consensus-building about planning, goals and actions for tourist destinations (Berkes, 1995; Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Richins, 1995).

It is claimed that the ‘go-it-alone’ policies of the past are giving way, as government and public agencies in many developed countries endorse stronger cooperation and collaboration in tourism planning (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Farrell, 1986; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Gunn, 1988; Jamal & Getz, 1995; Miller, 1987; Potts & Harrill, 1998; Williams et al, 1998; Woodley, 1993). However others have noted that despite the abundance of policy statements and documents committing to the approach these examples are still the exception rather than the rule (Brook, 2000; Selin & Beason, 1991; Woodley, 1993).

3.3.4.1 Challenges of Broad Based Stakeholder Participation and Collaboration

Although the concepts of broad based stakeholder participation in tourism planning has been widely advocated in the literature, there have been a number of criticisms about the viability of such an approach (Haywood, 1988; McCaffrey, Faerman & Hart, 1995; Taylor, 1995). Community participation in tourism planning has been described as naïve, unnecessary, unwieldy, time consuming and an idealistic dream (Haywood, 1988; Tremblay, 2000a). The approach has been criticised for its financial costs, time frame, the dilution of power and loss of control over matters previously internal to the industry, the need for education as communities are not equipped to assess and understand tourism development potential, and their apathy towards participation (Almond & Verba, 1965; Blank, 1989; Cole, 1997; Cooper & Hawtin, 1997; de Kadt, 1979; Din, 1993; Douglas, 1989; Federspiel, 1991; Haywood, 1988; Inskeep, 1991; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999;

74 Jenkins, 1993; Krippendorf, 1982; Long, 1991; Madrigal, 1995; McIntyre, 1993; Trousdale, 1999; Vogel & Swanson, 1988; Weaver, 2006; Woodley, 1993).

As with public participation generally, one of the greatest impediments to participation in tourism planning is that it is often a token gesture. A number of studies have found that even where public participation has occurred, tourism planning goals have remained centred on commercial interests and community involvement has been little more than tokenism (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Hall, 1998; Long & Glendinning, 1992; Timothy, 1999; Wall, 1996). Joppe (1996) attributes this to politicians feeling the process threatens their power, as broad based participation and collaboration can alter the power of ‘traditional power holders’ (Blank, 1989; Kelly, 2001). Power can be seen as the ability of a party to impose its will on the relationship (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997), and traditional power holders are often seen as retaining their influence over key decisions and dictating the agenda for development (Reed, 1997). Planning traditionally implies a superior-inferior set, with the superior element being able to plan and impose its will upon the rest of the system (Blank, 1989; Robinson, 1999). Participation may be rationed out to groups but it is done so in the knowledge that the status quo of power is not threatened (Dye, 1986; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999; Melbeck, 1998; Reid & Sindiga, 1999). In such cases participation can be limited to collecting the opinions of stakeholders, which is largely a one-way consultation process with little direct dialogue between the stakeholders and planners (Evans, Fox & Johnson, 1995; Medeiros de Arajo & Bramwell, 1999; Sofield, 2003).

The planning process is highly political and gaining consensus on a rational, comprehensive, long-range tourism plan may be impossible given the divergent interests of the various sectors of a community (Choy, 1991). Bahaire and Elliott-White (1999, p.246) claim that “community involvement, or public participation, in planning remains an ambiguous concept but is fundamentally about degrees of citizen power and influence within the policy-making process”. Other authors have noted that there are naïve assumptions that the planning and policy process is a pluralistic one in which people have equal access to economic and political resources (Joppe, 1996; Reed, 1997). Therefore

75 Getz and Jamal (1994, p.154) argue that it is important to “reconceptualise tourism planning and development as a political process” involving a variety of stakeholders trying to achieve a consensus of objectives.

A further challenge is that it is often assumed that local authorities are appropriate to convene power relations, as they will be neutral arbiters in the land development process. However this is often not the case as the local government usually has a disproportionate influence and degree of power over the process (Reed, 1997; Simpson, 2001). In Reed’s (1997) study of power relations it was found that there were a variety of competing visions for tourism development, struggles over who should make decisions and the traditional power elite used different kinds of tactics to influence the efforts of collaboration and to retain their power base. However it was found that through the commitment of citizen participants, the plan for the development of tourism introduced a much broader vision of community aspiration than would have otherwise been possible (Reed, 1997).

3.4 Chapter Three Summary

The concept of sustainability has had a considerable impact on the philosophy of tourism destination planning. This chapter has examined the identified prerequisites of a sustainable approach to tourism planning: a strategic orientation towards tourism planning and enhanced levels of multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process (Simpson, 2001). The concepts of strategic planning and stakeholder participation, while evolving from two distinct and substantial theoretical underpinnings have become interdependent in attempts to achieve sustainable tourism development. Sustainability not only requires destination planners and managers to engage in strategic planning as a means of ensuring that tourism’s benefits are equitably distributed between all stakeholders, but these stakeholder groups must be empowered to participate in the process (Eligh et al, 2002; Faulkner, 2003; Harrison & Husbands, 1996; Lankford & Lankford, 2000; Page & Thorn, 2002; Wall, 1997). While stakeholder participation in strategic planning is not without its challenges, the inherent difficulties should not

76 impede the integration of these concepts into the tourism destination planning process. Both concepts must be utilised effectively to ensure a sustainable approach to tourism planning is adopted.

One planning approach, which is increasingly receiving attention for its combination of strategic planning and stakeholder participation, is strategic visioning. Visioning approaches to tourism planning have been cited as a means of facilitating destination stakeholders participation in the strategic planning process, while engaging in a longer- term planning exercise (Ayers, 1996; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Haywood, 1988; Johnson & Snepenger, 1993; Kotler, 1993; Mair et al, 2000; Richins, 1995; Ritchie, 1993; Ritchie & Jay, 1999; Woodley, 1993). The visioning approach to tourism destination planning and its potential contribution to sustainability is discussed in Chapter Four.

77 Chapter Four Strategic Visioning: A Planning Approach for Sustainable Tourism?

4.0 Introduction

Visioning is a recognized component of the traditional organizational strategic planning process. An extension of this concept, the notion of strategic visioning, is increasingly being viewed as a planning approach which has applications to the tourism destination planning context. Ritchie (1993) finds that while strategic visioning for tourism destinations is a new but important extension of the more common process of strategic planning in tourism, it has a stronger emphasis on bringing together the views of the many organisations and individuals of both the industry and the destination community through collaborative and participative processes. It is also seen as a dynamic and interactive approach as opposed to the more rigid steps of traditional strategic planning (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989).

This chapter introduces the concept of strategic visioning for tourism destinations. Firstly the private sector origins of visioning as a component of the traditional strategic planning process are examined. The extension of this concept to the notions of learning organizations and shared vision are also discussed, as well as the use of visioning in community settings. Finally the use of strategic visioning in tourism destinations is examined and the contribution of the approach to sustainable tourism planning is discussed.

4.1 The Strategic Visioning Concept

Vision is recognized as an important component of the strategic planning process (Chapter Three). Vision is defined as a practical and achievable picture or description of the nature of an organization’s business as it is intended to be at some time in the future. Ideally, the vision should move people to come together in an alignment of purpose and provide a point from which strategic plans are developed (Hussey, 1999; Korac-

78 Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1998; Nanus, 1992; Wolf & Gering, 1998). It is essentially a future goal that the organization is striving towards (Hunt & Buzan 1999), and has been described by some as the glue that binds individuals together into a common goal (Hackett & Spurgeon, 1996). Nutt and Backoff (1997) note that a vision should be depicted as providing a vivid and reachable target that beckons- it should be a picture that inspires and builds a commitment to change in people.

While vision, along with mission statements and goals and objectives, have been associated with strategic planning for some time, the process of vision development is receiving increasing attention, with approaches such as ‘visioning’ recognised as a means of managing increasingly complex organisations (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). Vogel and Swanson (1988) note that strategic planning methodologies are being revised to include a visioning phase, as leaders are recognising the importance of thinking about the future, developing goals and coming up with realistic strategies to achieve those goals. Ayers (1996) actually claims that the visioning approach is the new best practice in strategic planning, and this concept is supported by Faulkner (2003), Ritchie (1999) and Ritchie and Crouch (2000), among others. The feasibility of such claims is examined in chapters eight and nine.

Critics of formal planning argue that we live in a world in which uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity dominate and in which small chance events can have a large and unpredictable impact upon outcomes (Langeler, 1992; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). In such an environment even the most carefully thought out strategic plans are prone to being rendered useless by rapid and unforseen changes in the environment, and consequently there is a premium on being able to respond quickly to changing circumstances, altering the strategies of the organisation accordingly. It has been claimed that such a flexible approach to strategy making is not possible within the framework of the traditional strategic planning process (Brache & Freedman, 1999; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). Mintzberg (1994) notes that the visionary approach is more flexible as it sets the broad outlines of a strategy, while leaving the specific details to be worked out. In other words, the broad perspective may be deliberate but the specific positions can

79 emerge. So when the unexpected happens, assuming the vision is sufficiently robust, the organisation can adapt- it learns and change is more easily accommodated (Mintzberg, 1994).

Ritchie (1993) draws on the work of Mintzberg to distinguish between the strategic planning and visioning processes. At one end of the spectrum is the traditional prescriptive model of strategic planning, where planning is mechanical, formal, highly structured, logical, and controlled and an exercise for which the chief executive is ultimately responsible. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the concept of crafting strategy through a shared strategic vision. This is seen as a dynamic, evolving process in which strategies develop over a period of time as a result of an ongoing and iterative process of thinking and acting. However to ensure the effective development and execution, Koteen (1991) claims that the vision must be compelling and satisfying, pose clearly stated challenges, offer guideposts on uncertain terrain and commitment for implementation. Hunt and Buzan (1999) further note that the vision must be achievable, inspiring, short and visual, while Christenson and Walker (2004) state that the vision must be: understood, motivational, credible, and both demanding and challenging. It must also capture the core purpose of the organization and its preferred future state, and create possibilities that are inspirational, creative, unique, and vibrant, and that offer a new order that can produce organizational distinction (Nutt & Backoff, 1997).

A considerable amount of attention has been given to the issue of vision and visionary leadership. Vision has often been viewed as the capacity and responsibility of the leader of the organization (Hunt & Buzan 1999; Westley, 1992) based on the assumption that power and control resides with the leader (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Brache & Freedman, 1999; Frisch, 1998; Gupta, 1984; Hendry, Johnson & Newton, 1993; Levin, 2000; Nanus, 1992). It has been said that a vision is an image that is created in the mind of the leader (Shipley & Newkirk, 1998; Thoms & Greenberger, 1998) and under this scenario the vision is a target towards which the leader aims their energy and resources (Hackett & Spurgeon, 1996; Peg & Greenberger, 1998; Senge et al, 1994; Stewart, 1993). Here the vision is disseminated through the organization, with the leader empowering others to

80 fulfill the vision, and followers reacting positively when it reflects their values, shows an ideal future, and provides direction for future behaviour (Christenson & Walker, 2004; Nutt & Backoff, 1992; Thoms & Greenberger, 1998).

However a divergent body of thought has emerged noting that a successful vision depends on the participation of many people, and that leaders should only act as facilitators where the vision is built from the collective ideas of those in the organization (Covey, 1990; Kelley, 1992; Westley, 1992). Shipley and Newkirk (1998) also note that the emerging use of the term ‘strategic vision’ changes the concept of vision from being the special view of either a single visionary or select group of leaders to the goal-like statements that serve as the focus for long-range or strategic plans. Here vision is no longer as amorphous as it had been when attributed to visionaries or ascribed, and it begins to acquire the status and acceptability of a formal planning technique (Shipley & Newkirk, 1998).

This process of empowerment calls for leaders to share the vision creation process with other people in the organization (Barnes & Kriger, 1986; Kelley, 1992; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Wheeland, 1993). The level of genuinely empowered and positive interaction between organization leaders and followers (or organization stakeholders) is said to have a direct impact upon the quality of the vision (Christenson & Walker, 2004). It is further believed that a representative group of stakeholders will be better positioned than a charismatic leader to develop the vision because of the wider experience, diversity of knowledge and perspective and fuller appreciation of stakeholder constituencies (Christenson & Walker, 2004). Applications of visioning to public sector organizations rely in particular on a collective approach to vision development. Nutt and Backoff (1992) note that a vision detailing the future can generate commitment from key stakeholders, which is essential for public sector organizations. It is further noted that as such organizations operate without the feedback provided by profits and losses, their need for vision is more acute (Kilpatrick & Silverman, 2005).

81 A ‘vision orientation’ has been credited as being a large factor in organizational success (Collins & Porras, 1997; Koteen, 1991) and the wider the involvement of people in vision creation, the greater the prospect of improvements in organizational performance (Hackett & Spurgeon, 1996; Kakabadese, Nortier & Abramovici, 1998; Nutt & Backoff, 1997). Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found that the existence of an organizational vision had a positive impact on employee performance and attitudes, while Baum, Locke and Kirkpatrick (1998) discovered that having a vision positively affected organization-level performance as measured by growth in sales, profits, employment and net worth. Kilpatrick and Silverman (2005) claim that investing in a vision can pay dividends beyond just keeping the organization focused. They note that one benefit of developing an organizational vision is the ease of performance measurement, making it easier to track successes and identify early warning signs of ineffective programs. Clear visions can also highlight gaps in talent, funds, and facilities (Kilpatrick & Silverman, 2005). However Nutt and Backoff (1997) reinforce that the greatest organizational successes will arise when the vision is developed with ideas drawn from many people.

4.1.1 Shared Vision and the Learning Organization

Considered to be the organizational concept of the future (Flood, 1999), Peter Senge’s (1990) ‘fifth discipline’ account of the learning organization links the notion of shared vision with the broader aspects of the strategic planning process. The learning organization is based on the transition from an individualist to a more collective orientation, within the framework of a more structured, systematic and strategically focused approach (Faulkner, 2003). The learning organization is based on systemic theory, which purports that our actions are interrelated to other people’s actions in patterns of behaviour and are not merely isolated events (Flood, 1999). As such, systemic thinking takes issue with the grand narratives of strategic planners who believe that with intention they can create a better future; “in their reports they innocently indulge in fictional script writing…. it could happen for all we know, but it seems most unlikely” (Flood, 1999, p.2). Flood (1999) likens this to complexity theory questioning whether long term intended action is possible based on the assumption that the way things unfold

82 is inherently unknowable to the human mind, emerging through spontaneous self- organisation originating from some distant detail, rather than advanced planning.

Senge (1990) claims that the core of the learning organization is based upon five disciplines: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems (systemic) thinking. Personal mastery involves expanding our personal capacity to create the results we most desire, and creating an organizational environment that encourages all its members to develop themselves toward the goals and purposes they choose. The second of the disciplines, mental models, refers to the continual process of reflecting upon, clarifying, and improving one’s internal pictures of the world, and how they shape our actions and decisions. Shared vision is the third aspect of the learning organization which requires building a sense of commitment in a group, by developing shared images of the future to be created, and developing the principles and guiding practices to reach the future state. Following this, team learning involves transforming conversational and collective thinking skills, so that groups of people can reliably develop intelligence and ability greater than the sum of individual members’ talents. The final element of the learning organization, systems thinking, refers to a way of thinking about, describing and understanding, the forces and interrelationships that shape the behaviour of systems. Systems thinking assists in seeing how to change systems more effectively, and how to act more in tune with the larger processes of the natural and economic world (Senge et al, 1994).

The third of the disciplines, shared vision, is the most pertinent to the current study. Senge et al (1994) claim that leaders are seeking to achieve the commitment and focus that comes with genuinely shared visions. The shared vision discipline is essentially focused around creating a sense of purpose and building shared meaning to bind people together and propel them to fulfil their aspirations. Shared vision refers to the collective pictures the people throughout the organization carry, and are committed to, as they are created from each person’s personal intrinsic vision (Senge, 1990). It entails operating values, having a common sense of purpose, and a basic level of mutuality as it extends insights and principles from personal mastery into a world of collective aspiration and

83 shared commitment (Flood, 1999). Shared vision can also provide a focus and energy for generative learning, expanding an organization’s capacity to create its own future, rather than be created by the events of the moment (Flood, 1999). Importantly, strategic priorities are developed from, and clearly linked to, the shared vision (Senge et al, 1994).

While Senge does not offer a prescriptive account on how shared vision should be generated, it is noted that it is developmental and constructed from a coherent process of reflection and conversation. Senge et al (1994) actually note that it is most important to focus on the dialogue, and not just the vision statement, as the process is more important than the product. This is because the task involves an evolving ongoing process in which people at every level of the organisation, in every role, can speak on what really matters to them, and should be heard by both senior management and one another. This moves the generation of vision from telling to co-creating. Telling refers to the traditional view of vision with those at the top believing they know what the vision should be and telling the organisation they are going to have to follow it. People do what they are told either because they think that those at the top know best, or simply believe they have no other choice. There is little generative learning. Co-creating, on the other hand, is a widespread and collaborative process where a shared vision is built around generative learning. The communication of ideas gathers pace and the vision becomes increasingly clear, leading to rising enthusiasm (Senge et al, 1994). Having gone through the frustration and ultimate satisfaction of creating a shared vision, it is believed stakeholders become more devoted to building shared vision and shared meaning (Senge et al, 1994).

Team learning, the fourth of Senge’s disciplines, is seen as a natural step from a shared vision effort as collective aspiration gives team members a compelling reason to begin to learn how to learn together. Senge et al (1994) claim that teams are now recognised as a critical component of every enterprise and the predominant unit for decision making and getting things done. As with building shared vision, team learning requires both discussion and dialogue. Discussion is defined by Senge (1990) as communication where different views are presented and defended in a search for a best view to support a decision that must be made. Dialogue is where people suspend their views and enter into

84 deep listening in the sense that the listener visits and explores mental models of other team members (Senge, 1990). Discussion and dialogue are necessary counterparts in a quest for achieving consensus and accommodation on decisions in team learning (Flood, 1999). Consensus is based on the idea that people can or will form strong agreement on what needs to be done and how to do it. Consensus is seen as the linchpin of traditional planning, decision-making and problem solving (Flood, 1999). However the notion of consensus is increasingly recognised as unlikely and is considered as contributing to oppression and reducing diversity of thought. Flood (1999) believes it will be more realistic to seek to establish accommodation between people due to the inherent diversity in opinions, attitudes and preferences. Seeking accommodation can be likened to finding some common ground whilst preserving other differences in opinion (Flood, 1999).

While the learning organization has been widely supported (Garavan, 1997; Garvin, 1993; Marquardt, 1996; Simonin, 1997; Tsang, 1997; Watkins & Marsick, 1993), as with other forms of collaboration and broader based participation (Chapter Three), there are inherent challenges. Shared sense of purpose is seen by Senge et al (1994) as often tacit and obscured by conventional day-to-day practices, the prevailing organizational culture, and the barriers of the organization’s structure. Flood (1999) notes that one possible limiting factor comes into play as more people become involved. Although a certain amount of shared vision is achieved, the more people who are involved, the greater the potential for a diversity of views which can dissipate focus and may generate conflict (Senge et al, 1994). Furthermore, it is possible for people to forget their connection to one another and that they are part of a whole, which moves the approach from one of joint inquiry to one of individuals in conflict (Flood, 1999). A further challenge is that people may see a gap between the shared vision and how things actually are, which can give rise to negative feelings eroding the goals of the shared vision (Flood, 1999). Such challenges are considered in the development of the strategic visioning framework proposed in this study (Chapter Eight).

85 4.2 Applications of Strategic Visioning to Community Planning

Stemming from the public participatory movements (Chapter Three), the principles of strategic visioning have also been extended to the field of community planning (Shipley & Newkirk, 1998; Walzer & Deller, 1996; Walzer et al, 1995). In this context strategic visioning aims to establish a long-term vision of what the community can be and achieve in the long run (Kotler et al, 1993). Communities’ use strategic visioning as a process not only to identify their desired future, but also to regain control over issues that affect the community. As Ritchie (1993, p.29) notes, “one of the most compelling forces that has emerged in recent years is the desire of peoples all over the world to recapture control of the political processes that affect their daily lives”. Senge et al (1994, p.504) claim, “every individual deserves the opportunity to be seen and heard as a valuable person who can contribute to the community”, and based on the learning organization philosophy, traditional leaders learn how to share decision-making power and support residents working in self-managed teams. As with public participatory processes and empowered citizen decision-making, strategic visioning is a form of bottom-up, grass roots collaboration, which reverses the role of conventional community strategic planning and management structures. Klein, Benson, Andersen, Herr, Plumb and Davis (1993, p.10) note, “visioning is a tool for broadening citizen participation, and is thus winning new constituents for planning”.

In this context visioning has been associated with utopianism and a desire to create a better or even perfect society (Shipley & Newkirk, 1998). As McClendon (1993, p.147) notes, “the new paradigm is empowering people’s vision of a better tomorrow”, and visioning a community’s future urban development plans is the latest iteration of citizen involvement (Shipley & Newkirk, 1998). In community based applications, strategic visioning occurs through public involvement; where a group of people proactively seek to identify their purpose, core values and vision of the future, which are then transformed into a manageable and feasible set of goals, action plans and/or strategies (Department of Rural Sociology, nd; Embar, 1995; Stewart, Liebert & Larkin, 2004). The Utah Travel Council (1998) notes that every successful business, organization or individual has a plan

86 for the future and communities are no different. If nothing else, a community needs to agree on a shared vision of what it wants to become (Utah Travel Council, 1998). The importance of community values is recognised in initiatives such as LA21 (Chapter Two), where it is noted that consultation with various stakeholders is needed in order to create a shared vision and to identify proposals and priorities for action. The Local Government Association of Queensland’s (2001) guidelines for integrating community well being into planning also state that a knowledge of the issues that are of concern to, and motivate a community, provide a sound basis from which to develop a future vision.

Community visioning is characterised by an emphasis on community assets, weighing up the options and opportunities on the basis of shared purposes and values, with the process stressing early and continuous public involvement (Department of Rural Sociology, nd). A key to this process is that goals and action plans are firmly rooted in the purpose and values of the local community. It is for this reason that strategic visioning is considered of particular benefit for communities; as it allows for the creation of a future of choice, rather than the alternative: the future of someone else’s creation (Bryson, 1995).

For strategic visioning to be successful in a community context, a high level of participation is required, obviously making the process far more complex than developing a vision within a single firm (Helling, 1998; Kotler, 1993; Ritchie, 1993). Strategic visioning for communities specifically seeks to consider as many options as possible, to search for a broad cross section of participants and wherever possible seek divergent opinions. The purpose being to develop a cooperative, integrated, and democratically derived consensus into a single vision, which will determine the long-term strategies for the future. Acknowledged as a complicated way to achieve a strategic approach, consensus is considered the only way to gain buy-in for the vision, as plans that resonate with citizens’ deepest aspirations and values have the best chance of being implemented (Embar, 1995; Klein et al, 1993). Without a vision that connects people with each other and to the places of their local landscape, the desirable end-state planning is left incomplete and opportunities for community building through civic debate are lost. Resulting plans will be disproportionately devoted to infrastructure development details,

87 without due attention given to community identities that would distinguish one locale from another (Stewart et al, 2004).

4.2.1 Community Strategic Visioning Models

Although the technical details of ‘how to’ are not part of the visioning process (Stewart et al, 2004), a number of strategic visioning models have been developed for community applications (Appendix Four). The Department of Rural Sociology (nd) overview several of these. The ‘Oregon model’ includes four basic steps: a community profile (where are we now?), a trend statement (where are we going?), a vision statement (where do we want to be?), and an action plan (how do we get there?). The Oregon model also suggests a target year to be chosen that is at least ten, but no more than 25 years in the future. The ‘Pennsylvania model’ proposes a series of questions to stimulate the vision including: “what five things would really improve the community?”, “what are the community’s principal values?”, and “what things in the community should be preserved?”. This particular process is broken into five tasks: defining the community boundaries, inventorying and analysing community resources, writing and adopting a vision statement, developing an action plan, and implementation. The ‘Arkansas model’ focuses on four basic questions: “where have you been?”, where are you now?”, “where do you want to go?”, and “how will you get there?”. Participants are asked to identify what they would like to see in their community in the future, and they may be prompted in specific areas such as economic development, education, parks and recreation, etc.

Walzer et al (1995) reviewed ten visioning programs to identify similarities and differences in program design. They found that the basic principles of community strategic visioning programs are similar to those used in the organizational context and documented in the business management literature. In the first stage, the visioning programs help guide the formation of a diverse leadership group to take primary local responsibility for community efforts. The second stage facilitates a series of meetings during which the community’s situation is assessed and alternative visions are developed and refined into a plan. At this point the meetings generally result in a statement of

88 vision, goals and tasks for the community to undertake as well as the identification of priority goals and action strategies. The third identified stage is the implementation of the vision and action strategies (Walzer et al, 1995). The review further found that although each of the visioning programs were different, two key common characteristics for success could be identified. These included local leaders and residents having a clear understanding of the visioning process and its limitations, particularly the commitment and effort required to make the program a success. Secondly, a well-balanced community team of stakeholders is necessary, noting that ignoring segments of the community will limit the perspective of the team and preclude interesting and productive ideas, in addition to the fact that if the program participants are not representative the community may not embrace the vision and resulting strategies (Walzer et al, 1995).

4.3 Applications of Strategic Visioning to Tourism Destination Planning

The participation of the community in tourism and tourism planning is not a new phenomenon (Chapter Three). As Ritchie (1993, p.379) notes, “Increasingly, along with all important industry sectors, tourism is being critically assessed concerning its net contribution to the well being of the community or region which it both serves and impacts on. As part of this process, the residents of communities and regions affected by tourism are demanding to be involved in the decisions affecting their development”.

As with applications to community settings more generally, the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning, or ‘destination visioning’, has been identified as a mechanism for residents and other stakeholders to become involved in setting the agenda of their destination (Mair et al, 2000). Destination visioning is considered a new but important extension of the more common process of strategic planning in tourism (Ritchie, 1993). In this context the process has a number of unique elements, and similar to community applications, visioning for tourism destinations involves bringing together the views of the many organizations and individuals of both the industry and the destination community. As Haywood (1988) notes, there is a focus on the evaluation of

89 alternatives, the estimation of probabilities and the determination of the consequences or impacts of a particular tourism project or event. By focusing on perceptions of the future, participants in the planning process can learn to paint appropriate images of tourism for their communities (Haywood, 1988).

While the direction for future tourism destination development is implicit in strategic planning, the underlying philosophy of strategic destination visioning is to nurture appropriate forms of development, through a publicly driven process based on stakeholder values and consensus, rather than through a more “expert-driven” process based solely on market forces (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000). Strategic visioning for tourism destinations essentially formulates a framework, which provides broad guidelines as to the kinds of major facilities, events, and programs that the community finds most consistent with their values and aspirations for the long term development and well being of the community (Ritchie, 1993). The vision developed for a destination will define the nature of long term major developments, many of which are irreversible, so the choice of vision is absolutely critical, as it will set in motion the development of the destination for many years to come (Ritchie, 1993; Ryan, 2002).

Faulkner (2003) in a comprehensive discussion of the application of visioning principles to a tourism destination context identifies a number of contributions vision can make to the process of shaping a destination’s future. The first of these is that a vision provides a framework for choosing appropriate responses and for cooperative action. External events including changes in government policy, international development and random disasters have the potential to profoundly impact the destination and the direction of tourism development. While destination stakeholders may have little control over these events, a long-term shared perspective (a vision) is necessary for not only determining how they respond, but also for ensuring they respond in a coordinated and effective way. A second identified contribution is that without a vision, the destination will become locked into the past. That is, an incremental approach where decision-makers focus on responding to immediate contingencies in a piecemeal fashion, leading the destination to

90 a position where the options available for coping with longer-term eventualities are progressively reduced.

A vision also provides a means for ensuring that a longer-term perspective informs day- to-day decisions (Faulkner, 2003). By creating a more structured, strategically focused and shared framework for individual enterprises and organizations to operate within, a vision contributes to ensuring that decision-makers at all levels take longer-term considerations into account in their daily decisions. A further identified benefit is that a well designed visioning exercise has the potential to provide a circuit breaker and a call to action, to the extent that it can be instrumental in galvanising opinion on the need for a fundamentally different approach from that which has prevailed in the past. Finally, a well-articulated vision that has been constructed in a manner that ensures it represents a consensus among primary stakeholders provides a focus for the strategic planning process and a vehicle for mobilising cooperative action (Faulkner, 2003).

Ritchie & Crouch (2000) acknowledge that developing consensus on a shared ‘ideal future state’ for a destination is not always easy within diverse, democratic societies. However what is important is that destination stakeholders agree that the final vision statement provides both a meaningful and operational ‘dream’ for the future of their destination- one that reflects the values of the destination stakeholders, while not ignoring the realities and constraints of the marketplace (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000). It follows that the meaningful engagement of the community, with industry stakeholders and relevant public sector agencies, is an essential ingredient in the visioning process. Such engagement of stakeholders is essential if the vision that eventuates is to provide an accurate reflection of a truly shared position of all concerned and if it is to provide a relatively stable reference point for future action (Faulkner, 2003).

Notions of destination visioning also resonate with the collaborative approaches to tourism planning (Chapter Three) as the visioning process can provide a catalyst for establishing collaboration among the multiple stakeholders (Faulkner, 2003; Getz & Jamal, 1994). Bramwell and Lane (2000) note that one of the primary objectives of

91 collaborative arrangements is to develop a strategic vision or plan for a destination, as collaboration is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible (Gray, 1989). Ayers (1996) also considers strategic visioning to be an exercise in collaboration and consensus, as the process addresses issues which are complex, where many parties are involved in the resolution, no one agency or organisation has complete jurisdiction over the solution, and there are alternative solutions requiring both creativity and negotiation.

4.3.1 Strategic Tourism Destination Visioning in Practice

Although not as numerous as community specific visioning examples, or indeed studies of strategic tourism planning, Ritchie and Crouch (2000) claim that more destinations are adopting a strategic perspective toward tourism development involving visioning. Getz and Jamal (1994) support this claiming that studies are emerging where strategic visioning for tourism destinations is being used as an extension of traditional strategic planning approaches. Calgary, Canada is recognised as the first destination to use the visioning process in the early 1990s in an attempt to provide both direction and support for future tourism development (Ritchie, 1993). Ritchie (1999) reports on the use of visioning in a national heritage setting, Banff National Park, Canada, where the various stakeholder groups sought to identify the environmental, economic and social future of the park. Johnson and Snepenger (1993) also outline the use of a visioning process with park and forest managers of the Greater Yellowstone Region designed to improve the management of the region.

Additionally, a number of tourism destination planning studies are emerging claiming the need for a visioning approach. Woodley’s (1993) study of community based tourism development found that a significant barrier was the lack of vision. In the case study projects were initiated by the territorial government without the benefit of an overall vision for the future of the community and without any consultation on the cumulative effects of developing numerous individual facilities. The results of a study conducted by

92 Getz and Jamal (1994) concluded that the creation of a communal strategic vision is an important aspect of strategic planning and found that respondents supported the necessity of developing a strategic vision. While these studies cite the importance of visioning, none have yet looked at how the visioning process should be undertaken.

In the Australian context, a comprehensive visioning project was implemented for the Gold Coast region to determine a preferred future for the destination. The Gold Coast Visioning Project was a three year project undertaken and funded jointly by the Gold Coast City Council, the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism and the local tourism industry (Chapter Seven). The Gold Coast has traditionally been one of Australia’s most popular international and domestic tourism destinations. However the Gold Coast has grown and flourished in a relatively benign regulatory regime, which has fostered a combative enterprise mentality driven by market forces and a fiercely competitive business culture with a fixation on profit generation and economic objectives at the expense of other elements of the sustainable tourism agenda (Faulkner, 2003). A range of indicators proposed by Faulkner (2003) highlighted the destination was facing decline: emphasis on high-volume, low yield inclusive tour market and mass tourists; a decline in visitors length of stay; the destination is well known, but no longer fashionable; diversification into conventions, conferences, and man made attractions; market perceptions of the destination becoming over-commercialised, and declining profits of major tourism businesses. Faulkner (2003, p.43) therefore concluded that the Gold Coast was a mature destination showing some early signs of stagnation, paralleling the experience of coastal tourist resorts elsewhere in the world and that, “…given this, it is clear that a fundamental shift in the approach to destination planning and management is necessary if the region is to rejuvenate and remain competitive in the longer term. However, regardless of the stage the destination has reached the pressures of an increasingly competitive global environment point to the necessity of a more comprehensive approach that embraces sustainable development principles as a framework for tourism development”.

93 The impetus for employing a strategic visioning approach for the Gold Coast was to examine the impacts and opportunities of sustainable tourism for the community, while creating a more strategic perspective towards tourism policy, planning, development and marketing (Appendix Five). Faulkner and Noakes (2002, p.i) report that, “The Gold Coast Tourism Visioning Project articulates a set of core values and principles that underpin a preferred future for the sustainable prosperity of Australia’s leading tourism destination in the medium to longer term (10 to 20 years). It challenges destination Gold Coast to move from a past ad hoc approach to tourism to one that integrates economic, social and environmental dimensions to evolve new patterns of managing and growing tourism in a more systematic and dynamic way in this new century. Tourism is a key component of the inevitable transition to sustainable development strategies in advanced western democracies such as Australia”. A strategic visioning program such as the Gold Coast’s can provide a systematic and practical means for encouraging stakeholders to collaborate on issues affecting the future of their destination. The Gold Coast model used the creation of a vision, in the format of a visioning workshop, as a means of engaging stakeholders in decision-making and setting the foundations for strategic planning in the destination.

In describing the Gold Coast’s visioning project, Faulkner (2003) concurs with Senge’s view of the learning organization and notes that a vision provides a catalyst for building collective memory and initiating an organizational learning system at the destination level. An investment in a visioning process, with the associated planning and evaluation systems, avoids the need to think through every crisis situation from scratch. Such an approach not only creates a readiness for the unexpected, but also facilitates the transition from individual insights to collective action, and establishes an institutional learning and memory system that reduces the prospects of repeating past mistakes and/or reinventing the wheel. At the destination level, learning would become embedded within the organizational structure and would become integral to the planning and management process, rather than, as is too often the case, a marginal activity restricted to a few

94 specialist researchers (Faulkner, 2003). As Faulkner notes, much of the analysis and planning that has posed as a strategic approach to destination management in the past has involved a reductionist approach, whereby it is assumed that we can understand the whole in terms of an independent assessment of its parts and the whole will necessarily operate effectively so long as the parts each function well at their own level. The inter- relatedness of the parts is not taken into account in this perspective and “an entity such as a tourist destination is therefore a pattern of interrelationships and fixing one problem or part of it in isolation will not guarantee the whole will survive” (Faulkner, 2003, p.59).

4.4 Strategic Visioning and Sustainable Tourism Planning

The visioning approach to tourism destination planning is considered to be consistent with sustainable tourism development principles (Choy, 1991; Faulkner, 2003; Smith, 2003). Ritchie and Crouch (2000) claim that anecdotal evidence is indicating that more destinations are adopting strategic perspectives towards tourism development as evidenced by: strategic visioning, a concern for the total impact of tourism development and not just the economic consequences, an eye to the long term as opposed to short term effects, and an overall objective of sustainable tourism development. Cooper (2002) also finds that the strategic approach to destination management is evolving into the concept of destination visioning, noting that there is a clear synergy between the adoption of sustainable tourism principles and the disciplined, longer-term perspective provided by the strategic planning and visioning of tourism destinations (Cooper, 2002). Ritchie and Jay (1999) similarly claim that more sustainable tourism development projects could be realised through the involvement of the local communities in defining their own futures, and Page and Thorn (1997) noted that the absence of a national vision for tourism is a major constraint on achieving sustainable tourism options at the regional and local level.

Faulkner (2003) considers the philosophical foundations of the visioning approach are encapsulated by sustainable tourism development principles (Figure 4.1). He primarily attributes this to the interrelationship between the sustainability agenda and strategic visioning which necessitates an inclusive, community participation approach involving

95 representatives of all relevant stakeholder groups. The effective implementation of the approach through the participatory model, however, requires the application of techniques that move from simply consulting to the meaningful engagement of stakeholders in joint decision-making. Scenario building is considered to be a contributing factor as it is focused on the future, and the shared vision needs to be attuned to a collective understanding of the environment and how it is changing (Faulkner, 2003). It is important, therefore, that a scenario building process, involves an exploration of possible futures that are informed by the variety of stakeholder perspectives. Faulkner (2003) also identified the need for adopting a learning organization approach. Intrinsic to both the visioning and scenario building components is the notion of stakeholders becoming engaged in a process that ensures they are continually focused on enhancing and expanding their collective awareness and capabilities. Learning and the building of a knowledge base that is accessible to all stakeholders therefore needs to become an integral part of the organisational structure at the destination level. The final aspect hinges on collaboration in the sense that stakeholders, who normally act autonomously of each other, must work together towards a mutually acceptable position on their understanding of emerging challenges, preferred futures for the destination and how these might be realised. The management of the tension between autonomy and cooperation will therefore become central to both the development and implementation of the strategy.

In order to achieve sustainability, Getz and Jamal (1994) claim that it is important to reconceptualise tourism planning and development as a political process within which the numerous stakeholders representing the community, industry and environmental interests can strive together for common objectives. Systematic and integrative strategic planning, based on a collaborative, learning organization framework can provide the basis for visioning, goal setting and management of the tourism domain. Choi & Sirakaya (2005) also note that the paradigm requires an integrated vision, policy, planning, management, monitoring, and social learning process.

96 Figure 4.1: A Framework for Destination Strategic Management and Planning Techniques Visioning Learning organisation Collaboration approach Scenario building

Perspectives

Whole of Community destination participation approach model

Principles

Sustainable tourism development

Source: Faulkner, 2003

The sustainable development concept has been touted as the new planning agenda for the 21st century and tourism destination visioning has the twin advantages of adopting the long-term approach whilst also engineering strong community involvement and ‘buy in’ for the future of the destination (Cooper, 2002). However if sustainability is to move beyond a vague idealism, the task ahead for planners, especially at the local level where there is the most authority to manage and control development, is to translate the theory into practice (Berke, 2002; Saxena, 2005).

4.5 Chapter Four Summary

97 not only assist in the development of a long-term focus and vision for the destination, but it also facilitates multiple stakeholder participation and collaboration.

Faulkner’s (2003) assessment of the strategic visioning process undertaken for the Gold Coast provides a comprehensive discussion on strategic tourism visioning and highlights two key benefits of the approach. Firstly, a strategic visioning process acknowledges the importance of integrating sustainable development principles into destination planning. Strategic visioning is essentially concerned with establishing directions for tourism development in the longer term so the principles of sustainable tourism development are adopted as a fundamental philosophical foundation for the planning process. In addition the process requires the adoption of a participatory model, where stakeholders are engaged so that a true consensus on the preferred directions of future development can be developed. Secondly, although stakeholder participation and collaboration in tourism destination planning has been widely advocated (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Hall, 1999; Jamal & Getz, 1995), it is still the exception rather than the rule. One possible reason is that there is no clear description of how stakeholder participation and collaboration should occur. A strategic visioning program may provide the systematic and practical means for stakeholders to collaborate on issues affecting the future of their destination.

98 Chapter Five Methodology

5.0 Introduction

Chapter Five outlines the methodology employed for the research, that is, both the underpinning research philosophy and the specific research methods used to collect and analyse the data. The aim of the study was to investigate the transference of sustainable tourism theory to practice by examining the extent to which the principles of sustainable tourism, including the contributing and prerequisite factors of strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are utilised in the planning practices of local tourism destinations. Additionally the study sought to examine the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning model for achieving a sustainable planning approach. To achieve these aims three research objectives were developed:

1. To investigate the current planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation are integrated into the tourism planning process. 2. To examine destination stakeholders perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation underpin the process. 3. To consider the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning approach for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning.

An interpretive, qualitative approach was adopted for the research, utilising both primary and secondary data sources through a two-phase research process designed to meet the stated aims and objectives of the study. The principles of constructivism and the analytical tool of content analysis underpinned the study.

99 This chapter presents the philosophical context and details the researchers’ theoretical perspectives including the ontology, epistemology and methodology underpinning the research. Qualitative research methodologies are discussed before the two-phase research process developed for this study is outlined: the content analysis of local tourism planning documents and in-depth interviews with stakeholders from five case study destinations in Queensland. Sampling strategies, data analysis methods, ethical considerations and methodological triangulation and limitations are also addressed.

5.1 The Philosophical Context

Debate abounds between proponents of quantitative and qualitative paradigms, attributable to the fact that quantitative and qualitative research paradigms represent very different ways of thinking about the world (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Holliday, 2002). The quantitative paradigm (or positivist) is synonymous with science or with positive or observable facts, based on measurable variables, provable propositions and that there is a normality that can be fathomed and understood by using the right research techniques, statistics and experiments (Holliday, 2002; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). In contrast, a qualitative paradigm (also referred to as the phenomenological or interpretivist approaches) focuses less on facts and more on understanding the meaning events have for the persons being studied (Patton, 1991). Such a perspective is based on the assumption that the realities of the research setting and the people in it are mysterious and can only be superficially touched by the research which aims to “explore, catch glimpses, illuminate and then try to interpret bits of reality” (Holliday, 2002, p.5). Essentially qualitative researchers believe that rich descriptions of the social world are valuable, whereas quantitative researchers are less concerned with such detail (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

While the quantitative paradigm has been the dominant and accepted research tradition in many fields, the use of qualitative research is increasing in a wide range of academic and professional areas. Marshall and Rossman (1999) claim that qualitative research genres

100 have become increasingly important modes of inquiry for the social sciences and applied fields such as education, regional planning, nursing, social work, community development and management. Increasingly qualitative research is being viewed, as more than a precursor to add rigour to quantitative methods, and an approach that it is not necessarily impressionistic and unsystematic, but can in fact produce theory development and not simply descriptive case studies (Charmaz, 2000; Glaser & Straus, 1967).

Within the arena of tourism research, quantitative, positivist methodologies, have also been the norm, but it is also being recognized that qualitative methodologies can play an important role in investigating the phenomena of tourism and hospitality (Riley & Love, 2000; Walle, 1997). This has arisen as tourism research is increasingly becoming occupied with understanding the ‘why’ of the tourism phenomena, and qualitative methodologies are allowing researchers to investigate the deeper meanings people attribute to tourism and tourism experiences, events and phenomena (Jennings, 2001).

Studies addressing tourism planning issues have also tended to adopt qualitative, multi method approaches, particularly the content analysis of tourism plans and interviews with stakeholders in the planning process (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Fletcher & Cooper, 1996; Getz, 1992; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993; Pearce, 1998; Timothy, 1999). Therefore, based on the researchers view that the world is socially constructed and the inherent relationship between the researcher and subject as humans excludes total objectivity, a methodological approach based on a qualitative-interpretive paradigm was adopted for this research, which includes a relativist ontology, a constructivist (or subjective) epistemology and a qualitative methodology.

5.2 Qualitative-Interpretive Research Paradigm

It is recognised that four major interpretive paradigms structure qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist-interpretivist, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist-poststructural (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998) and the qualitative paradigm is often referred to as: interpretive social science, critical interpretive, interpretivist,

101 constructivist, phenomenological, hermeneutic, reflective, inductive, ethnographic (Jennings, 2001; Mason, 2002; Ticehurst & Veal, 1999). As the qualitative paradigm incorporates a myriad of terminology and it appears that every author adopts their own, “any venture into the literature will reveal that qualitative research is presented under a confusing array of different and variable headings” (Holliday, 2002, p.17), for the purposes of this discussion the qualitative paradigm in its broadest sense is referred to as the interpretivist (interpretive) paradigm. This term has been adopted as qualitative research is seen as grounded in a philosophical position which is broadly interpretivist in the sense that it is concerned with how the social world is interpreted, understood, experienced or produced (Mason, 1996).

The interpretive paradigm is based on the concept of empathetic understanding, and according to Weber (1978, p.5), “empathetic or appreciative understanding is attained when, through sympathetic participation, we can adequately grasp the emotional context in which the action took place”. Researchers are seen to be part of the research process as they seek to uncover meanings and understandings of the broad interrelationships in the situation they are researching by relying on the people being studied to provide their own explanation of their situation or behaviour. The interpretivist paradigm therefore takes the view that the world is socially constructed and subjective, and that there is no reality outside of people’s perceptions (Ticehurst & Veal, 1999). That is, the individual and their world is co-constituted, with the person having no existence apart from the world, and the world having no existence apart from the person (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994; Valle & King, 1978). It also considers the world as being constituted of multiple realities, with the researcher assuming an inductive approach to research and commencing the study in the empirical world in order to develop explanations of the phenomena (Jennings, 2001). According to Maykut and Morehouse (1994), the way we understand the nature of reality directly affects the way we see ourselves in relation to knowledge. Therefore, if knowledge can be separated into parts and examined individually, then the researcher can stand apart from who or what they are examining. However, if knowledge is constructed, then the researcher cannot totally be separated from what is known, i.e. the world is co-constituted.

102 5.3 Theoretical Perspective: Constructivism

The interpretivist-qualitative paradigm is the overarching paradigm for this thesis; however, the researcher has adopted the more specific notion of constructivism as the theoretical perspective. While other researchers may argue that interpretivism and constructivism are comparable theoretical perspectives, the researcher’s interpretation of the literature is that constructivism is a theoretical perspective within (or a subset of) the overarching qualitative paradigm, which has been termed the qualitative-interpretivist paradigm for this study.

Constructivism has been defined as “celebrating firsthand knowledge of empirical worlds, takes a middle ground between postmodernism and positivism, and offers accessible methods for qualitative research” (Charmaz, 2000, p.510). Constructivism assumes that human beings do not find or discover knowledge so much as they construct or make it. It is based on the assumption that knowledge is a result of human creation, which becomes apparent with material and cultural resources, as opposed to the revelation of a natural order that is pre-given and independent of human action (Golinski, 1998). Along with other adherents to the interpretive-qualitative paradigm, constructivists attempt to understand the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it, in that, “particular actors, in particular places, at particular times, fashion meaning out of events and phenomena through prolonged, complex processes of social interaction involving history, language and action” (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, p.222). Constructivists believe that to understand the world one must make an interpretation of it, by constructing meaning from the language and actions of social actors, and determining what is real is a construction in the minds of individuals (Bloor, 1976; Charmaz, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Bateson (1972) claims that all qualitative researchers are philosophers in the universal sense that all human beings are guided by abstract principles. Researchers principles are a combination of beliefs about ontology (what kind of being is the human being? what is the nature of reality?), epistemology (what is the relationship between the inquirer and

103 the known?), and methodology (how do we know the world, or gain knowledge of it?) (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). These principles will shape how the qualitative researcher sees the world and acts in it. The interpretivist-constructivist paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjective and constructivist epistemology (knower and subject create understandings), and a naturalistic qualitative (in the natural world) set of methodological procedures (Jennings, 2001).

5.3.1 Ontology

Within the social sciences, ontology examines the nature of society, the social processes, the difference between law and rule, the role of causation and chance and the nature of planning (Bunge, 1996), and researchers who subscribe to the qualitative-interpretivist paradigm have an ontological view that the world consists of multiple realities. The researcher has adopted the theoretical perspective of constructivism for this thesis, which is underpinned by a relativist belief. Relativism assumes that there is no rational basis for one belief to be better than another belief, that is, science is only one of a number of possible perspectives for uncovering the truth (Blackburn, 1996; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Essentially an ontological relativism assumes that reality is determined by the concepts of those living within it, thus there are multiple socially constructed realities (Green, 2002).

According to Jennings (2001) this approach leads the researcher to assuming an inductive approach to research and commencing the study in the empirical world in order to develop explanations of the phenomena. Research, as was the case in this study, is conducted in the natural setting of the participants to build generalizations about a phenomenon through the participant’s view of the phenomena.

5.3.2 Epistemology

Epistemology refers to the role of observation and speculation, intuition and reason, analogy and induction, discovery and invention and the formation of constructs and

104 methods of social science (Bunge, 1996), and considers the relationships between the researcher and the subjects of research. An interpretive paradigm based on a constructivist relativist approach is premised on the belief that the insider’s view provides the best view for understanding the phenomenon being studied, because the insider’s view, or the ‘emic perspective’, allows for the identification of multiple realities (Jennings, 2001).

As interpretive research is based on the concept of empathetic understanding, in order to achieve such an understanding, the researcher is obliged to enter the social setting to gain an understanding of the issues (Jennings, 2001). Therefore the relationship between the researcher and participant is subjective and value laden, an inherent issue and criticism of qualitative research. However, the researcher still considers it important to minimize subjectivity and wherever possible attempted to view the issues under investigation objectively and minimise the influence of personal bias and beliefs.

5.3.3 Methodology

Methodology refers to the “model, which entails theoretical principles as well as a framework that provides guidelines about how research is done in the context of a particular paradigm” (Sarantakos, 1998, p.32). A researcher’s ontology and epistemology will guide the choice of methodology, so to gather knowledge from the empirical world, a researcher informed by a constructivist relativist paradigm will use a qualitative methodology, where attempts are made to understand phenomena based on the perspectives of those involved (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Jennings, 2001).

Constructivists generally use a naturalistic qualitative methodology, where the methodological procedures are conducted in the real world under natural settings, with attempts to study the whole phenomenon and all its complexity rather than breaking the phenomenon into component parts and studying discrete variables and causal relationships as is the case in quantitative research (Jennings, 2001). The research

105 methodology does influence the research methods that were adopted for the study, and these are detailed further in the following sections.

5.4 Qualitative Research Methodology

Qualitative research seeks answers to questions by examining social settings and the individuals who inhabit these settings (Berg, 2001). Qualitative research methods are a set of interpretive techniques that describe, decode, translate and attempt to develop meaning from a phenomenon, as opposed to a quantitative approach, which essentially records the frequency of the phenomena (Van Maanen, 1983). Such techniques allow researchers to share in the understandings and perceptions of others and to explore how people structure and give meaning to their daily lives, through the collection of ‘rich’ information from respondents (Berg, 2001; Brunt, 1997). To analyse this information the data can be subject to content analysis, a process of organizing it into objective categories on the basis of themes, concepts or similar features, from which new concepts are developed, conceptual definitions are formulated and relationships among concepts are examined in relation to the research question and pre-existing theoretical understandings (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Janesick, 2000; McKee, 2003; Neuman, 2000; Sapsford & Jupp, 1996). However, the constructivist paradigm requires that the categories, themes and patterns that emerge from qualitative research come from the data and are not imposed prior to data collection (Janesick, 2000).

Qualitative research is often seen as using multiple methodologies and research practices, and Brewer and Hunter (1989) claim that qualitative research is inherently multi-method. The use of multiple methods or triangulation of materials, perspectives and observers in a single study is done so in an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question by adding rigor, breadth, and depth to an investigation (Flick, 1992). As qualitative research does not prescribe to a distinct set of methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998), this study, like others investigating the tourism planning process, has incorporated methodological triangulation through the use of both primary and secondary data sources to address the research issue and objectives. Multiple research techniques

106 were also used in an attempt to refine, broaden, and strengthen the conceptual linkages of the study as illustrated in the research process (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Research Process

Definition of research issue and objectives

Literature review

Stage One Data Tourism planning at the local destination level Collection Content analysis of local tourism planning documents

Identification and selection of case study destinations

Stage Two Data Stakeholder perceptions of the local tourism Collection destination planning process In-depth, semi-structured stakeholder interviews

Case study Case study Case study Case study Case study destination 1 destination 2 destination 3 destination 4 destination 5

Analysis stage one and two data collection

The development of a framework for implementing sustainable development principles into local tourism planning

Recommendations/contribution

Building on the research issues and literature review, a two-phase research process was developed for this study (Figure 5.1). The first stage of the research involved a qualitative analysis of tourism planning documents to determine the extent to which the

107 principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. It was found that of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland 30 destinations had a tourism plan (section 5.5). Each of these plans were assessed utilising a tourism planning process evaluation instrument and content analysis. From this analysis five destinations were selected as cases for further investigation and for the second stage of the study, in-depth, semi- structured interviews were conducted with stakeholder participants to determine their perceptions of the local tourism destination planning process (section 5.6). The results of the two-stage data collection process confirmed assertions raised in the literature that there was a need for practical models to assist local tourism destinations in addressing sustainable tourism planning. Therefore the final stage of the research process involved the development and discussion of the strategic visioning framework for implementing sustainable development principles into local tourism planning (Chapter Eight).

5.5 Stage One: Tourism Planning at the Local Tourism Destination Level

The first objective of the study was to investigate the current planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. To achieve this, a review of the most recent, publicly available, tourism specific planning documents of each of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland was conducted. Although there is no legislative requirement for Queensland local tourism destinations to have a tourism planning document (Chapter One), Page and Thorn (1997) consider that if such a document does exist it would indicate a strong commitment to tourism and recognition of the role of tourism within the economy of the area. For the purposes of this study a local tourism destination is equated with local shire council areas based on the Australian government system (Chapter One).

Secondary data sources (tourism planning documents) were considered useful for this study as they enable researchers to retrospectively examine a phenomenon or process.

108 As Berno (1996) noted, published documents such as government policy can theoretically highlight the growth of tourism to gain a historical representation of the associated socio-cultural changes. Hall et al (1997) advocate such an approach as it can give explanations about what happened during the planning process, as well as highlight the associated set of values, power and interests. Such an approach has also been used in other studies examining the tourism planning process, such as Timothy’s (1999) study where planning documents were examined to understand issues of concern and emphasis for the study region, while Williams et al (1998) examined planning documents to gain an insight into the nature of the planning process. Therefore the tourism planning documents of Queensland local tourism destinations were considered a valuable data source to address the first objective of the study.

To source the documents, each of the 125 local tourism destinations were contacted via their respective local shire council to identify the most appropriate person to speak to regarding tourism planning. This occurred firstly through an introductory email and then if necessary followed up by telephone. If the destination did have a tourism-specific planning document the researcher obtained a copy of the documentation for analysis, and was successful in obtaining all available documents. Tourism-specific planning documents were sought for further analysis referring to and including tourism strategies, tourism development plans, tourism management plans, and tourism action plans. Due to the focus of the study, strategies and plans that focused specifically on tourism destination marketing were excluded, although a number of the planning documents did include destination marketing goals and objectives. Similarly regional level plans that incorporate a grouping of shire council areas were also excluded. Destinations that did not have a tourism planning document were excluded from further analysis.

As discussed in Chapter Six, 30 of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland had a tourism specific planning document, and Appendix Six provides a full catalogue of the planning status for each of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland. A further more detailed catalogue with pertinent information was developed for the 30 tourism planning documents to assist in the data analysis stage (Figure 6.1, Chapter Six).

109 Table 5.1: Catalogue of Queensland Local Tourism Planning Documents Catalogue Shire Council Title of Prepared by Prepared for Year Plan No. Area Document Document Local tourism Designates title Organisation Organisation The year of identification destination of document responsible for document was publication code area preparing prepared for document

5.5.1 Stage One Content Analysis

Content analysis is a recognised and common method for analysing secondary data sources (Janesick, 2000). The use of a qualitative content analysis approach for analysing secondary material results in data being uncovered progressively through reading and annotation of the material which leads to the natural creation of categories, thus uncovering pertinent data for the study (Dey, 1993; Glesne, 1999). However there is no one single right way to conduct a content analysis (Weber, 1990), therefore to facilitate the analysis a tourism planning process evaluation instrument developed by Simpson (2001) was used as a framework for analysing the 30 tourism planning documents.

The tourism planning process evaluation instrument served to underpin the content analysis process and assist the researcher in qualitatively determining whether the stated criteria were addressed in the tourism planning documents. This method is similar to what Mason (2002) describes as categorical indexing, where the whole of the data set is indexed according to a set of common principles and measures, with the objective of applying a uniform set of indexing categories systematically and consistently to the data. Engaging in a form of data indexing such as this can help the researcher adopt a more objective approach to the data analysis process.

5.5.2 Tourism Planning Process Evaluation Instrument

Each of the 30 tourism planning documents were analysed based on a tourism planning process evaluation instrument developed and tested by Simpson (2001) to assess individual tourism destinations’ planning approaches in terms of sustainable

110 development, strategic orientation and stakeholder participation (Table 5.2). Originally designed to quantitatively assess the tourism planning process, the instrument is described as “an aggregate measure of elevator attitudes, culminating in an inventory of contributing components which together delineate the specific planning process under review” (Simpson, 2001, p.23). To build the evaluation instrument a pool of potential items were identified through a conventional literature search and augmented through the implementation of an experience survey technique conducted with staff members at the author’s institution (Simpson, 2001). As Simpson’s study was quantitative, extreme care was taken to alleviate bias and improve reliability, and Simpson (2001, p.23) reports that “wherever possible items were phrased to require objective evaluations of fact, rather than subjective expressions of opinion, and considerable care was taken to clearly define any subjective concepts, in the interests of minimizing the potential for bias”. On conclusion of his study Simpson did not purport that the evaluative instrument was finalized in terms of quantitative reliability and validity and qualitative conclusions were eventually drawn on the planning processes under investigation. However Simpson does offer the instrument as a useful starting point from which to commence further investigative efforts.

Although Simpson’s instrument was not proven to be statistically reliable and valid in quantitative terms, statistical reliability and validity are not such pertinent concerns for qualitative research (Patton, 1990). The instrument was therefore deemed to be useful for the purposes of the first stage of the research in that it provided a comprehensive framework to conduct a content analysis of the secondary documents. As was outlined previously, tourism planning studies have tended to adopt qualitative approaches in analysing tourism plans and it is based on this premise that the researcher rejected the need to use the instrument in a quantitative manner, and instead utilised the instrument in a qualitative assessment of tourism planning. The decision to adopt Simpson’s instrument was based on the considerable effort that was taken to reduce bias in the construction of the instrument, as such quantitative ‘thoroughness’ can assist the

111 qualitative researcher in reducing some of the inherent subjectivity in qualitative research (Mason, 2002).

An additional section on the tourism planning approach was added to Simpson’s original evaluative instrument, based on the literature review, although this is not considered to have compromised the integrity of the evaluation instrument. The method of analysis was also slightly altered due to the qualitative paradigm adopted for this study. Simpson’s study used a panel of assessors to meet quantitative requirement, whereas the researcher solely conducted the analysis of the planning documents in this study using a three-point likert type scale. The likert scale was used to assist the researcher in determining whether the evaluative criteria were evident, somewhat evident or not evident in the tourism planning documents. A document that had a number of ‘evident’ categories would suggest that the planning process had adopted the principles of strategic planning and stakeholder participation and in turn sustainable development. Alternatively if a plan had a number of ‘not evident’ categories it would suggest that the planning process did not incorporate the principles under investigation. The somewhat evident category was included so as not to exclude elements of relevance in the document but which would otherwise be discarded due to the objective statements in the evaluative instrument.

The tourism planning process evaluation instrument (Table 5.2) included five sections to assess individual tourism destinations’ planning approaches in terms of sustainable development, strategic orientation and stakeholder participation and collaboration. The first section of the evaluation instrument, ‘physical, environment and economic situation analysis’ (situation analysis), was incorporated as it was considered necessary for a planning process to include an assessment of existing economic, environmental and socio-cultural parameters, alongside an evaluation of current visitor activity levels in the subject area (Simpson, 2001). The ‘strategic indicators of destination planning’ (strategic planning) section was designed to assess the strategic orientation of the planning process, and whether a clear base had been established from which planned development can commence. In this study a long-term, strategic perspective is defined as a planning

112 document of five years or more (Murphy & Murphy, 2004). The situation analysis and strategic planning sections address the key aspects of the traditional strategic planning approach recognized in both the general strategic planning literature and the tourism strategic planning literature through the consideration of overall goals and objectives, scope or domain of action to achieve objectives, resources and/or distinctive competencies which will assist in achieving objectives, and skills and resource deployments (Schendel & Hofer, 1979; Simpson, 2001).

The third section, ‘stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process’ (stakeholder participation) assesses the nature and influence of stakeholder involvement, including the stage at which involvement occurred and the extent to which local stakeholder opinion was taken into account in the final planning outcomes (Simpson, 2001). This is considered a key aspect of the process because as the literature suggests, effective strategic planning is a collective phenomenon typically involving a diverse set of stakeholders in various ways and at various times (Bryson, 1995; Bryson & Roering, 1987). The ‘destination community vision and values’ section examined the integration of community values into the tourism planning process and the extent to which the vision for the future of the destination is in keeping with such values. The final section, the ‘dominant tourism planning approach’ was added to the original instrument to investigate the issue raised in the rationale for the study (Chapter One) that the tourism industry has been slow to adopt sustainability principles and actually put them into practice due to the fact that economic motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998). In assessing the documents for their tourism planning approach, the goals and objectives as well as strategies and action plans/agendas within the documents were examined.

Table 5.2: Tourism Planning Process Evaluation Instrument Physical, Environmental and Economic Situation Analysis • The planning document describes the area’s principal geographic features • The planning document describes the main characteristics of the local climate • The planning document identifies flora and fauna which are unique to the area • The planning document assesses the resilience and/or fragility of the physical environment • The planning document identifies current population levels and demographics • The planning document identifies current land use and ownership patterns in the area

113 • The planning document identifies the major economic activities in the local area • The planning document establishes the relative importance of tourism, compared with other industries, to the economic development of the local area • The planning document quantifies the economic benefit of tourism to the area • The planning document quantifies the employment creation ability of local tourism activity • The planning document describes the principal tourism sites in the area • The planning document evaluates the current capacity of tourism plant and infrastructure • The planning document evaluates the adequacy of business skills possessed by local tourism industry operators • The planning document includes quantitative analysis of current visitor numbers, length of stay and spending • The planning document acknowledges the need to integrate local tourism strategies with other local, regional, state and national plans for tourism development Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning • The time dimension of the planning process reflects a long term orientation • The planning document includes broadly based goals related to the nature and scale of future tourism development • The planning document identifies broadly based goals related to the economic benefits of future tourism development • The planning document includes broadly based goals related to environmental protection • The planning document includes broadly based goals related to community values and lifestyle protection • The planning document includes broadly based goals which emphasize the local benefits of tourism development • The planning document identifies a range of alternative strategies by which broadly based goals may be achieved • The planning document evaluates each strategy option prior to determining a range of specific objectives • Specific objectives support previously established broad goals • Specific objectives selected are based on supply capability as opposed to market demand • Specific objectives target the equitable distribution of tourism’s economic benefits throughout the local area • Specific objectives for future tourism activity are quantified and readily measurable Stakeholder Participation and Influence in the Planning Process • The planning document addresses the relationships between destination stakeholders • Relevant state/federal government agencies took part in the planning process • Relevant local agencies took part in the planning process • Governmental opinions (federal, state, or local) influenced the final strategic direction selected • The relevant regional tourism organization took part in the planning process • The relevant local tourism authority took part in the planning process • Regional tourism organization or local tourism authority opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected • The local tourism industry took part in the planning process • Local tourism industry opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected • Other local non-tourism organizations took part in the planning process • Other local non-tourism organization opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected • Ordinary local residents took part in the planning process • Ordinary local resident opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected Destination Community Vision and Values • The planning document identifies locally important community values • The planning document identifies locally important lifestyle features • The planning document identifies current issues which are critical to residents • The planning document assesses community attitudes to tourism

114 • The planning document assesses the overall quality of life in the area • The planning document includes a vision for the future which aligns with local community values, attitudes and lifestyles Tourism Planning Approach • The planning document addresses economic development and growth • The planning document addresses the physical resources of the destination • The planning document addresses the impacts of tourism on the natural environment • The planning document addresses how tourism can benefit the local community • The planning document addresses tourism in the context of sustainable development Source: Adapted from Simpson, 2001

5.5.3 Ranking of Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents

To provide a more quantifiable and objective assessment of the performance of tourism planning documents against the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument each of the plans received a score which allowed for the weighting and ranking of each of the local tourism planning documents. To assist in determining the extent to which the analysed plans met with the tourism planning process evaluation criteria a ranking method was devised, based on a system developed by Zhang, Ruhanen, Murphy and Cooper (2004), so that a more objective assessment of the qualitative data could be made.

