Institute for Culture and Society

Photos of the Past: The negotiation of identity and belonging at Australian tourism sites FINAL REPORT

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR EMMA WATERTON, DR EMILY BURNS AND MS MAY WILLARD

NOVEMBER 2016 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

ISBN 978-1-74108-423-8

Authored by Associate Professor Emma Waterton , Dr Emily Burns and May Willard © 2016 University of Western Sydney ABN 53 014 069 881 CRICOS Provider No: 00917K Cover image: Emma Watertons

Referencing guide: Waterton, E., Burns, E., Willard, M. (2016) Photos of the Past: The Negotiation of Identity and Belonging at Australian Tourism Sites: Final Report. Western Sydney University

2 Western Sydney University  CONTENTS

List of Tables 4 List of Figures 5 Abbreviations 6 Acknowledgements 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 INTRODUCTION 10 2.1 Photos of the Past: A Rationale 11 2.2 Project Aims and Research Style 12 THE LITERATURE 14 3.1 Heritage Tourism and its Methodological Ghosts 15 3.2 Heritage and Affect 16 3.3 Heritage and Photographing Practices 18 METHODOLOGY 20 4.1 Study Design 21 4.2 Study Sample 23 4.3 Case Studies 24 KEY FINDINGS 38 5.1 The Fieldwork: A Description 39 5.2 The Demographics 42 5.3. Comparative Findings 58 5.4. Specific Findings 70 REFERENCES 76 ABOUT THE AUTHORS 80 APPENDICES 82 Appendix A: Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park 83 Appendix B: Kakadu National Park 91 Appendix C: Blue Mountains National Park 99 Appendix D: Geikie Gorge National Park 105 Appendix E: Port Arthur 111 Appendix F: Sovereign Hill 119

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 3 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

List of Tables

Table 5.1: Age of the Overall Sample 43 Table 5.2: Education Levels of the Overall Sample 43 Table 5.3: Employment Categories for the Overall Sample 43 Table 5.4: Age percentages for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park sample 46 Table 5.5: Educational qualifications for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park sample 46 Table 5.6: Nationalities for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park sample 47 Table 5.7: Occupational classifications for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park sample 47 Table 5.8: Age percentages for the Kakadu National Park sample 48 Table 5.9: Education levels Kakadu National Park sample 48 Table 5.10: Nationalities of the Kakadu National Park sample 49 Table 5.11: Social classifications for the Kakadu National Park sample 49 Table 5.12: Age percentages for the Blue Mountains National Park sample 50 Table 5.13: Education qualifications for the Blue Mountains National Park sample 50 Table 5.14: Nationalities of the Blue Mountains National Park sample 51 Table 5.15: Social classifications for the Blue Mountains National Park sample 51 Table 5.16: Age percentages for the Geikie Gorge National Park sample 52 Table 5.17: Education qualifications for the Geikie Gorge National Park sample 53 Table 5.18: Nationalities of the Geikie Gorge National Park sample 53 Table 5.19: Social classifications for the Geikie Gorge National Park sample 53 Table 5.20: Age percentages for the Port Arthur sample 54 Table 5.21: Education qualifications for the Port Arthur sample 55 Table 5.22: Nationalities of the Port Arthur sample 55 Table 5.23: Social classifications for the Port Arthur sample 55 Table 5.24: Age percentages for the Sovereign Hill sample 56 Table 5.25: Education qualifications for the Sovereign Hill sample 56 Table 5.26: Nationalities for the Sovereign Hill sample 57 Table 5.27: Social classifications for the Sovereign Hill sample 57 Table 5.28: Participant responses to the question ‘What are your overall reasons for visiting this site?’ 59 Table 5.29: Participant responses to the notion of ‘Australian heritage’ 61 Table 5.30: Participant responses to questions of representation and belonging 61 Table 5.31: Comparative participant responses to questions about how each site made them feel 63 Table 5.32: Comparative participant responses to questions about the mood and atmosphere 63 Table 5.33: Comparative participant responses to questions about any sensations experienced onsite 63 Table 5.34: Comparative participant responses to questions about visitor photography 65 Table 5.35: Comparative participant responses to questions about how visitors use their photographs 65 Table 5.36: Participant responses to questions about which aspects of Australia’s heritage they were visiting 67 Table 5.37: Comparative participant responses to questions about the messages visitors will take away about Australia’s heritage 67 Table 5.38: Comparative participant responses to questions about visitor experiences 69 Table 5.39: Comparative participant responses to questions about personal identity 69 Table 5.40: Comparative participant responses to questions about previously held views about Australia’s history 69 Table 5.41: Participant responses to questions regarding climbing Uluru 71 Table 5.42: Bi-variate analysis of visitor ‘type’ by attitudes to climbing Uluru 71 Table 5.43: Bi-variate analysis of participant age-range by attitudes to climbing Uluru 71 Table 5.44: Participant responses to questions about uranium mining 73 Table 5.45: Participant responses to questions about which layer speak the loudest 73 Table 5.46: Participant responses to questions about missing narratives on site 73 Table 5.47: Participant responses to questions about re-thinking Indigenous history 75 Table 5.48: Participant responses to questions about the Geikie Gorge boat tour 75 Table 5.49: Participant responses to questions about the absence of a boat tour 75

4 Western Sydney University 

List of Figures

Figure 5.1: Participant Distribution 44 Figure 5.2: Participant Distribution in Australia 44

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 5 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

Abbreviations

DECRA Discovery for Early Career Researcher Award ARC Australian Research Council WH World Heritage UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation GBMWHA Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area SPB cenery Preservation Board PAHSMA Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority NS-NEC8 National Statistics Socioeconomic Classification

6 Western Sydney University  Acknowledgements

This research project proved to be a very I am also indebted to the many people who Historic Site, Sovereign Hill and Burra. Special complex but nonetheless rewarding agreed to participate in the project’s social thanks are also due to Hayley Saul for her time, undertaking. The fieldwork underpinning it surveys, in-depth interviews and ‘go-alongs’; effort and scholarship during the two phases of was made possible due to the generosity of without them, this research would have been fieldwork in Geikie Gorge National Park. a number of individuals and organisations; impossible. In participating in this project, they their willingness to engage with the project shared their memories, photos and personal Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the was a source of much relief and appreciation. experiences, as well as talked about their financial support provided by the Australian In particular, I would like to thank Uluru-Kata significance, and on some occasions welcomed Research Council (ARC) Discovery for Early Tjuta National Park (especially the Traditional us into their homes. I would like to express my Career Researcher Award (DECRA) scheme Owners and Kerrie Bennison for facilitating sincere gratitude for their patience, openness [DE120101072]. the research permit for this project), Kakadu and willingness to be involved in this research, National Park (especially the Traditional even though they cannot be named here (for With thanks, Owners and Anne O’Dea for facilitating the purposes of anonymity and confidentiality). Associate Professor Emma Waterton the research permit for this project), Blue Mountains National Park (especially Richard I also acknowledge, with gratitude, the time Kingswood, Aine Gliddon and Wendy Dollin for and efforts of Emily Burns, Garth Lean, facilitating the research permit for this project), Charlotte Cross, Aimee McNair and May Geikie Gorge National Park (especially David Willard, all of whom contributed as research Woods, Amanda Smith and Brooke Shields for assistants during different stages of this facilitating the research permit for this project), project. In particular, I am grateful to the time, Port Arthur Historic Site (especially Jody Steele flexibility and intellectual contributions of Emily and Jane Harrington), the Burra Visitor Centre Burns, who took part in multiple phases of (especially Paula Jones) and Sovereign Hill the fieldwork – in the Blue Mountains National (especially Brett Dunlop). The time and input Park, Kakadu National Park, Port Arthur from all of the above was instrumental to both the completion and success of this project.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 7 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The project Photos of the Past: The study provides a detailed analysis A VARIED AUDIENCE of the cultural processes involved in the A key consideration of the project and The Negotiation of Identity negotiation of belonging and identity at resultant report lies with the variations in and Belonging at Australian heritage tourism sites in Australia. In order visitor conceptualisations of Australian to facilitate Australia’s capacity to contribute Tourism Sites (henceforth Photos heritage, at both the physical level (i.e. onsite) to international debates over issues of and at the level of visual representations of the Past) was funded by the national cohesion, multiculturalism and the and memory-work (i.e. after the visit). The Australian Research Council current ‘fear of difference’, we first need to ‘type’ of heritage site visited has a strong understand how Australians interpret and use (ARC), under the Discovery bearing on these negotiations, both onsite their own heritage. The identification of the Early Career Researcher Award and thereafter. Crucially, the ‘type’ of heritage strategies people employ in remembering also has a bearing on the visitor demographics (DECRA), in 2012 [DE120101072]. and engaging with Australia’s past, and the it attracts. Genre 1 sites, which here are meanings they draw from that engagement, is composed of national parks that are under important if heritage sites are to play an active joint-management, tend to attract a younger role in framing and influencing the direction of visitor (with high numbers in the 25-34 age debates concerned with identity and national category) as well as those more traditionally belonging. associated with heritage tourism sites (45- 54 and 55-64). Visitors to these sites are This research report provides timely and much also likely to hold high levels of education, needed new knowledge on how individuals with many included in this study holding capture and understand ‘Australia’ in response qualifications at the university level (with to messages encountered at popular heritage bachelor or graduate degrees). They are also sites. The research itself was conducted at likely to have employment in managerial seven sites within Australia: Uluru-Kata Tjuta and professional occupations. Less easy to National Park, Kakadu National Park, the determine for Genre 1 visitors is whether they Blue Mountains National Park, Geikie Gorge will be domestic or international tourists. National Park, the Burra Heritage Trail, Port Arthur Historic Site and Sovereign Hill. Six These demographics change considerably for of these seven sites are discussed in the those visiting Genre 2 sites, both of which are following report (the Burra Heritage Trail is national parks but without joint-management discussed in a separate research output). For strategies in place. One of the two sites the purposes of analysis, the six case study considered here is a World Heritage Site (Blue sites were condensed into three genres (1, Mountains National Park), while the other is less 2 and 3). Genre 1 includes those heritage well-known and vastly more remote (Geikie tourism sites where Aboriginal peoples’ Gorge National Park). In the former, the age views of Australia’s history are used to inform profile was considerably lower, with most visitors. Genre 2 includes those sites that surveyed visitors falling within the 18-24 and 25- bring together Aboriginal peoples’ histories 34 age categories. This was the youngest sample with settler narratives. Genre 3 includes of all the sites surveyed for Photos of the Past. At those heritage tourism sites that draw upon Geikie Gorge, by contrast, those surveyed tended interpretation strategies that emphasise to be in the 55-65 and 65+ age categories. settler and/or colonial history. The analyses Differences were striking here in terms of the collected together in this report provide an market, with the Blue Mountains National Park important evidence-base that can be used by attracting a largely international market and policymakers to reconsider a fuller range of Geikie Gorge National Park a largely domestic affective responses to Australia’s colonial past, one. There were also clear differences in terms of and perhaps better understand how emotions occupations, with a large number of respondents and felt responses contribute to the making to the Blue Mountains National Park indicating of wider discourses of ‘Australian-ness’ and that they were long-term unemployed or had Australian identity. never worked. The majority of visitors at Geikie Gorge National Park, by contrast, were retired. Levels of education were broadly similar across the two, with the exception of a larger number of visitors holding a bachelor or undergraduate degree visiting the Blue Mountains National Park.

8 Western Sydney University Executive Summary

Visitors to the two Genre 3 sites were broadly reflection. Irrespective of site ‘type’, a FEELINGS OF ENTITLEMENT similar. In terms of age, visitors roughly majority of participants expressed a feeling There was a simultaneous sense of entitlement aligned with expectations in the literature, of ‘visiting’ or passing through, rather emergent at many of the sites studied, with visitors falling within the 45-54, 55-64 than strong sentiments of belonging, even particularly those that narrate a clear colonial/ and 65+ categories, though there was a spike among domestic tourists. Importantly, this settler narrative. At Uluru, by contrast, there of visitors in the 25-34 category at Sovereign does not necessarily translate into a feeling was a palpable tension surrounding that Hill that was absent at Port Arthur. Reported of dissociation or lack of interest. Indeed, sense of entitlement and other, emergent education levels were similar between the such sites tend to prompt strong feelings of feelings of respect, with the former perhaps two sites, as was a preponderance towards respect and renewed knowledge regarding tapping into colonial legacies of Terra Nullius domestic visitors, though there was an the importance of Aboriginal and Torres (i.e. this land belongs to Australia, therefore intriguing presence of British tourists at Strait Islander peoples’ ties to the landscape it belongs to me). At those sites associated both sites. Port Arthur attracted the most and the meaning those ties have for cultural with Genres 1 and 2, the majority of visitors consistently Australian audience after Geikie connection and continuation. At Uluru-Kata talked very positively about the sites involved, Gorge National Park. This suggests that Tjuta National Park, this feeling of respect and strongly implied that they felt welcomed rather than assume the Australian heritage may slowly be translating into a changed though not necessarily as if they belonged. field ‘speaks’ to a particular segment of the understanding of Uluru itself, and the Sites associated with Genre 3 were more market, there is scope for sites and attractions importance of recognising and respecting likely to sponsor comments about education to consider an emerging younger profile of requests by Anangu Traditional Owners that and the interactive nature of the sites. This is visitors, particularly to national parks. tourists do not to climb it as part of their likely because of the constructed nature of touristic experience. 56% of respondents the sites under management. These feelings surveyed indicated that they did not believe of entitlement, however, are fluid, with visitors QUESTIONS OF BELONGING that Uluru should be climbed. This emergence to Port Arthur indicating that they would be of recognition and respect was replicated A key finding of this research is that what very interested to see a stronger Indigenous at Kakadu National Park, indicating the visitors view as Australian heritage directly narrative present and on display there (32.43% importance of joint management. reflects where they are visiting – visitors of respondents). to colonial heritage sites seem more likely to immediately think of Australia’s colonial past (at the expense of other, competing narratives), while those visiting Indigenous sites will more naturally nominate Aboriginal cultural affiliations and narratives. At the latter, the research unearthed a strong correlation between Indigenous landscapes and the prompting of deep, personal

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 9 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION

10 Western Sydney University Introduction

2.1 Photos of the Past: A Rationale

Almost a decade ago, In order to adequately respond to their With this in mind, Photos of the Past sets out pressing question, robust data was needed to break new ground by combining recent Gordon Waitt and Ruth Lane that centred upon what people make of the theoretical agendas on the politics of affect provocatively asked whether tourism places they visit and identified how with the equally emergent methodological field tourism in Australia would they used the messages contained within of visual autoethnography, undertaken by both them to negotiate identity and shape their the research team and heritage visitors. The remain ‘a colonial project’ or if conduct towards others. Those sites that deal justification for this emerged from a perceived it could be used more positively specifically with the nation’s heritage seemed tendency within conventional visitor research to provide ‘opportunities for an obvious place to start, as it is there that both to regard visitors as an abstraction, identifying improving non-Indigenous comfortable and challenging notions about only their profile characteristics, behaviour and national belonging are mediated and ultimately satisfaction levels. Such research has also had understandings of Indigenous accepted or resisted. a tendency to adopt generalised approaches peoples’ dispossession and without necessarily exploring the differences connections to country’ It was this proposition that underpinned the between different types of visitor experience. research associated with Photos of the Past. Photos of the Past, by contrast, explores (Waitt and Lane 2007, p. 157). The project’s rationale, then, can clearly be new ways of addressing visitor experience in seen as emerging out of long-standing debates order to provide a more rounded assessment that seek to define Australia’s cognitive, and evaluation of the complex processes of affective and emotional responses to its engagement that take place before, during and colonial past. The Project’s conviction is that after visits to sites of heritage tourism. targeting notions of ‘affect’ and questioning how it functions as a foundation for shared public understandings of the past allows researchers, practitioners and policymakers to ascertain how emotional or felt responses contribute to the making of wider discourses of ‘Australian-ness’. While much work has been done to analyse the political and media production of texts concerned with such issues, greater attention needs to be channelled towards explorations of how these negotiations are received and understood by audiences.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 11 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

2.2 Project Aims and Research Style

For this project, a comparative Seven sites were included in the study, grouped In terms of ‘research style’, Photos of the Past into three categories, or genres, of heritage: revolved around the generation of descriptive approach was adopted allowing sites operating under joint management with data about the behaviour and attitudes of for reflection on the uses traditional owners and offering an Aboriginal visitors, in order to address the aims outlined of settler/historic versus interpretation of Australia’s heritage for tourist above. In conventional terminology, this would consumption; sites that combine a mix of be described as qualitative research, with the Aboriginal heritage sites in European and Aboriginal narratives in their emphasis on depth and richness of data rather the arbitration of cultural and interpretations of Australia’s past; and sites that than numbers and descriptive or analytical political meaning and identity. emphasise European-focussed interpretations. statistics which would require different Specific sites included were: (1) Uluru-Kata methodologies. For this project, this research Tjuta National Park in the Northern Territory; style enabled the investigative team to capture (2) Kakadu National Park in the Northern the ‘voice’ of visitors by placing them at the Territory; (3) Blue Mountains National Park centre of the research, where they are seen in New South Wales; (4) the Burra Heritage as collaborators, participants or partners in Trail in the Clare Valley, South Australia; (5) creating value. Rigid question schedules were the township of Fitzroy Crossing and Geikie avoided, with conversational interactions Gorge National Park in Western Australia; (6) facilitated by the research team with a loose Port Arthur Historic Site in Tasmania; and (7) but consistent agenda or schedule based on Sovereign Hill in Victoria. All seven sites were the research aims. Each participant was treated used to investigate the following interlinked as a discrete case study of their experience. conceptual aims to: Generalisability was thus not assumed but was raised as a possibility as the research 1. Examine the way Australia’s past is progressed and other participants were constructed and remembered at three involved. The results could be used to inform genres of heritage tourism sites; quantitative surveys where these are deemed 2. Produce an understanding of how these necessary. acts of remembering are incorporated into broader processes of meaning-making, particularly in terms of national belonging and identity making; and 3. Capture the subjective meanings individuals create or reaffirm during their visits, with a focus upon what they can tell us about how personal narratives interlink with national identities. These conceptual aims required methods capable of tapping into visitors’ frames of reference and embodied experience, neither of which is necessarily ‘cognitive’. The project therefore also rotated around a fourth methodological aim to:

4. Coordinate and utilise a suite of innovative methods capable of capturing how belonging is felt or experienced, based upon an understanding of affect as responsive to atmosphere, mood and message.

12 Western Sydney University Introduction

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 13 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT THE LITERATURE

14 Western Sydney University The Literature

3.1 Heritage Tourism and its Methodological Ghosts

The broader turn to theories This gap or lacuna is a symptom of the fact More recently, however, we have seen this that, as a field, heritage tourism has remained emphasis change from a concern with objects of affect adopted byPhotos of constrained by the development of a strong themselves – their classification, conservation the Past emerged out of a gap canon of representational thinking which, since and interpretation – to the ways in which they identified within the heritage the 1980s, has successfully foregrounded the are consumed and expressed as notions of textual within semiotic frameworks. What this culture, identity and politics. The individual, tourism literature, which has amounted to is a ‘supply side’ orientation re-configured as a sentient, prescient, has heretofore been largely to the way the heritage tourism has been thinking, emotional, feeling and embodied constrained by a propensity understood and theorised, with few attempts consciousness, has been edging closer to towards working up typologies made to understand what happens in moments the centre. It brings with it the suggestion of touristic encounter. While these dominant that heritage has effects that go beyond of heritage ‘attractions’ and approaches might tell us something about its representations and the ways these are ‘tourists’ without making any the ‘who’ that tells the public what history is, understood. This project’s agenda, then, was real attempt to understand it leaves much to be desired when it comes to explore these effects and their contexts and to understanding what it means and how it is to identify the means to do so. To get there, what actually happens in used (de Groot 2009). more clarification is needed on some of the moments of encounter. ontological shifts that have been occurring There is little doubt that the heritage within the heritage tourism field, which was tourism field has been haunted by these commenced by the work of David Harvey in methodological ghosts, which largely emerge 2001, solidified with Laurajane Smith’s work in from a canonical positivism that is residual 2006, and then expanded through the work of in the social sciences and which seeks to Mike Crang and Divya Tolia-Kelly (2010), David abjure the messiness of the world in favour of Crouch (2010a, b), Emma Waterton (2014, identifying and locating categories of things 2015), Steve Watson (with Emma Waterton and the laws that govern them. This lingers 2013, 2015a, b) and Joy Sather-Wagstaff (2011, still in the form of academic and industry 2015, 2017) to gather in a sense of relating to attempts to categorise heritage, people doing the world, rather than just knowing it. heritage, practices of visiting, motivations for visiting and so forth. In this, it has been aided by a certain instrumentality and a need not so much for research per se but a need for information, which then defines not only the type of research carried out but what should be investigated in the first place: Who visits? How often? What are their characteristics? What do they do? What are their attitudes? The instrumentality of heritage research is thus intensified in the operational nexus and the need for data, for planning, for marketing and for evaluation; an instrumentality still further intensified in the commodification of tourism and the ‘heritage attraction’ (see Herbert et al., 1989; Prentice, 1989, 1993; Goulding, 1999; and others in the same vein). The effects of this instrumentality have been rather startling. Firstly, instead of developing appropriate and creative methods to address the diversity of phenomena in the heritage sphere, we have been stuck with the old ones, together with anxieties about whether we are doing them properly, or well enough, or whether the sample size is too large or too small.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 15 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

3.2 Heritage and Affect

Nigel Morgan and Annette In postcolonial contexts, destination images The theoretical significance of the project play a particularly powerful role, acting as Photos of the Past can be split into two linked Pritchard (1998) drew attention cues that signify an authorised process of Self/ contributions: to the less-than-innocent role Othering (Amoamo and Thompson 2010). played by imagery almost two As Lane and Waitt (2007) have suggested, 1. First, it extends recent re-theorisations of tourism can thus be imagined as a formative the way heritage sites are used to shape decades ago, when arguing process through which particular narratives present-day social and cultural debate; that any visual expression of about a nation’s past become known and and tourism is inevitably already familiar to its subjects. This is a theoretical 2. Second, it meets the challenge of the enmeshed with wider historical, framing that has been influenced by the above by incorporating innovative absorption of critical insights from visual performative frameworks that emphasise cultural, social, economic studies, post-colonial studies and cultural the tourist as producer of meaning. studies into the field of tourism. and political processes. Both contributions sit in contradistinction to the well explored world of the tourism marketer as Following from this, a critical seam of research purveyor of meaning, and both revolve around has developed that questions the tendency the emergence of an interest in the politics of within the Australian tourism industry to affect and the more-than-representational. produce and package essentialised and It is fair to point out at this point that ‘more- disempowering images of Aboriginality and than-representational’ approaches are just culture. Work by Peter Read (2000), Rebecca one among many ways of conceiving of affect; Lawrence and Chris Gibson (2007), Chris and they are not without criticism. Indeed, Healy (2008), Mary O’Dowd (2009) and Libby there are several routes by which a researcher Porter (2010) amongst others, demonstrate could ‘get’ to affect: via social psychological the breadth of this issue, permeating as it has routes and the work of Margaret Wetherell, for all aspects of social life with deeply entrenched example, or through cultural analysis and the cultural inconsistencies and insecurities that work of Sarah Ahmed, or in response to Ruth recursively plague Australia’s self-image. This, Leys’ history of science or the post-Deleuzian as O’Dowd argues, is a self-image that is almost approach of cultural geographer Nigel Thrift, pathologically ‘bi-cultural’ – Indigenous or non- to name a few. As has been pointed out Indigenous – with no clear spaces (discursive, elsewhere, each of these ‘routes to affect’ conceptual or otherwise) as yet allowed for has the capacity to animate new and creative an identity that recognises the place and research about heritage tourism, sponsoring belonging of a range of ethnicities and cultures approaches that attempt to access, understand (2010, p. 814). This highlights a significant and communicate the many ways in which issue for social policy-making, particularly people understand, consume, perform and polices that focus on the broader project of embody their knowledge and experiences of strengthening Australia’s social fabric: there historical events, people and/or places (see is a need not only to identify the various for example Waterton and Watson 2014). attitudinal remnants of colonial history but also This assessment sits alongside the more to understand how these are negotiated, made practical observation that heritage tourism is knowable and/or rejected within the embodied an industry that functions within a consumer and affectual encounters of the everyday. culture already commercialising affects. Yet, while affect is mentioned in several recent contributions to the field, only a handful provide serious explanations as to how it ought to be understood, with fewer still offering much by way of conceptual introduction.

16 Western Sydney University The Literature

Photos of the Past commenced from what has (Pile 2010). Affect, while social in origin, is Energised by this theory of affect, Photos of the been termed the ‘Thriftian landscape’, though thus bodily felt insomuch as atmosphere, as Past took up a concern with theorising heritage with some qualifications (see Wetherell 2014), Brennan (2004, p. 1) argues, ‘literally gets into tourism as ‘doing’, ‘performing’, ‘framing’, as this is the route to affect that has gained the the individual’. It will not, however, climb into ‘producing’ and ‘acting’, and emphasised the ‘... most traction in the heritage/tourism literature, each ‘body’ in quite the same way. So, while flow of practice in everyday life as embodied, as most likely because of the attention it gives different heritage sites attempt to construct caught up with and committed to the creation to spatial settings or the where of affect (see distinct touristic messages, visitors will not of affect, as contextual, and as technologised Gammerl 2012). To borrow from Anderson experience them in the same ways – some through language and objects...’ (Thrift and (2014, p.10), at its most basic a Thriftian will reflect, some will reject and others will Dewsbury 2000, p. 415). Although a steady approach positions affect as something that simply feel bored or disengaged. It is in these stream of work on affect continues to emerge communicates ‘what a body may be able to reactions – these affects – that the boundaries from cultural studies, human geographers do in any given situation, in addition to what it of ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘self’ and ‘other’ will be and feminist theorists (see for example Thrift currently is doing and has done’. In other words, made (after Ahmed 2004, p. 10; Anderson 2004; Thien 2005; Anderson 2007; Gorton it is a ‘capacity’ that flows both within and from 2006, p. 735). The three different genres of 2007; Lorimer 2008; Gregg and Seigworth one body to another in response to a range of sites included in Photos of the Past were thus 2010), the turn to affect has had relatively little human and non-human interventions such as used to assess whether proximity affects the impact on the field of heritage tourism (with atmosphere, reaction, awareness, sensation, way people feel, with proximity referring to the exception of Crouch 2000, 2010a; Waitt mood and a range of social and cultural the strength of conceptual links to Australia’s and Lane 2007; Paschen 2010; Waterton and processes (Pile 2010). A conceptualisation colonial past in each site’s interpretative Watson 2014; Waterton 2015). This is a curious commonly propped up by references to the material. Here, analyses of what people did as oversight, given that affect can be used to infer work of Spinoza and Deleuze, this approach to they are trying to make sense of their reactions cultural and social expression, both of which affect is envisaged as ‘a transpersonal capacity told us something about affect. This is because, are central to the heritage tourist’s experience. which a body has to be affected (through as Gorton (2007, p. 342, emphasis in original) Photos of the Past therefore directly responded an affection) and to affect (as the result of points out, ‘the body both participates in and to recent scholarship and related calls to move modifications)’ (Anderson 2006, p. 735). This acts out emotion. Our feelings are not just forward debates focused on heritage tourism transpersonal capacity, as Gibbs (2001, p. 1) registered in our conscious awareness but are by drawing in affect, emotion and feeling. articulates it, means that ‘[b]odies can catch felt and enacted by our bodies’. Thus, do some feelings as easily as catch fire: affect leaps visitors pull back in defence or shame while from one body to another, evoking tenderness, others performatively engage that history inciting shame, igniting fears’. with pride? Are they viscerally aware of their proximity or distance? And how are these At all seven project sites, visitors were invited various senses of self, nation and citizenship to be affected by their visit, and their responses configured as a consequence of that affect? were framed by a theorisation of affect as trans-personal, mobile and communicable, and thus in flow from one body to another in response to atmosphere, mood and so forth

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 17 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

3.3 Heritage and Photographing Practices

Photos of the Past utilised This new style of thinking provides a fresh More than anything else, this approach perspective on heritage that focuses upon provides opportunities for exploring beyond methodological inspiration practices, performances and the ways in which the conventional and the conventionally critical from a number of more recent these register in individual and collective approaches that have become established in studies that have successfully experiences. For Lorimer (2005), this is about heritage thinking since the 1980s. Of particular the way that life finds and makes meaning, interest here has been the work of David shifted the sociological debate often in mundane and ordinary ways. As he Crouch (2000) and his explorations of lay into what might broadly be argues: geographies in leisure and tourism. This implied described as non- or more- shift away from representation does not than-representational studies, mean abandoning the visual, however, as this remains a key resource for accessing people’s or those approaches that This often means thinking through locally formative imaginations. Indeed, Photos of the Past challenge conventional textual, interventions in the world. At commenced from the proposition that one of visual and semiotic analyses. first, the phenomena in question the surest ways to tackle affect within the field of heritage tourism is to push at the boundaries may seem remarkable only by of photographic imagery and photographic their apparent insignificance. practice. This meant taking into account the The focus falls on how life takes ubiquitous touristic practice of photographing shape and gains expression in beyond notions of representation by shared experiences, everyday considering their affective intensities and routines, fleeting encounters, their ability not only to signify but to be felt embodied movements, (Latham and McCormack 2009). The project precognitive triggers, practical thereby contributes to recent scholarship in the skills, affective intensities, tourism literature by questioning not only why enduring urges, unexceptional photographs are seen as such a central way of understanding and grasping the world, but why interactions and sensuous tourists are so committed to taking them. dispositions. Attention to these kinds of expression, it is This stance brought with it two interesting contended, offers an escape from consequences. First, photography was the established academic habit no longer considered a straightforward of striving to uncover meanings representation of reality, but was instead seen and values that apparently await as something implicit to the creation of new our discovery, interpretation, realities (Crang 1997; Edensor 2001). Second, judgement and ultimate scholars have since been trying to bring to the fore an understanding of tourists themselves, representation. In short, so particularly in terms of their active, corporeal, much ordinary action gives no expressive and engaged involvement in the advance notice of what it will creation and framing of images (Larsen 2005; become (Lorimer 2005, p. 84). Garrod 2009). For both strands of research, the power of photographs to ‘...arrest time and make memories’ (Haldrup and Larsen 2003, p. 39) has become methodologically significant.Photos of the Past proposed to contribute to this ongoing engagement with ‘photographing’ as a form of non- or more- than-representational engagement. Here, the camera became useable as a methodological means of ascertaining visitors’ understandings of heritage and the wider world around them. To borrow from Carolan (2008, p. 415; see also Bærenholdt et al. 2004), it became part of the lived body as it moved around, subsequently altering the way each heritage tourism site was framed and perceived.

18 Western Sydney University The Literature

To this end, the project innovatively combined how different visitors might conceptualise and cognition: it is not, therefore, something a form of performative ethnography with and create their own understandings of that is easily captured methodologically. Given something that can loosely be labelled a Australian history through both their visit the ‘newness’ of this kind of theoretical talk, visual autoethnography (see Kusenbach and their photography. In designing the little attention to date has been channelled 2003; Latham 2003; Czarniawska 2007; project, it was anticipated that a full range of towards figuring out what this means Scarles 2010; Jirón 2011). Both are variants domestic tourists would visit each site, and at empirically (though see Waterton and Watson of ethnography and have been designed to each might attempt to capture not only the 2015a, b). Even in terms of visuality, there has attend to, and access, sensual, emotional and ‘classic’ shots, but also embark on processes been little movement towards capturing the reflexive embodied performances. These of personalising those sites as they married more organic photography that emerges as methodological tools were complemented together their own ideological assumptions a reflexive performance by tourists (but see by discourse-analysis, open-ended sample and performances with the materiality of Larsen 2005; Scarles 2010). Both tourism surveying and in-depth follow-up interviews. the site (Scarles 2009, p. 469). Through this and heritage studies share a lack of diversity All five methods were necessary for the process of being ‘in place’, individual tourists when it comes to choice of methods and research team to take seriously the complexity were transformed from passive viewers into tend to coalesce around semi-structured of everyday, intuitive encounters. Such a active directors, with the act of photographing interviews, questionnaires and/or short spells combination allowed for a research conduit and the resultant photographs themselves of participant observation – in other words, through which to explore how tourists perform becoming co-producers in the creation and those methods that prioritise either spoken or places to and for themselves, thus adding legitimisation of both historical memories and written word (Crang 2005, p. 230). Variations a more nuanced layer of understanding conceptualisations of present-day Australian of these methods will be employed in the to subjective engagements with heritage, society. The project thus took the field beyond proposed project, but they will be creatively particularly those dealing with complex the usual visual and textual domains by modified ‘hybrids’. Indeed, to borrow from negotiations of identity and belonging. capturing the ‘felt’ world of heritage tourism Latham’s (2003, p. 2000) eloquent point, when through the rich weave of people’s experiences ‘[p]ushed in the appropriate direction there is Recovering affective registers required the of place. In so doing, the project was also able no reason why these methods cannot be made adoption of innovative methods capable of to contribute to ongoing re-theorisations of to dance a little’. qualitatively investigating how photographing what ‘heritage’ is and broaden debate beyond can be used to access sensory experiences, the traditional focus upon prosaic management recover memories and imbue touristic sites issues towards a framing of heritage as with meaning. More than simply granting something that is done in a process of making tourists the means by which to record or knowledge, meaning and identity (see Crouch document the world before them – by taking 2000; Smith 2006; Waterton 2011). that classic postcard shot of a church, castle, canyon or temple – photography offers a Pile (2010, p. 8) describes ‘affect’ as something means by which to create and take part in the that is ‘non- or pre-cognitive, -reflexive, world (after Scarles 2009, p. 466). It was with -conscious and –human’, which means it is this in mind that Photos of the Past investigated something that precedes knowable emotion

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 19 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT METHODOLOGY

20 Western Sydney University Methodology

4.1 Study Design

Photos of the Past adopted a In concert, these approaches found synergy PHASE II: COLLECTING THE with what has been termed the mobilities visual/performative ethnography, turn and emphasised the emerging ethos VIEWS OF PARTICIPANTS which combined the default of ‘following the people’, ‘walking with’ and Open-ended, face-to-face, researcher- method of ethnography ‘the go-along’, all of which offer a form of administered social surveys were conducted observation based upon the work of George with a sample of 345 visitors, onsite, in each and social-surveying with a Simmel and Erving Goffman, but further case study area. Though characterised as variation of autoethnography developed by Margarethe Kusenbach (2003), a ‘survey’, they were in practice closer to a focused on the visual as a Paola Jirón (2011) and Laura Watts and Glenn qualitative interview in their focus on open- means of capturing what bodies Lyons (2011). For Photos of the Past, the ‘go- ended and conversational-style questioning. along’ required the research team to create a The survey instrument borrowed closely from did at each sampled site. diary (photographic and textual) documenting that developed by Laurajane Smith (2006) the ‘photographing tourist’ (after Larsen for research in the field of heritage, and asked 2005; see also Gale and Jacobs 1987) as well questions about visitor experiences, notions of as make attempts at co-present immersion, heritage, atmosphere, memory work, identity through which the researcher moved with the work, participation onsite, and reflections on researched in order to talk about how touristic Australia’s past, along with specific questions experiences were being embodied. These nominated by each participating site where ethnographic episodes involved conversations required. Data on demographics, socio- around cultural citizenship and its negotiation economic status, cultural background and within touristic spaces, including whether or visiting practise were also collected via the not those notions pervaded each site and social surveys. The surveys were administered their visual practices. Like all forms of social with an element of flexibility, meaning not all research, the ‘go-along’ was a somewhat visitors were asked the full complement of contrived approach (Kusenbach 2003), questions, nor where visitors pushed to answer but its aim to produce a new angle of entry all questions asked. There was also some into everyday emotions, perspectives and variation across the instruments used at each experiences was useful. case study site. As such, there are instances in the ‘Findings’ component of this report in The project utilised a 4-phase approach, which the reader will find the phrases ‘question with each phase targeting a different set of not asked’ and/or ‘question not answered’. methods. The material gathered against Phase Collectively, these surveys provide a ‘snapshot’ II provides the basis of this report. The four of visitor experiences across the duration of the phases can be described as follows: fieldwork, which ran from 2012 to 2015. They varied from five minutes to forty minutes in duration, depending upon how engaged the PHASE I: UNPACKING participant was with the style of questioning; REPRESENTATIONS OF they were audio-recorded, transcribed and AUSTRALIAN HISTORY coded. The first phase involved the application of discourse-analysis to websites, brochures and related paraphernalia linked to the seven sites included in the study. It also included searches of accessible Facebook groups, Google Images and YouTube channels for the provision of a background corpus of visual resources. This analysis was also extended to include relevant policy documents and parliamentary debates, as well as any newspaper articles. The interpretive displays (textual, visual and interactive) utilised at each included sites were also recorded for analysis. This material was analysed using critical discourse analysis.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 21 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PHASE III: ACCOUNTING PHASE IV: PHOTOGRAPHING This report foregrounds the analysis of material collected via Phase II above. All social surveys FOR PERFORMATIVITY AS REFLEXIVE ENCOUNTER were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. AND AFFECT The final phase of the study involved inviting Demographic responses were treated as Data collection during the third phase of the participants to take part in post-visit interviews quantitative, as participants were invited to study rested with performative ethnography conducted at a later date via telephone select their responses from a fixed, exhaustive and visual autoethnography. During this Phase, or in person, face-to-face (approximately list of options. Frequency responses were visitors interested and willing to participate 10% of the total sample). During this phase, composed for each demographic variable. were given a memory card for use in their participants were asked to reflect upon 12–15 Content (conceptual) analysis was then used to own digital camera (capacity: 200–500 high of their own photos. These interviews were code the data for analysis, during which time resolution images). Participation involved semi-structured in nature and explored a data was classified and grouped according taking photographs of each visitor’s own collection of photographs and the memories/ to core themes emerging from the answers experiences, interpretations and personal feelings they conjured for participants. The provided by participants themselves. This views of the site before either returning to process of inspecting photographs post-visit unfolded in three stages: first, the research the researcher to download their memory involved more than simply ‘looking’ at the team prepared a set of coding categories for cards or providing data from their memory images; it also triggered a bodily engagement each question asked during Phase II of the cards via email, postal mail or the dedicated or corporeal enactment, through memory, of fieldwork; second, the research team coded project website. Responses to this Phase that period of travel (Scarles 2009). These each survey transcript by hand, using the of the fieldwork compared favourably with interviews provided an in-depth exploration of established coding categories; finally, the previous fieldwork experience at tourism visitor experiences across the duration of the frequencies of each ‘code’ were tallied and sites (Waterton, 2011), which suggested an fieldwork, which ran from 2012 to 2015. They interpreted. anticipated response rate of 85% as a realistic varied from thirty minutes to over an hour in expectation for this element of the project duration, depending upon how engaged the (see also Smith 2006; Smith et al. 2009). participant was with the style of questioning; Performative ethnography was also undertaken they were audio-recorded, transcribed and by the primary researcher during this Phase. coded. This included what Kusenbach (2003, p. 463) refers to as ‘the go-along’, which is a hybrid In terms of data, the material collected allowed of participant observation and ethnography, for explorations of: and required that the researcher accompanied a. the resources used by tourists to some participants (5–8 at each site) for parts compose and produce understandings of their touristic outings in a process of asking, of the history and messages contained listening and observing. within touristic places (textual/visual); b. the way photographing can be used to elicit subjective responses and infuse experiences with memories relating to the physical, experiential and imaginative encounters of a touristic place (visual/affectual); c. the affective and emotional encounters tangled up in the process of ‘taking a photograph’ and revisiting that photograph after the fact in order to revivify experiences (visual/affectual); and d. the physical bodies and contexts implicated by photographing, which can be used to elucidate an understanding of the non- representational – the feelings, moods, reflections, atmospheres.

22 Western Sydney University Methodology

4.2 Study Sample

In terms of Phase II, a social survey was deployed to a sample of 345 domestic and international tourists, across six of the seven sites. Due to the nature of the tourism audience in Burra, a different methodological approach was adopted in that particular study area, which focused more closely on the ethnographic method.

Results from that component of the project In addition, a total of 34 post-visit interviews have therefore been excluded from this report. were undertaken during Phase IV with A breakdown of the overall sample across the participants anywhere from two to five six remaining sites is as follows: months following their visit. Finally, a large corpus of photographs was also collected (1) Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park 68 from participants during the course of the project’s fieldwork phase, which amounted to (2) Kakadu National Park 68 a collection of over 5,000 photographs. This data has been supplemented with detailed (3) Blue Mountains National Park 38 field-notes and ethnographic recordings, including candid conversations, or ‘go-alongs’ (4) Geikie Gorge National Park 27 with visitors to the many sites included in this (5) Port Arthur Historic Site 74 project.

(6) Sovereign Hill in Victoria 70

As a sampling strategy, the project employed the non-probability approach of convenience or opportunity sampling, meaning the research team approached visitors to each site randomly and as they passed through the areas in which we located ourselves for data collection. The rate of participation varied across each site.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 23 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

4.3 Case Studies

As noted in Section 2.2, the case studies that formed this study were categorised into three genres of heritage sites:

GENRE 1 GENRE 2 GENRE 3

HERITAGE TOURISM SITES WHERE HERITAGE TOURISM SITES THAT HERITAGE TOURISM SITES USING ABORIGINAL PEOPLES’ VIEWS OF BRING TOGETHER ABORIGINAL INTERPRETATION THAT EMPHASISE AUSTRALIA’S HISTORY ARE USED TO PEOPLES’ HISTORIES WITH SETTLER SETTLER AND/OR COLONIAL INFORM VISITORS. HISTORY NARRATIVES IN TERMS OF HISTORY. INTERPRETATION.

1. Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park 1. The Blue Mountains National Park 1. Port Arthur Historic Site

2. Kakadu Nati onal Park 2. Geikie Gorge National Park 2. Sovereign Hill

24 Western Sydney University Methodology

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 25 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

4.3.1 ULURU-KATA TJUTA back to the Commonwealth for a period of 99 record of life, significant on-going geological years (Power 2002; James 2007; Frost and processes in the development of landforms, NATIONAL PARK Hall 2009; see also Australian Government – or significant geomorphic or physiographic Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park is located in Director of National Parks 2013). features’ (UNESCO 2015, p. 16). The Park was the Central Australian desert in the Northern renominated and reinscribed on the List in 1994 Territory, and covers approximately 1, Originally designated a national park for its for its cultural significance and satisfaction of 325square kilometres; it was designated a natural heritage assets, focus was opened the following criteria: (v) ‘be an outstanding national park in 1977. The monolith of Uluru, up to include the cultural significance of the example of a traditional human settlement, for which the park is most famous, is 348 area following the official handback and the land-use, or sea-use which is representative metres high, 3.6 kilometres in length and 9.4 formation of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Board of of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction kilometres in circumference (Frost and Hall Management. This shift in focus was also aided with the environment especially when it 2009). Comprised of arkosic sandstone formed by the establishment of joint management has become vulnerable under the impact into a single, imposing upland feature, Uluru processes within the park, which were of irreversible change’; and (vi) ‘be directly has become a potent symbol of Australia, established by the acknowledgement of or tangibly associated with events or living and is often referred to as its ‘red heart’ due ownership of the National Park by the Uluru- traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with to a bright rusty red colour (or colours) and Kata Tjuta Aboriginal Land Trust (representing artistic and literary works of outstanding its positioning close to the centre of the the traditional owners) and its subsequent universal significance (The Committee nation’s landmass. The park also contains the leasing back to the Director of National Parks. considers that this criterion should preferably equally compelling rock formation of Kata This lease agreement sets out the rights be used in conjunction with other criteria)’ Tjuta, which is a complex of large, sculptured and obligations of the Aboriginal Traditional (UNESCO 2015, p. 16). domical towers and valleys, comprised of Owners and the Director of National Parks conglomerates of pebbles and boulders as lessee of the Park, and is overseen by the In terms of its tourism contribution, Uluru- cemented together by time, sand and mud. The Uluru-Kata Tjuta Board of Management. Kata Tjuta National Park has a very substantial name Kata Tjuta is evocative of this formation, Key parts of the agreement ensure that direct and indirect impact on Australia’s visitor meaning ‘many heads’ in Pitjantjatjara. At the majority of the Board of Management’s economy. Each year it attracts somewhere its highest, Kata Tjuta stands at around 200 membership is composed of Indigenous between 250,000 to 350,000 domestic metres higher than Uluru, and towers over 600 people, who collectively make decisions about and international visitors, though the Park metres above the surrounding plains (Twidale the management and operation of the Park. experienced a dip in numbers from 2011- 2010). Other conditions include that a percentage 2013, with an upward trend recorded in 2014. of the Park’s annual entrance fees are paid Attempts to encourage a continued rise in The traditional landowners of both Uluru and to the Traditional Owners (De Lacy 1994; visitor numbers include the recently launched Kata Tjuta are the Anangu peoples, specifically Power 2002). The Board is comprised of ‘Big Uluru Trek’, commenced in August the Yankunytjatara and Pitjantjatjara, who have twelve members; eight are representatives 2016, which is a 5-day trek starting in South lived in its vicinity for thousands of years and of the Traditional Owners (four male and four Australia and covering over 100 kilometres of continue to retain strong spiritual relationships female), one is nominated by the Federal the desert landscapes. A key tourism issue for with the area (Australian Government – Minister for the Environment, one is nominated the Park remains the question of whether or Director of National Parks 2013; De Lacy by the Federal Minister for Tourism, one is a not visitors should be permitted to undertake 1994). For over 200 years, however, Uluru was representative from the Northern Territory the controversial rock climb, which traces a referred to by tourists and white Australians Government and one is the Director of National route similar to that taken by ancestral Mala by the name ‘Ayers Rock’, labelled as such Parks (Power 2002). men (Hasham 2016). The sites Traditional by the European surveyor William Gosse in Owners have repeatedly and consistently asked 1873. Increasing recognition of Uluru’s spiritual In addition to its designation as a National Park, tourists not to climb Uluru, enumerating the importance to Anangu culture as the site of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park has also met following reasons for their concern: there are multiple creation stories, along with its clear the conditions for World Heritage (WH) status physical dangers involved; there are significant links to Tjukurpa – a Pitjantjatjara word for the (according to the 1972 Convention Concerning environmental risks; they feel personally and cultural source of history, law, ceremony and the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural deeply responsible for visitor safety; and the lifestyle –, has meant that the naming of the Heritage), for both its outstanding cultural and plotted route threatens to compromise the monolith by its Aboriginal designation ‘Uluru’ is natural values (Australian Government 2010; spiritual significance of the site. Instead, they becoming more commonplace. This increased Frost and Hall 2009). It was first inscribed ask that visitors learn about Uluru and the awareness followed an official handback on the World Heritage List in 1987 for its area from Anangu perspectives (Australian ceremony performed in 1985, during which satisfaction of two of the Convention’s natural Government – Director of National Parks 2013; time the Hawke government passed inalienable heritage criteria: (vii) ‘contain superlative Hueneke and Baker 2009). A question on this freehold title for the land to the Uluru-Kata natural phenomena or areas of exceptional tension featured on the Photos of the Past Tjuta Aboriginal Land Trust, based on the natural beauty and aesthetic importance’; and social survey instrument. condition of a lease-back agreement which (viii) ‘be outstanding examples representing would immediately see the Park’s land leased major stages of earth’s history, including the

26 Western Sydney University Methodology

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 27 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

4.3.2 KAKADU 1987, 1989 and 1991. Further consolidations threatened species of Outstanding Universal and incorporations of land have occurred Value from the point of view of science or NATIONAL PARK since, including the inclusion of the Koongarra conservation’ (UNESCO 2015, p. 16–17). The In the Top 10 Destinations to Visit in Australia in Project Area in 2013. In 1989, the Kakadu Park’s rock art sites are one of the reasons 2015, compiled by Tourism Australia, Kakadu Board of Management was established and is for its World Heritage (WH) status, as they National Park was granted pole position as part today considered the first Aboriginal owned represent both ancient Aboriginal culture and of a suite of places found within an area called and jointly managed national park in Australia ongoing cultural life. The rock paintings display Arnhem Land in the far north-east of Australia’s (De Lacy 1994). The Kakadu National Park traditional knowledge, are a source of teaching, Northern Territory, or Australia’s ‘Top End’. It is Board of Management is composed of fifteen and are a spiritual link between the artists also referred to as the Alligator Rivers Region. members – of whom the majority represents and their ancestors (Ovington and Australian The area of Kakadu lies in a region to the east the Aboriginal traditional owners of land National Parks Wildlife Service 1986; Ryan of Wildman River and west of the Arnhem Land in the park – including with the Director of 1998). Additionally, and due to its vast amount boundary, and stretches from the Van Diemen National Parks. Because of this, visitors to the of birdlife, the wetlands of Kakadu are also Gulf in the north to the Mary River in the park are offered an interpretative strategy implicated by the international Convention on south (Lawrence 2000). The Park covers over that incorporates some of the meanings and Wetlands of International Importance especially 19,810 square kilometres of Australia’s tropical stories that imbue the landscape for Aboriginal as Waterfowl Habitat, a treaty adopted in 1971 zone, and is famed for its floristically diverse peoples, including narratives that describe that is responsible for The List of Wetlands wetlands, towering sandstone escarpments, the ways in which relationships are negotiated of International Importance (Ovington and low lying plains and mangrove-fringed tidal between individuals, the wider community and Australian National Parks Wildlife Service flats, weathered surfaces, waterfalls, monsoon their non-human surroundings. 1986). Kakadu National Park was designated on rainforest, saltwater crocodiles, freshwater this list in 1980. fish, and almost one-third of Australia’s bird In addition to carrying the mantel of a national species (Lawrence 2000; Morse, King and park, Kakadu has also been granted World Tourism has had a presence in the Park since Bartlett 2005). These natural elements sit Heritage status, a process that also occurred the 1960s; however, it was its establishment alongside gallery after gallery of important and in three stages – commencing in 1981 with as a national park and its subsequent World iconic rock art sites consisting of engravings, extensions added in 1987 and 1992 – based Heritage Listing that acted as the key catalysts paintings and designs in wax, which collectively on both natural and cultural criteria, making for tourism in the area (Ryan 1998). Through sit within a culturally powerful landscape it one of only a few (along with Uluru-Kata tourism, Kakadu is able to make a strong punctuated with numerous sacred sites, Tjuta National Park) mixed sites on the contribution to both the regional and national many of which depict the movements of List. Its original inscription was based on economies. The park currently receives around two particular Creator figures: Bula and the satisfaction of two natural criteria and one 170,000 visitors each year, which is about Rainbow Serpent (Brockwell et al. 1995), cultural criterion. Including those changes 60,000 less than it did in the 1990s, a decline as well as Namarrgon (Lightning Man) and reviewed and approved in 1987 and 1992, that is most often explained as a consequence Warramurrungundji (Earth Mother). and using the new criteria adopted by the of the Global Financial Crisis. A high number World Heritage Committee in 2004, this has of visitors to the Park arrive from international The land contained within the boundaries of since been amended to an inscription that locations. the National Park is Aboriginal owned, and reflects the following criteria: (i) ‘represents is associated particularly with the Bininj/ a masterpiece of human creative genius’; (vi) A key tension in the area is that between nature Mungguy Traditional Owners. The Bininj ‘be directly or tangibly associated with events conservation and mining. Uranium mining first peoples live in the north area of the Park and or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, began in the area in the 1950s and has been the Mungguy peoples in the south (Kakadu with artistic and literary works of outstanding subjected to various proposals, lobbying and National Park 2010; Ryan 1998; Ovington and universal significance (The Committee political inquiries since (Lawrence 2000). There Australian National Parks Wildlife Service considers that this criterion should preferably are three major mineral leases in the area – 1986). Under leasing conditions similar to those be used in conjunction with other criteria)’; Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra. All three have established above for Uluru-Kata Tjuta National (vii) ‘contain superlative natural phenomena always existed as enclaves within the area, Park, Kakadu National Park is jointly managed or areas of exceptional natural beauty and even though they are completely surrounded as a national park in a process negotiated aesthetic importance’; (ix) ‘be outstanding by the National Park. Jabiluka has been the between Aboriginal landowners and Parks examples representing significant on-going site of major controversies and was subject Australia that commenced in 1978 (Australian ecological and biological processes in the to a Senate Committee Inquiry in 1999 (Aplin Government – Director of National Parks 2007). evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh 2004). A question on this tension featured on water, coastal and marine ecosystems and the Photos of the Past social survey instrument. The establishment of the Park itself developed communities of plants and animals’; and (x) in three stages due to tensions between ‘contain the most important and significant conservation practices, mining, Aboriginal natural habitats for in-situ conservation of Land Rights and tourist potential (Ryan 1998), biological diversity, including those containing beginning in 1979, and consolidating in 1984,

28 Western Sydney University Methodology

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 29 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

4.3.3 BLUE MOUNTAINS The area was dedicated as a national park in The Blue Mountains National Park has been a 1959, with several additions made to the park popular scenic, nature-based and adventure- NATIONAL PARK in the 1980s. Its emergence within European based tourism destination since the 1860s, The Blue Mountains National Park, which consciousness, however, occurred far earlier in large part due to its majestic views and is a part of the Greater Blue Mountains than that as a consequence of a number of cool summer climate (Burgin and Hardiman World Heritage Area (GBMWHA), is located well-researched explorers and early settlement 2014; Symes 2013). During the late 1990s, and approximately 60 kilometres to the west of efforts commencing shortly after European prior to achieving its World Heritage status, the city of Sydney, New South Wales (Burgin invasion in 1788. The mountains were first the Blue Mountains National Park suffered a and Hardiman 2014). In addition to the explored by Gregory Blaxland, William slight slump in terms of its tourist numbers national park, the world heritage area also Wentworth and Lieutenant William Lawson (Tisdell and Wilson 2002). This has been encompasses the Kanangra-Boyd, Wollemi, in 1813 (Porter 2010; Symes 2013), with a road steadily improving since 2006, with the Park the Gardens of Stone, Nattai, Thirlmere Lakes inserted onto the terrain in 1814. The late 1800s registering a 14.5% increase in tourist numbers and Yengo National Parks and Jenolan Karst saw the beginnings of a tourism trade in the between September 2014 and September Conservation Reserve. The Blue Mountains City Park, and sponsored the construction of a 2015 (Destination NSW 2015). Tourist activities stretches from the Nepean River at the base range of lookouts, walking tracks, staircases, today include bush-walking, rock-climbing, of the mountains to Victoria Pass to the west roads and railway stations. It became a popular canyoning, nature observation, bird-watching, (Davidson 1991). The national park covers an destination for scenic walks and picnicking, and camping, picnicking and photography taking area of over 2, 600 square kilometres, and is was also used to mine for precious metals, coal place long a complex network of walking tracks known primarily for its sandstone escarpments, and shale. The Jenolan Caves, situated within and lookout points. Jenolan Caves continues dominant cliff-lines, tall eucalyptus forests, the boundaries of the national park, was a very to be a key tourist attraction, along with Echo narrow canyons, heaths and wetlands. In early tourism attraction in Australia, opening in Point, Wentworth Falls and Govetts Leap. addition to these geographic features, the park the early 1880s. Visitor numbers are estimated to have been also has significant links to an enduring cultural around 2.7 million for domestic day-trippers, heritage associated with the Gundungurra and Blue Mountains National Park was part of a 909, 000 for domestic overnight trips and Darug peoples, which includes rock art sites wider nomination (the GBMWHA) for World 101, 600 for international overnight visitors and engravings. Given these links, the Park has Heritage in 1998, and was inscribed on the between 2015 and 2016 (Destination NSW embarked on a process of co-management List in November 2000 for its outstanding 2016). with Aboriginal peoples with connection to natural heritage. The GBMWHA covers 10, 326 the land. Today, the main ridgeline consists of square kilometres, and incorporates parts of multiple mountain towns (Porter 2010), which twelve local government areas (Hardiman and are serviced by a railway and a highway, both Burgin 2013; Porter 2010). While the GBMWHA of which essentially carve the park into two was nominated against four natural heritage halves. The area gained its name from the blue criteria, it was inscribed with World Heritage haze caused by the oil of eucalyptus trees that status on the basis of the following two: (ix) ‘be dominate the area. outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals’; and (x) ‘contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation’ (UNESCO 2015, p. 16–17). Cultural criteria were not applied in the nomination and inscription process.