The ranking was derived from awarding evident items a score of 2, somewhat evident items a score of 1 and items that were not evident in the plans 0. Within the situation analysis section there were 15 items and therefore a plan could potentially receive a score of 30 for this category if all 15 items were evident (15 assessment items x a score of 2). The strategic indicators items could potentially achieve a score of 24 (12 assessment items), stakeholder participation 26 (13 assessment items) and destination vision and values a score of 12 (6 assessment items). A plan that had met with all of the stated criteria in the evaluation instrument could potentially receive a score of 92. By ranking the plans in accordance with their compliance with the assessment criteria a total score was derived. The total score is presented in the final column of Table 6.38 (Chapter Six). A percentage figure is also provided that shows the plan’s compliance with the assessment criteria, for example the Cardwell plan had a total score of 24 and the plan included 26% of the evaluation criteria.

115 5.5.4 Stage One: Summary

The first stage of the research involved a qualitative analysis of available tourism planning documents for each of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland. It was found that 30 destinations had a tourism plan and these were assessed utilising content analysis and underpinned by the use of a tourism planning process evaluation instrument originally developed by Simpson (2001) to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination planning process (Table 5.2).

The results of the first research stage are outlined in Chapter Six. Results of the planning process evaluation are presented for both the 30 tourism destinations collectively and for each destination that had a tourism plan. From this individual analysis, each of the plans were quantitatively weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria to provide the sampling framework for the second stage of the study.

5.6 Stage Two: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Local Tourism Destination Planning Process

The second objective of the study was to examine destination stakeholders’ perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process. As discussed, the establishment of a more strategically focused and sustainability oriented model hinges on the degree to which leading players among the stakeholder groups embrace it and champion the cause (Faulkner, 2003). It was therefore deemed important to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions of these key elements as without their support the planning process would be made redundant. Also addressed in the second stage of the research process were stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning as per the third research objective of the study. To address these objectives, in-depth, semi-structured

116 interviews were conducted with destination stakeholders in five local tourism case study areas in Queensland.

5.6.1 Local Tourism Destination Case Studies

Case studies were utilised in the research as they have been found to be valuable in that a great deal can be learned from a few exemplars of the phenomenon in question (Patton, 1990). The case study method refers to the systematic gathering of enough information about a particular person, social setting, event or group to permit the researcher to effectively understand how it operates or functions (Berg, 2001; Ragin & Becker, 1992). Collective case studies can also be used which involve the holistic study of several instrumental cases, whether similar or different in nature, to allow for better understanding and the enhanced ability to theorize about a broader context (Berg, 2001; Yin, 1994). Although some authors have suggested that findings are specific to the case study and cannot be generalized to other cases (Jennings, 2001), cases are selected for study because they are of particular interest given the study’s purpose (Patton, 1990). It has also been claimed that case study approaches are beneficial in determining what happened during the decision making, planning and policy making processes of tourism planning and policy making (Hall et al, 1997).

From the planning process evaluation conducted in the first stage of the research, each of the planning documents were numerically weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria (section 5.5.3). This allowed for an objective selection of case study destinations. As with Kaufman and Jacobs (1993) tourism planning study, case study eligibility for this research was based on selecting destinations where the tourism planning process was considered ‘advanced enough’ to allow for informed in-depth interviews with destination stakeholders regarding their perceptions of the local tourism planning process and how the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are incorporated. In Kaufman and Jacobs (1993) study participants represented communities for which strategic planning was far enough advanced to allow for an informed interview so that

117 they could contrast the strategic planning process with other, more traditional planning approaches. Based on this logic, as only five destinations met with over 50% of the criteria from the tourism planning process evaluation instrument, five destinations were selected as case studies to meet the second and third objectives of the study. Incidentally two of these destinations had also conducted a tourism visioning project for their destination which allowed for further in-depth analysis of the strategic visioning approach in relation to the third objective of the study. The five case study destinations selected were: Redland Shire, Sarina Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City Council, and Thuringowa City Council.

5.6.2 In-depth Interviews with Local Tourism Destination Stakeholders

In-depth, semi structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders in each of the five case study destinations selected for stage two of the research. Interviewing is a common means of collecting data in qualitative research and can be defined as simply, a conversation with a purpose, with the purpose being to gather information (Babbie, 1998; Denzin, 1978; Dexter, 1970; Marshall & Rossman, 1999). In-depth interviewing refers to respondents giving detailed, reflective answers based on consideration of their evidence and experiences. The advantage of in-depth interviews is researchers have the opportunity to obtain thoughtful answers based on the experience of participants as well as gain an insight into the topic from diverse viewpoints. They also allow researchers to find out about things that they did not directly observe, in this case the tourism destination planning process. A further advantage is the ability to collect large amounts of data in a relatively short period of time, as well as allowing for clarification of issues with participants on their thoughts. In-depth interviews can also be a useful method when the information is expected to vary considerably, and with the well-acknowledged diversity in stakeholder attitudes within a destination, this was certainly the case in this study.

While several types of interview categories can be utilised from completely standardized to completely un-standardized interview structures (Babbie, 1995; Berg, 2001; Maykut &

118 Morehouse, 1994; Schwartz & Jacobs, 1979), the semi standardized (or semi structured) interview technique was adopted for this study. Under this type of interviewing structure, a number of predetermined open questions are asked of each subject in a systematic and consistent order, but the interviewers have the freedom to digress to probe beyond the answers to the prepared and standardized questions (Berg, 2001). The researcher explores a few general topics to help uncover the participant’s views but otherwise respects how the participant frames and structures the responses which also allows for questions and discussion to be more suitably tailored to the circumstances of a particular interview.

An unstructured approach to interviewing is fundamental to qualitative research in that the participant’s perspective on the phenomenon of interest should unfold as the participant views it, not as the researcher views it (Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Patton, 1990). Such an approach is also important for researchers who subscribe to the constructivist theoretical perspective where the onus is on attempting to understand and interpret the experience from the point of view of those who have experienced it. The semi-structured interview approach allows researchers to see the basic social process through respondents telling us what is significant (Glaser, 1992), and was therefore seen as the most applicable approach for the research based on the researchers constructivist perspective.

The interview was designed to capture respondents’ reflections of the planning process, and as with Williams et al’s (1998) study of tourism planning, gain stakeholder perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses and outcomes of the planning process. An interview guide was prepared in advance of the interviews based on the key theories and issues raised in the literature review (Chapters Two, Three & Four) pertinent to the research objectives of this study. The objective of preparing an interview guide with a series of questions or topics was to ensure that the same information was obtained from all participants in the study (Patton, 1990). Respondents were also supplied with the interview guide in advance so that they had an opportunity to become familiar with the issues to be discussed. The interview guide included initial screening questions regarding

119 stakeholder’s regular affiliations in the destination, whether they were a resident of the area, their role in the tourism planning process, their reasons for participating in the planning process and their perceived influence and ownership of the plan outcomes. Following these initial questions four broad themes were used to guide the interview, with a series of prompts and questions for the researcher to use (Appendix Seven).

The first of these themes related to sustainability and included questions regarding stakeholder views on the concept of sustainability, perceived practical application of the sustainability concept and any factors that may be facilitating or hindering the adoption of sustainable tourism planning approaches. The second theme addressed strategic planning and included questions for stakeholders regarding their destination’s strategic planning process and more specifically whether the process had provided a framework for development in the destination, whether it would meet the current and future needs of the area and the perceived benefits and relevance of local level strategic planning processes.

The third theme addressed in the interviews related to broad based stakeholder participation in the tourism planning and decision-making process, including the role of local residents. Respondents were asked for their views on how the multiple stakeholder groups were engaged in the planning process, the success of multiple stakeholder participation and whether stakeholder participation had enhanced the tourism planning process and resulted in a more accepted tourism plan for the destination. This theme also addressed stakeholder leadership and responsibility for planning and the role of the local government authority in local tourism destination planning. The final theme addressed future planning practices and stakeholder perceptions of the strategic visioning concept as a tourism destination planning model. Additional questions were included within this theme for stakeholders from the case study destinations that had previously participated in a strategic visioning process.

Typically interviews ranged from 45 minutes to an hour, depending on respondents’ willingness to discuss and delve into the issues under investigation. Interviews were

120 tape-recorded with the permission of the respondent to avoid the disruption of note-taking (King, 1994) and transcribed by the researcher as soon as practically possible after the interview to allow for clarification and additional notes to be made if necessary. The interviews were conducted with stakeholders at a time and place of their convenience, which in all cases was in the case study region (the subject’s natural setting).

5.6.3 Stakeholder Interview Sampling

A sampling strategy was designed to guide the selection of subjects to participate in the in-depth interviews. Qualitative sampling includes people (or settings) selected for the goal of gaining a deep understanding of some phenomenon experienced by a selected group of people (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). In contrast to quantitative sampling where randomly selecting subjects is necessary to ensure the population is representative (probability sampling), qualitative research sets out to build a sample through a non- probability or non-random sample, with every person in the study having an equal chance of selection (Jennings, 2001). Although there are several possible non-probability sampling approaches available, the technique adopted for sampling the participants for the in-depth interviews in this study was a purposive snowball sampling strategy.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling strategy that can locate subjects with certain attributes or characteristics necessary for a study (Berg, 2001). The basic strategy of snowballing (also referred to as chain or expert sampling) involves firstly identifying several people with relevant characteristics and interviewing them, at which time these subjects are asked for the names of other people who possess the same attributes as they do. Snowball sampling has been found to be useful with difficult to reach participants because the researcher may not be informed about formal or informal ‘network connections’ (Jennings, 2001). Medeiros de Arajo and Bramwell (1999) identify the snowball method as a useful means of identifying relevant stakeholders based on the views of other stakeholders. They further state that the snowball method can be very useful at a local level, thus its inclusion as a sampling strategy in this study. The researcher firstly identified stakeholders from the tourism planning document analysis

121 (stage one research) that played a critical role either as coordinator of the planning process, on a steering committee or were noted as authors of the strategy. On completion of interviews these participants were asked to identify other stakeholders, which had been involved in the planning process. The success of this approach varied between case studies. For instance in the case of Sarina, all six stakeholders approached participated in an interview, whereas in the case of Redland Shire a total of ten stakeholders were contacted, with only six agreeing to participate in an interview (Table 5.3).

Table 5.3: Stakeholder Interview Response Rate

Case Study Destination Response Rate Total Respondents Redland Shire 60% 6 Sarina Shire 100% 6 Douglas Shire 75% 6 Gold Coast City 75% 6 Thuringowa City 70% 7

While quantitative sampling studies have strict criteria for obtaining statistically valid samples of the population, the sampling size for qualitative research is not so exact. It has even been suggested that there are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry as there is no attempt to make generalisations for the population, as is the case with quantitative research (Patton, 1990). In determining the sampling size for qualitative research, it is suggested that one must collect and analyse data in an ongoing process until no new information is presented (Guba, 1978; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). Similarly, Punch (1998) suggests that the process continues until no new data are found, only confirmation of previous ‘theories’. Authors have found that saturation point may be reached with as few as twelve participants and no more than twenty (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For this study, a minimum of five stakeholder respondents from each of the case study destinations was considered desirable to obtain a total study sample of 25. This figure was considered acceptable based on previously conducted studies of the tourism planning process that utilised stakeholders as interview participants (Getz & Jamal, 1994;

122 Timothy, 1999). In total 31 stakeholder respondents were interviewed from the five case study destinations, which exceeded the minimum acceptable target. It was also found that a saturation point had been reached in terms of identifying additional appropriate stakeholders to participate in the study based on the snowball sampling method.

Three main stakeholder groups in local tourism destination planning were identified in the literature review (Chapter Three): the local government authority of the destination, members of the tourism industry (operators and service providers) and the destination resident community. Although it is highly debatable as to who constitutes as a stakeholder, it is generally accepted that all three parties should have decision-making responsibility for the future of the destination (Chapter Three), and therefore were deemed to be the potential participants of this study. Actual participants in the study included stakeholders from the local government authority of the destination (councillors and council officers), and members of the tourism industry (private sector operators, members or staff of tourism associations and similar authorities). Although not originally identified as a stakeholder, consultants who were retained for the planning process were also interviewed and actually proved to be key stakeholders (Chapter Eight). Despite being widely acknowledged as a key stakeholder group, local residents of the destination community who participated in the planning process could not be interviewed. As discussed in the limitations of the study (section 5.8), it was not possible to obtain contact information for local residents for any of the case study destinations, despite concerted attempts to do so. However many of the respondents from the other stakeholder group categories were also residents of the destinations under investigation (Table 5.4).

Respondent’s regular affiliations as well as their role in the local tourism planning process, and their perceived influence over the tourism planning process are presented in Table 5.5. Respondents were asked during the interviews to describe their perceived level of influence over the planning process, which is discussed in Chapter Eight. The respondent codes listed in the first column of Table 5.5 have been used to identify

123 responses from stakeholder participants in the results of the in-depth interviews in Chapter Seven.

Table 5.4: Respondent Regular Affiliation and Residence in Destination Case Study Case Study Case Study Case Study Case Study 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- Redland Sarina Douglas Gold Coast Thuringowa

Affiliation Council 2 3 2 1 2 Industry 1 1 1 1 2 Association 2 2 2 1 1 Consultant 1 0 1 3 2 Total 6 6 6 6 7

Resident Yes 5 5 5 3 4 No 1 1 1 3 3 Resident Average 18.5 44.6 31.0 15.0 7.3 Years

Table 5.5: Respondent Role in Planning Process and Regular Affiliation Role In Planning Process Regular Affiliation Perceived Influence

Case Study 1- Redland R1 Project Consultant Consultant Intermediate R2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High R3 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council Intermediate R4 Consultation Industry Operator Low R5 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority Intermediate R6 Consultation Local Tourism Authority Low

Case Study 2- Sarina S1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High S2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High S3 Steering Committee Shire Council Intermediate S4 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority Intermediate S5 Steering Committee Industry Operator Intermediate S6 Steering Committee Regional Tourism Organisation Low

Case Study 3- Douglas D1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High

124 D2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High D3 Project Consultant Consultant High D4 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority Intermediate D5 Steering Committee Industry Operator Intermediate D6 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority Intermediate

Case Study 4- Gold Coast G1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High G2 Project Consultant Consultant Intermediate G3 Project Consultant Consultant Low G4 Consultation Local Tourism Authority Intermediate G5 Project Researcher Consultant Low G6 Consultation Industry Operator Intermediate

Case Study 5- Thuringowa T1 Steering Committee State Tourism Authority Low T2 Consultation Regional Tourism Organisation Low T3 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High T4 Consultation Industry Operator Low T5 Consultation Industry Operator Low T6 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High T7 Project Consultant Consultant High

5.6.4 Stage Two Content Analysis

Qualitative research generally results in large amounts of rich data, and this was certainly the case in this research with 31 in-depth interview transcripts. To reduce and transform the data into an accessible and understandable form, and to draw out various themes and patterns associated with the participants being studied (Berg, 2001; Dey, 1993; Neuendorf, 2002), the transcripts were analysed and organised utilising the principles of content analysis. Researchers subscribing to the constructivist paradigm consider that data should be analysed through a process of induction, where the researcher constructs and reconstructs meaning in the data in relation to the research question (Janesick, 2000). Although statistical analysis programs such as NUD*IST can be employed for certain types of qualitative data analysis, such software packages are generally not considered suitable for constructivist approaches and are more applicable to positivist methods, as the data becomes removed from its contextual origins and from the researchers constructions and interpretations (Charmaz, 2000).

125 A central idea in content analysis is that the many words of the text are classified into much fewer content categories, which may consist of one, several or many words (Swift, 1996; Weber, 1990). The researcher analysed the data in accordance with the content analysis method referred to as the thematic framework approach. This approach involves organizing the data into categories on the basis of themes, concepts or similar features, from which new concepts are developed, conceptual definitions are formulated and relationships among concepts are examined (Berg, 2001; Jennings, 2001; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Neuman, 2000; Sapsford & Jupp, 1996). Identified themes, concepts and patterns are then considered in light of previous research and theories, so that generalizations can be established (Berg, 2001). This constant comparative method requires the comparison of all the items of data that have been assigned to the same category, with the aim being to clarify what the categories that have emerged mean, as well as to identify sub-categories and relations among categories (Berg, 2001). The benefit of this approach is that it provides a useful method for organizing the content according to some characteristics prior to the application of the next level of data coding (Baker, 1999). This approach also avoids the more quantitative content analysis practice of counting words and paragraphs.

The thematic framework approach has been used previously in qualitative tourism planning research studies. Medeiros de Arajo and Bramwell’s (1999) study used the framework approach to analyse interview transcripts from stakeholders which involved a series of systematic steps of becoming familiar with the material, identifying a thematic framework, rearranging the data according to appropriate thematic references, identifying key characteristics of the data, and interpreting the overall findings. Similarly Getz and Jamal’s (1994) study of collaborative tourism planning employed a qualitative procedure of data analysis, with statements being sorted into broad categories as they emerged and then further divided into sub-categories.

126 5.6.5 Data Coding

To undertake a qualitative research process consideration must be given to the process of data coding. Using a thematic framework approach to data analysis, data coding is a somewhat subjective process, however Boulton and Hammersely’s (1996) method of analysing unstructured data is useful. They suggest closely reading the data with a view to identifying aspects that may be significant, while noting topics or categories to which the data relate and which are relevant to the research focus, or are in some other way pertinent to the research issue. The data is then sorted by these categories, identifying similar phrases, patterns, relationships, and commonalities or disparities to isolate meaningful patterns and processes. Codes are generally developed analytically or inductively from the data.

To further refine the data coding process manifest and latent analysis were also used once the thematic framework approach had been applied to the data sets. Content analysis in this context examines not only examines the manifest content of the material analysed (such as words) but also the latent content (the underlying, implicit meaning of a body of content) (Baker, 1999). Manifest codes are derived from the examination of those elements that are physical and countable, and is seen as highly reliable as a word or phrase either is or is not present in a text (Neuman, 1997). Manifest coding, however does not take into account the symbolism underlying the physical data or the connotations associated with the context of words and phrases, therefore requiring a latent or interpretive reading of the text (Berg, 2001). Manifest attributes of text may be coded and when supplemented with latent analysis, detailed excerpts from relevant statements are provided to document the researchers’ interpretations.

It has been noted by some that this approach is a controversial coding method, “it is true that only the manifest attributes of text can be coded, but this limitation is already implied by the requirement of objectivity” (Holsti, 1968, p.602), so giving a unit of content the same attention from both methods is reasonably valid and reliable (Babbie, 1998). By reporting the frequency of a given concept in the text, researchers can provide a more

127 convincing argument (Berg, 2001). To investigate the deeper meanings from the in-depth interviews that an interpretive constructivist paradigm seeks, manifest analysis is utilized to determine the extent to which the topics and issues uncovered through the thematic framework occur, with the latent analysis used to provide detail and attribute meaning to the stakeholder’s interview responses.

5.6.6 Ethical Considerations

The University of Queensland has strict guidelines relating to ethical approval for research which the researcher complied with in undertaking this study. These guidelines extend to the establishment of procedures for the informed consent of research participants, the protection of participant identity, as well as the appropriate management of research findings including data storage and member cross checking.

Informed consent involves participants understanding the nature and purpose of the research and consenting to participate without coercion (Burns, 1997). Participants must also be made aware of the purpose of the research and how the findings will be used, as well as any potential risks or harm (de Vaus, 1995). In accordance with ethical regulations, participants were supplied with an information sheet to be retained for their record, detailing the nature of the project as well as the contact details of the researcher and supervisory team should they wish to discuss the project further (Appendix Eight). In addition participants were provided with a consent form, which was signed and returned to the researcher before the interviews began (Appendix Nine). Participants were also made aware both verbally and on the consent form that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time. In addition participants were notified and their permission sought for the use of a tape-recorder in the interview. The stated measures regarding informed consent were deemed sufficient, as the research was not seeking any type of controversial information from respondents.

Confidentiality and anonymity refers to protecting names and keeping the confidence of participants in the study. Although qualitative methods preclude total anonymity, as the

128 researcher knows the participant, participants in the study have not been individually identified in any way in the thesis document and were notified as such in the consent forms and information sheet provided prior to conducting the interview. Particular responses have only been identified by the respondent code and respondent’s regular affiliation (Table 5.5). To further ensure confidentiality and protect participant identity, the records of the research including audio material and interview transcripts have been stored by the researcher in a password protected computer and locked filing cabinet.

Member cross checking involves giving participants a copy of the interview transcript so that they have an opportunity to refute or verify the researcher’s interpretation of their comments. Member checks are seen as an important process due to the subjective nature of qualitative research, and are also viewed as a form of methodological triangulation (Schwandt, 1997). To remove researcher bias all participants in the study were provided with a written copy of the interview transcripts and were asked to check the documents for accuracy of meaning and to rectify any comments that they felt had been misinterpreted.

5.6.7 Stage Two: Summary

The second stage of the research involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews with destination stakeholders in five local tourism case study areas in Queensland. This stage of the research was designed to examine destination stakeholders’ perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process, as well as address stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning. 31 interviews were conducted with stakeholders from five case study destinations, which were selected based on the outcomes of stage one of the research. The case study approach was considered useful for the purposes of this research as the holistic study of several instrumental cases allows for enhanced understanding and the ability to theorize about a topic in a broader context.

129 In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders due to the constructivist approach adopted for this study. The interviews addressed several themes derived from the literature review including sustainability, strategic planning, stakeholder participation and strategic visioning. Respondents were sampled from the five case study areas utilising a purposive snowball sampling method to identify appropriate stakeholder participants from the local tourism destination planning process. The researcher analysed the data in accordance with the content analysis method referred to as the thematic framework approach. The thematic framework approach to content analysis was initially applied to analyse the interview transcripts, with data coded utilising the manifest and latent method to investigate the deeper meanings from the in-depth interviews that an interpretive constructivist paradigm seeks.

The results of the second research stage are outlined in Chapter Seven. Stakeholder interview results are presented according to the previously identified themes of sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation to address the second research objective of the study. Additionally the interview results regarding stakeholder perceptions of alternative planning practices and strategic visioning are presented to address the third research objective, with more detailed results presented for the two destinations, which have previously undertaken a strategic visioning process.

5.7 Methodological Triangulation

Several methods were employed for this study, including secondary data content analysis and in-depth interviews conducted within a case study format. The use of multiple data- gathering techniques to investigate the same phenomenon is defined as methodological triangulation, which is a process of mutual confirmation of measures and validation of findings (Berg, 2001; Blaikie, 1991; Decrop, 1999; Jick, 1983; Leedy, 1993). The advantages of such an approach are the opportunities to refine, broaden, and strengthen conceptual linkages while offering perspectives other than the researcher’s own (Borman, LeCompte & Goetz, 1986; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Triangulation also assists in generalizing a study as data can be used to corroborate, elaborate or illuminate the

130 research in question (Rossman & Wilson, 1994). Marshall and Rossman (1999) support such claims as they find that designing a study in which multiple cases, multiple informants, or more than one data-gathering method are used can greatly strengthen the study’s usefulness for other settings.

Although it is common for studies with more objectivist assumptions (quantitative) to triangulate interview data with data gathered from other methods, the triangulation of research methods was also deemed useful for this study. Even though the study adopted a constructivist subjective epistemology which assumes an emic (insider) approach, the content analysis of secondary data is a means of triangulation as it positions the researcher as an outsider thus being etic in nature (Jennings, 2001). The tourism planning process evaluation instrument, which was used to guide the content analysis, assisted in the data triangulation, as it required objective observations of the inclusion of certain criteria in the planning document. As Simpson (2001) noted in developing the instrument, items were phrased to require objective evaluations of fact, rather than subjective expressions of opinion, and considerable care was taken to clearly define any subjective concepts. Although not proven statistically reliable for a quantitative study, the care to alleviate subjectiveness and assessor bias was deemed particularly useful for the current study in assisting the researcher reduce some of the inherent subjectivity in qualitative research (Mason, 2002).

5.8 Methodological Limitations and Assumptions of the Study

The research is bound within certain delimitations, limitations and assumptions. The study is delimited by the examination of the tourism planning processes of local tourism destinations (as defined by Shire Council boundaries) in Queensland. Tourism specific planning documents including strategic plans, development plans and the like have been examined, with tourism destination marketing plans excluded from analysis. The study has not addressed the implementation phase of the plan, only the planning process and the extent to which it was underpinned by the principles of sustainable development and the identified prerequisites of strategic planning and stakeholder participation. The study

131 was also delimited by an assessment of the most recent planning document published by the destination. In terms of selecting destinations for further investigation as per the second research objective, destinations that ranked below 50% were excluded. This was based on the fact that such destinations had addressed less than half of the evaluation items relating to the themes under investigation and were therefore considered unsuitable to provide an informed view on sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation (Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993). It is acknowledged that this is a subjective judgment and 50% was an imposed pass mark, although an arbitrary figure was set to allow for a more objective selection of case study destinations. However if more of the tourism planning documents had received a higher score in the evaluation assessment this ‘pass’ figure may have been adjusted accordingly. A further delimitation is that interviews were not undertaken with every participant in the planning process, nor were they conducted with tourism destination stakeholders who, for whatever reason, did not participate in the planning process under investigation.

The study and research methods are also limited by several factors. Firstly, stage one of the research was conducted over a six month period in 2004. It is possible that since this time additional local tourism planning documents have been released that the researcher did not identify. Although an inherent and accepted challenge of qualitative research it must also be noted that the researcher’s personal perspectives may have influenced the interpretation of the planning documents, despite the use of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument. In terms of the second stage of the research it was noted previously that it was not possible to interview ordinary residents of the case study destinations who had participated in the planning process. Due to privacy laws the researcher was unable to obtain contact details for these participants and the snowball sampling method also proved unsuccessful in overcoming this limitation. It was eventually deemed that residents could not participate in the interviews, and the omission of their perspectives of the planning process is acknowledged as a limitation of the study given that destination residents are acknowledged as a key stakeholder (Chapter Three). Although many of the respondents interviewed were also residents of the area (Table 5.4)

132 due to their regular affiliations they all have some level of vested interest in tourism within their destination.

The study is also set within several assumptions. Firstly it was assumed that a number of local tourism destinations in Queensland would have a tourism specific planning document. In addition it was assumed that the destinations alignment with the principles of sustainability would influence the content of the tourism planning documents. It was further assumed that it would be possible to identify key aspects of sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation from the plans and stakeholder interviews. The final assumption of the study was that participants from the planning process would be available to participate in the interviews.

5.9 Chapter Five Summary

This chapter has outlined the methodology employed for the research, including both the underpinning research philosophy and the specific research methods that were used to collect and analyse the data. Given the objectives of the study, the issues under investigation and the researcher’s views that the world is socially constructed and the relationship between the researcher and subject excludes total objectivity, the qualitative- interpretive methodological approach was detailed including the constructivist epistemology, relativist ontology and qualitative methodology.

Qualitative research methodologies and processes were discussed prior to outlining the two-phase research process undertaken for the study: the content analysis of local tourism planning documents and in-depth interviews with stakeholders from five case study destinations in Queensland. The sampling strategies and data analysis methods for both phases of the research were detailed, as were the methodological limitations and assumptions of the study. Chapter Six details the results of the first research objective, the analysis of Queensland local tourism planning documents, and Chapter Seven addresses the second and third objectives of the study, through the results of the in-depth stakeholder interviews from five case study local tourism destinations.

133 Chapter Six Tourism Planning at the Local Tourism Destination Level

6.0 Introduction

The first research objective of the study was to investigate the current planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. To achieve this objective an analysis of the most recent, publicly available, tourism specific planning documents of each of the 125 local tourism destinations (Shire Council areas) in Queensland was undertaken. The evaluation instrument (Table 5.2, Chapter Five) provided the means for qualitatively assessing the extent to which local tourism destinations in Queensland addressed the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation in their planning processes as detailed in their respective tourism planning documents.

This chapter presents the findings from this analysis and is structured into four sections. To begin with an overview is provided of the number and type of tourism planning documents for local Queensland tourism destinations. Following this, the overall results of the plan analysis are presented to illustrate how local tourism destinations in Queensland on the whole met with the stated evaluative criteria (Table 5.2, Chapter Five). Thirdly, the individual analysis for each of the local tourism plans is detailed to demonstrate the extent to which they match the criteria from the tourism planning process evaluation instrument. From this individual analysis, each of the plans are quantitatively weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria, to allow for the selection of case study destinations as per the second objective of the study. To conclude, importance-performance analyses are presented for both destinations that did have a tourism planning document and those that did not, to assess any correlation that may exist between the importance of tourism to the destination and undertaking local level tourism destination planning.

134 6.1 Audit of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents

To meet the first objective of the study an initial audit was undertaken of tourism planning documents for each of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland. As discussed in the methodology chapter, tourism-specific planning documents were sought for further analysis referring to and including tourism strategies, tourism development plans, tourism management plans, and tourism action plans. Tourism marketing strategies and plans were excluded due to the fact that the focus of the study was sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation.

Of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland it was found that 30 destinations (24%) had a tourism specific planning document (Figure 6.1). The vast majority, 65% or 81 of the 125 destinations, did not have a tourism planning document for their local area. The remaining 14 destinations (11%) were found to be in the process of developing some form of tourism plan or strategy at the time of audit. Appendix Six provides a full catalogue of the planning status for each of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland.

Figure 6.1: Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents (n=125)

Plan in Progress 11% Plan 24%

No Plan 65%

Although it may be expected that the larger, more popular tourist centres (such as Cairns, Brisbane) would have a tourism planning document Figure 6.2 highlights that there is no

135 correlation between location and whether the destination has a tourism plan. This can also be seen when contrasting the destinations that do have a tourism plan with those that do not, against the number of tourism businesses in the area (the importance of tourism to the destination). Some of the largest tourism destinations in Queensland (in terms of tourism businesses) such as Brisbane, Cairns and Townsville do not have a local level tourism planning document. Interestingly destinations such as Pittsworth have a tourism planning document yet only have 10 tourism businesses. These issues are further discussed in section 6.5 of this chapter. However as per the research methods, destinations that do not have a tourism plan were excluded from further analysis.

Figure 6.2: Importance of Tourism to Destination* and Tourism Destination Planning Documents

>3000 Brisbane >2000 Gold Coast >1000 Cairns >500 Maroochy Townsville >400

>300 Tourism s

e plan s

s >200 e n i >100 s u

B >50

m No

s >40 i

r tourism u

o >30 plan T >20 >15

>10 Pittsworth >5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 No. of Queensland Local Tourism Destinations (Shire Council Areas) Source: Office of Economic and Statistical Research, 2005 * Note: Tourism business figures based on combined Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants and Cultural and Recreational Services categories (Appendix Ten).

Table 6.1 outlines the catalogue items for the 30 local tourism destinations in Queensland which have a specific tourism planning document, including the title of the document, who it was prepared by, what it was prepared for, and the year the document was

136 published. Consultants prepared approximately half of the planning documents and the local shire council commissioned the vast majority. The final column in Table 6.1 indicates the year that the plan was published and as can be seen, the majority of the plans (19) were released between 2000-2003. It can also be seen in Table 6.1 and diagrammatically in Figure 6.3 that 17 of the 30 documents (56%) were identified (titled) as strategic plans, eight were (27%) general tourism plans or tourism development plans, and five were tourism action plans (17%).

Table 6.1: Catalogue of Queensland Local Tourism Planning Documents Catalogue Shire Council Title of Document Prepared by Prepared for Year Plan No. Area 1 Atherton Atherton Tablelands Strategic Expert panel Not Stated Not Development Plan Stated 2 Banana Banana Shire Tourism Consultant Shire Council Not Development Plan Stated 3 Blackall Tourism and Economic Consultant Shire Council 2003 Vitalisation Strategy 4 Bowen Tourism Development Action Not Stated Not Stated 2003 Plan 5 Burdekin Burdekin Shire Tourism Consultant RTO 1999 Action Plan 6 Caloundra Caloundra Tourism Plan Shire Council Not Stated 2002 Caloundra Tourism Action 2002 Plan 7 Cardwell Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan Shire tourism Not Stated 2002 taskforce 8 Chinchilla Chinchilla Shire Council’s Consultant/ Shire Council 2002 Tourism Plan Shire Council 9 Crow’s Nest Crow’s Nest Tourism Shire Council Shire Council 2003 Development Action Plan 10 Douglas Douglas Shire Tourism Consultant Shire Council 1998 Strategy 11 Gatton Gatton Tourism Strategy Consultant Shire Council 1996 12 Gold Coast Gold Coast City Council’s Tourism Shire Council 2003 Tourism Strategy Branch-Shire Council 13 Hinchinbrook Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Shire Council/ Shire Council 1993 Development Strategy Development Bureau 14 Ipswich Ipswich City Tourism Strategy Shire Council Shire Council 1997 15 Kilcoy Kilcoy Shire Tourism Consultant Chamber of 2001 Management Plan Commerce & Industry 16 Laidley Laidley Shire Tourism Consultant Shire Council 1997 Strategy 17 Mareeba Tourism Development Not Stated Shire Council 2002 Strategy 18 Maroochy Tourism Development Consultant Shire Council 2000

137 Strategy 19 Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Consultant Shire Council 1994 Strategy 20 Mount Isa Mount Isa Tourism Consultant Shire Council 2000 Masterplan 21 Murilla Murilla Shire Tourism Action Not Stated Not Stated Not Plan Stated 22 Nanango Nanango Shire Tourism Consultant Shire Council 2001 Development Action Plan 23 Noosa Noosa Tourism Plan Tourism Board Shire Council 2001 Noosa Tourism Action Plan 2001 24 Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy Not Stated Shire Council Not Stated 25 Pittsworth Pittsworth Shire Council Local Shire Council Shire Council 2003 Tourism Strategy 26 Redcliffe Redcliffe Tourism Consultant Shire Council 2001 Development Strategy 27 Redland Redland Shire Sustainable Consultant Shire Council 2003 Tourism Development Strategy 28 Roma Tourism Action Plan Not Stated Not Stated 2000 29 Sarina Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy Shire Council Shire Council 2002 30 Thuringowa Thuringowa Tourism and Consultant Shire Council 2000 Event Strategy

Figure 6.3: Title of Tourism Planning Document (n=30)

Tourism Action Plan 17% Tourism Plan 27% Strategic Tourism Plan 56%

6.2 Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents

Each of the 30 tourism planning documents uncovered in the initial audit were individually analysed to determine the extent to which they addressed the criteria from the tourism planning process evaluation instrument, and these results are detailed in the following section of this chapter. This section presents an overview of the results from

138 this analysis to illustrate how the local tourism planning process and subsequent local tourism destination plans in Queensland on the whole met with the stated evaluative criteria (Table 5.2, Chapter Five). These results are presented in both summative tables and diagrammatically in bar graphs where the evident and somewhat evident criteria have been combined into a single dimension so that the extent to which the criteria appear in the plans can be more easily recognised. The results are presented according to the evaluation instrument: physical, environmental and economic situation analysis; strategic indicators of destination planning; stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process; destination community vision and values; and, tourism planning approach.

6.2.1 Physical, Environmental and Economic Situation Analysis

The physical, environmental and economic situation analysis section included evaluation items to assess the existing economic, environmental and socio-cultural parameters, as well as current visitor activity levels in the destination area (Simpson, 2001). Table 6.2 and Figure 6.4 outline each of the 15 evaluation items and whether they were assessed as evident, somewhat evident or not evident in the 30 tourism planning documents.

Table 6.2: Physical, Environmental and Economic Situation Analysis n=30 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident The planning document describes the area’s principal 9 8 13 geographic features. The planning document describes the main 5 1 24 characteristics of the local climate. The planning document identifies flora and fauna which 2 2 26 are unique to the area. The planning document assesses the resilience and/or 3 4 23 fragility of the physical environment. The planning document identifies current population 9 2 19 levels and demographics. The planning document identifies current land use and 5 1 24 ownership patterns in the area. The planning document identifies the major economic 14 1 15 activities in the local area. The planning document establishes the relative 10 7 13 importance of tourism, compared with other industries, to the economic development of the local area.

139 The planning document quantifies the economic benefit 7 0 23 of tourism to the area. The planning document quantifies the employment 6 1 23 creation ability of local tourism activity. The planning document describes the principal tourism 15 2 13 sites in the area. The planning document evaluates the current capacity 5 4 21 of tourism plant and infrastructure. The planning document evaluates the adequacy of 3 3 24 business skills possessed by local tourism industry operators. The planning document includes quantitative analysis 14 4 12 of current visitor numbers, length of stay and spending. The planning document acknowledges the need to 5 5 20 integrate local tourism strategies with national policies for tourism development.

Figure 6.4: Physical, Environmental and Economic Situation Analysis (n=30)

13 13 13 12 15 19 Not Evident 21 20 24 23 24 23 23 24 26

Evident/ 17 17 17 18 15 Somewhat 11 Evident 9 10 6 7 6 77 6 4

G e o g ra p h ic fe a tu L re o s ca l c lim F a l te P o Evenh rawith the evident and somewhat evident categories combined, Figure 6.4 y & P s o ic fa p a u u l e n la n a demonstratesti vi that most local tourism destinations in Queensland are not conducting a o ro n n & m d e e n m t o physical,g environmental or economic situation analysis of the destination for their tourism ra p h i cs L planningE a processes. Of the 15 evaluation items, 10 were not evident in the majority of co n n d o u m se Im ic documents.p a This is despite the fact that the items in this category are comprised of o c T r ti o ta vi u n ti r c e is e s m o descriptivef type information on the local area and baseline data and statistics, which are e to co u n r o is m m ic generallyb readily available and should be used as a starting point for any consideration of e n e E fit m s p lo ym T e o n In u t fr ri a sm st ru s c ite tu s re 140 c a p a O c p i e ty ra to r V s i k s ill ito s r In a te n r a g ly ra s te is st ra te g ie s tourism activity and development within a destination (Simpson, 2001). Very few of the documents included this primary destination information such as local climate, flora and fauna, the physical environment, population levels and demographics, and land use and ownership patterns. Similarly including some level of data or discussion on the economic benefit of tourism, employment creation ability and current capacity of tourism plant and infrastructure was also missing from the vast majority of documents, which once again is baseline information that would be expected in a tourism planning document. Evaluation items that were included in a number of the plans were descriptions of the area’s principal geographic features and tourism sites, and half of the documents addressed the relative economic importance of tourism compared to other industries in the area.

6.2.2 Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning

The strategic indicators of destination planning category contains evaluation items to establish whether the destination has clear goals and objectives to allow for future planned development (Simpson, 2001). Table 6.3 and Figure 6.5 outline each of the 12 evaluation items and whether they were assessed as evident, somewhat evident or not evident in the analysed tourism plans.

Table 6.3: Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning n=30 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident The time dimension of the planning process reflects a 16 6 8 long term orientation. The planning document includes broadly based goals 3 5 22 related to the nature and scale of future tourism development. The planning document identifies broadly based goals 4 0 26 related to the economic benefits of future tourism development. The planning document includes broadly based goals 8 2 20 related to environmental protection. The planning document includes broadly based goals 8 0 22 related to community values and lifestyle protection. The planning document includes broadly based goals 5 0 25 which emphasize the local benefits of tourism development. The planning document identifies a range of alternative 16 0 14 strategies by which broadly based goals may be

141 achieved. The planning document evaluates each strategy option 4 2 24 prior to determining a range of specific objectives. Specific objectives support previously established broad 2 8 20 goals. Specific objectives selected are based on supply 6 12 12 capability as opposed to market demand. Specific objectives target the equitable distribution of 5 3 22 tourism’s economic benefits throughout the local area. Specific objectives for future tourism activity are 9 3 18 quantified and readily measurable.

Figure 6.5: Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning (n=30)

8 12 14 18 20 20 22 22 22 Not 24 26 25 Evident

22 Evident/ 18 16 Somewhat 12 Evident 10 10 8 8 8 6 4 5

n t s ls ls s s s ls ty ts le io en al a a al ie n a ili fi b t o o o o g tio o b e ia ta pm g g g g te p g a n if n o c al y it a o rt p be nt rie el i t it ef tr y o a f a o v m en n n s g p c o u e no u e e te up ly n q rm d o m m b tiv a s p o s e e c on m al a tr s up ti e t ur E ir o c n s e S u tiv g t v C o er te iv rib c on Fu n L lt a ct st je L E A lu je i b va b D O E O

As with the situation analysis category, local tourism destinations in Queensland are not including strategic indicators of destination planning, demonstrating that little attention is given to strategic thinking and consideration of the future. Of the 12 assessment items in this category, the majority of the evaluation items (9) were not evident in over half of the analysed documents. Although certain assessment items were included in a number of the documents, these items tended to be quite standard, introductory information, examples include the time scale of the document and providing a range of alternative strategies to achieve stated goals.

142 Other evaluation items in this category, which are far more pertinent to any consideration of strategic destination planning, tended to be overlooked and omitted from the documents. An obvious indicator of a strategic orientation, ‘broadly based goals related to the nature and scale of future tourism development’ were not even considered in 22 of the 30 plans. This could effectively mean that the majority of destinations in the study have not considered what their destination will be like in the future, and therefore would have no point of reference to measure, even anecdotally, when the destination has reached a critical stage of development. Similarly, economic, environmental and social goals related to tourism are not articulated, nor are ‘specific objectives for future tourism activity are quantified and readily measurable’, which means there is no point of reference for ensuring goals are reached and more importantly not exceeded or diverted.

6.2.3 Stakeholder Participation and Influence in the Planning Process

The third category in the evaluation instrument, stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process, assesses the nature and influence of stakeholder involvement in the process and included 13 evaluation items (Table 6.4). The stakeholder participation section more specifically included evaluation items to establish the temporal dimension of community participation, that is whether involvement took place throughout the process, or at specific stages only, and to measure the extent to which local stakeholder opinion has been taken into account in the final planning outcomes (Simpson, 2001).

Table 6.4: Stakeholder Participation and Influence in the Planning Process n=30 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident The planning document addresses the relationships 20 6 4 between destination stakeholders Relevant state/federal government agencies took part in 22 3 5 the planning process Relevant local agencies took part in the planning 6 10 14 process Governmental opinions (federal, state, or local) 0 16 14 influenced the final strategic direction selected The relevant regional tourism organization took part in 6 4 20 the planning process The relevant local tourism authority took part in the 6 6 18 planning process

143 Regional tourism organization or local tourism 0 13 17 authority opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected The local tourism industry took part in the planning 7 12 11 process Local tourism industry opinion influenced the final 0 19 11 strategic direction selected Other local non-tourism organizations took part in the 5 5 20 planning process Other local non-tourism organization opinion 0 10 20 influenced the final strategic direction selected Ordinary local residents took part in the planning 7 6 17 process Ordinary local resident opinion influenced the final 0 13 17 strategic direction selected

As can be seen in Table 6.4, none of the assessment items relating to influence on the final strategic direction selected were considered evident in the planning documents. This was due to the fact that unless specifically stated otherwise it was difficult to determine whether the participation and opinions of a particular stakeholder did in fact contribute to the final strategic direction selected. Instead these assessment items were rated as somewhat evident due to the fact that a stakeholders’ participation in the process (in theory) should have some influence on the final strategic direction selected. However the in-depth interviews conducted for the second objective of the study are designed to overcome this limitation and assess the influence of stakeholder groups in the planning process. The remaining eight assessment items from the stakeholder participation category, which primarily relate to specific stakeholder group participation, are presented in Figure 6.6.

Based on the secondary analysis of the planning documents it does appear that local tourism destinations in Queensland are incorporating the various stakeholder groups into the tourism planning process and the majority of documents addressed the importance of relationships and involvement of different destination stakeholders. In terms of specific stakeholder group participation, the majority of planning processes involved the federal or state government, and the local tourism industry. The local government was acknowledged as a participant in just over half of the planning processes, despite the fact that 22 of the plans were prepared for the local government authority of the area (Table 6.1). Fewer plans discussed the involvement of the relevant Regional Tourism

144 Organisation (10) or Local Tourism Organisation (12), and only 10 plans discussed the involvement of non-tourism organisations. Although a well acknowledged caveat to planning processes, and a requirement of the Queensland State Government’s IPA, only 13 of the 30 plans acknowledged the participation and involvement of the local residents in the tourism planning process.

Figure 6.6: Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process (n=30)

4 5 11 14 17 20 18 20 Not Evident 26 25 19 16 13 Evident/ 10 12 10 Somewhat Evident

s t t s s y s s n n tr ' t ip e e O O s rg n h m m T T u o e s n R L d id n rn r m s io e e in s e t v v ri r la o o m u l e g g is o a r l r -t c r te a u n o e a c o o L ld t o T o S L N h l/ e ra k e ta d S e F

6.2.4 Destination Community Vision and Values

The destination community vision and values section examined the integration of community values into the planning process and the extent to which the vision for the future of the destination is in keeping with such values (Simpson, 2001). Table 6.5 and Figure 6.7 outline each of the six assessment items and whether they were assessed as evident, somewhat evident or not evident in the tourism plans.

145 Table 6.5: Destination Community Vision and Values n=30 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident The planning document identifies locally important 2 3 25 community values The planning document identifies locally important 2 4 24 lifestyle features The planning document identifies current issues which 2 5 23 are critical to residents The planning document assesses community attitudes to 2 5 23 tourism The planning document assesses the overall quality of 0 3 27 life in the area The planning document includes a vision for the future 1 6 23 which aligns with local community values, attitudes and lifestyles

Figure 6.7: Destination Community Vision and Values (n=30)

Not 24 23 23 23 25 27 Evident

Evident/ Somewhat Evident 6 77 7 5 3

Community Lifestyle Resident Community Quality of Vision values features issues attitudes life

The integration of community values into the planning process and developing a vision for the future of the destination taking into account such values was not a focus of the local Queensland tourism planning processes analysed for this study. Only seven plans identified current issues critical to residents, assessed community attitudes to tourism or included a vision statement that aligned with identified community values, attitudes and lifestyles. These results can possibly be attributed to the fact that as mentioned in the previous evaluation category, only 13 of the 30 plans acknowledged the participation and involvement of the local residents in the tourism planning process. Without the

146 involvement of the local community it would be difficult to gauge their values, issues and attitudes to tourism in the destination.

6.2.5 Tourism Planning Approach

The dominant tourism planning approach category was added to Simpson’s original evaluation instrument to investigate the issue raised in the rationale for the study (Chapter One) that the tourism industry has been slow to adopt sustainability principles and put them into practice due to the fact that economic motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues. In assessing the documents for their tourism planning approach, the goals and objectives as well as strategies and action plans/agendas within the documents were primarily examined. If for example a plan gave considerable attention to marketing and promotion it was assessed as addressing economic development and growth. However such a plan might also include strategies for visitor signage (physical resources of the destination), and was therefore assessed as having more than one planning approach. Unlike the previous categories the assessment items within the tourism planning approach were assessed as either evident or not evident (Table 6.6 and Figure 6.8). These results are presented in a summative form, however Appendix 11 details each of the 30 planning documents and the specific tourism planning approaches which were evident. The strategies and/or goals that were evident in the tourism planning documents, and formed the basis for the assessment of the tourism planning approach are presented in Figure 6.9.

Table 6.6: Tourism Planning Approach n=30 Evident Not Evident The planning document addresses economic 28 2 development and growth The planning document addresses the physical 26 4 resources of the destination The planning document addresses the impacts of 6 24 tourism on the natural environment The planning document addresses how tourism can 9 21 benefit the local community The planning document addresses the sustainable 15 15 development of tourism

147 Figure 6.8: Tourism Planning Approach (n=30)

2 4

15 Not 21 24 Evident

28 26 Evident 15 9 6

Economic Infrastructure Environment Community Sustainable

Figure 6.9: Strategies/Goals Evident in the Tourism Plans (n=30)

27 25

22 20 20

15 14

5 6 4 1111 0

E V m N i a s C p t it u lo u P o y r M r r lt a o C u m l a d os E r a r In e L a e k u mr n e l n s e c fr v c t s a m a p e ti t ic o d r n d s u u o t g t e r e s e r n s a r t v u i s e & c t g c e y e h t p lo tu i io r in p o p r n n m e v e & m o w d m The majorityo of tourisme planning documentslv analysed for this study, overwhelmingly n e e o ti v a o t e m p n n e lo e r a n a g exhibited the economic andp infrastructure tourismt planninge approaches (Figure 6.8). The m o m r e s e evidence of these approachesn can be attributed to the majorityn of documents focusing on marketing and promotion (including market research and advertising), product development and infrastructure development (including access, transport and signage)

148 (Figure 6.9). Few of the plans exhibited the environmental and community tourism planning approaches, only six and nine respectively. Even where plans were assessed as exhibiting the community approach this was limited to issues such as leadership, community involvement in tourism, and training and education. Half of the plans were assessed as exhibiting a sustainable approach to tourism planning, however very few of the plans included any specific strategies or goals related to sustainability. Similarly some of the plans which touted sustainability goals addressed, for example, only economic and community issues but not environmental.

6.2.6 Summary: Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents

This section presented the collective results of the 30 tourism planning documents which were analysed to determine the extent to which they addressed the criteria from the tourism planning process evaluation instrument (Table 5.2, Chapter Five). The results of this analysis have shown that generally the local tourism destinations met with very few of the stated criteria, and performed quite poorly in each of the five evaluation categories.

The situation analysis category showed that the majority of documents failed to include descriptive, baseline information and statistics such as characteristics and features of the local climate, flora and fauna and population levels and demographics. Similarly, the strategic indicators of destination planning evaluation category highlighted the fact that strategic thinking and consideration of the future of the destination is not featuring in the tourism planning process. The third evaluation category, stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process, showed that while tourism destinations in Queensland appear to be incorporating a variety of stakeholder groups into the tourism planning process, some of the key stakeholder groups such as the local destination community are not being included in all cases. Therefore it is not surprising that few of the analysed documents included evaluation items from the destination vision and values category, which assesses the extent to which community values and attitudes are incorporated into the planning process. The final evaluation category examined the dominant tourism

149 planning approach adopted by destinations and whether one approach was emphasised more than another, due to criticisms that the tourism industry gives priority to economic issues. This criticism was proven to be correct based on the documents analysed for this study which overwhelmingly exhibited the economic tourism planning approach, as evidenced by an emphasis on marketing and promotion.

To provide further detail of these issues the following section outlines each of the 30 tourism planning documents and their individual compliance with the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument.

6.3 Individual Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents

This section presents the analysis of each of the individual local tourism planning documents, including key information on the destination’s location (see Figure 1.2, Chapter One), importance of tourism and rationale for undertaking a tourism plan. Summative tables are used to illustrate the plans’ compliance with the five evaluative criteria assessment categories: physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (situation analysis); strategic indicators of destination planning (strategic planning); stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (stakeholder participation); destination community vision and values (destination vision), and tourism planning approach.

Although the results are presented in a summative form for each of the assessment categories, Appendix 12 shows the compliance of the 30 planning documents with each of the 51 assessment items from the tourism planning process evaluation instrument and Appendix 13 provides further details of the stated rationale, objectives and vision statement for each of the 30 tourism planning documents. As detailed in section 6.4, each of the plans were assigned a numerical score based on their inclusion of the evaluative criteria and ranked accordingly from most to least compliant. The plans are presented in this section according to this ranking order (Table 6.7).

150 Table 6.7: Ranking Order of Tourism Planning Documents* Catalogue Shire Council Local Tourism Planning Document Plan No. Area 27 Redland Shire Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy 29 Sarina Shire Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy 10 Douglas Shire Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy 12 Gold Coast City Gold Coast City Council’s Tourism Strategy 30 Thuringowa City Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy 18 Maroochy Shire Tourism Development Strategy 19 Mirani Shire Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy 8 Chinchilla Shire Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan 15 Kilcoy Shire Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan 5 Burdekin Shire Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan 23 Noosa Shire Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan 26 Redcliffe Shire Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy 2 Banana Shire Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan 7 Cardwell Shire Cardwell Shire Tourism Action Plan 22 Nanango Shire Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan 14 Ipswich City Ipswich City Tourism Strategy 20 Mount Isa City Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan 11 Gatton Shire Gatton Tourism Strategy 13 Hinchinbrook Shire Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy 6 Caloundra City Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan 16 Laidley Shire Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy 3 Blackall Shire Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy 24 Pine Rivers Shire Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy 28 Roma Shire Roma Tourism Action Plan 4 Bowen Shire Tourism Development Action Plan 21 Murilla Shire Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan 25 Pittsworth Shire Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy 9 Crow’s Nest Shire Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan 17 Mareeba Shire Tourism Development Strategy 1 Atherton Shire Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan * Note: Ranking derived from quantitative evaluation scores (Table 6.38)

6.3.1 Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy

Redland Shire is a coastal urban centre adjoining the Queensland state capital of Brisbane (Figure 1.2). The Shire has a number of natural attractions and tourism is considered one of the key economic sectors (Redland Shire Council, 2002). The objective of developing the Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Strategy was to produce a practical strategy that provides a clear way forward for tourism in the Shire, while critically reviewing aspects that are preventing the Shire from adopting more sustainable directions (ATS Group, 2003; Redland Shire Council, 2003). The Redland Shire strategy was found to include

151 the majority of the evaluation assessment items and was the most compliant of the plans with the evaluation criteria (Table 6.8). The majority of assessment items were found to be evident in both the situation analysis and strategic planning categories respectively. The stakeholder participation items were also assessed as evident and it was stated in the plan that consultation was undertaken with stakeholders including government, tourism bodies, operators and members of the community to identify relevant issues and examine potential opportunities, through stakeholder workshops, meetings and interviews, questionnaires, public forums and feedback on a discussion paper. A destination vision was also articulated which addressed the evaluation items from the assessment criteria, “A pro-active planning approach is recommended to establish a future sustainable vision within which we can change our current ways of doing things, within an acceptable time frame, to ensure that what we do now does not compromise our ability to achieve this vision” (p.16).

Table 6.8: Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy Plan 27 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 10 0 5 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 7 4 1 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 7 6 0 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 6 0 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

All five of the tourism planning approaches were assessed as evident in the Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy and the document included strategies such as management structure, product development, infrastructure, transport, marketing, research and training. The strategy also made numerous references to the issue of sustainable development such as, “Allowing unsustainable practices to go unchecked creates a significant long-term constraint as substantial retro planning then needs to occur to

152 resolve emerging symptoms... and we are often not addressing the underlying cause” (p.16).

6.3.2 Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy

Sarina Shire is a rural, agricultural community, located on the east coast of central Queensland approximately 40 kilometres south of Mackay and at the southern tip of the Great Barrier Reef (Figure 1.2) (Sarina Shire Council, nd). As with many other rural regions experiencing declining agricultural activity, Sarina Shire Council initiated the tourism development strategy as part of its overall program for new economic development in the Shire (Sarina Shire Council, 2002). The Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy included a number of the assessment items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.9), particularly from the situation analysis and strategic planning categories, although few of the assessment items were evident in the stakeholder participation category. Items from the destination vision category were evident as can be seen from the statement, “Quite often, during the process of community consultations leading to the preparation of this strategy, individuals have expressed fear of tourism. One of the objectives of the public consultation was to dispel these fears and to involve the different groups and individuals in the planning process” (p.58).

Table 6.9: Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy Plan 29 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 11 2 2 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 9 2 1 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 3 6 4 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 2 2 2 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

153 All of the tourism planning approaches were assessed as evident in the Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy, including the sustainable tourism planning approach, “The approach adopted by the strategy constitutes a major departure from the traditional approach of tourism development through marketing and promotion in that it strongly advocates the overriding importance of tourism product development over marketing and promotion as a tool to boost sustainable tourism development in the sector” (p.3).

6.3.3 Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy

Douglas Shire is located in Far North Queensland, approximately 100 kilometres north of Cairns (Figure 1.2). Although the shire has a population of 11,000 the area receives in excess of a million visitors a year due to the fact that over 80% of the Shire is world heritage listed with both the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Wet Tropics including the Daintree National Park and Cape Tribulation, located in or surrounding the Shire (Douglas Shire Council, 2004). Tourism is the largest economic sector in the Douglas Shire and the tourism strategy was prepared to guide tourism planning, management, marketing and development in the Shire (Douglas Shire Council & Port Douglas Daintree Tourism Association, 1998). The Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy contained the majority of the situation analysis and strategic planning assessment items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.10), an a number of the stakeholder participation items were also assessed as evident or somewhat evident, with statements in the plan such as, “It is intended that the strategy be guided by the principle of managing and developing the industry cooperatively with the community” (p.3). The destination vision items were also assessed as evident or somewhat evident in the plan, “The population of the Shire feels a strong sense of attachment to and pride in the Shire, and a deep appreciation of its natural assets. Indeed, high environmental values are prominent among the community…ensure

154 implementation of this strategy is consistent with the community’s aspirations” (p.35).

Table 6.10: Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy Plan 10 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 8 4 3 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 7 1 4 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 5 4 4 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 2 4 0 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

Two of the planning approaches were evident in the Douglas Shire plan including the physical approach where one of the stated aims in the document is to “ensure community infrastructure and services are supportive of tourism industry development” (p.38), with a range of supporting strategies and objectives. The other was the sustainable development approach with the “goal to ensure the ecological, social, cultural and economic sustainability of existing and future tourism in the Shire” (p.3).

6.3.4 Gold Coast Tourism Strategy

The Gold Coast is a large coastal urban centre located in the South Eastern corner of Queensland (Figure 1.2). With a current population in excess of 450,000 the Gold Coast is the sixth largest city in Australia, but does have a range of natural features such as its beaches and hinterland, built attractions with several large theme parks and is host to a range of special events and sports, which have made it a popular destination for several decades with both international and domestic visitors (Gold Coast City Council, 2004). Despite it’s long association with tourism, the Gold Coast Tourism Strategy was developed to provide the first formal Council plan for tourism. The strategy was also designed to provide a framework for many of the planning and policy outcomes of the

155 Gold Coast Tourism Visioning project (Chapter Four) (Gold Coast City Council Tourism Branch, 2003). The strategy contained a range of assessment items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.11), however despite the fact that the strategy emerged from the Gold Coast Visioning Project, the majority of the items within the destination vision category were not evident.

Table 6.11: Gold Coast Tourism Strategy Plan 12 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 9 2 4 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 5 2 5 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 8 5 0 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 1 1 4 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

In assessing the tourism planning approach adopted for the Gold Coast tourism strategy it was evident that the plan predominantly addressed tourism in the context of sustainable development due to statements such as, “In an increasingly competitive global environment, a strategic approach to tourism planning and development is imperative. Yet, history has shown that economic growth without due regard to its social and environmental consequences is self-defeating in the longer term. It is important that Gold Coast City’s tourism industry continues to be economically, environmentally and socially sustainable” (p.17).

6.3.5 Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy

Thuringowa City is located in North Queensland, alongside the large regional centre of Townsville (Figure 1.2). The Shire comprises both rural and urban areas, with several sites of interest including the Paluma mountain range that is officially part of the Wet

156 Tropics World Heritage Area (Thuringowa City Council, 2003). The recognition that such assets could be harnessed to develop a sustainable tourism industry for the Shire provided the impetus for the Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy (ATS Group, 2000). The strategy included a number of the assessment items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.12), with a number of items evident from the situation analysis and strategic planning categories. Within the stakeholder participation category the majority of items were assessed as evident as, “During this study a number of stakeholder meetings were held to identify key issues from the community’s perspective. Attendees included local government, state government, regional development bodies, tourism operators and associations” (p.22). None of the items from the destination vision category were evident in the Thuringowa strategy.

Table 6.12: Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy Plan 30 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 5 3 7 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 6 3 3 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 7 5 1 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

The tourism planning approaches evident in the strategy included the economic, infrastructure and sustainable development approaches. As stated in the strategy, “The development of the tourism industry in the city requires a planning platform based on ecologically sustainable development, to support the future promotion of the natural environment and the social/cultural elements (people) as principal marketing themes for the City” (p.18).

157 6.3.6 Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy

Maroochy Shire is located approximately 100km north of Brisbane on the Sunshine Coast (Figure 1.2), and has a range of tourist facilities and attractions. Maroochy Shire incorporates the key regional centre of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, and is the largest contributor of tourism receipts to the Sunshine Coast regional economy (Maroochy Shire Council, 2002). The objective of the Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy was to establish the foundation and direction for further development of sustainable tourism throughout the Shire, with 95 actions grouped under five strategic objectives (Rob Tonge & Associates, 2000). Despite the document’s strategic intentions, a number of the items were not evident from the situation analysis or strategic planning categories (Table 6.13). Stakeholder participation items were generally assessed as evident or somewhat evident as, “twenty-four interviews were conducted with key operators in the Shire, industry organisations, developers and Tourism Queensland” (p.9) and “to gain maximum input from industry and the wider community, a series of eight workshops were held in key centres” (p.1). Although a vision statement was included in the plan it did not meet with the evaluative criteria for the destination vision category.

Table 6.13: Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy Plan 18 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 7 3 5 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 3 4 5 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 7 4 2 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 1 5 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

Two tourism planning approaches were evident in the Maroochy plan. The economic approach was evident with strategies relating to marketing and information centres, as

158 well as the physical infrastructure approach with transport planning, signage and attractions/experiences strategies.

6.3.7 Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy

Mirani Shire is a rural sugar producing area located west of Mackay in central Queensland (Figure 1.2) (Mirani Shire Council, nd). The tourism development strategy was formulated in recognition of the need to develop a new sector that will raise the level of economic activity and employment (Centre for Applied Economic Research and Analysis, 1994). The Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy did include a number of the evaluation instrument assessment items (Table 6.14), and although strategic indicators were generally not included, the majority of items from the situation analysis category were evident or somewhat evident in the plan. Stakeholder participation items were addressed as somewhat evident, “The achievement of the tourism policy will require specific initiatives that are coordinated with a common sense of purpose in mind. Given that some sections of the local community may be unenthusiastic about tourism growth because it impinges on their own preferred recreation activities, there would need to be community discussion of this proposal” (p.83).

Table 6.14: Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy Plan 19 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 11 2 2 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 2 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 8 4 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 3 3 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

159 The tourism planning approaches that were evident in the Mirani Shire plan were the economic approach with marketing and promotion strategies and the infrastructure approach with transport and product development strategies. Evidence of the inclusion of the sustainable approach in the plan was limited to statements such as “the overarching tourism policy goal is ecologically sustainable growth” (p.iii), and the quite unique statement linking sustainability to marketing theory, “a strategy for sustainable development of tourism in Mirani Shire must acknowledge: place, product, promotion, price, planning” (p.84).

6.3.8 Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan

The Shire of Chinchilla is located at the western extent of the Darling Downs region in southern Queensland, approximately 300 kilometres north west of Brisbane (Figure 1.2) (Chinchilla Shire Council, nd). Although the shire is largely reliant on primary production, the Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan was developed in recognition of tourism’s role as an economic growth option that compliments and builds on the existing strengths of the Shire (Beeton, Campbell & Carter, 2002). Although the majority of situation analysis items were included, few of the strategic planning or stakeholder participation criteria were addressed, and the destination vision items were only assessed as somewhat evident (Table 6.15).

Table 6.15: Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan Plan 8 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 8 1 6 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 4 1 7 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 2 3 8 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 6 0 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

160 Several of the tourism planning approaches were addressed in the Chinchilla tourism plan. The economic, physical and community approaches were evident with strategies related to the development of a brand/identity, attraction development, product development and a category on community priorities.

6.3.9 Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan

Kilcoy is a small rural shire located 94 kilometres west of Brisbane (Figure 1.2) (Kilcoy Shire, 2003). Tourism is recognized as an important contributor to the future economic development potential of the Shire and the objective of developing the Tourism Management Plan was to ensure the strategic planning and management of the sector to achieve successful outcomes (Insight Operations, 2001). However few of the assessment criteria from the evaluation instrument were evident in the plan (Table 6.16), although all of the items within the stakeholder participation category were assessed as either evident or somewhat evident, “Community and industry consultation included: a field study, survey, community forum and interviews with community members, local businesses and all tourism operators in the Shire, as well as relevant government departments and agencies” (p.9).

Table 6.16: Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan Plan 15 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 4 0 11 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 1 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 8 5 0 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

161 The economic, infrastructure and to a lesser extent, community approaches were evident in the plan with strategies relating to leadership and management, marketing, skills training and product development. The issue of sustainable development was addressed; “sustainable economic development and diversification is the key to Kilcoy’s future” (p.7), although the plan’s strategies and actions points tended not to consider sustainable development.