30 Western Sydney University Methodology

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 31 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

4.3.4 GEIKIE GORGE The National Park sits beside the small, dusty The town, gorge and National Park sit roughly town of Fitzroy Crossing, and is surrounded at the midway point of a stretch of road that NATIONAL PARK by red earth, low lying hills and grassland. It is reaches from Derby to Halls Creek, in an area Geikie Gorge National Park is located within perched in a landscape that is in almost every often referred to as ‘Australia’s “last frontier”’ traditional Bunuba country, in the Kimberly way unimaginably vast and remote. Fitzroy (Christen 2006: 82). The area was colonised region of Western Australia, a short twenty Crossing is the second largest town in the late in the process of settlement, in the 1880s, kilometres to the northeast of the township Shire of Derby. In the 2011 census, the town’s and quickly became a focus for graziers and of Fitzroy Crossing. It is some 450 kilometres population amounted to 1144 people, equally miners, particularly those foraging for gold. The east of Broome, meaning it is closer to split in terms of gender and with an Indigenous evidence of cleared land today reveals those Singapore, Manilla, Jakarta, Port Moresby, population of 66.5%. To put this number in long-term practices of pastoralism. It is also Kuala Lumpur and Ho Chi Mihn city than it is perspective, in the same census only 2.5% of an area with clear and palpable links to a cruel to the capital of Australia, Canberra, which is the overall Australian population identified history of colonisation, with many Indigenous almost four thousand kilometres southwest. as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait people in the area killed, forced off their lands The gorge itself was formed by the Fitzroy Islander origin. There are 35 distinct Aboriginal or forced to work, often unpaid, on nearby River as it cut its way through the remains of communities in the Fitzroy Valley, which stations (Hawke 2013). By the 1960s, the an ancient Devonian reef complex. It is about encompasses the town of Fitzroy Crossing, area’s Indigenous population had been largely 13 kilometres in length and is representative accounting for a population of approximately displaced and disaffected, with many drawn to of the Dampierland bioregion (Bertalli 2016). 3, 500 people, 80% of whom are Indigenous. the Fitzroy Crossing township area. The town The vibrant walls of the gorge are composed The area is thus culturally complex, and itself was never planned; it simply grew up of limestone, and range in colour from white to includes Nyikina, Mangala, Ngarinuin, Bunuba, around an inn – the Crossing Inn – established yellow to orange and brown, and are smoothed Gooniyandi, Walmajarri and Wangkajunga in the 1890s (Hawke 2013). This led to the in places by years of floodwaters. The National speakers. The town itself, however, is in Bunuba emergence of a remote and isolated town with Park and gorge are inaccessible during the country. many fringe camps and alcohol issues in the region’s wet season, when the flood levels early 1970s, and more recent efforts channelled bring the height of the water to more than ten towards community development areas in the metres above the normal levels of the river region (Hawke 2013). Today, the main industry (Bertalli 2016). The river and gorge are home to activities are associated with government fresh water crocodiles, sawfish and stringrays. services, tourism, mining and cattle (Hawke 2013; Shire of Derby/West Kimberly 2012a). In terms of tourism, the Shire of Derby and West Kimberly’s efforts tend to be funnelled towards maximising the potential of the area as a tourist destination whilst promoting ‘The True Kimberly’ (Shire of Derby/West Kimberly 2012b). In this vein, a popular boat cruise has been introduced on the gorge, operated by the national park. A question regarding this cruise featured on the Photos of the Past social survey instrument.

32 Western Sydney University Methodology

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 33 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

4.3.5 PORT ARTHUR Work commenced on the Separate Prison Arthur Historic Site Management Authority in 1948 and was modelled on the British Act, the Port Arthur Historic Site Management HISTORIC SITE prison of Pentonville. In both its design and Authority (PAHSMA) was created, and The Port Arthur Historic site, along with operation, the Separate Prison represented henceforth took over the management of the eight other prominent convict heritage sites, a new philosophy of punishment, which site, primarily with the assistance of funding is located at Camarvon Bay on the Tasman replaced physical inflictions with those of a from the Tasmanian Government (Egloff 2002). Peninsula on the southeast end of Tasmania psychological nature. Completed in 1852, this This arrangement continues today. (Mason, Myers and de la Torre 2005). The site was the mid-point of the site’s operations, with covers just less than two square kilometres, Port Arthur closing as a penal colony in 1877 As with the Blue Mountains National Park, and is managed according to the National Parks when its final inmates were removed to Hobart it is easy to point to the longevity of the and Reserves Management Act of 2002. As (Jackman 2009). Following its closure, the area tourism industry in the Port Arthur area, which a tourist attraction, the main site converges was renamed Carnarvon, and the government commenced in the 1880s as those living in around Mason Cove and contains the remnants commenced selling off land and buildings the Carnarvon area realised the potential and of the main portion of a nineteenth century to the public, leading to the creation of a necessity of tourism for economic income. penal and industrial complex, along with small community by the 1880s. It was at that Buildings and structures from the convict historic residences and maritime archaeological time that the potential of the site as a tourist period were converted into tourist facilities: for resources. In addition to the ruins and extant destination was also realised (Mason, Myers example, the Commandant’s House became buildings located on the shore of Mason and de la Torres 2005; Young and Tasmanian Hotel Carnarvon in 1884 (Romey 2002; Young Cove, the site also includes the former boys’ Historical Research Association 1996). and Tasmanian Historical Research Association establishment at Point Puer and the Isle of the 1996). By 1927, the name Port Arthur was Dead. It also contains the remains of an historic Like many of the other case studies included reinstated in order to promote the historical township and twentieth century tourism in this report, the Port Arthur Historic Site has importance of the area as a convict site (Romey amenities, as well as those currently used by been granted World Heritage status as part 2002). Tourism has steadily increased from that contemporary tourists (Egloff 2002). of a listing called the Australian Convict Sites, point onwards, with the site now touted as one which incorporates eleven sites. The listing of the most visited in Australia (UNESCO 2010). The site is also associated with the homelands occurred in 2010 on the basis of two cultural To a large degree, this is due to the 69, 000 of the Pydairreme peoples, who lived in criteria: (iv) ‘be an outstanding example of a convicts that were transported to Tasmania, the area for 6, 000 years prior to European type of building, architectural or technological which is a number that vastly outnumbered invasion. From the 1830s, the Pydairreme were ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) the free settler population at the time, thus swept away from the area by European settlers. significant stage(s) in human history’; and creating a distinctive social fabric that has As a tourist attraction, the area of the Tasman (vi) ‘be directly or tangibly associated with contributed to the popularity of convict Peninsula is today primarily known for the events or living traditions, with ideas, or heritage in Australia (Jackman 2009). Prior to Port Arthur convict settlement that operated with beliefs, with artistic and literary works April 1996, Port Arthur Historic Site had one of there from 1830–1877 (Mason, Myers and de of outstanding universal significance. (The the highest visitor numbers of any tourist site la Torres 2005). In addition to the ‘convict era’ Committee considers that this criterion should in Tasmania (Hollow 2001). On the 28th April (1830–1877), there are also two other distinct preferably be used in conjunction with other 1996, Port Arthur was the site of the massacre periods that are worthy of note: the township criteria)(UNESCO 2015, p. 16). The latter was of thirty-five people by a lone gunman. Twenty community of Carnarvon (1884–1974) and demonstrated in association with values of the deaths occurred in the Broad Arrow Café historic tourist site period, which continues associated with European colonial society, (Lennon 2002). Following this event there was today (Egloff 2002). Commencing in 1830, the and the symbolic values of punishment a dramatic drop in tourist numbers to the site first convicts sent to Port Arthur were tasked and transportation. (Hollow 2001), though a growth in numbers has with tree felling and milling lumber. The penal been recorded more recently, with 2015 seeing station was constructed shortly thereafter, The management of the Port Arthur Historic the highest number of visitations with over the period following from which saw the rapid Site occurs at multiple levels. In addition to 270,000 visitors (PAHSMA 2015). expansion of the convict population, with World Heritage status, it is also inscribed on many outstations developed in the following the National Heritage List, and is protected by years (Jackman 2009; Mason, Myers and de the Environment Protection and Biodiversity la Torres 2005). Timbre-getting was joined Conservation Act of 1999. Prior to the by quarrying for sandstone and clay, and the implementation of these instruments, privately mining of coal. In 1834, a boys’ establishment owned areas of the Port Arthur Historic Site was developed on nearby Point Puer. By 1836 were purchased in 1918 by the Tasmanian the settlement housed around one thousand Scenery Preservation Board (SPB) (Romey repeat offenders serving out hard labour and 2002). By the early 1970s, the Department life sentences, along with three hundred boys of National Parks and Wildlife had taken over at the neighbouring Port Puer (Mason, Myers responsibility of the site (Egloff 2002; Romey and de la Torres 2005). 2002). In 1987, with the passing of the Port

34 Western Sydney University Methodology

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 35 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

4.3.6 SOVEREIGN HILL The blueprint for Sovereign Hill was conceived Today’s visitors will experience a range of by the Ballarat Historical Park Association educational and immersive encounters at Sovereign Hill is an outdoor heritage museum who, in the late 1960s, commenced planning Sovereign Hill. The site is alive with sights, located in Ballarat, Victoria, which opened in for the creation of a folk museum that would smells and sounds, including the sounds of November 1970 and is built primarily on an old, depict the region of Ballarat during the gold industry emerging from the boilerhouse, the disused quartz mining site on the eastern side rush era (Evans 1991). During those initial foundry and the Empire Bowling Saloon. These of the town (Campbell 2015; Hollick 2011). It is planning stages, decisions were made to limit sounds are mingled with the scent of candles, associated with the nineteenth century gold the recreation to the period 1851–1861 in order freshly made boiled sweets, horse manure, rush boom as well as the Eureka Rebellion, to focus on the ‘best’ of the gold rush days. In dust and the crunching of feet on the unpaved which refers to Australia’s only armed civil its creation, no buildings were constructed or streets. Onsite tours include the Diggings Tour, uprising. As an open-air museum, Sovereign recreated without the use of historical ‘visual the Red Hill Mine Tour, the Gold Mine Tour Hill brings together historical replicas as references’ so as to ensure historical accuracy and coach rides, all of which occur against a well as relocated buildings, streets, mining and the veneer of authenticity (Evans 1991). backdrop of musket fire, sweet making, gold infrastructure, props, costumed actors (called The narrative focus is predominantly with pouring, wheelwrighting and steam-powered the Friends of Sovereign Hill), underground white, European settlers, though numerous machinery. mine tours, livestock and interactive activities references are made to Ballarat’s 9, 000 for tourist enjoyment. There is also an after- Chinese miners. Initially, little reference was dark extravaganza that showcases the story of made to the Wadawurrung Peoples, though the Eureka Rebellion. this was addressed in 2015 by the opening of the Hidden Histories experience. In 1851 alluvial gold was discovered in Ballarat; prior to that discovery it had been a small The museum attracts approximately 600, valley vested in the sheep industry. With the 000 visitors per year, with roughly 28% discovery of the second largest gold nugget of this comprised of international cohorts ever found in 1858, pulled from the Red Hill (Campbell 2015; Hollick 2011). Administered Mine and weighing a whopping 69 kilograms, by the Sovereign Hill Museums Association Ballarat became known as ‘the richest alluvial (which include the Gold Museum, Narmbool, goldfield ever’ and yielded over 600 tonnes of an evening show called Blood on the Southern gold (Johnson 1998). By 1861, Ballarat had been Cross, the Sovereign Hill Schools and Sovereign hastily and haphazardly transformed into the Hill Education, and the Sovereign Hill Lodge), bustling town needed to cater to the waves of the popularity of Sovereign Hill has turned arrivals intent on making their fortunes from Ballarat into a key tourist destination in the discovery of gold and quartz. By the early the region. In 2015, it was admitted to the 1860s, some 40, 000 people were working in TripAdvisor Hall of Fame. In the same year, the area. While aspirations for finding gold had the Andrews Labor Government made the dwindled by the mid- to late-1860s, the quest promise of an $8 million investment to revitalise for quartz continued up until the First World Sovereign Hill. The aim was to improve the site War. to attract more visitors, which in turn would contribute to both the local and State economy. Additionally, the Sovereign Hill Museums Association would contribute a further $4.81 million, with the expectation of creating 100 jobs during the construction stage and further ten full-time jobs in the long term (Pulford 2015).

36 Western Sydney University Methodology

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 37 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT KEY FINDINGS

38 Western Sydney University Key Findings

5.1 The Fieldwork: A Description

The key findings reported in the The fieldwork for this study took place in numerous stages from 2012–2015, and was following pages are an outcome determined according to both monsoonal and of Phase II of the fieldwork desert climates (where relevant) as well as only. Reporting on Phases III tourism seasons, where a focus on conducting the research during high-tourist-season was and IV will occur in a separate viewed as optimum; thus, where possible, report; material collected known ‘high’ tourism periods were targeted. during Phase I was used to Each period of fieldwork is briefly described contextualise each case study below, and is followed by a description of the sample’s demographics – overall and for each area in Section 4 of this report. case study area. Demographic material has been organised into the following: gender, age, nationality, social classification, education and first-time/repeat visitor patterns.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 39 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.1.1 ULURU-KATA TJUTA 5.1.2 KAKADU 5.1.3 BLUE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK NATIONAL PARK NATIONAL PARK A reconnaissance trip was taken to Uluru-Kata The research team visited Kakadu in August With several members of the research team Tjuta National Park in April 2012; the primary 2013, for a period of two weeks. Although there residing in the Blue Mountains, this research research revisited the Park in November 2012 were many visitor areas and activities within unfolded in a more haphazard fashion over a with a research assistant for a period of two the park, we confined our fieldwork to two period of three months from January to March weeks. During that time, 68 social surveys specific rock art sites, Ubirr and Nanguluwurr 2014. An additional Research Assistant was were conducted. The weather was quite (Nourlangie Rock), both of which include also employed during this case study phase, typical for the region, with cooler mornings walking tracks, lookouts, shelters, rock art allowing three researchers to collect and collate followed by temperatures in the high 30s/ galleries, boardwalks, interpretative materials the visitor surveys. The period of fieldwork low 40s (centigrade) that gather by midday and daily Ranger talks. August in Kakadu aligned with the summer months as well as and in the afternoons. For this reason, our falls on the cusp of the Wurrgeng (or cold the transition into autumn. The temperatures social surveying was limited to a short period weather season) and Gurrung (or hot, dry varied, hovering around an average of 18°C on in the mornings, roughly between 8am and weather season), with daytime temperatures some days and 28°C on others. The proximity noon. The difference between the site in April reaching into the mid-30s (centigrade). During of the research team to the case study location and November was pronounced – the glossy our visit, each day arrived in much the same allowed more flexibility in terms of timing the waterholes from April had been depleted of fashion as the previous, with cooler mornings, surveys, which tended to take place anywhere their fill, the only reminder of their purpose left a rising warmth and endlessly blue skies between 11am and 3pm. A total of 38 social gloomily in the sandy bottom and marked in not once blemished by cloud. The dry heat surveys were collected. The precise research ghostly rings around the rock. Black vertical was intimately tied to the mood of the park, locations were confined to Govetts Leap, streaks, huge ribbons wending their way down weaselling its way into the earth, the grass, Evans Lookout and Echo Point. Fieldwork was the face of the rock, indicated where previous the trees, the air, and the sun as it angled out undertaken shortly after a devastating bushfire waterfalls had been present. The air was warm the shade. Even the low buzz of insects was had ripped through the region, concentrated and buzzing with flies. dry; and we could feel in it a bushfire gathering in the areas of Winmalee, Yellow Rock, itself together, readying to rip through the area. Springwood, Lithgow and Mount Victoria. Our With regard to the location of the fieldwork, Yet it was also a landscape full of life and in fieldwork also closely followed a remarkable the research team focussed their efforts on one no time at all we were attuned to its rhythms season for cicadas. of seven main visitor areas in the Park, which and movements, as well as to its residents: the include: (1) the Cultural Centre, to which visitors Lesser Wanderer butterflies dancing in the are first directed upon entering the Park; (2) shade, a shy short-eared rock-wallaby tucked the Uluru base walk, which might include ‘The into the rock-face and the slyest swarm of Climb’, together with several shorter walks; mosquitos lurking in the dusk. During our time (3) the Sunset Viewing area; (4) Talingura in Kakadu we collected 68 social surveys. These Nyakunytjaku, which was built primarily as a were undertaken in two concentrated periods: sunrise viewing area but is also signposted as 9am to noon and 2pm to 4pm. Each day we an alternative sunset viewing area; (5) the Kata- alternated between the two sites, Ubirr and Tjuta Dune Walk; and, at Kata Tjuta, (6) Walpa Nanguluwurr. Gorge and (7) the Valley of the Winds Walk. All social surveys collected as part of this research were solicited from visitors positioned around item 2 in this list, at the start of the Uluru base walk, which is located near the Mala carpark and at the base of ‘The Climb’.

40 Western Sydney University Key Findings

5.1.4 GEIKIE GORGE 5.1.5 PORT ARTHUR 5.1.6 SOVEREIGN HILL NATIONAL PARK HISTORIC SITE The research team visited Sovereign Hill in The research team visited Geikie Gorge The research team visited the Port Arthur March 2014, for a period of two weeks. Though National Park on two occasions, with fieldwork Historic Site on two occasions, with social composed of a numerous sites, the research commencing on the second visit in June 2015, surveying commencing on the second visit was confined to the open-air museum and for a period of two weeks. This timeframe in September 2014 over a period of two did not extend to the adjacent Gold Museum. was selected with the monsoonal and semi- weeks. A reconnaissance visit took place in A total of 70 social surveys were conducted arid climate in mind, as it coincides with ‘dry’ April 2013, for a period of four days. A total during this fieldwork phase. Sovereign Hill seasons as well as the operation of the Park’s of 74 social surveys were collected at Port attracts a diversity of visitors, including boat tours (May to October). A reconnaissance Arthur. September in Tasmania tends to be domestic tourists, international tourists visit took place in August 2014 for a period of categorised as spring, though it is still possible (especially from China) and large numbers of one week. A total of 27 social surveys were for snowfall to occur at that time. Across our school groups (approximately 300 in 2014). The collected. The lower numbers in this case fieldwork period we experienced a range of site is also populated by a remarkable number study area were due to the vastly reduced temperatures, from very cold and wet to sunny of costumed interpreters and livestock. Across numbers of overall visitation, which also tended and warm. This changing weather profoundly the two week period of fieldwork, the research to cluster around the timings of the Park’s affected the atmosphere at Port Arthur, team was treated to very comfortable weather boat tour of the gorge. These commenced which oscillated from bright and cheerful to conditions of around 22C and blue skies. During at 8am, with the last boat leaving at 4pm. oppressive, solemn and miserable. It was on the visit, the site remained lively and well- Our surveying thus tended to concentrated those latter days that the experiences of the attended. on visitors as they disembarked from the prisoners held there seemed most stark. boat tour that departed at 8:00am, 9:30am, In terms of location, the social surveying at 11:00am, 2:30pm and 4:00pm. Few surveys In terms of location, the social surveys Sovereign Hill tended to occur around the main were collected between approximately noon collected at Port Arthur were gathered from thoroughfare of Main Street in sheltered areas and 2:30pm. None were collected after 5pm. numerous locations, though there collection along the unpaved road, often near the New With regard to location, the social surveying tended to be concentrated to the Mason Cove York Bakery, United States Hotel, the Victoria took place in or near the National Park’s visitor area of the site. In this vicinity, participants Theatre or the Edinburgh Boot and Shoe Mart. centre, in the shade. were encountered near the oval, near the Occasionally, surveys were conducted outside penitentiary, near the accountant’s house, the Sovereign Hill Café. As with the Port Arthur near Memorial Avenue, to the front of the fieldwork, our surveying tended to commence Separate Prison, near Trentham, along Church at around 11am, allowing those visitors arriving Avenue and near Government Garden. Given as the site opened at 10am an opportunity to the expanse of the site, social surveying did familiarise themselves with their surroundings. not commence until 11am to allow visitors the Although we experienced the Blood on the opportunity to get acquainted with the site. Southern Cross light and sound show on one Researchers were also mindful of the start occasion, no surveys were conducted after times for the free guided walking tour, the free 5pm and thus none were conducted with harbour cruise, the Isle of the Dead boat tour visitors exiting the light and sound show. and the Point Puer Boys’ Prison boat tour. No surveys were conducted after 5pm, despite the venue being open for ghost tours each evening (departing at 6pm and 8pm) and occasionally for paranormal investigation experiences.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 41 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.2 The Demographics

While this research project It also allows for the opportunity to test (Savage 2015). Goldthorpe’s scheme has since whether any of the sites included here attract become the basis for Britain’s Office of National intends to push beyond the a visitor profile that stands at odds with that Statistics National Statistics Socio-Economic typologies typically found in typically found in the literature, in order to Classification (NS-NEC 8), which comprises the tourism literature, it is still propose some interpretations as to what the first eight categories in the below table might be prompting that altered profile. (Savage 2015). The additional three categories useful to take account of visitor The following section offers a snapshot of emerged during this study and apply only to demographics as a means to demographic segmentations for both the this project. Although those in a managerial create a more nuanced and overall sample and each fieldwork site. As is or professional position do represent higher in-depth picture of tourism typical of demographic segmentation, these percentages of visitors sampled here, the have been classified against: gender, age, level overall numbers do not quite align with consumption practices. of education, nationality and employment. Key previous research by Richards (2001), which observations have been highlighted in each proposed that 70% of such tourists would draw table, as has the overall tallies. from managerial and professional positions (see Table 5.3). Here, just under 30% aligned Of the 338 participants who took part in themselves with higher and lower managerial/ Phase II (the social survey) of this research, 191 professional occupations. In part this anomaly were female (56.51%) and 147 male (43.49%; can be explained by the capturing of ‘retired’ see tables below for gender distributions visitors as opposed to pushing participants to per fieldwork site). 71.83% of respondents nominate their occupation prior to retirement: suggested that it was their first visit to the site at which they were surveyed. In terms Previous research on the heritage tourism of age (see Table 5.1), the survey captured context in Australia has suggested that the a demographic that was more-or-less market is primarily domestic (Timothy 2011). anticipated, given that the literature tends In this study, 56.77% of the sample drew to assume that visitors to heritage sites will from the domestic market, with secondary concentrate around either those between 30 trends leaning towards the European market and 50 years of age and those who have retired (31.07%). The European market can be further (within the 55-64 category and the over 65s) segmented into the United Kingdom (15.38%), (see Timothy 2011, p. 27), though it is interesting France (5.03%) and Germany (4.44%), as to note that there is a strong presence of those Figure 5.1 illustrates. In terms of the domestic in the 25−34 age bracket, which is lower than spread of visitors, there were anticipated is typically expected at heritage tourism sites. concentrations around the near vicinity of each As the following analysis will make clear, this case study area, though clearly a number of is affected by visiting practices at particular visitors had travelled great distances to visit sites within the sample, particularly the national the included sites (see Figure 5.2). The majority parks. As Timothy (2011) goes on to argue, of visitors offered home postcodes that are education is a key characteristic for ‘heritage situated along the east coast of Australia, tourists’, who are widely understood to be with concentrations around Brisbane, Sydney, highly educated, holding either undergraduate Melbourne and Adelaide. The inclusion of Port or postgraduate qualifications. In this Arthur also allowed for a concentration of regard, the overall sample represented here visitors from Tasmania; likewise, the inclusion is unremarkable in its composition, as the of Fitzroy Crossing goes some way towards highlighting below illustrates (see Table 5.2). explaining the concentration of participants Indeed, those holding university qualifications from Perth and its surrounds. compose almost half of the overall sample (47.34%).

Affluence is also considered to be a strong determinant when it comes to what might be termed the typical ‘heritage tourist’, with those identifying as more affluent finding themselves in a position to travel. Affluence in this study has been determined by social class, using John Goldthorpe’s occupational class scheme, which he composed in the 1970s

42 Western Sydney University Key Findings

AGE NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE % PARTICIPANTS Under 18 2 0.58 18-24 26 7.54 25-34 74 21.45 35-44 50 14.49 45-54 59 17.10 55-65 72 20.87 Over 65 62 17.97

345 100 Table 5.1: Age of the Overall Sample

LEVEL OF EDUCATION NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE % PARTICIPANTS No response 2 0.58 No formal qualifications 20 5.80 Equivalent to primary school 3 0.87 8-11th grade (did not complete high school) 19 5.51 High School Certificate or equivalent 61 17.58 Some university but no degree 43 12.46 Bachelor or undergraduate degree 82 23.77 Graduate or postgraduate degree 79 22.90 Technical qualifications 36 10.43 345 100 Table 5.2: Education Levels of the Overall Sample

SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION (NS-NEC 8) NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE % PARTICIPANTS Higher managerial/professional occupations 34 9.86 Lower managerial/professional occupations 62 17.97 Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales etc.) 42 12.17 Small employers and own account workers 17 4.93 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 39 11.30 Semi-routine occupations 15 4.35 Routine occupations 21 6.09 Never worked or long-term unemployed 19 5.51 Other Nominated retired 73 21.16 Nominated student 16 4.64 Nominated traveller 7 2.03 345 100 Table 5.3: Employment Categories for the Overall Sample

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 43 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

Figure 5.1: Participant Distribution using plotted postcodes

Figure 5.2: Participant Distribution in Australia

44 Western Sydney University Key Findings

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 45 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.2.1 ULURU-KATA TJUTA The distribution of nationalities among Most participants at Uluru-Kata Tjuta participants at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park National Park nominated that they worked in NATIONAL PARK predominantly aligned with domestic tourism occupations that could be classified as lower The gender distribution of participants who (35.29%, including dual citizenship) although the managerial professional (29.41%), followed completed a social survey at Uluru-Kata Tjuta overall sample drew more from an international by those in higher managerial professional National Park tended towards females (57%) audience if that grouping is taken as a whole. Of occupations (19.12%) (see Table 5.7). This is over males (43%), which is in accordance with those indicating that they had travelled to the an unsurprising result, given the generally the overall sample, and is also in accordance park from international locations, most identified accepted assumptions about heritage tourists with broader figures regarding visitation and as British (20.59%) (see Table 5.6). Across the and their education levels in the available participation at heritage tourism sites. The project, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park also had literature, particularly with regard to those who sample also recorded a tendency towards the highest proportion of British visitors. visit nationally significant heritage sites. first-time visitors (78%), with far fewer visitors nominating that they were visiting for the second, third or fourth time (22%). Age AGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % distribution indicates a somewhat younger Under 18 2 2.94 sample than the overall average, with most 18-24 6 8.82 participants (33.82%) falling between 25-34 years of age (see Table 5.4). Interestingly 25-34 23 33.82 here, there are far lower numbers from the 35-44 14 20.59 anticipated brackets of the 55-65 and 65+ age 45-54 12 17.65 brackets. 55-65 5 7.35 Education levels among the sample at Uluru- Over 65 6 8.82 Kata Tjuta National Park were well above the national average, with many (44.12%) 68 100 nominating that they had achieved a graduate Table 5.4: Age percentages for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park sample or postgraduate level of qualification. Indeed, most participants (74.89%) indicated that they had undertaken at least some university LEVEL OF EDUCATION NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % education (see Table 5.5). The frequency with No response 0 0 which visitors nominated that they had gained No formal qualifications 0 0 graduate or postgraduate levels of education was almost double that found for the overall Equivalent to primary school 0 0 sample (22.90%). 8-11th grade (did not complete high school) 3 4.41 High School Certificate or equivalent 10 14.71 Some university but no degree 9 13.24 Bachelor or undergraduate degree 12 17.65 Graduate or postgraduate degree 30 44.12 Technical qualifications 4 5.88

68 100 Table 5.5: Educational qualifications for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park sample

46 Western Sydney University Key Findings

NATIONALITY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Domestic Australian 22 32.35 Dual Citizen (Australian plus other) 2 2.94 International American 5 7.35 Belgium 1 1.47 British 14 20.59 Canadian 2 2.94 Dutch 2 11.76 French 8 13.24 German 9 2.94 Italian 2 2.94 Maori 1 1.47 68 100 Table 5.6: Nationalities for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park sample

SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION (NS-NEC 8) NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Higher managerial/professional occupations 13 19.12 Lower managerial/professional occupations 20 29.41 Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales etc.) 7 10.29 Small employers and own account workers 3 4.41 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 6 8.82 Semi-routine occupations 2 2.94 Routine occupations 3 4.41 Never worked or long-term unemployed 4 5.88 Other Nominated retired 5 7.35 Nominated student 3 4.41 Nominated traveller 2 2.94 68 100 Table 5.7: Occupational classifications for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park sample

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 47 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.2.2 KAKADU Social classifications for those participants Domestic tourists make up the majority of surveyed at Kakadu National Park were those at Kakadu National Park (57.35%), with NATIONAL PARK somewhat atypical of the overall sample. In international participants spread over several The gender distribution of participants who this case study area, there were equally as countries, though they sample draws mostly completed a social survey at Kakadu National many participants drawing from the lower from France (13.24%). Park – the second site collected into what we supervisory and technical occupations have termed Genre 1 – tended towards females (22.06%) as there were from the lower (57%) over males (43%). This generation of a managerial professional occupations (22.06%) slightly more female sample is in accordance (see Table 5.11). with broader figures regarding visitation and participation at heritage tourism sites. The sample also recorded a tendency towards AGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % first-time visitors (88%), with substantially Under 18 0 0 fewer visitors nominating that they were repeat visitors (12%). Age distribution among 18-24 4 5.88 participants also reflected the overall sample, 25-34 17 25.00 with most participants either indicating that 35-44 10 14.71 they fell within the 25-34 (25%) or 55-65 (23.5%) age brackets (see Table 5.8). 45-54 14 20.59 55-65 16 23.53 Levels of education among tourists to Kakadu National Park were reflective of those captured Over 65 7 10.29 at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (also 68 100 Genre 1), with most participants (80.89%) Table 5.8: Age percentages for the Kakadu National Park sample nominating that they had gained at least some tertiary education, and with a high number receiving an undergraduate degree (38.24%) LEVEL OF EDUCATION NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % or postgraduate degree (26.47%) (see Table No response 0 0 5.9). These numbers were anticipated, given previous observations made in the literature No formal qualifications 0 0 regarding the ‘typical’ heritage tourist. That Equivalent to primary school 0 0 said, a percentage of 80.89% is certainly on 8-11th grade (did not complete high school) 1 1.47 the high end of this expectation regarding tourist education levels, though it is lower than High School Certificate or equivalent 5 7.35 that recorded at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Some university but no degree 11 16.18 Park, particularly with regards to graduate or Bachelor or undergraduate degree 26 38.24 postgraduate degrees. Graduate or postgraduate degree 18 26.47 Technical qualifications 7 10.29

68 100 Table 5.9: Education levels Kakadu National Park sample

48 Western Sydney University Key Findings

NATIONALITY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Domestic Australian 39 57.35 International American 1 1.47 British 6 8.82 Dutch 2 2.94 French 9 13.24 Irish 6 8.82 Malaysian 1 1.47 New Zealand 1 1.47 Swiss 2 2.94 Tongan 1 1.47

68 100 Table 5.10: Nationalities of the Kakadu National Park sample

SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION (NS-NEC 8) NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Higher managerial/professional occupations 9 13.24 Lower managerial/professional occupations 15 22.06 Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales, etc.) 8 11.76 Small employers and own account workers 1 1.47 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 15 22.06 Semi-routine occupations 2 2.94 Routine occupations 2 2.94 Never worked or long-term unemployed 4 5.88 Other Nominated retired 9 13.24 Nominated student 3 4.41 Nominated traveller 0 0

68 100 Table 5.11: Social classifications for the Kakadu National Park sample

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 49 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.2.3 BLUE MOUNTAINS and specifically include the Blue Mountains term unemployed (23.68%) and those National Park as part of an organised nominating as students (15.79%) (see Table NATIONAL PARK coach tour. Of those who arrived from an 5.15). Both of these results are significantly The gender distribution of participants who international location, there was a tendency higher than the overall sample average (5.51% completed a social survey at Blue Mountains towards the United Kingdom (18.42%) and and 4.64% respectively), but participants were National Park (Genre 2) was equal between Germany (15.79%), followed by New Zealand also significantly younger on average as well, females (50%) and males (50%). The sample (5.26%) (see Table 5.14). The international with most participants in the 25-34 age group recorded a tendency towards first-time audience at this particular site was also more (39.47%) compared to the sample average of visitors (68%), with fewer visitors nominating diverse than any other surveyed location, 21.45% for the same group (25-34 years old). that they were repeat visitors (32%). The with participants hailing from twelve different Given these trends, it may be proposed that distribution of age shows participants were international locations. many participants surveyed at Blue Mountains also predominantly between the ages 18-34 National Park had not yet entered the work- (71.05%), with the number of those participants Curiously, the results of the survey force after studying and/or were undertaking that were aligned with the 55-65 age group obtained at Blue Mountains National Park a ‘gap year’ or similar. (10.53%) being almost half of that compared indicated a visitor profile consisting of a with the overall sample (20.87%) (see Table disproportionately high number of visitors 5.12). This was a significantly ‘younger’ sample that have never worked or have been long- that those at both Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kadadu National Parks (Genre 1).

Education levels among participants at Blue AGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Mountains National Park reflect the trend among participants across the project, with Under 18 0 0 most (63.16%) having at least some tertiary 18-24 12 31.58 education. Participants at this site also had 25-34 15 39.47 a slightly higher rate of those with a High School Certificate or equivalent (21.05%) 35-44 1 2.63 when compared to the overall sample 45-54 2 5.26 (17.58%). As with both Uluru-Kata Tjuta and 55-65 4 10.53 Kadadu National Parks (Genre 1), there was a trend towards both undergraduate and Over 65 4 10.53 postgraduate qualifications, with the former 38 100 dominating the sample. Table 5.12: Age percentages for the Blue Mountains National Park sample Unlike Kakadu National Park where domestic tourists were in the majority, there was a LEVEL OF EDUCATION NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % comparatively lower domestic tourism rate to Blue Mountains National Park (26.32%). Like No response 0 0 Uluru-Kata Tjuta, then, this site is enticing No formal qualifications 0 0 to, and captures, an international market. Equivalent to primary school 1 2.63 Contrary to the reasons that might motivate the domestic tourist to Uluru, those visiting 8-11th grade (did not complete high 1 2.63 the Blue Mountains National Park may well school) be motivated by its location. In particular, High School Certificate or equivalent 8 21.05 this trend could be due to the site’s proximity Some university but no degree 5 13.16 to Sydney (it is frequently marketed as a ‘day trip’ from the city), which is a major Bachelor or undergraduate degree 13 34.21 Australian tourist site in its own right. It may Graduate or postgraduate degree 6 15.79 also be a consequence of the frequency with Technical qualifications 4 10.53 which tourism itineraries marketed at the international market depart from Sydney 38 100 Table 5.13: Education qualifications for the Blue Mountains National Park sample

50 Western Sydney University Key Findings

NATIONALITY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Domestic Australian 10 26.32 International American 1 2.63 Austrian 1 2.63 Belarus 1 2.63 Brazilian 1 2.63 British 7 18.42 Chinese 2 5.26 Dutch 1 2.63 German 6 15.79 Jordan 2 5.26 Kuwait 1 2.63 New Zealand 3 7.89 Pakistani 2 5.26

38 100 Table 5.14: Nationalities of the Blue Mountains National Park sample

SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION (NS-NEC 8) NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Higher managerial/professional occupations 6 15.79 Lower managerial/professional occupations 3 7.89 Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales etc.) 3 7.89 Small employers and own account workers 1 2.63 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 3 7.89 Semi-routine occupations 2 5.26 Routine occupations 2 5.26 Never worked or long-term unemployed 9 23.68 Other Nominated retired 2 5.26 Nominated student 6 15.79 Nominated traveller 1 2.63

38 100 Table 5.15: Social classifications for the Blue Mountains National Park sample

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 51 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.2.4 GEIKIE GORGE Domestic tourists (85.19%) significantly The reasonable spread of employment outweighed international tourists at Geikie classifications across the remainder of the NATIONAL PARK Gorge National Park (see table 5.18). Most of the sample (those that did not identify as ‘retired’) The gender distribution of participants who visitors to this site, however, were on specific bus is also congruent with the growing literature on completed a social survey at Geikie Gorge tours of the area or were self-driving a particular the ‘grey nomad’, in which financial advantage National Park – the second site captured by – and remote – route through Western Australia, appears to play only a minor role. Instead, what we have termed Genre 2 – tended towards both of which may cater to a domestic market those who are typically captured by the term females (52%) over males (48%). This generation over an international one given the amount of ‘grey nomad’ appear to be driven by a desire to of a slightly more female sample is in accordance time and preparation needed to undertake such improve their quality of life, reduce their stress with broader figures regarding visitation and a trip. This preponderance towards domestic levels, engage in personal growth and deeper participation at heritage tourism sites. The sample tourists may also be explained by the high experiences, meet new people, and learn more also recorded a tendency towards first-time number of retiree visitors, discussed in Table 5.19 about Australia’s natural and cultural heritage visitors (81%), with far fewer visitors nominating below, which likewise reflects the overall age (Onyx and Leonard 2007). that they were repeat visitors (19%). Tourists profile of the sample. visiting Geikie Gorge National Park were mostly in the 55-65 age bracket or the over-65 age bracket Geikie Gorge National Park had very high (33.33% and 29.63% respectively), indicating an numbers of visitors that nominated as ‘retired’ older profile than that encountered at the other (40.74%) when compared to the overall sample surveyed National Park (see Table 5.16). Absent average (21.16%) (see table 5.19). As previously here is the younger age bracket of 25-34, This mentioned, this may be due to the mode of travel is a strikingly different age profile to that found undertaken by most of the visitors to this site, at Uluru-Kata-Tjuta National Park and the Blue with many travelling on either an organised bus Mountains National Park, though it is less distinct tour or engaging in a long-distance, self-drive trip to the profile for Kakadu National Park, where across some of the remoter parts of Australia. the 55-65 age category was the second highest The profile of visitor to Geikie Gorge National Park in percentage terms (23.53%). That said, the seems to align quite firmly with the recent notion sample drawn from Kakadu National Park, overall, of ‘grey nomads’ in the tourism literature, who are accounted for a far younger profile. described as ‘people who are aged 55 years and over, who independently travel around Australia Education levels were also somewhat anomalous by caravan or campervan for an extended period when compared with the overall sample average, of time’ (Patterson et al. 2011, p. 383), often in with fewer than half of those participants search of ‘Outback Australia’. surveyed (37.03%) at Geikie Gorge National Park indicating that they had gained at least some tertiary education (see Table 5.17). This profile also stands in contrast to regularly held AGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % assumptions in the heritage tourism literature regarding the highly educated profile of the Under 18 0 0 ‘typical’ heritage tourist. At this particular site, 18-24 1 3.7 education qualifications tended to coalesce 25-34 1 3.7 around the completion or near completion of high school (22.22% and 29.63% respectively), 35-44 4 14.81 indicating an atypical visitor profile, both in terms 45-54 4 14.81 of education qualifications and age. 55-65 9 33.33 Over 65 8 29.63

27 100 Table 5.16: Age percentages for the Geikie Gorge National Park sample

52 Western Sydney University Key Findings

LEVEL OF EDUCATION NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % No response 2 7.41 No formal qualifications 0 0 Equivalent to primary school 0 0 8-11th grade (did not complete high 6 22.22 school) High School Certificate or equivalent 8 29.63 Some university but no degree 4 14.81 Bachelor or undergraduate degree 2 7.41 Graduate or postgraduate degree 4 14.81 Technical qualifications 1 3.70 27 100 Table 5.17: Education qualifications for the Geikie Gorge National Park sample

NATIONALITY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Domestic Australian 23 85.19 International British 1 3.7 German 1 3.7 New Zealand 2 7.41 27 100 Table 5.18: Nationalities of the Geikie Gorge National Park sample

SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION (NS-NEC 8) NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Higher managerial/professional occupations 2 7.41 Lower managerial/professional occupations 2 7.41 Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales etc.) 2 7.41 Small employers and own account workers 1 3.7 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 3 11.11 Semi-routine occupations 1 3.7 Routine occupations 4 14.81 Never worked or long-term unemployed 0 0 Other Nominated retired 11 40.74 Nominated student 0 0 Nominated traveller 1 3.7 27 100 Table 5.19: Social classifications for the Geikie Gorge National Park sample

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 53 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.2.5 PORT ARTHUR Visitors to Port Arthur were mostly domestic Most participants at Port Arthur nominated (81.08%), with the international visitors drawing that they were engaged in employment The gender distribution of participants who largely from Britain (9.45%) (see Table 5.22). activities that could be classified as completed a social survey at Port Arthur This could be explained by the specifically intermediate occupations (21.62%); however, (Genre 3) tended towards females (59%) over colonial heritage (Genre 3) being represented this was closely followed by the category males (41%). This is a little out of alignment with at this site, and its distance from other tourist of ‘retired’ (18.91%), which brings with it no the overall statistics for visitors to Tasmania at locations in Tasmania and Australia more delineation in terms of social class (see Table this time of year, as identified by the Tourism broadly. Port Arthur also occupies a strong 5.23). The category of ‘retired’ thus makes it Info Monitor for Tourism Tasmania, which has position in the Australian imaginary, particularly difficult to say with certainty how the profile gender divided as 51% female and 49% male. with regard to those narratives that draw from of Port Arthur visitors is composed, but there That said, this generation of a slightly more its colonial and convict histories. In a survey does appear to be a tendency for the site female sample is in accordance with broader conducted by Tourism Tasmania, for example, to appeal to visitors from a range of social figures regarding visitation and participation more people are likely to nominate and name classes, which stands in contradistinction to at heritage tourism sites, which tends slightly Port Arthur over other tourist destinations as observations made in the heritage literature, towards female visitors. The sample also a visitor attraction in Tasmania. It is also likely, which suggests heritage appeals primarily recorded a tendency towards first-time visitors according to the same survey, to be the site to the upper-middle and upper-classes. This (69%), with fewer visitors nominating that they most people have heard of. is particularly the case with the percentage were repeat visitors (31%). In contrast to those allocated to intermediate occupations, which sites that comprise Genres 1 and 2, most visitors tend to cover the boundary between the to Port Arthur were in the age group 45–54 working classes and lower middle classes. (27.02%) (see Table 5.20).

Differing from the overall sample, and in particular from Genre 1, just under half of those participants (48.65%) surveyed at Port Arthur AGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % had some tertiary qualifications (see Table 5.21). This figure might be explained by the Under 18 0 0 comparatively high number of participants 18-24 1 1.35 nominating no formal qualifications (13.15%), 25-34 6 8.11 representing half of the total number of participants nominating this option. This was 35-44 17 22.97 a significant deviation from any other site 45-54 20 27.03 gathered into both Genres 1 and 2, in which no 55-65 18 24.32 participant nominated that they held ‘no formal qualifications’. Interestingly, a similar number Over 65 12 16.22 of participants utilised this category at the 74 100 second Genre 3 site, Sovereign Hill. This implies Table 5.20: Age percentages for the Port Arthur sample that heritage sites detailing a focus on colonial and settler history appeal to visitors with a wider range of educational qualifications, and particularly appeal to those with no formal qualifications in a way that those sites that detail an Indigenous or blended narrative do not. This anomaly is worthy of further exploration.

54 Western Sydney University Key Findings

LEVEL OF EDUCATION NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % No response 0 0 No formal qualifications 10 13.51 Equivalent to primary school 1 1.35 8-11th grade (did not complete high school) 4 5.41 High School Certificate or equivalent 13 17.57 Some university but no degree 8 10.81 Bachelor or undergraduate degree 14 18.92 Graduate or postgraduate degree 14 18.92 Technical qualifications 10 13.51 74 100 Table 5.21: Education qualifications for the Port Arthur sample

NATIONALITY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Domestic Australian 60 81.08 International American 2 2.70 British 7 9.40 Hawaiian 2 2.7 Mexican 2 2.7 Norfolk Island 1 1.35 74 100 Table 5.22: Nationalities of the Port Arthur sample

SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION (NS-NEC 8) NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Higher managerial/professional occupations 3 4.05 Lower managerial/professional occupations 12 16.22 Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales etc.) 16 21.62 Small employers and own account workers 7 9.40 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 8 10.81 Semi-routine occupations 5 6.76 Routine occupations 6 8.11 Never worked or long-term unemployed 0 0 Other Nominated retired 14 18.92 Nominated student 2 2.70 Nominated traveller 1 1.35 74 100 Table 5.23: Social classifications for the Port Arthur sample

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 55 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.2.6 SOVEREIGN HILL Domestic tourists made up the bulk of visitor .Sovereign Hill had the highest number of nationalities at Sovereign Hill (64.28%, retired visitors across the project (45.71%), The gender distribution of participants who including those with dual citizenship), with with more than double the overall sample completed a social survey at Sovereign Hill significantly higher British visitors (25.72%) (21.16%). Correspondingly, Sovereign Hill also tended towards females (57%) over males than at any other nationality (see Table 5.26). had relatively low rates of lower and higher (43%). This generation of a slightly more This is similar to Port Arthur, the other site managerial positions (11.43% and 4.29% female sample is in accordance with broader captured within the parameters of Genre 3, respectively) compared to the overall sample, figures regarding visitation and participation and Geikie Gorge National Park (Genre 2). A but in particular in comparison with Genre 1 at heritage tourism sites. The sample also possible explanation for this might be the ‘type’ (see Table 5.27). This is in contradistinction to recorded a tendency towards first-time visitors of history on offer at these sites, which tend assumptions in the literature about the social (56%), with far fewer visitors nominating that towards a colonial/settler narrative at Genre 3 class of the typical heritage tourist, who, it is they were repeat visitors (44%). Participants and a mixed narrative at Genre 2. assumed, are employed in occupations usually at Sovereign Hill were also mostly over 65 associated with the upper-middle and upper (35.71%), which is higher than the project classes, and thus derive a higher income. average (17.97%), and significantly higher than those attributed to Genres 1 and 2 overall (see Table 5.24).

Education levels at Sovereign Hill differed from the overall sample and from Genre 1 (in particular), with most participants to this site AGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % indicating that their highest level of education was at the High School Certificate or equivalent Under 18 0 0 level (24.28%). This was followed by those who 18-24 2 2.86 had attained a Bachelor or undergraduate 25-34 12 17.14 degree (21.43%), and those with either technical qualifications (14.29%) or no formal 35-44 4 5.71 qualifications (14.29%) (see Table 5.25). 45-54 7 10.00 55-65 20 28.57 Over 65 25 35.71

70 100 Table 5.24: Age percentages for the Sovereign Hill sample

LEVEL OF EDUCATION NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % No response 0 0 No formal qualifications 10 14.29 Equivalent to primary school 1 1.43 8-11th grade (did not complete high school) 4 5.71 High School Certificate or equivalent 17 24.29 Some university but no degree 6 8.57 Bachelor or undergraduate degree 15 21.43 Graduate or postgraduate degree 7 10.00 Technical qualifications 10 14.29 70 100 Table 5.25: Education qualifications for the Sovereign Hill sample

56 Western Sydney University Key Findings

NATIONALITY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Domestic Australian 41 58.57 Dual Citizen (Australian plus other) 4 5.71 International American 3 4.29 Austrian 2 2.86 British 18 25.71 Chinese 2 2.86 70 100 Table 5.26: Nationalities for the Sovereign Hill sample

SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION (NS-NEC 8) NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS PERCENTAGE % Higher managerial/professional occupations 3 4.29 Lower managerial/professional occupations 8 11.43 Intermediate occupations (clerical, sales etc.) 6 8.57 Small employers and own account workers 4 5.71 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 4 5.71 Semi-routine occupations 3 4.92 Routine occupations 4 5.71 Never worked or long-term unemployed 2 2.86 Other Nominated retired 32 45.71 Nominated student 2 2.86 Nominated traveller 2 2.86 70 100 Table 5.27: Social classifications for the Sovereign Hill sample

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 57 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.3. Comparative Findings

A similar survey was A survey consisting of between sixteen return visiting; an interest in historical and eighteen open-ended questions was narratives; to engage in different environments; administered at all six sites. The administered at each case study location, though and to get away from the routines of everyday bulk of the survey instrument not all questions were asked of each participant. life. Unsurprisingly, most participants (47.25%) was dedicated to questioning While it would be possible to present the data responded with general touristic responses, singularly for each site in a series of tables which included statements indicating that participants’ engagement with detailing responses to each question, it became they were holidaying in the area, for example, heritage more generally alongside apparent that presenting the data comparatively or visiting with family and friends. It is also their experiences of the heritage could prove more interesting. unsurprising that many participants offered narratives specifically on display mild statements regarding the general cultural As such, what follows are a series of tables and ‘pull’ of heritage sites. These, we might refer to at a particular location. related points of discussion that emerged from as ‘enjoying tourists’, who seek the opportunity the presentation of data in ways that allowed to visit natural, historical and cultural sites for comparisons across the three genres. Those with the intentions of gaining knowledge and questions that were asked across all six sites a general cultural or historical experience. are detailed in the following pages; shortly Equally visible in this grouping were those thereafter we include a discussion of a small set seeking relaxation, or a release from work of questions that were asked only at particular pressures alongside gaining some exercise. sites. These include questions regarding: the climbing of Uluru, which was asked of those Second to this were those who noted that the visiting Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park; the site was a major Australian tourist attraction, presence of uranium mining, which was asked and therefore cited the destination as being of those visiting Kakadu National Park; the ‘on the list’ of iconic places to visit, either as benefits of the boat tour, which was asked of an Australian or as an international tourist those visiting Geikie Gorge National Park; and to Australia. Here, a sense of novelty and which layers ‘speak’ the loudest to visitors to expectation permeated these responses, along Port Arthur. This data is housed under a section with a desire to share their experiences either titled ‘Specific Questions’. with family and friends ‘in the moment’ or with family and friends upon returning home. Those The first question included in the presentation participants nominating what we have referred of data below (see Table 5.28), and delivered to as ‘general touristic reasons’ also indicated in a comparative format, asked participants that they were motivated by a desire to visit to nominate their overall reasons for visiting places that are highly valued popularly. There the heritage site at which they were surveyed. is also an element of ‘legacy tourism’ operating The question was presented as an open- across the sample, particularly with those sites ended question, prompting participants to categorised as Genre 3, with some tourists form the reasons for visiting in their own seeking to establish personal connections words; participants were only given prompts with history, their own interests or, in some if necessary, and this was rarely the case. instances, their colonial ancestors (McCain and Instead, participants seemed very willing to Ray 2003). share their reasons or motivations for visiting. As prompted by the literature, anticipated responses revolved around both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors, which relate to the motivations behind a visitor’s choice to visit any given tourism sites. The literature on ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, with ‘push’ factors including escape, novelty, social interaction and cultural capital, and ‘pull’ factors described as those that affect ‘when, where, and how people travel’ and includes consideration of attractions and destination attributes (Prayag and Ryan 2011). Here, motivations for travel included engaging with tranquillity and/or nature; sight-seeing prompted by cultural motivations; proximity;

58 Western Sydney University Key Findings

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % General touristic reasons 55 40.44 33 50.77 75 52.08 163 47.25 I was in the local area and decided to visit 0 0 0 0 15 10.42 15 4.35 This is an iconic Australian site (it’s ‘on the list’) 26 19.18 0 0 9 6.25 35 10.13 I came to experience particular elements of Aboriginal Australia 8 5.88 0 0 0 0 8 2.32 I have a personal interest in Australian history and culture 7 5.15 0 0 11 7.64 18 5.22 I have come to experience the landscape of this place 8 5.88 10 15.38 0 0 18 5.22 This site was recommended to me by family/friends 0 0 11 16.92 5 3.47 16 4.64 I have a personal motivation to visit this place 16 11.75 0 0 3 2.08 19 5.50 I am hosting friends/family 0 0 2 3.08 16 11.11 18 5.22 There is a specific element of this site I came to see 0 0 2 3.08 4 2.78 6 1.74 Inaudible 3 2.21 0 0 0 0 3 0.87 No Response 11 8.09 7 10.77 3 2.08 21 6.09 Question not asked 2 1.47 0 0 3 2.08 5 1.45

136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.28: Participant responses to the question ‘What are your overall reasons for visiting this site?’ for all sites

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 59 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

Participants were also asked to consider the These ‘either/or’ responses were followed As the genre classifications indicate below phrase ‘Australian heritage’ and to define closely by a rather more generic or bland (Table 5.29), the distribution of responses to it in their own words, or in ways that were notion of history and background (14.20%), this question, across the three genres, was meaningful to them as visitors. Across the as well as a response that carefully combined stark. This can be readily explained by the sample, the most common responses to this both Aboriginal and settler/colonial heritage environments of Genre 3, as both Sovereign question were to nominate: (1) Aboriginal (11.30%). This latter response was far more Hill and Port Arthur narrate a specifically history and culture (19.13%) or (2) Australia’s likely (twice as likely, in fact) to occur at Genre colonial heritage (both had minimal reference colonial/settler/convict heritage (15.07%) (see 1 sites (17.65%) than it was at either Genre 2 to Indigenous Australia at the time of the Table 5.29). Neither category is surprising, but or Genre 3 sites. Genre 3 sites elicited such a fieldwork, though there have been some it is certainly worth noting the frequency with response 12 times (8.33%) whereas Genre 2 changes in this regard since, particularly at which visitors felt compelled to nominate only sites elicited this response only 3 times (4.62%). Sovereign Hill with the launch of the digital one or the other. Across Genre 1 sites, visitors It is possible to infer from this that a ‘default’ tour, Hidden Histories: The Wadawurrung were far more likely to suggest Australia’s focus on colonial/settler heritage is in operation People). These sites (Genre 3) contrast with heritage equates with Aboriginal history and in Australia’s heritage field, which is dislodged those associated with Genres 1 and 2, which culture, followed by an equal leaning towards only when there is explicit prompting from the are predominantly cultural landscapes, blander notions of ‘history’, ‘background’ and site’s interpretation, such as is the case within incorporating a spectrum of Indigenous ‘birthplace’ or a combination of both Aboriginal Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Kakadu narratives. Interestingly, both Genres 1 and 3 and colonial heritage. At Genre 2 sites, visitors National Park. It is possible to also add here were more likely to prompt feelings of personal were similarly likely to point to Aboriginal a combination of responses that amount to reflection. history and culture first, before nominating a notion of heritage as being central to, and convict, settler or colonial heritage. At Genre explicitly linked with, the Australian nation, with 3 sites, visitors tended towards notions of little added to broaden this out beyond notions convict, settler and colonial heritage, or either of the nation. Here, again, this collection of broader notions of history on the one hand or responses would align with Genre 2. specifically thinking of heritage as Australian icons, be they historical, natural or cultural.