6.3.10 Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan

The Burdekin Shire is located south of Townsville in North Queensland (Figure 1.2). A predominantly rural area, the Burdekin Shire actively promotes its tourist offerings, which are generally based on agricultural production and natural assets (Burdekin Shire Council, 2005). The Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan evolved from a recognition that an outcomes-based tourism strategy and action plan encompassing all components of the regional tourism market was needed (AEC Group, 1999). The plan did include a number of assessment items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.17), although these were primarily from the situation analysis category. Several of the assessment items from the stakeholder participation category were evident in the plan and, although a stakeholder vision was mentioned in the plan, the vision statement was not articulated in the document nor were any of the assessment items from the destination vision category.

Table 6.17: Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan Plan 5 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 7 5 3 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 1 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 3 2 8 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

162 The Burdekin Shire plan incorporated aspects from a number of the tourism planning approaches. Elements of the economic and physical approaches were evident in the plan, as were the environmental and sustainable development approaches, “…ensure the Burdekin’s resources are used in an ecologically responsible manner as well as maximizing their potential” (p.60).

6.3.11 Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan

Noosa Shire is located on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast (Figure 1.2), and as with other shires council areas of the Sunshine Coast, tourism is one of the key drivers of the local economy (Noosa Shire Council, nd). The Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan were developed as part of the Noosa Shire Council’s new concept of community-based sector plans, an outcome of the Queensland State Government’s IPA (Tourism Collaborative Board, 2001). The plan addressed several of the assessment items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.18), with the majority of strategic indicator items included. However the majority of the situation analysis items were not evident, and items within the stakeholder participation category were generally evaluated as somewhat evident as the nature of stakeholder participation was not explicit in the document except for, “Council developed a tourism collaborative board for the purposes of developing a plan for tourism in consultation with the industry, the community, Council and relevant state agencies” (p.2). Within the destination vision category only one of the items was assessed as somewhat evident, “Having identified and discussed key strategic issues and desired strategic shifts, the Tourism Collaborative Board developed a vision to express the outcomes sought from the Noosa Tourism Plan” (p.6).

163 Table 6.18: Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan Plan 23 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 1 2 12 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 7 3 2 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 8 4 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 1 5 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

In assessing the tourism planning approach of the Noosa Tourism Plan four of the five approaches were evident. Although sustainable development was addressed the strategies included in the plan related primarily to branding, tourism products and marketing, improving infrastructure and optimising employment. “The issue of sustainability is of vital concern to all shire residents. The need to identify current and future capacity limits, to plan for desirable outcomes from tourism and to integrate outcomes for this sector with that of all other sectors is of the first order of importance. For a shire with a high reliance on tourism, the spectra of unsustainability in tourism would be an economic and social disaster” (p.6).

6.3.12 Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy

Redcliffe Shire is located on Queensland’s Moreton Bay, approximately 35 kilometres north west of Brisbane city (Figure 1.2), and has a range of tourism stock predominantly catering for the day trip market (Redcliffe City Council, 2000). Council’s motivation for undertaking the tourism development strategy was to deliver tangible economic development, business growth and employment creation outcomes for Redcliffe and its resident and business community (ATS Group, 2001). Although the majority of assessment items were not evident in the situation analysis category, a number of items in the strategic planning category were evident or somewhat evident in the plan (Table

164 6.19). In terms of stakeholder participation a number of references were made, although they did not detail which stakeholder groups were involved, “The tourism strategy is strongly steeped in stakeholder consultation and responds to the issues and aspirations of the community…during this study a number of stakeholder meetings were held to identify key issues from the community’s perspective” (p.6 & 18). The destination vision assessment items were generally assessed as evident in the tourism plan, despite statements referring to selling the vision to the community that suggests that community vision and values did not necessarily guide the development of the strategy, “Conduct community presentations driven by Redcliffe City Council that explain the tourism strategy, sell the vision and outline the benefits” (p.88).

Table 6.19: Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy Plan 26 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 2 3 10 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 6 2 4 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 0 12 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 4 1 1 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

Several of the tourism planning approaches were evident in the Redcliffe tourism strategy: economic, infrastructure and community, with strategies relating to themes and marketing images, market awareness, infrastructure and product development, ensuring community commitment, market research and funding. The planning document was also assessed as addressing tourism in the context of sustainable development, “The tourism strategy adopts an ecologically sustainable planning approach to tourism planning and development” (p.30).

165 Despite statements such as this, the strategic actions raised in the plan relate primarily to economic development and growth and the physical resources of the destination.

6.3.13 Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan

Banana Shire is situated in central Queensland, 120 kilometres west of the regional centre of Gladstone (Figure 1.2). Primary production and mining are the Shire’s major economic sectors, yet tourism is promoted by several organizations (Banana Shire Council, 2005). The Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan was commissioned by the Council to coordinate and better utilise existing community, business and council resources to develop a sustainable local tourism industry (Tourism Potential, 2003). Although a number of the situation analysis and strategic planning items were included (Table 6.20), the vast majority from the stakeholder participation section were not evident in the plan, as although the document states that stakeholder workshops and meetings were held, it did not state which stakeholder groups were involved. Similarly despite including a vision statement the assessment items from the destination vision category were not included in the document.

Table 6.20: Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan Plan 2 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 6 4 5 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 4 1 7 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 0 12 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

Although the planning document makes reference to sustainability, when assessing the plan in terms of the tourism planning approach, the planning document did not address tourism in the context of sustainable development. The planning approaches that were

166 evident in the plan were the economic and physical, due to the focus on marketing and promotion, increasing visitation, improving service and visitor infrastructure.

6.3.14 Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan

Cardwell Shire is part of the Far North Queensland coastal region, situated between Cairns and Townsville (Figure 1.2). The Shire has traditionally relied on agricultural outputs, yet as it includes part of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area and adjoins the Great Barrier Reef, there is recognition that tourism is a sector with high potential (Cardwell Shire Council, nd). The objective of developing the Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan was to ensure tourism assets are carefully managed to ensure the long-term sustainability of not only the tourist industry but also the environmental, social and cultural values of the Shire (Cardwell Shire Tourism Taskforce, 2003). However few of the assessment items from the evaluation instrument were included in the document (Table 6.21). Within the stakeholder participation category the majority of items were assessed as somewhat evident due to the fact that although the plan was developed through the “formation of a partnership between the industry, community, Shire Council, regional tourism organisation and local tourism organization” (p.4), the extent or nature of their participation on the planning process was not discussed. None of the destination vision assessment items were evident in the plan despite the fact that a tourism plan vision is presented.

Table 6.21: Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan Plan 7 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 2 2 11 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 2 8 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 10 2 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

167 All of the tourism planning approaches were evident to some extent in the Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan. The planning document did propose sustainable development goals yet the strategies and actions detailed in the plan related only to marketing, visitor services and branding. This is also despite the fact that the document’s objective was to “develop a plan that will focus on partnerships, ownerships and mutual responsibility” (p.4).

6.3.15 Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan

Nanango Shire is located west of Brisbane on the Great Dividing Range of the South Burnett Region (Figure 1.2), and as with most Shires in the region, primary production is the economic mainstay (Nanango Shire Council, 2005). The Tourism Development Action Plan sought to focus on actions that can be undertaken by the Nanango Shire Council, its operators and wider community, to further the development of tourism as an economic contributor within the Shire (Rob Tonge & Associates & Proactive Tourism Services, 2001). The plan did include some of the assessment items, although most items were assessed as somewhat evident (Table 6.22), particularly in the stakeholder participation category as the only reference in the plan was, “Extensive consultation has been undertaken to develop this plan, with personal interviews held with several of the Shire’s tourism operators, business group representatives and Councillors and staff of Nanango Shire Council” (p.1).

Table 6.22: Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan Plan 22 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 2 4 9 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 1 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 8 4 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts *

168 - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

The tourism planning approaches that were evident within the Nanango tourism plan were the economic and infrastructure, as evidenced by strategies relating to image and promotion, product development, visitor services and signage.

6.3.16 Ipswich City Tourism Strategy

Ipswich is located in South-East Queensland, a rapidly growing Shire absorbing much of the urban spread from Brisbane (Figure 1.2). With several attractions such as museums and historical buildings, tourism is an important economic sector for Ipswich (Ipswich City Council, 1997). The aim of the Ipswich City Tourism Strategy was to build a solid base for the development of a sustainable tourism industry that will supplement the local economy in the next century while conserving the natural and built heritage and environmental assets (Ipswich City Council, 1997). Few of the assessment items were evident in the strategy (Table 6.23), with the vast majority of situation analysis items not addressed in the document. The stakeholder participation items were generally assessed as either somewhat evident or not evident as the only reference within the plan to stakeholder participation was a statement that, “All identified strategies are the result of consultation with tourism operators, government departments and other associated bodies via personal contact and a tourism workshop” (p.4).

Table 6.23: Ipswich City Tourism Strategy Plan 14 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 1 2 12 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 4 2 6 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 6 6 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts *

169 - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

The sole tourism planning approach that was evident in the Ipswich City Tourism Strategy was the economic development and growth approach. This was evidenced by strategies relating to tourism product development, marketing, advertising and promotion, signage and visitor information.

6.3.17 Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan

Mount Isa is located 900 kilometres west of Townsville, on the border of the Northern Territory (Figure 1.2) (Mount Isa City Council, 2002). Predominantly a mining town, tourism is seen as an alternative economic sector with development potential, and the Tourism Masterplan was initiated to ensure haphazard approaches to tourism development were avoided by establishing a framework that defines appropriate tourism development (ATS Group, 2000). The masterplan, although quite detailed, met with few of the evaluation criteria (Table 6.24). Only one item from the stakeholder participation category was evident, as the only mention of stakeholder participation was an acknowledgement that the consultants spoke to and/or received information from various stakeholder groups. In terms of the destination vision category, although a vision statement was presented in the document, the vision did not meet with the stated criteria. This was further apparent due to the statement that there is a need to “conduct workshops to ‘sell the vision’ and obtain commitment from stakeholders in the process” (p.35).

Table 6.24: Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan Plan 20 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis - 1 14 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 3 2 7 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 10 2 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) - 1 5 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts *

170 - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

In assessing the document for the tourism planning approach, three of the approaches were evident, including the economic, physical and community approaches. Action strategies in the plan included: marketing themes, access, community commitment and training and accreditation. Developing tourism in the context of sustainable development was not addressed in the masterplan.

6.3.18 Gatton Tourism Strategy

Gatton Shire is located in the Lockyer Valley of south east Queensland 90 kilometres west of Brisbane (Figure 1.2) (Gatton Shire Council, nd). Although predominantly a farming area, the aim of the strategy was to undertake an analysis of the tourism potential of the Gatton Shire and make a number of recommendations that would promote the development of the Shire's tourism industry in the short term (Prideaux, 1997). Despite being labelled a strategy, the majority of evaluation items were not evident in the Gatton Tourism Strategy (Table 6.25). Items from the stakeholder participation category were generally not evident in the plan, which can be attributed to the fact that stakeholder participation was limited to, “A SWOT analysis of Gatton’s tourism industry which was undertaken with major operators and the Shire Council and a survey of 19 operator’s views of tourism in Gatton Shire” (p.39). In terms of items from the destination vision category, although it was stated, “the study team recommends a community based approach to achieve the common goals of tourism expansion and success” (p.46), none of the assessment items were evident in the plan.

Table 6.25: Gatton Tourism Strategy Plan 11 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 5 0 10 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 1 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 0 5 8 process (13)

171 Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

The only two tourism planning approaches that were evident in the plan were the economic and physical approaches. Action strategies in the plan focused solely on infrastructure, which included signage, tourist facilities, marketing, regional promotion and product development.

6.3.19 Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy

Hinchinbrook Shire is located between Townsville and Cairns (Figure 1.2), along the Far North Queensland coastline marketed as the ‘Great Green Way’ (Hinchinbrook Shire Council, nd). The Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy was undertaken to provide a framework for the balanced development of tourism throughout Hinchinbrook Shire, and develop short and mid-term strategic directions for individual sectors of the local tourist industry, the community and the Hinchinbrook Shire Council (Hauritz, 1993). With only one item evident in the situation analysis and strategic planning categories respectively, the strategy was found to have not met with the criteria of the evaluation instrument (Table 6.26). The majority of items within the stakeholder participation category were assessed as somewhat evident due to the fact that the plan made reference to the assistance of specific stakeholder groups but did not further articulate the nature or extent of their involvement. The assessment items from the destination vision category were not evident in the plan.

Table 6.26: Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy Plan 13 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 1 2 12 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 1 10 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 0 11 2 process (13)

172 Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

Three of the tourism planning approaches were found to be evident in the Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Plan. These included the economic approach with the document including strategies related to marketing, product development, seasonality and maximizing visitor expenditure; the physical approach with strategies of greening the shire and transport nodes; and the community approach with strategies for community involvement, including the local tourism association, volunteer program, service awards and tourism awareness program.

6.3.20 Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan

Caloundra is the most southern shire of the Sunshine Coast, and tourism is an important economic sector (Figure 1.2) (Caloundra City Council, nd). The purpose of the tourism plan was to provide direction and focus to the industry, community and the government by presenting broad strategies to achieve the desired goals, while also focusing on the active engagement of Caloundra City's community and industry in shaping the City's tourism future (Caloundra City Council, 2002). Despite these goals and intentions, the Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan included very few of the assessment items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.27). Within the stakeholder participation category the items were generally assessed as not evident and can possibly be attributed to the fact that “the plan was prepared by the Caloundra City Council Economic Development Unit in cooperation with the Caloundra Tourism Taskforce” (p.3). Despite the plan including a vision statement none of the assessment items from the destination vision category were evident.

173 Table 6.27: Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan Plan 6 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 1 0 14 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 3 2 7 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 4 8 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

In assessing the plan for the tourism planning approach it was found that elements of all five approaches were evident, “The Caloundra tourism plan goal is a sustainable tourism industry that works in strong partnership with the community in pursuit of economic, environmental and social sustainability” (p.17). Despite this goal, strategies and actions within the plan focused solely on market research, advertising and promotion.

6.3.21 Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy

Laidley Shire is a rural community located west of Brisbane in the Lockyer Valley (Figure 1.2) (Laidley Shire Council, 2004). Tourism has being targeted as a complementary economic sector and the tourism strategy aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the current position of tourism in the Shire and assess both deficiencies and possibilities for tourism development (Prideaux & Armstrong, 1997). Overall the Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy did not meet the evaluation assessment criteria, with the majority of items not evident for each of the categories (Table 6.28).

174 Table 6.28: Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy Plan 16 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 5 0 10 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 1 10 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 0 2 11 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

Both the economic and infrastructure tourism planning approaches were evident in the Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy. Economic strategies included marketing, promotion and distribution, while infrastructure strategies related to upgrading existing and developing new products for the Shire.

6.3.22 Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy

Blackall is a remote rural community located west of Rockhampton in Central Queensland (Figure 1.2) (Blackall Shire Council, nd). Tourism is considered a growing sector in the Shire and the Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy was commissioned to assess strategies for developing tourism (The Stafford Group, 2003). The majority of the assessment items were not evident in the Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy (Table 6.29), with only several items included from the situation analysis category.

Table 6.29: Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy Plan 3 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 4 2 9 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 0 11 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 0 1 12 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)

175 - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

In terms of the tourism planning approach adopted, both the economic and physical approaches were evident, with action strategies of market positioning, product development and visitor infrastructure. Although reference was made to sustainable development, none of the strategies or actions related to sustainability.

6.3.23 Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy

Pine Rivers is a primarily urban Shire located on the outskirts of Queensland’s capital city (Figure 1.2) (Pine Rivers Shire Council, 2004). The Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy was developed due to Council’s recognition of the economic potential of tourism in the Pine Rivers, in terms of diversifying the economic base, creating more locally based employment and providing a sustainable alternative that neutralises land and resource conflict in potentially environmentally sensitive areas (Pine Rivers Shire Council, nd). However the strategy was not found to have met the criteria of the evaluation instrument (Table 6.30), with only one item evident from the situation analysis and strategic planning categories respectively.

Table 6.30: Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy Plan 24 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 1 1 13 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 0 11 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 0 0 13 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

176 In terms of tourism planning, two of the five approaches were evident within the plan, these being the economic and infrastructure approaches. Strategies included promotion and marketing, increasing volume and variety of tourism stock, increasing visitor length of stay and visitor services.

6.3.24 Roma Tourism Action Plan

Roma is a rural town located in South-East Queensland’s Western Downs some 480 kilometres from Brisbane (Figure 1.2), and although a predominantly rural area, Roma does have several natural and built tourist offerings (Roma Tourism Council, nd). The objective for undertaking the Roma Tourism Action Plan was not articulated in the document, nor were the criteria from the evaluation instrument with only three items in total assessed as evident or somewhat evident (Table 6.31) (Roma Shire Council Tourism Development Unit, 2000).

Table 6.31: Roma Tourism Action Plan Plan 28 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 0 0 15 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 1 10 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 0 1 12 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

The plan was found to have adopted two of the tourism planning approaches, economic and infrastructure. Strategies in the document included increasing awareness of the destination, product development, promotion and visitor research.

177 6.3.25 Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan

Bowen is a coastal, agricultural area located in the northern region of the Whitsunday’s in North Queensland (Figure 1.2) (Bowen Shire Council, nd). Although tourism is a significant contributor to the local economy due to the area’s natural features and proximity to the Whitsunday’s, the Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan included only two assessment items from the tourism planning evaluation instrument (Table 6.32).

Table 6.32: Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan Plan 4 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 0 0 15 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 0 11 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 0 1 12 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

The plan was assessed as solely adopting the economic development and growth tourism planning approach. This assessment was based on the fact that all of the strategies related to increasing visitor numbers, enhancing services and product development.

6.3.26 Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan

Murilla Shire is located west of Brisbane in South-East Queensland (Figure 1.2), and although the local economy is strongly based on grazing and farming, the area receives a number of visitors each year (Murilla Shire Council, nd). The objective for undertaking a tourism plan for the Shire was not articulated in the document, nor were the vast majority of items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.33) (Murilla Shire Council, nd). The only evident assessment item was in the stakeholder participation category.

178 Table 6.33: Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan Plan 21 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 0 0 15 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 0 1 12 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 0 12 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

Three of the tourism planning approaches were evident within the strategic actions of the Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan; economic, physical and sustainable development. Strategies outlined in the document included sustainable tourism products, marketing, product development, signage and encouraging operators to the Shire.

6.3.27 Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy

Pittsworth Shire is situated 40 kilometres south west of Toowoomba in the eastern Darling Downs region of Queensland (Figure 1.2) (Pittsworth Shire Council, nd). The development of a local tourism strategy was based on community acceptance of the need to do more to encourage and promote tourism in the Pittsworth Shire whilst recognising that there must be ongoing economic benefits to the community (Pittsworth Shire Council, 2003). However the Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy was also assessed as not meeting the majority of items in the evaluation instrument (Table 6.34) with only one assessment item evident in the strategic planning category.

Table 6.34: Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy Plan 25 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 0 0 15 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 0 11 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 0 1 12 process (13)

179 Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

The tourism planning approaches evident in the plan were the economic and physical. The strategies and actions included in the document that underpin the evidence of these approaches include destination awareness and promotion, visitor infrastructure and product development.

6.3.28 Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan

Crow’s Nest is located in South-East Queensland, 170 kilometres west of Brisbane on the Great Dividing Range (Figure 1.2) (Crow’s Nest Shire Council, nd). Although the objective for undertaking the Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan was not articulated in the document, it was noted that the Shire is targeting tourism as an economic sector (Crow’s Nest Shire Council, 2003). However the action plan included only one assessment item from the stakeholder participation category (Table 6.35). In terms of the tourism planning approach only the economic approach was evident with strategies relating to visitor services and information, industry and product development and marketing.

Table 6.35: Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan Plan 9 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 0 0 15 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 0 0 12 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 0 12 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

180 6.3.29 Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy

Mareeba Shire, 64 kilometres west of Cairns, is the largest of the four local government shires on the Atherton Tableland and includes the popular tourist destination of Kuranda (Figure 1.2) (Mareeba Shire Council, 2004). The rationale for undertaking a tourism strategy was to promote the integrated development of tourism across the shire by establishing appropriate physical and social infrastructure that will support the growth and evolution of the industry (Mareeba Shire Council, 2002). However the Mareeba Tourism Development Action plan included only one evident assessment item (Table 6.36).

Table 6.36: Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy Plan 17 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 0 0 15 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 0 0 12 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 1 0 12 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

Three of the tourism planning approach were evident in the Mareeba plan, the economic, physical and environmental approaches. The economic approach was evident with strategies for promotion, development of niche tourism markets and information centres, with the physical infrastructure strategies including signage, road maintenance and the upgrade of destination locations and services. The environmental approach was assessed as evident due to the inclusion of a strategy for access and protection.

181 6.3.30 Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan

Atherton Shire is located on the Atherton Tablelands, 90 kilometres west of Cairns in Far North Queensland (Figure 1.2). Although an agricultural area, the shire has a number of natural attractions and is popular with visitors travelling from Cairns (Atherton Shire Council, 2005). Despite the objective of identifying key issues and objectives for tourism, as well as a set of strategic outcomes and recommendations (Atherton Shire Council, nd), the Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan, aside from one item assessed as somewhat evident, did not meet with any of the evaluation instrument criteria (Table 6.37).

Table 6.37: Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan Plan 1 Evident Somewhat Not Evident Evident Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis 0 0 15 (15) Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 0 0 12 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning 0 1 14 process (13) Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5) - economic development and growth * - physical destination resources * - natural environment impacts * - benefits to local community * - sustainable development *

In terms of the tourism planning approach adopted for the plan, it was evident that the document predominantly addressed economic development and growth and to a lesser extent the physical resources of the destination due to the emphasis on marketing-related actions such as market segments, visitor experiences, and addressing infrastructure gaps for the target market. Despite the fact that it was stated on page two of the plan that, “to overcome these gaps and provide the most effective catalyst to the strong and sustainable development of tourism on the Tablelands…”, sustainability did not feature in either the plan’s action points or agenda for the future.

182 6.3.31 Summary: Individual Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents

This section presented the individual results for each of the 30 local tourism planning documents analysed for the study. Each of the plan’s inclusion of the five evaluative categories were presented: physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (situation analysis); strategic indicators of destination planning (strategic planning); stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (stakeholder participation); destination community vision and values (destination vision), and tourism planning approach; as well as key information on the destination’s location, importance of tourism and rationale for undertaking a tourism plan.

Looking at each of the plans individually highlights the collective results presented in section 6.2, where it was found that the local tourism destinations analysed in this study met with very few of the stated criteria from each of the five evaluation categories. Despite the fact that over 56% of the plans were titled ‘strategic plans’ (Figure 6.3), very few of the plans had strategic orientations, and although many documents included a vision, these appeared to be standalone statements which did not take into account broader community values and aspirations for the future of the destination. This section also highlighted that many of the local tourism destinations are rural areas looking to tourism to diversify the economic base of the Shire. The implication of these issues are discussed in Chapter Eight.

6.4 Quantitative Ranking of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents

To provide a more quantifiable and objective assessment of the performance of tourism planning documents against the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument, this section presents the quantitative weighting and ranking of each of the 30 local tourism planning documents analysed. To assist in determining the extent to which the analysed plans met with the tourism planning process evaluation criteria a ranking

183 method was devised, based on a system developed by Zhang et al (2004), so that a more objective assessment of the qualitative data can be made.

As discussed in the research methods (Chapter Five, section 5.5.3), the ranking system was derived from awarding evident items a score of 2, somewhat evident items a score of 1 and items that are not evident in the plans a score of 0. Plans could potentially receive a score of 30 for the situation analysis category if all 15 items were evident (15 assessment items x a score of 2). The strategic indicators items could potentially achieve a score of 24 (12 assessment items), stakeholder participation 26 (13 assessment items), and destination vision and values a score of 12 (6 assessment items). A total score for each plan based on its compliance with the assessment criteria can be seen in the final column of Table 6.38.

Table 6.39 ranks the planning documents from highest compliance with the criteria to the lowest. Each of the plans have been further ranked within 25 percent quartiles and Figure 6.10 demonstrates the number of tourism planning documents within each of the compliance quartiles.

Table 6.38: Tourism Plans Compliance with Assessment Criteria Shire Situation Strategic Stakeholder Destination Total Analysis Indicators Participation Vision Assessment (Max score 30) (Max score 24) (Max score 26) (Max score 12) (Max Score 92) Score % Score % Score % Score % Score % Atherton 0 0 0 0 1 3.8 0 0 1 1.0 Banana 16 53.3 9 37.5 2 7.6 0 0 27 29.3 Blackall 10 33.3 2 8.3 1 3.8 0 0 13 14.1 Bowen 0 0 2 8.3 1 3.8 0 0 3 3.2 Burdekin 19 63.3 5 20.8 8 30.7 0 0 32 34.7 Caloundra 2 6.6 8 3.33 6 23.0 0 0 16 17.3 Cardwell 6 20.0 6 25.0 12 46.1 0 0 24 26.0 Chinchilla 17 56.6 9 37.5 7 26.9 6 50.0 39 42.3 Crow’s Nest 0 0 0 0 2 7.6 0 0 2 2.1 Douglas 20 66.6 15 62.5 14 53.8 8 66.6 57 61.9 Gatton 10 33.3 5 20.8 5 19.2 0 0 20 21.7 Gold Coast 20 66.6 12 50.0 21 80.7 3 25.0 56 60.8 Hinchinbrook 4 13.3 3 12.5 11 42.3 0 0 18 19.5 Ipswich 4 13.3 10 41.6 8 30.7 0 0 22 23.9 Kilcoy 8 26.6 5 20.8 21 80.7 0 0 34 36.9 Laidley 10 33.3 3 12.5 2 7.6 0 0 15 16.3 Mareeba 0 0 0 0 2 7.6 0 0 2 2.1

184 Maroochy 17 51.5 10 41.6 18 69.2 1 8.3 46 50.0 Mirani 24 80.0 4 16.6 10 38.4 3 25.0 41 44.5 Mount Isa 1 3.3 8 33.3 12 46.1 1 8.3 22 23.9 Murilla 0 0 1 4.1 2 7.6 0 0 3 3.2 Nanango 8 26.6 5 20.8 10 38.4 0 0 23 25.0 Noosa 4 13.3 17 70.8 10 38.4 1 8.3 32 34.7 Pine Rivers 3 1.0 2 8.3 0 0 0 0 5 5.4 Pittsworth 0 0 2 8.3 1 3.8 0 0 3 3.2 Redcliffe 7 23.3 14 58.3 2 7.6 9 75.0 32 34.7 Redland 20 66.6 18 75.0 20 76.9 6 50.0 64 69.5 Roma 0 0 3 12.5 1 3.8 0 0 4 4.3 Sarina 24 80.0 20 83.3 12 46.1 6 50.0 62 67.3 Thuringowa 13 43.3 15 62.5 19 73.0 0 0 47 51.0

Table 6.39: Ranking of Tourism Planning Documents Assessment Plan Number Local Destination Area/ Shire Score % Score 76-100% - - - - 51-75% Plan 27 Redland 64 69.5 Plan 29 Sarina 62 67.3 Plan 10 Douglas 57 61.9 Plan 12 Gold Coast 56 60.8 Plan 30 Thuringowa 47 51.0 26- 50% Plan 18 Maroochy 46 50.0 Plan 19 Mirani 41 44.5 Plan 8 Chinchilla 39 42.3 Plan 15 Kilcoy 34 36.9 Plan 5 Burdekin 32 34.7 Plan 23 Noosa 32 34.7 Plan 26 Redcliffe 32 34.7 Plan 2 Banana 27 29.3 Plan 7 Cardwell 24 26.0 0-25% Plan 22 Nanango 23 25.0 Plan 14 Ipswich 22 23.9 Plan 20 Mount Isa 22 23.9 Plan 11 Gatton 20 21.7 Plan 13 Hinchinbrook 18 19.5 Plan 6 Caloundra 16 17.3 Plan 16 Laidley 15 16.3 Plan 3 Blackall 13 14.1 Plan 24 Pine Rivers 5 5.4 Plan 28 Roma 4 4.3 Plan 4 Bowen 3 3.2 Plan 21 Murilla 3 3.2 Plan 25 Pittsworth 3 3.2 Plan 9 Crow’s Nest 2 2.1 Plan 17 Mareeba 2 2.1 Plan 1 Atherton 1 1.0

185 Figure 6.10: Ranking of Tourism Planning Documents (n=30)

0-25% 16

26-50% 9

51-75% 5

76-100% 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Table 6.39 and Figure 6.10 quite blatantly highlight that the majority of tourism plans analysed for this stage of the study did not meet with the tourism planning process criteria. None of the plans included 75% or more of the evaluation criteria, and only 5 met with over 50% of the criteria. This means that the vast majority of tourism planning documents (24) included less than 50% of the criteria, which were designed to measure the extent to which the planning process addressed the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation. Although this issue is discussed further in Chapter Eight, these figures show that very few local tourism destinations in Queensland are developing tourism planning documents based on the principles of sustainability and the identified prerequisites of strategic planning and stakeholder participation. However the primary objective of numerically weighting and ranking the plans in terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria was to allow for selection of the case studies for the second objective of the study. As only five destinations met with over 50% of the criteria, all five were selected for further investigation (Chapter Seven).

186 6.5 Importance-Performance Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destinations

To conclude, importance-performance analyses were conducted for both destinations that did have a tourism planning document and those that did not, to assess any correlation between the significance of tourism to the destination and the development of a local tourism planning document. While the previous section highlighted the poor performance of local tourism destinations in Queensland in meeting the sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation criteria, these were for local tourism destinations that actually did have a tourism plan. As was outlined in the first section of this chapter, the vast majority, 76% or 95 of the 125 destinations, did not have a tourism planning document for their local area, including some of Queensland’s most popular tourist destinations.

Table 6.40 presents each of the 125 local government area (LGA) profiles, their ranked score (by compliance quartile) if they had a tourism planning document, and key tourism figures for the area including the number of tourism businesses, the percentage of tourism businesses compared to all businesses for both the LGA and Queensland as well as the number of persons employed in tourism and the percentage of persons employed in tourism compared to total employment for the LGA. These figures show that for many destinations tourism is a relatively important economic component and employer of local residents, yet this does not appear to be an indicator that a planning process has been undertaken to assess tourism activity within the destination. The complete profile for each local government area is included in Appendix 14.

Table 6.40: Queensland Local Government Area (LGA) Profiles* Shire Council % LGA % LGA % State LGA Tourism % LGA Area Score Tourism total tourism employment total businesses businesses businesses (persons) employment 27- Redland 69.5 183 4.5 2.3 2 828 5.5 29- Sarina 67.3 30 5.1 0.4 195 5.3 10- Douglas 61.9 147 16.3 2.2 1 627 24.2 12- Gold Coast 60.8 1 692 7.8 28.2 14 195 13.5 30- Thuringowa 51.0 62 4.8 1.1 1 396 6.1

187 18- Maroochy 50.0 493 7.2 7.9 5 023 10.1 19- Mirani 44.5 24 4.6 0.4 104 4.9 8- Chinchilla 42.3 18 2.3 0.3 97 4.2 15- Kilcoy 36.9 12 4.3 0.2 59 4.7 5- Burdekin 34.7 71 4.5 1.1 283 3.1 23- Noosa 34.7 286 11.2 4.2 2 522 3.2 26- Redcliffe 34.7 87 4.5 1.4 1 234 6.8 2- Banana 29.3 57 3.7 0.9 342 5.1 7- Cardwell 26.0 44 6.0 0.6 543 11.3 22- Nanango 25.0 18 3.8 0.3 133 5.2 14- Ipswich 23.9 233 4.5 4.0 2 396 4.7 20- Mount Isa 23.9 95 9.1 1.5 724 7.1 11- Gatton 21.7 33 2.9 0.5 305 4.8 13- Hinchinbrook 19.5 54 4.4 0.9 244 4.5 6- Caloundra 17.3 230 6.2 3.7 2 399 9.0 16- Laidley 16.3 14 2.3 0.2 196 4.4 3- Blackall 14.1 19 8.6 0.3 42 5.0 24- Pine Rivers 5.4 184 4.3 3.5 3 299 5.6 28- Roma 4.3 48 8.3 0.7 213 6.9 4- Bowen 3.2 114 6.7 1.7 300 5.4 21- Murilla 3.2 14 3.2 0.2 63 5.1 25- Pittsworth 3.2 10 1.7 0.2 73 3.5 9- Crow’s Nest 2.1 23 3.2 0.4 195 4.3 17- Mareeba 2.1 88 6.1 1.4 565 8.1 1- Atherton 1.0 44 5.4 0.7 242 5.7 Aramac 0 3 2.2 0 6 1.6 Aurukun 0 0 0 0 3 0.7 Balonne 0 31 5.0 0.4 131 4.6 Barcaldine 0 18 10.3 0.3 55 7.2 Barcoo 0 4 5.2 0 13 3.6 Bauhinia 0 6 1.8 0.1 6 1.8 Beaudesert 0 104 4.4 1.9 1 520 6.4 Belyando 0 47 7.3 0.8 239 4.9 Bendemere 0 7 3.3 0.1 3 0.7 Biggenden 0 6 2.4 0.1 12 2.0 Boonah 0 25 3.4 0.3 140 4.1 Booringa 0 15 5.4 0.2 56 6.0 Boulia 0 5 7.9 0.1 10 2.8 Brisbane 0 2 936 5.8 51.8 32 874 7.8 Broadsound 0 18 4.0 0.3 121 3.6 Bulloo 0 11 15.9 0.2 26 5.4 Bundaberg 0 166 6.5 2.8 1 005 6.5 Bungil 0 7 1.8 0.1 28 2.4 Burke 0 7 13.4 6.1 36 3.7 Burnett 0 41 4.1 0.6 500 5.9 Caboolture 0 151 4.1 2.8 2 156 5.2 Cairns 0 645 8.7 10.4 7 598 13.3 Calliope 0 28 3.2 0.5 404 6.3 Cambooya 0 1 0.3 0 86 3.8 Carpentaria 0 13 8.1 0.2 105 5.6 Charters Towers 0 52 10.5 0.8 219 6.9

188 Clifton 0 11 2.6 0.2 23 2.4 Cloncurry 0 19 7.3 0.3 145 5.9 Cook 0 50 10.8 0.8 343 8.3 Cooloola 0 104 4.8 1.7 718 5.9 Croydon 0 4 10.5 0 9 6.7 Dalby 0 48 6.2 0.8 230 5.4 Dalrymple 0 8 2.4 0 66 3.7 Diamantina 0 6 15.0 0.1 26 10.1 Duaringa 0 36 6.5 0.6 168 4.7 Eacham 0 34 6.1 0.5 207 8.4 Eidsvold 0 4 2.8 0.1 12 2.6 Emerald 0 50 5.1 0.8 396 5.9 Esk 0 33 3.4 0.5 212 4.2 Etheridge 0 16 13.0 0.3 67 9.3 Fitzroy 0 16 2.5 0.2 209 5.1 Flinders 0 15 5.5 0.2 58 5.6 Gayndah 0 11 3.4 0.2 40 2.8 Gladstone 0 112 7.4 2.0 708 5.9 Goondiwindi 0 37 7.3 0.5 172 7.5 Herberton 0 12 3.8 0.1 87 5.9 Hervey Bay 0 157 9.3 2.3 1 425 11.0 Ilfracombe 0 1 2.4 0 15 7.7 Inglewood 0 11 2.8 0.1 49 4.2 Isis 0 24 4.7 0.4 109 5.6 Isisford 0 1 1.7 0 6 3.3 Jericho 0 7 4.5 0.1 9 1.7 Johnstone 0 105 6.2 1.6 414 5.1 Jondaryan 0 32 3.4 0.6 220 3.8 Kilkivan 0 9 1.8 0.2 34 2.7 Kingaroy 0 38 3.7 0.6 224 4.5 Kolan 0 11 2.9 0.1 63 4.8 Livingstone 0 92 7.2 1.5 1 068 10.5 Logan 0 126 2.4 4.1 3 615 1.3 Longreach 0 33 8.5 0.5 182 8.4 Mackay 0 250 4.6 4.0 2 191 1.6 Maryborough 0 86 6.0 1.4 595 6.9 McKinlay 0 13 7.0 0.2 57 6.3 Millmerran 0 15 3.6 0.2 10.8 4.8 Miraim Vale 0 14 3.8 0.2 154 9.8 Monto 0 11 2.3 0.1 60 4.9 Mornington 0 2 9.6 0 6 1.6 Mount Morgan 0 5 5.2 0.1 36 5.8 Mundubbera 0 8 2.4 6.0 29 2.1 Murgon 0 12 2.9 0.2 48 2.7 Murweh 0 30 6.0 0.5 127 5.3 Nebo 0 11 6.1 0.2 113 8.0 Paroo 0 12 4.7 0.1 32 3.3 Peak Downs 0 15 5.2 0.2 96 6.0 Perry 0 2 2.1 0 6 3.4 Quilpie 0 8 4.1 0.1 36 5.3 Richmond 0 6 3.6 0.1 44 8.7

189 Rockhampton 0 259 8.6 4.4 1 867 7.7 Rosalie 0 14 2.0 0.3 117 3.3 Stanthorpe 0 46 4.5 0.7 259 6.5 Tambo 0 3 3.7 0 15 4.3 Tara 0 14 2.6 0.2 41 3.1 Taroom 0 7 1.3 0.1 46 3.1 Tiaro 0 8 2.2 0.1 61 4.7 Toowoomba 0 318 7.1 5.4 2 372 6.5 Torres 0 25 9.2 0.4 146 4.0 Townsville 0 412 7.8 6.9 3 751 8.7 Waggamba 0 3 0.8 0 30 1.9 Wambo 0 18 2.0 0.2 81 3.4 Warroo 0 2 1.0 0 9 1.6 Warwick 0 81 4.4 1.2 435 5.2 Whitsunday 0 165 12.8 2.6 1 964 21.7 Winton 0 16 7.5 0.3 79 8.0 Wondai 0 16 3.1 0.3 44 2.9 Woocoo 0 0 0 0 42 3.5 Source: Office of Economic and Statistical Research, 2005 * Note: Tourism business figures based on combined Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants and Cultural and Recreational Services categories (Appendix Ten).

It was noted in the individual analysis of tourism planning documents that many of the local tourism destinations that did have a tourism plan were rural areas looking to tourism to diversify the economic base of the Shire. Importance performance analysis graphs (Figure 6.11) further highlight these figures and demonstrate that for the vast majority of destinations that did have a tourism plan, tourism was not necessarily an important sector (quadrant 1: low importance-low performance). Many of these were rural destinations which have identified tourism as a potential sector for economic diversification such as Kilcoy (plan 15), Banana (plan 2), Nanango (plan 22), Blackall (plan 3), Roma (plan 28) and Pittsworth (plan 25), and have developed a strategy in an attempt to capitalise on the potential of tourism.

The current importance of tourism however is not an excuse for poor performance in sustainable tourism planning. For destinations such as Chinchilla (plan 8) and Mirani (plan 19) tourism is not an important economic sector (relative to other businesses) but the destination still realised the value in sustainable development and planning (quadrant 3: low importance-high performance). In comparison, two destinations, Noosa (plan 23) and Mount Isa (plan 20) ranked within quadrant two (quadrant 2: high importance-low

190 performance). For these destinations tourism is an important economic sector, yet the destination planning process met with few of the stated evaluative criteria. Douglas was the only destination analysed for this study where tourism was of high importance and the planning process was assessed as high performance (quadrant 4).

Figure 6.11: Tourism Planning Document Score x Tourism Business % of LGA Total Businesses* (n=30)

10- Douglas

23- Noosa e c n a

t 20- Mount Isa r

o 3

p 28 12- Gold Coast m I 4 18- Maroochy 17 6 7 5 29- Sarina 1 30- Thuringowa 24 13 14 26 27- Redland 22 19- Mirani 2 15 9 21 11 16 8- Chinchilla 25

Performance

* Note: Numbers assigned to local tourism destinations (Table 6.40)

The final importance-performance analysis graph (Figure 6.12) includes each of the 125 local tourism destination areas. As the vast majority of these destinations did not have a tourism planning document their performance is 0, and are therefore plotted against the left axis which makes it difficult to differentiate the importance of tourism to the area. However the graph does highlight that for some destinations without a tourism plan, such as Brisbane, tourism is a very important economic sector. The implications of these issues are discussed in Chapter Nine.

191 Figure 6.12: All Local Government Area’s Performance Score x LGA % of State Tourism Businesses (n=125)

Brisbane e c n a t r

o Gold Coast p m I

Cairns

Performance

It should be taken into account when considering the importance of tourism to the destination that the tourism business figures represent a percentage of total businesses in the region. For example tourism is arguably an important economic sector for the Gold Coast highlighted by the fact that the region has 28.2% of the state’s total tourism businesses (Table 6.40), yet the Gold Coast lies within quadrant three (low importance) due to the fact that tourism businesses represent only 7.8% of all businesses in the Gold Coast region. Similarly the Cairns region has 10.4% of all tourism businesses in the state, yet tourism businesses represent only 8.7% of total businesses in the Cairns region.

6.6 Chapter Six Summary

This chapter presented the results of the investigation into the current planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland as per the first research objective. A qualitative content analysis of the tourism specific planning documents of 30 local tourism destinations in Queensland was undertaken, to determine the extent to which the

192 principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are adopted, with the results presented both collectively and individually. The plans were also quantitatively weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria, with the final section presenting a series of importance performance analysis graphs.

The results of this investigation clearly demonstrate that on the whole the local tourism destinations analysed in this study do not meet with the stated evaluation criteria used to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. Although the majority of Queensland destinations do not have a specific plan to guide tourism development (76%), those destinations that do have a plan met with very few of the stated criteria. As detailed in the research methods (Chapter Five, section 5.6.1), five destinations were further investigated for the second and third objectives of the study: Redland Shire, Sarina Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City and Thuringowa City. The results of the 31 interviews conducted with destination stakeholders in these five case study areas are presented in Chapter Seven.

193 Chapter Seven Stakeholder Perceptions of the Local Tourism Destination Planning Process

7.0 Introduction

The second research objective of the study was to examine destination stakeholder’s perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process. To achieve this objective, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 stakeholders from five case study destinations in Queensland. Case study destinations were selected based on the compliance of their tourism planning document with the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument (Chapter Six). Based on this assessment five local tourism destinations in Queensland were selected for further investigation for the second objective of the study: Redland Shire, Sarina Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City and Thuringowa City.

This chapter presents the results and analysis of the 31 interviews conducted with stakeholders from the five case study destinations, and is structured into three sections. Firstly background information and an overview of the key elements of the planning process for each of the selected case study destinations are presented as detailed in their respective planning documents. Following this, an overview of the 31 survey

194 respondents is provided, including their role in the planning process, their regular affiliations within the local tourism destination and their perceived influence on the tourism planning process. The remainder of the chapter presents the results of the 31 interviews conducted with destination stakeholders in the five case study areas regarding their perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are incorporated, with the results presented according to these thematic categories. Finally the interview results regarding stakeholder perceptions of alternative planning practices and strategic visioning are detailed, with additional results presented for the two destinations which have previously undertaken a strategic visioning process (Redland Shire and Gold Coast City).

7.1 Overview of the Tourism Planning Documents of the Case Study Destinations

This section of the chapter presents relevant introductory and background information for each of the five case study destinations selected for further investigation. In addition, key aspects from the respective planning documents relating to sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are presented to provide a context to the stakeholder survey responses detailed further in this chapter (Table 7.1). The strategic visioning process undertaken by two of the destinations is also outlined.

As discussed in the previous chapter, only five of the 30 planning documents of local tourism destinations in Queensland were found to meet with at least half of the criteria in the tourism planning process evaluation instrument. These destinations were, in order of compliance: Redland Shire (69.5%), Sarina Shire (67.3%), Douglas Shire (61.9%), Gold Coast City (60.8%) and Thuringowa City (51.0%).

195 7.1.1 Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy and North Stradbroke Island Visioning Project

The Redland Shire is located east of Queensland’s capital city, Brisbane, on the coastline of Moreton Bay (Figure 1.2). The Shire includes a number of mainland urbanized suburbs and farming areas, as well as several islands including the popular tourist island of North Stradbroke. Redland Shire has a population of approximately 124,000 and along with other regions in the Brisbane area is considered one of the fastest growing areas in Australia. Due to the fact that the Shire is essentially a ‘suburb’ of Brisbane, it does not have a strong economic base, although the Council considers key industries in the shire to be small business, tourism and some farming (Redland Shire Council, 2003; 2002).

In 2003 the Redland Shire Council released the ‘Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy’. The impetus for the tourism plan reportedly stemmed from the realisation that tourism had not achieved its full potential, and that there was a need to establish a five-year strategic framework for tourism development in the Shire (Table 7.1). The Redland Shire tourism strategy gave considerable emphasis to the issues of sustainable tourism development, and acknowledged the importance of strategic planning and stakeholder participation as contributing factors to the achievement of a sustainable tourism sector.

In 2002 the North Stradbroke Island community of Redland Shire developed a ‘Sustainable Tourism Vision’ for the island in partnership with the Redland Shire Council and Tourism Queensland to provide a framework and set of values to guide the future development of sustainable tourism on the island (Sustainable Tourism Services, 2002). Sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation and collaboration were all strongly integrated into the visioning process. The intention was not to provide a prescriptive plan but to provide a direction to guide the establishment of strategic priorities for ensuring the long-term sustainability of tourism on North Stradbroke Island and ensure that a longer-term perspective informs day-to-day decisions. Community

196 values underpinned the development of the strategic vision with the objective of bringing about a level of consensus amongst stakeholders about the preferred direction for tourism on the island.

7.1.2 Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy

Sarina Shire is located on the east coast of central Queensland approximately 40 kilometres south of Mackay (Figure 1.2) and has a population of 10,000. The economy of the shire is dominated by coal exporting with the region handling 61.5% of total coal exports from Queensland, although primary production activities such as sugar cane, beef, tropical fruit and fishing are also important (Local Government Focus, 2002; Sarina Shire Council, 2002). In 2002 the Sarina Shire Council released the ‘Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy’, as part of its program to stimulate and diversify economic activity in the Shire.

The objective of developing a tourism strategy was to ensure that a holistic approach is adopted where tourism is developed in harmony with the environment and does not detract from the local character of the area (Table 7.1). Sustainable tourism development is presented as a key goal of the Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy, with a strategic focus towards future development. It is also noted within the strategy that there is a need to move away from the traditional approach of tourism development through marketing and promotion. The planning process further sought broad based community participation to produce a strategy that would be owned and driven by the community.

7.1.3 Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy

Douglas Shire is located in Far North Queensland, approximately 100 kilometres north of Cairns (Figure 1.2) and although the area has a small population it receives in excess of a million visitors a year due to its proximity to the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics World Heritage areas (Douglas Shire Council, 2004). Although traditionally an agricultural area, tourism is the largest economic sector in the Douglas Shire with

197 significant accommodation stock and tour operations, the majority of which are located in Port Douglas on the coast. The Douglas Shire Council is renowned for its strong environmental and conservation values and became the first Green Globe21 benchmarked community in the Asia Pacific region (Christopher, 2001). Their approach is evident in the ‘Douglas Shire Sustainable Futures’ strategy (Douglas Shire Council, 2001), “The Douglas Shire has embarked on a process to become a sustainable community. Sustainability should underpin everything we do in the Shire. We are all responsible for safeguarding our environmental and social and economic requirements- the Shire’s triple bottom line. This document is designed to ensure that all the decisions we make take into account environmental, social and economic issues not one in isolation of the others” (p.1).

In 1998 the Douglas Shire Council released the ‘Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy’ to guide tourism planning, management, marketing and development and achieve their vision of being recognised as a model of best practice in sustainable tourism (Table 7.1) (Douglas Shire Council & Port Douglas Daintree Tourism Association, 1998). A detailed range of principles and goals guided the implementation of the strategy (Appendix 15). Sustainability goals were a focus of the strategy, with strategic actions seeking to balance economic, environmental and social considerations. Although the issue of strategic planning did not feature heavily in the plan, the importance of stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process was highlighted within the document, where it is acknowledged that public involvement in tourism planning is essential and community views need to be taken into account in the development of tourism as the future of the sector relies heavily on ongoing community support and involvement.

7.1.4 Gold Coast Tourism Visioning Project and Gold Coast Tourism Strategy

Gold Coast City is a large South-East Queensland coastal centre (Figure 1.2), and is the sixth largest city in Australia, with a population of 450,000 (Gold Coast City Council,

198 2004). The Gold Coast has long been acknowledged as Australia’s premier tourist destination, a position established as a consequence of a fortunate combination of natural assets and a sequence of visionary entrepreneurs. Although the Gold Coast experienced quite rapid and successful growth up until the 1990s, a range of indicators highlighted the fact that Gold Coast was a mature destination showing some early signs of stagnation, paralleling the experience of coastal tourist resorts elsewhere in the world (Chapter Four). It was realised that, “A fundamental shift in the approach to destination planning and management is necessary if the region is to rejuvenate and remain competitive in the longer term. However, the pressures of an increasingly competitive global environment point to the necessity of a more comprehensive approach that embraces sustainable development principles as a framework for tourism development” (Faulkner, 2003, p.43).

To address such concerns the Gold Coast Tourism Visioning (GCTV) project was instigated with the objective of articulating a set of core values and principles that would underpin a preferred future for the sustainable prosperity of the destination in the medium to longer term (10 to 20 years). The GCTV project also sought to move from an ad hoc approach to tourism to one that integrates economic, social and environmental dimensions to evolve new patterns of managing and growing tourism in a more systematic and dynamic way (Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Management Research, nd).

On completion of the GCTV project, the ‘Gold Coast Tourism Strategy’ was released with the aim of providing the mechanism to implement the findings of the GCTV project and in so doing ensure the destination remains competitive and sustainable for future generations (Table 7.1) (Gold Coast City Council Tourism Branch, 2003). The strategy also sought to provide a framework within Council for the coordination of Gold Coast tourism through the development of planning and policy outcomes, while assisting council in prioritising the tourism initiatives for the city. The strategy reiterated the importance and need for sustainable tourism development, and while not further

199 articulating goals for strategic planning, reference was made to the participation of internal and external stakeholder groups in the planning process.

7.1.5 Thuringowa Tourism and Events Strategy

Thuringowa City is located along the North Queensland coastline (Figure 1.2), and borders the much larger regional city of Townsville. The Shire is comprised of urban, rural and coastal areas, with over 50,000 residents, many of who live in the urban areas of the Shire (Thuringowa City Council, 2003). While tourism is currently not a major economic sector for the shire the Thuringowa City Council released the ‘Thuringowa Tourism and Events Strategy’ in 2000 in an attempt to utilise the area’s significant assets and attributes for a sustainable tourism industry and destination image for the Shire. More specifically the objective of the strategy was to establish a planning framework to guide the development of tourism and related recreational activities in Thuringowa City (ATS Group, 2000).

The Thuringowa Tourism and Events Strategy contained several references to the importance of sustainable development, and recognised the need for a planning platform based on ecologically sustainable development (Table 7.1). Although the strategy did not refer to strategic planning, stakeholder participation namely community consultation is acknowledged as a cornerstone of the master planning process.

7.2 Overview of Case Study Destination Stakeholder Participants

This section of the chapter presents an overview of the stakeholder respondents sampled from each of the five case study destinations. Although this has been previously outlined in Chapter Five (section 5.6) it is overviewed again here to provide a point of reference to the stakeholder interview responses presented in the remainder of the chapter. A total of 31 destination stakeholders were sampled, with respondents including Councillors and council officers, private sector operators within the tourism industry, members or staff of tourism associations and similar authorities and consultants who were engaged for the

200 planning process, many of whom were also residents of the destinations under investigation (Table 7.2). Ordinary residents involved in the local tourism destination planning process were also sought to participate in the research however as outlined in the limitations of this study (Chapter Five, section 5.8) their participation was not possible for a variety of reasons.

Respondent’s regular affiliations as well as their role in the local tourism planning process are presented in Table 7.2. The final column in this table lists respondent’s perceived influence over the destination’s tourism planning process under investigation for this study. During the interviews, respondents were asked to describe the extent of their influence and involvement in the planning and decision-making process for the destination. Based on these responses influence has been rated as low, intermediate or high. The issue of stakeholder influence over the planning process is discussed in Chapter Eight.

The following section presents the results of the 31 interviews conducted with destination stakeholders in the five case study areas. Statements by particular stakeholders have been coded as per the first column in Table 7.3 in addition to the respondent’s regular affiliation (column three).

201 Table 7.1: Overview of the Tourism Planning Documents of the Case Study Destinations Redland Shire Sarina Shire Douglas Gold Coast City Thuringowa Shire City Objectives -Identify -Ensure a -Understand -Ethically, -Establish a planning that whole-of-shire the current socially, planning affects tourism approach market culturally, framework to in the Shire -Tourism position of the economically guide tourism -Examine development to Shire and development current status occur in a -Identify environmentally -Preserve the of tourism holistic manner goals, issues, sustainable attributes of industry -Recognise alternative tourism the district -Identify tourism as a futures and development -Increase stakeholder social and potential -Whole of visitation and issues and economic force strategies destination length of stay debate and major -Ensure approach to -Spread -Identify employer tourism is planning and economic hurdles -Ensure compatible policymaking benefits preventing tourism is with -Provide a -Create Shire from developed in community framework community adopting more harmony with aspirations within Council benefits sustainable the -Stable for the planning directions environment economy and and policy and does not natural outcomes of the detract from environment GCTV project the local longevity - Assist council character of the -Appropriate in prioritising area branding, the tourism image, initiatives for the promotion and city marketing Vision In five years Engage in a Tourism in Gold Coast will Integrate the time the Shire tourism Douglas Shire become one of tourism will have a development will be the great leisure attributes to sustainable path that is recognised as and lifestyle showcase tourism economically, a model of destinations of strengths, industry ecologically best practice the world, complements and socially sustainable renowned for the the wider sustainable tourism sustainable region, management of diversifies the its natural and local economy built and has high environment appeal for visitors Sustainability Establish a Create a Ensure the It is important Planning proactive tourism ecological, that Gold Coast platform based planning attraction base social, cultural City’s tourism on framework to as the and economic industry ecologically

202 fast track cornerstone to sustainability continues to be sustainable towards a sustainable of existing economically, development, vision of tourism and future environmentally to support the sustainability development tourism and socially future sustainable promotion of the natural environment and the social/cultural elements Strategic Proactive Importance of - - - Planning planning tourism approach where product a sustainable development vision is over marketing defined now to and promotion drive planning Stakeholder Encourage Produce a The strategy Implementing Community Participation participation strategy that be guided by the strategy is consultation is from a variety would be the principle dependent, not a cornerstone of owned and of managing only upon its of the master stakeholders- driven by the and acceptance planning government, community developing the within Council, process industry and itself industry but also upon its the community cooperatively support within with the the wider community community Participation Consultation Consultation Consultation Consultation Consultation Methods undertaken undertaken undertaken undertaken with: undertaken with: with: with: -Public and with: -Government -Local -Community private tourism -Local -Tourism government -Tourism stakeholders at government bodies -Community industry local, state and -State -Operators and business Methods: national levels government -Community associations -Public Methods: -Regional members -Community meetings -Council tourism development Methods: members -PATA taskforce bodies -Workshops Methods: tourism -Comments on -Tourism -Meetings -Representative product draft tourism operators -Interviews steering review strategy -Tourism -Questionnaires committee associations -Public forums -Public Methods: -Discussion meetings -Meetings paper

203 Table 7.2: Respondent Regular Affiliation and Residence in Destination Redland Sarina Douglas Gold Coast Thuringowa Affiliation Council 2 3 2 1 2 Industry 1 1 1 1 2 Association 2 2 2 1 1 Consultant 1 0 1 3 2 Total 6 6 6 6 7 Resident Yes 5 5 5 3 4 No 1 1 1 3 3 Respondent average years as 18.5 44.6 31.0 15.0 7.3 resident of destination

Table 7.3: Respondent Role in Planning Process and Regular Affiliation Role In Planning Process Regular Affiliation Perceived Influence

Redland R1 Project Consultant Consultant Intermediate R2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High R3 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council Intermediate R4 Consultation Industry Operator Low R5 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate R6 Consultation Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Low

Sarina S1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High S2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High S3 Steering Committee Shire Council Intermediate S4 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate S5 Steering Committee Industry Operator Intermediate S6 Steering Committee Regional Tourism Organisation Low (RTO)

Douglas D1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High D2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High D3 Project Consultant Consultant High D4 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate D5 Steering Committee Industry Operator Intermediate

204 D6 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate

Gold Coast G1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High G2 Project Consultant Consultant Intermediate G3 Project Consultant Consultant Low G4 Consultation Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate G5 Project Researcher Consultant Low G6 Consultation Industry Operator Intermediate

Thuringowa T1 Steering Committee State Tourism Authority (STA) Low T2 Consultation Regional Tourism Organisation Low (RTO) T3 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High T4 Consultation Industry Operator Low T5 Consultation Industry Operator Low T6 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High T7 Project Consultant Consultant High

7.3 Local Tourism Destination Stakeholder Interview Results

The second and third research objectives of the study were addressed through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 31 stakeholders from five case study destinations in Queensland. This section presents the results of the stakeholder interviews for each of the case studies, with results presented according to the thematic categories derived from the literature review and used to inform the interview questions (Appendix Seven). For the second objective of the study the thematic categories are sustainability, strategic planning, and stakeholder participation. Within each of these themes results are presented according to the manifest coding undertaken during the data analysis stage. The sustainability theme includes three factors, the strategic planning theme has five and the stakeholder participation theme has seven factors. Stakeholder responses have been collated and are presented in a summative form for each of the respective destinations, with the various destinations delineated by different colours in the figures. Excerpts from specific interview respondents are identified by the respondent codes and respondents regular affiliations (Table 7.3).

205 Stakeholder perceptions of future tourism planning needs and strategic visioning are presented to address the third objective of the study. Results for this theme include three factors, with an additional five factors presented from the more detailed results obtained from the two destinations that have previously undertaken a strategic visioning process (Redland Shire and Gold Coast City).

7.3.1 Sustainability Theme

Several aspects of sustainable tourism planning and the sustainability concept were discussed with stakeholders including; their understanding and views of the sustainability concept, their perceptions as to what motivated the adoption of a sustainable approach to tourism planning and whether they believe the concept is applied in destination planning and management practice. Stakeholder responses for this theme have been presented according to the manifest coding derived from the analysis: sustainability concept, sustainable planning motivations and concept application.

The first factor arising in the sustainability theme related to stakeholders’ perceptions of the sustainability concept and its applicability to local tourism destination planning and management (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1: Sustainability Concept (n=31)

6 Redland 5 6 66 6 Sarina 4 Douglas 3 4 Gold Coast 2 3 Thuringowa 1 1 0 Concept value Practical application

Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded

206 Stakeholder respondents from each case study destination generally considered that the concept of sustainability was valuable and important (27), “It’s such a vital concept that we have to aim to achieve” (S2/Council), and, “I mean sustainability does underpin everything. I don’t think that could be impressed too much” (G6/Industry). While acknowledging the value of the sustainability concept, concerns were raised by a number of respondents that the concept had become the latest catchphrase, “I think that the word itself is just too easily bantered around (R2/Council)”, and, “It’s become a bit of a catchphrase though, a bit like ecotourism was the call of the 90s” (D3/Consultant).

Concerns over the emergence of the word as a catchphrase was seen by some respondents as adversely impacting on how the term is used in practice with one respondent noting that, “there’s a lot of lip service to it definitely” (T7/Consultant). Other respondents claimed that, “I think we’re now in danger of having watered down the word. People are using the word in all sorts of contexts and not necessarily the right contexts, so that can be dangerous” (D2/Council), and, “So I think the principles are really important...I think the jargon’s overtaken us all and sometimes the use of jargon is replacing the real steps towards some of these things. To me it’s one of those words that’s really, really over used…but using the word doesn’t mean that you’re thinking about your water supply” (G4/LTA). Similarly, “Personally the worst thing that ever happened to sustainability was it became a buzz word, because the word itself has been so overused, in so many different contexts. People are over it. The concept and the meaning behind it is still there…but the sustainability word now has a cringe factor and people

207 really shy away from things that have sustainability in the title because it is so theoretically and philosophically based” (T1/STA).

Five respondents highlighted issues associated with the practical aspects and implementation of the sustainability concept, “A lot of people talk about sustainability but what does that actually mean, and how do we deliver on that? I think that’s one of the key challenges for industry and for local governments as we move forward” (G1/Council), and, “So the theory is not only good but it has to happen, sustainability, it’s more than just theory these days, its serious stuff” (G2/Consultant). It was also noted that particular aspects of the theory were overtly focused upon, “Even the economic component is sometimes overlooked. I think everyone gets very excited about the green side of things and they don’t actually see that you can have the most wonderful ecotourism product but frankly unless it’s going to stand up and can make a buck don’t even bother starting it up (R3/Council)”.

The second factor in the sustainability theme related to stakeholders’ perceptions on what motivated the adoption of a sustainable approach to tourism planning for their destination (Figure 7.2).

Figure 7.2: Sustainable Planning Motivations (n=31)

7 6 Redland 5 Sarina 4 5 5 Douglas 3 4 Gold Coast 2 3 3 3 Thuringowa 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 Destination Management Not motivated management mandates

208 The majority of respondents (20) identified the desire to enhance destination management practices and manage the impacts of tourism activity on the destination as the motives for undertaking a sustainable tourism plan, “We wanted to raise the bar in the whole tourism industry by doing the strategy and set out a sustainable direction and future” (D2/Council), and, “The reason we did the strategy in the first place was because of what was happening here environmentally, something needed to be done. We knew we didn’t want to lose that industry but we also didn’t want to spoil and destroy our assets. We really saw there was a need to do something to get this right” (D1/Council).

Four respondents noted that the motivation for undertaking a sustainable planning approach was due to management mandates and planning requirements that sustainability principles form the basis of the planning exercise, “There are just too many checks and balances now in terms of environmental issues, social issues and so on. There are just too many groups out there monitoring and watching what goes on with government activity, local government activity, business activity” (D3/Consultant), and, “Local governments need to include sustainability assessments. There’s questions to be asked and sustainability criteria need to be included” (T6/Council). It was similarly noted that, “You have to address the issue of sustainability as there will come a time you’ve got to be able to stand alone and face the music” (S2/Council).

However a number of the respondents (7) were of the opinion that sustainability was not the motivating factor in the development of the strategy for their destination,

209 “I don’t know what they were trying to do but I doubt they did a plan to be sustainable” (T2/RTO). One respondent noted that the terminology had been adopted but not the practice, “They jumped on the idea of sustainability as it was a key word. Theirs is a plan which is really more marketing oriented not sustainability oriented” (R6/LTA), and, “I don’t think there was a real sustainability agenda, but there’s definitely lots of opportunity for increasing sustainability...and doing that is probably risky, expensive and beyond any one particular region’s capabilities and so all you get are little experiments in the margins such as the Gold Coast visioning project. There’s opportunities for it I just don’t see anyone particularly interested in doing it. Maybe it’s the scale of the investment, maybe it’s the idea that you need to retro fit sustainability into these places which weren’t designed for it in the first place” (G3/Consultant).

The final factor arising from the interviews in relation to the sustainability theme was the extent to which the sustainability concept was perceived to be practically applied in tourism destination planning and management (Figure 7.3).

Figure 7.3: Sustainability Concept Application (n=31)

6 Redland 5 6 Sarina 4 Douglas 4 3 Gold Coast

2 3 3 Thuringowa 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 Applied practice Practical tools Process challenges Not achieving

Note: Non responses excluded

210 A number of the respondents (13) perceive that the sustainability concept is being applied in practice, although they note that there is still room for improvement, “We see examples of it, it’s not perfect…I think its going to get bigger and bigger. But still trying to get that combination, that’s the trick” (T7/Consultant), and, “There’s attempts to deliver on this triple bottom line and sustainability but how that happens, again I think that’s a whole learning curve because as we learn more about what sustainability means and how we can deliver on it, we’ll do better at doing it” (G1/Council).