There is, of course, a strong correlation between these answers and the ‘types’ or genres of heritage sites participants were visiting at the time, with those sites narrating a predominantly Indigenous or colonial narrative likely to trigger a response reflective of those narratives (31.62% and 25% respectively). Where those narratives were muted or absent, visitors were less likely to focus on these two distinctions, with participants offering responses that considered the more broadly labelled categories of cultural and natural heritage. Here, we see visitors to Genre 2 sites as being those more likely to focus on the natural aspects of the site rather than its cultural narratives.

60 Western Sydney University Key Findings

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % I don’t know 7 5.15 6 9.23 4 2.78 17 4.93 Convict/settler/colonial heritage 7 5.15 9 13.85 36 25 52 15.07 History/background/ birthplace 24 17.65 7 10.77 18 12.5 49 14.20 Aboriginal history and culture 43 31.62 16 24.62 7 4.86 66 19.13 A combination of Aboriginal and colonial heritage 24 17.65 3 4.62 12 8.33 39 11.30 Australia’s historical, natural and cultural icons 6 4.41 2 3.08 19 13.19 27 7.83 Australian cultural heritage 0 0 0 0 8 5.56 8 2.32 Australia’s natural environment 5 3.68 7 10.77 2 1.39 14 4.06 A combination of natural and cultural heritage 0 0 5 7.69 0 0 5 1.45 Multicultural Australia 0 0 0 0 8 5.56 8 2.32 Critical engaged with current management 0 0 2 3.08 5 3.47 7 2.03 Prompts personal reflection 6 4.41 2 3.08 6 4.17 14 4.06 Australia does not have a heritage 2 1.47 0 0 0 0 2 0.58 Question not asked 0 0 1 1.54 5 3.47 6 1.74 No response 12 8.82 5 7.69 14 9.72 31 8.99

136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.29: Participant responses to the notion of ‘Australian heritage’ for all sites

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % No, (unelaborated) 19 13.97 13 20 22 15.28 54 15.65 No, I am a visitor/tourist/guest 31 22.79 12 18.46 30 20.83 73 21.16 No, this site represents Indigenous inhabitants. 7 5.15 0 0 0 0 7 2.03 No, this site does not engage me like that 5 3.68 3 4.62 2 1.39 10 2.90 No, Australia is too young to represent me 0 0 1 1.54 0 0 1 0.29 I think I am somewhat represented (no elaboration) 5 3.68 10 15.38 23 15.97 38 11.01 Yes, I am represented (no elaboration) 6 4.41 3 4.62 5 3.47 14 4.06 Yes, I am represented by familial links 7 5.15 0 0 7 4.86 14 4.06 Yes, I am represented because I am Australian 7 5.15 3 4.62 18 12.5 28 8.12 This interactive site makes me feel connected 0 0 0 0 10 6.94 10 2.90 I feel connected to environments like this 14 10.29 6 9.23 7 4.86 27 7.83 I am connected by my interest in heritage 2 1.47 0 0 3 2.08 5 1.45 No response 8 5.88 8 12.31 8 5.56 24 6.96 Question not asked 25 18.38 6 9.23 9 6.25 40 11.59

136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.30: Participant responses to questions of representation and belonging for all sites

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 61 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

When asked if they felt represented by the There was also a sense of entitlement to Overall, participants expressed a variety heritage presented at each site, or if being there heritage evident across the survey responses, of feelings toward their visit. In addition to triggered a feeling of belonging, participants which played out differently across the three expressing sentiments about feelings of across all three genres mostly indicated that genres. As mentioned above, at Genre 1 sites belonging and representation, participants they did not feel especially represented. some visitors were mindful of the question were also asked to reflect upon any other Instead, they tended to view themselves in of ownership and respectfully commented feelings their visit had prompted (see Table the specific category of ‘visitor’. The response that they recognised the Indigenous owners. 5.31). Most visitors to Genre 1 sites expressed rate for this was similar across all three genres: A sense of representation inclined across generally positive feelings (32.35%), noting Genre 1 (22.70%), Genre 2 (18.49%) and the genres with fewer seeing themselves that the site made them feel ‘great’, ‘interested’, Genre 3 (20.83%) (see Table 5.30). While this represented at Genre 1 sites (3.68%) than at ‘amazed’ and ‘relaxed’, for example. This response was consistently high across all three Genre 2 (15.38%) and Genre 3 (15.97%) sites. was followed by feelings of awe (11.76%) and genres, other responses were unique across Interestingly, more than twice the number privilege (9.56%). Most participants in Genre the spectrum. For example, some participants of participants to Genre 3 sites expressed a 2 felt that the sites prompted feelings of were unsure if they felt represented or if they sense of entitlement to heritage than at those personal introspection (24.63%), and in Genre ‘belonged’, and expressed conflicting emotions sites associated with Genres 1 and 2. This 3 most participants responded by reflecting to explain their relationship and sense of place sense of entitlement stemmed from feelings on the site specifically as a tourist destination with regard to the heritage on display – they of Australianness and the perceived ability of (27.78%) or as sites that prompted further held respect for the site but were mindful a particular sites to ‘speak to’, or about, the reflection (21.53%). This was a vastly more of the political imperatives to acknowledge Australian nation. This links with observations popular response for visitors to Genre 3 sites as ownership as belonging to Indigenous made earlier about the frequency with which opposed to those visiting Genre 1 (3.77%) and Australians. This particular tension was much particular sites prompted thoughts about 2 (4.62%) sites. This is curious, given that it was more common across Genre 1, for example, Australia’s icons. Here, it was predominantly visitors to these sites (Genre 3) that were more and was absent from both Genre 2 and visitors to Genre 3 sites that spoke to both an likely to feel represented and entitled. This Genre 3. This may be related to the deliberate understanding of iconic heritage (13.19%) and stands in contrast to those feelings of privilege attempts at heritage construction pursued at a perceived ‘right’ to visit or feel represented triggered at Genre 1 sites – 0% reported a both Sovereign Hill and Port Arthur, as both by such sites of heritage (12.5%). This occurred feeling of privilege at Genre 3 sites. sites have actively constructed a built historic two-to-three times more often at Genre 3 sites environment that very much reflects colonial than it did at Genre 1 and 2 sites. Interestingly, despite the wealth of information encounters. This stands in contrast to Genre 1, available across each case study site, only which relies in part on its surrounding cultural those participants visiting Genre 3 sites landscapes. Perhaps because of this, double expressed that they were feeling better the participants at Genre 1 sites (10.29%) felt educated about the issues represented at the connected to the environment than those at site they were visiting. Similarly, it was these Genre 3 sites (4.86%). sites that prompted feelings of reflection.

62 Western Sydney University Key Findings

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % Prompts reflection on site as a tourist destination 5 3.77 3 4.62 40 27.78 48 13.91 I feel good/nice/great 44 32.35 11 16.92 21 14.58 76 22.03 I feel privileged to visit this place 13 9.56 3 4.62 0 0 16 4.64 I feel reflective of the issues this site brings up for me 11 8.09 0 0 31 21.53 42 12.17 This site prompts feelings of awe 16 11.76 3 4.61 0 0 19 5.51 This site prompts feelings of introspection 8 5.88 16 24.62 3 2.08 27 7.83 Different elements of the site prompt conflicting feelings 1 0.74 0 0 4 2.78 5 1.45 I feel better educated about the issues this site presents 0 0 0 0 14 9.72 14 4.06 Site prompts affective/spiritual feelings 2 1.47 5 7.69 0 0 7 2.03 The non-human impacts my feelings 4 2.94 2 3.08 2 1.39 8 2.32 I feel proud to be Australian 1 0.74 0 0 3 2.08 4 1.16 I feel uncomfortable with the narrative presented here 0 0 0 0 1 0.69 1 0.29 I feel a sense of disappointment with this site 6 4.41 5 7.69 0 0 11 3.19 I feel inspired to learn more 0 0 2 3.08 0 0 2 0.58 No response 12 8.82 5 7.69 7 4.86 24 6.96 Question not asked 13 9.56 10 15.38 18 12.5 41 11.88 136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.31: Comparative participant responses to questions about how each site made them feel for all sites

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % It is quiet/calm/peaceful/relaxing 47 34.56 27 41.54 19 13.19 93 26.96 The mood is positive/good/friendly 28 20.59 9 13.85 0 0 37 10.72 The mood is enhanced by the physical landscape (inc. weather) 5 3.68 5 7.69 14 9.72 24 6.96 The mood is sombre to reflect the dark heritage of this site 1 0.74 0 0 23 15.97 24 6.96 The mood reflects the spiritual elements of this place 9 6.62 3 4.62 0 0 12 3.48 I am reflective of the presentation of heritage here 5 3.68 0 0 17 11.81 22 6.38 The mood is awe-inspiring 9 6.62 0 0 0 0 9 2.61 Prompts reflective response about various memories 0 0 0 0 11 7.64 11 3.19 The atmosphere is interactive and educational 0 0 0 0 23 15.97 23 6.67 I feel drawn into the atmosphere by the sounds/sights/smells 0 0 0 0 7 4.86 7 2.03 The atmosphere is a contrast between the beauty of the 0 0 0 0 4 2.78 4 1.16 landscape and the darkness of the heritage Prompts negative comment 9 6.62 4 6.15 1 0.69 14 4.06 I cannot describe the mood or atmosphere 6 4.41 0 0 13 9.03 19 5.51 No response 12 8.82 6 9.23 9 6.25 27 7.83 Question not asked 5 3.68 11 16.92 3 2.08 19 5.51 136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.32: Comparative participant responses to questions about the mood and atmosphere for all sites

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % Participant Response Genre 1 % Genre 2 % Genre 3 % Total % No, not really/I’m not sure 15 11.03 8 12.31 27 18.75 50 14.49 I’ve had feelings of empowerment/awe 22 16.18 18 27.69 0 0 40 11.59 Offers a vaguely positive comment on experience 13 9.56 0 0 8 5.56 21 6.09 I have felt personally moved 0 0 7 10.77 7 4.86 14 4.06 The non-human has contributed to felt sensations 25 18.38 7 10.77 0 0 32 9.28 I have had a specifically affective sensation 6 4.41 1 1.54 29 20.14 36 10.43 I’ve experienced a strong sense of empathy 0 0 0 0 32 22.22 32 9.28 This site has made me personally reflect 9 6.62 0 0 5 3.47 14 4.06 This site has piqued my personal interests 8 5.88 0 0 0 0 8 2.32 I am impressed with this site and feel calm and relaxed 12 8.82 6 9.23 2 1.39 20 5.80 I have been generally disappointed with my visit 4 2.94 2 3.08 2 1.39 8 2.32 No response 11 8.09 5 7.69 11 7.64 27 7.83 Question not asked 11 8.09 11 16.92 21 14.58 43 12.46 136 65 144 2.08 19 5.51 Table 5.33: Comparative participant responses to questions aabout my sentations experienced onsite for all sites

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 63 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

When asked to describe the mood or expressed sensations relating to their or the sacred (4.41%). There were also a high atmosphere of the heritage site they were connections to particular humans in the history proportion of visitors across all three genres that visiting, participant responses varied across presented at each site, in particular sensations of were disinterested in taking photographs at all each genre (see Table 5.32). Most participants empathy (22.22%). This was followed by other (8.83%, 10.77% and 14.58% respectively). surveyed at sites associated with Genres 1 and nominations of emotional or affective responses 2 reflected on the quiet, calm and relaxing at Genre 3 sites (20.14%), such as strong While many participants nominated that they atmospheres curated at each site (34.56% and sensations of shock, anger, cruelty, anxiety would use their photos as memory prompts 41.54% respectively). These could be earmarked and isolation, at both Sovereign Hill and Port (15.44%, 33.85% and 13.89% respectively, see as keywords for the all four sites associated Arthur. Sovereign Hill, as previously discussed, Table 5.35), some were less inclined, particularly with Genres 1 and 2. Visitors to these sites were constructs an environment that specifically at Genre 3 (10.42%), and indicated that they also more likely to comment on the friendly and draws on the senses to create the atmosphere would prefer to use other means of recollection, positive mood (20.59% and 13.85% respectively) of the living museum, and does so in a way that such as the purchase of souvenirs, the use produced at each site. While they may not have effectively sponsors emotional responses from of personal diaries and relying on their own felt that they ‘belonged’, they nonetheless felt its visitors. For difference reasons, Port Arthur personal recollections. Most participants across welcomed. These two options provided for the was likewise able to conjure strong feelings and all three genres, however, expressed that they bulk of responses at sites associated with both emotions, but did so through prompting for would, and do, use images as memory prompts, Genres 1 and 2 (over 50%). By contrast, most feelings of empathy and by engendering strong which aligns with the notion of ‘memory travel’ participants to Genre 3 sites noted that the feelings of connection between contemporary as developed recently by Urry and Larsen (2011) mood was sombre, most likely in response to visitors and those who are associated with the (see Table 5.35). Across the genres, the link the dark or dissonant heritage represented at site from the past, particularly those who faced between memory and travel can be attributed those sites, particularly at Port Arthur. Indeed, adversity and cruelty. to images that help visitors to remember the this number consists mostly of participants at details of travels (28.69%, 12.31% and 29.86% Port Arthur, and does not necessarily reflect Encouragingly, there were only minimal notions respectively), as well as the enjoyment of Genre 3 as a whole. Visitors at the Genre 3 sites of disappointment registered across all six sites, showing photographs to family and friends, in did, however, find the atmosphere interactive leaving respondents to report largely positive both print and digital formats (34.56%, 21.54% and educational (15.97%), at a rate that was impressions. Finally, sensations triggered by and 18.75% respectively), upon returning home. much higher than that found at Genres 1 and heritage sites are more likely to produce a This performative element seemed to be 2. As previously mentioned, this could be due sensation of personal engagement at Genre 1 strong across all three genres, though it was to the constructed nature of the built heritage sites. particularly strong for those visiting Genre 1 represented at the Genre 3 sites, compared sites, which lends visitor photography an added to the cultural environments of Genres 1 and Participants to the research project were also spatial and temporal dimension. In other words, 2. There was also an awareness of the efforts asked about their photographic practices onsite, the photographs are granted a longer ‘life’ by made to produce atmosphere, via sounds, sights as both heritage and tourism are often argued virtue of their use beyond the moment of their and smells (4.86%), particularly at Sovereign to be highly visual practices. Growing debates collection. As Urry and Larsen (2011: 155) argue, Hill, as well as an awareness of the ways in which in the literature, however, suggest that visitor this allows photographs to be rearticulated and non-human agents can contribute to feelings photography is far more complex than simply understood as ‘“blocks of space-time” that have onsite, such as the weather, wind, insects, the ‘point and shoot’ mode of photography effects beyond the people or place or events to shade – an observation that occurred at similar often assumed to take priority. Across the which they refer’. rates across all three genres (3.68%, 7.69% and sites included here (see Table 5.34), different 9.72%), though it tended to increase for those intentions with regard to capturing images were Of particular interest here is the role played categorised as Genre 3. revealed across the three genres. Significant by digitisation, which has allowed tourists to numbers of participants visiting Genre 1 and 2 capture more photographs and present them When prompted to think about any sensations sites, for example, expressed a desire to capture more immediately in a variety of ways (online, they may have experienced during their visit, images of the natural environment and/or a via Facebook or Instagram, for example, or as participants across the three genres expressed sense of being ‘in place’ or of being imaginatively photobooks or scrolling desktop backgrounds) very different bodily reactions (see Table 5.33). ‘elsewhere’ (33.82% and 49.23 respectively). since the advent of digital (as opposed to The biggest contrast occurred between Genres Wildlife also featured highly here, as did analogue) cameras. In addition to digital SLRs 1 and 3 in particular, and can be seen in those capturing specific aesthetics such as images (single-lens reflex cameras), visitors are also nominating sensations relating to the non- of sunrise or sunset, or light playing on the able to use their smart-phones (iPhone, etc.) human elements of the sites. At Genre 1, 18.38% landscape, shadows, shapes and colours (13.97% and tablets (iPads, etc.) to capture still images of visitors pointed explicitly to non-human and 7.69%)). Meanwhile, visitors to Genre 3 and video while travelling. In some instances, elements such as the weather, the heat, the flies, sites overwhelmingly expressed the desire to visitors depart with intentions of exhibiting their the sweat, the insect-life, etc. A Genre 2, this capture specific images (22.22%), particularly photographs in more formal ways, perhaps as was nominated by10.77% of participants and by those that reflect the assumed authenticity of slideshows or framed/mounted wall hangings. 0% at Genre 3 sites. In addition to the weather, the built environment (16.67%). Such images Indeed, it was not unusual for visitors to visitors were also prompted to remark upon included particular buildings or reenactors, as nominate that they were looking for the perfect the particular aesthetics of each site at Genres well as attempting to recreate images found in ‘shot’ to print, frame and hang on the walls of 1 and 2, as well as sensations of empowerment promotional materials advertising the sites. Only their homes as a clear and ‘everyday’ act of and awe at the majesty of the landscapes in participants visiting Genre 1 sites responded remembrance. This was a particularly popular question. All four sites associated with Genres that they would seek out images of Aboriginal suggestion at Genre 1 sites. 1 and 2 are national parks, and combine, to Australia (12.5%). Interestingly, these visitors varying degrees, narratives about both cultural nominated that they were attempting to capture and natural components. By contrast, these something that moved beyond the visual, responses had very little traction at Genre and pushed towards capturing atmosphere 3 sites, where participants overwhelmingly

64 Western Sydney University Key Findings

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % I don’t intend to/will not take photographs 12 8.83 7 10.77 21 14.58 40 11.59 I don’t use cameras to capture images 2 1.47 1 1.34 0 0 3 0.87 Vague response to capturing images of ‘everything’ 16 11.76 0 0 29 20.14 45 13.04 Nominates specific aesthetics 19 13.97 5 7.69 3 2.08 27 7.83 Images of the natural landscape and environment (inc. wildlife) 46 33.82 32 49.23 6 4.17 84 24.35 Images of ourselves and our companions 3 2.21 5 7.69 9 6.25 17 4.93 Images that represent the authenticity of the built environment 0 0 1 1.34 24 16.67 25 7.25 I will seek out images relating to Aboriginal culture and heritage 17 12.5 0 0 0 0 17 4.93 Nominates a specific image/s they hope to capture 0 0 0 0 32 22.22 32 9.28 I want to capture an image that represents more than the visual 6 4.41 0 0 0 0 6 1.74 No response 11 8.09 9 13.85 10 6.94 30 8.70 Question not asked 4 2.94 5 7.69 10 6.94 19 5.51 136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.34: Comparative participant responses to questions about visitor photography for all sites

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % Yes, no elaboration 21 15.44 22 33.85 20 13.89 63 18.26 No, no elaboration 1 0.74 0 0 11 7.64 12 3.48 No, I prefer to just be in the present 1 0.74 0 0 1 0.69 2 0.58 I use other means to prompt my memory 4 2.94 3 4.62 15 10.42 22 6.38 Yes, images help me remember 39 28.68 8 12.31 43 29.86 90 26.09 Yes, and I enjoy showing the images to family and friends (digital 47 34.56 14 21.54 27 18.75 88 25.51 or hardcopy) Yes, and I exhibit my images 0 0 2 3.08 8 5.56 10 2.90 Offers personal reason for using photographs as memory 5 3.68 0 0 0 0 5 1.45 prompts No response 11 8.09 9 13.85 9 6.25 29 8.41 Question not asked 7 5.15 7 10.77 10 6.94 24 6.96 136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.35: Comparative participant responses to questions about how visitors use their photographs for all sites

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 65 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

When asked about which aspects of All three genres also showed a high incidence between an overarching sense of national Australia’s heritage visitors thought they of visitors citing site-specific responses to the heritage and more personal iterations. Others were visiting, participant responses varied aspects of heritage they were visiting (26.47%, made more general statements, nominating significantly across the genres (see Table 16.92% and 20.14% respectively) – key elements that they had acquired a sense of something 5.36). For example, visitors at the two Genre of the sites that have featured in various but were unable to put those messages into 1 sites were keen to suggest that they were marketing material. Few people surveyed at specific terms. In terms of trends, at Genre 1 visiting Indigenous heritage (29.41%), while Genres 1 and 3 were unable to nominate the sites, and to a lesser extent at Genre 2 sites, no participants made a similar observation at component of Australian heritage they felt they a number of participants expressed that Genre 3 sites. Conversely, many participants at were visiting (0.74% and 1.39% respectively), they would take away messages relating Genre 3 sites cited Australia’s colonial/settler though this was less the case at Genre 2 specifically to Indigenous Australia (Genre 1: heritage (31.94%) as the focus of their visit, sites (10.77%). Those that were a little more 27.21%; Genre 2: 15.38%). No visitors surveyed compared with only one at a Genre 1 site. At the certain at the two Genre 2 sites pointed to at Genre 3 sites nominated this sort of two Genre 2 sites, the most popular response either natural heritage (23.08%) or Indigenous message. Conversely, participants to Genre was to point to the ‘natural’ heritage as a key heritage (13.85 %) as the ‘sort’ or ‘type’ of 3 sites expressed that they had received new concern. This is an interesting difference, heritage they were visiting. Only those visiting messages about Australian heritage, which particularly between Genres 1 and 2, as all Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Kakadu they took directly from the site itself (31.25%). four sites belonging to these genres consist National Park felt they were visiting a site Here, visitors pointed to specific historical facts of national parks. However, at the two Genre 1 that specifically and explicitly referenced and and figures, particular buildings, communities, national parks, the associated landscapes are represented Australia’s heritage (9.56%). people or timeframes – a sort of ‘cognitive’ animated by narratives and stories that make collective memory rather than the associative clear links to intangible cultural elements, thus In addition to questions about Australia’s or intangible connotations expressed at bringing the seemingly natural environment heritage, participants were also asked about Genre 1 sites. This may reflect that those at ‘into being’ as one rich with history and the sorts of messages they ‘found’ at each Genre 3 sites also found their experience to cultural connotations. In the absence of these site, and which of those they were most likely be interactive and educational, as previously powerful narratives, visitors focussed instead to take home with them (see Table 5.37). In expressed. This occurred to a far lesser on geological formations, plant-life and wildlife, particular, we were interested in the ways in degree at Genre 1 and 2 sites (4.41% and 4.62% but without making links to the important which visitors interacted with the interpretation respectively). cultural associations that exist in those places. and narratives on offer. In response to this line Interestingly, then, the three genres at the of questioning, most participants, across all heart of this project seem to emerge as aligning three genres, felt they were already familiar with the three categories of heritage that with the messages of Australian heritage, tend to organise the Australian heritage field: and felt they would not take away anything Indigenous, natural and historic. new. Of those that expressed they would take away new messages of Australian heritage, the responses varied across the genres. Some pointed to the need for preservation, and some to the links the their visit had prompted

66 Western Sydney University Key Findings

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % I don’t know 1 0.74 7 10.77 2 1.39 10 2.90 I am visiting a specifically Indigenous heritage 40 29.41 9 13.85 0 0 49 14.20 There is a mixture of colonial and Indigenous heritage here 4 2.94 1 1.54 2 1.39 7 2.03 I am visiting Australia’s specifically colonial/settler heritage 1 0.74 4 6.15 46 31.94 51 14.78 This site is an example of Australia’s natural heritage 17 12.5 15 23.08 0 0 32 9.28 This site is a combination of natural and Indigenous heritage 0 0 6 9.23 0 0 6 1.74 There is authenticity in the heritage here 0 0 0 0 14 9.72 14 4.06 I am visiting site specific aspects of Australia’s heritage 36 26.47 11 16.92 29 20.14 76 22.03 This site generally represents Australia’s heritage 13 9.56 0 0 0 0 13 3.77 The heritage here is complicated 0 0 0 0 4 2.78 4 1.16 This question prompts a critical engagement of Australia’s heritage 0 0 0 0 3 2.08 3 0.87 This site is an aspect of Australia’s dissonant heritage 0 0 0 0 7 4.86 7 2.03 This is a world heritage site 1 0.74 0 0 0 0 1 0.29 This place represents the sacred 2 1.47 0 0 0 0 2 0.58 This is an aspect of Australia’s living history 0 0 0 0 7 4.86 7 2.03 Prompts personal reflection 1 0.74 0 0 0 0 1 0.29 There is little or no Australian heritage here 2 1.47 0 0 0 0 2 0.58 Inaudible 2 1.47 0 0 0 0 2 0.58 No response 12 8.82 9 13.85 24 16.67 45 13.04 Question not asked 4 2.94 3 4.62 6 4.17 13 3.77 134 65 144 345 100 Table 5.36: Participant responses to questions about which aspects of Australia’s heritage they were visiting for all sites

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % No, I am already familiar with this heritage 21 15.44 8 12.31 33 22.92 62 17.97 No, this is not a cultural heritage site 0 0 4 6.15 0 0 4 1.16 The message of the importance of preservation 6 4.41 5 7.69 6 4.17 17 4.93 Yes, there are vague messages I’ll take away (unelaborated) 20 14.71 0 0 6 4.17 26 7.54 This site makes me think of my own home/family history in relation to the 0 0 4 6.15 6 4.17 10 2.90 heritage of Australia Yes, messages about the heritage of Indigenous peoples, past and present 37 27.21 10 15.38 0 0 47 13.62 Yes, the relationship between this site and Australian heritage in general 12 8.82 5 7.69 7 4.86 24 6.96 Offers site-specific example of a message they will take away 6 4.41 3 4.62 45 31.25 54 15.65 Offers critical reflection on contemporary Australia 0 0 2 3.08 5 3.47 7 2.03 Offers general criticism of site 4 2.94 0 0 0 0 4 1.16 I don’t know 2 1.47 6 9.23 0 0 8 2.32 No response 16 11.76 10 15.38 9 6.25 35 10.14 Question not asked 12 8.82 8 12.31 27 18.75 47 13.62 136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.37: Comparative participant responses to questions about the messages visitors will take away about Australia’s heritage for all sites

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 67 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

As part of the survey, participants were Participants were also asked to reflect upon In drawing the survey to a close, participants also asked about the kinds of experiences whether there was any aspect of their own were asked to reflect on any new messages they valued while visiting heritage sites, and personal identities to which the site/s spoke about Australia’s settler history that may have in particular the six sites that formed this (see Table 5.39). On the whole, participants been produced or triggered by their visit (see project (see Table 5.38). Again, responses were not sure that the sites spoke to them in Table 5.40). In response, most participants across the three genres indicated contrasting this way, though there was some consistency pointed towards a feeling that their previously experiences for visitors. In this regard, visitors among those who felt that individual sites held views about Australia’s settler history to Genre 1 sites tended to indicate that they did speak to their sense of self and personal had remained unchallenged by their visits to valued learning about Indigenous Australia identity. Many, especially in Genre 3, said the various sites (26.38%). Of those that did (26.47%), while those visiting Genre 3 sites that they felt connected to a site via various nominate that they had left with a changed predominantly noted that they were struck links such as those produced by childhood understanding of settler history, most in by site-specific experiences (13.19%), which memories, familial connections or genealogical Genre 1 attributed this to a furthering of their was also a common response across Genres links, or more broadly via geographical understanding of settler history (11.76%), as did 1 and 2. A response unique to Genre 3 was links (13.19%). A similar sense of connection, those visiting Genre 3 sites (13.89%). Visitors the value placed on culturally immersive produced by specific childhood memories or across all three genres were also likely to experiences, and the ability of heritage sites genealogical links, was nominated by those respond that the site/s had reinforced various to ‘transport’ visitors spatially and temporally surveyed at the two Genre 1 sites (9.56%). In impressions of the colonial past that they (12.5%). At Port Arthur, the natural ambience addition, many participants across the genres had previously held (Genre 1: 11.03%; Genre 2: of the site was instructive in this process, noted personal connections relating to their 13.85%; and Genre 3: 17.36%). Small numbers whereas at Sovereign Hill, it was the deliberate interests in the environment (Genre 1: 10.29%; of visitors across all three genres, however, interventions in terms of curatorial design that Genre 2: 7.69%), as well as their personal suggested that their visit had prompted new led to the development of a sense of living interests and hobbies (Genre 1: 10.29%; Genre observations about Australia’s about the history. Interestingly, this sense of immersion 2: 12.31%; and Genre 3: 9.72%). Only those at relationship between Australia’s past and also figured at Genre two sites, particularly Genres 3 and 3 sites mentioned that the site present day circumstances, or new connections Geikie Gorge National Park, at which the itself prompted a feeling of connection to their to their own sense of self. The former was natural features of the landscape were seen as personal identity (Genre 2: 15.38% and Genre particularly the case at Genre 1 and 2 sites a key experience (24.62%). Here, the boat trip 3: 5.56%). Aside from those who could see no (5.15% and 6.15% respectively). – which allowed visitors to literally pass ‘onto’ connection, this was easily the most popular the heritage site – was instrumental. In terms response for those visiting Genre 2 sites. of allowing visitors to experience something of the history and heritage of Australia, those sites associated with our third genre were twice as likely to present such experiences as those associated with Genres 1 (11.11% compared with 5.88%). This may correlate with those visitors that saw themselves reflected in the national narratives on display at Genre 3 sites, which reflect a settler/colonial history.

68 Western Sydney University Key Findings

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % This site offers a broad, educational opportunity 17 12.5 3 4.62 38 26.39 58 16.81 There is an opportunity to learn about Indigenous Australia 36 26.47 2 3.08 0 0 38 11.01 This site offers the opportunity to understand more about Australia 8 5.88 6 9.23 16 11.11 30 8.70 It offers a pleasant tourism experience 19 13.97 10 15.38 8 5.56 37 10.72 Nominates site-specific activity 7 5.15 5 7.69 19 13.19 31 8.99 It offers a culturally immersive experience 0 0 0 0 18 12.5 18 5.22 It offers a natural/environmentally immersive experience 3 2.21 16 24.62 0 0 19 5.51 The potential experiences will depend on each individual 0 0 1 0.74 6 4.17 7 2.03 Questions prompts a personal, reflective response 9 6.62 0 0 0 0 9 2.61 This site offers a special, unique experience 11 8.09 0 0 1 0.69 12 3.48 I don’t know 5 3.68 0 0 0 0 5 1.45 Question prompts a criticism of site 3 2.21 0 0 2 1.39 5 1.45 No response 8 5.88 11 16.92 13 9.03 32 9.28 Question not asked 10 7.35 11 16.92 23 15.97 44 12.75 136 65 144 345 100 Question not asked 13 9.56 10 15.38 18 12.5 41 11.88 136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.38: Comparative participant responses to questions about visitor experiences for all sites

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % No, there is not (no elaboration) 26 19.18 13 20.00 39 27.08 78 22.61 No, I do not relate to this place 7 5.15 2 3.08 8 5.56 17 4.93 I’m not sure 4 2.94 3 4.62 0 0 7 2.03 Yes, there is (no elaboration) 2 1.47 0 0 0 0 2 0.58 Yes, it speaks to my identity as an Australian 7 5.15 2 3.08 11 7.64 20 5.80 Yes, I am connected to this site by memories/familial/ 13 9.56 2 3.08 19 13.19 34 9.86 geographical links Yes, it speaks to my interest in the environment/nature 14 10.29 5 7.69 0 0 19 5.51 Yes, this site speaks to my personal interests/hobbies 14 10.29 8 12.31 14 9.72 36 10.43 Yes, I feel a spiritual connection to this place 5 3.68 0 0 1 0.69 6 1.74 Being at this site has prompted a feeling of connection 0 0 10 15.38 8 5.56 18 5.22 No response 11 8.09 14 21.54 12 8.33 37 10.72 Question not asked 33 24.26 6 9.23 32 22.22 71 20.58 136 65 144 345 100 No response 12 8.82 6 9.23 9 6.25 27 7.83 Question not asked 5 3.68 11 16.92 3 2.08 19 5.51 136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.39: Comparative participant responses to questions about personal identity for all sites

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE GENRE 1 % GENRE 2 % GENRE 3 % TOTAL % No, it has not changed my views (unelaborated) 45 33.09 14 21.54 32 22.22 91 26.38 No, because I have not encountered any new information 13 9.56 9 13.85 4 2.78 26 7.54 No, settler history is not relevant here/this site has not engaged 8 5.88 1 1.54 7 4.86 16 4.64 with settler history This site has furthered my understanding of settler history 16 11.76 4 6.15 20 13.89 40 11.59 I don’t know anything about/not interested in settler history 2 1.47 4 6.15 0 0 6 1.74 Prompts personal reflection 7 5.15 2 3.08 8 5.56 17 4.93 This site has reinforced various impression of the colonial past 15 11.03 9 13.85 25 17.36 49 14.20 Being here has promoted a critical engagement with Australia 7 5.15 4 6.15 2 1.39 13 3.77 past and present Yes, it is all new information 3 2.21 3 4.62 0 0 6 1.74 No response 8 5.88 5 7.69 16 11.11 29 8.41 Question not asked 12 8.82 10 15.38 30 20.83 52 15.07 136 65 144 345 100 Table 5.40: Comparative participant responses to questions about previously held views about Australia’s history for all sites

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 69 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

5.4. Specific Findings

The issue of whether or not At the site itself, there are numerous powerful While we do not have accurate data on the and heartfelt requests made to visitors by the numbers of people who undertook ‘the climb’ to climb Uluru has been an local Anangu community not to climb Uluru during the time we were onsite, as part of exercising one for many years. (Australian Government – Director of National our survey we did ask visitors their opinions Some journalists and social Parks 2013; Hueneke and Baker 2009). A key regarding whether Uluru should be open to moment at which this request is made occurs climb. Visitors were also asked to consider: (1) commentators refer to this at the base of Uluru, where a sign reads: if they would participate in such an activity; issue as ‘the great Australian and (2) if not doing so would undermine debate’, and there has been a their experience in any way. The majority of concerted movement towards We, the Anangu traditional respondents (55.88%) to our survey indicated that they did not believe that Uluru should be closing ‘the climb’ since 2010. owners, have this to say. Uluru is sacred in our culture. It is a place climbed as part of the tourist experience (see of great knowledge. Under our Table 5.41). For most visitors, this assertion drew from respect for Aboriginal culture traditional law climbing is not and beliefs, and a willingness to afford those permitted. This is our home… cultural beliefs the same measures afforded to Please don’t climb. We invite the sacred in Western contexts: you to walk around the base and discover a deeper understanding of this place. ‘Well, it’s sacred to the people, the Aboriginal custodians, it belongs to them’ (UG9). This sort of signage has likely resulted in increased visitor awareness of Indigenous attitudes on this issue, and raising questions over the need to climb Uluru has no doubt ‘Actually it is closed today but even become easier since the commencement if it was open we had decided not of joint management at the site in 1978 (Australian Government – Director of National to climb out of respect’ (UG 20). Parks 2013), and the return of Uluru and Kata Tjuta to the Anangu people in 1985, at which point Indigenous beliefs and customs were incorporated into the on-site visitor ‘I won’t climb it. Not because information. However, earlier in 2016, the I don’t want to, but because I Environment Minister, Greg Hunt MP, stated respect them. It’s a good gift, that there would be no closure to this debate like, to show them that we in the near future, suggesting instead that respect them and we’re not here the current state of management – in which to disturb their culture, but just visitors are left to decided whether or not to learn and to enjoy it’ (UG 31). to climb for themselves – would remain in place. During its time as a tourist destination, 36 people have died climbing Uluru; the Only some visitors (14.70%) expressed the recent operation undertaken to rescue three view that people should be able to climb men from the top of Uluru, after they had Uluru if they wanted to, suggesting that they wandered off the designated path, also speaks themselves would (or did) climb if it were to some of the dangers involved in climbing it possible. A further 23.53% were less certain (Dow 2016). about the issue, suggesting that either the current management practice should remain During the time this research was conducted in place (14.71%) or that an overarching in the national park, climbing Uluru was closed management decision should be made, one at various points due to high winds or high way or the other (2.94%). A further 1.47% had temperatures, as well as, on occasion, for no real opinion on the issue and 4.41% were cultural reasons, thereby taking the decision uncertain about the overall importance of the to climb out of the hands of visitors. However, place (and thus, presumably, could not really there were also other occasions during which see the issue). the climb was rendered available to visitors.

70 Western Sydney University Key Findings

In Table 5.41, we have divided our visitor PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % responses into three clear groupings: (1) those than stand in opposition to the climbing of Uluru, No, it should not be allowed out of respect 34 50.00% either for cultural or safety reasons (marked No, it should not be allowed for safety reasons 4 5.88% in blue); (2) those that stand in support of the People should be free to decide for themselves 10 14.71% climbing of Uluru (marked in orange); and (3) I don’t mind either way 1 1.47% those that have some ambivalence and thus Management should make a call, one way or the other 2 2.94% suggest that the power to decide is returned General scepticism over Uluru’s importance 3 4.41% either to current management or individual Yes, and I would to have climbed it if it had been open 5 7.35% visitors (marked in purple). Yes, I climbed it and it was a great experience 4 5.88% When attitudes toward the climb were analysed Yes, the ‘Rock’ is everyone’s heritage so it should be allowed 1 1.47% against particular participant demographics, No response 2 2.94% certain trends became apparent. We might Inaudible 1 1.47% anticipate a distinction between domestic and Vague or non-committal response 1 1.47% international tourists, for example, but when 68 100% responses to the question of climbing Uluru were Table 5.41: Participant responses to questions regarding climbing Uluru cross-referenced with ‘type’ of tourist, analysis revealed that domestic visitors were only slightly more likely than international visitors to express a ‘TYPE’ NO % MAYBE % YES % NO % TOTAL desire to climb, while almost the same percentage RESPONSE of domestic (57%) and international (58%) Domestic 12 57% 4 19% 5 24% 0 0% 21 (100%) visitors believed the climb should not be allowed at all (see Table 5.42). Similarly, an equivalent International 26 58% 9 20% 8 18% 2 4% 45 (100%) percentage of domestic (24%) and international Unknown 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 2 100% 2 (100%) (18%) visitors were unsure about whether the Table 5.42: Bi-variate analysis of visitor ‘type’ by attitudes to climbing Uluru climb should be allowed.

It may also be assumed that age plays a role in ‘TYPE’ NO % MAYBE % YES % NO % TOTAL these sorts of cultural debates and decisions. RESPONSE However, when visitor attitudes about the climb 18-24 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 (100%) were analysed according to their age brackets, 25-34 5 71% 1 14% 0 0% 1 14% 7 (100%) fewer trends emerged, though it is clear from 35-44 18 64% 5 18% 5 18% 0 0% 28 (100%) Table 5.43 that the likelihood that a will visitor 45-54 2 25% 2 25% 3 38% 1 13% 8 (100%) suggest that the climb should be open and 55-65 9 60% 2 13% 4 27% 0 0% 15 (100%) allowed increases with the age of the visitor, up to roughly 55 years, at which point that likelihood Over65 2 33% 3 50% 1 17% 0 0% 6 (100%) begins to decrease again. This decrease may Unknown 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 100% 2 (100%) correlate with anecdotal evidence that suggests Table 5.43: Bi-variate analysis of participant age-range by attitudes to climbing Uluru it is those who are over 55 years of age that are more likely to consider the safety of an activity, and the fitness required to undertaken those that are strenuous. It would be interesting to conduct future research that identifies if there is an age determinate for reasons given against participating in climbing Uluru.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 71 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

Case-specific questions were also asked of visitors to Kakadu National Park, where the ‘What do I think? That’s a big ‘I guess the earliest times, survey instrument saw the addition of questions question really, isn’t it? Yeah, when they were first setting specifically focused on the issue of uranium mining. Here, over half of all visitors (52.94%) I think it’s two-fold really, up the colony here and trying surveyed were against uranium mining in or because with it brings jobs and to understand how difficult adjacent to Kakadu National Park, and offered I think the mining industry is it would’ve been with an substantiating comments that ranged from probably the biggest employer of undeveloped site, trying to get the vaguely negative to strongly informed Indigenous people in Australia, established and so on. I think environmental concerns (see Table 5.44): so in that sense it is good… I that captures my imagination know they employ people to more’ (EPA69). make sure that sacred sites ‘No, I don’t believe we should are looked after and that sort mine anything that we cannot This sort of response is to be expected as of stuff. Well, no, no, that was dispose of safely. It’s not right for the site gained its world heritage status as a couple of years ago, they just future generations, but that’s my part of the ‘Australian Convict Sites’ due to won the case. Did you read that? point’ (KB59). its history as a penal settlement in the 1800s The mine people excavated a (Egloff 2002; UNECSO 2015 p.16). Interestingly, particular area, knocked down however, many visitors also pointed to an There was also a rich seam of concern for the a whole lot of sacred sites … interest in the multiple layers of the site (13.51%) importance of thinking about, and protecting, Anyway, the Indigenous people and pointed specifically to the emergence Aboriginal heritage and culture in the face of just won the court battle, maybe of the town as a tourist destination. Others mining. As the three major mineral leases in the last week. The media covered expressed an interest in the changing uses of area exist as enclaves within the world heritage them in court and things. That’s the site over time (10.81%), from penal colony, to tourism town to visitor centre. Some visitors, listed Kakadu National Park, environmental when we, like, I just thought apprehensions are an extremely valid and particularly domestic visitors, identified the popularly expressed concern, and were it’s a bit of rock art. But now I mass shooting at the site in 1996 as being the anticipated in the survey. These responses were realise what it actually means loudest layer, pointing to the memorial itself coupled with concerns about the proximity of and I can understand why it was on the site of the Broad Arrow Cafe (12.16%). the mines to sacred areas. Perhaps the most so important that they actually The traumatic events of that April are not part surprising response was a general lack of won, yeah. I suppose it’s a shame of the Port Arthur historical site discourse, knowledge about the presence of mining in that it’s uranium that they’re however, a small but powerful memorial does the area, which was a majority view expressed mining, isn’t it? But look, I don’t exist to honour the lives lost: by visitors. These participants either had no know. I don’t know if it’s a good knowledge at all about uranium mining or thing or a bad thing really. What expressed they did not know enough about the do you think?’ (KB53). ‘I think being Australian it issue to form a point of view. This may reflect does. I mean, I’m old enough to a lack of media engagement in the area about remember when the massacre the impact of mining on the local landscape. Of those that offered a positive response, the happened, but I think to bring Few visitors (10.29%) expressed any form of majority indicated that they would qualify their little kids here and just say, you positivity or acceptance about the uranium acceptance of the mining industry in the area mine, though some prevaricated: know, that that’s why we don’t in two ways: first, they pointed to the necessity have guns, that’s why we are of ensuring the safety of the mine’s operation; and second, they made clear that any mining not America. I think that part operation would require the consent and of it does make you, I suppose, understanding of local Indigenous groups. appreciate what Australia did from that point of view’ At Port Arthur, participants were asked which (EPA28). of the site’s many layers spoke to loudest to them (see Table 5.45). This question was designed to reflect the many episodes in history associated with the site, though, unsurprisingly, most visitors indicated that the convict story ‘spoke’ the loudest (20.27%):

72 Western Sydney University Key Findings

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % ‘Choices. I guess the I don’t know much/anything about uranium mining 15 22.06% contemporary story, the Martin Specifies concern for the environment 13 19.12% Bryant story in the 1990s I am against it (unelaborated) 5 7.35% because I live in the same era I am against it (offers vague negative comment) 13 19.12% and I live in Tasmania. It was Specifies importance of Aboriginal sacred landscapes in the placement of the 5 7.35% such a brutal, unexpected mine moment. The older part of I can see both sides to the issue 6 8.82% the story I feel less connected Vague interest in seeing the mine 1 1.47% to personally…I think most Mining is OK as long as it is safe 4 5.88% Europeans, Anglo people, don’t I don’t mind as long as locals are informed 2 2.94% relate to that time terribly Negative comment about land rights/claims. 1 1.47% closely. There’s a ‘them’ or No response 3 4.41% ‘otherness’ about it…’ (EPA75). 68 100% Table 5.44: Participant responses to questions about uranium mining When asked if there was any aspect of the site and its interpretation missing, a large portion of PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % our participants (25.68%) stated that they were either unsure or did not think so (see Table Participant Response Number % 5.46). A small sample of visitors was more I don’t know/I’m not sure 7 9.46 certain, and stated that there were no aspects All of the layers have piqued my interest 10 13.51 missing (8.11%), indicating that they thought Recognition on-site of multiple layers 7 9.46 the site covered everything relevant. However, The memorial/Martin Byrant story 9 12.16 a majority of visitors pointed to narratives The story of the convicts 15 20.27 that they felt were missing or underplayed The Aboriginal history 1 1.35 in the site’s interpretive strategy (40.53%). Equal numbers of these visitors thought The changing uses of the site over time 8 10.81 there was a lack of information regarding Not enough information on all the layers 3 4.05 female experiences onsite (4.05%), as well Question not asked 10 13.51 as a lack of narratives that exposed the more Question not answered 4 5.41 personalised convict experience (4.05%). Two 74 100 other groupings offered general comments Table 5.45: Participant responses to questions about which layer speak the loudest that identified that there were elements missing, pointing either to the inevitability of voices or stories being left out (9.46%) or to PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % an overarching misgiving about the availability I don’t know/I don’t think so/I’m not sure 19 25.68 of information (4.05%). The most commonly identified missing aspect of the site, however, No, there is nothing missing/it covers everything 6 8.11 was that of Aboriginal history, with many Yes, but there are always stories left out 7 9.46 participants identifying that there is very little Aboriginal history 14 18.92 reference to Aboriginal history at the site Women/wives/mothers 3 4.05 (18.92%). This high number of participants who The real convict experience is missing 3 4.05 noted the absence of Indigenous history at There is not enough information throughout 3 4.05 Port Arthur reflects responses to the previous Question not asked 9 12.16 question, where only one participant felt the Question not answered 10 13.51 Aboriginal history layer was prominent. That particular participant, it should be noted, 74 100 was specifically reflecting on the absence of Table 5.46: Participant responses to questions about missing narratives on site Aboriginal history as that which spoke loudest to them.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 73 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

When asked if there was room at Port Arthur Some participants, however, were not sure A handful of specific questions were also put for an Indigenous narrative, the largest that there was an Indigenous history to tell to those participants encountered in Geikie response from our sample was that the in the area (17.57%). This lack of knowledge Gorge National Park, and revolved around Indigenous people of the area, and their about Indigenous presence in the area is the operation of a boat tour along the gorge. history and culture, should definitely be likely a consequence of European settlers’ There are currently two types of tourist boat acknowledged (32.43%) (see Table 5.47). displacement and banishment of Aboriginal tours on offer: one provided by the National Indeed, many of those visitors that we peoples from the Tasman Peninsula, and the Park and a second, cultural boat tour, offered spoke to offered very passionate responses subsequent – and enduring − notion that the by Bunuba Aboriginal people. Most visitors to this issue: Tasmanian Indigenous nations and their people to the Park tend to take the tour provided had been totally destroyed: by the National Park (though the research team took both), which operates from May to ‘There’s not a single October each year and takes approximately acknowledgement about the ‘I think they killed every one hour. Most visitors that we spoke to had first people here. You can Aboriginal in the whole of taken the National Park boat tour, and offered walk around the whole of the Tasmania’ (EPA 37) very positive responses to that tour (74.07%), listing the expertise of the guides (44.44%) historic site and there’s not or the calming environment (29.63%) as one acknowledgement of the Additionally, some visitors were uncertain that key contributing factors to their enjoyable first people here, which is sad. there was space for an Indigenous history at experience (see Table 5.48): And also, as well, there’s no the site (14.86%), viewing the site as a purely acknowledgement really of how British, convict based heritage: it then transferred to what it is ‘It’s always good to have now…there’s a whole lot more somebody who knows their you can tell people about what ‘No, we’ve been all around stuff and can tell you a bit of went on’ (EPA5). Australia and in Uluru. Those the history, what’s going on in are good places for Indigenous the place and what this is and heritage. Maybe not here’ that is’ (GG08). (EPA 31). ‘They pushed them out of the road. They didn’t take any notice of them or they didn’t This was a reference to conceptual space, acknowledge them. They were rather than physical space, which was just there, just to be moved. underpinned by a questioning of the legitimacy Wherever they went they did the of an Indigenous voice for the narrative predominantly on offer. For these visitors, Port same thing. That was their policy. Arthur Historic Site is entirely iconic of the Just take what they wanted and convict era; such is the symbolism with which blow the rest’ (EPA 65). the site is associated that there is little room left for allowing other seams of history to surface, such as those related to the ‘pre-convict’ period or those associated with the Carnarvon period.

74 Western Sydney University Key Findings

Indeed, many of the visitors we spoke to felt PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % that the boat tour was the best way to see the gorge (14.81%). Only one visitor nominated No, the site is about British heritage 9 12.16 that they had not been on the boat tour, and a No, it’s too late to add them now 2 2.70 further visitor suggested that they found the I’m not sure that there is an Indigenous history here 13 17.57 tour disappointing. Only if there is an Aboriginal story here (not just for the sake of it) 7 9.46 It could be added, but in a way that doesn’t overshadow the convict narrative 8 10.81 An overwhelming majority of visitors to Geikie Yes, definitely (it’s part of Tasmania’s history; that shameful history should be 24 32.43 Gorge indicated that the boat tour was an acknowledged) essential part of their touristic experience, Yes, there should be an Indigenous memorial 0 0 suggesting that their visit would have been significantly lessened without it (81.48%). Question not asked 5 6.76 These are significant numbers and constitute Question not answered 6 8.11 almost the entirety of participant responses; 74 100 the remaining visitors either were not recorded Table 5.47: Participant responses to questions about re-thinking Indigenous history as answering the question asked, did not take the boat tour (one participant) or had found the walks along the gorge very fulfilling. PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % Those visitors nominating the latter suggested It’s very informative/good commentary/great guides 12 44.44% that the river and reef walks, and other It’s enjoyable, peaceful, calming, etc. 8 29.63% interpretation located in the visitor information It’s the best way to see the gorge 4 14.81% shelter, were just as good (7.41%). I haven’t been on the boat tour 1 3.70% I was somewhat disappointed 1 3.70% Question not asked 0 0.00% Question not answered 1 3.70% 27 100 Table 5.48: Participant responses to questions about the Geikie Gorge boat tour

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % Participant Response Number % I haven’t been on the boat tour 1 3.70% No, because the walks and interpretation as just as good 2 7.41% Yes (unelaborated) 7 25.93% Yes, you need the tour/it’s the best way to see the gorge 14 51.85% The boat offers in-depth information 1 3.70% Question not asked 0 0.00% Question not answered 2 7.41% 27 100 Table 5.49: Participant responses to questions about the absence of a boat tour

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 75 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT REFERENCES

Ahmed, S., 2004. Affective economies. Social Brennan, T., 2004. The Transmission of Affect. Czarniawska, B., 2007. Shadowing and other Text, 22, 117–39. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Abingdon: Marston Book Services. Amoamo, M. and Thompson, A., 2010. (Re) Brockwell, S., Levitus, R., Russell-Smith, J. and imaging Maori tourism: Representation and Forrest, P. 1995. Aboriginal Heritage. In: T. Davidson, S. (ed.), 1991. Cultural Tourism: cultural hybridity in postcolonial New Zealand. Press, D. Lea, A. Webb and A. Graham (eds) Making it Work: Planning and Marketing for Tourist Studies, 10 (1), 35–55. Kakadu: Natural and Cultural Heritage and Cultural Tourism. Royal Botanic Gardens Management, Darwin: The Australian Nature Seminar 18-19 March 1991. Museums Association Anderson, B. 2014. Encountering Affect: Conservation Agency and the North Australia of Australia (NSW) and Museums Studies Unit: Capacities, Apparatuses, Conditions. Farnham: Research Unit. University of Sydney. Ashgate. Burgin, S., and Hardiman, N., 2014. Maintaining de Groot, J. 2009. Consuming History: Anderson, B., 2006. Becoming and being competitive tourism advantage with reference Historians and Heritage in Contemporary hopeful: Towards a theory of affect. to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Popular Culture. Routledge: London. Environment and Planning D: Society and Area. Tourism Management, 9, 63-64. Space. 24, 733–752. De Lacy, T., 1994. The Uluru-Kakadu model: Campbell, A., 2015. Performing cultural Anangu-Tjukurrpa − 50,000 years of Anderson, B., 2007. Hope for nanotechnology: heritage: Authenticity and the spirit of the Aboriginal law and land management changing Anticipatory knowledge and the governance of rebellion. Australasian Drama Studies, 66, 155- the concept of National Parks in Australia. affect.Area , 39 (2), 156–65. 178. Society & Natural Resources, 7(5), 479−498.