However a number of respondents (8) believe that until practical tools are developed the concept cannot be affectively applied in practice, “The theory’s good and the practice can be good if the tools are there for destinations to use. They have to be tools that had some discipline rigor put into developing the standards and the methods in which they’re going to be rolled out” (G2/Consultant). One respondent noted the need for sustainability indicators as a tool for use in practice so that the concept can be more effectively applied and managed, “Professionally the experience that I’ve had is, without clear indicators of environmental sustainability and social sustainability, it’s impossible to even enter the word in to the debate unless you have a set of indicators that you can rely on to say ‘are we or are we not entering the danger zone of the long term future’. Economically we have had indicators for sustainability for a very long time...what we don’t have is the equivalent in environmental sustainability and social sustainability. So until you can get clear indicators on environmental and social sustainability, it’s an absolutely moot point and just makes it waffle and we end up writing waffle in the actions to say that we do nice things. Local government, regional tourism organizations, need to be given the tools to monitor the progress, understand what changes mean, what

211 they might mean in the future based on case studies and good indicators, and then be shown what you can do to respond to it, otherwise it’s just sustainability philosophy” (T1/STA).

Several respondents (3) identified challenges in the planning process and the nature of the tourism sector as hindering the application of the sustainability concept. “If they had involved the community to actually have a sustainable tourism vision they would actually have a better outcome now than they do” (R5/LTA), and, “I think it’s happening, I’d like to think most people in the industry walk the walk and just don’t talk the talk. I think it’s happening in parts…and there’s the good, the bad and the ugly as we know in any industry and tourism is no different and, I think there are genuine operators out there with sustainable intent. But I daresay for every good one that’s out there making an effort there’s another turning a blind eye to some of their own business practices. Certainly we know its happening” (D3/Consultant).

Several respondents (5) believe the sustainability concept is not being applied in tourism destination planning and management because of overriding planning schemes in some destinations, “I don’t think Douglas is sustainable... and that’s only because the town plan allowed it to happen and so once it’s in place you can’t go and stop it” (D5/Industry). Similarly, “Council’s always this argument that we can’t do anything about it, you know controlling development, market forces have got to set the pace. But if you just allow the building to go on and on and on, we’re just destroying the landscape, and we’re putting more pressure on things but its not necessarily drawing more people in, and if it is, if you do start to get increases they are

212 coming in at a lower yield so therefore the spend in the economy isn’t as great as it could be if you kept a control on that” (D6/LTA). The nature of the destination system was also identified as hindering the application of the sustainability concept, “There’s not a chance that the Gold Coast can be sustainable because they didn’t address transportation to the best of my knowledge. They didn’t address the mix of the attractions or how they occurred. They looked at some aspects, but I don’t think they really thought it through” (G3), and, “I don’t think there’s anything sustainable about the Gold Coast at the moment, just the patterns of settlement and road transport and lack of public transport and I’m not sure there’s many genuine attempts being made in the tourism industry either” (G4/LTA).

7.3.1.1 Summary: Sustainability Theme

The sustainability theme presented stakeholder respondent’s views on the sustainability concept and its application in local Queensland tourism destinations. While all of the respondents considered the sustainability concept to be valuable and important, some raised concerns that the term had emerged as the latest catchphrase for the sector and noted a range of problems associated with this trend. Some respondents expressed concern that the term sustainability had become tourism jargon, which was resulting in the word being misused and applied to contexts not necessarily associated with sustainability. Others believed that due to the concept’s strong theoretical and philosophical associations, practitioners were tending to avoid the term and its associated meaning. Similarly a number of respondents, although acknowledging the importance of the concept, highlighted challenges associated with moving beyond the theory and delivering on the concept. It was also noted that there was a need to ensure a more balanced view and give due attention to all three aspects of the concept.

213 In terms of stakeholder’s views as to what motivated their destination to undertake a sustainable tourism planning approach, the majority identified the desire to enhance the destination’s planning and management practices. Other motivating factors were seen to be the management mandates and planning requirements, which had created a need to address sustainability criteria particularly in terms of environment and social issues. However several respondents were of the opinion that a sustainable tourism planning approach was not the motivating factor in the development of the strategy for their destination, that it had simply being labelled as such and that the strategy had continued to focus on more traditional issues such as marketing.

The final issue arising in the sustainability theme was whether respondents perceive the sustainability concept is applied in practice. A number of respondents were of the opinion that there are attempts to apply the concept in practice but note that there is still considerable room for improvement and expect that with time and experience this will progress. However other respondents believe that until practical tools for implementation are developed, the concept cannot effectively be applied in practice. The lack of tools such as sustainability indicators are seen as a barrier and contributing to the misuse of the concept as destinations currently do not have any basis for measuring their sustainability efforts. These tools were considered necessary so that local governments and the like can monitor progress, understand what changes mean, what they might mean in the future and take the appropriate actions. Other barriers to the effective application of the concept were seen to be meaningful engagement of the destination community in the planning process, private sector practices and overriding town planning schemes which in some instances are perceived as working at cross purposes with destination sustainability objectives.

7.3.2 Strategic Planning Theme

The second of the themes arising from the literature review and discussed with stakeholders related to the strategic nature of the local tourism destination planning process. Issues raised included; perceived motivations, benefits, challenges and

214 outcomes of the strategic planning process. Stakeholder responses are presented according to the manifest coding: strategic planning motivation, strategic framework, strategic planning benefits, strategic planning challenges and strategic planning scope.

The first factor arising in the strategic planning theme related to stakeholders’ perceptions of the motivation for their destination to undertake a strategic planning process (Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4: Strategic Planning Motivation (n=31)

6 Redland 5 Sarina 4 4 Douglas 3 3 3 Gold Coast 2 2 2 2 2 Thuringowa 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 0 Proactive Direction Action Management Education

Note: Non responses excluded

Respondents had various perceptions as to the motivation for their destination conducting a strategic planning process. A number of respondents (9) identified the need to be proactive regarding tourism in the destination, “There was a need to plan out a strategy because you need to have a vision of how much development is wanted, what type of tourism they wanted” (D5/Industry), and, “I think it was a call to action to change the way we’ve done things, you know reorganize the way we do things and move forward” (G6/Industry).

215 Also identified by respondents was the need to set a direction for tourism in the destination (7), “To pull together the information and have a strategic intent of where they’re going” (R1/Consultant), and, “It was seen that we were needing to be developing a strategy to make sure we were heading in the right direction. It was actually at a time of major downturn in the sugar industry and the coal industry was not returning a lot to the community, so there was a perceived need for tourism development to take place in the Shire” (S2/Council).

Other respondents (3) considered the motivating factor for undertaking a strategic planning process was to instigate action, “They wanted to get some actions happening, some runs on the board from the visioning project” (G2/Consultant), and, “It was definitely about setting a longer-term vision and setting some really short-term actions to get there” (T7/Consultant). Although one respondent believed action had come at the expense of a strategic approach, “It was a strategy so the purpose would have been to think about the longer term future but I don’t think that was the real aim of the document. They wanted to get their stakeholders on board, they could see tourism had potential, and they wanted to get going” (T1/STA).

The fourth identified motivation for undertaking a strategic planning process was to mange tourism’s impacts on the destination (3), “I think generally we needed to have some sort of tourism statement for Douglas Shire because it was impacting significantly” (D3/Consultant), and,

216 “We bought the strategy forward by about two years because of some of the sort of more urgent issues around tourism issues, tourism development of the shire and our concerns over where tourism was going...so we brought it forward for that reason for more of a strategic platform” (R3/Council).

The final motivation identified by respondents was to educate the stakeholder groups within the destination (4), “There were things happening in the Shire and we really just wanted to up the anti of tourism planning in the Shire and put the idea of planning and management out there to the industry” (D2/Council), and, “We needed to know what was going on, judge who the actual tourists were, which ones were coming, which ones we could attract and relay this back to the community” (S3/Council). It was also discussed by one respondent that undertaking the strategic planning process improved awareness of the tourism sector which assisted in engaging stakeholders in making more informed decisions about tourism, “Basically what we were trying to do as part of the strategy was to try to lift the profile and the understanding within Council about tourism planning and the tourism market in general, so when transport or when the strategic planners, the town planners, when parks and recreation go out and develop another plan they have a recognition of the tourism outcomes that we are trying to achieve as well, it’s a lot about what the strategy was about” (G1/Council).

The second factor arising from the strategic planning theme related to the outcomes of the strategic planning process (Figure 7.5). The majority of stakeholder respondents (18) considered that as a result of the strategic planning process their destination had a specific document outlining a directional framework for tourism, “They’ve got that document, of where they’re going. It’s got to be a positive so they will never go backwards from that step” (R1/Consultant),

217 and, “We have this document that leads the way towards our objectives” (S2/Council). Similarly, “There was a lot of stuff in it that set out a framework, you know the vision for tourism in the Shire, setting out a broad direction” (D2/Council).

Figure 7.5: Strategic Outcomes (n=31)

7 6

5 6 Redland 5 4 5 Sarina Douglas 3 3 3 3 Gold Coast 2 Thuringowa 1 2 1 1 1 0 Direction Action Achievement

Note: Non responses excluded

Stakeholder respondents also identified that an outcome of the strategic planning process was that the destination now has an agenda for action (2), “There’s a whole load of large almost theoretical achievements and some more day-to-day ones as well. We wanted to ensure that we were seen to be on an action agenda. We wanted really to be talking about things we were going to be doing and I think that was what the industry wanted, I think they want to see that something’s happening” (R2/Council).

On the contrary, other respondents (10) discussed the fact that in their view the process had not lead to any strategic outcomes for the destination, “I think the intent was always to set up a framework and a more strategic way of thinking about their issues, you know maturing markets and that sort of

218 thing but I haven’t seen any evidence of that, that there’s been a major shift” (G4/LTA).

The third factor arising in the strategic theme related to the benefits derived from the destination undertaking a strategic planning process (Figure 7.6).

Figure 7.6: Strategic Planning Benefits (n=31)

5 Redland 4 Sarina

3 Douglas

3 3 Gold Coast 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 Thuringowa 1

1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Stakeholder Destination Direction Decision Framework Awareness buy-in management making

Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded

Stakeholder respondents identified a range of benefits resulting from the strategic planning process undertaken for their destination. The first identified benefit was stakeholder buy-in to the process (8), “The vision and direction for the future set out in the strategy was useful in pulling people together, with some sort of direction for the future” (D2/Council), and, “If you don’t have a plan and a direction people don’t see that end gain and that end gain has to fit with what the community and council want, so I think if you don’t have that bigger vision its much harder for people to buy into it, they don’t see why what you’re doing is important” (T7/Consultant).

219 Also identified as a benefit of the strategic planning process was the improved destination management capabilities (4), “I think probably the best use of the tourism plan is that is has actually informed our planning schemes, it’s been very useful for land use planning, that was only a part of what it was intended for” (D1/Council), and, “You’ve got to set out how you want the landscape to look, not just how you’re going to make it look that way” (G1/Council).

The third benefit of the strategic planning process discussed by stakeholder respondents was that the destination now has a direction for tourism (9), “We have now a vision for the future direction of tourism in the Shire. This is what a dynamic document is all about, it’s not something that is done and finished with, it’s something that you use every day. It doesn’t just sit on a shelf” (S2/Council), and, “Council at least has a strategy and people have the opportunity to fit into that strategy, they can have some sort of direction for the town” (T2/RTO).

The strategic planning process was also considered beneficial because of the resulting decision-making capacity for tourism in the destination (4), “Because you’ve got hard and soft infrastructure in terms of planning so if you’re going to start talking about hundreds of millions of dollars for roads and rail and airports and power lines, etc. there’s got to be a planning horizon of 5, 10, 15, 20 years” (G2/Consultant), and the ability of the process to lead to the creation of a framework for the future of the destination (2) and raising awareness of the tourism sector in the destination community (2).

Conversely the challenges of undertaking a tourism destination strategic planning process were discussed with stakeholder respondents (Figure 7.7).

220 Figure 7.7: Strategic Planning Challenges (n=31)

6 Redland 5 5 Sarina 4 Douglas 3 3 3 3 Gold Coast 2 2 2 2 2 Thuringowa 1 1 1 1 0 Implementation Stakeholder buy-in Focus

Note: Non responses excluded

Approximately half of the respondents (13) considered the implementation phase of strategic planning as the greatest challenge of the process. Some respondents considered implementation to be a challenge due to the scope and detail included in the tourism planning document, “It has really just been put on the shelf actually. It’s just that there are a long list of actions at the back, and we haven’t gone through them and said you do that, you do that, or rearrange them or resource them” (D1/Council), and, “I don’t think it’s going to be picked up, I speak to industry and they don’t even understand it. So the reality is that they need a translator and that could be the Council’s role and they need to just keep it nice and simple” (R1/Consultant). Other respondents viewed the ability to generate the resources required for implementation as the greatest challenge, “We’ve found that unless there are some dollars forthcoming or some funds identified for roll out of some immediate priority actions so you get some immediate wins on the board in the first 12 to 18 months for a strategy of that scale it can almost be seen as a waste of time. If you don’t have a strategy in

221 place about how you’re going to resource some of the key priorities people are going to look at it and say well that wasn’t worth the effort” (D3/Consultant), and, “These things are always difficult because unless someone has the money and desire and effort to implement them its very hard. And to implement something like this is expensive and the type of things they were talking with events is very expensive. They need the money, that’s the hardest thing” (T2/RTO), with other respondents viewing the timeframe for implementation as a challenge of the strategic planning process, “We have come to understand that you can’t achieve all these projects within the time frame that we had initially thought we would be able to do” (S2/Council).

The second challenge of the strategic planning process discussed by a number of respondents (9) was obtaining stakeholder buy-in to the process, “Unfortunately at the time there was a lot of politics involved and it didn’t get the majority support on the table for a number of the concepts” (R2/Council), and, “The things they really grappled with all the way through this was getting industry buy in and ownership of it” (G3/Consultant). Several respondents (3) perceive the main challenge associated with strategic planning is getting agreement on focus and scope for the process, “The Council had some really fixed views about development and how to try and get it funded and we were trying to broaden that picture” (T7/Consultant).

The final factor arising from the interviews in the strategic planning theme related to stakeholders perceptions of local tourism destination plans and the optimum geographical scope for a tourism planning exercise (Figure 7.8).

222 Figure 7.8: Strategic Planning Scope (n=31)

5 Redland 5 4 Sarina 4 3 Douglas

3 3 3 Gold Coast 2 2 222 Thuringowa 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Local agenda Regional approach Integration

Approximately half of the respondents (15) discussed the importance of local level tourism strategic planning. Inherent local characteristics and agendas were considered reasons for tourism planning to occur at the local destination level, “You need to create these images that are unique and tap into your characters in the area and those wonderful cultural stories you’ve got about your area because if you don’t, you’re just like any other area, what is it that is going to distinguish you from all of the others?” (R3/Council), and, “A local plan is more relevant because within the region such as Tourism North Queensland we do see ourselves as being a little different, than Cairns or whoever. We’ve got more pressing issues especially environmentally with the Daintree and so forth” (D2/Council).

Other respondents cited a local approach due to the difficulty in maintaining local identity in a regional level plan, “The real problem that small communities have with anything that is regional is that the major centres believe that regions start and finish at their city gates. This is where it very much becomes a problem for small communities, it’s always very much a battle, a struggle for identity in the smaller communities in a regional plan” (S1/Council),

223 and in asserting influence over the focus of regional activities and funds distribution, “I think I see the core of the problem in the structure that has been put in place for the development of tourism. The dollars flow through to these RTOs and the dollars flow mainly for marketing and promotion at the expense of tourism product development and the other problem is that the membership of the RTOs is mainly the commercial operators and these commercial operators are more interested in the promotion dollars than anything else. So, as a result you’ve got all the money directed into that aspect of things, rather than to further development” (S2/Council). The need for local level planning was also considered important in generating community ownership of tourism, “In terms of getting things happening in a local community you need that sense of ownership and without it people in the local areas aren’t going to want to get behind it and want to implement it” (T7/Consultant).

Alternatively a number of respondents (8) discussed the need for planning to occur at a regional level. A regional planning approach was seen as important for destination marketing, “Regional plans are needed especially in terms of marketing a destination, of course international visitors don’t have any idea about government boundaries so it’s necessary for regional type marketing to occur” (D1/Council), and, “When it comes to tactical things like marketing plans, advertising and awareness, those things have to be done at a regional level because with 125 local authorities…there’s no way in the world that a visitor from Melbourne, let alone a visitor from Germany could every come to grips with 125 destinations” (T1/STA). Regional planning was also considered necessary as major infrastructure developments occur at a regional level, “A regional plan is more valuable in that it would set out a broad premise for preserving transportation, you know scenic corridors or zoning land

224 appropriately for protecting national parks and doing that at a broad scale. Once you get down to the particular areas, if you’re trying to look at that particular region without looking at that whole picture then I don’t think you’ve got a chance” (G3/Consultant).

A further eight respondents advocated an integrated planning approach with consideration of both local and regional issues, “The big picture is important but the local issues are important as well, so you have to really think both ways. It could be difficult to co-ordinate if the region is huge and the awareness then about the local issues could be minimal, and if you just focus on the local issues you can be just so stuck in the local issues” (G5/Consultant), and, “I think a plan at both levels needs to exist. People don’t come to Thuringowa; they visit Townsville or North Queensland. Our plan helped Thuringowa to understand its role in the region, from a product/experience perspective, as well as from a marketing perspective” (T6/Council).

7.3.2.1 Summary: Strategic Planning Theme

This theme has presented the interview results relating to stakeholder views on strategic local tourism destination planning. In discussing the motivation for the destination to undertake a strategic planning process respondents had various perceptions, including the need for the destination to be proactive in regards to the amount and type of tourism development, and in an attempt to reorganise and restructure previous management and planning practices. Others identified motivating factors included setting a strategic direction and developing actions, and assessing and managing tourism’s impacts on the destination, while several respondents considered the motivation to have been to educate the destination’s stakeholder groups so that they could make more informed decisions about tourism. In terms of outcomes of the strategic planning process the majority of stakeholder respondents considered that their destination now has a specific document

225 outlining a directional framework and action agenda for tourism. However other respondents discussed the fact that in their view the process had not led to any strategic outcomes for the destination.

Stakeholder respondents identified a range of benefits derived from the strategic planning process undertaken for their destination, including stakeholder-buy in to the process. Also identified as a benefit of the strategic planning process was the improved destination management capabilities, the strategic direction and the decision-making capacity for the destination which can guide day-to-day decision-making. In terms of challenges, almost half of the respondents perceive the implementation phase as the greatest test in the process. Implementation was viewed as a challenge due to the scope of the document, the need to generate resources for implementing the plan, and the timeframe for implementation. Other perceived challenges of the strategic planning process were considered to be obtaining stakeholder buy-in and achieving some level of democratic agreement between stakeholder groups on focus and scale.

Considering the optimal geographical scope for a tourism destination plan, half of the respondents discussed the importance of planning for tourism at the local level. Inherent local characteristics and a need to differentiate the destination from others were viewed as reasons for local level planning, as was the need to manage specific local issues such as sensitive environments, which may not be applicable to other destinations within the region. Other respondents discussed the difficulty in maintaining local identity in a regional level plan, which was criticised for overemphasising the regional centre, and in asserting any influence over the focus of regional marketing activities and funds distribution. Other respondents discussed that plans should be linked to the funding source for destination activities, which was seen as the local government authority, as regional plans tend not to have a sole funding agency. The need for local level planning was also considered important in generating community ownership of tourism. Alternatively a number of respondents discussed the need for planning to occur at a regional level. A regional planning approach was seen as important for destination marketing because visitors are not aware of local government boundaries. It was also

226 seen important as major infrastructure is developed and managed at a regional level. The remaining respondents advocated an integrated approach to tourism destination planning which gives consideration to both local and regional issues.

7.3.3 Stakeholder Participation Theme

The concept of stakeholder participation and collaboration in the tourism planning process was discussed during the in-depth interviews. This theme addressed a range of aspects and issues associated with multiple stakeholder participation and decision-making for tourism including the motivations to engage stakeholders in the process, perceived benefits and challenges of such engagement, and the often cited need to involve residents of the destination in the planning process. Also discussed were which stakeholder group(s) should have responsibility for destination planning and the role of the local government authority in the process. The responses are presented according to the manifest coding: stakeholder participation motivation, stakeholder participation benefits, stakeholder participation challenges, local resident participation, local resident ownership of tourism, stakeholder planning responsibility and local government planning role.

The first factor arising in the stakeholder participation theme was the perceived motivation for engaging destination stakeholders in the planning process (Figure 7.9). Respondents had various perceptions as to the motivation for engaging destination stakeholders in the tourism planning process. A number of respondents (8) identified stakeholder buy-in to the strategy as the motivating factor, “You’ve got to do it, you must have that stakeholder buy-in for success” (R1/Consultant), and, “We wanted to have a strategy that was owned by the community, developed in such a way as it was all about the whole community, so that we had a better chance when we went to implement” (S1/Council).

227 Figure 7.9: Stakeholder Participation Motivation (n=31)

6 Redland 5 5 Sarina 4 Douglas 3 3 3 3 Gold Coast 2 222 2 2 2 2 Thuringowa 1 1 1 0 Stakeholder buy-in Process caveat Stakeholder Did not consult attitudes

Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded

Also identified as a motivating factor for engagement was the fact that stakeholder consultation is now considered a caveat to any planning process (5), “I think it’s an accepted practice these days in all planning, you can’t ignore those who you identify as your key stakeholders. You want to make sure that its got as much support, because at the end of the day Douglas Shire Council had to have a document that largely reflected the aspirations of the Council but also its industry and its community representative groups” (D3/Consultant), and, “You need to get some credibility for the process so you need other people involved or it just won’t be considered credible” (T3/Council). The third identified motivator for engaging destination stakeholders in the planning process was the need to address attitudes towards tourism in the destination (8), “There was a need to let everyone know what was happening, what we were hoping to do and find out what they thought about it all and what they wanted to see happen” (S3/Council).

228 In discussing the motivations for engaging destination stakeholders in the planning process a number of respondents (9) considered that there was no motivation to engage stakeholders in the planning process, “I believe they talked to a couple of people but that it was primarily a Council document with Councillors involved and I would say they didn’t consult because they wanted to keep control of it” (G3/Consultant).

The second factor arising in the stakeholder participation theme related to the benefits of engaging stakeholders in the planning process. Respondents discussed several benefits of stakeholder participation and involvement in the process (Figure 7.10).

Figure 7.10: Stakeholder Participation Benefits (n=31)

6 6 Redland 5 Sarina 4 4 Douglas 3 3 3 3 3 Gold Coast 2 2 Thuringowa 1 111 1 0 Stakeholder attitudes Stakeholder buy-in Implementation

Note: Non responses excluded

Respondents identified a range of benefits of engaging multiple destination stakeholders in the planning process for tourism. The first identified benefit of stakeholder engagement was the ability to elicit the varied attitudes that exist towards tourism in the destination (17), “There are a lot of competing groups in the area, all of which have a tendency to be a little parochial, their a little precious about their own patch and the consultant would go out and identify these groups, and work out where their prejudices lay. I think it is very important that you sit down and not only

229 identify but talk to them all and get a feeling of just where they all stood, before you could start to roll out recommendations” (R3/Council), and, “Council couldn’t do it by itself, council are only representing the people and its one thing to say that you have councils that are elected that are in touch with everybody but you need to highlight specific issues and you need for people to comment on those specific issues” (S1/Council).

Also considered a benefit of engagement was the stakeholder buy-in to the process (9), “The more brainpower you have the better and it’s a document that’s being agreed to by the community” (S5/Industry), and, “You can’t expect anyone to take forward a process if they don’t have ownership. So they have to come with you on that journey” (R1/Consultant). A further benefit discussed by two stakeholders was that stakeholder engagement assists in the implementation phase of the planning process, “It adds credibility to the whole process and I think a lot of these things you often know what the answer is before you start, its part of the sales process. It’s probably cynical but quite often I look for the answer in the consultation” (T3/Council).

Conversely the challenges associated with engaging destination stakeholders in the tourism planning process were also discussed with participants (Figure 7.11). Respondents identified a range of challenges of stakeholder engagement and participation in local tourism destination planning, including the differing stakeholder values that exist in a destination community (14), “In developing that strategy it became pretty obvious that you’ll never get 100% behind it because there are ideas put forward that just had so much opposition within the community, and the voices really just said, no we don’t want that” (S5/Industry), and,

230 “I mean there was the usual debates that emerged and they haven’t really changed in the years since, the conservation sides versus the development sides” (D2/Council).

Figure 7.11: Stakeholder Participation Challenges (n=31)

6 Redland 5 Sarina 4 4 4 4 Douglas 3 3 3 Gold Coast 2 2 2 2 2 2 Thuringowa 1 1 1 1 1 0 Values Process Apathy Education management

Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded

Similarly it was noted that, “The social groups, the social planners and various institutions within government weren’t on the same page as we were in terms of developing business” (D3/Consultant). One respondent discussed the fact that if stakeholder values don’t align with the direction sought by decision-makers it makes the process even more difficult, “If you’re a council who’s looking to go in a particular direction if you don’t get the answer you want from your local residents after you’ve gone out and asked the question, you’ve opened a can of worms that you have to deal with. Sometimes its easier not to ask the question and just do what you want to do” (T2/RTO).

The second identified challenge of stakeholder engagement and participation in tourism planning was considered to be issues associated with managing such a process (9), including the time scale involved in consultation,

231 “I don’t know how you engage the residents in the planning process without it turning into a 12 month exercise and by then you miss the boat in most instances and it becomes a painful initiative and people are just saying get on with it” (D3/Consultant), and ensuring the process is constructive, “I think it has got to be very carefully set up so that it becomes meaningful rather than just an opportunity for people to mouth off. Even though they might believe themselves that what they are saying is good stuff, the reality is its trivial and if a tourism organization gets involved with that its never going to get to the big stuff” (D6/LTA).

A further process management challenge related to the need to generate models to improve the quality of consultation, “Consultation and community input is very poorly undertaken. People are sick and tired of surveys and they’re sick and tired of consultants and they’re sick and tired of workshops at night. You’ve got to do it but we’ve really got to rethink the whole context of how you engage with communities and I think we probably need new models” (R1/Consultant), and, “It is much easier to get participation in small, local areas than in large urban areas. You have to use different methodologies to get valid results… in the small communities, its very easy to talk to people and to hold meetings, you generally get a good representation. In urban areas, meetings aren’t as effective, as you generally become over represented by interest groups and can easily lose balance” (T6/Council).

Apathy was also raised as a challenge in engaging stakeholders in tourism destination planning (6), “Apathy is a problem, there is a lack of interest and an unwillingness to participate. They only turn up if something major is going on. People tend to

232 jump up and down if they get left out of these things but then they don’t make the effort to attend the meetings” (R4/Industry), and, “When you’re at the higher level, apathy is a problem, people are interested in things happening that affect them and that are concrete that they can actually appreciate what it means. If it’s a strategy to develop experiential tourism in Thuringowa it doesn’t mean anything to anyone, it doesn’t mean as much, whereas if that goes down to the next level, to specific projects and what you could imagine you would see, the level of involvement goes up” (T3/Council). Apathy was also seen as a challenge in generating ownership of tourism in the destination, “If people don’t get involved and don’t take an interest or some sort of ownership it makes it hard” (S3/Council).

The final challenge identified by respondents of engaging destination stakeholders in planning related to education (3), “For residents I think there needs to be a certain level of education about the tourism industry. I think people assume because they are tourists usually once a year that they know exactly what the industry wants and that’s sometimes very different to what the actual industry wants” (G1/Council).

The fourth factor in the stakeholder participation theme was the role of local residents and their participation in the planning process (Figure 7.12). A number of respondents discussed that local residents have a democratic right to participate in any planning and decision-making activities undertaken within their area (14), “Everyone should be given the opportunity and that’s the great thing nowadays where government can’t just run off and make decisions, I’m sure they might try but they’ve got to be accountable” (S4/LTA), and,

233 “I think Council still needs to be resident driven and I think that the people that are elected need to make it their business to give everyone the opportunity to have their say” (T5/Industry).

Figure 7.12: Local Resident Participation (n=31)

6 Redland 5 Sarina 4 4 Douglas 3 3 3 3 3 Gold Coast 2 2 2 2 2 Thuringowa 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Democratic right Process caveat Apathy Vocal minority

Note: Non responses excluded

A number of stakeholders discussed the fact that local residents have a right to be involved because they are impacted upon by any tourism activity in the destination, “They’re the ones that provide a lot of the beds for visitors. They’re the ones that provide interesting stories. They’re the ones that work in the shops. They’re the ones that have to put up with visitors who you know are traipsing on their turf” (R2/Council), and, “I think it’s important because very often tourism properties are running side by side with private properties. Tourism activities are infringing on their everyday life, so it’s really important for them to have that input” (D5/Industry).

In discussing the role of local residents several of the respondents identified the fact that resident involvement is now considered a prerequisite in the process (10),

234 “All the Government departments require you do it so there is a body of theory which says you should do it” (R1/Consultant), and, “Without them the process would not be worth doing, it wouldn’t stand up” (S1/Council), while other respondents discussed that although residents should have a role in tourism planning and decision-making, apathy hindered this (3) as did vocal minorities overtaking the process (2).

Emerging from the consideration of local resident participation in tourism planning it was also discussed whether local resident participation in tourism planning contributes to resident’s ownership and acceptance of tourism within the destination community (Figure 7.13).

Figure 7.13: Local Resident Ownership of Tourism (n=31)

6 Redland 5 5 Sarina 4 4 Douglas 3 3 3 Gold Coast 2 2 2 2 2 Thuringowa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Diverse views Ownership Self-worth Education Token participation

Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded

Respondents generally perceived that local resident involvement did lead to greater ownership and acceptance of tourism, and a number of respondents discussed the value of generating ownership (8), “When it’s being opened up to the community it becomes their project, they take ownership, and then they support it. Whereas if you got someone in who

235 says we’re going to develop this they don’t have any personal connection to it and you know if they don’t support you, well you’re in trouble” (S3/Council), and, “Having participation definitely makes it stronger, that sense of ownership is definitely what we try to pitch for people, because Council can’t implement it. It really is up to the local areas to get behind it and want to implement it. Because it’s the local people that are going to have to be willing to wear a little bit of a loss and I think people are always happier with decisions if they feel they’ve been consulted and do get ownership, even though someone ultimately has to make the decision and that’s usually council. Where communities feel most passionate about it usually is that if they don’t feel consultation was done right, they jack up and try to damage projects. When they feel they’ve had a say even if they don’t agree totally with the proposals they often become good supporters” (T7/Consultant).

However the majority of respondents (16) focused on the challenges associated with attempting to enhance community ownership and acceptance of tourism, namely the fact that such diverse views towards tourism exist within a destination community and participation cannot always overcome this. Some respondents discussed the extremities in opinions within a destination, “Here it’s a very emotive issue, it’s polarized the community” (D6/LTA), and, “You are always going to have anti-development and pro-development and I don’t think a process can change that too much” (R5/LTA).

Other respondents noted that to overcome issues associated with generating ownership of tourism in the destination community, resident education was necessary (5), “You try and dispel some of the myths and that sort of thing, we need our host community to be our strongest advocates, we need them to be supportive and understanding and if you don’t then you don’t have a tourism industry” (R2/Council),

236 as was the need to overcome issues of token participation to contribute to resident ownership of tourism (2).

The sixth issue in the stakeholder participation theme discussed with respondents related to which stakeholder groups should be responsible for tourism planning in a local tourism destination (Figure 7.14).

Figure 7.14: Stakeholder Planning Responsibility (n=31)

6 Redland 5 Sarina 4 4 4 Douglas 3 3 3 3 2 Gold Coast 2 2 2 2 2 1 Thuringowa 1 1 1 0 Collaborative Council Industry Community

Note: Non responses excluded

The majority of respondents (16) perceive responsibility for tourism planning should be shared amongst the various stakeholder groups in the destination and therefore advocate the use of a collaborative planning approach, “It needs to be an integrated system, you know federal, state, local governments, your industry bodies, your private operators, and a range of other business stakeholders, so no one on their own should be responsible for tourism planning” (G4/LTA). Respondents cited a range of reasons for the use of a collaborative approach including stakeholder buy-in, “Probably the most effective output from the whole planning process, it’s not actually the document but the understanding that’s gained from the stakeholders sitting around the table looking at what can be done, and that’s

237 when people start to buy in and if you’ve got them around the table, then they can buy in. If they’re not sitting around the table and you send them a report it’s almost impossible for them to feel any ownership” (T1/STA). Other respondents advocated a collaborative approach to ensure more independent and un-biased views, “Thuringowa doesn’t have a clue about tourism and it’s really dangerous for somewhere like Paluma. The risks are too great to let some pen pusher get it wrong; it’s just not good enough. There needs to be someone else involved who’s switched on enough to say this isn’t about making money for the Council, we have to protect the environment and make sure the communities within those environments are run pristinely” (T5/Industry), and, “It needs to be a range of group’s because if it was just Council it would be dangerous for them to have control as they have commercial interests as well” (R4/Industry).

A number of stakeholders (10) advocated the local government authority as the destination stakeholder who should be responsible for tourism planning and a variety of reasons were cited for this including that Council is the elected representative of the local community, “The Council should stand as the proxy for the community in terms of impacts, that’s why people elect them” (G3/Consultant), and, “Quite often it’s the Council that takes on the sort of final say or ultimate responsibility, you know they can act on behalf of their community, but the community and other groups still need to have a say” (S3/Council). It was also identified that local council has to be responsible for tourism planning, as the other stakeholder groups in the destination are not capable of planning, “The tourism industry is always going to be economically driven just because it is looking for commercial based outcomes. I think the industry finds it easier to deal with economic issues than social and environmental issues, I

238 don’t quite know whether the industry has quite grappled with how it delivers some of those bottom line type outcomes” (G1/Council), and, “The challenge is where you’ve got a commercially focused model that tends to have the bottom line as a driving force. I mean the operators are interested generally for themselves and in the shorter term gain. The idea of taking planning advice they just can’t come to terms with it” (R2/Council), nor posses the required resources for planning, “Council very much drove the strategy; I mean really who else is going to do it, who else has the money to do it?” (D2/Council).

Several respondents (3) perceive tourism planning to be the responsibility of the tourism industry of the destination, “The Council does it, however I think the issue is to get the tourism industry to take on their responsibilities in strategic planning, and this has been difficult and still is. They gravitate towards being a promotional body only rather than a strategic planning body and we want them to play both roles, of promotion and engaging in strategic planning and protecting their assets and so on. And the association always backs away from it because it becomes difficult and controversial and political and they don’t want the hassle, and they’re not set up for it, they’re picked for their marketing skills. The tourism industry itself should do, they have their funding from Tourism North Queensland and it should be subject to performance in strategic asset management or engaging in strategic planning; you want us to fund promotion, you get into strategic management. That’s how I think it should be driven. Places like this where it’s driving the growth and driving the economy, I think there’s very little attention paid to tourism strategic planning” (D1/Council), although it was noted that, “If industry won’t or can’t do it that’s where Government comes in to play. Who takes responsibility for that five to ten year planning horizon is one of

239 the problems in the past, there was no one responsible for planning so it didn’t get done” (R2/Council).

The final factor discussed within the stakeholder participation theme related to the role of the local government authority in tourism planning for the destination (Figure 7.15).

Figure 7.15: Local Government Tourism Destination Planning Role (n=31)

6 Redland 5 Sarina 4 5 4 4 Douglas 3 3 3 2 Gold Coast 2 1 2 Thuringowa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Strategic Legislative Intermediary Destination direction authority management

Stakeholder respondents identified a number of tourism planning roles for the local government authority. The first of the identified roles was in providing strategic direction for tourism in the destination (12), “Council has a key role for tourism in a community. We have the ability to look at the bigger picture, you know what will help the community economically but we also take into consideration what they actually want” (S2/Council), and, “The tourism association is just not really set up to consult with the rest of the community on issues and that’s why Councils are important because they can do that and they can see what’s happening in the whole of the shire and in other industries. Council has that much bigger picture, we can really look at things in a whole way for the rest of the Shire” (D2/Council).

240 It was also seen that Council’s are the one stakeholder group that have the planning experience required to provide a strategic direction for the destination, “Generally we’d like to see more engagement by industry in the tourism planning processes but the realities are that the industry hasn’t been that good as tourism planners…and there are not many tourism entrepreneurs that can see the big picture from a destination point of view of a cohesive and coordinated approach to planning” (G2/Consultant), and, “The idea of influencing the planning scheme, the idea of influencing Council’s infrastructure planning, I think you know that’s a challenge the industry haven’t traditionally done that very well here. I think it’s just the fact that it just hasn’t had the capabilities to do it really or the driving force to do it” (R2/Council).

A number of respondents (14) perceived Council’s role in tourism planning to be a part of their legislative authority over the destination, “I believe the voice of the public sector is probably best represented by the Council because at the end of the day they were elected to represent the people” (D6/LTA). Council’s legislative authority over destination planning was seen to include their planning schemes and resource capacity, “Well councils need to give agreement to initiatives we are trying to implement because of council planning schemes, and they are the only ones with any resources to make any difference” (S6/RTO), and, “Council’s have a very important role in developing the tourism product of their community. I mean probably most importantly is that they provide most of the infrastructure that is used for tourism and for that reason alone they have a vital role” (T6/Council). Similarly,

241 “I think in the absence of any other significant funding, local authorities are really the major generators of funds and therein lies I suppose a lot of the problems is the parochialism that I suppose you could say rightly that comes with dispensing your ratepayer’s funds” (G6/Industry).

However other respondents expressed concerns that because of Council’s legislative authority over the destination they have too much influence, “Council’s are far too close, and far too political, and there should always be that really strong consultation with Council, but I’m not sure they should be run by Council” (D5/Industry), and, “I would say that Council as it is run these days is probably not the best equipped to do anything. It’s just that Council used to be representative of local residents; Council doesn’t tend to be like that anymore. I do think they misread or misunderstood what people want. They see what works and what makes money, like the Gold Coast or Cairns and they see that as being a money spinner” (T5/Industry).

The third role for council in local level tourism destination planning identified by respondents was that of intermediary (3) and balancing the tourism industry’s focus on marketing, “I suppose there’s a tendency in the industry to focus on marketing and promotional outcomes as opposed to planning outcomes, and industry development outcomes. So, that type of public good outcome, balancing that economic side to the industry because they are very commercially, free market driven, and Council deliver on some of the other side of the tourism industry, which would be the environmental and social side. It’s not being delivered in the free market” (G1/Council).

242 7.3.3.1 Summary: Stakeholder Participation Theme

This theme presented respondent’s perceptions on a range of aspects and issues associated with multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process. The first factor arising in the theme was the perceived motivation for engaging stakeholders in the destination’s tourism planning process. A number of respondents considered stakeholder buy-in to the strategy to be the motivating factor, while others attributed it to the fact that stakeholder consultation is now considered a caveat to any planning activity and it is necessary for the process’ credibility. Attempting to gauge stakeholder attitudes towards tourism in the destination was also identified by some of the respondents as the impetus, although a number of respondents considered that there had not been a real motivation to engage stakeholders in the destination’s planning process. Respondent’s identified a number of benefits of engaging multiple stakeholder groups in the tourism planning process including the ability to more objectively determine the diversity of attitudes towards tourism in the destination as well as obtaining stakeholder buy-in to the process, with others noting that stakeholder engagement assists when implementing the plan.

Respondents also discussed a range of challenges associated with engaging destination stakeholders in the tourism planning process. Differing stakeholder values was a problem highlighted by a number of respondents, as was the issue of managing the consultation process in a timely and constructive manner. Apathy was also raised as a challenge, and respondents cited the need for new consultation models to reinvigorate the process, and generate ownership of tourism in the destination. Several respondents noted a need for resident education to overcome some of the challenges of vocal experts. The fourth issue arising in the stakeholder participation theme related to local resident participation in the planning process. A number of respondents discussed that in their opinion local residents, due to the fact they are so heavily impacted upon by tourism activity, have a democratic right to participate in any planning and decision-making activities undertaken within their area. It was also noted that resident involvement is a prerequisite for tourism planning activities and without this participation the process

243 would not be considered valid or credible. Many of the respondents were also of the opinion that local resident involvement in planning did lead to greater ownership, acceptance and support of tourism within the destination. However half of the respondents raised issues associated with attempting to enhance community ownership and acceptance of tourism, namely the fact that such diverse views towards tourism exist within a destination community and participation in a tourism planning process cannot always overcome this.

The sixth issue in the stakeholder participation theme related to which stakeholder groups should be responsible for tourism planning in a local tourism destination. The majority of respondents were of the opinion that responsibility for tourism planning should be shared amongst the various stakeholder groups in the destination and advocate the use of a collaborative planning approach. Reasons for this included obtaining stakeholder buy- in to the resulting initiatives; as well as to ensure more independent and un-biased views as some stakeholder groups may have vested interests. A number of stakeholder respondents advocated the local government authority as the destination stakeholder who should be responsible for tourism planning due to the fact that they are the elected representative of the local community and they have the resource capacity to undertake strategic planning processes which other stakeholder groups do not always have. Several respondents discussed that in their view the tourism industry should be more responsible for strategic destination planning as they overtly focus on promotional and marketing tasks. The role of the local government authority in tourism planning for the destination was the final factor in the stakeholder participation theme. It was generally perceived that Council has a significant role to play due to their resources and capabilities, especially when compared to other groups in the destination such as the tourism association. Council was also seen to have a role in balancing the tourism industry’s focus on marketing. However some respondents expressed concerns that because of Council’s legislative authority they have too much influence in the destination.

244 7.3.4 Alternative Planning Models and Strategic Visioning

To address the third objective of the study; stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning, a series of issues were discussed including respondent’s perceptions of future planning activities for their destination, as well as their views on the strategic visioning concept. The strategic visioning process was also discussed in further detail with the 12 respondents of the two case study destinations which have previously undertaken a strategic visioning process (Redland Shire and Gold Coast City) including the perceived potential of the model for incorporating sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation in the process.

Stakeholder responses for this theme have been presented according to the manifest coding derived from the analysis: future planning, strategic visioning benefits and strategic visioning challenges. For the more specific discussion of the strategic visioning process with the respondents from the two case study destinations that have previously undertaken a strategic visioning exercise, results are presented according to the manifest codes of: strategic visioning motivation, strategic visioning and sustainability principles, strategic visioning and strategic planning, strategic visioning and stakeholder participation, and strategic visioning applicability.

Stakeholder perceptions of future tourism planning activities for their destination were discussed (Figure 7.16). The majority of respondents (24) discussed the importance of regularly reviewing the tourism plan to take into account changes in the destination, “I think it’s important for that whole document to be reviewed now, to see what has been achieved. People will have changed their views, new developments and that sort of thing” (D5/Industry), and, “It will have to be revisited because the usefulness of having a strategic plan will be lost if you don’t review the situation periodically. You won’t keep on track with your strategic plan if you don’t know where you are at the moment” (G4/LTA).

245 Similarly, “I think they should check how they’re moving towards their longer-term vision, are they on track or have new problems and even opportunities arisen which need to be considered” (T7/Consultant).

Figure 7.16: Future Planning (n=31)

6 6 Redland 5 5 5 Sarina 4 4 4 Douglas 3 Gold Coast 2 2 2 2 Thuringowa 1 1 0 Review situation Alternate approaches

However other respondents (7) acknowledged the need for the document to be reviewed but believe alternative approaches should be adopted for the planning process. Two respondents identified that the planning process should follow the strategic visioning model, “I think they should move more in the direction of visioning because that is so much more responsive to change” (R1/Consultant), and, “Redlands should look at what was done on Straddie” (R5/LTA). Other respondents discussed the fact that tourism planning is addressed within the realms of town planning, “I don’t actually know if we would do another strategy, probably not because it’s in the town plan and it’s informed the town planning so much. What you might need is separate policies from time to time” (D2/Council). Although one respondent questioned the need for future planning,

246 “They need to look at the bigger picture so I don’t see much point until they can do that otherwise the same issues are going to keep coming up again” (T5/Industry).

The concept of strategic visioning and its potential applicability as a tourism planning process was discussed with respondents (Figure 7.17).

Figure 7.17: Strategic Visioning Benefits (n=31)

6 Redland 5 Sarina 4 Douglas 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 Gold Coast 2 2 2 2 2 1 Thuringowa 1 1 1 1 0 1 Decision Engagement Destination Strategic making management direction

Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded

Respondents identified a number of benefits of adopting a strategic visioning approach to tourism planning, including the improved decision-making capacity (11), “I think it definitely helps as far as getting the planning right, if that didn’t exist, it would be very hard to work out exactly where you’re positioned in the market and what are some of the issues confronting the market. We have quite a body of knowledge that we drew upon to inform our strategic planning that if it wasn’t there makes it all that more difficult, you just don’t have the background to go on, you have to go on more your anecdotal evidence” (G1/Council), and, “We’ve been seriously thinking of it, there’s questions we want to start asking because some of the decisions we have to make over the next 10 years are not

247 going to be easy ones, or be popular and people are going to start getting to grips with what it means to be sustainable” (T3/Council).

Other respondents, in considering the concept’s applicability as a tourism planning process, discussed the fact that such a process would enhance stakeholder engagement (7), “What was important was that groups who had once thought they were on opposite sides actually started to see that that was not the case. As it went along we found that the people around the table generally agreed on the same things it was just that they were using different words but once they sat and talked they realised that they were in fact saying very similar things” (R5/LTA), and contribute to the management of the destination (6), “I think it’s an excellent exercise in terms of getting a vision for a destination. It went through everything in terms of the social, environmental, the economic, the whole lot, it did the whole gamut” (D5/Industry).

Perceived challenges of the strategic visioning process were also discussed with stakeholders and a range of issues were raised (Figure 7.18). However one respondent did not believe there are any challenges associated with the process and simply noted that “I believe it was an excellent process” (R6).

The first perceived challenge of the strategic visioning process was considered to be stakeholder buy-in (15), “Getting across to some people that there was a need to do something started out as a bit of a problem but once people started talking I think everyone soon realised there were things that needed to be done and some direction was needed” (R2/Council), and, “I guess if you’re setting out to have such a focus on stakeholder buy-in you’d really need to deliver and it’s hard to get people involved and talking

248 and agreeing what needs to be done. We find that just in the consultation we do with our plans so I imagine that would be difficult” (D1/Council).

Figure 7.18: Strategic Visioning Challenges (n=31)

6 Redland

5 Sarina 4 4 4 Douglas 3 3 Gold Coast 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Thuringowa 1 1 1 1 1 0 Stakeholder Leadership Resourcing Action buy-in planning

Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded

Stakeholder buy-in was perceived as a challenge due to the various stakeholder attitudes, “I would guess it’s very difficult to get people to agree on a common vision because everyone has different ideas if you think say between accommodation operators and sugar cane farmers. I imagine that would be tough” (S3/Council), and the issue of apathy, “Well I suppose you would run into the same problems as we did with this plan, apathy is the big problem, people don’t want to talk about what might happen, they want things to actually happen” (T3/Council).

Respondent’s also perceived leadership and arbitration of such a process as a potential challenge (3), “With these sorts of things who is the person that is the final arbiter of the vision, who says OK this is our vision. And with the public meetings, who you get at these meetings, and they are the ones saying this is what the vision

249 should be and they might not even be the right people, they could just be the ones who were free on the day the meeting was held” (D2/Council).

The ability to resource such a process was also perceived as a challenge by several respondents (4), “It sounds to me like it would take a lot of time and money” (S5/Industry), and, “My guess would be that to do something like that it would take a lot of time and you’d need to get so many people onboard” (D6/LTA).

Other respondents (4) believe that there should be a move towards action oriented planning as opposed to longer term planning, “You have to create momentum with planning and being involved in long planning style processes where you spend a lot of time thinking strategically and collecting information to get a strategic view can only be done when there’s a really serious problem. In a place like Thuringowa, tourism isn’t a problem it’s an opportunity. So I think for small communities the visioning process, you’ve got to get moving, you can’t spend too long caught up in the vision or where you want to go. Spend more time talking about what you want to do with some vision in mind so that you can start to get a feel for people and what sort of things they’re interested in at the very early stages of bringing stakeholders together” (T1/STA).

A range of additional issues were discussed with the stakeholder respondents from the two case study destinations which had previously undertaken a tourism destination strategic visioning process. The first of these were stakeholder’s perceptions on the motivation for their destination to adopt such a planning approach (Figure 7.19).

250 Figure 7.19: Strategic Visioning Motivations (n=12)

5 Redland 4 4 3 Gold 3 Coast 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 Destination management Strategic direction Stakeholder buy-in Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded

Half of the respondents (6) considered that the motivation for undertaking the visioning approach to tourism planning was to enhance destination management, “It was driven very much around that dissatisfaction you know about a number of things that had been happening” (R2/Council), and, “There were a lot of issues which set off the visioning project, or the need to do the project…leadership and management of the destination” (G6/Industry).

Respondents also identified the generation of a strategic direction as the motivating factor for embarking on the strategic visioning process (5), “No one had actually done a vision for the island, no one had stopped and said what do we want for the island” (R5/LTA), and, “There was a need for a more strategic approach to planning for the destination which had really being lacking and had really led to a lot of the issues that the Gold Coast was facing” (G2/Consultant).

The third identified motivator for undertaking the strategic visioning process was to achieve stakeholder buy-in (2),

251 “There are some passionate people over on Straddie and they really wanted to do something worthwhile that they could all be involved in and take on some responsibility for. It was a very organic sort of process” (R3/Council).

The second issue discussed with stakeholder respondents who have experienced the strategic visioning process related to their perceptions of the ability of such an approach to integrate sustainability principles into the planning process (Figure 7.20).

Figure 7.20: Strategic Visioning and Sustainability Principles (n=12)

5 5 4 Redland

3 3 3 Gold Coast 2

1 1 0 Achievement Awareness

Note: Multiple responses

All of the respondents considered that the strategic visioning process was underpinned by the principles of sustainable development, and half of the stakeholders (6) discussed how the process contributed towards the achievement of sustainability principles, “For the first time they have actually put something reasonably concrete down that they can work with, from that they have now addressed a number of sustainability indicators. I mean these are all quantum things that they didn’t always understand. So from a triple bottom line perspective, they are what I call a best practice case study” (R1/Consultant), and,

252 “Just for starters they have a strategic direction, they’re thinking longer term; their stakeholders are involved, so they are starting to achieve the principles of sustainability” (G2/Consultant).

The remaining respondents (6) discussed the fact that due to the processes emphasis on sustainability it had raised awareness amongst destination stakeholders of the concept, “It was important in making us understand the concept of sustainable tourism development. At first most of us did not know what the term meant but we spent quite a lot of time actually understanding what sustainable tourism was all about and we are now champions of that, can now appreciate why sustainable tourism is so important for the future of the island. People started to realise that without tourism they wouldn’t have their job or their son wouldn’t, it really made them think about the whole idea. We are informed now so if there was a project that we felt was not following the criteria of the vision you can bet that the community would be galvanised to fight it” (R4/Industry), and, “Now people have an understanding of what it means to be sustainable, that’s probably the best thing, knowing what we have to do to be sustainable, not just guessing” (R5/LTA).

Stakeholder perceptions of the strategic visioning process’ ability to incorporate the principles of strategic planning were also discussed (Figure 7.21). Respondents considered the visioning process to be a useful means of encouraging destination stakeholders to think more strategically about tourism in the destination which could then be reflected in planning (7). As some of these respondents noted, “The visioning process basically lifted where people’s expectations and their thoughts were in relation to tourism planning, instead of talking about action planning they actually knew what strategic thinking was about. Because people operating a business aren’t trained in that way of thinking, that’s not how they go about operating…when you’re working with stakeholders that

253 who aren’t used to strategic planning and strategic thinking you’ve got to actually go through an education process to actually get them thinking at that level” (G1/Council), and, “It contributed towards a more strategic approach to thinking about tourism on the island. Because these issues are longer term some people just can’t get their heads around them and they tend to revert to short-term gains” (R2/Council).

Figure 7.21: Strategic Visioning and Strategic Planning (n=12)

6 6 6 5 Redland 4

3 Gold Coast 2

1 1 0 Strategic thinking Framework

Note: Multiple responses

A number of stakeholders (6) also perceived that the strategic visioning process was beneficial in generating a strategic framework for the destination to work within, “It gave them a strategic framework that they actually could take ownership of and within that framework, some direction in terms of next steps” (R1/Consultant), and, “It was definitely strategic in that it gave the island long-term goals to work towards” (R4/Industry). Similarly, “Once we had a vision we then got straight into what to do with the vision because we realised we could not just stop at a vision. So from there we

254 developed a strategy with priorities which we could then start working on. It was important to us that it was not just a vision on a piece of paper or a strategy on a shelf but something that was actually happening” (R5/LTA).

The fourth issue discussed with stakeholder respondents related to their perceptions of the ability of the strategic visioning approach to integrate stakeholder participation into the planning and decision-making process (Figure 7.22).

Figure 7.22: Strategic Visioning and Stakeholder Participation (n=12)

5 5 Redland 4 4 3 Gold Coast 2 2 2 1

0 Stakeholder buy-in Stakeholder attitudes Community ideals

Note: Multiple responses

The vast majority of respondents (9) discussed the fact that one of the primary goals of the strategic visioning process was to seek stakeholder buy-in to the process, “The intention was to get community involvement for a vision for sustainable tourism on the island and it dramatically improved relationships between stakeholders. We actually started to get some real communication happening and moving away from an us and them mindset just by communicating with each other through the process. We did finish up with a consensus and when we put the final document together, every single person involved signed off on it, which was great. It was absolutely great in getting some consensus on the future of the island” (R5/LTA), and,

255 “I think it’s a good way to go about it, it sets it all up and we knew that the whole idea behind a vision was getting the stakeholders in, that was a big part, a fundamental part, obviously in having a shared vision” (G6/Industry). Similarly, “It was an excellent process in terms of getting stakeholder involvement and ownership, that was what really drove it and in my view will be why its being taken on so strongly and people are actually still involved and working towards putting it into action” (R3/Council), while one respondent noted that, “You know a big glossy document doesn’t necessarily promise you delivery, so in fact the Straddie example, the more I look at it is a very, very simple little document but what made it probably successful was the people” (R1/Consultant).

Other respondents (2) discussed the fact that stakeholder participation was a key challenge in the strategic visioning process due to the competing stakeholder attitudes, although one respondent makes suggestions for overcoming this, “I think where you’ve got community or industry groups which are very fragmented it’s hard to identify who’s speaking on behalf of who. That’s why I think the survey technique used in the visioning was a good one in this case for a large destination like the Gold Coast where you’ve got some fairly strong polarization of views, and we were able to cut through the vocal minority syndrome” (G2/Consultant).

The final issue discussed with stakeholder respondents who have experienced the strategic visioning process related to the application of the concept to other destinations (Figure 7.23).

256 Figure 7.23: Strategic Visioning Applicability (n=12)

5 Redland 4 4 3 Gold 3 3 Coas t 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Destination Process Methodology Stakeholder Resources Dissemination scale management buy-in

All of the respondents considered the strategic visioning approach to be applicable and a beneficial approach for other tourism destinations to adopt, “It would be great for other places to use. It was definitely great in getting everyone together and talking about the way forward” (R4/Industry), and, “It would be fantastic for other local areas and there have been suggestions to use the North Stradbroke Island vision as a pilot for other areas. I think it would be of benefit to other areas especially if they had a process to follow, our visioning process would have been a lot quicker if we had a model to work off” (R5/LTA).

Although respondents supported the approach a range of caveats were highlighted. A number of respondents (4) suggested that the scale or size of the destination would be a contributing factor to the success of the strategic visioning approach, “As a micro community at least you’ve got some sense of an ability for people to sort of address a common sort of an outcome. Regionally then you get a bit of disbursement” (R1/Consultant). In the North Stradbroke Island visioning exercise the scale and nature of the destination was acknowledged as contributing to its success,

257 “You’ve got a much more aware community over there. I mean they’re aware of tourism because it’s a driver of the economy and they can see visitors, whereas here, there’s a lot of disinterest” (R2/Council), and, “I think visioning has to be a good way of planning for tourism but because it was the island and we’ve got a lot of passionate stakeholders over on Stradbroke it was probably easier. The island is very sentimental to a lot of people over there, whereas the mainland is probably taken more for granted I guess” (R6/LTA).

Process management issues were also discussed by a number of the respondents (4), “As far as I can see the hardest problem is getting together a group of people who believe that it needs to happen. Once you have that; once you have the will and the interest to do some sort of strategic planning and to follow it through, then the rest of it is not rocket science” (G3/Consultant), and, “I think you’ve got to keep it simple…I think the management theory scares them. Strategy scares people, aims, objectives scare people and at the end of the day they are just strategic things we do to take things forward” (R1/Consultant).

Several respondents (4) identified the need to adapt the methodology to suit the nature of the destination, “The processes can be many and varied in the way you design them, the methodology that we used in the Gold Coast process, there are other ways that we could have done some things. I think you need to customize a process for a destination. I don’t think there’s one model that fits all because the process is dependent upon multi stakeholder engagement, and while there are many characteristics across destinations of stakeholders there are also unique components to particular places, a lot of its to do with personalities and egos

258 and local politics which has to be acknowledged and managed in the process” (G2/Consultant), and, “People will adapt these types of things in the future to suit the destination” (G4/LTA).

The fourth caveat identified by respondents (2) in considering the applicability of the concept to other destinations was the need to ensure stakeholder buy-in and commitment for the process, “There’s got to be an intent, there has got to be a value proposition that what we care about and this is what we want to achieve. Because if they haven’t got ownership of it, it’s not going to happen, if they don’t really care about the things. I think the biggest challenge on the Gold Coast was, and even on Straddie, whose vision is it?” (R1/Consultant).

A further issue raised in relation to the applicability of the concept to other destinations was that of resources (2), “We obviously had the resources to fund a process like this and its very expensive, I mean we’re probably talking around a million bucks, maybe a little bit more. How local governments, other local areas do it, obviously it’s got to be on a smaller scale but you need to make sure the research is meaningful at the same time” (G1/Consultant).

7.3.4.1 Summary: Strategic Visioning Theme

This section has presented the results of the discussion with stakeholder respondents regarding alternative planning practices and the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning. In considering the future planning requirements for respondent’s destinations, the vast majority discussed the importance and sufficiency of regularly reviewing their tourism planning document to monitor changes and opportunities. Other respondents, although acknowledging the need for the document to be reviewed, believe alternative

259 approaches should be adopted for the planning process. Two respondents believe their destination should adopt the strategic visioning model because of its capability to incorporate and monitor changes, while other respondents discussed the fact that tourism planning is adequately addressed within the realms of town planning and believe it is not necessary to have a separate document. The concept of strategic visioning was discussed and respondents identified several benefits. A number of respondents identified the improved decision-making capacity as a benefit of the process citing the research base that was an important component of the Gold Coast exercise, with others discussing the fact that such a process would enhance stakeholder engagement in planning. Perceived challenges of the strategic visioning process were also discussed and a range of issues were raised. A number of respondents believed attaining buy-in to the process would be a challenge due to the difficulty in convincing stakeholders there was a need to set a direction for the destination. The various stakeholder attitudes and apathy were also seen as hindering the achievement of a common vision, while others perceived leadership and arbitration of such a process as a potential challenge, as well as the ability to generate the necessary resources.

A range of additional issues were discussed with the 12 stakeholder respondents from the two case study destinations that had previously undertaken a strategic tourism visioning process. The first of these were stakeholder’s perceptions on the motivation for their destination to adopt a strategic visioning planning approach. Half of the respondents cited enhanced destination management as the motivating factor because of dissatisfaction with issues in the destination. Generating a strategic direction was also identified by respondents, as was achieving stakeholder buy-in. Respondents were also asked whether the strategic visioning approach had contributed towards the integration of sustainability principles into the planning process. All of the respondents considered that the strategic visioning process was underpinned by the principles of sustainable development, and a number discussed that as a result there was a greater awareness and understanding of the sustainability concept, and that by simply having stakeholder groups involved in setting the strategic direction, the destination was already starting to achieve some of the principles of sustainability.

260 The ability of the strategic visioning process to incorporate the principles of strategic planning were also discussed. Respondents considered the visioning process to be a useful means of encouraging destination stakeholders to think more strategically about tourism in the destination, which was then being reflected in the planning. A number of stakeholders also believed that the strategic visioning process had been beneficial in generating a strategic framework for the destination to work within. The fourth issue discussed with respondents related to their perceptions of the ability of the strategic visioning approach to integrate stakeholder participation into the planning and decision- making process. The vast majority of respondents discussed that one of the primary goals of the strategic visioning process was to seek stakeholder buy-in and many were of the opinion that in these two cases it had been successful in doing so. Other respondents discussed the fact that stakeholder participation had been the key challenge in the strategic visioning process due to competing and conflicting stakeholder attitudes.

The final issue discussed in the strategic visioning theme related to the perceived applicability of the process to other destinations. Although all of the respondents considered the strategic visioning approach to be applicable and a beneficial approach, especially if there were models in place for other destinations to utilise, a range of caveats were suggested. The scale and nature of the destination was seen as possibly influencing the success of the approach, as was the need to obtain stakeholder buy-in and commitment to the process. A further issue raised in relation to the applicability of the concept to other destinations was that of resources due to the money and time involved in such a large process, but many noted these problems could be overcome by adopting the methodology to suit the nature of the particular destination.

7.4 Chapter Seven Summary

This chapter has presented the results of the 31 in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with stakeholder’s from five case study destinations in Queensland: Redland Shire, Sarina Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City and Thuringowa City. The

261 interviews sought to examine stakeholder’ perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process as well as stakeholders’ views of future tourism planning practices and the strategic visioning planning approach.

The interviews elicited a range of issues relating to destination stakeholder’s perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process. Additionally the interview results gave an insight into stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning as a tourism destination planning approach. While some of the interview respondents supported the planning practices of their destinations and believed the above-mentioned principles were incorporated, a number of respondents raised criticisms and were of the opinion that the principles under investigation were not necessarily utilised in the planning process despite assertions by some parties that they were. The discrepancies in stakeholder opinions are discussed in Chapter Eight, in conjunction with the results of the secondary document analysis (Chapter Six). In addition the interview results pertaining to strategic visioning contributed towards the development of a framework for implementing sustainable development principles into local tourism planning, a void which was noted not only in the literature review but also in the stakeholder interview results presented in this chapter.

262 Chapter Eight Discussion

8.0 Introduction

This study sought to investigate the transference of sustainable tourism theory to practice by examining the extent to which the sustainable tourism planning philosophy is utilised in the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland. The contributing and prerequisite factors of a sustainable approach, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, were also examined through a content analysis of local tourism destination planning documents (Chapter Six) and in-depth interviews with stakeholders from five case study destinations in Queensland (Chapter Seven).

This chapter addresses each of the three objectives developed to investigate the research issue. From this, the key issues arising from the research process are discussed in terms of practice and perceptions and considered in light of the relevant literature. The framework for strategic visioning is addressed as a possible means of ensuring the sustainability philosophy, including strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are incorporated into the tourism planning process.

8.1 Addressing the Research Objectives

This section addresses the three research objectives of the study utilising the results of the two-stage data collection process previously outlined in Chapters Six and Seven.

8.1.1 Research Objective One

The first research objective sought to investigate the current planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. Through an audit of the 125 local tourism

263 destinations in Queensland it was found that only 30 of these destinations had a specific local tourism plan. Therefore 95 of the local tourism destinations in Queensland either did not have a plan (81) or were in the process of developing a tourism plan (14) at the time of sampling. This is despite the fact that local level tourism planning has been strongly advocated, particularly in LA21, as a means of managing the impacts of tourism which are recognized as manifesting at the local or community level (Aronsson, 2000; Leslie et al, 2000; Richins & Pearce, 2000). This result is also interesting considering the importance of tourism to the state of Queensland. As outlined in Chapter One, Queensland is more dependent on tourism for employment and income generation than any other state in Australia and much of Queensland’s product is based on environmental and cultural attractions, both of which are highly susceptible to tourism’s negative impacts (Hall, 2003; Tourism Council of Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd).

The initial results of the tourism planning audit raise the question as to what planning and management controls are in place for the vast majority of local tourism destinations in Queensland? Through contact with each of the local tourism destinations to determine their planning status (Chapter Five, section 5.5.1), a number stated that they did not undertake their own local level planning but participated in regional cooperative arrangements for product development and marketing. In most cases this occurred through their respective RTO or other ad hoc associations formed with the primary intention of marketing a collection of destinations based on geographical or product similarities. This was also found to be the case with some of Queensland’s most popular tourist destinations such as Brisbane and Cairns (Chapter Six, section 6.5) as these destinations are generally the RTO ‘capital city’ and attention is given to planning and marketing the greater region (Appendix One). These issues are further discussed in Chapter Nine as an area for future research.

The initial audit of tourism planning documents highlighted the fact that less than a quarter of the local tourism destinations in Queensland were engaged in local level planning. However the first research objective specifically sought to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder

264 collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. Therefore each of the 30 local level tourism planning documents were qualitatively content analysed in accordance with the tourism planning process evaluation instrument (Table 5.2, Chapter Five). This process demonstrated that the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are not integrated into the tourism destination planning process for the vast majority of destinations investigated for this study. It was found that most of the planning processes met with less than half of the cumulative criteria of the evaluation instrument, designed to address recognised aspects of a sustainable tourism planning process. The failure to address these issues became more obvious when each of the evaluation instrument sections were examined individually.

The ‘physical, environmental and economic situation analysis’ and ‘strategic indicators of destination planning’ sections sought to identify key aspects of the traditional strategic planning approach recognized in both the general and strategic tourism planning literature including articulation of goals and objectives, scope or domain of action to achieve objectives; and resources, skills and other competencies required to achieve objectives (Chapter Three). The majority of documents failed to include what is essentially descriptive, baseline information on their destination in the situation analysis section. Similarly the strategic planning section highlighted the fact that strategic thinking and long-term considerations of the destination’s future are not featuring in the tourism planning process.

The third evaluation category, stakeholder participation in the planning process, investigated the nature and influence of stakeholder involvement. As Simpson (2001, p.29) states, “the common involvement of local government, regional tourism organizations and tourism industry practitioners would indicate at least some philosophical alignment with a conventional approach to business planning”. However this was not the case for the majority of planning processes examined in this study. The analysis showed that while some stakeholder groups participated to varying degrees in

265 the tourism planning process, key stakeholders such as the local destination community were generally not included.

The vision and values evaluation category was used to measure the extent to which the planning approach integrated community values into the planning process and the extent to which the vision for the future of the destination is in keeping with such values (Simpson, 2001). The lack of community representation in the tourism planning processes investigated is likely to have attributed to the fact that few of the assessed planning documents included items from the destination vision and values category. The final section of the evaluation instrument, the dominant tourism planning approach, investigated the planning approaches adopted by the destinations. This was included to address conflicting viewpoints in the literature regarding the emphasis of tourism planning. Some authors have raised concerns that economic motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues, and are the dominant approach in tourism development planning (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998), while others have claimed that the concept of sustainability has had a substantial impact on planning ideas and philosophies (McKercher, 1993). The analysis of tourism planning documents showed that while goals, objectives and other declarations of intent are generally made regarding sustainable development and the importance of sustainable planning, these tended to be superficial and unsubstantiated statements that were not supported in the subsequent action strategies and agendas contained within the document. The vast majority of documents did in fact exhibit the economic approach to tourism planning, as evidenced by a focus on marketing and promotion, with little or no consideration of the destination’s environmental or social issues.

To allow for a more exacting assessment of the extent to which the principles of sustainability were integrated into the planning processes, each of the documents were quantitatively weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria (Chapter Six, section 6.4). This process clearly highlighted the poor performance of the local tourism destinations in addressing the recognised aspects of a sustainable tourism planning process. It was found that none of the plans complied with

266 75% or more of the evaluation criteria, only 5 met over 50% of the criteria, and the remaining 24 plans had less than 50% of the evaluative criteria (16 of which included less than 25%). The weighting and ranking of the plans further confirmed that the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration have not been adopted in the planning practices for the vast majority of local tourism destinations in Queensland. The second research objective sought further clarification of these results through in-depth interviews with participants in five of the tourism planning processes.

8.1.2 Research Objective Two

The second research objective of the study sought to examine destination stakeholders’ perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which they perceive the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation underpin the planning process. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 stakeholders sampled from five case study destinations. Case studies were selected based on the compliance of the destination’s tourism planning process with the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument (Chapter Six). Based on this assessment five local tourism destinations in Queensland were selected for further investigation to address the second research objective of the study: Redland Shire, Sarina Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City and Thuringowa City. Interview results were presented according to the key themes of the study: sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation (Chapter Seven).

Within the sustainability theme it was found that although the sustainability concept itself is considered valuable, respondents essentially viewed it as a catchphrase for the tourism industry and as a result believe there is considerable misuse and incorrect applications of the term. In order to overcome this it was suggested that there is a need to move beyond the theory and actually develop means for practically applying the concept. It was also noted that the concept could not be achieved in practice until there is meaningful and effective engagement of the destination community in the planning process. While some

267 respondents did consider that their destination had adopted a sustainable planning approach, others were of the opinion that sustainability was not the motivating factor in the development of the strategy for their destination, it had simply been labelled as such, with the planning process continuing to focus on the more traditional issues of destination marketing and promotion.

The second theme addressed stakeholder perceptions of the strategic planning process. Respondents cited a range of motivations for undertaking a strategic planning exercise including; being proactive in regards to the amount and type of tourism development, to restructure previous management and planning practices, to set a strategic direction and develop actions, and to assess and manage tourism’s impacts on the destination; all noted objectives of the strategic planning process (Cooper, 1995; Faulkner, 1994; Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur, 1998). In terms of outcomes the majority of respondents considered that as a result of the strategic planning process their destination now has a directional framework and action agenda for tourism, although other respondents did not believe the process had led to any strategic outcomes for the destination. Benefits of a strategic planning process were seen to include stakeholder-buy in to the process, improved destination management capabilities, strategic direction and decision-making capacity for the destination. The main challenges identified were implementation and obtaining stakeholder buy-in. In considering the most appropriate level for strategic planning to occur, a local level plan was favoured by half of the respondents because of inherent local issues, identity and influence over the process, while a regional approach was favoured by the remaining respondents because of infrastructure needs and a lack of tourist awareness of local government (local tourism destination) boundaries.

The stakeholder participation theme showed that for many respondents, the main motivation for engaging destination stakeholders was to ensure buy-in to the outcomes of the planning process. However a number of respondents cited the fact that stakeholder participation is a mandate of planning activity, possibly attributing to some respondents noting that there had not been a genuine motivation to engage stakeholders in the destination’s planning process. Benefits and challenges were noted which are consistent

268 with those identified in the literature (Ap, 1992; McIntyre, 1993; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Murphy, 1985; Oppitz, 1997; Rosenow & Pulsipher, 1979; Simmons, 1994). Benefits included assessing attitudes and obtaining buy-in to assist in implementation, while challenges were seen as differing values, process management and apathy. To address some of the inherent challenges of engaging multiple stakeholder groups, it was suggested that new consultation models are needed to reinvigorate the process of stakeholder engagement. Resident participation was also addressed and was seen as essentially a democratic right and prerequisite for such processes, although involvement was credited with increasing ownership, acceptance and support of tourism within the destination. In terms of which stakeholder groups should take a leadership role in local tourism planning, many respondents saw it as a collaborative task, although others advocated the local government authority as the most appropriate leader. Local government’s role in tourism planning was seen to be significant due to their resources and capabilities and their ability to balance the industry’s tendency towards marketing.

In examining stakeholders’ perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles under investigation are implemented into the process, the research highlighted some strong polarization in views. While some respondents were complementary and optimistic in their assessment of the planning process, others were highly critical of the processes used within their destination. With such mixed results it cannot be categorically determined whether the stakeholders sampled for this study do or do not perceive the principles of sustainability to underpin the local tourism planning process. Possible reasons for these divergent views are examined in section 8.2.3.2.

The conflicting perceptions of the participants are not surprising given the benefits and challenges of tasks such as strategic planning and stakeholder participation in a tourism destination context (Chapter Three). However respondents’ perceptions of the overall integration of sustainability principles into the planning process does provide some new perspectives and confirmation of issues raised in the literature. The need to translate sustainability theory into practical steps and processes for destinations to follow was highlighted by a number of respondents. It was noted that until such practical processes

269 are developed the concept can never be effectively and correctly applied in practice. It was also noted that there is a need to re-examine consultation models to ensure the process of stakeholder engagement is improved.

8.1.3 Research Objective Three

The third research objective of the study was to consider the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning model for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning. To assist in deciding upon and developing appropriate approaches, stakeholder perceptions of the strategic visioning process were also elicited through the in-depth stakeholder interviews (Chapter Seven). Initially asked to consider the future planning requirements for their destination, many respondents believed a revision of the current tourism plan or other planning frameworks such as town planning would be sufficient to address and manage the future planning and management needs of the destination. Other respondents however believed the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning should be adopted, as it is a more adaptive process capable of meeting the changing needs of the destination. All respondents were asked to consider the benefits and challenges of a strategic visioning approach to local level tourism planning. The majority of respondents considered the benefits of strategic visioning to include improved decision- making capacity and enhanced stakeholder engagement in planning, while challenges were seen to lie in attaining buy-in, namely convincing stakeholders there was a need to set a direction for the destination, and generating the necessary resources for the process.

The respondents (12) that had previously engaged in the strategic visioning process cited the desire to enhance destination management, generate a strategic direction and achieve stakeholder buy-in as the primary motivations for undertaking a strategic visioning exercise. All of the respondents believe the strategic visioning approach had contributed towards the integration of sustainability principles into the planning process, and noted that as a result there was greater awareness and understanding of the sustainability concept. Others discussed the fact that simply having stakeholder groups involved in

270 setting the strategic direction for the destination was a major step towards achieving some of the principles of sustainability. Respondents also considered the visioning process to be a useful means of encouraging destination stakeholders to think more strategically about tourism in the destination which in turn assisted in the actual process of strategic planning. Similarly many considered that the strategic visioning process is ideal for obtaining stakeholder buy-in to tourism destination planning. However other respondents discussed the fact that obtaining stakeholder participation and buy-in to the process had been the key challenge due to competing and conflicting stakeholder attitudes.

All of the respondents considered the strategic visioning approach to be applicable and a beneficial tourism planning approach for other destinations to adopt, especially if there were processes and frameworks available to utilise. However the scale and nature of the destination was seen as possibly influencing the success of the strategic visioning approach, as was the need to obtain stakeholder buy-in and commitment to the process. The issue of resources required for such an exercise was also raised, but many noted that resource challenges could be overcome by adopting a methodology to suit the nature and size of the particular destination.

As with the second research objective, the stakeholder responses derived to address the third objective showed some conflicting views on future destination planning and management needs. The benefits and challenges of the strategic visioning process were consistent with those outlined in the literature review (Faulkner, 2003; Mair et al, 2000; Ritchie, 1993; Ryan, 2002), and the interview responses suggested strategic visioning is a useful and valid method for integrating the principles of sustainability into the tourism planning process. All of the respondents believe the approach had been successful in addressing sustainable development principles; in achieving a strategic and longer-term orientation towards planning and despite some identified challenges, was seen as a useful means of incorporating multiple stakeholder participation into the process. The strategic visioning approach for local tourism destination planning is addressed in section 8.3 of this chapter.

271 8.1.4 Summary: Addressing the Research Objectives

The primary aim of this study was to examine the transference of sustainable tourism theory to practice. Three supporting research objectives and a two-stage data collection process were developed to address this issue in the context of local tourism destinations in Queensland (Chapter Five).

The first of the research objectives sought to investigate the current planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. The initial audit of local tourism destinations (Shire Council areas) showed that the majority did not have a local level tourism plan. The reasons for and implications of this are outside the scope of this study but do highlight important issues to be considered in further research (Chapter Nine, section 9.6). However, for the 30 destinations that did have a local level tourism plan, the qualitative analysis of these documents showed that the vast majority are not underpinned by sustainable development principles, including the identified prerequisites of strategic planning and stakeholder participation. It was found that long-term, strategic thinking about the future of the destination is not featuring in the processes, and while there is some evidence of multiple stakeholder groups participating, in most cases that does not extend to the residents of the destination. Therefore it is not surprising that few of the destinations assess community values and vision for the future. The analysis also showed that while the term and ideas of sustainable development might be incorporated within the plan, the actual action strategies revert to economic concerns.

In addressing the first of the study’s research objectives it can be said that sustainable tourism planning is not underpinning the local tourism planning processes of destinations in Queensland. However one issue that stood out through this process was that a number of the planning documents were actually titled ‘sustainable tourism plans’ or included goals and objectives related to sustainability (Chapter Six, section 6.2), yet performed so poorly when rated against the evaluation instrument which was specifically designed to

272 assess the integration of sustainability principles into the planning process. The results of the in-depth stakeholder interviews conducted to address the second objective of the study highlight some of the reasons for this including the misuse of the concept with applications to incorrect contexts and a lack of understanding of the concept’s meaning and how to actually apply it in practice. Other respondents noted that despite being labelled as such, a sustainable tourism planning approach was not the motivating factor in the development of the strategy for their destination. These issues are further discussed in section 8.2.2.1.

The second research objective sought to examine stakeholder perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which those involved perceive sustainability principles to have been incorporated into the process. Stakeholder perceptions of the tourism planning process were actually quite conflicting; some respondents were of the opinion that the planning process had integrated the principles of sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, while others disagreed. This makes it difficult to ascertain whether the principles were actually integrated. However the results of the first research objective can assist in addressing this. As the first stage of the research showed, none of the analysed documents were found to have met with all or even most of the sustainability criteria. The top five destinations selected for further investigation met with just 50-75% of the assessment criteria (Figure 6.10, Chapter Six). In fact the highest ranked of these destinations only met with 69.5% of the criteria, with the lowest meeting 51%. So even though some respondents considered the process to have incorporated sustainability principles, the document analysis process showed that they actually did not address all of the criteria required for a sustainable tourism planning approach. This therefore raises the question as to how could respondents from the same destination, who participated in the same process; have such markedly different ideas on the planning process? Examining respondents’ roles and their perceived influence over the planning process (Table 7.3, Chapter Seven) provides some answers to these questions and is addressed further in section 8.2.3.3 of this chapter.

273 One issue that respondents had some level of consensus on was the need to develop tools and processes to transfer sustainable development principles and theory into practice. Respondents cited concerns over understanding and actual application of the sustainability concept into the tourism planning process. This issue is discussed in section 8.2.1.3.

The third research objective sought to consider the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning model for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning. The responses of stakeholders who had participated in a strategic visioning exercise provided some useful viewpoints to assist in the consideration of the appropriateness of this approach. All of these respondents considered the strategic visioning approach to be a useful means of ensuring sustainable development principles underpin the process, even those that cited challenges with the method. The prerequisites to sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, were also seen as adequately incorporated within strategic visioning. Respondents also agreed upon the applicability of the approach for other local tourism destinations, noting that models or frameworks would be beneficial for destinations considering such a process to utilise.

While the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning was considered successful in integrating the principles of sustainability, respondents had quite divergent views on the success of the more ‘traditional’ approaches undertaken in some of the case studies. Taking into account these views and the associated literature (Chapter Three) can the challenges associated with integrating sustainability principles into local tourism planning be overcome within a strategic visioning framework? This issue as well as others raised throughout this section are addressed by looking further at the identified themes of the study- sustainability, strategic planning, stakeholder participation and strategic visioning.

274 8.2 Sustainable Tourism Theory to Practice

In addressing the stated research objectives of the study, it was found that local tourism destinations in Queensland are not incorporating sustainable development principles, including strategic planning and stakeholder participation, into their tourism planning processes. A number of issues and points for further consideration were raised and these are addressed in the following section where the results of the data collection for each of the study’s themes; sustainability, strategic planning, stakeholder participation and strategic visioning, are considered collectively.

8.2.1 Sustainability: Practice and Perceptions

As discussed in section 8.1, the research showed that the principles of sustainable development do not underpin local tourism destination planning processes in Queensland. This was evident in the results of stage one of the research (Chapter Six) and in a number of the stakeholder interview responses (Chapter Seven). While the contributing and prerequisite factors of a sustainable approach, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, will be discussed separately, in addressing the research objectives several issues regarding the concept of sustainability and sustainable tourism planning were highlighted.

8.2.1.1 Overlooking the Triple Bottom Line

One of the key issues arising from the research was the fact that a number of the tourism planning documents included broad statements and objectives regarding sustainability, yet performed poorly when the transference of this intent to action was examined. When each of the documents were analysed for their tourism planning approach (Chapter Six, section 6.3) it was found that while the concept of sustainability is discussed and a sustainable planning approach may even have been cited as the driver of the planning process, the actual action strategies do not support such objectives. For example in plan six it is stated that,

275 “Our goal is a sustainable tourism industry that works in strong partnership with the community in pursuit of economic, environmental and social sustainability”. Despite stating sustainability goals, the action strategies included in this plan relate solely to market research, advertising and promotion. Similarly in plan seven it is stated that, “The goal is to further develop and enhance a successful and united tourism industry in the Cardwell Shire that contributes to the Cardwell Shire’s quest for economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability and recognises ‘Cardwell Shire’ as being owned by the whole community”. Once again the action strategies relate to market research, advertising and promotion. Environmental and community issues are not addressed at all within the document, nor is any form of community participation or consultation reported on.

As these two excerpts demonstrate, although statements are made regarding sustainability, none of the actual strategies or action plans which are to be implemented or acted upon bear any relation to sustainability in its holistic sense. Economic issues are addressed, yet there is no mention of environmental and social concerns, both of which are considered just as crucial in a sustainable approach to tourism planning. While there are examples of plans that include supporting action strategies for the sustainable development goals (Chapter Six, section 6.3), it cannot be said that sustainability is the dominant planning approach for local tourism destinations in Queensland. What was evident was that the economic and infrastructure approaches are still the prevailing forms of tourism planning. This was particularly apparent when the strategies and action agendas within the plans were analysed, where it was found that marketing, promotion, product and infrastructure development, and visitor services were overwhelmingly apparent, all of which are trademarks of the economic and infrastructure approaches (Chapter Six, section 6.2.5). This was confirmed by some of the responses received through the stakeholder interviews where it was noted that a sustainable tourism planning approach was not the motivating factor in the development of the strategy for their

276 destination, it had simply been labelled as such and that the strategy had continued to focus on the more traditional issues such as marketing. “They jumped on the idea of sustainability as it was a key word. Theirs is a plan which is really more marketing oriented not sustainability oriented (R6/LTA)”. As was the case in Berke and Manta Conroy’s (2000) study, there were no significant differences in terms of policies and strategies between planning documents with sustainable development as an underpinning concept and those without.

Such results concur with the issue raised in Chapter One that the tourism industry has been slow to adopt sustainability principles and actually put them into practice due to the fact that economic motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998). Under the economic tradition, tourism is seen as an industry which can be used as a tool by governments to achieve certain goals of economic growth and restructuring, with planning emphasizing the economic impacts of tourism, and marketing to attract the types of visitors who will provide the greatest economic benefit to the destination. The discussion of tourism planning approaches in Chapter Three alluded to one planning approach superseding its predecessor, whereas authors such as Getz (1986) and Hall (1998) contest that this is not the case and due to the economic benefits generated by tourism activity, the economic approach is the one still practiced in many destinations. Pigram (1990) also noted that much of the so-called planning that occurs in tourism is really marketing and this certainly appears to be the case in this study.

The concept of sustainable tourism, in its simplest form, is founded on the notion of the triple bottom line, referring to the equal consideration of economic, social and environmental concerns. While destinations in this study are purporting a sustainable approach based on a single aspect of the triple bottom line, the question remains as to whether this is a deliberate disregard of triple bottom line principles by local tourism destination planners, possibly a reflection of Mowforth and Munt’s (1998) ‘lies, damned lies and sustainability’, or as a result of a lack of understanding of the concept of

277 sustainability and how to translate the principles into strategies and actions. The possibility that destination planners deliberately overlook environmental and social issues may be an issue for further research (Chapter Nine, section 9.6). However the results of the in-depth interviews suggest that the latter scenario is the most likely.

8.2.1.2 A Problem of Understanding

The inconsistencies between intentions and the strategies for action regarding sustainable development raised some interesting questions. The stakeholder responses from the in- depth interviews suggest that this disparity can be attributed to a lack of understanding regarding the concept of sustainability and what it actually means in terms of destination planning. It was noted in Chapter Two that the lack of a widely known and accepted definition has caused confusion over what sustainable tourism means (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Harrison et al, 2003; MacLellan, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998). A number of respondents ascribe this confusion to the widespread and often incorrect application of the term by the tourism sector to contexts, which are not necessarily associated with the principles of sustainable development. “It’s become a bit of a catchphrase…a bit like ecotourism was the call of the 90s” (D3/Consultant).

The lack of understanding also appears to be compounded by the fact that, as perceived by the respondents in this study, a gap does actually exist between sustainability theory and practice. While some authors have adopted the view that the tourism industry and the wider community are increasingly adopting and recognizing the importance of the sustainability concept (Hall et al, 1997; Ritchie & Crouch, 2000), this study concurs with other authors who suggest that there is a growing gap between sustainability doctrine and its ‘real world’ application (Simpson, 2001; Trousdale, 1999). The respondents certainly did not deny the importance of the sustainability concept; they just don’t know how to convert the concept into a form that can be used in destination planning and management. As Godfrey (1998) argued, it could be seen that the industry has entered a new phase of sensibility, with many tolerant in principle or even actively supportive of the concept, but

278 this has generally been without a full understanding of its meaning or its implications for planning and development activity.

8.2.1.3 A Problem of Practice

Stakeholder respondents highlighted the need to overcome the theory-practice gap and translate sustainability principles into specific strategies and actions. A number of respondents discussed the difficulty in actually applying the concept in practice. “A lot of people talk about sustainability but what does that actually mean, and how do we deliver on that? I think that’s one of the key challenges for industry and for local governments as we move forward” (G1/Council). A number of participants in the study considered that the time had come to move beyond theoretical discussions and actually begin to deliver practically on the concept. However to enable this to occur respondents discussed the need for practical implementation tools. It was further noted that the lack of such tools was the greatest challenge in applying the concept in practice, “The theory’s good and the practice can be good if the tools are there for destinations to use” (G2/Consultant).

The difficulty in actually implementing a planning approach is not uncommon. The preoccupation with theoretical debates and model development at the expense of practical, hands on processes and procedures for practitioners has been recognised as hindering tourism planning (Faulkner, 2003; Garrod & Fyall, 1998). Bahaire and Elliott- White (1999) in their discussion of the implementation of a community tourism planning model found that as there was no practical implementation blueprint, planning goals remained centred on commercial interests despite the use of alternative planning models. In terms of sustainable tourism planning it was noted in Chapter Two that academic debate and discourse regarding the concept must take second place to the development of practical tools for destination planners, managers and their communities to implement sustainability (Fyall & Garrod, 1997; Liu, 2003; Pearce & Turner, 1993; Slee et al, 1997; Welford & Ytterhus, 2004). As Bramwell and Lane (1993, p.4) noted, “it is easy to

279 discuss sustainability but…the time has come to walk the talk”, and the responses from this study confirm these assertions. Practical frameworks and processes for sustainable tourism are further discussed in section 8.3.

8.2.2 Strategic Planning: Practice and Perceptions

Strategic planning is recognised as a key contributor in meeting sustainable development principles and a means of alleviating some of the negative impacts of tourism activity (Dutton & Hall, 1989; Harrison & Husbands, 1996; Page & Thorn, 2002; Simpson, 2001; Wall, 1997). While the previous section highlighted the difficulties associated with achieving a sustainable approach to tourism planning, it is necessary to consider the more specific issues arising from the research on strategic planning for local tourism destinations in Queensland. Particularly given that while there is considerable debate surrounding the concept and practical application of sustainability, there is some level of agreement that strategic planning is a key contributor to achieving a sustainable approach to tourism planning.

8.2.2.1 Short-Term Planning Horizons

It became quite evident in the first stage of the research (Chapter Six, section 6.2) that key aspects of the traditional strategic planning approach recognized in both the general and strategic tourism planning literature are not incorporated into the tourism planning processes conducted for local destinations in Queensland (Cooper, 1995; Faulkner, 1994; Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur, 1998; Schendel & Hofer, 1979). Tourism destination strategic planning involves making a sequence of choices and decisions about the deployment of resources committing a destination to a future course of action (Brownlie, 1994). It requires a deliberate, integrative and formalised plan which will permit the destination to adapt quickly to changing situations and develop information, planning and control systems to monitor and respond to this change (Chon & Olsen, 1990; Cooper, 1995). It is recognised that adopting a strategic approach to tourism destination planning provides a sense of purpose, ownership and support for both the industry and the public

280 sector, which can lead to a framework for cooperative action and policies (Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur, 1998). It also emphasizes the need for both short and long term objectives which can accommodate changing circumstances, and which the sector can be judged against in the future (Cooper, 1995; Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur, 1998; Faulkner, 1994). By not engaging in a strategic planning approach the majority of destinations in the study would not have given consideration to what their destination will be like in the future, and therefore would have no point of reference to measure, even anecdotally, when the destination has reached a critical stage of development. Further, as a result of failing to address economic, environmental and social goals related to tourism, there is no means to monitor the attainment of goals and more importantly that such goals are not unknowingly exceeded or diverted from.

The failure to engage in strategic, long-term thinking regarding the destination is quite concerning but not necessarily unexpected. As discussed in Chapter One the Australian public sector has a reputation for being overtly preoccupied with marketing at the expense of strategic planning (Faulkner, 2003). This marketing versus management mentality has been to the detriment of a more balanced and rational approach to the development of the tourism industry. Page and Thorn’s (1997) study of tourism planning in New Zealand also confirmed the use of ad hoc approaches at the expense of an integrated planning framework for tourism leading them to conclude that planning is destined to remain a reactive response to problems and pressures generated by tourism.

This study has confirmed that local level planning in Queensland is conducted without a long-term strategic view. This is despite the fact that a wealth of literature and case evidence exists which explicitly warns of the dangers of failing to engage in strategic planning (Coccossis, 1996; Gunn, 1994; Hall, 1998; Inskeep, 1991; Murphy, 1985). As the WTO (1994) has noted, uncontrolled development may bring some short-term economic benefits but over the long term will result in environmental and social problems and poor quality tourist destinations. They conclude that it is obviously better to plan for controlled development initially, and prevent problems from arising in the first place.

281 8.2.2.2 Strategic Planning Will Come Later

Why tourism destination planners in the 21st century would choose to ignore the lessons of the past is quite intriguing. However for the destinations examined in this study this certainly appears to be the case. One possible reason that long-term, strategic thinking is not featuring in the planning process of many local tourism destinations in Queensland is that the negative impacts of tourism have yet to be experienced, “You have to create momentum with planning and being involved in long planning style processes where you spend a lot of time thinking strategically and collecting information to get a strategic view can only be done when there’s a really serious problem. In a place like Thuringowa, tourism isn’t a problem it’s an opportunity” (T1/STA).

Such a response suggests that long-term strategic planning is seen as an activity that is employed only when a destination is in crisis mode. Butler (1991) claims that tourism planning is too often reactive rather than proactive, as the prospect of large returns overturns a cautious approach. If this is the case it is not surprising that the planning practices of destinations analysed in this study performed so poorly on the strategic planning criteria of the evaluation instrument. As outlined in Chapter Six (section 6.5), a number of the destinations examined are rural areas looking towards tourism as an alternative economic option. If strategic planning is seen as a reactive measure only to be employed when tourism activity becomes a problem in the destination then these rural areas that are looking to diversify into tourism would not be thinking towards the future, but looking at achieving short-term gains to get tourism established in the destination. This can be attributed to the fact that the vast majority of tourism planning documents were assessed as primarily utilising the economic and infrastructure approaches to planning (Chapter Six, section 6.2.5). However it has been found that rural communities often lack the employment stability, community investments, economic diversity and social institutions necessary for stability and growth (Potts, Backman, Uysal & Backman, 1992; Verbole, 2000) which often makes tourism an attractive ‘soft’ option to revitalise and improve economies (Wahab & Pigram, 1997). The need for tourism planning is even

282 more important in such destinations where an inexperienced public and private sector may have little or no experience in how to properly develop such a sector, how to integrate it with other sectors of the economy or how to realise the benefits and negate the negative impacts (Inskeep, 1991; Poon, 1993).

While such destinations may achieve short-term gains the long-term impacts of such short-sighted actions has proven to be dangerous. It is unlikely that Queensland local tourism destinations are the first to believe that it is acceptable to kick-start tourism activity without firstly giving due consideration to what such actions will have on the destination in the future. Many of the world’s most developed destinations can probably trace back to a time when tourism was experimented with as an alternative economic and employment generator, and the need for long-term strategic thinking was seen as unnecessary. Murphy and Murphy’s (2004, p.3) warning that “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it” may well be the case. Rural destinations in Queensland may not be Majorca or the Mediterranean, but tourism, even on a small scale and especially when not managed properly, has still been found to create considerable detrimental effects on the destination.

It is likely that in time these destinations will experience the repercussions for such oversight, and as Martin and Uysal (1990) noted, while the initial stages of tourism are usually met with a great deal of enthusiasm because of the perceived economic benefits, it is only natural that, as unpleasant changes take place in the physical environment and in the type of tourist being attracted, this feeling gradually becomes more and more negative. By engaging in a sustainable approach in the early stages of destination growth tourism planning can be used as a means of alleviating the economic deterioration arising from poorly planned and managed tourism development in an attempt to maintain, in perpetuity, the characteristics that make it a desirable place to live and visit (De Lacy et al, 2002; Manning & Dougherty, 2000).

283 8.2.3 Stakeholder Participation: Practice and Perceptions

Stakeholder participation is also recognised as a contributing and prerequisite factor in the achievement of a sustainable tourism planning approach. Authors such as Faulkner (2003) have claimed that the achievement of sustainable development objectives hinges on the adoption of a participatory model, involving the meaningful engagement of the community, along with industry stakeholders and relevant government agencies, in an attempt to generate agreement on planning directions and goals. However the research results highlighted several issues regarding stakeholder participation in the planning process, which need to be considered.

8.2.3.1 Missing Stakeholders

It was found in the first stage of the research that while multiple stakeholder groups generally did participate in the planning processes, one important player was omitted- the residents of the destination community. This is despite the fact that, for some time, community residents have being acknowledged as the most important stakeholder group in a tourism destination (Berke, 2002; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Caffyn & Jobbins, 2003; Eligh et al, 2002; Holland, 2000; Murphy, 1988; Pforr, 2001; Robinson, 1999; Sadler, 2004). As outlined in Chapter Three a considerable body of literature exists citing the need for meaningful engagement of residents in any decision-making or planning activity undertaken and it has been noted that sustainable tourism cannot be successfully implemented without the direct support and involvement of those who are affected by it (Marien & Pizam, 1997).

A sustainable approach is based on the meaningful engagement of the community, along with industry stakeholders and relevant government agencies (Faulkner, 2003). As part of this process there is a need to evaluate a community’s sensitivity to tourism development as the first step in planning for sustained tourism development. Simpson (2001) noted that for sustainability to be achieved local residents must be permitted to identify salient issues of concern; be the ones to determine the pace and scale of

284 development and the development must coincide with the community’s aspirations and abilities. To ensure this, the resident community must be considered a legitimate stakeholder group, requiring direct and meaningful participation in decision-making. The stakeholder respondents also discussed this requirement in the second stage of the research, all of who noted the need for, and benefits of engaging the destination community in the planning process, consistent with that discussed in the literature. As was the case in converting sustainable development theory to practice (section 8.2.1) transferring resident participation into practice is also a problem for local tourism destination planning in Queensland.

The possible reason for omitting the most crucial stakeholder group in a tourism destination (Leslie, et al, 2000; Murphy, 1988, 1985; Williams et al, 1998) can be seen in the willingness of respondents to discuss the challenges and problems associated with stakeholder participation (Chapter Seven, section 7.3.3), “I don’t know how you engage the residents in the planning process without it turning into a 12 month exercise and by then you miss the boat in most instances and it becomes a painful initiative” (D3/Consultant). The need to re-examine and develop new models of stakeholder consultation and engagement was also highlighted by some respondents as one of the greatest inhibitors in achieving a sustainable approach to tourism planning, “You’ve got to do it but we’ve really got to rethink the whole context of how you engage with communities and I think we probably need new models” (R1/Consultant). Once again, while the importance of stakeholder participation and collaboration in tourism planning has been widely discussed in the literature, this has been at the expense of developing clear and concise formulas as to how this can occur in practice (Faulkner, 2003), and Sewell and Phillips (1979) lament that there is no universally applicable or generally accepted model. Other studies have found that the dominant stakeholder groups who manage the planning process, most often the relevant government authority, don’t always understand the need for, or care for, engaging residents in tourism planning (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Timothy, 1998). The consideration of new ways of

285 meaningfully engaging multiple stakeholder groups in the planning process, taking into account these challenges are further discussed in section 8.3.

8.2.3.2 A Point of Contention

Stage one of the research showed quite blatantly that destination residents were not included in the planning process, and this was confirmed by a number of the stakeholder respondents in the second stage of the research. However some of the respondents did consider that the planning process had included all stakeholder groups, including residents of the destination community. As was the case in the discussion on sustainability (section 8.2) respondents who participated in the same planning process had quite conflicting views on what actually occurred. It is an interesting issue to consider given remarks made by some respondents, “I believe they talked to a couple of people but that it was primarily a Council document with Councillors involved and I would say they didn’t consult because they wanted to keep control of it” (G3/Consultant).

Such comments allude to the issue of power and influence in the planning process, an acknowledged issue in the stakeholder participation literature (Chapter Three). A possible reason that certain stakeholder groups viewed the planning process more positively than others may in fact be due to a much higher vested interest or even perhaps a personal bias. Re-examining respondents’ roles and their perceived influence over the planning process (Table 7.3, Chapter Seven) can assist in addressing this issue.

8.2.3.3 Influential Participation

During the stakeholder interviews conducted in the second stage of the research process, respondents were asked to consider the extent and significance of their personal influence in the planning process undertaken for their respective destinations. Participant’s perceived influence was rated as low, intermediate or high (Table 7.3, Chapter Seven) and plotted on a continuum of core or periphery influence to determine if any one

286 stakeholder group had more influence over the planning process than others (Figure 8.1). Medeiros de Arajo and Bramwell (1999) have suggested that such an exercise can assist in assessing stakeholders’ connection to an issue and it has certainly highlighted the influence of particular stakeholder groups in the planning processes examined for this study.

It can be seen that in all of the case study destinations the local council was the core stakeholder with the most influence over the planning process. Consultants were also found to be highly influential participants in the planning process, interestingly more so than the other ‘actual’ stakeholders of the destination. In most of the cases the tourism industry and the state, regional or local tourism associations (STA, RTO, LTA) were assessed as having a periphery influence, as although they were participants they perceived their role and influence to be far more limited than others.

Many of the respondents in the study did acknowledge the important role of the local government authority in destination planning. Local government’s resource and planning capabilities, the provision of infrastructure and services, and their legislative authority for the area were seen as the primary reasons for their key role (Chapter Seven, section 7.3.3). Despite the acknowledged leadership role, respondents still considered a need for the local government authority to work in a collaborative arrangement with other destination stakeholders in tourism planning. The impact of local government’s ‘core’ influence is discussed further in the following sections.

The consultant was also assessed as a core participant in the processes investigated. Ideally the consultant, as the tourism planning expert, would act as a conduit between the core and periphery stakeholders ensuring both have equal representation and influence over the planning process. Unfortunately this wasn’t the case for the planning processes in this study, which is no doubt attributable to the fact that in all instances the consultant was contracted by the local government authority to perform a set task. The role of the consultant is often overlooked when considering the tourism planning process and given their considerable influence (Figure 8.1) this is possibly unwise. Several studies have

287 found that too often plans are formulated by ‘experts’ and as a result do not reflect the aspirations of the broader community (Blommestein, 1988; Din, 1997; King, McVey & Simmons, 2000; Timothy & White, 1999; Wilkinson, 1997), with claims made that “tourism has become too important to be left to the experts” (Seekings, 1980, p.253).

Although not necessarily a comparable case to this study, Din’s (1993) study of tourism planning in Malaysia found that authorities presumed host sentiments to be positive towards tourism, with Din referring to a quote by a Malaysian authority that “we do not have to consult with the local people; we know what is good for them”. Comments received by some respondents in this study intimate similar, although not quite as transparent sentiments, “It adds credibility to the whole process and I think a lot of these things you often know what the answer is before you start, it’s part of the sales process. It’s probably cynical but quite often I look for the answer in the consultation. So we did consultation…and I visited Airlie Beach and I saw the beautiful big swimming pool and I thought that’s alright so I hunted through the consultation and I found three references from people who said we are looking for a safe swimming area so we used that to say oh look people have asked for a nice swimming pool instead of a water feature” (T3/Council).

Some of the consultant respondents did unofficially discuss the difficulties in convincing ‘clients’ of the need to engage in consultation. However they noted that they were not in a position to pursue the matter as they were undertaking a paid task at the behest of a client and for their own ‘personal sustainability’ must appease the customer.

288 Figure 8.1: Perceived Stakeholder Influence in the Planning Process

PERIPHERY INFLUENCE

THURINGOWA STA DOUGLAS LTA CORE RTO INFLUENCE

Industry

Industry Council Council

Consult LTA Industry Consult Council Council

Council Council Council Consult Consult

Council Council LTA LTA

Industry Council RTO Industry SARINA Consult GOLD COAST Consult LTA

Industry LTA

REDLAND

8.2.3.4 Proxy Participation

Stage one of the research showed that the participation of the resident community did not feature too prominently in the planning processes investigated for this study. One

289 possible reason cited is that the local government chose to act in its capacity as the elected representative of the broader community, “The Council should stand as the proxy for the community, that’s why people elect them” (G3/Consultant).

If the core and most influential stakeholder group in tourism planing and decision-making is in a position to act as a substitute for the resident community due to their elected representative capacity, then this represents a significant challenge in ensuring broad based, meaningful engagement of the local community. Even more importantly if consultation with the resident community has not yet been mastered, or is still being avoided due to ‘representative’ loopholes how are local tourism destinations going to move towards the notion of collaborative arrangements and partnerships recognised as enhancing the sustainable approach to tourism planning? (Berkes, 1995; Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999).

That resident participation could be overridden by government representation was seen as concerning to some respondents as it has been noted that local government and councillors may also have vested interests in the destination, “Council’s are far too close” (D5/Industry), and, “It needs to be a range of groups because if it is just Council it would be dangerous for them to have control as they have commercial interests as well” (R4/Industry). One respondent quite passionately summed up their view on the need for residents to have a voice in tourism planning and decision-making, “Thuringowa [Council] doesn’t have a clue about tourism and…the risks are too great to let some pen pusher get it wrong. There needs to be someone else involved who’s switched on enough to say this isn’t about making money for the Council” (T5/Industry).

Despite the underlying intentions such proxy participation relates directly to Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation (Figure 3.1, Chapter Three). The cases investigated for this study would certainly be located on the bottom half of the ladder characterised by

290 non-participation and degrees of tokenism. Decisions are effectively made by higher authorities and dispersed among the public to validate the process. In other cases there may be perceived levels of potential involvement, through workshops and the like, however citizens do not have any real decision-making authority and development reflects the aspirations of the government and industry rather than the communities involved (Arnstein, 1969; Murphy, 1985). Hall (2000) finds that government in Australia have generally not integrated community participation, noting that the level of public involvement in tourism planning can be more accurately described as a form of tokenism in which decisions, or the direction of decisions, have already been prescribed by government and communities rarely have the opportunity to say no. Such inaction does little to contribute towards LA21 objectives which require that sustainable development can only be achieved through planned, democratic, cooperative means, including community involvement in decision-making, “…it stipulates that every local authority must consult its citizens on local concerns, priorities and actions regarding the environment, development and other issues, to encourage local consideration of global issues, and to encourage and foster community involvement” (Jackson & Morpeth, 1999, p.3). It is also worth reiterating that local governments in Queensland must work within the 1997 Integrated Planning Act (IPA), which has the express purpose of seeking sustainability, and of which public participation is a crucial component.

As is the case with the destinations investigated in this study, Jackson and Morpeth (1999) found that in the UK context while isolated initiatives are under way, there is as yet little evidence of significant community involvement in sustainable development initiatives, and less still in terms of the implementation of sustainable tourism through the vehicle of LA21. Similarly studies by Bahaire and Elliott-White (1999), Timothy (1998) and Hardy and Beeton (2001) found that the government continues to retain the role as agenda setter and then seller of ideas to the community, concurring with Gibson’s (1975) theory of elite democracy where public participation extends as far as the election of leaders for public office (Chapter Three). Hardy and Beeton (2001) note that as a result

291 such management strategies do not reflect all stakeholders perceptions, but rather tend to reflect those of the regulators, thus concentrating on issues such as infrastructure provision, with little attention given to the impacts of tourism.

8.2.3.5 Local Government’s Poor Performance in Tourism Planning

The stakeholder influence assessment (Figure 8.1) confirms assertions made in the literature that local government has a key role to play in tourism destination planning (Hall, 2003; McKercher & Ritchie, 1997; Richins & Pearce, 2000). The interview respondents also cited the important role local government plays in tourism planning due to: their expertise in strategic planning, their ability to look beyond purely economic outcomes and consider the broader needs of their constituents, and their skills and capacity for undertaking public consultation. However this study found the tourism planning processes to be seriously lacking in a number of areas, even in those areas identified by respondents as capabilities of the local government authority such as strategic planning.

So if the local government is the core stakeholder and driver of the tourism planning process, then it is the local government that must be held primarily responsible for the poor performance in tourism planning and the failure to incorporate sustainability principles into the process. Studies have found that the application of sustainable development will depend on the values and ideologies of various stakeholders (Hall, 1998) and Godfrey’s (1998) study of local government tourism officers in the UK found that officers’ attitudes will impact upon the implementation of sustainability. This is obviously an area for further investigation in the Queensland context (Chapter Nine, section 9.6) but does highlight the importance of working with other stakeholder groups to ensure a more balanced perspective.

It was noted in Chapter One that local government must have clear goals and policies for tourism, and it is no longer sufficient to simply promote and assume that will be the answer to developing tourism (Tourism Council of Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd).

292 It was further discussed that such goals and policies should be incorporated within a strategic tourism development plan, designed to ensure that industry, local tourism organisations, regional tourism organisation, state government agencies and the local council work together to benefit the community. In addition it was noted that residents would be far more inclined to support the development of tourism if they are given the opportunity to voice their opinions, concerns and aspirations (Tourism Council of Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd). These are all issues that were overlooked in the development of the tourism planning documents for the destinations investigated in this study. The results showed that the plans quite blatantly focused on marketing and promotion, and failed to look at the long-term, strategic implications of tourism activity, while the influence of other stakeholder groups on the process was secondary to that of the council, or in the case of residents either non-existent or tokenistic.

Despite their poor performance there is no doubt that local government does have, and should have, a key role in local level planning. A study by Carson, Beattie and Gove (2003) acknowledged local government as a key agent in sustainable tourism management, yet claimed that there was a lack of understanding of the breadth of sustainable management implications arising from tourism activity. This was also found to be the case here, where despite the fact that ‘sustainable tourism’ was espoused in the plans, the actual actions and strategies to achieve this did not cover the full gamut of sustainable destination management issues. Dredge (2001) has also criticized local government in Australia for not being more proactive in planning for tourism development, however attributes this to the embedded values, beliefs, ideas and perceptions about local government roles and responsibilities. Similarly, Jenkins (2000) found that the role of local government in tourism still remains somewhat unclear and uncoordinated.

Planning for a sector such as tourism has its difficulties and ensuring representative participation in such a diverse and multi-faceted industry is not an easy feat (Simpson, 2001; Timur & Getz, 2002), particularly for destinations that have little or no experience in tourism planning. In Australia, like many countries, primary industries have been the

293 mainstay of many areas, but as these economic sectors face decline and tourism rises in importance, local governments will be forced to re-channel their planning and management skills to cope with a sector such as tourism (Ruhanen & Cooper, 2004). Faulkner (1994) believes that for this to be achieved there must be a move away from the fixation with the short-term aspect of tourism marketing. Further, as was identified in Chapter Two, there is a need for governments to actually adopt the sustainable tourism paradigm shift and not just gloss over the issue with ‘statements of platitudes and rhetoric, backed by glossy images’ (Berke & Manta Conroy, 2000; Pforr, 2001; Pigram, 1990; Slee et al, 1997).

8.2.3.6 Stakeholder Power as a Contributor to Sustainability

This study found that the planning processes of local tourism destinations in Queensland are not underpinned by the principles of sustainability. It was also found that one particular stakeholder group had considerable influence over the local planning process, and as such, must accept responsibility for the poor planning performance. One possible reason, as discussed, is that there is a lack of understanding regarding sustainability and transferring the concepts into planning practice. However the fact that there was a single stakeholder group driving the process points towards an issue that has received attention in the literature on stakeholder theory, that of stakeholder power.

If this is the case perhaps the adoption of sustainability principles relates directly to power and influence and the willingness of core stakeholders to address sustainable development principles. As Faulkner (2003) noted, the establishment of a more strategically focused and sustainability oriented model is recognised as ultimately hinging on the degree to which leading players among the stakeholder groups embrace it and champion the cause. Godfrey (1998) and Hall (1998) also highlighted that the application of sustainable development will depend on the values and ideologies of the key stakeholders. As such Pforr (2001) highlights the need to consider the players who determine the interpretation of sustainable tourism and analyse the political processes and institutional arrangements in place, since these represent important mechanisms directing

294 and guiding sustainable tourism development. The issue of stakeholder power as a contributor to sustainability highlights a new area for investigation and is addressed in Chapter Nine.

8.2.4 Strategic Visioning: Practice and Perceptions

The strategic visioning process has been suggested as a possible model for incorporating the principles of sustainability into the tourism destination planning process (Faulkner, 2003; Ritchie, 1999) and as such was highlighted as an issue for investigation in this study.

8.2.4.1 Theoretical and Practical Relevance to Sustainability

The concept of ‘vision’ is an important and recognised component of the traditional strategic planning process and more recently in tourism strategic planning processes (Hackett & Spurgeon, 1996; Hunt & Buzan, 1999; Nutt & Backoff, 1997). For this reason the vision and community values section was included in the tourism planning process evaluation instrument utilised in the first stage of the research. However it was found that although vision statements were included these were not based on community values and visions for the future. This was attributed to the fact that in many cases the destination community did not participate in the planning process thereby making it difficult to assess their values and visions for the future of their community.

The concept of strategic visioning has been recognised as a new but important extension of more ‘traditional’ strategic planning processes. Even though the direction for tourism development is implicit in a strategic planning process, strategic visioning has a stronger emphasis on bringing together the views of the many and varied stakeholders of the destination community through collaborative and participative processes (Ritchie, 1993). The objective is to establish directions for tourism development in the longer term so that the principles of sustainability are adopted as a fundamental philosophical foundation for the planning process.

295 In discussing the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning with respondents, many identified the improved decision-making capacity and enhanced stakeholder engagement in planning that could be generated through such an approach. However it was the views of stakeholders who had previously participated in such a process that provided some useful insights in considering the applicability of this approach for incorporating the principles of sustainability into local tourism destination planning. All of the respondents considered the strategic visioning process to have been successful in incorporating the principles of sustainability, as well as the identified prerequisites of strategic planning and stakeholder participation (section 8.3.1).

8.2.4.2 Destination Appropriate Methods

The respondents all considered the strategic visioning process to be applicable to other local tourism destinations, “It would be great for other places to use. It was definitely great in getting everyone together and talking about the way forward” (R4/Industry). To improve the approach several suggested modifications to the process were offered by respondents (Chapter Seven, section 7.3.4). Process management, securing resources and obtaining stakeholder buy-in and commitment early in the process were seen as important in ensuring the success of the approach. The scale and nature of the destination were also seen as possibly influencing the success of the approach and Capenerhurst (1994) has found that within small communities residents will generally react more strongly to development, as it is far more visible for them. This may be a key factor in considering the applicability of the process for different size destinations. For example are the values different in small communities compared to the larger urban cities? Sarina respondents considered that if it’s not a bottom-up driven process there is no point in undertaking it, “We wanted to have a strategy that was owned by the community, developed in such a way as it was all about the whole community, so that we had a better chance when we went to implement” (S1/Council).

296 Whereas some of the respondents for the more urbanised centre of Thuringowa alluded to the desire for a fairly tokenistic process so that they could sign off on their strategy, “It adds credibility to the whole process and I think a lot of these things you often know what the answer is before you start, its part of the sales process. It’s probably cynical but quite often I look for the answer in the consultation” (T3/Council).

Despite these caveats the process was still seen as worthwhile and offering advantages for tourism destination planning. The need to tailor the process to the destination may overcome some of the identified challenges, “I think you need to customize a process for a destination. I don’t think there’s one model that fits all because the process is dependent upon multi stakeholder engagement, and while there are many characteristics across destinations of stakeholders there are also unique components to particular places, a lot of it’s to do with personalities and egos and local politics which has to be acknowledged and managed in the process” (G2/Consultant).

8.3 A Proposed Framework: Strategic Visioning for Sustainable Tourism Planning

In addressing the research objectives set for the study and the associated issues arising from the investigation, it becomes obvious that there are several areas requiring attention in Queensland local tourism destination planning. It was found that, despite claims to the contrary, there is still an over reliance on economic concerns namely destination marketing and promotion, tourism planning processes are adopting short-term planning horizons and in terms of stakeholder participation, key groups are being omitted while others have considerable influence and power over the process. The research process led to the conclusion that the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation are not integrated into the local tourism destination planning process.

297 Despite the logic of sustainable development and its recognised relationship to planning, as discussed in Chapter Two, there continues to be difficulty incorporating the full range of its dimensions into local planning policies and programs (Jepson, 2004). There have been criticisms that the literature is based around defining the concept of sustainable tourism and has overlooked how the sustainable paradigm is actually applied in practice (Faulkner, 2003; Garrod & Fyall, 1998). Some authors have noted that the time has come to “walk the talk” (Bramwell & Lane, 1993, p.4) but there is believed to be a ‘grey’ area of rhetoric between sustainability principles and workable objectives and standards (Goodall & Stabler, 1997). To address this, a conceptual framework based on the strategic visioning approach is proposed to assist in the transference of sustainable theory to local tourism destination planning practice. Strategic visioning has been anecdotally cited as one possible approach for addressing sustainable tourism planning (Beatley, 1995; Berke, 2002; Jayawardena, 2003; Page & Thorn, 1997).

8.3.1 Why Strategic Visioning?

Strategic visioning for tourism destinations has been described as a new but important extension of the more common process of strategic planning in tourism (Ritchie, 1999). The objective is to bring together the stakeholders of the destination community in a collaborative and participative process in an attempt to establish directions for long-term tourism destination development. The underlying philosophy is to nurture appropriate forms of development, through a publicly driven process based on stakeholder values and consensus aimed at formulating a framework, which provides broad guidelines as to the kinds of major facilities, events, and programs that the community finds most consistent with their values and aspirations for the long term development and well being of the community (Ritchie, 1993; Ritchie & Crouch, 2000).

The strategic visioning process has been described as a mechanism for residents and other stakeholders to become involved in setting the agenda of their destination (Mair et al, 2000), with the ultimate effectiveness of the process dependent on destination stakeholders being actively involved to identify values and generate consensus. This

298 consensus is generally expressed through a common or shared vision for the destination. Equally important in the achievement of sustainability, the process also provides a means for ensuring that a longer-term perspective informs day-to-day decision-making, as opposed to ad hoc and centralised decision-making (Faulkner, 2003; Ritchie, 1999) (Chapter Two). As such, the strategic visioning approach has been credited with incorporating the principles of sustainable tourism development as a fundamental philosophical foundation for the planning process (Choy, 1991; Faulkner, 2003).

The application of strategic visioning to the tourism destination planning context is a relatively new phenomenon. Its theoretical underpinnings, together with reports from its practical application in several destinations, suggest that it may be a useful process for achieving the sustainable approach, while incorporating the caveats of strategic planning and multiple stakeholder participation (Chapter Four). Two destinations, which have undertaken the process, were sampled in this study and the respondents identified the applicability of the approach in meeting sustainable development objectives, including strategic planning and stakeholder participation (section 8.2.4). In light of the emerging literature on the topic (Chapter Four), stakeholder interviews and other issues arising from this study, a framework for the strategic visioning approach to tourism destination planning was proposed for local tourism destinations (Figure 8.2).

It should be noted that the proposed framework was developed in light of Ritchie (1993) and Faulkner’s (2003) assertions that strategic visioning is an extension of the more traditional tourism destination planning process. Therefore the framework proposes a strategic visioning phase as a precursor to the more traditional, and well documented, process of strategic tourism destination planning (Chapter Four). As such, the discussion of the proposed framework focuses on the strategic visioning phase of the planning process.

299 Figure 8.2: Proposed Strategic Visioning Framework

Strategic Visioning Process

- Identification of likely core Stakeholder and periphery stakeholders Stocktake - Identification of stakeholder assets and liabilities - Identification of existing and emergent stakeholder power Sustainability Assessment - Recognise and address knowledge gaps - Assess sustainability in the context of the destination

-Representation by broad base of stakeholders Shared Strategic -Agreed upon guidelines for Vision Based on the destination based on Identified stakeholder values -Provide direction and focus Stakeholder for strategic planning phase Values

-Destination vision to guide the development of planning and management strategies Destination -Long-term strategic focus Appropriate -Utilise tourism planning tools Strategic Planning to ensure key strategic planning Process elements are incorporated -Organisational structures for destination resource Strategic Tourism Planning Tools: management Stakeholder Values/ Situation Analysis/ Strategic Orientation

Strategic Planning Process

300 8.3.2 Strategic Visioning Phase

The strategic visioning phase of the proposed framework can effectively be viewed as developing the foundation for the larger tourism planning process. This phase gives particular attention to identifying and developing strategies for addressing stakeholder values and incorporating their involvement in the process, problems identified both in the literature and this study. In addition the strategic visioning phase focuses on sustainability, namely developing an understanding of the concept and its practical application in tourism planning, also a significant problem cited in the literature and stakeholder interviews.

8.3.2.1 The Stakeholder Stocktake: Developing Stakeholder Strategies

Meaningful and genuine stakeholder participation and collaboration in the planning process is the foundation upon which the strategic visioning process is based and as such is considered at all stages of the proposed framework. Although an issue that has been reiterated throughout the literature, it must be reinforced that sustainable tourism cannot be successfully implemented without the direct support and involvement of those who are affected by it (Marien & Pizam, 1997; Singh, 2003). As such an assessment of stakeholder groups should be the first task in the development of the tourism destination planning methodology, and should be undertaken before the actual planning process begins. Based on the acknowledged challenges associated with broad based stakeholder involvement in planning activity (Chapter Three), and the difficulty of managing stakeholder participation identified by the participants in this study, the first stage of the process requires a ‘stakeholder stocktake’, in effect an assessment of all stakeholder groups in the destination.

The stakeholder stocktake includes several critical components designed to contribute towards the adoption of sustainability principles into the tourism destination planning process. A first and seemingly basic task is to identify all of the stakeholder groups in the destination. As noted in Chapter Three, stakeholder theory is based on the premise that

301 firms must acknowledge persons or groups with legitimate interests in the organization, whether or not the organization has any interest in the stakeholder (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jones, 1995; Sautter & Leisen, 1999). For tourism destinations the primary stakeholder groups are considered to be the government, industry and resident community. Conceptualising these broad stakeholder groups (and subsets of these stakeholder groupings) in terms of core and periphery (Figure 8.1) may assist in the development of stakeholder engagement strategies for the visioning exercise (section 8.3.2.3).

This process should also include an assessment of stakeholder assets and liabilities. It is widely noted in the literature (Chapter Three) that there are a vast array of challenges associated with stakeholder participation and this study also highlighted some of the difficulties including apathy, differing values and conflict. Identifying and recognising these challenges and of course the benefits that stakeholders can bring to the process may assist in reducing the tensions often associated with multiple stakeholder involvement. To further assist it is recommended that appropriate strategies be developed to deal with these challenges as they arise, as such difficulties cannot be continually used as an excuse for not including stakeholders in the process and engaging in autocratic planning. For instance Marien and Pizam (1997) find that citizens will usually refuse to participate in tourism planning unless it affects their personal income, health or safety or their quality of life. Acknowledging and accepting this is an important part in preparing for the process and can assist in guiding the development of appropriate participation and consultation models.

The effect of stakeholder influence and power over the planning process and its outcomes should also be acknowledged and assessed before the process moves forward. The concept of core and periphery stakeholder groups was identified as a key issue in local tourism planning, and one that can hinder the achievement of sustainability objectives (section 8.2.3.6). By identifying the relationships and influences of the various stakeholder groups before planning begins, process management strategies can be put in place to monitor existing and potentially emergent stakeholder power. However it would

302 be unrealistic to suggest that such actions will totally alleviate power bases, as some stakeholder groups such as local government, have inherent power and usually vested financial interests in the process and outcomes of the plan. They are also most likely to be the stakeholder group that assumes responsibility for managing the process. Once again token engagement of certain stakeholder groups will do little to address the real issues of power and will not contribute anything new to the planning process. However it is suggested that acknowledging the power players before beginning the planning process can assist in recognising any undue or deviant influence over the process. The use of multi stakeholder steering committees and the like can also assist in gaining a more balanced assessment of these issues.

The final element proposed for the stakeholder stocktake stage, and the first exercise to be undertaken when the visioning process officially begins, is an assessment of community attitudes towards tourism. It has been said that understanding a community’s sensitivity to tourism development is the first, and most important, step in planning for sustained tourism development (Chapter Three). Numerous methods can be utilised to undertake such an activity including surveys, media campaigns and community workshops, among others (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Berke, 2002; Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Glass, 1979; Hall & McArthur, 1998; Healey, 1997; Jepson, 2004; Marien & Pizam, 1997; Maxwell, 2000; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Murphy 1988; Ritchie, 1988; Yuksel, Bramwell & Yuksel, 1999). Despite the particular method utilised, which will ultimately depend on the resources available, what is important is that the exercise is undertaken. Without an understanding of the broader community attitudes towards tourism, any efforts or directions developed for the destination may prove to be futile in the longer term if community does not exist. It should also be noted that this stage is not seen as constituting stakeholder participation but is considered part of the research phase of the process. Stakeholder participation in the development of the destination vision is discussed further in section 8.3.2.3.

The stakeholder stocktake is considered a fundamental component of the proposed strategic visioning framework. While the need for stakeholder empowerment, power and

303 assessing community attitudes in tourism planning are not new concepts; there has been little practical discussion of how these issues should be addressed. The strategic visioning approach proposes that assessments of these issues are conducted as a preliminary activity in the larger planning process and where necessary appropriate strategies are devised so that these issues can be managed throughout the process. However the ultimate success of this phase, and indeed the larger process outlined in the framework, is dependent on a significant shift in how broad based stakeholder participation and engagement is viewed by the dominant stakeholder groups.

Stakeholder groups must be empowered to participate in the planning process and make decisions (Brown & Essex, 1997). It has been quite rightly suggested that without the process of empowerment “sustainable tourism simply recycles old methods such as participation in a new language” (Crouch, 1994, p.98). This will require those who assume responsibility for the planning process, most often the local government, to genuinely accept the value, benefits and need for broad based stakeholder participation and engagement. If this fundamental principle of the strategic visioning approach is not embraced, or is hidden through tokenistic actions, there is little point in moving forward, as nothing will have changed from the tourism planning processes undertaken previously and moves towards sustainability will not be achieved.

8.3.2.2 Strategic Visioning as a Learning Process: Understanding Sustainability

It was highlighted in both the literature review (Chapter Two) and the local tourism destinations investigated in this study that there are some considerable difficulties in translating sustainability theory to practice. The failure of local tourism destinations to incorporate the concept of sustainability into tourism planning processes was considered by many respondents to be attributable to a lack of understanding regarding the concept. Therefore the strategic visioning phase of the planning process should also be used as a period of education before embarking on the actual planning process. Similar to the discussion on auditing stakeholders, an assessment should also be made of the concept of sustainability. Identifying gaps in the knowledge base of stakeholders, setting

304 sustainability terms of reference and considering what sustainability means for the particular destination would be valuable in ensuring the principles are translated into the goals and objectives of the planning process, and more importantly the resulting action strategies. For example reinforcing the notion of the triple bottom line and how it can be addressed through sustainable tourism planning would be a key issue in a sustainability assessment for local tourism destinations in Queensland, which on the whole performed poorly in this area. Fyall and Garrod (1997) support such a notion as they found that defining the concept of sustainable development and establishing it as an objective of the tourism industry are the first steps in achieving genuinely sustainable tourism. This was proven to be successful in the strategic visioning process undertaken on Stradbroke Island, with one respondent discussing that, “At first most of us did not know what the term meant but we spent quite a lot of time actually understanding what sustainable tourism was all about and we are now champions of that, can now appreciate why sustainable tourism is so important for the future of the island” (R4/Industry).

A further issue raised in the study was that some respondents consider long-term planning and strategic thinking to be a reactive strategy, employed if and when a problem arises in the destination. This idea certainly does not concur with sustainability principles where long-term thinking and strategic planning for the destination is of vital importance. This requires an educational strategy on two levels. Firstly destination planners and drivers of the planning process must be made aware of, either by their peers or through higher levels of government, the importance of strategic planning. This would ideally arise in the sustainability assessment discussed previously, as was the case in the Gold Coast process, “The visioning process basically lifted where people’s expectations and their thoughts were in relation to tourism planning, instead of talking about action planning they actually knew what strategic thinking was about. Because people operating a business aren’t trained in that way of thinking, that’s not how they go about operating…when you’re working with stakeholders who aren’t used to strategic planning and strategic thinking

305 you’ve got to actually go through an education process to actually get them thinking at that level” (G1/Council).

The second level would involve educating the general public. The issue of apathy was raised by a number of respondents as a challenge in engaging the resident community in tourism planning. An education campaign where the general public can see the relevance of planning activities and recognise the importance of determining what the destination will look like in the longer term may help to overcome this. As was noted previously, the public are unlikely to be motivated to become involved in planning until the situation has become intolerable and tourism is perceived as a threat to be opposed (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999). The public’s ability to block tourism proposals should not be underestimated (Hawkins & Cunningham, 1996; Murphy & Murphy, 2004). This is obviously not a situation that tourism destination planners would relish and may prove far more difficult to ‘manage’ than developing proactive and innovative strategies to engage the resident community in tourism planning in the early stages of the destination’s development.

8.3.2.3 Strategic Visioning: Developing the Vision

The first two aspects of the strategic visioning phase are primarily concerned with the underpinning principles of the strategic visioning concept- ensuring stakeholder strategies are in place and moving through an educational process regarding the concept of sustainability. However it is the development of a shared destination vision, which is the key objective for undertaking a strategic visioning process.

As noted in Chapter Four, vision has been defined as a practical and achievable picture or description of the nature of the organization’s business as it is intended to be at some time in the future (Hussey, 1999; Nanus, 1992; Wolf & Gering, 1998). It can be considered as a future goal or target that the organization is striving towards (Hunt & Buzan 1999; Nutt & Backoff, 1997), which instills commitment and motivates people to achieve the vision (Hackett & Spurgeon, 1996; Nutt & Backoff, 1997). In the context of a community,

306 strategic visioning aims to establish a long-term vision of what the community can be and achieve in the long run (Kotler et al, 1993). Here visioning is characterised by an emphasis on community assets, weighing up the options and opportunities on the basis of shared purposes and values, with the process stressing early and continuous public involvement. Strategic visioning for communities specifically seeks to consider as many options as possible, with the purpose of developing a cooperative, integrated, and democratically derived consensus into a single integrated vision, which will set the long- term strategies for the future. In a tourism destination context, strategic visioning involves bringing together the views of the many organizations and individuals of both the industry and the destination community to formulate a framework, which provides broad guidelines as to the kinds of major facilities, events, and programs that the community finds most consistent with their values and aspirations for the long term development and well being of the community (Ritchie, 1993). A well-articulated vision that has been constructed in a manner that ensures it represents a consensus among stakeholders then provides the focus for the strategic planning process (Faulkner, 2003).