Aplin, G., 2004. Kakadu National Park World Carolan, M.S., 2008. More-than- Destination NSW 2016. Travel to Blue Heritage Site: Deconstructing the Debate, representational knowledge/s of the Mountains: Year end March 2016. http:// 1997–2003. Australian Geographical Studies, 42 countryside: How we think as bodies. www.destinationnsw.com.au/wp-content/ (2), 152-174. Sociologia Ruralis, 48 (4), 408–22. uploads/2016/07/Blue-Mountains-YE-Mar-16. pdf. Accessed 17 August 2016. Australian Government – Director of National Christen, K. 2006. Tracking properness: Parks., 2013. Uluru -Kata Tjuta National Park Repackaging culture in a remote Australian Destination NSW, 2015. Travel to Blue Visitor Guide, National Park Visitor Guide. town, Cultural Anthropology 21(3), 416–446. Mountains Tourism Region – year ended http://www.environment.gov.au/system/ September 2015. http://www.destinationnsw. files/resources/beac6204-281b-41e4-90db- Crang, M. 2005. Qualitative methods (part 3) com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ e22438cabeab/files/visitor-guide.pdf. there is nothing outside the text? Progress in Blue-Mountains-Time-Series-YE-Sep-15.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2016. Human Geography 29(2), 225–233. Accessed 24 March 2016.

Australian Government – Director of National Crang, M. and Tolia-Kelly, D. 2010. Nation, race Dow, A. 2016. Three people stuck on Uluru. Parks., 2010. Uluru -Kata Tjuta National Park and affect: Senses and sensibilities at national Sydney Morning Herald, 19 September 2016. Tourism Directions: Stage 1: September 2010. heritage sites, Environment and Planning A, http://www.smh.com.au/national/three- http://www.environment.gov.au/system/ 42(10), 2315–31. people-stuck-on-uluru-20160919-grjvr3.html. files/resources/b4822afc-2694-46d4-978c- Accessed 23 September 2016. e298decf4255/files/tourismdirections.pdf. Crang, M., 1997. Picturing practices: Research Accessed 11 March 2016. through the tourist gaze. Progress in Human Edensor, T., 2001. Performing tourism, staging Geography, 21 (3), 359–73. tourism: (re)producing tourist space and Australian Government – Director of practice. Tourist Studies, 1 (1), 59–81. National Parks., 2007. Kakadu National Park: Crouch, D. 2000. Places around us: Embodied Management Plan 2007–2014, Darwin: Parks lay geographies in leisure and tourism. Leisure Egloff, B., 2002. Port Arthur historic site and Australia North. Studies 19(2), 63–76. Australia ICOMOS: The formative years. Historic Environment. 16 (3), 7−12. Bærenholdt, J.O, Haldrup, M., Larsen, J. and Crouch, D. 2010b. Flirting with space: Thinking Urry, J. 2004. Performing Tourist Places. landscape relationally, Cultural Geographies, Evans, M., 1991. Historical interpretation at Aldershot: Ashgate. 17(1), 5–18. Sovereign Hill, Australian Historical Studies, 24 (96), 142-152. Bertalli, C., 2016. Travel: The Kimberley region Crouch, D., 2010a. The perpetual performance is calling. The Daily Examiner, 20 April. http:// and emergence of heritage. In: E. Waterton Frost, W. and Hall, C., 2009. Tourism and www.dailyexaminer.com.au/news/travel- and S. Watson (eds.), Culture, heritage and National Parks: International Perspectives on the-kimberley-region-is-calling/3001590/. representation: Perspectives on visuality and Development, Histories and Change. New York: Accessed 5 May 2016. the past. Aldershot: Ashgate. Routledge.

76 Western Sydney University References

Gale, K. and Jacobs, J. 1987. Aboriginal art: Hardiman, N. and Burgin, S., 2013. World Hooper-Greenhill, E. 2011. Studying visitors. In: Australia’s neglected inheritance. World Heritage Area listing of the Greater Blue Macdonald, S. (ed.) A Companion to Museum Archaeology, 19(2), 226-235. Mountains − Did it make a difference to Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. visitation? Tourism Management Perspectives, Gammerl, B. 2012. Emotional styles – concepts 6, 63-64. Hueneke, H. and Baker, R., 2009. Tourist and challenges. Rethinking History, 16(2): behaviour, local values and interpretation at 161–175. Hasham, N. 2016. Turnbull Government decides Uluru: The sacred deed at Australia’s mighty against banning tourists from climbing on heart. GeoJournal, 74 (5), 477-490. Garrod, B., 2009. Understanding the Uluru, The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 April relationship between tourism destination 2016, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ Jackman, G., 2009. From stain to saint: imagery and tourist photography. Journal of political-news/turnbull-government-decides- Ancestry, archaeology, and agendas in Travel Research, 47 (3), 346–58. against-banning-tourists-from-climbing-on- Tasmania’s convict heritage – a view from Port uluru-20160411-go3qso.html. Accessed 17 Arthur. Historical Archaeology. 43 (3), 101-112. Gibbs, A, 2001. Contagious feelings: Pauline August 2016. Hanson and the epidemiology of affect, James, S., 2007. Constructing the climb: Australian Humanities Review. http://www. Hawke, S., 2013. A Town is Born: The Fitzroy Visitor decision-making at Uluru. Geographical lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue- Crossing Story. Magabala Books: Broome, WA. Research, 45(4), 398-407. December-2001/gibbs.html. Accessed 11 February 2012. Healy, C. 2008. Forgetting Aborigines. Sydney: Jirón, P., 2011. On becoming ‘la sombre/the UNSW Press. shadow’. In: Büscher, M., Urry, J. and Witchger, Gorton, K., 2007. Theorizing emotion and K (eds) Mobile Methods. London: Routledge. affect. Feminist Theory, 8 (3), 333–48. Herbert, D.T., Prentice, R.C. and Thomas, C.J., (eds.) 1989. Heritage Sites: Strategies Johnson, H. 1998. Sovereign Hill Ballarat. In: The Goulding, C., 1999. Contemporary museum for Marketing and Development. Aldershot: Sovereign Hills Museum Association, Sovereign culture and consumer behaviour, Journal of Avebury. Hill, Ballarat Australia. Ballarat: The Sovereign Marketing Management, 15, 647–71. Hill Museum Association. Hollick, M. 2011. Sustaining the benefits of Gregg, M. and Seigworth, G. J. 2010. (eds) heritage mining for site, city and region: Kakadu National Park, 2010. Tourism Master The Affect Theory Reader. Durham, NC: Duke Exploring the success of Sovereign Hill Plan 2009-2014. Australian Government University Press. outdoor museum. In: Conlin, M., and Jolliffe, L., Department of the Environment. http://www. (eds) Mining Heritage and Tourism: A Global environment.gov.au/resource/tourism-master- Haldrup, M. and Larsen, J., 2003. The family Synthesis. London: Routledge. plan-2009-2014-kakadu-national-park. gaze. Tourist Studies, 3 (1), 23–46. Accessed 4 September 2016. Hollow, R., 2001. The Convict Trail − A community project on the Tasman Peninsula. Kusenbach, M., 2003. Street phenomenology. Making Tracks Conference 23-27 May 2001. Ethnography, 4 (3), 455–85. Australia ICOMOS: Alice Springs, NT.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 77 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

Lane, R. and Waitt, G. 2007. Authenticity in Morse, J., King, J. and Bartlett, J., 2005. Prayag, G. and Ryan, C. 2011. The relationship tourism and Native Title: Place, time and spatial Kakadu: Walking to the uture … together – a between the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors of a politics in the East Kimberleys. Social and shared vision for tourism in Kakadu National tourist destination: The role of nationality – Cultural Geography, 2(4), 381–405. Park, Australian Government – Director of an analytical qualitative research approach. National Parks, The Northern Territory. http:// Current Issues in Tourism, 14(2): 121−143. Larsen, J., 2005. Families seen sightseeing. www.environment.gov.au/system/files/ Space and Culture, 8 (4), 416–34. resources/296f549b-b7f6-402a-b283- Prentice, R. 1989. Visitors to heritage sites: A 61ea58e57db4/files/tourism-brochure-full.pdf. market segmentation by visitor characteristics. Latham, A., 2003. Research, performance, and Accessed 20 March 2016. In: D.T. Herbert, R.C. Prentice, and C.J. Thomas doing human geography: Some reflections on (eds) Heritage Sites: Strategies for Marketing the diary-photograph, diary-interview method. O’Dowd, M., 2009. Place, identity and and Development. Aldershot: Ashgate. Environment and Planning A, 35 (11), 1993–2017. nationhood: The northern territory intervention as the final act of a dying nation. Continuum: Pulford, J., 2015. $8 million investment to Latham, A., and McCormack, D.P. 2009. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 23 (6), revitalise Sovereign Hill, Media Release – Thinking with images in non-representational 803–25. Victoria State Government. http://www. cities: Vignettes from Berlin. Area 41(3), premier.vic.gov.au/8-million-investment-to- 252–262. Onyx, J. and Leonard, R. 2007. The grey nomad revitalise-sovereign-hill/. Accessed 1 April 2016. phenomenon: Changing the script of aging. Lawrence, D., 2000. Kakadu: The Making of The International Journal of Aging and Human Read, P. 2000. Belonging: Australians, Place a National Park. Carlton, Victoria: Miegunyah Development, 64(4): 381-398. and Aboriginal Ownership. Cambridge: Press, Melbourne University Press. Cambridge University Press. Ovington, J., and Australian National Parks Lawrence, R. and Gibson, C., 2007. Obliging Wildlife Service., 1986. Kakadu : A world Romey, P., 2002. Conservation v. tourism: Can’t indigenous citizens? Cultural Studies, 21 (4–5), heritage of unsurpassed beauty. Canberra: we still be friends? Historic Environment, 16 (3), 650–71. Australian Government Publishing Service. 17-21.

Lennon, J., 2002. The Broad Arrow Cafe, PAHSMA 2015. Annual Report 2014–2015. Ryan, C., 1998. Kakadu National Park Port Arthur, Tasmania: Using social values Available online: http://portarthur.org.au/wp- (Australia): A site of natural and heritage methodology to resolve the commemoration content/uploads/sites/2/2007/03/PArthur- significance. In: Shackley, M. (ed.) Visitor issues. Historic Environment, 16 (3), 38-46. Annual-Report-2014-15.pdf. Accessed 18 Management : Case Studies from World August 2016. Heritage Sites. Oxford: Butterworth- Lorimer, H. 2005. Cultural geography: The Heinemann. busyness of being ‘more than representational’. Paschen, J–A. 2010. Decolonising the gaze at Progress in Human Geography (29), 9: 83−94. Uluru (Ayers Rock). In: Burns, P., Palmer, C. and Sather-Wagstaff, J. 2011. Heritage That Hurts: Lester, J–A (eds) Tourism and Visual Culture. Tourists in the Memoryscapes of 11 September. Lorimer, H. 2008. Cultural geography: Non- Volume 1: Theories and Concepts. Wallingford: Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. representational conditions and concerns. CABI. Progress in Human Geography (2008), 1–9. Sather-Wagstaff, J. 2015. Heritage and Patterson, I, Pegg, S., Litster, J. 2011. Grey memory. In: E. Waterton and S. Watson (eds), McCain, G. and Ray, N.M. 2003. Legacy tourism: nomads on tour: A revolution in travel and The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary The search for personal meaning in heritage tourism for older adults. Tourism Analysis, Heritage Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave travel, Tourism Management, 24(6): 713-717. 16(3): 383-394. Macmillan. Mason, R., Myers, D. and de la Torre, M., 2005. Pile, S., 2010. Emotions and affect in recent Sather-Wagstaff, J. 2017. Making polysense of Port Arthur Historic Site. Heritage values in Site human geography. Transactions of the Institute the world: Affect, memory and heritage. In D.P. Management: Four Case Studies. Los Angeles: of British Geographers, 35 (1), 5–20. Tolia-Kelly, E. Waterton and S. Watson (eds) The Getty Conservation Institute. Heritage, Affect and Emotion: Politics, Practices Porter, L. 2010. Unlearning the Colonial Cultures and Infrastructures. Abingdon: Routledge. Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. 1998. Tourism of Planning. Aldershot: Ashgate. Promotion and Power. Creating images: Savage, M. 2015. Social Class in the 21st Century. Creating identities. Chichester: John Wiley and Power, T., 2002. Joint management at Uluru- Milton Keynes: Penguin. Sons. Kata Tjuta National Park. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 19(4), 284-302. Scarles, C., 2009. Becoming tourist: Renegotiating the visual in the tourist experience. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27 (3), 465–88.

78 Western Sydney University References

Scarles, C., 2010. Where words fail, UNESCO 2015. Operational Guidelines for Wetherell, M. 2014. Trends in the turn to affect: visuals ignite: Opportunities for visual the Implementation of the World Heritage A social psychological critique, Body and autoethnography in tourism research. Annals of Convention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Society. DOI: 10.1177/1357034X14539020. Tourism Research, 37 (4), 905–926. Centre. Young, D., and Tasmanian Historical Research Shire of Derby/West Kimberley, 2012a. UNESCO, 2010. Australian Convict Sites Association, 1996. Making Crime Pay: The Strategic Community Plan 2012-2021. http:// (Australia) No 1306 Advisory Body Evaluation. Evolution of Convict Tourism in Tasmania. upload.sdwk.wa.gov.au/data/yourcouncil/ UNESCO World Heritage. http://whc.unesco. Hobart: Tasmanian Historical Research councildocuments/StrategicPlan.pdfAccessed org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1306. Association. 13 April 2016. pdf. Accessed 7 April 2016.

Shire of Derby/West Kimberley, 2012b, Policy Urry, J. and Larsen, J. 2011. The Tourist Gaze 3.0. Manual. http://upload.sdwk.wa.gov.au/data/ London: Sage. yourcouncil/councildocuments/PolicyManual. pdf. Accessed 13 April 2016. Waitt, Gordon and Lane, Ruth, 2007. Four- wheel drivescapes: Embodied understandings Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: of the Kimberley. Journal of Rural Studies, 23 Routledge. (2), 156–69.

Smith, L., Cubitt, G., Fouseki, F. and Wilson, R. Waterton, E. & Watson, S. 2013. Framing 2009. 1807 Commemorated Project Report: theory: Towards a critical imagination in British Museum. Unpublished Report, University heritage studies’, International Journal of of York. Heritage Studies, 19(6), 546–61.

Symes, C., 2013. Traveling by the Book: New Waterton, E. & Watson, S. 2015a. A war long South Wales Railway Guides and the ‘Tourist forgotten: Feeling the past in an English Gaze’. Journeys. 14(1), 1−22. country village, Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 20(3): 89–103. Thien, Deborah, 2005. After or beyond feeling? A consideration of affect and emotion in Waterton, E. 2011. ‘In the Spirit of Self-Mockery? geography. Area, 37 (4), 450–54. Labour Heritage and Identity in the Potteries’. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(4). Thrift, N. and Dewsbury, J. D., 2000. Dead geographies? And how to make them live. Waterton, E. 2014. A more-than- Environment and Planning D: Society and representational understanding of heritage: Space, 18 (4), 411–32. The ‘past’ and the politics of affect, Geography Compass, 8(11): 823–833. Thrift, N., 2004. Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect. Geografiska Annaler: Waterton, E. 2015. Visuality and its affects: Series B, Human Geography, 86 (1), 57–78. Some new directions for Australian heritage tourism, History Compass, 13(2): 51–63. Thrift, N., 2008. Non-Representational Theories. London: Routledge. Waterton, E. and Watson, S. 2014. The Semiotics of Heritage Tourism. Bristol: Channel Timothy, D. 2011. Cultural Heritage and Tourism. View Publications. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Waterton, E. and Watson, S. 2015b. Methods Tisdell, C. and Wilson, C., 2002, World Heritage in motion: Affecting heritage research. In: listing of Australian natural sites: Tourism B.T. Knudsen and C. Stage (eds) Affective stimulus and its economic value. Economic Methodologies: How to Develop Cultural Analysis & Policy, 32 (2), 27-49. Research Strategies for the Study of Affect? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Twidale, C. 2010. Uluru (Ayers Rock) and Kata-Tjuta (The Olgas): Inselbergs of Central Watts, L. and Lyons, G. 2011. Travel remedy kit: Australia. In: P. Migoń (ed.) Geomorphological Interventions into train lines and passenger Landscapes of the World. New York: Springer. times. In: Büscher, M., Urry, J. and Witchger, K., (eds) Mobile Methods. London: Routledge.

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 79 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT ABOUT THE AUTHORS

80 Western Sydney University About the Authors

Emma Waterton is an Associate Professor in Emily Burns is based at Western Sydney May Willard graduated from Western Sydney the School of Social Sciences and Psychology University, where she works as a member of University in 2015 as the University Medal at Western Sydney University, and an Institute the teaching staff within the School of Social recipient, with a First Class Honours Bachelor Fellow in the Institute for Culture and Society. Sciences and Psychology. She also works as of Social Science, majoring in Heritage and Her research explores the interface between a Research Assistant within the School and in Tourism. She is currently working as a Research heritage, identity, memory and affect. Her most the Institute for Culture and Society. Recently Assistant at Western Sydney University in recent project, ‘Photos of the Past’, is a three completing her doctoral research, Emily’s work the Institute for Culture and Society, on the year examination of all four concepts at a range focuses on the experiences of home birth in project ‘Photos of the Past’. Prior to this, she of Australian heritage tourism sites, including Australia, and she has published work that worked as a Research Assistant in the School Uluru Kata-Tjuta National Park, Sovereign explores the spatial, spiritual and ritualised of Social Science and Psychology on a project Hill, the Blue Mountains National Park and reproductive experiences. entitled, ‘Enhancing Student Learning and Kakadu National Park. She is author of over Retention through the Design and Evaluation of 80 publications in the fields of heritage and a Fieldtrip “App”’. tourism, including the authored monograph Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain (2010, Palgrave Macmillan), and the co-authored volumes Heritage, Communities and Archaeology (with Laurajane Smith; 2009, Duckworth) and The Semiotics of Heritage Tourism (with Steve Watson; 2014, Channel View Publications). She co-edits the book series Critical Studies in Heritage, Emotion and Affect (Routledge).

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 81 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT APPENDICES

Appendix A: Uluru -Kata Tjuta National Park 83 Appendix B: Kakadu National Park 90 Appendix C: Blue Mountains National Park 96 Appendix D: Geikie Gorge National Park 101 Appendix E: Port Arthur 106 Appendix F: Sovereign Hill 112

82 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

Appendix A: Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. General touristic reasons (nearby, my companions wanted to come, etc.) 24 35.29% 2. It’s an iconic destination/it’s on ‘the list’ 17 25.00% 3. Personal motivation to visit Uluru 16 23.53% 4. To experience the spirituality of the landscape 1 1.47% 5. The aesthetic of the landscape/scenery 1 1.47% 6. To experience Aboriginal culture 3 4.41% 7. General criticism of the site 0 0.00% 8. No response 3 4.41% 9. Inaudible 3 4.41% 68 100.00% Table A.1: Participant response to the question: What are your overall reasons for visiting today?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I don’t know 1 1.47% 2.  see Australia’s heritage as combining Aboriginal and Settler history 14 20.59% 3. I think of Aboriginal culture as Australia’s heritage 23 33.82% 4. I think of settlement, colonialism, convicts and so forth (including specifics like Captain Cook) 2 2.94% 5. Vague reference to history, birthplace, background 9 13.24% 6. Australian’s icons such as Uluru (and important locations) 5 7.35% 7. The Outback 2 2.94% 8. Australia’s natural environment 0 0.00% 9. Australia doesn’t really have a heritage 1 1.47% 10. General criticism of the site 0 0.00% 11. No response 2 2.94% 12. Inaudible 3 4.41% 13. General comment on contemporary cultural relations 1 1.47% 14. Vague comment regarding ‘Australian People’ 1 1.47% 15. Site specific response 4 5.88% 68 100.00% Table A.2: Participant response to the question: What comes to mind when you hear the phrase ‘Australian heritage’?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 83 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Site specific response (Uluru, etc.) 29 42.65% 2. Generic history/culture 6 8.82% 3. I don’t know 1 1.47% 4. Natural environment (i.e. landscape, scenery, national park) 9 13.24% 5. Aboriginal heritage/culture/art 12 17.65% 6. Australia’s British settler history 0 0.00% 7. Australia’s World heritage 1 1.47% 8. References spirituality and sacredness 2 2.94% 9. General criticism of the site 1 1.47% 10. No response 3 4.41% 11. Vague/non-committal 2 2.94% 12. Inaudible 2 2.94% 68 100.00% Table A.3: Participant response to the question: What aspects of Australian heritage are you visiting here today?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, not really (unelaborated) 13 19.12% 2. No, followed by a negative reflection on the site/culture 4 5.88% 3. No, followed by an elaboration of being visitor/guest 13 19.12% 4. No, followed by a positive distinguishing between themselves and Aboriginal culture 3 4.41% 5. Yes, I am interested in history and heritage (generic) 2 2.94% 6. Yes, I think so (unelaborated) 2 2.94% 7. Yes, I feel connected to this place/landscape 6 8.82% 8. Yes, I feel entitled to this heritage 7 10.29% 9. I don’t know/I’m not sure 4 5.88% 10. General criticism of the site 0 0.00% 11. No response 1 1.47% 12. Question not asked 13 19.12% 68 100.00% Table A.4: Participant response to the question: Do you feel part of the heritage represented here?

84 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Disappointed: it hasn’t met my expectations 3 4.41% 2. I feel nice/great/good (vague but positive reactions) 20 29.41% 3. It makes me feel very special and privileged 13 19.12% 4. Introspective responses (peaceful, relaxed, calm, spiritual, etc.) 8 11.76% 5. In awe at the scale of it (Uluru itself) 11 16.18% 6. Impressed with the site as a tourist destination 2 2.94% 7. I feel conflicted (over whether to climb, etc.) 1 1.47% 8. It prompts me to think of my ancestors 0 0.00% 9. General criticism of the site 1 1.47% 10. No response 7 10.29% 11. Inaudible 2 2.94% 68 100.00% Table A.5: Participant response to the question: How have you felt while visiting this place?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I’m not sure 6 8.82% 2. Non-human contributions to sensations (weather, colour, light, size of rock, etc.) 12 17.65% 3. Affective responses described (goose-bumps, eerie feeling, etc.) 6 8.82% 4. A sense of peace/calm/relaxed/content 12 17.65% 5. Empowering sensations described (breath-taking, surprised, amazing, awe) 14 20.59% 6. Generic reference to visit (need more time, flies, climb, water) 6 8.82% 7. Notes prompt to reflect/reflective response 4 5.88% 8. General criticism of the site 0 0.00% 9. No response 6 8.82% 10. Sensations limited by tourism 1 1.47% 11. Personal interest - unrelated to site 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table A.6: Participant response to the question: Can you describe any particular sensations triggered by your visit?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Very touristy/commercialised (too many tourists/too many signs) 5 7.35% 2. It is very serene/peaceful/relaxing place (introspective notions) 25 36.76% 3. It is very majestic/powerful/awe-inspiring (reference to scale) 9 13.24% 4. It is a very spiritual place 6 8.82% 5. Offers descriptions of the natural setting (desolation/desert/outback/hot weather/quiet) 4 5.88% 6. Generic positive, happy, welcoming vibe 10 14.71% 7. Cannot describe it 0 0.00% 8. Feelings of grief/sadness 1 1.47% 9. General criticism of the site 0 0.00% 10. No response 4 5.88% 11. Inaudible 4 5.88% 68 100.00% Table A.7: Participant response to the question: Can you describe the mood or atmosphere here today?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 85 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. General positive feelings (introspective: calming/peaceful) 39 57.35% 2. Promotes reflection (on site’s difficult history/specific history) 7 10.29% 3. A sense of disappointment (not to climb, to pay, too many tourists) 5 7.35% 4. It makes me feel spiritual/religious 4 5.88% 5. General criticism of the site 3 4.41% 6. No response 8 11.76% 7. Inaudible 1 1.47% 8. Vague, non-committal response 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table A.8: Participant response to the question: How does the mood affect you?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. It’s an opportunity to learn about Indigenous culture 15 22.06% 2. It’s an opportunity to learn about Australia and it’s history 3 4.41% 3. General learning experience (guided walks, geology, nature) 7 10.29% 4. Promotes connection with the land (aesthetics, nature, etc.) 2 2.94% 5. Personal reflection (opened my mind, broadened my horizons) 2 2.94% 6. It’s a special experience (spiritual, sensory or other) 11 16.18% 7. Generic touristic response 16 23.53% 8. I don’t know 4 5.88% 9. Visual engagement with the site (wildlife, sunrise/sunset) 1 1.47% 10. General criticism of the site 1 1.47% 11. No response 5 7.35% 12. Inaudible 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table A.9: Participant response to the question: What experiences does a site like this offer?

86 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Uluru in sunset/sunrise 11 16.18% 2. Uluru in different condition (wind, sun, rain, etc.) 1 1.47% 3. Its overarching natural beauty/natural landscape/wildlife 5 7.35% 4. Nominates different aesthetics (light/colour/shadow) 14 20.59% 5. Vague/generic response (about ‘the Rock’) 6 8.82% 6. It’s more about feelings/atmosphere than images for me 9 13.24% 7. Generic pictures of family and friends 1 1.47% 8. Nominates specific photo/site around Uluru 4 5.88% 9. Anything that speaks to its ‘spirit’ (beyond words) 3 4.41% 10. Photographs of Aboriginal Australia 1 1.47% 11. Something that captures the vastness 3 4.41% 12. General criticism of the site 0 0.00% 13. No response 6 8.82% 14. Touristic expectations 2 2.94% 15. Don’t know 1 1.47% 16. Inaudible 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table A.10: Participant response to the question: What images are you hoping to capture?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Yes,, no elaboration 9 13.24 2. No, no elaboration 1 1.47% 3. Yes, to remember the visit/trip more clearly (aid to remembering) 10 14.71% 4. Yes, posed photograph (experimental travel) 1 1.47% 5. No, because photography takes away from the present 1 1.47% 6. Yes, will make a photo album (online or hardcopy, on iPad) 11 16.18% 7. Yes, specifically nominates to show others (either in real life or online, like Facebook) 22 32.35% 8. Yes, to remind myself (photos on wall, diary – no mention of others) 6 8.82% 9. General criticism of the site 1 1.47% 10. No response 5 7.35% 11. Inaudible 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table A.11: Participant response to the question: Do you use your images as memory prompts?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 87 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, not really 10 14.71% 2. Specific messages about Aboriginal culture (traditional) 8 11.76% 3. Specific messages about Aboriginal people (in the present) 8 11.76% 4. Generic appreciation (of the site, its size, etc.) 6 8.82% 5. Generic touristic commentary 6 8.82% 6. Respect for Aboriginal people/culture 10 14.71% 7. ‘To climb or not to climb’ controversy 1 1.47% 8. A critical engagement with Australia’s colonial past 5 7.35% 9. Esoteric response (personal and not transparent to question asked) 5 7.35% 10. General criticism of the site 3 4.41% 11. No response 4 5.88% 12. I don’t know 2 2.94% 68 100.00% Table A.12: Participant response to the question: Are there any messages about the heritage of Australia that you’ll take away with you after visiting this site?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No (unelaborated) 19 27.94% 2. No, it’s too different to my home-life 3 4.41% 3. I don’t know 3 4.41% 4. Yes (unelaborated) 1 1.47% 5. Yes – nominates a vague notion of enjoyment or interest 14 20.59% 6. Yes – nominates connection with this place/land 5 7.35% 7. Yes – nominates broader Australian identity 3 4.41% 8. Yes – this visit has really affected me (spiritual connection/soul, etc.) 5 7.35% 9. Yes – nominates strong personal connections 8 11.76% 10. No response 6 8.82% 11. Inaudible 1 1.47% 68 100.00%

Table A.13: Participant response to the question: Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this site speak?