There is no one right way to develop a vision and it has been said that the technical details of ‘how to’ should not be prescribed (Stewart et al, 2004). Some of the processes used in community applications were outlined in Chapter Four and may be useful in suggesting some more detailed guidelines for destinations to utilise (Chapter Nine, section 9.6). In the tourism context it was noted in Chapter Four that aside from Faulkner’s (2003) account of the Gold Coast process, the literature has yet to give consideration to the actual process of visioning. Senge (1990) also does not offer a prescriptive account on how a vision should be generated. However he does suggest that the concept of shared vision in the learning organizational context (Senge, 1990, 1994) should be a developmental process and constructed from a coherent process of reflection and conversation. Senge et al (1994) actually note that it is most important to focus on the dialogue, and not just the vision statement, as the process of visioning is more important than the product. This is because the process of developing a vision involves an evolving ongoing process in which people at every level can speak on what really matters to them, and should be heard by both leaders and one another. In doing so the

307 communication of ideas gathers pace and the vision becomes increasingly clear (Senge et al, 1994), as was the case in the Stradbroke Island visioning process, “So the visioning started with a very simple hand holding ceremony on the Island where people just shared what they felt was important about their Island, and through that process it was quite amazing that on a half day workshop, by the end of it they actually appreciated the same values. It was the same values. They all fundamentally were hoping for a similar outcome that they were talking, taking completely different perspectives, and they were using different words. It doesn’t mean the journeys ended but I mean it was a hell of a good start and I think that’s a pretty powerful thing, so to a certain extent the vision was a very simple one but it was more galvanization” (R1/Consultant).

Senge’s team learning discipline can also be seen as useful here. As a natural step from shared vision, team learning can arise from the collective aspirations, which emerge through visioning and give team members a compelling reason to begin to learn how to learn and work together. In a tourism context such a notion may work towards overcoming the often cited fragmentation of the sector (Ruhanen & Cooper, 2004). Senge et al (1994) claim that teams are now recognised as a critical component of every enterprise and the predominant unit for decision making and getting things done. Such a notion resonates with the need for collaboration and engagement between stakeholders in an attempt to move towards a more sustainable form of tourism planning (Jamal & Getz, 1995) (Chapter Three).

The Gold Coast model used the creation of a vision, in the format of a visioning workshop, as a means of engaging stakeholders in decision-making and setting the foundations for strategic planning in the destination. However one of the main criticisms levelled at the Gold Coast visioning exercise is the fact that the actual ‘visioning’ came at the end of the process (Appendix Five), whereas the process undertaken on Stradbroke Island was considered by participants to be more organic,

308 “I think you can do visions in a variety of ways. I mean the formalised vision at the Gold Coast was that you pull together, opinion leaders in all the groups, green groups, community, council, that's one way of doing it. So you’ve got opinion leaders who then come together to share their values but again whose vision is it? Another way is you actually go out to the community in the broad sense and you have you know workshops in the community and through that you have a statement of intent and to a certain extent, Straddie was a statement of intent. In fact the vision was actually ‘what are our values’ and I don’t think it’s wrong. I don’t think there is any one way to do it” (R1/Consultant).

Walzer et al (1995) note that there are a number of approaches that can be used but in generating a vision a series of meetings are generally held during which the community’s situation is assessed and alternative visions are developed and refined. At this point the meetings generally result in a statement of vision, goals and tasks for the community to undertake as well as the identification of priority goals and action strategies. Planners must determine an appropriate scale and scope for developing the vision for their destination given that the size of the destination, the nature of tourism within the destination and the resource commitments required, will all be factors for consideration. Walzer et al’s (1995) review of community visioning programs identified two key common characteristics for success, which are useful to consider here as guiding principles for the process. Firstly local leaders and residents should have a clear understanding of the visioning process and its limitations, particularly the commitment and effort required to make the program a success. Secondly, a well-balanced community team of stakeholders is required and ignoring segments of the community will limit the perspective of the team and preclude interesting and productive ideas, in addition to the fact that if the program participants are not representative the community may not embrace the vision and resulting strategies (Walzer et al, 1995).

Despite the approach taken, what is important is that the people who are affected by tourism development, or want to be included, have the opportunity to be involved in

309 developing the vision for the future of the destination. Such engagement is necessary so that a true consensus on the preferred directions of future development, and the actions necessary to achieve this, can be developed (Faulkner, 2003). These issues are discussed as an area for further research (Chapter Nine, section 9.6).

8.3.2.4 Transition from Visioning to Planning

The objective of visioning is to set out the broad outlines or direction of a strategy, while leaving the specific details to be worked out through the strategic planning process (Mintzberg, 1994). However before moving from the strategic visioning phase of the process to the strategic planning phase, the previously identified ‘foundation principles’ must be adequately addressed. Due to time and financial constraints, and possibly embedded attitudes towards broad based decision-making, many destination planners will want to move quickly through the strategic visioning phase. If this is the case, then the problems identified in both the literature and this study are not going to be rectified, and there will be no real move towards a tourism planning approach underpinned by sustainability principles. It is just as important, if not more so, to ensure the first stage of the planning process, the strategic visioning phase (top triangle, Figure 8.2) has been met and in effect signed off on by the community before starting the second stage, the strategic planning process (bottom triangle, Figure 8.2). It is necessary for the destination vision and direction for the destination to be agreed upon, at least in principle, to frame the goals and objectives sought from tourism development and activity. Without progressing through this first phase, the same issues and challenges are going to continue to arise.

Challenges are likely to arise in the visioning phase of the process as it represents a significant departure from approaches used in the past, particularly in terms of stakeholder participation. As discussed, the strategic visioning approach is based on genuine stakeholder participation, engagement and empowerment (Ritchie, 1993; Ritchie & Crouch, 2000), and the ultimate effectiveness of the process relies on destination stakeholders being actively involved to identify values and generate consensus (Mair et

310 al, 2000). The private sector experience of visioning (Chapter Four) highlights the importance of involving a wide range of stakeholders in the development of the vision with Nutt and Backoff (1997) noting that the greatest organizational successes arise when the vision is developed with ideas drawn from many people. The considerable experience of the private sector should not be ignored when considering the applicability of strategic visioning for tourism destinations.

While the proposed strategic visioning framework includes recommendations to develop strategies to overcome some of the likely challenges, it would be unrealistic to suggest that such actions will alleviate all the problems that might arise in the planning process. The process of vision development, while offering numerous benefits, is not going to be an easy task, particularly for destinations such as those in this study which have yet to master the basics of strategic planning. Ritchie & Crouch (2000) also acknowledge that developing consensus on a shared ‘ideal future state’ for a destination is not always easy within diverse, democratic societies. It has also been noted that vision development can be obscured by day-to-day practices, the prevailing organizational culture and structure (Senge et al, 1994). Further the more people involved in the development of the vision, the greater the potential for a diversity of views to break out which can dissipate focus and may generate conflict (Flood, 1999). Although absolute consensus on the vision may not be reached it is important that destination stakeholders agree that the final vision statement provides both a meaningful and operational ‘dream’ for the future of their destination- one that reflects the values of the destination stakeholders, while not ignoring the realities and constraints of the marketplace (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000).

Obviously a challenge in undertaking the strategic visioning phase will be the associated costs and resources required and the respondents in this study noted that resources for such a process could be an issue. Strategic planning, whether preceded by a strategic visioning phase or not, still requires stakeholder engagement and an assessment of community values. Engaging stakeholders will require a financial commitment despite the method used. Strategic visioning should be conceptualised as not only an extension of the more traditional strategic planning process, but as a ‘reorganization’ of the

311 strategic planning process. It should also be considered a means of reinvigorating stakeholder engagement models, a need identified by respondents in this study. By reorganising the strategic planning process and setting in place the foundations of stakeholder assessments, engagement and input into a vision of the future of the destination, the actual strategic planning process may in fact be streamlined and simplified. When it is time to begin the planning phase it is not necessary to consult with stakeholders again- this has already been done and their views and values are documented in the vision statement which provides the focus and direction for the development of planning and management strategies.

8.3.3 The Strategic Planning Phase

The strategic visioning phase is designed to provide the foundations for the planning process, keeping in mind that strategic visioning is considered an extension of the typical strategic planning process undertaken for tourism destinations (Ritchie, 1999). As discussed, stakeholder participation and engagement has been addressed through the visioning phase and therefore the strategic planning phase is focused on transforming the destination vision into planning and management strategies for the destination.

While strategic tourism destination planning has been practiced, in various forms, for some time, the study of local tourism destinations in Queensland highlighted that this is not necessarily being undertaken as well as it could. As such the strategic planning phase of the framework highlights some of the key components of strategic planning which are pertinent to sustainability.

8.3.3.1 A Long-Term Focus to Guide the Destination

As with undertaking a destination vision, the strategic planning methodology that a destination can follow is quite varied and in many instances is influenced by the consultant or planners preference, as could be seen in the planning documents analysed in this study. Essentially the tourism destination strategic planning process involves making

312 a sequence of choices and decisions about the deployment of resources committing a destination to a future course of action (Brownlie, 1994). The process is well documented (Chapter Three) and as such will not be reiterated here except to say that despite the process used, what is important in the move towards sustainability is that the planning horizon adopts a long-term, strategic view.

The planning horizon is considered a vital factor in achieving sustainability and it has been noted that there is a need to overcome, the often reverted to, short-term perspective if this is to occur (Cooper 2002; Jepson, 2004; Lew & Hall, 1998; Swarbrooke, 1998; von Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003). The strategic visioning process is considered a means for overcoming such short-term outlooks due to its focus on the future and the respondents who had participated in strategic visioning processes noted this. As such the strategic planning process would focus on translating the vision into planning and management strategies, which can be implemented in the destination.

While the strategic planning process can be many and varied, there are recognised components (Chapter Three). This study found that some of the key elements of strategic planning, included within the tourism planning evaluation instrument, were excluded from the planning processes (section 8.1.1). It is suggested that instruments such as the one used in this study would provide a useful resource for destinations progressing through the strategic planning phase of the process. Further by ensuring that the strategic visioning phase has been adequately completed, a number of the sections in the evaluation instrument would have already been addressed before the actual strategic planning process begins. In this instance the visioning exercise is conducted in order to develop enough consensus on purposes and values to guide issue identification and strategy formulation.

8.3.4 The Framework: Addressing Sustainability

The conceptual framework (Figure 8.2) brings together the notion of strategic visioning, discussed as an emerging planning approach in the literature, as well as the identified

313 prerequisites of a sustainable tourism planning approach, strategic planning and stakeholder participation. It also integrates the challenges identified in the research of incorporating sustainability principles into a local tourism planning process. The conceptual framework has been portrayed as an hourglass based on the notion that until the first phase has been completed (the strategic visioning triangle) it is not possible to fill in the second phase (the strategic planning triangle). It has also been noted that the first phase is just as important as the second, although it must be acknowledged that it is also likely to be the most difficult due to the need for broad based and genuine stakeholder involvement.

Chapter Three highlighted some of the criticisms of broad based stakeholder and community participation in tourism planning including financial costs, time frame, the dilution of power and loss of control over matters previously internal to the industry, the need for education as communities are not equipped to assess and understand tourism development potential, and apathy towards participation (Blank, 1989; Cole, 1997; de Kadt, 1979; Douglas, 1989; Federspiel, 1991; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999; Jenkins, 1993; Long, 1991; Madrigal, 1995; McIntyre, 1993; Trousdale, 1999; Weaver, 2006). However such difficulties cannot be continually used as an excuse for autocratic planning which leaves destination stakeholders, particularly the local community, with little or no input into decisions that affect them. Such entrenched attitudes will also make little contribution towards sustainability goals.

The proposed framework is conceptual and has not been tested in this research. It does not offer a blueprint as each destination will have different issues, but it does offer a framework within which to move towards a sustainable approach to tourism destination planning. Hall (2000) actually argues that an optimum form of tourism planning is a contested concept and the variety and complexity of local issues influences sustainability goals. He therefore states that it may be more productive to focus attention on developing more generic planning frameworks, which will be broad enough to allow for flexible interpretation to suit the variety of local issues. As such the proposed framework for strategic visioning provides some guiding principles, which destinations can utilise

314 and adapt, to engage in planning underpinned by sustainability principles. However, the framework is proposed as one, which based on the literature and refined by the results of this study, should be tested for its applicability in further research (Chapter Nine, section 9.6).

The framework offers one assessment of the strategic visioning process for tourism destinations. As noted in Chapter Four, there is a growing body of literature acknowledging the benefits of strategic visioning for tourism destinations, yet aside from Faulkner’s discussion of the Gold Coast process, frameworks and models have not been proposed. Faulkner’s assessment of the Gold Coast was valuable in this regard yet it too was conceptual in nature and discussed visioning only in the context of a maturing destination. However the framework proposed in this study offers some core ideals, which have applicability to a range of destinations and offer some guidelines for local tourism destinations to move towards a sustainable approach to tourism planning. As the process is applied in more destinations the implications and results will contribute to understanding the relevance of strategic visioning as a contributor to sustainable tourism planning and highlight areas for modification and further research (Chapter Nine).

8.4 Chapter Eight Summary

This study sought to examine the transference of sustainable tourism theory to practice by investigating the extent to which the sustainable tourism planning philosophy is utilised in the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland. In order to address this issue, three research objectives were developed and investigated through a two-stage data collection process. In addressing the research objectives it was found that sustainability is not the underlying approach to local tourism destination planning in Queensland as evidenced by an over emphasis on economic concerns, short-term planning horizons and the exclusion of key stakeholder groups from the process. However some of the reasons for these problems were uncovered in the research where it was found that the sustainability concept and its application to practice is not understood and particular stakeholder groups had considerable influence over the planning process.

315 It could be argued that local tourism destinations should master the basics of strategic planning before attempting to engage in strategic visioning. However the current approaches of local tourism destinations are doing little in the move towards sustainability. To address these issues a conceptual framework of the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning was outlined. The framework is proposed as a possible means for ensuring sustainability philosophies including strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are incorporated into the tourism planning process. The applicability of the framework, identified in both the literature and confirmed by stakeholder respondents was considered in light of the challenges identified in the research of incorporating sustainability principles into a local tourism planning process. Although the framework is conceptual it does offer one method for integrating the principles of sustainability into the tourism destination planning process and is proposed as an approach to be tested in further research (Chapter Nine).

316 Chapter Nine Conclusions

9.0 Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which sustainable development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are integrated into the planning practices of local tourism destinations. Additionally the study sought to develop a theoretical framework to facilitate the application of sustainability principles to local tourism destination planning. The concept of sustainable development and its application to the tourism sector has received considerable attention within academia and has become a focus of the policy agenda at all levels of government. The wealth of literature on the topic would suggest that tourism destinations have embraced the sustainable approach to tourism planning, however some authors disagree. Both the public and private tourism sectors have received criticism for their progress towards sustainability, with some authors noting that sustainability principles are not put into practice due to the fact that economic motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998). Academics have also been criticized for their preoccupation with defining and debating the definitional aspects of sustainable tourism at the expense of considering the practical aspects, particularly the development of tools to implement the concept in practice (Garrod & Fyall, 1998). As Simpson (2001, p.4) noted, “Whilst the concepts of stakeholder participation and strategic orientation are widely endorsed as valuable contributors to sustainable development, there have been no previous attempts to gauge the extent to which such considerations play their part in real world tourism planning processes”.

In order to determine the extent to which sustainable tourism underpins the planning practices of tourism destinations, this study investigated the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland. To address the research issue three research objectives were developed. The first objective was to investigate the current planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the

317 principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation are integrated into the tourism planning process. The second objective was to examine destination stakeholders’ perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation underpin the process. The third objective was to consider the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning approach for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning.

This chapter firstly presents the conclusions and implications of the three research objectives developed for the study. Secondly, the significance of the research is discussed, as is the contribution the study has made to both theory and practice. The limitations of the study and applicability of the method are considered before the agenda for future research is outlined.

9.1 Research Objective One: Conclusions and Implications

It has been said that the sustainable approach to tourism planning is particularly useful at the local level due to the fact that this is where tourism’s negative influences are felt most acutely (Aronsson, 2000; Ashworth, 1995; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995). However, in addressing the first research objective of the study it was found that the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland are not underpinned by the principles of sustainable development. This is despite the fact that at both the international and national policy levels LA21 guidelines cite the need for sustainability to be incorporated into local level planning. Such requirements are further reiterated at the state and particularly local government levels with the 1997 IPA requiring local level planning in Queensland to be guided by ecologically sustainable development.

The recognised contributors of a sustainable approach, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, were also not evident within many of the analysed planning processes (Chapter Six). Long-term, strategic thinking about the future of the destination was not

318 evident and confirms assertions that where the tourism industry does plan, there is a tendency to revert to short-term perspectives focused on more immediate outcomes (Cooper 2002; Jepson, 2004; Lew & Hall, 1998; Swarbrooke, 1998; von Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003). Similarly while multiple stakeholder groups were cited in the planning documents as participating in the process to varying degrees, the residents of the destination, recognised as a vital participant for sustainability, were generally not included. The need to, and importance of, involving the resident community in planning has spawned a wealth of academic literature, and not only in the field of tourism (Chapter Three). Such sentiments are further reflected in policy platforms, but this does not seem to be transcending to local level tourism destination planning in Queensland. The results of the study therefore concur with the international situation where some commentators have noted that broad based participation is not actually incorporated into tourism destination planning (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Hall, 1998; Long & Glendinning, 1992; Timothy, 1999; Wall, 1996).

Further evidence that the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland are not underpinned by sustainable development principles could be seen in the fact that while sustainable development terminology might be incorporated within the plan, the actual action strategies revert to economic concerns. This result supports the notion that sustainable tourism policies may give the appearance of a paradigm shift but in reality are focused on the traditional concern of economic returns (Butler, 1991; Dovers & Handmer, 1993; Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998; Harrison et al, 2003; Wight, 2003). While the results of this study are particular to local tourism destinations in Queensland, and cannot be generalised, this phase of the research has supported the notion that economic motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998). Further the results of this study contradict the assertions discussed in Chapter Three that there has been a significant evolution in tourism planning paradigms from narrow concerns with promotion to a more balanced form of planning recognising the need for greater community involvement and environmental sensitivity (Gunn, 1977; Inskeep 1991; Murphy 1985; Pearce, 1982; Timothy, 1999; Tosun & Jenkins, 1998). As such the criticisms levelled at the public sector in Australia for their adoption of sustainability

319 principles, in this case, seems to be justified (Faulkner, 2003; Hall, 2003, 1994; McKercher, 1993) and as such this study concurs with the view that government policies and plans for sustainable tourism development are little more than statements of platitudes and rhetoric, backed by glossy images (Berke & Manta Conroy, 2000; Pforr, 2001; Pigram, 1990; Slee et al, 1997).

9.2 Research Objective Two: Conclusions and Implications

To address the second research objective in-depth stakeholder interviews were conducted, which provided some insights into the reasons why the sustainable approach is not reflected in the planning practices of local tourism destinations. Although dominant economic motivations are a factor, the poor performance in sustainable tourism planning was attributed to a large degree to a lack of understanding regarding the principles underlying sustainable tourism development and how to apply the concept in practice. This confirms anecdotal concerns raised in the literature that there is a gap between sustainability doctrine and its practical application (Harrison et al, 2003; MacLellan, 1997; Simpson, 2001; Swarbrooke, 1998; Trousdale, 1999) and agrees with Godfrey (1998) arguments that while the industry may in principle support the concept, this has been without a full understanding of its meaning or its implications for planning and development activity. As such there was some consensus by respondents that there is a need for tools and processes, which could be utilised for tourism planning, an issue also highlighted in the literature (Chapter Two).

A further issue related to stakeholders influence over the planning process. In all cases the local government authority was considered to have an important role but was also seen to have considerable influence over the planning process and its outcomes. This influence was enhanced in a number of instances where resident participation was omitted due to the local government acting in their capacity as elected representatives. Such actions reflect Arnstein’s (1969) notions of non-participation and tokenism, the result of which is development that reflects the aspirations of the government and industry rather than the communities involved (Murphy, 1985). These results also

320 support Hall’s (2000) claim that governments in Australia have generally not integrated community participation, and that public involvement in tourism planning can be more accurately described as a form of tokenism in which decisions, or the direction of decisions, have already been prescribed by government and communities rarely have the opportunity to say no.

These results augment criticisms of the public sector made in the literature (Chapters Two and Three) and its role in local level tourism planning. While not denying the important role local government should play, local government as the core stakeholder and driver of the tourism planning process, must be held responsible for the failure to incorporate sustainability principles into the tourism planning process. Despite assumptions regarding the capacity of local government to plan for the destination it does appear that the desired educational strategies, tools and processes for implementing sustainability may actually be required for the planners and not the ‘uneducated’ broader community who have been accused of hindering the planning process (Cole, 1997; de Kadt, 1979; Din, 1993; Douglas, 1989; Federspiel, 1991; Haywood, 1988; Inskeep, 1991; Long, 1991; Madrigal, 1995; McIntyre, 1993; Trousdale, 1999; Weaver, 2006).

9.3 Research Objective Three: Conclusions and Implications

The third research objective of the study was to consider the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning approach for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning. The perceptions of stakeholder respondents who had participated in a strategic visioning exercise provided some useful viewpoints to assist in the consideration of the appropriateness of this approach which has been anecdotally cited as one possible approach for addressing sustainable tourism planning (Beatley, 1995; Berke, 2002; Jayawardena, 2003; Page & Thorn, 1997). The respondents confirmed the value of strategic visioning and the contribution it could make to sustainable tourism planning. All of the respondents considered the strategic visioning approach to be a useful means of ensuring sustainable development principles underpin the process, even those that cited

321 challenges with the method. The prerequisites to sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, were also seen as adequately incorporated within strategic visioning.

Based on the emerging literature and the perspectives of stakeholders who had participated in a strategic visioning exercise, a conceptual framework for strategic visioning was developed (Chapter Eight). The framework incorporates the identified prerequisites of a sustainable tourism planning approach, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, and addresses a number of the challenges associated with sustainable tourism planning identified in the literature and again in this study. The framework is based on a two-phase approach where a strategic visioning process, incorporating a stakeholder stocktake of issues, values and power relations, and an educational strategy for sustainable tourism, precedes the more traditional strategic planning process for tourism which is guided by an agreed upon vision for the destination.

The proposed framework, while conceptual and not tested in this research, offers a set of principles to guide the tourism destination planning process. Further research (section 9.6) and application of the framework will determine its ultimate applicability and effectiveness as a practical planning approach for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism destination planning. However, based on the literature and issues identified in this study the framework is proposed as one which can assist in the transference of sustainable theory to local tourism destination planning practice.

9.4 Significance of the Study and Contribution to the Body of Knowledge

This study has found that sustainable tourism planning is not being widely practiced in local tourism destinations in Queensland, confirming the suspicions of some authors (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998) and countering the assertions of others (Cooper, 1995; Ritchie & Crouch, 2000). As such, the significance of this study lies not only in the insight it has

322 provided into the planning practices of local tourism destinations, but also in the provision of a conceptual framework for addressing sustainable tourism planning through strategic visioning. This was achieved despite some limitations to the study as outlined in Chapter Five. These included the possibility that there may have been additional local tourism planning documents, which were not included in the analysis, in particular, the publication of additional documents since the sampling period. An additional challenge, and one which was not anticipated at the outset of the study, was the inability to interview ordinary residents of the case study destinations who had participated in the planning process. Despite concerted attempts to overcome this, it was deemed that residents could not participate in the interviews, and the omission of their perspectives is acknowledged as a limitation given that destination residents are acknowledged in the literature as a key stakeholder. The final limitation, while recognized as an inherent challenge of qualitative research, is that the researcher’s personal perspectives may have influenced the interpretation of the data despite the use of more objective measurement tools such as the tourism planning process evaluation instrument.

Despite these limitations, the research methods employed, particularly the adoption of a two-phase qualitative approach, proved to be valuable in addressing the objectives of the study. The use of the tourism planning evaluation instrument in the first phase facilitated a detailed assessment of the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland as articulated through their respective tourism planning documents. Undertaking in-depth, semi-structured interviews in the second phase of the study complemented the secondary analysis of the planning documents as it provided insights into the planning process from the perspective of the participants. Variations of this approach have been used previously (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993; Timothy, 1999) and the current study has proven the value of a two-phase research method for studies of tourism destination planning. The use of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument was a particularly useful analysis tool and should be utilised in further studies.

323 Chapters Two, Three and Four provided a comprehensive overview of the literature pertaining to sustainable tourism development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, and strategic visioning. In doing so, the study has drawn together and synthesised quite diverse bodies of literature, and further conceptualised these theories within the tourism literature. Sustainable tourism planning has unquestionably had a large impact on tourism, and while a considerable amount has been written on the topic, there is a recognised gap in the literature regarding sustainability practice. It has been noted that too much attention has been given to definitional debates on the topic and this has been at the expense of considering how the concept might actually be implemented in practice (Faulkner, 2003; Garrod & Fyall, 1998; Trousdale, 1999). Simpson (2001) further noted that the recognised aspects of sustainable planning, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, have also not been examined to determine the extent to which they are incorporated into tourism planning processes. As such, the contribution of this study lies in addressing the acknowledged research gap in sustainability. It has been seen that sustainable theory is not translated into practice, confirming that there is a gap and highlighting some of the reasons for this in the context of local tourism destinations in Queensland. While economic motivations were proven to be a factor, this study has shown that the primary reason for the sustainability concept not being implemented in practice is attributable to a lack of understanding on the part of destination planners, namely the local government authority.

The issue of stakeholder power and influence arose in the study, particularly that of the local government authority. In all cases investigated the local government was also the driver of the planning process and as such responsible for the fact that sustainability principles did not underpin the process. While studies have discussed the fact that sustainability depends on the agendas of stakeholders, particularly the local government, this study has added the notion that due to local governments considerable influence, the adoption of sustainability principles is also linked to the concept of power. The study therefore adds a further dimension to the sustainable tourism debate, that stakeholder influence and power can be the determining factor in the adoption of a sustainable approach to tourism planning. If one stakeholder group has undue influence over the

324 process, then the likelihood of sustainability underpinning the process could be significantly reduced depending on their motivations and values. This is obviously an area requiring further investigation (section 9.6).

A further contribution is the conceptual map of stakeholder influence in the local tourism planning process (Figure 9.1). The assessment of stakeholder influence (Figure 8.1, Chapter Eight) highlighted that there were two levels of influence which stakeholders could be plotted against.

Figure 9.1: Stakeholder Circle of Influence

PERIPHERY

Tourism Industry

CORE ABSENT INFLUENTIAL Local Council PERIPHERY CORE Community Consultants residents

Tourist Associations LTA/RTO

In all cases the local government had the most significant influence over the process and as such is deemed to have a ‘core’ influence. Although not acknowledged as a key stakeholder in the literature, this study has found that the tourism planning consultant had a significant or core influence over the process. Therefore the consultant has been set outside the stakeholder circle of influence map, but still linked to the core (Figure 9.1). The community residents, however, who should have some level of influence over the planning and would be expected to have at least a periphery influence, were omitted from the cases investigated in this study. Therefore based on the results of this study residents

325 have been termed the ‘absent periphery’ and set on the outer of the stakeholder circle of influence (Figure 9.1).

A further contribution this study has made to the literature lies in the detailed discussion and conceptualisation of strategic visioning in a tourism destination context. Strategic visioning is a well-utilised approach in the private sector and community planning contexts and the literature review provided a synthesis of this literature in the context of strategic visioning for tourism destinations. While strategic visioning is beginning to be referred to in the tourism literature, the potential of the approach has not been considered in any detail with the exception of the work of Ritchie (1999; 1993) and Faulkner (2003). However there has been little in the way of detailed accounts and evaluations of its implementation and this study is the first to appraise stakeholders’ perceptions of the strategic visioning process and its contribution to sustainable tourism planning. In light of the literature review and perspectives of the destination stakeholders, a detailed conceptual framework was proposed.

While there has been considerable research into the concept of sustainable tourism planning, the development of practical frameworks, processes or models for destination planners to utilise has tended to be overlooked (Berke, 2002; Saxena, 2005; Simpson, 2001). Therefore the most significant contribution of this study has been the development of a strategic visioning framework, designed to address the key aspects of sustainable tourism planning. It offers guidelines and underpinning principles for planners to utilise in developing a sustainable planning methodology for their destination, but is deliberately broad enough to allow for flexible interpretation to suit the variety of local issues (Hall, 2000). The framework for strategic visioning offers one means of move the sustainability concept forward and provides a platform for future research on applicable practical approaches for sustainable tourism planning. Further the framework adds a new dimension to the literature on tourism planning methodologies.

326 9.5 Contribution of the Study to Practice

While the study has made a number of contributions to theory, the research also has contributions and implications for tourism planning practice. In the context of Queensland there is now some evidence and understanding of the planning processes of local tourism destination planning in Queensland. The interest from the Queensland State Government and state tourism authority in the preliminary papers released from this research confirm that this study has addressed a knowledge gap regarding local tourism destinations and their tourism planning practices. This has highlighted that assumptions cannot be made regarding the extent to which sustainable tourism planning is utilised at the local level and point to a need for educational campaigns, monitoring or mentoring systems, so that sustainability does begin to happen in practice- that the paradigm shift does actually occur. Ideally the paradigm shift would develop organically however the results of this study suggest that may be some way off. Therefore state government seems the most appropriate to initiate action in this regard, particularly given the seemingly blatant disregard for the state’s IPA guidelines for local government.

The proposed strategic visioning framework, while offering a platform for academic debate, obviously has applications as a tool for practice. The framework offers broad guidelines and principles for destination planners to utilise in the development of a sustainable tourism planning methodology for their destination, and not solely at the local level. Challenges of the planning process are acknowledged and specific strategies are highlighted to deal with these issues- issues that can arise in all tourism destination planning contexts despite the scale. A major benefit of the framework in terms of practice is that it provides the means for overcoming the short-term horizons of current planning, which as discussed is a threat to the long-term sustainability of tourism destinations. Further, the development of a shared vision for the destination not only provides focus for the strategic planning process but also provides a benchmark for ensuring that a longer-term perspective informs day-to-day decisions. As Faulkner (2003) noted, a vision statement alleviates the need for the destination to consider every opportunity and challenge that arises from scratch. Stakeholder participation and

327 engagement is also a key focus of the framework and provides some alternative approaches for destinations to utilise in tourism planning, considered necessary by respondents in this study.

The tourism planning process evaluation instrument, originally developed by Simpson (2001) and utilised in this study provides a useful tool for destination planners. As was noted in Chapter Five, considerable effort was devoted to developing an instrument that represented the various requirements of a sustainable approach to tourism planning. As such the instrument has value for tourism destination planning practice and with refinement could be utilised as a type of checklist for destinations progressing through the strategic planning phase of the proposed framework.

9.6 Implications for Further Research

The study has been successful in providing some key insights into the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland and as such has made contributions to both theory and practice. However this study, and the development of the conceptual framework, has provided the foundations for a future research agenda both in an Australian and international context.

Firstly, similar studies should be conducted to determine whether the lack of a sustainable approach is unique to local tourism destinations in Queensland, or is a more widespread problem. Such an analysis should not be limited to local tourism destinations in Australia and an area for further research would be to investigate this issue internationally. Stemming from this it would be equally useful to conduct similar examinations of state and national tourism strategies, both in Australia and overseas, to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainability are utilised in the various levels of tourism planning. Such studies would complement exploratory research emerging in this area internationally (Aronsson, 2000; Barke & Towner, 2003; Bianchi, 2004; MacLellan, 1998) and provide a clearer understanding of the ‘state of sustainability practice’, and contribute to the consideration and development of new processes, frameworks and

328 models to address sustainable tourism planning for tourism destinations. A second area for further research relates to the development of new models to undertake stakeholder consultation and participation. If the calls to move towards collaboration in tourism planning are to be achieved, appropriate methods must be developed. Adapting some of the approaches that have been tested and refined in the field of community engagement (Chapter Three) may be useful in terms of tourism destination planning.

As noted the proposed strategic visioning framework is conceptual and was not tested in this research. Testing and refinement of the model is obviously an immediate area for further research. There is also a need for more research into visioning programs that are beginning to be undertaken in tourism, with evaluations of their successes and failures, and longitudinal studies to measure their effect on the sustainable development of the destination.

In the Queensland context the research highlighted some areas for further investigation. The study highlighted some anomalies, which would be useful to further examine such as why did the vast majority of local tourism destinations in Queensland not have a tourism plan? Is it seen as unnecessary, do destinations not have the planning resources or capabilities, or is tourism seen as a soft development option (Wahab & Pigram, 1997) and one that does not require planning? Also interesting was that many of Queensland’s most popular tourism destinations, such as Brisbane did not have a tourism plan (Chapter Six). Does the Queensland situation contradict Dymond’s (1997) study that where the tourism industry is considered important it is well looked after, or concur with Long (1994) that established destinations were no more inclined towards tourism management than their developing counterparts?

Following on from this, it is necessary to further investigate the role of local government in local level tourism destination planning, and this has applications both nationally and internationally. Do destination planners deliberately disregard sustainability and pursue economic goals as has been suggested or is it actually due to a lack of understanding regarding sustainability as was surmised by respondents in this study. A further issue

329 that was raised and a new concept in the discussion of sustainability is that of stakeholder power. Research should be pursued in this area to further investigate the notion raised from this study that stakeholder power and influence may have a direct contribution to the achievement of sustainability. Similarly, the role of the consultant in the planning and decision-making process should be further investigated. Although not a stakeholder group that was included for investigation in the objectives of the study, the research showed that consultants do have a high level of influence as depicted in Figure 9.1. Here they are characterised as an ‘influential core’, despite the fact that they are not usually considered to be key stakeholders in the tourism destination planning process.

A recurring theme in both the literature review and the results of this study is the need for education and knowledge. For instance there is a lack of understanding regarding sustainability and how to implement it in practice, destinations are not adopting a strategic view to planning and therefore not heeding the lessons of unplanned developments of the past, there is a lack of awareness regarding the need for, and benefits of, engaging the resident community in destination planning and decision making. These are all issues, which have been well discussed in the literature and in many instances have been transferred to policy, particularly at the international and national levels. The problem appears to be that the concepts and wealth of knowledge has not been diffused to the destination level where it is actually needed by those that plan and manage tourism activity. It is therefore recommended that future research in this area be conceptualised in terms of knowledge management.

Knowledge management refers to the creation, dissemination and exploitation of knowledge assets, with the ability to do so recognised as one of the key success factors for both the public and private sectors in the future. Around the world, particularly in developed countries, a shift is occurring from commodity-based economies towards economies driven by knowledge development, innovation and commercialisation (Ruhanen & Cooper, 2004). Tourism as one of the world’s largest industries and export earners is not immune from such a paradigm shift and it will be at the public sector or destination management level where knowledge management strategies and approaches

330 will be needed. This will require tourism policy makers to utilise the collective knowledge assets of the destination, and the body of knowledge developed by researchers and governments to ensure the sustained viability and success of the destination in the global marketplace. As such research should be undertaken in this area to facilitate the creation of a knowledge management culture at the tourism destination/public sector level because tourism destinations with their current ad hoc practices will not be sustainable in the new economy.

The learning organization concept is a complimentary approach to further conceptualise the research agenda in this area and one suggested by Faulkner (2003) and discussed in this study (Chapter Four). Considered to be the organizational management concept of the future (Flood, 1999), the notion of the learning organization is based on the transition from an individualist to a more collective orientation, within the framework of a more structured, systematic and strategically focused approach (Faulkner, 2003; Senge et al, 1994). The collective sharing of knowledge through the development of shared visions for the future and operating in team learning situations could be of valuable assistance in overcoming the knowledge gaps in sustainable tourism planning. The tourism sector could learn from such management approaches, which have been proven in organizational planning and may have considerable applicability in terms of tourism destination planning.

Given the nature of the tourism sector it is likely that the concepts of knowledge management and learning organizations are some way off. Therefore on a more immediate timeframe there is a need to diffuse the knowledge that resides within universities, governments and similar organizations to those ‘on the ground level’ who must actually decide what sustainable tourism means for their community. The research agenda should look at transforming this knowledge into education programs, tools and manuals and best practice exemplars to assist in overcoming some of the knowledge barriers so that the principles of sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation can be achieved. If progress is not made in this area it seems possible that stricter government mandates for planning may be forced upon destinations.

331 9.7 Chapter Nine Summary

The tourism growth projections outlined in Chapter One highlight the need to properly plan for sustained tourism growth and development. Yet this investigation has found that for local tourism destinations in Queensland, this is certainly not the case. Further, despite claims that more destinations are adopting sustainable, strategic perspectives towards tourism development (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000), this was once again not the case for local tourism destinations in Queensland.

Despite the logic of sustainable development and its recognised relationship to planning, there is difficulty in incorporating the full range of its dimensions into local planning policies and programs (Jepson, 2004). Some have attributed this to a preoccupation with defining the concept and not considering how the sustainable paradigm is actually applied in practice (Faulkner, 2003; Garrod & Fyall, 1998). As such it has been noted that the time has come to move sustainability rhetoric into workable objectives and standards (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Goodall & Stabler, 1997). To address this, a conceptual framework based on the strategic visioning approach was developed from this research to assist in the transference of sustainable theory to local tourism destination planning practice. The framework proposed in this study incorporates some core ideals and guiding principles, which offer a platform for further research and development to assist local tourism destinations engage in sustainable tourism planning. Such a framework will ideally contribute to narrowing the theory-practice gap of sustainable tourism planning and in turn contribute towards tourism destination planning approaches underpinned by the principles of sustainable development.

332 References

Aas, C. Ladkin, A. & Fletcher, J. 2005, ‘Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 28-48.

Abell, D. F. 1980, Defining the Business: The Starting Point of Strategic Planning, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Ackoff, R. L. 1970, Concept of Corporate Planning, Wiley-Interscience, New York.

AEC Group 1999, Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan, Townsville Enterprise Limited, Townsville.

Airey, D. 1983, ‘European government approaches to tourism’, Tourism Management, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 234-244.

Akis, S., Peristianis, N. & Warner, J. 1996, ‘Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus’, Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 481-494.

Aldrich, H. 1976, ‘Resource dependence and interorganisational relations’, Administration and Society, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 419-454.

Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, P. T. & Perdue, R. R. 1993, ‘Rural residents’ attitudes towards recreation and tourism development’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 27-33.

Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R. & Kieselbach, S. 1988, ‘The impact of tourism development on resident’s perceptions of community life’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 16-21.

333 Allison, G. T. 1979, ‘Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects?’, in J. Perry & K. Kraemer (eds), Public Management: Public and Private Perspectives, pp. 457-475, Mayfield Publishing, Palo Alto.

Almond, G. A. & Verba, S. 1965, The Civic Culture, Little Brown, Boston.

American Society of Planning Officials 1956, Guide for Community Planning: An Annotated Bibliography, American Society of Planning Officials, Illinois.

Andrews, K. R. 1971, The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Dow Jones-Irwin, Illinois.

Ansoff, H. I. 1991, ‘Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s the design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 449-461.

Ansoff, H. I. 1988, The New Corporate Strategy, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Ansoff, H. I. 1979, ‘The changing shape of the strategic problem’, in D. E. Schendel & C. W. Hofer (eds), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning, pp. 30-44, Little Brown & Company, Boston.

Ansoff, H. I., Declerck, R. P. & Hayes, R. L. (eds) 1976, From Strategic Planning to Strategic Management, John Wiley & Sons, London.

Ap, J. 1992, ‘Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 665-690.

Archer, B. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism: Do economists really care?’, in C. Cooper & S. Wanhill (eds), Tourism Development: Environmental and Community Issues, pp.23-28, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

334 Archer, B., Cooper, C. & Ruhanen, L. 2005, ‘The positive and negative impacts of tourism’, in W. Theobald (ed.), Global Tourism: The Next Decade, 3rd edn, pp. 79-102, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Arnstein, S. R. 1969, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 216-224.

Aronsson, L. 2000, The Development of Sustainable Tourism, Continuum, London.

Ashworth, G. J. 1995, ‘Environmental quality and tourism and the environment’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp. 49-64, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Ashworth, G. & Goodall, B. 1990, Marketing Tourism Places, Routledge, London.

Atherton Shire Council 2005, Welcome to the Atherton Tablelands, Available at: http://www.athertonsc.qld.gov.au/

Atherton Shire Council nd, Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan, Atherton Shire Council, Queensland.

Atherton, T. C. 1992, ‘Tourism, economics and the environment: Some aspects of regulation in Australia’, The Benefits and Costs of Tourism: Proceedings of a National Tourism Research Conference, Nelson Bay, New South Wales.

Athiyaman, A. 1995, ‘The interface of tourism and strategy research: An analysis’, Tourism Management, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 447-453.

ATS Group 2003, Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy, Redland Shire Council, Queensland.

335 ATS Group 2001, Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy, Redcliffe City Council, Queensland.

ATS Group 2000, Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan, Mount Isa City Council, Queensland.

ATS Group 2000, Thuringowa Tourism and Events Strategy, City of Thuringowa, Queensland.

Augustyn, M. 1998, ‘National strategies for rural tourism development and sustainability: The Polish experience’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 191-209.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004, Overseas Arrivals and Departures, Catalogue No. 3401.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

Ayers, J. 1996, ‘Essential elements of strategic visioning’, in N. Walzer (ed.), Community Strategic Visioning Programs, pp. 21-36, Praeger, Westport.

Babbie, E. 1998, The Practice of Social Research, 8th edn, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont.

Babbie, E. 1995, The Practice of Social Research, 7th edn, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont.

Bahaire, T. & Elliott-White, M. 1999, ‘Community participation in tourism planning and development in the historic city of York, England’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 2, no. 2&3, pp. 243-276.

Bahaire, T. & Elliot-White, M. 1999, ‘The application of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in sustainable tourism planning: A review’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 159-174.

336 Baker, S. 2006, Sustainable Development, Routledge, Oxon.

Baker, T. L. 1999, Doing Social Research, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Banana Shire Council 2005, Introducing Banana Shire, Available at: http://www.banana.qld.gov.au/index.php/3

Barbier, E. B. 1987, ‘The concept of sustainable economic development’, Environmental Conservation, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 101-110.

Barke, M. & Towner, J. 2003, ‘Learning from experience? Progress towards a sustainable future for tourism in the central and eastern Andalucian Littoral’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 11, no. 2&3, pp. 162-180.

Barnes, L. B. & Kriger, M. P. 1986, ‘The hidden side of leadership’, Sloan Management Review, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 15-26.

Basu, P. K. 2003, ‘Is sustainable tourism development possible? Broad issues concerning Australia and Papua New Guinea’, in R. N. Gnosh, M. A. B. Siddique & R. Gabbay (eds), Tourism and Economic Development: Case Studies from the Indian Ocean Region, pp. 140-149, Ashgate, Hampshire.

Bateson, G. 1972, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chandler Press, San Francisco.

Baud-Bovy, M. 1982, ‘New concepts in planning for tourism and recreation’, Tourism Management, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 308-313.

Baud-Bovy, M. & Lawson, F. 1971, Tourism and Recreation Development, The Architectural Press, London.

337 Baum, I. R., Locke, E. A. & Kirkpatrick, S. A. 1998, ‘A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 43-54.

Beatley, T. 1995, ‘Planning and sustainability: The elements of a new (improved?) paradigm’, Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 383-395.

Beaumont, J., Pederson, L. & Whitaker, B. 1993, Managing the Environment, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Beeton, B., Campbell, J. & Carter, R. W. 2002, Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan 2002-2010, Chinchilla Shire Council, Queensland.

Beckerman, W. 1992, ‘Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose environment?’, World Development, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 481-496.

Belisle, F. J. & Hoy, D. R. 1980, ‘The perceived impact of tourism by residents’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 83-101.

Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. 1985, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Change, Harper and Row, New York.

Benwell, M. 1980, ‘Public participation in planning: A research report’, Long Range Planning, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 71-79.

Berg, B. L. 2001, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 5th edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Berke, P. R. 2002, ‘Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning? Challenges for the 21st century’, Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 21-36.

338 Berke, P. R. & Manta Conroy, M. 2000, ‘Are we planning for sustainable development?’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 1-13.

Berkes, M. 1995, ‘Community-based management strategies and co-management as tools for empowerment’, in N. Singh & V. Titi (eds), Empowerment: Towards Sustainable Development, pp. 138-146, Fernwood Publishing, London.

Berno, T. 1996, ‘Cross-cultural research methods: Content or context? A Cook Islands example’, in R. Butler & T. Hinch (eds), Tourism and Indigenous Peoples, pp. 376-395, International Thomson Business Press, London.

Berry, F. S. & Wechsler, B. 1995, ‘State agencies’ experience with strategic planning: Findings from a national survey’, Public Administration Review, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 159- 168.

Berry, S. & Ladkin, A. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective’, Tourism Management, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 433-440.

Bhatia, A. K. 1986, Tourism Development Principles and Practices, Sterling Publisher Private Ltd, New Delhi.

Bianchi, R. V. 2004, ‘Tourism restructuring and the politics of sustainability: A critical view from the European periphery (the Canary Islands)’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 495-529.

Bieger, T. 1998, ‘Reengineering destination marketing organisations: The case of Switzerland’, The Tourist Review, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 4-17.

Birla, T. (ed.) 2000, Strategic Management, Gemini Books, New Delhi.

339 Blackall Shire Council nd, Welcome to Blackall, Available at: http://www.blackall.qld.gov.au/

Blackburn, S. 1996, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Blackstock, K. 2005, ‘A critical look at community based tourism’, Community Development Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 39-49.

Blaikie, N. W. H. 1991, ‘A critique of triangulation in social research’, Quality and Quantity, vol. 25, pp. 115-136.

Blamey, R. K. 2001, ‘Principles of ecotourism’, in D. B. Weaver (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Ecotourism, pp. 5-22, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Blank, U. 1989, The Community Tourism Imperative: The Necessity, The Opportunities, Its Potential State, Venture Publishing, State College PA.

Blommestein, E. 1988, ‘Environment in Caribbean development: A regional view’, in F. Edwards (ed.), Environmentally Sound Tourism in the Caribbean, pp. 55-61, University of Calgary Press, Calgary.

Bloor, D. 1976, Knowledge and Social Inquiry, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Boo, E. 1990, Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls, World Wildlife Fund, Washington.

Borman, K. M., LeCompte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P. 1986, ‘Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesn’t work’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 42-57.

340 Bosselman, F., Peterson, P., Craig, A. & McCarthy, C. 1999, Managing Tourism Growth: Issues and Implications, Island Press, Washington D.C.

Boulton, D. & Hammersely, M. 1996, ‘Analysis of unstructured data’, in R. Sapsford & V. Jupp (eds), Data Collection and Analysis, pp. 282-297, SAGE Publications, London.

Bouquet, M. & Winter, M. (eds) 1987, Who From Their Labours Rest: Conflict and Practice in Rural Tourism, Aldershot, Gower.

Bowen Shire Council (nd), Bowen, Available at: http://www.bowen.qld.gov.au/

Bower, J. L. 1977, ‘Effective public management’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 131-140.

Bozeman, B. & Straussman, J. D. 1990, Public Management Strategies: Guidelines for Managerial Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

Brache, A. & Freedman, M. 1999, ‘Is our vision any good?’, The Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 10-12.

Bracker, J. 1980, ‘The historical development of the strategic management concept’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 219-224.

Bramwell, B. 2004, ‘Mass tourism, diversification and sustainability in Southern Europe’s coastal regions’, in B. Bramwell (ed.), Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and Sustainable Development in Southern Europe, pp. 1-31, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Bramwell, B. 1994, ‘Rural tourism and sustainable rural tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 2, no. 1&2, pp. 1-6.

341 Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. (eds) 2000, Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. 1993, ‘Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-5.

Bramwell, B. & Sharman, A. 1999, ‘Collaboration in local tourism policymaking’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 392-415.

Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. 1989, Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles, Sage, Newbury Park.

Briassoulis, H. 2002, ‘Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1065-1085.

Brohman, J. 1996, ‘New directions in tourism for third world development’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 48-70.

Brook, R. 2000, ‘The collaborative approach to resolving tourist related conflict’, Australian Planner, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 186-194.

Brown, B. 1995, ‘Foreword’, in R. Harris & N. Leiper (eds), Sustainable Tourism: An Australian Perspective, pp. 1-7, Butterworth-Heinemann, Chatswood.

Brown, G. & Essex, S. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism management: Lessons from the edge of Australia’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 294-305.

Brown, L. D. 1991, ‘Bridging organizations and sustainable development’, Human Relations, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 807-831.

342 Brownlie, D. T. 1994, ‘Strategy planning and management’, in S. F. Witt & L. Moutinho (eds), Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, 2nd edn, pp. 159- 169, Prentice Hall, New York.

Brunt, P. 1997, Market Research in Travel and Tourism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Brunt, P. & Courtney, P. 1999, ‘Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 493-515.

Bryson, J. M. 1995, Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

Bryson, J. & Einsweiler, R. 1988, Strategic Planning: Threats and Opportunities for Planners, Planners Press, Chicago.

Bryson, J. M. & Roering, W. D. 1987, ‘Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector’, Journal of American Planning Association, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 9-22.

Bryson, J. M., Van de Ven, A. H. & Roering, W. D. 1986, ‘Strategic planning and the revitalisation of the public service’, in R. C. Denhardt & E. Jennings (eds), Toward a New Public Service, University of Missouri Press, Columbia.

Buckley, R. 1996, ‘Sustainable tourism: Technical issues and information needs’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 925-928.

Buhalis, D. & Cooper, C. 1998, ‘Competition or co-operation: The needs of small and medium sized tourism enterprises at a destination level’, in E. Laws, B. Faulkner & G. Moscardo (eds), Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism, pp. 324-346, Routledge, London.

343 Buhalis, D. & Fletcher, J. 1995, ‘Environmental impacts on tourism destinations: An economic analysis’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp. 3-24, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Bunge, M. 1996, Finding Philosophy in Social Science, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Burdekin Shire Council 2005, Visitor Information, Available at: http://www.burdekin.qld.gov.au/visitorinfo/

Burns, D. 1996, ‘Attitude towards tourism development’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 935-938.

Burns, P. 1998, ‘Tourism planning: An alternative perspective’, Tourism Recreation Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 73-75.

Burns, R. 1997, Introduction to Research Methods, 3rd edn, Longman, Melbourne.

Burr, S. W. 1991, ‘Review and evaluation of the theoretical approaches to community as employed in travel and tourism impact research on rural community organisation and change’, in A. J. Veal, P. Johnson & G. Cushman (eds), Leisure and Tourism: Social and Environmental Change: Papers from the World Leisure and Recreation Association Congress, Sydney, pp. 540-553.

Burton, T. L. 1979, ‘A review and analysis of Canadian case studies in public participation’, Plan Canada, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 13-22.

Butcher, J. 1997, ‘Sustainable development or development?’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 27-38, CAB International, Oxon.

344 Butler, R. W. 1998, ‘Sustainable tourism: Looking backwards in order to progress?’ in C. M. Hall & A. A. Lew (eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, pp. 25- 34, Longman, London.

Butler, R. W. 1997, ‘The concept of carrying capacity for tourism destinations: Dead or merely buried?’ in C. Cooper & S. Wanhill (eds), Tourism Development: Environmental and Community Issues, pp. 11-21, John Wiley, Chichester.

Butler, R. W. 1993, ‘Tourism: An evolutionary perspective’, in J. G. Nelson, R. W. Butler & G. Wall (eds), Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Management, pp. 27-43, University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo.

Butler, R. W. 1991, ‘Tourism, environment and sustainable development’, Environmental Conservation, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 201-209.

Butler, R. 1980, ‘The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution’, Canadian Geographer, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 5-12.

Butler, R. & Hall, C. M. 1998, ‘Tourism and recreation in rural areas: Myth and reality’, in D. Hall & J. O’Hanlon (eds), Rural Tourism Management: Sustainable Options, pp. 97-108, Scottish Agricultural College, Ayr.

Butler, R. W. & Waldbrook, L. A. 1991, ‘A new planning tool: The tourism opportunity spectrum’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 2-14.

Cabrini, L. 2004, ‘Opening remarks’, Proceedings of the Public-Private Partnership for Sustainability Certification of Tourism Activities, Marianske Lanze, Czechoslovakia.

345 Caffyn, A. 2000, ‘Is there a tourism partnership life cycle?’, in B. Bramwell & B. Lane (eds), Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, pp. 200-229, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Caffyn, A. & Jobbins, G. 2003, ‘Governance capacity and stakeholder interactions in the development and management of coastal tourism: Examples from Morocco and Tunisia’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 11, no. 2&3, pp. 224-245.

Caloundra City Council 2002, Caloundra Tourism Plan 2002-2012 and Caloundra Tourism Action Plan 2002-2005, Caloundra City Council Economic Development Unit and Caloundra City Interim Tourism Taskforce, Queensland.

Caloundra City Council nd, About Caloundra, Available at: http://www.caloundra.qld.gov.au/website/cityNews/CityNews/About_Caloundra.asp

Camillus, J. C. 1996, ‘Reinventing strategic planning’, Strategy and Leadership, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 6-12.

Camillus, J. C., Sessions, R. T. & Webb, R. 1998, ‘Visionary action: Strategic processes in fast-cycle environments’, Strategy and Leadership, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 20-29.

Campbell, D., Stonehouse, G. & Houston, B. 1999, Business Strategy: An Introduction, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Campbell, L. M. 1999, ‘Ecotourism in rural developing communities’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 534-553.

Canan, P. & Hennessy, M. 1989, ‘The growth machine, tourism and the selling of culture’, Sociological Perspectives, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 227-243.

346 Capenerhurst, J. 1994, ‘Community tourism’, in L. Haywood (ed.), Community Leisure and Recreation, pp. 144-171, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Cardwell Shire Council nd, Tourist Information, Available at: http://www.csc.qld.gov.au/visitors.html

Cardwell Shire Tourism Taskforce 2003, Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan 2002-2006, Cardwell Shire Council, Queensland.

Carson, D., Beattie, S. & Gove, B. 2003, ‘Tourism management capacity of local government: An analysis of Victorian local government’, Proceedings of the Council of Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Educators Conference, Coffs Harbour, Australia.

Cater, E. & Goodall, B. 1992, ‘Must tourism destroy its research base?’, in A. M. Mannion & S. R. Bowlby (eds), Environmental Issues in the 1990s, pp. 309-325, Wiley, London.

Cater, E. & Lowman, G. 1994, Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option?, Wiley, Chichester.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1996, Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas: The State of Nature Based Tourism Around the World, IUCN, Cambridge.

Centre for Applied Economic Research and Analysis 1994, Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy, Mirani Shire Council, Queensland.

Centre for Tourism and Hotel Management Research nd, Gold Coast Tourism Visioning, Available at: http://www.gu.edu.au/school/thm/centre/cthmr/project.html

Chadwick, G. F. 1971, A Systems View of Planning: Towards a Theory of the Urban and Regional Planning Process, Pergamon Press, New York.

347 Chandler, A. D. 1962, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise, The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Charlton, C. & Essex, S. 2000, ‘The involvement of district councils in tourism in England and Wales’, Geoforum, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 175-192.

Charmaz, K. 2000, ‘Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods’, in N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, pp. 509-535, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Checkley, A. 1992, ‘The greening of Canadian Pacific Hotels and Resorts: The Chateau Whistler case’, in S. Hawkes & P. Williams (eds), The Greening of Tourism: From Principles to Practice- A Casebook of Best Environmental Practice in Tourism, pp. 9-14, Centre for Tourism Policy and Research Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C.

Chinchilla Shire Council nd, Chinchilla Shire, Available at: http://www.chinchilla.org.au/organisations/shirecouncil/

Choi, H. S. C. & Sirakaya, E. 2005, ‘Measuring residents’ attitudes toward sustainable tourism: Development of the sustainable tourism attitude scale’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 380-394.

Chon, K. S. & Olsen, M. D. 1990, ‘Applying the strategic management process in the management of tourism organizations’, Tourism Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 206- 213.

Choy, D. J. L. 1991, ‘Tourism planning: The case for ‘market failure’, Tourism Management, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 313-330.

348 Christenson, D. & Walker, D. H. T. 2004, ‘Understanding the role of “vision” in project success’, Project Management Journal, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 39-52.

Christopher, K. 2001, Green Globe Benchmarked Community: Douglas Shire Council, Queensland, Australia, Available at: http://www.greenglobe21.com

Clarke, J. 1997, ‘A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 224-233.

Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995, ‘A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 92- 117.

Coccossis, H. 1996, ‘Tourism and sustainability: Perspectives and implications’, in G. K. Priestley, J. A. Edwards & H. Coccossis (eds) Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences, pp. 1-21, CAB International, Oxon.

Coccossis, H. & Parpairis, A. 1995, ‘Assessing the interactions between heritage, environment and tourism: Mykonos’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp. 107-126, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Cole, S. 1997, ‘Anthropologists, local communities and sustainable tourism’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 219-230, CAB International, Oxon.

Collins, J. C. & Porras, J. I. 1997, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Harper Business, New York.

Coltman, M. 1989, Introduction to Travel and Tourism: An International Approach, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

349 Commonwealth Government, Department of Environment and Heritage 2005, Ecologically Sustainable Development, Available at: http://www.deh.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/overview/index.html

Commonwealth Government, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources 2005, Tourism White Paper, Available at: http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectID=EAAEB9F4- 65BF-4956-BF14EDF84B5B9997

Community Planning Association of Canada 1966, The Citizen’s Role in Community Planning, Community Planning Association of Canada, Ontario.

Conlin, M. V. 1996, ‘Revitalizing Bermuda: Tourism policy planning in a mature island destination’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 80-102, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Conway, G. R. 1998, The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the Twenty-First Century, Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca N.Y.

Cooke, K. 1982, ‘Guidelines for socially appropriate tourism development in British Columbia’, Journal of Travel Research, vol, 21, no. 1, pp. 22-28.

Cooper, C. 2002, ‘Sustainability and tourism vision’, Proceedings of the VII Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública, Lisbon, Portugal.

Cooper, C. 1997, ‘The contribution of life cycle analysis and strategic planning to sustainable tourism’, in S. Wahab & J. J. Pigram (eds), Tourism, Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability, pp. 78-94, Routledge, London.

350 Cooper, C. 1995, ‘Strategic planning for sustainable tourism: The case of the offshore islands of the UK’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 191-209.

Cooper, C. P., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D. & Wanhill, S. 2005, Tourism: Principles and Practice, 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, Harlow.

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D. & Wanhill, S. 1993, Tourism: Principles and Practices, Pitman, London.

Cooper, C. & Hawtin, M. (eds) 1997, Housing, Community and Conflict: Understanding Resident ‘Involvement’, Aldershot, Arena.

Cooper, C. & Jackson, S. 1989, ‘Destination life cycle: The Isle of Man case study’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 377-398.

Cooper, C. & Ruhanen, L. 2005, ‘Demand for tourism in Australia’, in C. Cooper & C. M. Hall (eds), Oceania: A Tourism Handbook, pp. 17-34, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Cooper, M. J. & Pigram, J. J. 1984, ‘Tourism and the Australian economy’, Tourism Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 2-12.

Costa, C. 2001, ‘An emerging tourism planning paradigm? A comparative analysis between town and tourism planning’, International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 425-441.

Costa, J. & Ferrone, L. 1995, ‘Sociocultural perspectives on tourism planning and development’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 27-35.

Covey, S. R. 1990, Principled Central Leadership, Summit, New York.

351 Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. & Schultz, R. L. 1994, ‘Implementing strategic missions: Effective strategic, structural and tactical choices’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 481-503.

Cronin, L. 1990, ‘A strategy for tourism and sustainable developments’, World Leisure and Recreation, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 12-18.

Crouch, D. 1994, ‘Home, escape and identity: Rural cultures and sustainable tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 2, no. 1&2, pp. 93-101.

Crouch, G. I. & Shaw, R. N. 1992, ‘International tourism demand: A meta-analytical integration of research findings’, in P. Johnson & B. Thomas (eds), Choice and Demand in Tourism, pp. 175-207, Mansell, London.

Crow’s Nest Shire Council nd, Tourism Overview, Available at: http://www.cnnet.com.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=48

Crow’s Nest Shire Council 2003, Tourism Development Action Plan, Crow’s Nest Shire Council, Queensland.

Croy, W. G. & Høgh, L. 2003, ‘Endangered visitors: A phenomenological study of eco- resort development’, in M. Lück & T. Kirstges (eds), Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints, pp. 82-99, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Dahl, R. A. 1961, Who Governs?, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Dalal-Clayton, B. & Bass, S. 2002, Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book, Earthscan, London.

352 Dalby, S. & Mackenzie, F. 1997, ‘Reconceptualising local community: Environment, identity and threat’, AREA, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 99-108.

D’Amore, L. J. 1983, ‘Guidelines to planning in harmony with host community’, in P. Murphy (ed.), Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues and Options, pp. 135-159, University of Victoria, Victoria B. C.

David, F. 1999, Strategic Management Concepts, 7th edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

David, F. R. 1989, ‘How companies define their mission’, Long Range Planning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 90-97.

Davis, D., Allen, J. & Cosenza, R. M. 1988, ‘Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests and opinions towards tourism’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 2-8.

Decrop, A. 1999, ‘Triangulation in qualitative tourism research’, Tourism Management, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 157-161.

Deery, M., Jago, L. & Fredline, L. 2005, ‘A framework for the development of social and socioeconomic indicators for sustainable tourism in communities’, Tourism Review International, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 69-77. de Kadt, E. (ed.) 1979, Tourism: Passport to Development?, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

DeLacy, T., Battig, M., Moore, S. & Noakes, S. 2002, Public/Private Partnerships for Sustainable Tourism: Delivering a Sustainability Strategy for Tourism Destinations, Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.

353 Denhardt, R. B. 1985, ‘Strategic planning in state and local government’, State and Local Government Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 174-179.

Denzin, N. K. 1978, The Research Act, 5th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 1998, Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds) 1994, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Department of Rural Sociology nd, Building our Future: A Guide to Community Visioning, Available at: http://www.drs.wisc.edu/visinf.htm de Vaus, D. 1995, Surveys in Social Research, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Dewhurst, H. & Thomas, R. 2003, ‘Encouraging sustainable business practices in a non- regulatory environment: A case study of small tourism firms in a UK national park’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 383-403.

Dexter, L. A. 1970, Elite and Specialized Interviewing, North-Western University Press, Illinois.

Dey, I. 1993, Qualitative Data Analysis: A User Friendly Guide for the Social Scientists, Routledge, London.

Diamantis, D. & Ladkin, A. 1999, ‘The links between sustainable tourism and ecotourism: A definitional and operational perspective’, Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 35-46.

354 Din, K. H. 1997, ‘Tourism development: Still in search of a more equitable mode of local involvement’, in C. Cooper & S. Wanhill (eds), Tourism Development: Environmental and Community Issues, pp. 153-163, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Din, K. H. 1993, ‘Dialogue with the hosts: An educational strategy towards sustainable tourism’, in M. Hitchcock, V. T. King & M. J. G. Parnwell (eds), Tourism in South-East Asia, pp. 327-336, Routledge, London.

Din, K. H. 1992, ‘The “involvement stage” in the evolution of a tourist destination’, Tourism Recreation Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 10-20.

Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. 1995, ‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 65-91.

Doswell, R. 1997, Tourism: How Effective Management Makes the Difference, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Douglas, D. 1989, ‘Community economic development in rural Canada: A critical review’, Plan Canada, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 28-46.

Douglas Shire Council 2004, Welcome to Douglas Shire Council, Available at: http://www.dsc.qld.gov.au/

Douglas Shire Council 2001, Douglas Shire Sustainable Futures: Draft Strategy, Available at: http://www.dsc.qld.gov.au/sustainablefutures

Douglas Shire Council & Port Douglas Daintree Tourism Association 1998, Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy, Douglas Shire Council, Queensland.

355 Dovers, S. R. & Handmer, J. W. 1993, ‘Contradictions in sustainability’, Environmental Conservation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 217-222.

Dowling, R. K. 1993, ‘Tourist and resident perceptions of the environment-tourism relationship in the Gascoyne region, Western Australia’, GeoJournal, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 243-251.

Doxey, G. V. 1975, ‘A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences’, The Impact of Tourism: Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings of the Travel Research Association, San Diego, pp. 195-198.

Draper, J. A. 1978, ‘Evolution of citizen participation in Canada’, in B. Sadler (ed.), Involvement and Environment: Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Public Participation, Environmental Council of Alberta, Edmonton, pp. 26-42.

Dredge, D. 2001, ‘Local government tourism planning and policy-making in New South Wales: Institutional development and historical legacies’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 4, no. 2-4, pp. 355-380.

Dredge, D. 1999, ‘Destination place planning and design’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 772-791.

Dredge, D. & Moore, S. 1992, ‘A methodology for the integration of tourism in town planning’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 8-21.

Drucker, P. 1955, The Practice of Management, William Heinemann, London.

Dutton, I. & Hall, C. M. 1989, ‘Making tourism sustainable: The policy/practice conundrum’, Proceedings of the Environment Institute of Australia Second National Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

356 Dwyer, L. 2005, ‘Relevance of triple bottom line reporting to the achievement of sustainable tourism: A scoping study’, Tourism Review International, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 79-93.

Dye, T. R. 1986, ‘Community power and public policy’, in R. J. Waste (ed.), Community Power: Directions for Future Research, pp. 29-51, Sage, Beverly Hills.

Dymond, S. J. 1997, ‘Indicators of sustainable tourism in New Zealand: A local government perspective’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 279-293.

Dyson, R. G. 1990, Strategic Planning: Models and Analytical Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Eadie, D. C. 1983, ‘Putting a powerful tool to practical use: The application of the strategic planning in the public sector’, Public Administration Review, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 447-452.

Eber, S. 1992, Beyond the Green Horizon: Principles for Sustainable Tourism, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Surrey.

Eden, C. & Ackerman, F. 1998, Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management, SAGE Publications, London.

Edington, J. M. & Edington, M. A. 1986, Ecology, Recreation and Tourism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Elder, P. S. 1975, ‘The participatory environment in Alberta’, in P. S. Elder (ed.), Environmental Management and Public Participation, pp. 101-107, Canadian Law Research Foundation, Ontario.

357 Eligh, J., Welford, R. & Ytterhus, B. 2002, ‘The production of sustainable tourism: Concepts and examples from Norway’, Sustainable Development, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 223- 234.

Embar, C. 1995, Strategic Visioning, Available at: http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/1995/nov/Strategi.asp

Evans, M. R., Fox, J. B. & Johnson, R. B. 1995, ‘Identifying competitive strategies for successful tourism destination development’, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 37-45.

Evans, P. 2000, ‘Strategy: The end of the endgame?’, The Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 12-16.

Evans, B. 1997, ‘From town planning to environmental planning’, in A. Blowers & B Evans (eds), Town Planning into the 21st Century, pp. 1-14, Routledge, London.

Fagence, M. 1996, ‘Regional tourism cooperation’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 717-720.

Fagence, M. 1977, Citizen Participation in Planning, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Farrell, B. H. 1999, ‘Conventional or sustainable tourism? No room for choice’, Tourism Management, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 189-191.

Farrell, B. H. 1986, ‘Cooperative tourism and the coastal zone’, Coastal Zone Management Journal, vol. 14, no. 1&2, pp. 113-130.

Farrell, B. & Twining-Ward, L. 2005, ‘Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the context of new knowledge’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 109-122.

358 Faulkner, B. 2003, ‘Rejuvenating a maturing destination: The case of the Gold Coast’, in L. Fredline, L. Jago & C. Cooper (eds), Progressing Tourism Research: Bill Faulkner, pp. 34-86, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Faulkner, B. 1994, ‘Towards a strategic approach to tourism development: The Australian experience’, in W. F. Theobald (ed.), Global Tourism: The Next Decade, pp. 227-231, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Faulkner, B. & Noakes, S. 2002, Our Gold Coast: The Preferred Tourism Future, Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.

Faulkner, B. & Tideswell, C. 1997, ‘A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3-28.

Federspiel, G. T. 1991, ‘Maintaining small town character in a modern resort community’, Mountain Resort Development: Proceedings of the Vail Conference, Centre for Tourism Policy and Research, Simon Fraser University, Burbany, Canada.

Fennell, D. A. 1999, Ecotourism: An Introduction, Routledge, London.

Fennell, D. A. & Eagles, P. F. J. 1990, ‘Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A conceptual framework’, Journal of Parks and Recreation Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 23-34.

Fletcher, J. & Cooper, C. 1996, ‘Tourism strategy planning: Szolnok County, Hungary’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 181-200.

Flick, U. 1992, ‘Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative?’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 175-198.

Flood, R. L. 1999, Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable, Routledge, London.

359 Formica, S. & Uysal, M. 1996, ‘The revitalisation of Italy as a tourist destination’, Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 323-331.

Forster, J. & Browne, M. 1996, Principles of Strategic Management, Macmillan Education, Melbourne.

Fredrickson, J. W. 1990, Perspectives on Strategic Management, Harper Business, Philadelphia.

Freeman, R. E. 1999, ‘Divergent stakeholder theory’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 233-236.

Freeman, R. E. 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.

French, C. N., Craig-Smith, S. J. & Collier, A. 1995, Principles of Tourism, Longman, Melbourne.

Fridgen, J. D. 1991, Dimensions of Tourism, Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Motel Association, Michigan.

Frisch, B. 1998, ‘A pragmatic approach to vision’, The Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 12-15.

Fyall, A. & Garrod, B. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism: Towards a methodology for implementing the concept’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practices, pp. 51-68, CABI International, Oxon.

Garavan, T. 1997, ‘The learning organization: A review and evaluation’, The Learning Organization: An International Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 18-29.

360 Gargan, J. J. 1993, ‘A public planning perspective on strategic planning’, in R. I. Kemp (ed.), Strategic Planning for Local Government: A Handbook for Officials and Citizens, McFarland, Jefferson.

Garrod, B. & Fyall, A. 1998, ‘Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism?’, Tourism Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 199-212.

Garvin, D. A. 1993, Building a Learning Organization, Harvard Business School, Boston.

Gatton Shire Council nd, Visitor Information, Available at: http://www.gatton.qld.gov.au/visitor.htm

Gee, C. Y. & Fayos-Sola, E. 1997, International Tourism: A Global Perspective, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.

Getz, D. 1992, ‘Tourism planning and destination life cycle’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 752-770.

Getz, D. 1987, ‘Tourism planning and research: Traditions, models and futures’, Proceedings of the Australian Travel Research Workshop, Bunbury, Australia.

Getz, D. 1986, ‘Models in tourism planning: Towards integration of theory and practice’, Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 21-32.

Getz, D. & Jamal, T. B. 1994, ‘The environment-community symbiosis: A case for collaborative tourism planning’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 152- 173.

361 Gibson, R. B. 1975, ‘The value of participation’, in P. S. Elder (ed.), Environmental Management and Public Participation, pp. 7-35, Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation, Ontario.

Ginter, P. M. & Duncan, W. J. 1990, ‘Macroenvironmental analysis for strategic management’, Long Range Planning, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 91-100.

Glaser, B. G. 1992, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Versus Forcing, Sociology Press, Mill Valley CA.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago.

Glass, J. J. 1979, ‘Citizen participation in planning: The relationship between objectives and techniques’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 180- 189.

Glesne, C. 1999, Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction, 2nd edn, Longman, New York.

Go, F. M., Milne, D. & Whittles, L. J. 1992, ‘Communities as destinations: A marketing taxonomy for the effective implementation of the tourism action plan’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 31-37.

Godfrey, K. B. 1998, ‘Attitudes towards ‘sustainable tourism’ in the UK: A view from local government’, Tourism Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 213-224.

Godfrey, K. B. 1996, ‘Towards sustainability? Tourism in the Republic of Cyprus’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 58-79, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

362 Godschalk, D. R. & Mills, W. E. 1966, ‘A collaborative approach to planning through urban activities’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 86-97.

Goeldner, C. R. 1992, ‘Are visitors good for you? On the costs and benefits of tourism’, The Benefits and Costs of Tourism: Proceedings of a National Tourism Research Conference, Nelson Bay, New South Wales.

Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. 1984, Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research, Academic Press, New York.

Gold Coast City Council 2004, Gold Coast City Council Facts and Figures, Available at: http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_std.asp?PID=255

Gold Coast City Council Tourism Branch 2003, Our Tourism City: Gold Coast City Council’s Tourism Strategy, Gold Coast City Council, Queensland.

Golinski, J. 1998, Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Goodall, B. & Stabler, 1997, ‘Principles influencing the determination of environmental standards for sustainable tourism’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practices, pp. 279-304, CAB International, Oxon.

Graham, J. W. & Havlick, W. C. 1994, Mission Statements: A Guide to the Corporate and Nonprofit Sectors, Garland Publishing, New York.

Gray, B. 1989, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

363 Gray, B. 1985, ‘Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration’, Human Relations, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 911-936.

Gray, B. & Wood, D. J. 1991, ‘Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 33-44.

Green, P. (ed.) 2002, Slices of Life: Qualitative Research Snapshots, RMIT Publishing, Melbourne.

Gregory, R. & Keeney, R. L. 1994, ‘Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values’, Management Science, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1035-1048.

Guba, E. 1978, Towards a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in Educational Evaluation, UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, Los Angeles.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. 1989, Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park.

Gunn, C. A. 1994, Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases, Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia.

Gunn, C. A. 1988, Tourism Planning, Taylor & Francis, New York.

Gunn, C. 1977, ‘Industry pragmatism vs tourism planning’, Leisure Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1. pp. 85-94.

Gunton, T. & Flynn, S. 1992, ‘Resolving environmental conflicts: The role of mediation and negotiation’, Environments, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 12-16.

Gupta, A. K. 1984, ‘Contingency linkages between strategy and general manager characteristics: A conceptual examination’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 399-412.

364 Hackett, M. & Spurgeon, P. 1996, ‘Leadership and vision in the NHS: How do we create the ‘vision thing’?’, Health Manpower Management, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 5-9.

Hall, C. M. 2003, Introduction to Tourism: Dimensions and Issues, 4th edn, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest.

Hall, C. M. 2000, Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships, Prentice Hall, Harlow.

Hall, C. M. 1999, ‘Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy perspective’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 274-289.

Hall, C. M. 1998, Tourism Development, Dimensions and Issues, 3rd edn, Addison Wesley Longman, South Melbourne.

Hall, C. M. 1994, Tourism and Politics, Power and Place, Bellhaven Press, London.

Hall, C. M., Jenkins, J. & Kearsley, G. 1997, Tourism Planning and Policy in Australia and New Zealand: Cases, Issues and Practice, McGraw Hill, Sydney.

Hall, C. M. & McArthur, S. 1998, Integrated Heritage Management, The Stationery Office, London.

Haralambopoulos, N. & Pizam, A. 1996, ‘Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 503-526.

Hardy, A. L. & Beeton, R. J. S. 2001, ‘Sustainable tourism or maintainable tourism: Managing resources for more than average outcomes’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 168-192.

365 Harris, R., Griffin, T. & Williams, P. (eds) 2002, Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Harris, R. & Leiper, N. (eds) 1995, Sustainable Tourism: An Australian Perspective, Butterworth-Heinemann, Chatswood.

Harrison, D. 1992, Tourism and the Less Developed Countries, Wiley, Chichester.

Harrison, L. C. & Husbands, W. (eds) 1996, Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Harrison, L. C., Jayawardena, C. & Clayton, A. 2003, ‘Sustainable tourism development in the Caribbean: Practical challenges’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 294-298.

Hart, S. L. 1992, ‘An integrative framework for strategy-making processes’, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 327-351.

Hauritz, K. 1993, Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy, Hinchinbrook Shire Council, Queensland.

Hawkins, D. & Cunningham, J. 1996, ‘It is ‘never-never land’ when interest groups prevail’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 350-365, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Haywood, K. M. 1990, ‘Revising and implementing the marketing concept as it applies to tourism’, Tourism Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 195-206.

366 Haywood, K. M. 1988, ‘Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community’, Tourism Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 105-118.

Haywood, K. M. & Walsh, L. J. 1996, ‘Strategic tourism planning in Fiji: An oxymoron or providing coherence for decision making?’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 103-125, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Healey, P. 1997, Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Macmillan, London.

Heath, E. & Wall, G. 1992, Marketing Tourism Destinations: A Strategic Planning Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Helling, A. 1998, ‘Collaborative visioning proceed with caution!: Results from evaluating Atlanta’s Vision 2020 project’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 335-349.

Helms, M. M. & Wright, P. 1992, ‘External considerations: Their influence on future strategic planning’, Management Decision, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 4-11.

Hempel, L. 1999, ‘Conceptual and analytical challenges in building sustainable communities’, in D. Mazmanian & M. Kraft (eds), Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy, pp. 43-74, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Hendry, J., Johnson, G. & Newton, J. 1993, Strategic Thinking: Leadership and the Management of Change, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Heracleous, L. 1998, ‘Strategic thinking or strategic planning?’, Long Range Planning, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 481-487.

367 Hernandez, S. A., Cohen, J. & Garcia, H. L. 1996, ‘Residents’ attitudes towards an instant resort enclave’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 755-779.

Hinchinbrook Shire Council nd, Welcome to Our Shire, Available at: http://www.hinchinbrooknq.com.au/default.htm

Hohl, A. E. & Tisdell, C. A. 1995, ‘Peripheral tourism: Development and management’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 517-534.

Holland, J. 2000, ‘Consensus and conflict: The socioeconomic challenge facing sustainable tourism development in Southern Albania’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 510-524.

Holliday, A. 2002, Doing and Writing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.

Holloway, J. C. 1994, The Business of Tourism, Pitman, London.

Holsti, O. R. 1968, ‘Content analysis’, in G. Lindzey & E. Aaronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edn, pp. 596-692, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.

Honey, M. 1999, Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island Press, Washington.

House, J. 1997, ‘Redefining sustainability: A structural approach to sustainable tourism’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 89-104, CAB International, Oxon.

Hughes, G. 1995, ‘The cultural construction of sustainable tourism’, Tourism Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 49-59.

368 Hunt, J. R. & Buzan, T. 1999, Creating a Thinking Organization, Aldershot, Gower.

Hunter, C. 2002, ‘Sustainable tourism and the touristic ecological footprint’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 7-20.

Hunter, C. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 850-867.

Hunter, C. 1995, ‘On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism development’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 155-165.

Hunter-Jones, P. A., Hughes, H. L., Eastwood, I. W. & Morrison, A. A. 1997, ‘Practical approaches to sustainability: A Spanish perspective’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 263-274, CAB International, Oxon.

Husbands, W. & Harrison, L. C. 1996, ‘Practicing responsible tourism: Understanding tourism today to prepare for tomorrow’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 1-15, Wiley, New York.

Hussey, D. 1999, Strategy and Planning: A Manager’s Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Inskeep, E. 1991, Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Inskeep, E. 1988, ‘Tourism planning: An emerging specialization’, American Planning Association Journal, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 360-372.

Insight Operations 2001, Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan 2001-2004, Kilcoy Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Queensland.

369 Ipswich City Council 1997, Ipswich City Tourism Strategy, Ipswich City Council, Queensland.

Ireland, M. 1997, ‘Tourism and social responsibility: A philosophical dream or achievable reality?’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 245-262, CAB International, Oxon.

Jackson, G. & Morpeth, N. 1999, ‘Local Agenda 21 and community participation in tourism policy and planning: Future or fallacy’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-38.

Jafari, J. 2005, ‘Ulysses prize lecture’, Proceedings of the World Tourism Organization’s Education Council Ulysses Conference, Madrid, Spain.

Jafari, J. 1990, ‘Research and scholarship: The basis of tourism education’, Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33-41.

Jain, S. C. 2000, Marketing Planning and Strategy, 6th edn, South Western College Publishing, Cincinnati.

Jamal, T. & Getz, D. 2000, ‘Community roundtables for tourism-related conflicts: The dialectics of consensus and process structures’, in B. Bramwell & B. Lane (eds), Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, pp. 159-182, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Jamal, T. B. & Getz, D. 1995, ‘Collaboration theory and community tourism planning’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 186-204.

370 James, D. 2001, ‘Local sustainable tourism indicators’, in J. J. Lennon (ed.), Tourism Statistics: International Perspectives and Current Issues, pp. 188-198, Continuum, London.

Janesick, V. J. 2000, ‘The choreography of qualitative research design’, in N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, pp. 379-399, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Jansen-Verbeke, M. 1992, ‘Urban recreation and tourism: Physical planning issues’, Tourism Recreation Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 33-45.

Janssen, H., Kiers, M. & Nijkamp, P. 1995, ‘Private and public development strategies for sustainable tourism development of island communities’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp. 65-84, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Jawahar, I. M. & McLaughlin, G. L. 2001, ‘Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 397-414.

Jayawardena, C. 2003, ‘Sustainable tourism development in Canada: Practical challenges’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 408-412.

Jenkins, C. L. 1991, ‘Tourism development strategies’, in L. J. Lickorish (ed.), Developing Tourism Destinations, pp. 61-77, Longman, Harlow.

Jenkins, J. 2000, ‘The dynamics of Regional Tourism Organisations in New South Wales, Australia: History, structures and operations’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 175-203.

371 Jenkins, J. M. 1993, ‘Tourism policy in rural New South Wales: Policy and research priorities’, Geojournal, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 281-290.

Jennings, G. 2001, Tourism Research, John Wiley & Sons, Milton.

Jepson, E. J. 2004, ‘Human nature and sustainable development: A strategic challenge for planners’, Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3-15.

Jick, T. D. 1983, ‘Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action’, in J. V. Maanen (ed.), Qualitative Methodology, pp. 135-148, Sage, Beverly Hills.

Johnson, J. D. & Snepenger, D. J. 1993, ‘Application of the tourism life cycle concept in the Greater Yellowstone region’, Society and Natural Resources, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 127- 148.

Jones, T. M. 1995, ‘Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 404-437.

Jones, T. M. & Wicks, A. C. 1999, ‘Convergent stakeholder theory’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 206-221.

Joppe, M. 1996, ‘Sustainable community tourism development revisited’, Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 475-479.

Joyce, P. & Woods, A. 1996, Essential Strategic Management: From Modernism to Pragmatism, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Kaiser, C. & Helber, L. E. 1978, Tourism Planning and Development, CABI Publishing, Boston.

372 Kakabadese, A., Nortier, F. & Abramovici, N. 1998, Success in Sight: Visioning, International Thomson Business Press, London.

Kariel, H. G. 1989, ‘Tourism and development: Perplexity or panacea’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 28, pp. 2-6.

Kaufman, J. L. & Jacobs, H. M. 1993, ‘A public planning perspective on strategic planning’, in R. I. Kemp (ed.), Strategic Planning for Local Government: A Handbook for Officials and Citizens, McFarland, Jefferson.

Keane, M. J., Ó Cinnéide, M. S. & Cunningham, C. 1996, ‘Setting the stage to balance competing trade-offs: Identifying issues affecting tourism development and management of Inis Oírr’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 174-192, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Kelley, R. 1992, The Power of Followership, Doubleday, New York.

Kelly, D. 2001, Community Participation in Rangeland Management, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton.

Kemp, R. 1992, Strategic Planning in Local Government: A Casebook, Planners Press, Chicago.

Keogh, B. 1990, ‘Public participation in community tourism planning’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 449-465.

Kilcoy Shire 2003, Welcome to Kilcoy, Available at: http://www.kilcoy.qld.gov.au/

Kilpatrick, A. & Silverman, L. 2005, ‘The power of vision’, Strategy and Leadership, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 24-26.

373 King, B., McVey, M. & Simmons, D. 2000, ‘A societal marketing approach to national tourism planning: Evidence from the South Pacific’, Tourism Management, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 407-416.

King, B., Pizam, A. & Milman, A. 1993, ‘Social impacts of tourism: Host perceptions’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 650-655.

King, N. 1994, ‘The qualitative research interview’, in C. Cassell & G. Symon (eds), Qualitative Methods in Organisation Research: A Practical Guide, pp. 14-36, Sage Publications, London.

Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. 1996, ‘Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 36-51.

Kirstges, T. 2003, ‘Basic question of ‘sustainable tourism’: Does ecological and socially acceptable tourism have a chance?’, in M. Lück & T. Kirstges (eds), Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints, pp. 1-20, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Klein, W., Benson, V. L., Andersen, J., Herr, P., Plumb, P. & Davis, N. 1993, ‘Vision of things to come’, Planning, vol. 59, no, 5, pp. 10-15.

Ko, T. G. 2005, ‘Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: A conceptual approach’, Tourism Management, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 431-445.

Ko, T. G. 2001, ‘Assessing progress of tourism sustainability’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 817-820.

374 Koontz, H. 1958, ‘A preliminary statement of principles of planning and control’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 45-61.

Korac-Kakabadse, N. & Kakabadse, A. P. 1998, ‘Vision, visionary leadership and the visioning process: An overview’, in A. Kakabadse, F. Nortier & N. B. Abramovici (eds), Success in Sight: Visioning, International Thomson Business Press, London.

Koteen, J. 1991, Strategic Management in Public and Non Profit Organisations, Praeger, New York.

Kotler, P. 1993, Marketing Places, The Free Press, New York.

Kotler, P., Adam, L., Brown, L. & Armstrong, G. 2001, Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall, Frenchs Forest.

Kotler, P., Haider, D. H. & Rein, I. 1993, Marketing Places, The Free Press, New York.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. 1987, The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Krippendorf, J. 1987, ‘Ecological approach to tourism marketing’, Tourism Management, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 174-176.

Krippendorf, J. 1982, ‘Towards new tourism policies: The importance of environmental and sociocultural factors’, Tourism Management, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 135-148.

Laidley Shire Council 2004, Welcome to Laidley Shire, Available at: http://www.laidley.qld.gov.au/site/

375 Lane, B. 1989, ‘Will rural tourism succeed?’, in S. Hardy, T. Hart & T. Shaw (eds) The Role of Tourism in the Urban and Regional Economy, pp. 34-39, Regional Studies Association, London.

Lang, R. 1986, Integrated Approaches to Resource Planning and Management, University of Calgary Press, Calgary.

Langeler, G. H. 1992, ‘The vision trap’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 46- 60.

Lankford, J. K. & Lankford, S. V. 2000, ‘Tourism and sustainability: Can they be partners?’, World Leisure Journal, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 4-10.

Laws, E. 1995, Tourist Destination Management: Issues, Analysis and Policies, Routledge, London.

Laws, E., Scott, N. & Parfitt, N. 2002, ‘Synergies in destination image management: A case study and conceptualisation’, International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 39-55.

Leedy, P. D. 1993, Practical Research: Planning and Design, 5th edn, Macmillan, New York.

Lele, S. M. 1991, ‘Sustainable development: A critical review’, World Development, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 607-621.

Leslie, D., Harrison, T. & Logan, D. M. 2000, ‘The community and tourism development: A case of a community based tourist attraction’, Environment Paper Series, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 74-89.

376 Levin, I. M. 2000, ‘Vision revisited’, The Journal of Behavioral Science, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 91-108.

Lew, A. A. & Hall, C. M. 1998, ‘The geography of sustainable tourism: Lessons and prospects’, in C. M. Hall & A. A. Lew (eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, pp. 199-203, Longman, Harlow.

Lickorish, L. J. & Jenkins, C. L. 1997, An Introduction to Tourism, Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills.

Lindberg, K., Wood, M. E. & Engeldrum, D. 1999, Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, 2nd edn, Natraj Publishing, Dehra Dun.

Lindberg, K., Dellaert, B. G. C. & Rassing, C. R. 1999, ‘Resident tradeoffs: A choice modelling approach’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 554-569.

Liu, Z. 2003, ‘Sustainable tourism development: A critique’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 459-475.

Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P. J. & Var, T. 1987, ‘Resident perception of the environmental impacts of tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 17-37.

Liu, J. C. & Var, T. 1986, ‘Resident attitudes towards tourism impacts in Hawaii’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 193-214.

Local Government Association of Queensland 2003, Community Consultation Guide for Queensland Local Government, Local Government Association of Queensland, Brisbane.

377 Local Government Focus 2002, Making Things Happen in Sarina, Available at: http://www.lgfocus.com.au/editions/2002/february/sarina.shtml

Long, J. 1994, ‘Local authority tourism strategies: A British appraisal’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 17-23.

Long, P. T. 1991, Tourism on our Terms: Rural Community Tourism Impacts and Policies, Western Governors’ Association, Denver CO.

Long, P. & Glendinning, K. 1992, ‘Community tourism: A framework for development’, Tourism in Europe: Proceedings of the 1992 Conference, pp. 14-22, Pitman Publishing, London.

Lück, M. 2003, ‘Looking into the future of ecotourism and sustainable tourism’, in M. Lück & T. Kirstges (eds), Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints, pp. 199-202, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Lundberg, D. E. 1972, The Tourist Business, Cahners Books, Boston.

MacLellan, R. 1997, ‘The effectiveness of sustainable tourism policies in Scotland’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 305-322, CAB International, Oxon.

Macmillan, H. & Tampoe, M. 2000, Strategic Management: Process, Content and Implementation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Madrigal, R. 1995, ‘Residents’ perceptions and the role of government’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 86-102.

Madrigal, R. 1993, ‘A tale of tourism in two cities’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 336-353.

378 Mair, H., Reid, D. G. & Taylor, J. 2000, ‘Raw material, neutral party or pivotal player? Assessing community in rural tourism development and planning’, Environment Paper Series, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 68-74.

Maitland, R. 2002, ‘Partnership and collaboration in destination management: The case of Cambridge, UK’, in K. W. Wober (ed.), City Tourism 2002: Proceedings of the European Cities Tourism International Conference, pp. 181-193, Springer Wien, New York.

Makridakis, S. G. 1990, Forecasting, Planning and Strategy for the 21st Century, The Free Press, New York.

Malthus, T. R. 1986, An Essay on the Principle of Population or a View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness, 7th edn, Kelley, Fairfield N.J.

Manning, E. W. & Dougherty, T. D. 2000, ‘Planning sustainable tourism destinations’, Tourism Recreation Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 3-14.

Mareeba Shire Council 2004, Mareeba Shire Council, Available at: http://www.msc.qld.gov.au/

Mareeba Shire Council 2002, Tourism Development Strategy for Mareeba Shire, Mareeba Shire Council, Queensland.

Marien, C. & Pizam, A. 1997, ‘Implementing sustainable tourism development through citizen participation in the planning process’, in S. Wahab & J. J. Pigram (eds), Tourism Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability, pp. 164-178, Routledge, London.

379 Maroochy Shire Council, 2002 Our Community, Available at: http://www.maroochy.qld.gov.au/sitePage.cfm?code=About_Maroochy

Marsh, N. R. & Henshall, B. D. 1987, ‘Planning better tourism: The strategic importance of tourist-resident expectations and interactions’, Tourism Recreation Research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 47-54.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. 1999, Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, Sage, California.

Martin, B. S. & Uysal, M. 1990, ‘An examination of the relationship between carrying capacity and the tourism lifecycle: Management and policy implications’, The Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 327-333.

Marquardt, M. J. 1996, Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum Improvement and Global Success, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Mason, J. 2002, Qualitative Researching, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, London.

Mason, J. 1996, Qualitative Researching, Sage Publications, London.

Mason, P. & Cheyne, J. 2000, ‘Resident attitudes to proposed tourism development’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 391-411.

Mason, P. & Leberman, S. 2000, ‘Local planning for recreation and tourism: A case study of mountain biking from New Zealand’s Manawatu Region’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 97-116.

Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. 1982, Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts, Longman, Harlow.

380 Mawhinney, M. 2002, Sustainable Development: Understanding the Green Debates, Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Maxwell, J. P. 2000, ‘Managing conflict at the county level: The use of Q methodology in dispute resolution and strategic planning’, Public Administration Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 339-354.

Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. 1994, Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and Practical Guide, The Falmer Press, London.

McCaffrey, D. P., Faerman, S. R. & Hart, D. W. 1995, ‘The appeal and difficulties of participative systems’, Organization Science, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 603-627.

McClendon, B. 1993, ‘The paradigm of empowerment’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 145-147.

McCool, S. F. 1993, Planning for Sustainable Nature-Dependent Tourism Development: The Limits of Acceptable Change System, The University of Montana, Missoula.

McCool, S. F. & Lime, D. W. 2001, ‘Tourism carrying capacity: Tempting fantasy or useful reality?’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 372-388.

McIntosh, R. & Goeldner, C. 1986, Tourism: Principles, Practices and Philosophies, 5th edn, Wiley, New York.

McIntyre, G. 1993, Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.

McKee, A. 2003, Textual Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide, Sage Publications, London.

381 McKercher, B. 1993, ‘The unrecognised threat to tourism: Can tourism survive ‘sustainability’?’, Tourism Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 131-136.

McKercher, B. 1992, ‘Understanding tourism’s impacts: Six truths about tourism’, The Benefits and Costs of Tourism: Proceedings of a National Tourism Research Conference, Nelson Bay, New South Wales.

McKercher, B. & Ritchie, M. 1997, ‘The third tier of public sector tourism: A profile of local government tourism officers in Australia’, Journal of Travel Studies, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 66-72.

McMinn, S. 1997, ‘The challenge of sustainable tourism’, The Environmentalist, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 135-141.

Medeiros de Arajo, L. & Bramwell, B. 1999, ‘Stakeholder assessment and collaborative tourism planning: The case of Brazil’s Costa Dourada project’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 356-378.

Melbeck, C. 1998, ‘Comparing local policy networks’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 531-552.

Middleton, V. T. C. 1974, Tourism Policy in Britain: A Case for a Radical Reappraisal, The Economist Intelligence Unit, London.

Middleton, V. T. C. & Hawkins, R. 1998, Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Perspective, Butterworth-Heinemann, London.

Milbrath, L. W. 1965, Political Participation, Rand McNally, Chicago.

Miles, M. & Huberman, M. A. 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

382 Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. 1978, Organizational Strategy, Structure and Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Miller, C. C. & Cardinal, L. B. 1994, ‘Strategic planning and firm performance: A synthesis of more than two decades of research’, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1649-1665.

Miller, M. L. 1987, ‘Tourism in Washington’s coastal zone’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 58-70.

Milman, A. & Pizam, A. 1988, ‘Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 191-204.

Milne, S. S. 1998, ‘Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the global-local nexus’, in C. M. Hall & A. A. Lew (eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, pp. 35-48, Longman, Harlow.

Minca, C. & Getz, D. 1995, ‘Planning, environment and policy making public and private-sector cooperation in destination planning: A comparison of Banff and Niagara Falls’, The Tourist Review, vol. 4, pp. 49-59.

Mintzberg, H. 1994, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Prentice Hall, New York.

Mintzberg, H. 1990, ‘The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 171-195.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. 1998, Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management, The Free Press, New York.

383 Mintzberg, H. & Quinn, J. B. 1996, The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts and Cases, 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J. A. 1985, ‘Of strategies, deliberate and emergent’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 257-272.

Mirani Shire Council nd, Mirani Shire, Available at: http://www.mirani.qld.gov.au/index.shtml

Mitchell, R. E. & Reid, D. G. 2001, ‘Community integration: Island tourism in Peru’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 113-139.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. 1997, ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principles of who and what really counts’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 853-886.

Mogulof, M. B. 1970, Citizen Participation, Urban Institute, Washington.

Molotch, H. 1976, ‘The city as a growth machine: Towards a political economy of place’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 309-322.

Mount Isa City Council 2002, Tourism, Available at: http://www.mountisa.qld.gov.au/tourism/tourism.html

Moutinho, L. 2000, Strategic Management in Tourism, CABI Publishing, Oxon.

Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. 1998, Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World, Routledge, London.

Muller, H. 1994, ‘The thorny path to sustainable tourism development’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 131-136.

384 Murilla Shire Council nd, Shire Profile, Available at: http://www.murilla.qld.gov.au/visitors/profile.shtml

Murilla Shire Council nd, Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan, Murilla Shire Council, Queensland.

Murphy, P. E. 1998, ‘Tourism and sustainable development’, in W.F. Theobald (ed.), Global Tourism, pp. 173-190, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Murphy, P. E. 1994, ‘Tourism and sustainable development’, in W.F. Theobald (ed.), Global Tourism: The Next Decade, pp. 274-290, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Murphy, P. E. 1988, ‘Community driven tourism planning’, Tourism Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 96-104.

Murphy, P. E. 1985, Tourism: A Community Approach, Routledge, London.

Murphy, P. E. 1981, ‘Community attitudes to tourism: A comparative analysis’, International Journal of Tourism Management, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 189-195.

Murphy, P. E. & Andressen, B. 1988, ‘Tourism development on Vancouver Island: An assessment of the core-periphery model’, The Professional Geographer, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 32-42.

Murphy, P. E. & Murphy, A. E. 2004, Strategic Management for Tourism Communities: Bridging the Gaps, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Nanango Shire Council 2005, Nanango Shire Council, Available at: http://nanango.qld.gov.au/

385 Nanus, B. 1992, Visionary Leadership: Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction for Your Organisation, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

Neto, F. 2003, ‘A new approach to sustainable tourism development: Moving beyond environmental protection’, Natural Resources Forum, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 212-222.

Neuendorf, K. A. 2002, The Content Analysis Guidebook, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Neuman, W. L. 2000, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 4th edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Neuman, W. L. 1997, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 3rd edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Nijkamp, P. & Verdonkschot, S. 1995, ‘Sustainable tourism development: A case study of Lesbos’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp. 127-140, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Nitsch, B. & van Straaten, J. 1995, ‘Rural tourism development: Using a sustainable tourism development approach’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp. 169-186, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Noosa Shire Council nd, About Noosa, Available at: http://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/index54.php

Nutt, P. C. & Backoff, R. W. 1997, ‘Crafting vision’, Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 308-328.

Nutt, P. C. & Backoff, R. W. 1995, ‘Strategy for public and third sector organizations’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 189-212.

386 Nutt, P. & Backoff, R. 1992, Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Ocko, S. 1990, Environmental Vacations: Volunteer Projects to Save the Planet, John Muir Publications, Santa Fe.

Office of Economic and Statistical Research 2005, Local Government Area Profiles, Queensland Office of the Government Statistician, Brisbane.

Oliver, R. W. 2001, ‘What is strategy anyway?’, The Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 7-10.

Oppitz, W. 1997, ‘Tourism master plan for communities and regions’, Turizam, vol. 45, no. 3&4, pp. 87-92.

Orams, M. B. 1995, ‘Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism’, Tourism Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-8.

O’Riordan, T. 1978, ‘Participation through objection: Some thoughts on the UK experience’, in B. Sadler (ed.), Involvement and Environment: Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Public Participation, pp. 139-163, Environmental Council of Alberta, Edmonton.

Ozbekhan, H. 1969, ‘Towards a general theory of planning’, in E. Jantsch (ed.), Perspectives of Planning, pp. 45-155, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Page, S. J. & Thorn, K. 2002, ‘Towards sustainable tourism development and planning in New Zealand: The public sector response revisited’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 222-238.

387 Page, S. J. & Thorn, K. 1997, ‘Towards sustainable tourism planning in New Zealand: Public sector planning responses’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 59- 77.

Parker, S. 1999, ‘Collaboration on tourism policy making: Environment and commercial sustainability on Bonaire, NA’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 240- 259.

Patton, M. Q. 1991, ‘Qualitative research on college students: Philosophical and methodological comparisons with the quantitative approach’, Journal of College Student Development, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 389-396.

Patton, M. Q. 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn, Sage, California.

Pearce, D. G. 1998, ‘Tourism development in Paris: Public intervention’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 457-476.

Pearce, D. G. 1989, Tourism Development, Longman, Harlow.

Pearce, D. W. & Turner, R. K. 1993, ‘Defining sustainable development’, in D. W. Pearce (ed.), Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development, pp. 3-14, Earthscan, London.

Pearce, J. A. 1982, ‘The company mission as a strategic tool’, Sloan Management Review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 15-24.

Pearce, J. A. & David, F. 1987, ‘Corporate mission statements: The bottom line’, Academy of Management Executive, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 109-116.

388 Pearce, P. L., Moscardo, G. & Ross, G. F. 1996, Tourism Community Relationships, Pergamon, Oxford.

Peg, T. & Greenberger, D. B. 1998, ‘A test of vision training and potential antecedents to leaders’ visioning ability’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3- 19.

Pezzey, J. 1989, Definitions of Sustainability, Discussion Paper no. 9, Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Colorado, Colorado.

Pforr, C. 2001, ‘Concepts of sustainable development, sustainable tourism, and ecotourism: Definitions, principles, and linkages’, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 68-71.

Phillips, P. A. & Moutinho, L. 2000, ‘The strategic planning index: A tool for measuring strategic planning effectiveness’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 369-379.

Pigram, J. J. 1990, ‘Sustainable tourism: Policy considerations’, Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 2-9.

Pine Rivers Shire Council 2004, Pine Rivers Shire Council, Available at: http://www.prsc.qld.gov.au/c/prsc

Pine Rivers Shire Council nd, Opportunities for Tourism in Pine Rivers Shire, Pine Rivers Shire Council, Queensland.

Pittsworth Shire Council 2003, Local Tourism Strategy, Pittsworth Shire Council, Queensland.

Pittsworth Shire Council nd, Pittsworth Shire, Available at: http://www.pittsworth.qld.gov.au/Home.htm

389 Pizam, A. 1978, ‘Tourism’s impacts: The social costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 8-12.

Poetschke, B. 1995, ‘Key factors for public/private-sector partnerships in island tourism planning’, in M. V. Conlin & T. Baum (eds), Island Tourism: Management, Principles and Practice, pp. 53-64, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Poon, A. 1993, Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, CAB International, Oxon.

Porter, M. E. 1996, ‘What is strategy?’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 61- 78.

Porter, M. E. 1990, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan Press, London.

Porter, M. E. 1987, ‘From competitive advantage to corporate strategy’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 2-21.

Porter, M. E. 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press, New York.

Porter, M. E. 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, The Free Press, New York.

Potts, T. D., Backman, K. F., Uysal, M. & Backman, S. J. 1992, ‘Issues in rural community tourism development’, Visions in Leisure and Business, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5- 13.

Potts, T. D. & Harrill, R. 1998, ‘Enhancing communities for sustainability: A travel ecology approach’, Tourism Analysis, vol. 3, no. 3&4, pp. 133-142.

390 Prentice, R. 1993, ‘Community-driven tourism planning and residents’ preferences’, Tourism Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 218-227.

Pretty, J. 1995, ‘The many interpretations of participation’, In Focus, vol. 16, pp. 4-5.

Prideaux, B. 1997, Gatton Tourism Strategy, Gatton Shire Council, Queensland.

Prideaux, B. & Armstrong, C. 1997, A Tourism Strategy for the Shire of Laidley, Laidley Shire Council, Queensland.

Prosser, R. 1994, ‘Societal change and the growth in alternative tourism’, in E. Carter & G. Lowman (eds), Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? pp. 19-37, Wiley, Chichester.

Punch, K. F. 1998, Introduction to Social Research, Sage, London.

Quattrone, G. 2002, ‘Urban development strategies: The tourism city network’, Urban and Spatial European Policies: Levels of Territorial Government: Proceedings of the EURA Conference, Turin, Italy.

Queensland State Government 2004, Integrated Planning Act, Available at: http://www.ipa.qld.gov.au/overview/keyelementsIPA.asp

Queensland State Government, Department of Communication and Information Local Government, Planning and Sport 2000, IPA Ready Reference, Queensland State Government, Brisbane.

Queensland State Government, Department of Local Government and Planning 2004, Queensland Local Government Area Boundaries, 2002, Available at: http://www.lgp.qld.gov.au/?id=635

391 Quinn, J. B. 1980, Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Irwin, Homewood IL.

Quinn, J. B., Mintzberg, H. & James, R. W. 1988, The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts and Cases, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Ragin, C. C. & Becker, H. S. (eds) 1992, What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Science Inquiry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rao, P. K. 2000, Sustainable Development: Economics and Policy, Blackwell Publishers, Malden.

Rebollo, J. F. V. & Baidal, J. A. I. 2004, ‘Measuring sustainability in a mass tourism destination: Pressures, perceptions and policy responses in Torrevieja, Spain’, in B. Bramwell (ed.), Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and Sustainable Development in Southern Europe, pp. 176-199, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Redcliffe City Council 2000, About Redcliffe, Available at: http://www.redcliffe.qld.gov.au/about_us.htm

Redland Shire Council 2003, Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy, Available at: http://www.redland.qld.gov.au

Redland Shire Council 2002, Our Redlands…Our Future: Planning Our Future, Available at: http://www.redland.qld.gov.au/our_redlands_our_future.cfm?doc_id=528

Reed, M. G. 1999, ‘Collaborative tourism planning as adaptive experiments in emergent tourism settings’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 331-355.

Reed, M. 1997, ‘Power relations and community-based tourism planning’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 566-591.

392 Reid, D. 1995, Sustainable Development: An Introduction, Earthscan, London.

Reid, D. G. & Sindiga, I. 1999, Tourism and Community Development: An African Example, World Leisure and Recreation Association, Montreal.

Richards, G. & Hall, D. 2000, Tourism and Sustainable Community Development, Routledge, London.

Richards, M. D. 1986, Setting Strategic Goals and Objectives, 2nd edn, West Publishing Company, New York.

Richins, H. 1995, ‘Decision making and community commitment in a coastal tourism region’, Proceedings of the National Tourism and Hospitality Conference, Coffs Harbour, Australia.

Richins, H. & Pearce, P. 2000, ‘Influences on tourism development decision making: Coastal local government areas in Eastern Australia’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 207-232.

Rigby, D., Howlett, D. & Woodhouse, P. 2000, A Review of Indicators of Agricultural and Rural Livelihood Sustainability, Development and Project Planning Centre, University of Bradford, UK.

Riley, R. & Love, L. 2000, ‘The state of qualitative tourism research’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 164-187.

Ring, P. & Perry, J. L. 1985, ‘Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 276-286.

393 Ritchie, J. R. B. 1999, ‘Crafting a value-driven vision for a national tourism treasure’, Tourism Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 273-282.

Ritchie, J. R. B. 1994, ‘Crafting a destination vision’, in J. R. B. Ritchie & C. R. Goeldner (eds), Travel Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2nd edn, pp. 29-38, Wiley, New York.

Ritchie, J. R. B. 1993, ‘Crafting a destination vision: Putting the concept of resident- responsive tourism into practice’, Tourism Management, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 379-389.

Ritchie, J. R. B. 1988, ‘Consensus policy formulation in tourism: Measuring resident views via survey research’, Tourism Management, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 199-212.

Ritchie, J. R. B. & Crouch, G. I. 2000, ‘The competitive destination: A sustainability perspective’, Tourism Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-7.

Ritchie, B. & Jay, G. 1999, ‘Commentary- Local Agenda 21 and community participation in tourism policy and planning: Future or fallacy by Jackson and Morpeth’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 39-46.

Rob Tonge & Associates 2000, Maroochy Shire Council Tourism Development Strategy, Maroochy Shire Council, Queensland.

Rob Tonge & Associates & Proactive Tourism Services 2001, Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan, Nanango Shire Council, Queensland.

Roberts, L. & Simpson, F. 2000, ‘Developing partnership approaches to tourism in central and eastern Europe’, in B. Bramwell & B. Lane (eds), Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, pp. 230-246, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

394 Roberts, M. 1974, An Introduction to Planning Techniques, Hutchinson, London.

Roberts, N. C. & Bradley, R. T. 1991, ‘Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: A study of public policy initiation at the state level’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 209-227.

Robinson, M. 1999, ‘Collaboration and cultural consent: Refocusing sustainable tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 379-397.

Rohe, J. F. 1997, A Bicentennial Malthusian Essay: Conservation, Population and the Indifference to Limits, Rhodes & Easton, Michigan.

Roma Shire Council Tourism Development Unit 2000, Tourism Action Plan, Roma Shire Council, Queensland.

Roma Town Council nd, Roma, Available at: http://www.roma.qld.gov.au

Romeril, M. 1989, ‘Tourism: The environmental dimensions’, in C. P. Cooper (ed.), Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, pp. 103-113, Bellhaven Press, London.

Rosenow, J. E. & Pulsipher, G. L. 1979, Tourism: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Century Three Press, Lincoln.

Rossman, G. B. & Wilson, B. L. 1994, ‘Numbers and words revisited: Being shamelessly eclectic’, Quality and Quantity, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 315-327.

Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. 1995, Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

395 Rubin, M. S. 1998, ‘Sagas, ventures, quests and parlays: A typology of strategies in the public sector’, in J. M. Bryson & R. C. Einsweiler (eds), Strategic Planning: Threats and Opportunities for Planners, pp. 84-105, Planners Press, Chicago.

Ruhanen, L. 2005, ‘Introduction to Australia’, in C. Cooper & C. M. Hall (eds), Oceania: A Tourism Handbook, pp. 7-16, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Ruhanen, L. & Cooper, C. 2004, ‘Applying a knowledge management framework to tourism research’, Tourism Recreation Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 83-89.

Ryan, C. 2002, ‘Equity, management, power sharing and sustainability: Issues of the ‘new tourism’, Tourism Management, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 17-26.

Sadler, J. 2004, ‘Sustainable tourism planning in Northern Cyprus’, in B. Bramwell (ed.), Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and Sustainable Development in Southern Europe, pp. 133-156, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Sapsford, R. & Jupp, V. (eds) 1996, Data Collection and Analysis, SAGE Publications, London.

Sarantakos, S. 1998, Social Research, 2nd edn, MacMillan, Melbourne.

Sarina Shire Council 2002, Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy, Sarina Shire Council, Queensland.

Sarina Shire Council nd, Visitors, Available at: http://www.sarina.qld.gov.au/visitors/index.shtml

Sautter, E. T. & Leisen, B. 1999, ‘Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 312-328.

396 Sawyer, G. C. 1983, Corporate Planning as a Creative Process: Action Laid Out in Advance, Planning Executives Institute, Oxford.

Saxena, G. 2005, ‘Relationships, networks and the learning regions: Case evidence from the Peak District National Park’, Tourism Management, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 277-289.

Schendel, D. E. & Hofer, C. W. 1979, Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning, Little Brown & Company, Canada.

Schermerhorn, J. R. 1996, Management, 5th edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Schwandt, T. A. 1997, Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Schwartz, H. & Jacobs, J. 1979, Qualitative Sociology: A Method to the Madness, Free Press, New York.

Seekings, J. 1980, ‘Pro bono publico: The case for a systematic system’, in D. E. Hawkins, E. L. Shafer & J. M. Rovelstad (eds), Tourism Planning and Development Issues, pp. 251-257, George Washington University Press, Washington.

Selin, S. 1999, ‘Developing a typology of sustainable tourism partnerships’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 260-273.

Selin, S. & Beason, K. 1991, ‘Interorganisational relations in tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 639-652.

Senge, P. M. 1990, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency Doubleday, New York.

397 Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B. & Smith, B. J. 1994, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Currency Doubleday, New York.

Sewell, W. R. D. & Phillips, S. D. 1979, ‘Models for the evaluation of public participation programmes’, Natural Resources Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 337-358.

Sharpley, R. 2000, ‘Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-19.

Sheldon, P. J. & Abenoja, T. 2001, ‘Resident attitudes in a mature destination: The case of Waikiki’, Tourism Management, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 435-443.

Sheldon, P. & Var, T. 1984, ‘Resident attitudes to tourism in North Wales’, Tourism Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 40-47.

Shipley, R. & Newkirk, R. 1998, ‘Visioning: Did anybody see where it came from?’, Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 407-416.

Simmons, D. G. 1994, ‘Community participation in tourism planning’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 98-108.

Simonin B. 1997, ‘The importance of developing collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1150-1174.

Simpson, F. & Roberts, L. 2000, ‘Help or hindrance? Sustainable approaches to tourism consultancy in Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 491-509.

398 Simpson, K. 2001, ‘Strategic planning and community involvement as contributors to sustainable tourism development’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3-41.

Sinclair, D. & Jayawardena, C. 2003, ‘The development of sustainable tourism in the Guianas’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 402-407.

Singh, T. V. 2003, ‘International tourism and economic development’, in R. N. Gnosh, M. A. B. Siddique & R. Gabbay (eds), Tourism and Economic Development: Case studies from the Indian Ocean region, pp. 30-39, Ashgate, Hampshire.

Singh, T. V., Theuns, H. L. & Go, F. M. 1989, Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries, Peter Lang, Frankfurt.

Slee, W., Farr, H. & Snowdon, P. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism and the local economy’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 69-88, CAB International, Oxon.

Smith, C. & Jenner, P. 1989, ‘Tourism and the environment’, Travel and Tourism Analyst, vol. 5, pp. 68-86.

Smith, L. G. 1984, ‘Public participation in policy making: The state-of-art in Canada’, Geoforum, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 253-259.

Smith, M. D. & Krannich, R. S. 1998, ‘Tourism dependence and resident attitudes’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 783-802.

Smith, R. A. 1992, ‘Beach resort evolution’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 304-322.

399 Smith, S. L. J. 2003, ‘A vision for the Canadian tourism industry’, Tourism Management, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 123-133.

Smith, V. L. (ed.) 1977, Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Snyder, N. & Glueck, W. 1980, ‘How managers plan: The analysis of managers’ activities’, Long Range Planning, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 70-76.

Sofield, T. H. B. 2003, Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development, Pergamon, Amsterdam.

Spanoudis, C. 1982, ‘Trends in tourism planning and development’, Tourism Management, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 314-318.

Sproule, K. W. 1995, ‘Community-based ecotourism development: Identifying partners in the process’, PACT/WALHI Community-Based Ecotourism Workshop and Seminar, Bogor, Indonesia.

Stabler, M. J. (ed.), 1997, Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, CAB International, Oxon.

Starik, M. 1994, ‘The Toronto conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory’, Business and Society, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 89-95.

Steer, A. & Wade-Gery, W. 1993, ‘Sustainable development: Theory and practice for a sustainable future’, Sustainable Development, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 23-35.

Steiner, G. A. 1979, Strategic Planning, Free Press, New York.

Steiner, G. A. 1969, Top Management Planning, Macmillan, New York.

400 Stewart, J. 1993, ‘Future state visioning: A powerful leadership process’, Long Range Planning, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 89-98.

Stewart, W. P., Liebert, D. & Larkin, K. W. 2004, ‘Community identities as visions for landscape change’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 69, no. 2&3, pp. 315-334.

Sustainable Tourism Services 2002, Sustainable Tourism Vision North Stradbroke Island, Sustainable Tourism Services, Brisbane.

Swarbrooke, J. 1998, Sustainable Tourism Management, CABI Publishing, New York.

Swift, B. 1996, ‘Preparing numerical data’, in R. Sapsford & V. Jupp (eds), Data Collection and Analysis, pp. 153-183, SAGE Publications, London.

Taylor, G. 1995, ‘The community approach: Does it really work?’, Tourism Management, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 487-489.

The Local Government Association of Queensland 2001, A Guideline for Integrating Community Well-being in Planning, The Local Government Association of Queensland, Brisbane.

The Stafford Group 2003, Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy, Blackall Shire Council, Queensland.

Theobald, W. F. 1994, Global Tourism: The Next Decade, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Thoms, P. & Greenberger, D. B. 1998, ‘A test of vision training and potential antecedents to leaders’ visioning ability’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3-19.

401 Thompson, D. E. 1970, The Democratic Citizen, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Thuringowa City Council 2003, Thuringowa in Profile 2003, Available at: http://www.thuringowa.qld.gov.au

Ticehurst, G. W. & Veal, A. J. 1999, Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach, Addison Wesley, South Melbourne.

Timothy, D. J. 1999, ‘Participatory planning: A view of tourism in Indonesia’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 371-391.

Timothy, D. J. 1998, ‘Cooperative tourism planning in a developing destination’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 52-68.

Timothy, D. J. & White, K. 1999, ‘Community-based ecotourism development on the periphery of Belize’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 2, no. 2&3, pp. 226-242.

Timur, S. & Getz, D. 2002, ‘Applying stakeholder theory to the implementation of sustainable urban tourism’, in K. W. Wober (ed.), City Tourism 2002: Proceedings of the European Cities Tourism International Conference, pp. 194-210, Springer Wien, New York.

Tosun, C. 1998, ‘Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the local level: The case of Urgup in Turkey’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 595-610.

Tosun, C. & Jenkins, C. L. 1998, ‘The evolution of tourism planning in third-world countries: A critique’, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 101-114.

402 Tosun, C. & Timothy, D. J. 2003, ‘Arguments for community participation in the tourism development process’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 2-15.

Tourism Collaborative Board 2001, Noosa Tourism Plan 2001-2011 and Noosa Tourism Action Plan 2001-2004, Noosa Shire Council, Queensland.

Tourism Council of Australia and Tourism Queensland nd, Tourism Works for Queensland: A Better Understanding of Regional Tourism, 2nd edn, Tourism Queensland, Brisbane.

Tourism Forecasting Council 2004, Inbound Tourism Forecasts: 2004 to 2013, Tourism Research Australia, Canberra.

Tourism Potential 2003, Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan, Banana Shire Council, Queensland.

Tourism Queensland 2005, Map: Queensland Tourism Regions, Available at: http://www.tq.com.au/industry/knowledge-banks/knowledge-banks_home.cfm

Tremblay, P. 2000, ‘The new age of strategic tourism: From product differentiation to strategic innovation’, Proceedings of the Council of Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Educators Conference, Mt Buller, Australia.

Tremblay, P. 2000a, ‘An evolutionary interpretation of the role of collaborative partnerships in sustainable tourism’, in B. Bramwell & B. Lane (eds), Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, pp. 314-332, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Tribe, J. 1997, Corporate Strategy for Tourism, International Thomson Business Press, London.

403 Trousdale, W. J. 1999, ‘Governance in context: Boracay Island, Philippines’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 840-867.

Tsang, E. W. K. 1997, ‘Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research’, Human Relations, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 73-89.

Twynam, G. D. & Johnston, M. E. 2002, ‘The use of sustainable practices’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1165-1168.

Um, S. & Crompton, J. L. 1987, ‘Measuring resident’s attachment levels in a host community’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 27-29.

United Nations 2003, Earth Summit Agenda 21, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable Development, New York.

United Nations 1998, Sustainable Development Success Stories, United Nations, New York.

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 1999, Guidelines on Integrated Planning for Sustainable Tourism Development, United Nations, New York.

Utah Travel Council 1998, Community Visioning Kit: Tourism Development in Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development, Utah.

Valle, R. & King, M. 1978, Existential Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology, Oxford University, New York.

Van Gunsteren, H. R. 1976, The Quest for Control: A Critique of the Rational-Central- Rule Approach in Public Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, London.

404 Van Harssel, J. 1994, Tourism: An Exploration, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Van Maanen, J. 1983, ‘The moral fix: On the ethics of fieldwork’, in R. M. Emerson (ed.), Contemporary Field Research, pp. 269-287, Little Brown, Boston.

Veal, A. J. 1994, Leisure Policy and Planning, Longman, Harlow.

Velikova, M. P. 2001, ‘How sustainable is sustainable tourism?’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 496-499.

Verbole, A. 2000, ‘Actors, discourses and interfaces of rural tourism development at the local community level in Slovenia: Social and political dimensions of the rural tourism development process’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 479-490.

Vogel, R. K. & Swanson, B. E. 1988, ‘Setting agendas for community change: The community goal-setting strategy’, Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 41-61.

Voisey, H., Beuermann, C., Sverdrup, L. & O'Riordan, T. 1996, ‘The political significance of Local Agenda 21: The early stages of some European experience’, Local Environment, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33-50. von Friedrichs Grangsjo, Y. 2003, ‘Destination networking: Co-opetition in peripheral surroundings’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 427-448.

Wahab, S. & Pigram, J. J. (eds), 1997, Tourism, Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability, Routledge, London.

405 Wall, G. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism - unsustainable development’, in S. Wahab & J. J. Pigram (eds), Tourism, Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability, pp. 33-49, Routledge, London.

Wall, G. 1996, ‘People outside the plans’, in W. Nuryanti (ed.), Tourism and Culture: Global Civilization Change?, pp. 130-137, Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogyakarta.

Walle, A. H. 1997, ‘Quantitative versus qualitative tourism research’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 524-536.

Walsh, J. A., Jamrozy, A. & Burr, S. W. 2001, ‘Sense of place as a component of sustainable tourism marketing’, in S. F. McCool & R. N. Moisey (eds), Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment, pp. 195-216, CABI Publishing, Oxon.

Walzer, N. & Deller, S. C. 1996, ‘Rural issues and trends: The role of strategic visioning programs’, in N. Walzer (ed.), Community Strategic Visioning Programs, pp. 1-20, Praeger, Westport.

Walzer, N., Deller, S. C., Fossum, H., Green, G., Gruidl, J., Johnson, S., Kline, S., Patton, D., Schumaker, A. & Woods, M. 1995, Community Visioning/Strategic Planning Programs: State of the Art, North Central Regional Centre for Rural Development, Iowa.

Wates, N. 2000, The Community Planning Handbook, Earthscan Publications, London.

Watkins, K. E. & Marsick, V. J. 1993, Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Weaver, D. 2006, Sustainable Tourism, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Weaver, D. B. 1998, Ecotourism in the Less Developed World, CAB International, Oxon.

406 Weaver, D. & Lawton, L. 1999, Sustainable Tourism: A Critical Analysis, Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.

Weber, M. 1978, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Weber, R. P. 1990, Basic Content Analysis, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park.

Welford, R. & Ytterhus, B. 2004, ‘Sustainable development and tourism destination management: A case study of the Lillehammer region, Norway’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 410-422.

Wechsler, B. & Backoff, R. W. 1987, ‘The dynamics of strategy in public organizations’, Journal of American Planning Association, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 34-43.

Westlake, J. 1995, ‘Planning for tourism at local level: Maintaining the balance with the environment’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp. 85-90, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Westley, F. 1992, ‘Vision words: Strategic vision as a social interaction’, Advances in Strategic Management, vol. 8, pp. 271-305.

Westley, F. & Mintzberg, H. 1989, ‘Visionary leadership and strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 10, Summer, pp. 17-32.

Wheeland, C. 1993, ‘Citywide strategic planning: An evaluation of Rock Hill’s empowering vision’, Public Administration Review, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 65-72.

407 Wheeler, B. 1997, ‘Here we go, here we go, here we go eco’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 39-50, CAB International, Oxon.

Wheeler, B. 1994, ‘Ego tourism, sustainable tourism and the environment: A symbiotic, symbolic or shambolic relationship?’, in A. V. Seaton (ed.) Tourism: State of the Art, pp. 647-654, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Wheeler, B. 1993, ‘Sustaining the ego’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 121-129.

Whittington, R. 2001, ‘What is strategy and does it matter?’, 2nd edn, Thomson Learning, London.

Whorton, J. W. & Worthley, J. A. 1981, ‘A perspective on the challenge of public management: Environmental paradox and organisational culture’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 357-361.

Wight, P. A. 2003, ‘Supporting the principles of sustainable development in tourism and ecotourism: Government’s potential role’, in M. Lück & T. Kirstges (eds), Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints, pp. 50-72, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.

Wikipedia 2005, Queensland, Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland

Wilkinson, P. F. 1997, Tourism Policy and Planning: Case Studies from the Commonwealth Caribbean, Cognizant Communication Corporation, New York.

Williams, P. M. 2002, ‘Community strategies: Mainstreaming sustainable development and strategic planning’, Sustainable Development, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 197-205.

408 Williams, P. W., Penrose, R. W. & Hawkes, S. 1998, ‘Shared decision-making in tourism land use planning’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 860-889.

Wilson, D. 1999, ‘Consulting the community: A problem in sustainable tourism development’, The Environment Paper Series, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25-40.

Winn, M. I. 2001, ‘Building stakeholder theory with a decision modelling methodology’, Business and Society, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 133-166.

Wolf, R. A. & Gering, D. T. 1998, ‘Making strategy work’, The Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 11-14.

Woodley, A. 1993, ‘Tourism and sustainable development: The community perspective’, in J. G. Nelson, R. Butler & G. Wall (eds), Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, pp. 135-146, Heritage Resources Centre University of Waterloo, Waterloo.

World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, London.

World Tourism Organization 2006, UNWTO News, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.

World Tourism Organization 2004, Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations: A Guidebook, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.

World Tourism Organization 2001, Actions in Assisting Developing Countries to Implement Agenda 21 Undertaken by the World Tourism Organization Since 1992, United Nations, New York.

409 World Tourism Organization 2000, Sustainable Development of Tourism: A Compilation of Good Practices, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.

World Tourism Organization 1998, Guide for Local Authorities on Developing Sustainable Tourism, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.

World Tourism Organization 1995, What Tourism Managers Need to Know: A Practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism, Consulting and Audit Canada, Ottawa.

World Tourism Organization 1994, National and Regional Tourism Planning: Methodologies and Case Studies, Routledge, London.

World Tourism Organization 1993, Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.

World Tourism Organization 1983, Study of Tourism’s Contribution to Protecting the Environment, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.

Wortman, M. S. 1979, ‘Strategic management: Not-for-profit organizations’, in D. E. Schendel & C. W. Hofer (eds), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning, pp. 353-381, Little Brown, Boston.

Yau, O. H. M. & Chan, C. F. 1990, ‘Hong Kong as a travel destination in South-East Asia: A multidimensional approach’, Tourism Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 123-132.

Yin, R. K. 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn, Sage, Beverly Hills.

Young, G., Richins, H. & Rugimbana, R. 1993, ‘New directions for tourism planning’, Proceedings of the National Conference on Tourism Research, Sydney, Australia.

410 Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B. & Yuksel, A. 1999, ‘Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning at Pamukkale, Turkey’, Tourism Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 351-360.

Zhang, Y., Ruhanen, L., Murphy, P. & Cooper, C. 2004, ‘Communities as regional destinations: A development potential index’, Proceedings of the Council of Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Educators Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

411 Appendices

Appendix 1 Queensland Regional Tourism Organisations (RTOs) Appendix 2 Queensland Local Tourism Authorities (LTAs) Appendix 3 United Nations Principles for Sustainable Tourism Appendix 4 Community Visioning Programs Appendix 5 The Gold Coast Tourism Destination Visioning Process Appendix 6 Audit of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents Appendix 7 Stakeholder Interview Schedule Appendix 8 Participant Information Sheet Appendix 9 Participant Consent Form Appendix 10 Local Government Area Profiles - Business Categories Appendix 11 Tourism Planning Approach Evident in Planning Documents Appendix 12 Overview of Local Tourism Planning Document Analysis Appendix 13 Overview of Local Tourism Planning Documents Rationale, Objectives and Vision Statement Appendix 14 Queensland Local Government Area Profiles Appendix 15 Principles and Goals of the Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy

412 Appendix One: Queensland Regional Tourism Organisations (RTOs)

Source: Tourism Queensland, 2005

413 Appendix Two: Queensland Local Tourism Authorities (LTAs)

Brisbane Region LTAs Brisbane Valley Tourism Association Inc Caboolture Tourism Esk Visitor Information Centre Boonah Shire Tourism Inc. Ipswich Visitors and Tourism Association Ltd. Lockyer Valley Tourism and Development Association Moreton Bay Coast and Country Tourism Redcliffe Tourism Redlands Tourism Stradbroke Island Tourism Tourism Pine Rivers Wynnum Manly Tourism and Visitor Information Centre Wynnum Manly Regional Development Partnership

Bundaberg Region LTAs Biggenden Chamber of Tourism and Development Inc. Gayndah Development Association Gin Gin District Business and Tourism Council Perry Shire Heritage and Tourist Association Inc. Monto Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Mundubbera Enterprise Association Inc.

Capricorn Region LTAs Biloela Promotion Bureau Capricorn Coast Tourist Organisation Central Highlands Tourist Organisation Mt Morgan Tourist Association Rockhampton Tourist and Business Information Theodore Tourist Information

Fraser Coast South Burnett Region LTAs Hervey Bay Tourism Bureau Ltd. Maryborough and Fraser Island Visitor Information Centre South Burnett Tourism Association Inc.

Gold Coast Region LTAs Beaudesert Tourism Canungra Information and Historical Association Tamborine Mountain Natural History Assicuation inc. Tweed Coolangatta Tourism Inc.

Mackay Region LTAs Clermont Tourism Association

414 Pioneer Valley Tourism and Development Association Sarina Tourist Art and Craft Centre

Outback Region LTAs Barcaldine Tourist Association Blackall Tourist and Development Association Cloncurry Chamber of Commerce Inc. Cosmos Country Tourism Cunnamulla Visitor Information Centre Historic Woolscour Association Ilfracombe Historical Association Mount Isa Tourism Association Longreach Visitor Information Centre Vision Winton Incorporated

Southern Downs Region LTAs Allora Action Association Clifton and District Progress Association Dalveen Sports Club Granite Belt Tourist Association Killarney Area Promotions Association Leyburn Progress Association Texas Visitors Association Inc. Warwick and District Tourist Association Inc. Sunshine Coast Region LTAs Blackall Range Tourism Association Inc. Caloundra Tourism Cooloola Regional Development Bureau Inc. Maroochy Tourism Mooloolaba Tourism Tourism Noosa

Toowoomba and Golden West Region LTAs Chinchilla Economic and Tourist Development Association Inc. Crows Nest and District Tourist and Progress Association Goondiwindi District Promotions Inc. Injune and District Tourism Association Leichhardt Highway Promotion Committee Miles Tourism Committee Millmerran Shire Tourism and Progress Association Inc. Roma Tourism Association St George Tourist and Museum Association Surat and District Development Association Shire of Tara Development Association Inc. Taroom District Development Association

415 Townsville Region LTAs Burdekin Tourism Association Inc. Cardwell Chamber of Commerce Charters Towers and Dalrymple Tourism Association Hinchinbrook Tourism Association Magnetic Island Community and Development Association

Tropical North Region LTAs Cairns Tourism Association Inc. Cassowary Coast Development Bureau trading as Innisfail Information Centre Chillagoe Alliance Cooktown Tourism Association Daintree Village Tourism Association Gulf Savannah Development Karumba Progress Association Kuranda Village Promotion Program Mission Beach Tourism Inc. Tourism Palm Cove Port Douglas Daintree Tourism Association Trinity Beach Promotion Association Tropical Tableland Tourism Yorkeys Knob Promotional Group Cape York Peninsula Development Association Inc.

Whitsunday Region LTAs Bowen Tourism Collinsville District Development Bureau

416 Appendix Three: United Nations Principles for Sustainable Tourism

1. Residents of a community must maintain control of tourism development by being involved in setting a community tourism vision, identifying the resources to be maintained and enhanced, and developing goals and strategies for tourism development and management. Equally important, community residents must participate in the implementation of strategies as well as the operation of the tourism infrastructure, services, and facilities. 2. A tourism initiative should be developed with the help of broad based stakeholder input. 3. Tourism development must provide quality employment. The provision of fulfilling jobs has to be seen as an integral part of any tourism development. Part of the process of achieving quality employment is to ensure that, as much as possible, the tourism infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, shops, etc.) is developed and managed by local people. Experience has demonstrated that the provision of education and training for local residents and access to financing for local businesses and entrepreneurs are central to this type of policy. 4. Broad-based distribution of the benefits of tourism must occur at the tourism destination. Local linkages and resident participation in the planning, development, and operation of tourism resources and services will help to ensure that a more equitable distribution of benefits will occur among residents, visitors, and other service providers. 5. Sustainable tourism development has to provide for intergenerational equity. Equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of tourism development must take place among present and future generations. To be fair to future generations of tourists and the travel industry, society should strive to leave a resource base no less than the one we have inherited. Sustainable tourism development must, therefore, avoid resource allocation actions that are irreversible. 6. A long-term planning horizon needs to be adopted by businesses and destination tourism organizations to ensure that destinations are not used for short-term gain and then abandoned as visitor tastes and business interests move elsewhere. A longer-term horizon encourages the use of proactive strategies to ensure destination sustainability and the establishment of local linkages over time. 7. Harmony is required between the needs of a visitor, the place, and the community. This is facilitated by broad stakeholder support with a proper balance between economic, social, cultural, and human objectives, and recognition of the importance of cooperation among government, the host communities, and the tourism industry, and the non-profit organizations involved in community development and environmental protection. 8. Tourism strategies and plans must be linked with a broader set of initiatives and economic development plans. 9. A need exists for more coordination at both policy and action levels among the various agencies involved and among different levels of government. This is particularly relevant to tourism and environmental policies. Service provisions such as transportation, parking, and water and sewer capacities must also be considered in conjunction with tourism plans and developments.

417 10. Cooperation among attractions, businesses, and tourism operators is essential given that one business or operation can be directly affected by the performance or quality of another. 11. There is a definite need for impact assessment of tourism development proposals. The capacity of sites must be considered, including physical, natural, social, and cultural limits and development should be compatible with local and environmental limits. Plans and operations should be evaluated regularly with adjustments as required. 12. Guidelines have to be established for tourism operations, including requirements for impact assessment. There should be codes of practice established for tourism at all levels - national, regional and local. There is also a need to develop indicators and threshold limits for measuring the impacts and success of local tourism ventures. Protection and monitoring strategies are essential if communities are to protect the resources that form the basis of their tourism product. 13. Tourism planning must move away from a traditional growth-oriented model to one that focuses on opportunities for employment, income and improved local well-being while ensuring that development decisions reflect the full value of the natural and cultural environments. The management and use of public goods such as water, air, and common lands should include accountability on behalf of the users to ensure that these resources are not abused. 14. Sustainable tourism development requires the establishment of education and training programs to improve public. Understanding and enhance business, vocational and professional skills. 15. Sustainable tourism development involves promoting appropriate uses and activities that draw from and reinforce landscape character, sense of place, community identity and site opportunity. These activities and uses should aim to provide a quality tourism experience that satisfies visitors while adhering to the other principles of sustainable tourism. 16. The scale and type of tourism facilities must reflect the limits of acceptable use that resources can tolerate. Small-scale, low impact facilities and services should be encouraged, for example, through financing and other incentives. 17. The tourism process must also ensure that heritage and natural resources are maintained and enhanced using internationally acceptable criteria and standards. 18. Sustainable tourism marketing should include the provision of a high quality tourist experience which adheres to the other principles outlined above, and whose promotion should be a responsible and an ethical reflection of the destination's tourism attractions and services.

Source: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 1999

418 Appendix Four: Community Visioning Programs

Location Participants Initiatives Methods Atlanta, • Collaborative committee •Environment • Facilitated monthly Georgia, USA • Action planning teams •Economic development meetings • Over 1000 citizens •Education • Public meetings •Governance • Stakeholder surveys •Health • Secondary data analysis •Housing •Human services •Public safety •Transportation Minot and • 1000 citizens •Education - Ward County, • Business, civic, •Quality of life USA government, education •Economic development and church organisations •Community leadership •Infrastructure •Government Mequon City, • All citizens invited to •Population • Community forums USA contribute •Residential areas • Focus groups • Citizen committee •Rural landscape • Community survey • Consultant •Roads • Secondary data analysis •Development/ land use •City services •Schools •Parks and open space •City centre Central • 5000 citizens •Regional cooperation • Public meetings Alabama •Natural environment region, USA •Economically competitive •Public transportation •Social equity/ education/ housing •Citizen involvement Downtown • Business, industry and •Market driven • Public meetings Wilkes- Barre, development development plans • Participant USA organizations •Business improvement brainstorming • Representatives from district government, business, •New business institutional and residents development and • 500 resident participants promotion •Higher education and downtown taskforce •Downtown residents association •Preserve and protect historic resources

419 Johnson • Steering committee •Education • Exploration of issues County, USA •Public safety • Issue analysis model •Land use • Citizen survey •Transportation and • Community forums infrastructure •Economic development •Natural resources and environment •Human services •Culture, arts and humanities •County relationships •Financing and taxation City of Royal • 200 residents •Neighbourhood • Town meetings Oak, USA • Steering committee preservation • Concept plan workshops •Downtown improvements •Commercial corridor improvements •Community facilities •Transportation City of • 1200 community - • Public forums Tucson, USA members • Forums targeting youth, • Business people and city businesses employees • Internet site • Interdepartmental team • Bulletin boards • Workshops to develop indicators of progress towards the vision’s goals Baltimore • Community residents - • Monthly meetings of region, USA stakeholder committees • Regional vision meetings for residents • Telephone survey of 1200 residents • Regional workshop to finalise vision City of • Residents, property • Create and strengthen • Public awareness Vancouver, owners, workers, neighbourhood centres campaigns Canada business owners and and character • Communication strategy community organisations • Housing needs • Generate interest at a • Liaison groups • Community services community event • Prevent crime • Workshops • Art and cultural activity • Open spaces and public places • Neighbourhood employment

420 • Environment • Engage residents Brisbane, • Government • Environment • Draft documents opened Australia • Businesses • Transport and access for comment • Industry • Suburban landscape • Schools design • Community groups • Knowledge infrastructure • Individual residents • Creative culture, arts, business, government, society • Community enhancement • Sports and leisure facilities • Develop and expand local industry

421 Appendix Five: The Gold Coast Tourism Destination Visioning Process

Source: Faulkner, 2003

422 Appendix Six: Audit of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents

Shire Council Area Title of Plan Aramac No tourism plan Atherton Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan Aurukun No tourism plan Balonne No tourism plan Banana Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan Barcaldine No tourism plan Bauhinia No tourism plan Barcoo No tourism plan Beaudesert Tourism plan currently been developed Belyando Tourism plan currently been developed Bendemere No tourism plan Biggenden No tourism plan Blackall Tourism & Economic Vitalisation Strategy 2003 Boonah Tourism plan currently been developed Booringa Tourism plan currently been developed Boulia No tourism plan Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan Brisbane Tourism plan currently been developed Broadsound No tourism plan Bulloo No tourism plan Bundaberg No tourism plan Bungil No tourism plan Burdekin Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan- 1999 Burke No tourism plan Burnett No tourism plan Caboolture No tourism plan Cairns No tourism plan Calliope No tourism plan Caloundra Caloundra Tourism Plan 2002-2012 Caloundra Tourism Action Plan 2002-2005 Cambooya No tourism plan Cardwell Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan 2002-2006 Carpentaria No tourism plan Charters Towers No tourism plan Chinchilla Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan 2002-2010 Clifton No tourism plan Cloncurry No tourism plan Cook No tourism plan Cooloola No tourism plan Crow’s Nest Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan Croydon Tourism plan currently been developed Dalby No tourism plan

423 Dalrymple No tourism plan Diamantina No tourism plan Douglas Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy 1998 Duaringa No tourism plan Eacham No tourism plan Eidsvold No tourism plan Emerald Tourism plan currently been developed Esk No tourism plan Etheridge No tourism plan Fitzroy No tourism plan Flinders Tourism plan currently been developed Gatton Gatton Tourism Strategy- 1996/1997 Gayndah No tourism plan Gladstone No tourism plan Gold Coast Our Gold Coast- The Preferred Tourism Future- 2002 Gold Coast City Council’s Tourism Strategy- 2003 Goondiwindi No tourism plan Herberton No tourism plan Hervey Bay No tourism plan Hinchinbrook Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy- 1993 Ilfracombe No tourism plan Inglewood No tourism plan Ipswich Ipswich City Tourism Strategy 1997-2002 Isisford No tourism plan Isis No tourism plan Jericho No tourism plan Johnstone No tourism plan Jondaryan No tourism plan Kilcoy Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan 2001-2004 Kilkivan No tourism plan Kingaroy No tourism plan Kolan No tourism plan Laidley Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy- 1997 Livingstone No tourism plan Logan Tourism plan currently been developed Longreach No tourism plan Mackay No tourism plan Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy- 2002 Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy- 2000 Maryborough No tourism plan McKinlay No tourism plan Millmerran No tourism plan Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy 1994 Miraim Vale No tourism plan

424 Monto No tourism plan Mornington No tourism plan Mount Isa Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan Mount Morgan No tourism plan Mundubbera No tourism plan Murgon No tourism plan Murilla Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan Murweh Tourism plan currently been developed Nanango Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan Nebo No tourism plan Noosa Noosa Tourism Plan 2001-2011 Noosa Tourism Action Plan 2001-2004 Paroo No tourism plan Peak Downs Tourism plan currently been developed Perry No tourism plan Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy Pittsworth Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy-2003 Quilpie No tourism plan Redcliffe Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy Redland Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy- 2003 North Stradbroke Island Sustainable Tourism Vision Richmond No tourism plan Rockhampton Tourism plan currently been developed Roma Tourism Action Plan- 2000 Rosalie No tourism plan Sarina Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy Stanthorpe No tourism plan Tambo No tourism plan Tara No tourism plan Taroom No tourism plan Thuringowa Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy Tiaro No tourism plan Toowoomba Tourism plan currently been developed Torres No tourism plan Townsville No tourism plan Waggamba No tourism plan Wambo No tourism plan Warroo Tourism plan currently been developed Warwick No tourism plan Whitsunday No tourism plan Winton No tourism plan Wondai No tourism plan Woocoo No tourism plan

425 Appendix Seven: Stakeholder Interview Schedule

Stakeholder Participation • What was your role in the tourism plan? • How did you come to be involved in the planning process? o Participation ongoing or a one-off role? At what stage? • What were your reasons for participating in the tourism planning process? o What level of influence do you feel that you had in the final strategic direction selected/ the final planning outcomes? o By participating in the planning process do you feel a sense of ownership/ responsibility for the plan?

Some questions about other stakeholder groups who participated in the process. • How did the different stakeholders work together to plan for tourism? o How successful/ unsuccessful was this in your opinion? For what reasons? o Do you think having a variety of stakeholders participating in the process enhanced the tourism planning process? Why? Why not? o Do you think it resulted in a more accepted tourism plan for the destination? Why? Why not? • What were the motivations for incorporating a range of stakeholders in the tourism planning process? o Do you feel that the various stakeholders will abide by the vision and directions set out in the plan? Why? Why Not? o Do you think stakeholder groups who were not involved in the process would feel any attachment to/ follow the plan? Why? Why not? • Who would you consider was the champion or leader of the planning process? o Was it one person/ group? o Was their level of control/ power/ influence disproportionate to other stakeholder groups? o In your view are they the best equipped to handle tourism planning? Why? Why not?

Some questions about your views of stakeholder participation in tourism planning? • What are your thoughts on local residents being able to influence and participate in planning and decision making for tourism development? o Do you feel that they would be happier with tourism activity and development decisions if they are involved? o Does this matter? o Should this be a consultation, participation or collaboration role? o Do you think it will lead to a better quality of decision making/ broader scope of issues? • Do you see any barriers to broad local participation? o If so, do you think these can be overcome? How? • Should any one individual/group be responsible for tourism planning? Why? Why not?

426 • In your opinion is the optimum tourism planning process one which is highly structured with one person in control or a more flexible process which is facilitated? Why is that?

Tourism planning process and Sustainability I would like to discuss with you your opinions and thoughts of the tourism plan and the concept of sustainable development: • Do you believe the objectives and outcomes of the plan meet the current and/ or future needs of the area? • How successful do you think the plan will be in providing a framework for tourism development for the destination? o Should it retain the same format or be changed? o Do you consider your tourism plan as a strategic plan? • What do you see as the benefits of having a long term planning process for tourism development? • Do you see a local tourism plan as being more relevant for managing tourism development than a regional plan?

I also have some questions regarding the concept of sustainable tourism development? • What are your views on the concept of sustainable tourism development? (Definition if needed- The primary objective of sustainable development is the provision of lasting and secure livelihoods which minimise resource depletion, environmental degradation, cultural disruption and social instability). • Do you think the concept of sustainability is realistic/ practical in a ‘real world situation’ or is it just a theoretical concept? • Do you believe that your destination has a sustainable approach to tourism development, planning and management? • Do you think that there are any aspects that make/ or prohibit your destination from having a sustainable tourism industry (i.e. the type of tourism product)?

Strategic Visioning Finally I would like to get your views on the concept of strategic visioning. Show definition card. • Are you aware of the concept of a strategic visioning process for tourism destination planning? (definition/ Gold Coast) • Do you think a strategic visioning process would improve stakeholder participation and collaboration in tourism planning and decision making? o Would it be a better way of achieving consensus amongst stakeholder groups on future directions for the destination? o Will it provide a benchmark towards which both the general community and the tourism sector can more effectively direct their efforts? • Do you think strategic visioning would contribute towards achieving a more strategic approach to tourism planning? • Do you think a strategic visioning process would enhance the incorporation of sustainable development principles into the tourism planning process?

427 • Do you think a strategic visioning process would be of benefit to local tourism destinations? • Do you think your destination would benefit from such a process?

Other Questions • How many years have you lived in the Shire? • Is your work or profession connected with the tourism industry in any way? • Finally are there any points I have not raised about tourism in your Shire that you would like to mention?

Contacts • Other groups/ organisations/ individuals were involved in the tourism planning process? o Contact Details:

428 Appendix Eight: Participant Information Sheet

TITLE: Sustainable Tourism Planning: An Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning

INVESTIGATOR: Lisa Ruhanen, PhD Candidate in the School of Tourism and Leisure Management, The University of Queensland

The aim of this research is to investigate the nature of tourism planning within local tourism destinations, particularly in terms of strategic planning, stakeholder collaboration and sustainable development.

To do this, I would like to get your views on these issues, as a stakeholder in the tourism planning process for your destination. This will be achieved by interviewing you at a location and time of convenience to you, and this interview will be tape recorded. This interview will last approximately thirty (30) minutes. A transcription of the interview will be distributed to you for you to read through to ensure it is an accurate recording of our interview. Opportunity will exist for you to get in contact with the researcher to discuss any necessary changes.

No controversial information is being sought by the research, however you will have the opportunity to withdraw from the research at any time should you wish to do so. Your privacy while participating in the study will be maintained at all times and your name will not be identified in any way. Files and interview transcripts will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in the School of Tourism and Leisure Management at the University of Queensland.

This study has been cleared by one of the human ethics committees of the University of Queensland in accordance with the University’s ethical guidelines. Whilst you are free to discuss your participation in this study with the researcher (Lisa Ruhanen on 3381 1338 or 0423 784 370) if you would rather speak to an officer of the University not involved in the study, you may contact the Chair of the Ethical Review Committee, School of Tourism and Leisure Management through the Secretary on (07) 3381 1010.

Thank you for your interest in this research project.

Lisa Ruhanen (Researcher)

Professor Chris Cooper and Dr Lee-Jaye Slaughter (Supervisors)

429 Appendix Nine: Participant Consent Form

CONSENT FORM

I, ______, hereby consent to take part in the study titled “Sustainable Tourism Planning: An Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning”, being conducted by Lisa Ruhanen of the School of Tourism and Leisure Management at the University of Queensland.

I understand that: (a) My participation is on the basis of anonymity and my identity will not be disclosed in any way within the thesis or subsequent publications.

(b) I have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, and this will trigger destruction of any tapes or other forms of communication by the researcher.

(c) Provision of contact details below is voluntary and confidential, and is intended only to make it easier for the researcher to contact me to clarify any interview materials.

Signed: ______Date:______

CONTACT DETAILS Giving the details below is purely voluntary. The aim is simply to make it possible to follow up on any questions that may arise from your interview.

Postal address:______P/Code:______

Contact phone number: ( ) ______

Email address: ______

430 Appendix Ten: Local Government Area Profiles - Business Categories

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Mining Manufacturing Electricity, Gas and Water Supply Construction Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants Transport and Storage Communication Services Finance and Insurance Property and Business Services Government Administration and Defence Education Health and Community Services Cultural and Recreational Services Personal and Other Services

Source: Office of Economic and Statistical Research, 2005

431 Appendix 11: Tourism Planning Approach Evident in Planning Documents

Economic Physical Environmental Community Sustainable Plan 1 - - Plan 2 - - - Plan 3 - - Plan 4 - - - - Plan 5 - Plan 6 Plan 7 Plan 8 - - Plan 9 - - - - Plan 10 - - - Plan 11 - - - Plan 12 - - - Plan 13 - - Plan 14 - - - - Plan 15 - - Plan 16 - - - Plan 17 - - Plan 18 - - - Plan 19 - - Plan 20 - - Plan 21 - - Plan 22 - - - Plan 23 - Plan 24 - - - Plan 25 - - - Plan 26 - Plan 27 Plan 28 - - - Plan 29 Plan 30 - -

432 Appendix 12: Overview of Local Tourism Planning Document Analysis

Documents 1-15 Evaluative Criteria Evidence of Evaluative Criteria Planning Document 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Physical/ Environmental/ Economic Situation Analysis The planning document N S N S S N S E N E E S S N N describes the area’s principal geographic features The planning document N N N N S N N N N N N N N E N describes the main characteristics of the local climate The planning document N N N N S N N E N N N N N N N identifies flora and fauna which are unique to the area The planning document assesses N N N N S N E N N S N E N N N the resilience and/or fragility of the physical environment The planning document N E E N N N N E N S E E N N N identifies current population levels and demographics The planning document N N N N N N N E N E N E N N N identifies current land use and ownership patterns in the area The planning document N S E N E N N E N E E E N N E identifies the major economic activities in the local area The planning document N E S N E E E S N E N S N N E establishes the relative importance of tourism, compared with other industries, to the economic development of the local area The planning document N E N N E N N N N E N E N N E quantifies the economic benefit of tourism to the area The planning document N E N N E N N N N S N E N N N quantifies the employment creation ability of local tourism activity The planning document N E N N S N N E N E E E E N E describes the principal tourism sites in the area The planning document N S S N E N N E N S N N N N N evaluates the current capacity of tourism plant and infrastructure The planning document N N E N E N N N N N N N N N N evaluates the adequacy of business skills possessed by local tourism industry operators The planning document includes N E E N E N N E N E E E S S N quantitative analysis of current

433 visitor numbers, length of stay and spending The planning document N S N N N N S N N E N E N S N acknowledges the need to integrate local tourism strategies with other local, regional, state and national plans for tourism development Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning The time dimension of the N E N E S E S S N N E N S E E planning process reflects a long term orientation The planning document includes N E N N N N N E N E N N N N N broadly based goals related to the nature and scale of future tourism development The planning document N N N N N N N N N E N N N N N identifies broadly based goals related to the economic benefits of future tourism development The planning document includes N E N N N S N N N E N E N E N broadly based goals related to environmental protection The planning document includes N N N N N N N E N E N N N E N broadly based goals related to community values and lifestyle protection The planning document includes N N N N N E E N N E N N N N N broadly based goals which emphasize the local benefits of tourism development The planning document N N N N N E E N N N E E N E N identifies a range of alternative strategies by which broadly based goals may be achieved The planning document N E N N N N N N N N N E N S N evaluates each strategy option prior to determining a range of specific objectives Specific objectives support N N N N N S S N N E N E N S N previously established broad goals Specific objectives selected are N S E N E N N E N E S S E N S based on supply capability as opposed to market demand Specific objectives target the N N N N N N N N N S N E N N N equitable distribution of tourism’s economic benefits throughout the local area Specific objectives for future N E N N E N N E N N N S N N E tourism activity are quantified and readily measurable Stakeholder Participation/ Influence in the Planning Process The planning document S E S N E E E E E E S E N E E addresses the relationships

434 between destination stakeholders Relevant state/federal N N N N N N S N N N N E N N E government agencies took part in the planning process Relevant local agencies took part N N N N N S S N N E S E S S E in the planning process Governmental opinions (federal, N N N N N S S N N S S S S S S state, or local) influenced the final strategic direction selected The relevant regional tourism N N N N E N S N N N N E S N E organization took part in the planning process The relevant local tourism N N N N N S S N N E N E S N E authority took part in the planning process Regional tourism organization or N N N N S S S N N S N S S N S local tourism authority opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected. The local tourism industry took N N N N E N S S N E S E S S E part in the planning process Local tourism industry opinion N N N N S N S S N S S S S S S influenced the final strategic direction selected Other local non-tourism N N N N N N N N N N N E S S E organizations took part in the planning process Other local non-tourism N N N N N N N N N N N S S S S organization opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected Ordinary local residents took N N N N N N S E N E N E S N E part in the planning process Ordinary local resident opinion N N N N N N S S N S N S S N S influenced the final strategic direction selected Destination Community Vision and Values The planning document N N N E N N N S N E N N N N N identifies locally important community values The planning document N N N N N N N S N E N N N N N identifies locally important lifestyle features The planning document N N N N N N N S N S N N N N N identifies current issues which are critical to residents The planning document assesses N N N N N N N S N S N S N N N community attitudes to tourism The planning document assesses N N N N N N N S N S N N N N N the overall quality of life in the area The planning document includes N N N N N N N S N S N E N N N a vision for the future which aligns with local community values, attitudes and lifestyles

435 Tourism Planning Approach The planning document E E E E E E E E E N E N E E E predominantly emphasizes economic development and growth The planning document E E E N E E E E N E E N E N E predominantly emphasizes the physical resources of the destination The planning document N N N N E E E N N N N N N N N predominantly addresses the impacts of tourism on the natural environment The planning document N N N N N E E E N N N N E N N predominantly addresses how tourism can benefit the local community The planning document E N E N E E E N N E N E N N E predominantly addresses tourism in the context of sustainable development

Documents 16-30 Evaluative Criteria Evidence of Evaluative Criteria Planning Document 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Physical/ Environmental/ Economic Situation Analysis The planning document E N E E N N S N S N E E N E S describes the area’s principal geographic features The planning document N N E E N N N N N N N E N E N describes the main characteristics of the local climate The planning document N N N N N N N N N N N E N N S identifies flora and fauna which are unique to the area The planning document assesses N N N S N N N N N N N E N N S the resilience and/or fragility of the physical environment The planning document N N S E N N N N N N N E N E E identifies current population levels and demographics The planning document N N E E N N N N N N N N N S N identifies current land use and ownership patterns in the area The planning document E N E E N N E E N N N E N E N identifies the major economic activities in the local area The planning document E N S E N N S S N N S N N E N establishes the relative importance of tourism, compared with other industries, to the economic development of the local area

436 The planning document N N N E N N N N N N N N N E N quantifies the economic benefit of tourism to the area The planning document N N E E N N N N N N N N N E N quantifies the employment creation ability of local tourism activity The planning document E N E E S N E N N N E E N E E describes the principal tourism sites in the area The planning document N N N E N N N N N N N E N S E evaluates the current capacity of tourism plant and infrastructure The planning document N N S S N N S N N N N N N E N evaluates the adequacy of business skills possessed by local tourism industry operators The planning document includes E N E E N N N S E N S E N E E quantitative analysis of current visitor numbers, length of stay and spending The planning document N N N N N N S N N N S E N E E acknowledges the need to integrate local tourism strategies with other local, regional, state and national plans for tourism development Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning The time dimension of the E N E N E S E E N E E E S E E planning process reflects a long term orientation The planning document includes N N N S S N N S N N N S N S N broadly based goals related to the nature and scale of future tourism development The planning document N N N N N N N N N N E E N E N identifies broadly based goals related to the economic benefits of future tourism development The planning document includes N N S E N N N E N N N E N E E broadly based goals related to environmental protection The planning document includes N N E N N N N N N N E E N E E broadly based goals related to community values and lifestyle protection The planning document includes N N N N N N N E N N N N N E N broadly based goals which emphasize the local benefits of tourism development The planning document N N E N E N E E E N E E E E E identifies a range of alternative strategies by which broadly based goals may be achieved The planning document N N N N N N N E N N N E N E S

437 evaluates each strategy option prior to determining a range of specific objectives Specific objectives support N N N N N N N S N N S S N S S previously established broad goals Specific objectives selected are S N S S N N S S N N S S N E S based on supply capability as opposed to market demand Specific objectives target the N N S N S N N E N N E E N N E equitable distribution of tourism’s economic benefits throughout the local area Specific objectives for future N N S N E N N E N N E S N E E tourism activity are quantified and readily measurable Stakeholder Participation/ Influence in the Planning Process The planning document N E E E E E E E N S E E S E N addresses the relationships between destination stakeholders Relevant state/federal N N E N S N N S N N N E N N E government agencies took part in the planning process Relevant local agencies took part N N E S S N S S N N N E N S E in the planning process Governmental opinions (federal, N N S S S N S S N N N S N S S state, or local) influenced the final strategic direction selected The relevant regional tourism N N E N S N N S N N N E N N E organization took part in the planning process The relevant local tourism N N E S S N N S N N N E N N E authority took part in the planning process Regional tourism organization or N N S S S N N S N N N S N N S local tourism authority opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected. The local tourism industry took S N E S S N S S N N N E N S E part in the planning process Local tourism industry opinion S N S S S N S S N N N S N S S influenced the final strategic direction selected Other local non-tourism N N N N S N S N N N N E N E E organizations took part in the planning process Other local non-tourism N N N N S N S N N N N S N S S organization opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected Ordinary local residents took N N E S N N S N N N N S N E E part in the planning process Ordinary local resident opinion N N S S N N S N N N N S N S S influenced the final strategic direction selected

438 Destination Community Vision and Values The planning document N N N S N N N N N N E S N N N identifies locally important community values The planning document N N N N S N N N N N E S N S N identifies locally important lifestyle features The planning document N N S S N N N N N N E S N E N identifies current issues which are critical to residents The planning document assesses N N N S N N N N N N E S N E N community attitudes to tourism The planning document assesses N N N N N N N N N N N S N N N the overall quality of life in the area The planning document includes N N N N N N N S N N S S N S N a vision for the future which aligns with local community values, attitudes and lifestyles Tourism Planning Approach The planning document E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E predominantly emphasizes economic development and growth The planning document E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E predominantly emphasizes the physical resources of the destination he planning document N E N N N N N N N N N E N E N edominantly addresses the impacts f tourism on the natural nvironment The planning document N N N N E N N E N N E E N E N predominantly addresses how tourism can benefit the local community The planning document N N N E N E N E N N E E N E E predominantly addresses tourism in the context of sustainable development

Key 1. Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan 2. Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan 3. Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy 4. Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan 5. Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan 6. Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan 7. Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan 8. Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan 9. Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan 10. Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy

439 11. Gatton Tourism Strategy 12. Gold Coast Tourism Strategy 13. Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy 14. Ipswich City Tourism Strategy 15. Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan 16. Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy 17. Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy 18. Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy 19. Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy 20. Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan 21. Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan 22. Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan 23. Noosa Shire Tourism Plan and Action Plan 24. Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy 25. Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy 26. Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy 27. Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy 28. Roma Tourism Action Plan 29. Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy 30. Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy

E. Evident S. Somewhat Evident N. Not Evident

440 Appendix 13: Overview of Local Tourism Planning Documents Rationale, Objectives and Vision Statement

Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan Plan Overview Rationale of An expert panel was selected to consider the best options for development of the Plan the tropical Tablelands and to develop a tourism strategic development plan. The focus of this review and subsequent investment decisions it may lead to: attract new tourism segments to the region; increase penetration to the region from existing TNQ tourism arrivals; and increase length and value of stay to the Tablelands. Document To identify key issues and objectives for tourism, as well as a set of strategic Objectives outcomes and recommendations. Vision Not stated Statement

Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan Plan Overview Rationale of There are a variety of organisations involved in developing and marketing the Plan tourism in Banana Shire. Each of these organisations is pursuing various activities to promote or develop tourism in the Shire, often in an ad hoc manner and sometimes without having specific objectives or a focus on the customer (visitors). As a consequence, council commissioned the tourism development plan to recommend how to unite, coordinate and better utilise existing community, business and council resources to develop a sustainable local tourism industry. It will also be used as a map of the way forward for the development and marketing of tourism in the Shire. Document An assessment of the Shire's existing local tourism industry and product; Objectives identification of tourism development opportunities, giving consideration to existing strengths and weaknesses, industry trends and forecasts; and recommendations on the way forward, including prioritising of projects/programs, and production of action plans and cost estimates for projects/programs Vision Bringing together the comments and needs expressed by stakeholders in the Statement Shire, the following vision statement or overarching purpose has been drafted for the tourism development plan for consideration by Council, tourism industry operators and the community- 'To develop the unique natural, heritage, rural and industrial attractions of Banana Shire, its supporting visitor infrastructure, and crossroads position, and target selected visitor markets, through coordinated initiatives and cooperative efforts by Council, industry operators and the community to deliver sustainable economic benefits to the community.

Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The consultants were commissioned by Blackall Shire Council to: conduct the Plan research to determine the state of tourism to Blackall; agree, with Council, on strategies for developing tourism to Blackall; and prepare a document that recorded the steps to be taken by Council to implement agreed strategies.

441 Document Background information regarding tourism in the region; and a series of issues Objectives and recommendations regarding: funding, the establishment of an advisory committee, access, the visitor information centre, tourism product and tourism infrastructure and marketing. Vision Not stated Statement

Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of Not stated the Plan Document Not stated Objectives Vision Not stated Statement

Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of The Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan evolved from a recognition that the the Plan Burdekin Region required an outcomes-based tourism strategy and action plan encompassing all components of the regional tourism market. Document Provide an overview of the key research strategies and workshops undertaken in Objectives the Burdekin region (or relevant to the Burdekin region) and specifically relating to tourism; the current tourism status; industry consultation and recommended action plans and strategies. Vision The issue of a stakeholder vision was mentioned in the plan but a vision Statement statement was not articulated.

Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of The purpose of the tourism plan is to provide direction and focus to the the Plan industry, community and the government by presenting broad strategies that are developed to achieve the desired goals. The preparation of this tourism plan and action plan is one of the many initiatives that are engaged in developing a successful local tourism strategy for the Caloundra City region. Given the significance of tourism, Caloundra City Council's initiatives in the development of the local tourism strategy include a strong focus on the active engagement of Caloundra City's community and industry in shaping the City's tourism future. Document To provide broad strategies and activities for the tourism industry, the Objectives community and the Council. The plan details background issues, a vision, goals, strategies, funding requirements and a three year tourism action plan. Vision The Caloundra City Council, the Economic Development Unit and the Tourism Statement Taskforce developed a vision to articulate the outcomes sought from the Caloundra Tourism Plan by 2012. The Tourism Plan Vision for 2012 is: 'a sustainable local and regional tourism industry that complements Caloundra's unique natural assets and preferred lifestyle and is recognised for its encouragement for cooperation and coordination in offering memorable experiences for its visitors. This vision will be achieved with a tourism industry that: encourages cooperation and coordination from all sectors of the

442 community; recognises that 'Caloundra the Brand' is owned by the whole community; respects and complements Caloundra City's natural assets; respects and enhances the environment in which it is located and operates and has the commitment to provide best practices and is driven by continuous and high quality research and development in all aspects of the industry.

Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan Plan Overview Rationale of Cardwell Shire and surrounds has traditionally relied on agricultural outputs, the Plan yet its diverse cultural history and natural areas (bordered by the Wet Tropics and Great Barrier Reef) mean that there is no doubt that the Cardwell Shire has high tourism potential. At the same time, these valuable 'tourism assets' need to be carefully managed to ensure long term sustainability of not only a healthy tourist industry but also the environmental, social and cultural values inherent of the Shire. There is a clear need for the community of Cardwell Shire to embody the strengths of its local tourism industry and collaborate with the wider region in developing strategies to accommodate visitors to the shire whilst at the same time developing strategies to attract visitors to the shire. The result will be a plan for tourism that will focus on partnerships, ownership and mutual responsibility. Document To develop a plan that will focus partnerships, ownerships and mutual Objectives responsibility; and the development and functions of the Tourism Taskforce. Vision The Tourism Plan Vision for 2006 is ‘A community and tourism industry that Statement works so well together that the Cardwell Shire and Great Green Way is internationally recognised as an innovator in achieving interdependent economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability’.

Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan Plan Overview Rationale of To place tourism in the context of Chinchilla Shire and the Shires the Plan developmental aspirations. For Chinchilla, tourism is an economic growth option that compliments and builds on existing strengths of the Shire. Document The tourism plan was developed as a follow up to the Chinchilla community Objectives 'Future Search' and tourism workshop. Vision The Chinchilla Future Search workshop agreed on the following vision for Statement Chinchilla: 'By 2010 Chinchilla will be a progressive and informed community that is characterised by innovative industries, a capacity for community action, and tolerance with a brand image that is seen and understood by Australian society as a benchmark for rural living. It will have a reputation as the most liveable shire in Australia'. The vision sees tourism in Chinchilla as being an addition to the community's portfolio of economic activity.

Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of Not stated the Plan Document Not stated Objectives Vision Not stated Statement

443 Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The Port Douglas and Daintree tourism strategy has been prepared to guide the Plan tourism planning, management, marketing and development. It is not intended that the strategy override existing planning frameworks, rather it be used as a guide where discretion is provided. As such the tourism strategy has been prepared having considered, and to be generally consistent with a range of other relevant regional plans. Document To develop an understanding of the diversity of tourism products, visitor Objectives patterns and evaluate the current market position of tourism in the Shire, while identifying goals for tourism in the Shire; alternative tourism futures for the Shire; tourism issues and potential strategies for their resolution; mechanisms to ensure tourism in the Shire is compatible with community aspirations, a stable economy and the longevity of the natural environment; and appropriate branding, image, promotion and marketing opportunities. Vision Tourism in Douglas Shire will be recognised as a model of best practice Statement sustainable tourism which presents our unique reef and rainforest areas and cultural heritage whilst benefiting the local community including Aboriginal groups.

Gatton Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The aim of this report is to undertake an analysis of the tourism potential of the the Plan Gatton Shire and make a number of recommendations that will promote the development of the Shire's tourism industry in the short term. Document The objectives of this report are to: provide an inventory of all existing tourist Objectives related operations that are located within the Shire of Gatton; identify existing methods for the promotion of tourism in Gatton; identify trends of tourism in Gatton, if any; identify possible roles for all parties involved in Gatton Shire's tourism industry; discuss roles that are of concern to the tourism operators in the Shire; list opportunities for further tourism growth; and provide recommendations for Council and operators in the Shire's tourism industry. Vision Not stated Statement

Gold Coast Council’s Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The development of this strategy recognises the importance of tourism to the the Plan local economy and provides Council with its first formal tourism strategic plan for the city and surrounding hinterland. Our Tourism City also provides a framework for many of the planning and policy outcomes generated from the GCTV project. Document Provide a framework within Council for the coordination of Gold Coast tourism Objectives and the development of planning and policy outcomes; assists council in prioritising the tourism initiatives for Gold Coast city; aims to position tourism as part of the social fabric of the community as well as the major industry in Gold Coast city; develops a mechanism for stakeholder coordination through fostering internal relationships with Council and continuing to build Council's partnerships with over levels of government and the private sector; and supports

444 the ongoing marketing and promotion of Gold Coast city through the Gold Coast tourism bureau. Vision The objective of this strategy is to fulfil the following statements: (1) Gold Statement Coast city will remain Australia's premier tourism destination. A prosperous, growing tourism industry will be promoted through a sophisticated approach to tourism development that is ethically, socially, culturally, economically and environmentally sustainable. (2) through a collaborative, innovative, whole-of- destination approach to tourism planning and policymaking, Gold Coast City Council is a global leader in local government tourism destination management.

Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy has been undertaken to the Plan provide the framework for: the balanced development of tourism throughout Hinchinbrook Shire, and short and mid-term strategic directions for individual sectors of the local tourist industry, the community, the Development Bureau of Hinchinbrook and Cardwell Shires and the Hinchinbrook Shire Council. Document To establish a common goal and objectives for the local industry, community, Objectives development bureau and council in the development of tourism; to develop strategies to achieve these objectives; to develop a time schedule for the implementation of these strategies including priorities and responsibilities; to implement monitoring methods to identify achievement of objectives and effectiveness of strategies. Vision Not stated Statement

Ipswich City Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The Ipswich City tourism strategy is a document aimed to build a solid base for the Plan the development of a sustainable tourism industry that will supplement the local economy in the next century while conserving our natural and built heritage and environmental assets. Document The purpose of the strategy is to provide clear direction to local tourism Objectives operators and other associated businesses on the aims and objectives of tourism development within Ipswich City and the activities being provided by the Ipswich City Council. Vision To make Ipswich a desirable destination offering quality experiences for Statement tourists and economic benefits for the community.

Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan Plan Overview Rationale of The Kilcoy Chamber of Commerce and Industry has recognised the importance the Plan of the tourism industry sector as a vital part of the economic development and future of the Kilcoy Shire. In recognition of the importance of tourism, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry applied for and received funding to develop a tourism management plan for the Kilcoy Shire. Tourism within the Kilcoy Shire already represents a major component of the economic mix and is one of the key sectors for future economic development. Like any economic development activity the ability to develop a strategic plan and manage the direction of this sector is vital to achieving successful outcomes.

445 Document Not stated Objectives Vision Not stated Statement

Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The study was commissioned by the Laidley Shire Council to conduct an the Plan analysis of the tourism potential of the Laidley Shire and from this analysis develop a five year tourism strategy. Document The report is a comprehensive analysis of the current position of tourism in the Objectives Shire and assesses both deficiencies and possibilities for tourism development. The report makes a number of recommendations which collectively build into a suggested tourism development strategy designed to improve the Shire's existing tourism infrastructure and tourism related businesses. The strategy also maps out a series of possible tourism futures that the Laidley Council can strive towards. Vision Not stated Statement

Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of To promote the development of tourism in an integrated fashion across the the Plan Shire by establishing an appropriate level of physical and social infrastructure that will support the growth and evolution of this critical industry. Document Not stated Objectives Vision Not stated Statement

Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The Maroochy Shire Tourism Strategy was commissioned by Council and the Plan established the foundation and direction for further development of sustainable tourism throughout the Shire during the next 3-5 years. Document The tourism development strategy has been developed from extensive Objectives consultation and fieldwork throughout the Shire and is presented as an action plan which brings together 95 strategies (actions) based on the recommendations and key issues contained in the body of the report. The strategies are grouped under five strategic objectives which provide an integrated approach and blueprint for the future. Vision By the year 2005, Maroochy Shire will be positioned as the primary visitor Statement destination in the region, offering a wide range of facilities and experiences, with strong, sustained growth in the domestic, special-interest and international markets.

Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of There is a pressing need for the development of a new leading sector in the

446 the Plan regional economy that will raise the level of economic activity and provide jobs. Tourism is particularly well suited for this role because of its labour intensive nature and consequently significant regional impact. The primary objective of the study, therefore, is the formulation of a tourism development strategy for the Pioneer Valley, which includes Mirani Shire. Document Not stated Objectives Vision Not stated Statement

Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan Plan Overview Rationale of Whilst we all recognise the need to develop tourism for Mount Isa, a haphazard the Plan approach to tourism development may compromise the very qualities that make Mount Isa a potentially sought after destination. A framework must be established which defines what constitutes appropriate tourism development. Document The report serves as a guiding framework for tourism development over the Objectives next 10 years and provides a planning framework within which tourism issues should be addressed. Vision To integrate the tourism assets and attributes of Mount Isa into a unique Statement experience that reflects the unique qualities of the district, creates a strong destination image, assists in diversifying the local economy and has high appeal for the community, intrastate, interstate and international visitors.

Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of Not stated the Plan Document Not stated Objectives Vision Not stated Statement

Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of The report provides a tourism development action plan commissioned by the Plan Nanango Shire Council in parallel with the South Burnett Regional Tourism Strategy and is designed to be read in conjunction with the regional strategy, which addresses the wider strategic issues and market development. The Nanango Tourism Action Plan focuses on the actions that can be undertaken by the Nanango Shire Council, its tourism operators, business operators and wider community, to further the development of tourism as an economic contributor within the Shire. Document The tourism action plan focuses at the local level, taking into account the Objectives strategies proposed for the South Burnett region but reflecting opportunities to develop tourism activity and benefits within the Nanango Shire. The action plan comprises 31 recommendations together with a series of actions in the categories of: image and prominence for the shire; structure of the tourism industry and support; and product development.

447 Vision Not stated Statement

Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of In preparing the new IPA based Land Use Planning Scheme, it became apparent the Plan to council that whilst the Scheme describes a vision for the preferred future for Noosa, the tools of the Planning Scheme itself (development control), cannot alone achieve the preferred community visions. Other sectors in our community including other arms of government, the private sector and voluntary agencies play vital roles in our community and are all essential contributors to the final community outcomes. To achieve a greater focus on partnerships, ownership and mutual responsibility for implementation between the community, community organisations, council and state agencies, council has embarked on a new concept of community based sector plans. Clearly tourism is a major industry in Noosa Shire. It contributes significantly to and impacts on the economy, the environment, lifestyle social and characteristics of the community. Given this significance, council selected tourism as the first sector in this community sector planning process. Document The tourism plan charts a course for the tourism industry, the community and Objectives the council that should contribute to the realisation of economic, social and environmental sustainability. Vision Having identified and discussed key strategic issues and desired strategic shifts, Statement the tourism collaborative board developed a vision to express the outcomes sought from the Noosa tourism plan by 2011, together with goals and strategies to achieve the plan. The tourism plan vision for 2011 is: A community and tourism industry that works for well together that Noosa is internationally recognised as an innovator in achieving interdependent economic, social and environmental sustainability.

Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of Council to recognise the economic potential of tourism in the Pine Rivers the Plan economy in diversifying the economic base, creating more locally based employment within existing and provincial communities and providing a sustainable alternative that neutralises land and resource conflict in potentially environmentally sensitive areas. Document A series of strategies and subsequent actions. Objectives Vision Not stated Statement

Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The development of a local tourism strategy has been based on the community the Plan acceptance of the need to do more to encourage and promote tourism in the Pittsworth Shire whilst recognising that there must be ongoing economic benefits to the community. Document A number of strategic issues and directions have been developed under each Objectives element of the plan and are designed to give direction and guidance to council

448 and the community when dealing with tourism development and promotion. Vision Not stated Statement

Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The motivation for the review stems from a firm desire and commitment on the Plan behalf of Council to continue to devise, and implement strategies and initiatives that will deliver tangible economic development, business growth and employment creation outcomes for Redcliffe and its resident and business community. Document The strategic process comprises the following elements: the development of a Objectives planning framework to define the parameters of the tourism strategy; an assessment of the study area’s internal capabilities and external environments; a definition of the desired end-state or vision to be achieved at the end of the planning process; and the tourism development strategy itself, which includes strategic objectives and prioritised actions to reach this desired end-state. Vision The tourism strategy establishes a 10 year program of activities that seeks to Statement create the following vision: “To integrate the recreation and tourism attributes of Redcliffe into a unique and diverse themed experience that showcases the strengths of the City, creates a strong destination profile, complements rather than competes with the wider region, diversifies the local economy and has high appeal for visitor markets and the local community”.

Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The project was undertaken because of the realisation that tourism in Redland the Plan Shire has not achieved its full potential. The Redland Shire Council has determined a need to establish a five-year strategic framework for tourism development in the Shire. Document The consultants have endeavoured to produce a practical strategy that provides Objectives a clear way forward for tourism not only within the Shire, but also within the broader regional context (p.8). Some of Council’s major objectives of this planning exercise were to: examine previous planning that directly or indirectly affects the Shire’s tourism industry and evaluate its current relevance; undertake through field evaluation and stakeholder consultation an examination of the current status of the tourism industry; identify current stakeholder issues and concerns and seek to identify areas of consensus and address areas of debate amongst the array of different stakeholder groups; and provide an independent evaluation of the issues facing the industry and a critical review of those current hurdles that are preventing the ability of the Shire to adopt more sustainable directions (p.9). Vision The tourism industry, the community and government must decide what they Statement want from tourism in the Shire. The process of consultation seeks to identify the differing views of stakeholders and attempt to strike a balance between those views in order to achieve the best outcome possible. After an extensive process of consultation and research, the following vision has been formulated: ‘In five years time, Redland Shire will have a sustainable tourism industry working cohesively throughout the Shire, delivering a diverse array of consistently high quality experiences throughout the year that encourage

449 traditional day trip and tourism markets to stay longer, spend more and attract new experiential market sectors to the Shire. Tourism will be seen to integrate with as opposed to inundate the natural, social and economic values of the Shire to preserve and play a pivotal role in retaining the unique character of each of the Shire’s distinctive settings. The natural and cultural assets that underpin the success of the industry will be protected and showcased through best practice approaches to ensure that the needs of the Shire’s residents and the tourism industry share a common vision’.

Roma Tourism Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of Not stated the Plan Document Not stated Objectives Vision Not stated Statement

Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of The tourism development strategy is a Sarina Shire Council initiative as part of the Plan its overall programme for new economic development in the Shire. Document The strategy reviews the current situation with regards to tourism development Objectives in the Shire and concludes that the sector is still in the embryonic stage. Although the strategy does not make any formal suggestion, it implicitly recognises that need for an institutional and consultative framework to be set up in partnership with the local council to coordinate and drive the tourism development efforts of the Shire. This is seen as the driving force which should initiate and direct actions towards the implementation of the tourism development strategy. Vision Our vision is: to develop and promote the Shire as a quality, competitive and Statement affordable tourist destination to both domestic and international visitors; to promote diversity in the development of our tourism base; and to engage in a tourism development path that is economically, ecologically and socially sustainable in the long term.

Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of It has long been recognised that Thuringowa possesses significant assets and the Plan attributes that can be harnessed to develop a sustainable tourism industry and over time develop a destination image for the locality. To date however, there has been no clear consensus on how to exploit this potential, resulting in the fact that tourism as an industry is still in its infant stages, characterised by the independent operation of tourism products in the locality and significant variation in quality of product and delivery. The current infant status of the industry however provides an ideal opportunity to develop a planning approach that sows the seeds to develop a sustainable tourism industry without having to undo potential problems of the past. In recognition of the need to coordinate tourism development to achieve optimal results for Thuringowa, the council commissioned this report, which represents a tourism and event strategy for this

450 city. This strategy/masterplan has been prepared in response to an initiative by the Thuringowa City Council to establish a planning framework, which guides the development of tourism and related recreational activities in the local government area. Document To establish a planning framework to guide the development of tourism and Objectives related recreational activities in Thuringowa City. Vision The tourism masterplan established a ten year program of activities that seeks to Statement create the following vision: ‘to integrate the tourism attributes of Thuringowa into a unique and diverse themed experience that showcases the strengths of the district, creates a strong destination profile, complements rather than competes with the wider region, diversifies the local economy and has high appeal for the community and domestic and international visitors’.

451 Appendix 14: Queensland Local Government Area Profiles Local % LGA % State LGA % State LGA % LGA % State LGA % LGA Destination Score Sq km Sq km Population population Tourism total tourism Tourism total (1 734 190) (3 882 037) businesses businesses businesses employment employment (persons) Redland 69.5 537 0 127 777 3.3 183 4.5 2.3 2 828 5.5 Sarina 67.3 1 444 0.1 9 979 0.3 30 5.1 0.4 195 5.3 Douglas 61.9 2 456 0.1 11 654 0.3 147 16.3 2.2 1 627 24.2 Gold Coast 60.8 1 406 0.1 469 214 12.1 1 692 7.8 28.2 14 195 13.5 Thuringowa 51.0 1 867 0.1 57 448 1.5 62 4.8 1.1 1 396 6.1 Maroochy 50.0 1 163 0.1 141 069 3.6 493 7.2 7.9 5 023 10.1 Mirani 44.5 3 280 0.2 5 299 0.1 24 4.6 0.4 104 4.9 Chinchilla 42.3 8 701 0.5 6 133 0.2 18 2.3 0.3 97 4.2 Kilcoy 36.9 1 445 0.1 3 467 0.1 12 4.3 0.2 59 4.7 Burdekin 34.7 5 053 0.3 18 636 0.5 71 4.5 1.1 283 3.1 Noosa 34.7 869 0.1 47 606 1.2 286 11.2 4.2 2 522 3.2 Redcliffe 34.7 38 0 52 303 1.3 87 4.5 1.4 1 234 6.8 Banana 29.3 15 755 0.9 14 266 0.4 57 3.7 0.9 342 5.1 Cardwell 26.0 3 062 0.2 11 230 0.3 44 6.0 0.6 543 11.3 Nanango 25.0 1 735 0.1 8 700 0.2 18 3.8 0.3 133 5.2 Ipswich 23.9 1 204 0.1 135 579 3.5 233 4.5 4.0 2 396 4.7 Mount Isa 23.9 43 343 2.5 20 663 0.5 95 9.1 1.5 724 7.1 Gatton 21.7 1 579 0.1 16 296 0.4 33 2.9 0.5 305 4.8 Hinchinbrook 19.5 2 882 0.2 14 585 0.4 54 4.4 0.9 244 4.5 Caloundra 17.3 1 094 0.1 86 468 2.2 230 6.2 3.7 2 399 9.0 Laidley 16.3 701 0 13 351 0.3 14 2.3 0.2 196 4.4 Blackall 14.1 16 384 0.9 1 659 0 19 8.6 0.3 42 5.0 Pine Rivers 5.4 750 0 139 228 3.6 184 4.3 3.5 3 299 5.6 Roma 4.3 78 0 6 752 0.2 48 8.3 0.7 213 6.9 Bowen 3.2 21 177 1.2 12 568 0.3 114 6.7 1.7 300 5.4 Murilla 3.2 6 074 0.4 2 725 0.1 14 3.2 0.2 63 5.1 Pittsworth 3.2 1 090 0.1 4 896 0.1 10 1.7 0.2 73 3.5 Crow’s Nest 2.1 1 631 0.1 11 677 0.3 23 3.2 0.4 195 4.3 Mareeba 2.1 53 645 3.1 18 659 0.5 88 6.1 1.4 565 8.1

453 Atherton 1.0 623 0 10 994 0.3 44 5.4 0.7 242 5.7 Aramac N/A 23 361 1.3 712 0.0 3 2.2 0 6 1.6 Aurukun N/A 7 383 0.4 1 166 0 0 0 0 3 0.7 Balonne N/A 31 144 1.8 5 587 0.1 31 5.0 0.4 131 4.6 Barcaldine N/A 8 443 0.5 1 692 0 18 10.3 0.3 55 7.2 Barcoo N/A 61 974 3.6 464 0 4 5.2 0 13 3.6 Bauhinia N/A 23 641 1.4 2 240 0.1 6 1.8 0.1 6 1.8 Beaudesert N/A 2 854 0.2 59 393 1.5 104 4.4 1.9 1 520 6.4 Belyando N/A 30 281 1.7 10 524 0.3 47 7.3 0.8 239 4.9 Bendemere N/A 3 928 0.2 994 0 7 3.3 0.1 3 0.7 Biggenden N/A 1 316 0.1 1 537 0 6 2.4 0.1 12 2.0 Boonah N/A 1 922 0.1 8 567 0.2 25 3.4 0.3 140 4.1 Booringa N/A 27 826 1.6 1 861 0 15 5.4 0.2 56 6.0 Boulia N/A 61 093 3.5 553 0 5 7.9 0.1 10 2.8 Brisbane N/A 1 327 0.1 957 010 24.7 2 936 5.8 51.8 32 874 7.8 Broadsound N/A 18 546 1.1 6 489 0.2 18 4.0 0.3 121 3.6 Bulloo N/A 73 805 4.3 474 0 11 15.9 0.2 26 5.4 Bundaberg N/A 96 0 45 801 1.2 166 6.5 2.8 1 005 6.5 Bungil N/A 13 338 0.8 1 959 0.1 7 1.8 0.1 28 2.4 Burke N/A 41 990 2.4 1 723 0 7 13.4 6.1 36 3.7 Burnett N/A 2 004 0.1 25 891 0.7 41 4.1 0.6 500 5.9 Caboolture N/A 1 225 0.1 126 729 3.3 151 4.1 2.8 2 156 5.2 Cairns N/A 1 850 0.1 127 454 3.3 645 8.7 10.4 7 598 13.3 Calliope N/A 6 547 0.4 16 210 0.4 28 3.2 0.5 404 6.3 Cambooya N/A 631 0 5 547 0.1 1 0.3 0 86 3.8 Carpentaria N/A 68 335 3.9 4 105 0.1 13 8.1 0.2 105 5.6 Charters N/A 42 0 8 832 0.2 52 10.5 0.8 219 6.9 Towers Clifton N/A 867 0.1 2 492 0.1 11 2.6 0.2 23 2.4 Cloncurry N/A 48 112 2.8 3 836 0.1 19 7.3 0.3 145 5.9 Cook N/A 117 090 6.8 8 859 0.2 50 10.8 0.8 343 8.3

454 Cooloola N/A 2 967 0.2 35 624 0.9 104 4.8 1.7 718 5.9 Croydon N/A 29 581 1.7 286 0 4 10.5 0 9 6.7 Dalby N/A 48 0 10 199 0.3 48 6.2 0.8 230 5.4 Dalrymple N/A 68 346 3.9 3 485 0.1 8 2.4 0 66 3.7 Diamantina N/A 94 832 5.5 306 0 6 15.0 0.1 26 10.1 Duaringa N/A 18 143 1.0 7 724 0.2 36 6.5 0.6 168 4.7 Eacham N/A 1 127 0.1 6 405 0.2 34 6.1 0.5 207 8.4 Eidsvold N/A 4 809 0.3 936 0 4 2.8 0.1 12 2.6 Emerald N/A 10 365 0.6 13 502 0.3 50 5.1 0.8 396 5.9 Esk N/A 3 934 0.2 15 206 0.4 33 3.4 0.5 212 4.2 Etheridge N/A 39 309 2.3 1 007 0 16 13.0 0.3 67 9.3 Fitzroy N/A 5 905 0.3 10 280 0.3 16 2.5 0.2 209 5.1 Flinders N/A 41 538 2.4 2 033 0.1 15 5.5 0.2 58 5.6 Gayndah N/A 2 709 0.2 2 939 0.1 11 3.4 0.2 40 2.8 Gladstone N/A 163 0 28 503 0.7 112 7.4 2.0 708 5.9 Goondiwindi N/A 15 0 5 023 0.1 37 7.3 0.5 172 7.5 Herberton N/A 9 604 0.6 5 508 0.1 12 3.8 0.1 87 5.9 Hervey Bay N/A 2 357 0.1 49 371 1.3 157 9.3 2.3 1 425 11.0 Ilfracombe N/A 6 576 0.4 367 0 1 2.4 0 15 7.7 Inglewood N/A 5 879 0.3 2 637 0.1 11 2.8 0.1 49 4.2 Isis N/A 1 701 0.1 6 141 0.2 24 4.7 0.4 109 5.6 Isisford N/A 10 501 0.6 301 0 1 1.7 0 6 3.3 Jericho N/A 21 873 1.3 1 101 0 7 4.5 0.1 9 1.7 Johnstone N/A 1 639 0.1 19 523 0.5 105 6.2 1.6 414 5.1 Jondaryan N/A 1 910 0.1 13 864 0.4 32 3.4 0.6 220 3.8 Kilkivan N/A 3 264 0.2 3 283 0.1 9 1.8 0.2 34 2.7 Kingaroy N/A 2 422 0.1 12 302 0.3 38 3.7 0.6 224 4.5 Kolan N/A 2 650 0.2 4 550 0.1 11 2.9 0.1 63 4.8 Livingstone N/A 11 775 0.7 28 222 0.7 92 7.2 1.5 1 068 10.5 Logan N/A 251 0 173 331 4.5 126 2.4 4.1 3 615 1.3 Longreach N/A 23 561 1.4 4 009 0.1 33 8.5 0.5 182 8.4

455 Mackay N/A 2 897 0.2 79 824 2.1 250 4.6 4.0 2 191 1.6 Maryborough N/A 1 234 0.1 25 595 0.7 86 6.0 1.4 595 6.9 McKinlay N/A 40 885 2.4 1 038 0 13 7.0 0.2 57 6.3 Millmerran N/A 4 521 0.3 3 367 0.1 15 3.6 0.2 10.8 4.8 Miraim Vale N/A 3 778 0.2 5 113 0.1 14 3.8 0.2 154 9.8 Monto N/A 4 322 0.2 2 473 0.1 11 2.3 0.1 60 4.9 Mornington N/A 1 231 0.1 1 042 0 2 9.6 0 6 1.6 Mount Morgan N/A 492 0 3 052 0.1 5 5.2 0.1 36 5.8 Mundubbera N/A 4 193 0.2 2 395 0.1 8 2.4 6.0 29 2.1 Murgon N/A 695 0 4 972 0.1 12 2.9 0.2 48 2.7 Murweh N/A 40 740 2.3 5 019 0.1 30 6.0 0.5 127 5.3 Nebo N/A 10 035 0.6 2 144 0.1 11 6.1 0.2 113 8.0 Paroo N/A 47 727 2.8 2 170 0.1 12 4.7 0.1 32 3.3 Peak Downs N/A 8 127 0.5 3 154 0.1 15 5.2 0.2 96 6.0 Perry N/A 2 359 0.1 437 0 2 2.1 0 6 3.4 Quilpie N/A 67 613 3.9 1 073 0 8 4.1 0.1 36 5.3 Richmond N/A 26 602 1.5 1 145 0 6 3.6 0.1 44 8.7 Rockhampton N/A 189 0 59 662 1.5 259 8.6 4.4 1 867 7.7 Rosalie N/A 2 200 0.1 8 963 0.2 14 2.0 0.3 117 3.3 Stanthorpe N/A 2 697 0.2 10 575 0.3 46 4.5 0.7 259 6.5 Tambo N/A 14 105 0.8 633 0 3 3.7 0 15 4.3 Tara N/A 11 680 0.7 3 958 0.1 14 2.6 0.2 41 3.1 Taroom N/A 18 645 1.1 2 550 0.1 7 1.3 0.1 46 3.1 Tiaro N/A 2 187 0.1 4 941 0.1 8 2.2 0.1 61 4.7 Toowoomba N/A 117 0 94 043 2.4 318 7.1 5.4 2 372 6.5 Torres N/A 1 857 0.1 10 419 0.3 25 9.2 0.4 146 4.0 Townsville N/A 1 869 0.1 97 923 2.5 412 7.8 6.9 3 751 8.7 Waggamba N/A 13 400 0.8 3 008 0.1 3 0.8 0 30 1.9 Wambo N/A 5 713 0.3 5 292 0.1 18 2.0 0.2 81 3.4 Warroo N/A 13 659 0.8 1 063 0 2 1.0 0 9 1.6 Warwick N/A 4 423 0.3 21 530 0.6 81 4.4 1.2 435 5.2

456 Whitsunday N/A 2 679 0.2 16 874 0.4 165 12.8 2.6 1 964 21.7 Winton N/A 53 935 3.1 1 543 0 16 7.5 0.3 79 8.0 Wondai N/A 3 578 0.2 4 339 0.1 16 3.1 0.3 44 2.9 Woocoo N/A 2 006 0.1 3 163 0.1 0 0 0 42 3.5 Source: Office of Economic and Statistical Research, 2005, Local Government Area Profiles, Queensland Office of the Government Statistician, Brisbane.

457

Appendix 15: Principles and Goals of the Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy

Principles: Goals: • Focus on quality tourism products and • Sustainable Tourism: To ensure the yield rather than volume. ecological, social, cultural and economic • Provide a high quality of service using sustainability of existing and future our tropical hospitality. tourism in the Shire. • Manage and develop the industry • Precincts and Nodes: To promote a cooperatively with the community. variety of tourism precincts and nodes • Focus on presenting reef and rainforest. where appropriate within the Shire • Encourage a diversity of experiences which provide a diversity of experiences and opportunities for varied markets. based on their natural and cultural • Present our unique Aboriginal and characteristics. cultural values with respect and • Tourism Organisation and Management: integrity as agreed by the traditional To have adequately resourced tourism occupiers of the land. management in the Shire through an • Promote and present other cultural efficient, coordinated and consultative values in accordance with best practice. organization. • Present our values in an appropriate • Tourism Marketing: To promote the way. Shire’s unique tourism value and • Maintain an attractive natural and built attractions in an honest and effective landscape and social atmosphere. way. • Maximise the use of local business, • Product Development: To provide for services and employees. sustainable growth and develop • Provide a stable career for local appropriate tourism products for tourism employees. changing markets. • Market, promote and advertise • Infrastructure Development: To ensure honestly, developing realistic appropriate infrastructure provides a expectations. variety of tourism opportunities. • Control development to protect • Implementation, Monitoring and agricultural land, the environment and Review: To ensure the ongoing lifestyle. management of tourism marketing and development is considered, coordinated and based on cooperative approaches. Source: Douglas Shire Council, 1998

458