88 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, my views haven’t changed 32 47.06% 2. No, it has strengthened my convictions/position 2 2.94% 3. No, I haven’t encountered new information 2 2.94% 4. Yes, it has furthered my understanding 11 16.18% 5. Yes, it’s all new information 3 4.41% 6. Yes, it has opened my eyes to the difficult conditions of the outback 3 4.41% 7. Yes, nominates vague negative opinion of settlers 6 8.82% 8. Yes (with little elaboration) 3 4.41% 9. Responds with equivocal comment (neither no or yes) 3 4.41% 10. No response 1 1.47% 11. Inaudible 2 2.94% 68 100.00% Table A.14: Participant response to the question: Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this site speak?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, it should not be allowed out of respect 34 50.00% 2. No, it should not be allowed for safety reasons 4 5.88% 3. People should be free to decide for themselves 10 14.71% 4. I don’t mind either way 1 1.47% 5. Management should make a call, one way or the other 2 2.94% 6. Yes, and I would to have climbed it if it had been open 5 7.35% 7. Yes, I climbed it and it was a great experience 4 5.88% 8. Yes, the ‘Rock’ is everyone’s heritage so it should be allowed 1 1.47% 9. General scepticism over Uluru’s importance 3 4.41% 10. No response 2 2.94% 11. Inaudible 1 1.47% 12. vague or non-committal response 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table A.15: Participant response to the question: Have your views about Australia’s settle history changed since visiting this place?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, that’s all 29 42.65% 2. Yes, suggestions for how to improve the visitor experience 11 16.18% 3. General scepticism over Uluru’s importance 2 2.94% 4. General observation about Australian/Indigenous relations 3 4.41% 5. Inaudible 1 1.47% 6. General appreciation of site 2 2.94% 7. Question not asked 16 23.53% 8. No response 4 5.88% 68 100.00%

Table A.16: Participant response to the question: Do you have anything else you would like to add?4

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 89 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

Appendix B: Kakadu National Park

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. General touristic reasons 31 45.59% 2. It’s an iconic destination/it’s on the list 9 13.24% 3. To see Australian culture 7 10.29% 4. To experience/find out more about Aboriginal culture 3 4.41% 5. To see the rock art 2 2.94% 6. To enjoy nature/outdoors/the landscape 6 8.82% 7. No response 8 11.76% 8. Question not asked 2 2.94% 68 100.00% Table B.1: Participant response to the question: What are your overall reasons for visiting this site today?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Combination of settler/Aboriginal history 10 14.71% 2. I think of Aboriginal culture and history 20 29.41% 3. It means nothing to me 1 1.47% 4. I don’t know 3 4.41% 5. Convict/Settler/Colonial heritage 5 7.35% 6. World Heritage sites 1 1.47% 7. I think of my own heritage/background 1 1.47% 8. I think of the natural landscape 3 4.41% 9. Old buildings, architecture, significant/special things 2 2.94% 10. Vague, non-committal response 2 2.94% 11. Vague reference to history/background 13 19.12% 12. No response 7 10.29% 68 100.00% Table B.2: Participant response to the question: What comes to mind when you hear the phrase ‘Australian Heritage’?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Aboriginal history/culture/spirituality 27 39.71% 2. Colonial/ Settler heritage 1 1.47% 3. Mixture of colonial and Aboriginal heritage 4 5.88% 4. Vague agreement 7 10.29% 5. Site specific response (Kakadu/Litchfield/NT) 6 8.82% 6. Natural environment (flora/fauna/nominates specific aspect of ‘nature’) 7 10.29% 7. Reference to personal heritage/background 1 1.47% 8. Reference to contemporary Australian society 0 0.00% 9. There is little or no Australian heritage at Kakadu 2 2.94% 10. No response 9 13.24% 11. Question not asked 4 5.88% 68 100.00% Table B.3: Participant response to the question: What aspects of Australian heritage are you visiting here today?

90 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No (no elaboration) 6 8.82% 2. No, followed by an elaboration of being a visitor or a guest 18 26.47% 3. No, followed by a negative comment 1 1.47% 4. No, followed by a positive comment 4 5.88% 5. Yes (no elaboration) but with vague agreement 4 5.88% 6. Yes, there are loose links (family, ancestry, geographical links) 7 10.29% 7. Yes, I feel connected to this place/nature/landscape 8 11.76% 8. Yes, I feel entitled to this heritage 0 0.00% 9. No response 7 10.29% 10. Question not asked 12 17.65% 11. Both yes and no (elaborated) 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table B.4: Participant response to the question: Do you feel part of the heritage represented here?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I feel good (general positive feelings – interested, amazed, relaxed) 24 35.29% 2. Affective/spiritual feelings 2 2.94% 3. Non-human response (heat, flies, busy etc.) 4 5.88% 4. Promotes feelings of reflection 11 16.18% 5. Feelings of awe at the site 5 7.35% 6. Impressed at the site as a tourist destination 3 4.41% 7. General negativity/criticism 2 2.94% 8. No response 3 4.41% 9. Question not asked 13 19.12% 10. I feel proud to be Australian 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table B.5: Participant response to the question: How does it feel to visit this place?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. General empowering sensations (awe, amazed etc) 8 11.76% 2. None, unelaborated 5 7.35% 3. Vague positive response 13 19.12% 4. Connections to landscape/outdoors 3 4.41% 5. Non-human contribution to sensation (heat, flies etc) 7 10.29% 6. Vague criticism of site/experience 3 4.41% 7. No response 5 7.35% 8. Question not asked 11 16.18% 9. Promotes personal reflection 4 5.88% 10. Promotes learning/make them more interested 5 7.35% 11. Too early in the trip/still searching for special moments 4 5.88% 68 100.00% Table B.6: Participant response to the question: Can you describe any sensations triggered by your visit?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 91 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Quiet/peaceful/serene/relaxed/calm/laid back 22 32.35% 2. General positive (friendly/upbeat) 18 26.47% 3. non-human response (weather) 1 1.47% 4. Promotes personal reflection 5 7.35% 5. Spiritual/sacred 3 4.41% 6. Vague criticism of the site 4 5.88% 7. I don’t know 4 5.88% 8. No discernable mood or atmosphere 2 2.94% 9. No response 4 5.88% 10. Question not asked 5 7.35% 68 100.00% Table B.7: Participant response to the question: How would you describe the mood or atmosphere?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. It doesn’t affect me (no elaboration) 7 10.29% 2. It makes me want to avoid tourists 2 2.94% 3. General positive response 16 23.53% 4. Creates a desire for knowledge/education/understanding 1 1.47% 5. Promotes reflection/respectfulness/awareness 5 7.35% 6. Esoteric response (somewhat unrelated to question) 2 2.94% 7. Site specific response 7 10.29% 8. Inspired respect for Aboriginal culture 3 4.41% 9. No response 9 13.24% 10. Question not asked 16 23.53% 68 100.00% Table B.8: Participant response to the question: How does the mood affect you?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. It’s an opportunity to learn about Indigenous culture/arts/history 21 30.88% 2. Learning about the natural environment 10 14.71% 3. Nominates specific activity (fishing, bushwalking etc) 7 10.29% 4. I don’t know/unsure (‘depends’) 1 1.47% 5. Promotes greater understanding of Australia in general 5 7.35% 6. Promotes personal response based on visit. 7 10.29% 7. General criticism of site/experience 2 2.94% 8. Vague tourism response (to see new things, etc) 3 4.41% 9. No response 2 2.94% 10. Question not asked 10 14.71% 68 100.00% Table B.9: Participant response to the question: What experiences does visiting a site like this offer?

92 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Images of the rock art 12 17.65% 2. Landscape/scenery 13 19.12% 3. Animals and wildlife 2 2.94% 4. Images of the natural beauty (generic combination of nature/wildlife/rockart) 15 22.06% 5. Taking lots of photos (non-specific) 10 14.71% 6. I will not take photos (unelaborated) 2 2.94% 7. I capture images by other means (eg. Sound recording, drawing) 2 2.94% 8. Images of companions/other people (tour guides) 2 2.94% 9. Nominates specific aesthetic (colour/light/shadow) 4 5.88% 10. No response 2 2.94% 11. Question not asked 4 5.88% 68 100.00% Table B.10: Participant response to the question: What images are you hoping to capture and why?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Yes (no elaboration) 12 17.65% 2. Yes, to remind myself/remember my trip (no mention of others) 23 33.82% 3. Yes, to show and share with family and friends (online or hardcopy) 5 7.35% 4. Yes, nominates specific/personal reason 4 5.88% 5. Yes, specifically nominates to show others (facebook/blog/online etc) 9 13.24% 6. Yes, to add to my knowledge of Aboriginal culture 0 0.00% 7. I did not take photos 2 2.94% 8. No response 4 5.88% 9. Question not asked 7 10.29% 10. Use something else as memory prompt e.g. diary 2 2.94% 68 100.00% Table B.11: Participant response to the question: Will you use your photographs as memory prompts?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Site/visit specific, generic, positive response (including jokes, souveniers) 8 11.76% 2. Specific messages about Aboriginal culture/people 10 14.71% 3. The importance of preservation (eg rock art) 6 8.82% 4. General learning opportunity 8 11.76% 5. No messages in particular 11 16.18% 6. No response 12 17.65% 7. Question not asked 12 17.65% 8. General negative comment 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table B.12: Participant response to the question: Are there any messages about Australian heritage that you’ll take away with you?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 93 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No (no elaboration) 7 10.29% 2. No, specifies no connection to site. 4 5.88% 3. Yes, no elaboration 1 1.47% 4. Yes, it speaks to a sense of Australian patriotism 4 5.88% 5. Yes, nominates personal connection/interest in nature/environment 9 13.24% 6. Yes, specifies a personal connection 5 7.35% 7. Question not asked 33 48.53% 8. Vague reference to humanity 1 1.47% 9. No response 4 5.88% 68 100.00% Table B.13: Participant response to the question: Is there any aspects of your personal identity to which this site speaks?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, no elaboration 13 19.12% 2. No, my views haven’t changed 5 7.35% 3. No, haven’t encountered any new information 6 8.82% 4. No, I have no interest in settler history 2 2.94% 5. No, settler history is irrelevant to Kakadu/the focus here is Aboriginal culture 7 10.29% 6. No, but promotes personal reflection 4 5.88% 7. Yes, enhanced my existing knowledge 2 2.94% 8. Promotes critical engagement with Australia past and present 6 8.82% 9. Comments about specific aspects of settler history 6 8.82% 10. No response 5 7.35% 11. Question not asked 12 17.65% 68 100.00% Table B.14: Participant response to the question: Have your views about Australia’s settler history changes as a result of your visit?

94 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I don’t know much/anything about uranium mining 15 22.06% 2. Specifies concern for the environment 13 19.12% 3. I am against it (unelaborated) 5 7.35% 4. I am against it (offers vague negative comment) 13 19.12% 5. Specifies importance of Aboriginal sacred landscapes in the placement of the mine 5 7.35% 6. I can see both sides to the issue 6 8.82% 7. Vague interest in seeing the mine 1 1.47% 8. Mining is OK as long as it is safe 4 5.88% 9. Comments about the management of the mine/who is in charge 0 0.00% 10. I don’t mind as long as locals are informed 2 2.94% 11. Negative comment about land rights/claims. 1 1.47% 12. No response 3 4.41% 13. Question not asked 0 0.00% 68 100.00%

Table B.15: Participant response to the question: What do you think about Uranium mining in Kakadu National Park?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No. 50 73.53% 2. General comment on tourist site 6 8.82% 3. Comments about contemporary Aboriginal life/culture 1 1.47% 4. Importance of preservation 1 1.47% 5. General positive comment 9 13.24% 6. Question not asked 1 1.47% 68 100.00% Table B.16: Participant response to the question: Is there anything else you would like to add?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 95 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

Appendix C: Blue Mountains National Park

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. General touristic reasons 19 50.00% 2. Recommendation by hostel/friends 6 15.79% 3. Showing friends/family/visitors 2 5.26% 4. Specific nomination of views 2 5.26% 5. Specific nomination of bushwalks/nature 4 10.53% 6. Question not asked 0 0.00% 7. Question not answered 5 13.16% 38 100.00% Table C.1: Participant response to the question: What are your overall reasons for visiting today?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Aboriginal/Indigenous culture/art/people/history 11 28.95% 2. Aboriginal and European/settler/colonial heritage (both) 2 5.26% 3. Colonial/European history and heritage 6 15.79% 4. Nominates both natural and cultural heritage 3 7.89% 5. Native fauna/natural heritage 3 7.89% 6. Nominates specific heritage places in Australia 2 5.26% 7. General pride in Australia’s heritage 2 5.26% 8. Critical of Australia’s approach to heritage 2 5.26% 9. I don’t know 2 5.26% 10. Question not asked 1 2.63% 11. Question not answered 4 10.53% 38 100.00% Table C.2: Participant response to the question: What comes to mind when you hear the phrase ‘Australian Heritage’?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Indigenous heritage (art/culture etc.) 5 13.16% 2. Colonial/settler heritage 4 10.53% 3. It’s a combination of both Indigenous and colonial heritage 1 2.63% 4. It’s a combination of both natural and cultural heritage 3 7.89% 5. Natural heritage (scenery, wildlife, fauna, buhwalking) 12 31.58% 6. I don’t know 7 18.42% 7. Question not asked 1 2.63% 8. Question not answered 5 13.16% 38 100.00% Table C.3: Participant response to the question: What aspects of Australian heritage are you visiting here today?

96 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No (not elaborated) 4 10.53% 2. No, I’m a visitor/tourist 5 13.16% 3. No, it’s different from my heritage 2 5.26% 4. No, Australia is too new 1 2.63% 5. Sometimes I feel connected 5 13.16% 6. Yes (no elaboration) 3 7.89% 7. Yes, even as a migrant I feel part of this heritage 2 5.26% 8. Yes, I am passionate about nature/the environment 2 5.26% 9. Question not asked 6 15.79% 10. Question not answered 8 21.05% 38 100.00% Table C.4: Participant response to the question: Do you feel part of the heritage represented here?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Impressed with the site as a tourist experience/destination 3 7.89% 2. Generic positive feelings (comfortable, calming, peaceful, etc.) 11 28.95% 3. Specifically nominates the smell as forging a sense of connection/feeling of health 3 7.89% 4. Specifically nominates the weather as conjuring good feelings 2 5.26% 5. A sense of disappointment (too touristy, too built-up) 3 7.89% 6. It commands a feeling of respect 2 5.26% 7. Prompts a comparison with home (in Sydney, etc.) 2 5.26% 8. Question not asked 7 18.42% 9. Question not answered 5 13.16% 38 100.00% Table C.5: Participant response to the question: How does it make you feel to visit this place?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. None/nothing 4 10.53% 2. I’m not sure/I don’t know 0 0.00% 3. It triggers my own memories (of childhood, etc.) 3 7.89% 4. I feel relaxed/calm/de-stressed 1 2.63% 5. The weather is a positive sensation (sun/heat/fresh air) 7 18.42% 6. I feel a strong sense of escape/freedom 3 7.89% 7. Nominates specific sensation (goose-bumps) 1 2.63% 8. I am impressed by the visual aspect of the site (majestic views) 6 15.79% 9. I feel a sense of disappointment (too busy/touristy) 1 2.63% 10. Question not asked 7 18.42% 11. Question not answered 5 13.16% 38 100.00% Table C.6: Participant response to the question: How would you describe any sensations triggered by your visit?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 97 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. The mood is enhanced by the friendliness of the site/those I’ve encountered. 8 21.05% 2. The mood is relaxing/calm/peaceful 10 26.32% 3. The mood makes me feel reverent 3 7.89% 4. The natural environment enhances the mood 5 13.16% 5. The mood reflects a white, middle-class demographic 2 5.26% 6. The site is disappointing (too busy, too much concrete) 2 5.26% 7. Question not asked 4 10.53% 8. Question not answered 4 10.53% 38 100.00% Table C.7: Participant response to the question: How would you describe the mood or the atmosphere here?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. The mood does not affect me 2 5.26% 2. It affects me in a general positive way (vague/generic positive response) 9 23.68% 3. The friendly mood reflects Australia more broadly. 6 15.79% 4. The mood allows me to relax 5 13.16% 5. I’m negatively affected by specific aspects of the site (parking, tourists, infrastructure) 3 7.89% 6. Question not asked 7 18.42% 7. Question not answered 6 15.79% 38 100.00% Table C.8: Participant response to the question: How does that mood/atmosphere affect you?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. An engagement with the natural environment (bushwalks, views, fresh air) 9 23.68% 2. This site emphasises the size/scale of Australia more broadly 3 7.89% 3. It offers an educational opportunity 3 7.89% 4. It offers a positive experience (vague/general positive comment) 6 15.79% 5. The experience depends on people’s willingness to engage (criticism) 1 2.63% 6. Question not asked 9 23.68% 7. Question not answered 7 18.42% 38 100.00% Table C.9: Participant response to the question: What experiences does visiting a site like this offer?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I have not/will not take any photographs. 6 15.79% 2. Pictures of myself/ourselves, to share with others (social media/networking) 5 13.16% 3. Pictures of the natural environment (waterfalls, views, nature, animals) 19 50.00% 4. Pictures of old buildings/historic built environment 1 2.63% 5. I capture images specifically for online media (SM/blogs) 0 0.00% 6. Question not asked 3 7.89% 7. Question not answered 4 10.53% 38 100.00% Table C.10: Participant response to the question: What images are you hoping to capture here today?

98 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Yes, no elaboration 10 26.32% 2. Yes, I share them with others (online or print) 12 31.58% 3. Yes, photos remind me of where I’ve been 4 10.53% 4. I use other means for prompting memory (music, objects, dairies) 2 5.26% 5. Question not asked 5 13.16% 6. Question not answered 5 13.16% 38 100.00% Table C.11: Participant response to the question: Will you use your photos as memory prompts?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, no elaboration. 5 13.16% 2. I don’t know/I’m unsure 6 15.79% 3. This site is focused on the natural environment, not cultural heritage. 4 10.53% 4. Australia is a tolerant and welcoming country 2 5.26% 5. I’ll take away the feeling of peace/quiet/freedom 0 0.00% 6. There is so much to explore here 2 5.26% 7. I’d like to learn more about Aboriginal history/culture 2 5.26% 8. The site contrasts to my own home/landscape/country 4 10.53% 9. I’m just enjoying the site with my family/friends 0 0.00% 10. Question not asked 7 18.42% 11. Question not answered 6 15.79% 38 100.00% Table C.12: Participant response to the question: Are there any messages about the heritage of Australia that you’ll take away with you?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, no elaboration 3 7.89% 2. No, I don’t relate to this place 2 5.26% 3. I don’t know/I’m unsure 3 7.89% 4. I feel like this lifestyle suits me/I fit in here 8 21.05% 5. Yes, this place strikes a chord with my memories 2 5.26% 6. Yes, I feel connected to/interested in the nature here 4 10.53% 7. It makes me wonder about pre-colonial times 1 2.63% 8. Question not asked 6 15.79% 9. Question not answered 9 23.68% 38 100.00% Table C.13: Participant response to the question: Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this site speaks?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 99 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, no elaboration. 3 7.89% 2. I have not come across any new information 5 13.16% 3. I don’t know much about Australia’s settler history 4 10.53% 4. I haven’t thought about it, I am just enjoying my time here 1 2.63% 5. It makes me think of the difficult of the early colonial explorers 5 13.16% 6. This visit has encouraged me to seek out more information 3 7.89% 7. The site has added to my existing knowledge 2 5.26% 8. This site makes me think of migration, past and present. 2 5.26% 9. Question not asked 10 26.32% 10. Question not answered 3 7.89% 38 100.00% Table C.14: Participant response to the question: Has your visit changed your views about Australia’s settler history?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, nothing 20 52.63% 2. I’ve enjoyed my visit (positive response about the site) 6 15.79% 3. Question not asked 6 15.79% 4. Question not answered 2 5.26% 5. Some aspects of the site need improvement 4 10.53% 38 100.00% Table C.15: Participant response to the question: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

100 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

Appendix D: Geikie Gorge National Park

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. General touristic reasons 11 40.74% 2. Part of tour 3 11.11% 3. Recommended by others/friends/family 5 18.52% 4. To see the scenery/landscape/wildlife 4 14.81% 5. I came to do the boat trip 2 7.41% 6. Question not answered 2 7.41% 27 100.00% Table D.1: Participant response to the question: What are your overall reasons for visiting today?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Settler/colonial heritage/historic buildings 3 11.11% 2. Indigenous culture 5 18.52% 3. History/old stuff/background 7 25.93% 4. The natural environment 4 14.81% 5. A mix of settler/Indigenous heritage 1 3.70% 6. A mix of natural and cultural heritage 2 7.41% 7. I don’t know 4 14.81% 8. Question not answered 1 3.70% 27 100.00% Table D.2: Participant response to the question: What comes to mind when you hear the phrase ‘Australian Heritage’?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. The Gorge itself (including the natural features, geology, scenery) 11 40.74% 2. Indigenous heritage and culture 4 14.81% 3. Combination of Indigenous and natural heritage and culture 3 11.11% 4. Australia’s natural diversity 3 11.11% 5. Question not answered 4 14.81% 6. Question not asked 2 7.41% 27 100.00% Table D.3: Participant response to the question: What aspects of Australian heritage are you visiting here today?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 101 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No (unelaborated) 9 33.33% 2. No, I feel like a visitor here 5 18.52% 3. No, this is a physical landscape 1 3.70% 4. No, the site doesn’t do enough to make me feel connected 2 7.41% 5. No, I am not connected because I can’t reconcile that history 0 0.00% 6. In a way, yes 5 18.52% 7. Yes, I’m connected as an Australian 1 3.70% 8. Yes, I appreciate this culture/lifestyle 4 14.81% 9. Question not answered 0 0.00% 27 100.00% Table D.4: Participant response to the question: Do you feel part of the heritage represented here?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Awe-inspired, excited (exuberant feelings) 3 11.11% 2. Peaceful, calm, quiet, pleasant 14 51.85% 3. Privileged to be able to visit/see this place 1 3.70% 4. I feel at home/connected 2 7.41% 5. Curious and inspired to learn more 2 7.41% 6. I feel underwhelmed 2 7.41% 7. Question not answered 3 11.11% 27 100.00% Table D.5: Participant response to the question: How does it make you feel to visit this place?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I don’t know 4 14.81% 2. Relaxed, calming, at peace 5 18.52% 3. Feeling of awe/impressed by the size, age, beauty of the place/gorge/landform 12 44.44% 4. I’ve had a negative sensation based on tourism 1 3.70% 5. I feel quite emotional here 1 3.70% 6. Question not asked 4 14.81% 27 100.00% Table D.6: Participant response to the question: How would you describe any sensations triggered by your visit?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. It’s a very peaceful, relaxed setting 17 62.96% 2. There’s a strong community atmosphere here 1 3.70% 3. Question not asked 7 25.93% 4. Question not answered 2 7.41% 27 100.00% Table D.7: Participant response to the question: How would you describe the mood or the atmosphere?

102 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. A better understanding of Australia and its history 3 11.11% 2. A natural heritage experience 4 14.81% 3. Nominates specific activities (boat tour, walks, photography) 5 18.52% 4. It’s an opportunity to tune into nature/ wildlife/ culture/ outback 3 11.11% 5. Nice, peaceful, pleasant experience 4 14.81% 6. Insight into/appreciate of Indigenous protection of places like this 2 7.41% 7. Question not asked 2 7.41% 8. Question not answered 4 14.81% 27 100.00% Table D.8: Participant response to the question: What experiences does visiting a site like this offer?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. It’s very informative/good commentary/great guides 12 44.44% 2. It’s enjoyable, peaceful, calming, etc. 8 29.63% 3. It’s the best way to see the gorge 4 14.81% 4. I haven’t been on the boat tour 1 3.70% 5. I was somewhat disappointed 1 3.70% 6. Question not asked 0 0.00% 7. Question not answered 1 3.70% 27 100.00% Table D.9: Participant response to the question: What experiences did you gain from the boat tour?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I haven’t been on the boat tour 1 3.70% 2. No, because the walks and interpretation as just as good 2 7.41% 3. Yes (unelaborated) 7 25.93% 4. Yes, you need the tour/it’s the best way to see the gorge 14 51.85% 5. The boat offers more in-depth information that the interpretation 1 3.70% 6. Question not asked 0 0.00% 7. Question not answered 2 7.41% 27 100.00% Table D.10: Participant response to the question: Would your experience be lessened without the boat tour?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 103 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Landforms, natural environment and rock formation 7 25.93% 2. Wildlife, birds, crocodiles etc. 1 3.70% 3. The aesthetics of the gorge 5 18.52% 4. Images that I can paint, hang on my wall 1 3.70% 5. Both wildlife and natural formations 5 18.52% 6. I don’t have a camera with me 1 3.70% 7. Question not asked 2 7.41% 8. Question not answered 5 18.52% 27 100.00% Table D.11: Participant response to the question: What images are you hoping to capture?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Yes (unelaborated) 12 44.44% 2. Yes, I’ll use them to recreate my experience for sharing with family and friends 2 7.41% 3. Yes, and that’s why I take care to organise them carefully on my computer 1 3.70% 4. Yes, I’ll make a slide show/hang some on my wall 2 7.41% 5. Yes, I like reflecting back on my photos 3 11.11% 6. I’d like to, but I know I won’t 1 3.70% 7. Question not asked 2 7.41% 8. Question not answered 4 14.81% 27 100.00% Table D.12: Participant response to the question: Will you use your photographs as memory prompts?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Not really 3 11.11% 2. The site is geologically very old 3 11.11% 3. I found out more about Aboriginal culture/history and relationships to the land 8 29.63% 4. How hard it was for settlers in the outback 2 7.41% 5. The importance of preservation 5 18.52% 6. That it is incredibly diverse 1 3.70% 7. Question not asked 1 3.70% 8. Question not answered 4 14.81% 27 100.00% Table D.13: Participant response to the question: Are there any messages about the heritage of Australia that you’ll take away?

104 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, not really/not completely 10 37.04% 2. Yes, because of my own personal interests/relationships 8 29.63% 3. Yes, the natural environment speaks to me 1 3.70% 4. Yes, as an Australian 2 7.41% 5. Yes, I feel comfortable/welcomed here 1 3.70% 6. Question not asked 0 0.00% 7. Question not answered 5 18.52% 27 100.00% Table D.14: Participant response to the question: Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this site speaks?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Not at all/no/I don’t think about settlers here 11 40.74% 2. No, I already had an understanding/it hasn’t changed my views 4 14.81% 3. The site has the potential to get people thinking differently, yes 2 7.41% 4. I am amazed at the vastness/hardships of early colonial travel 4 14.81% 5. A realisation of the consequences of colonial imposition on Aboriginal people today 4 14.81% 6. Question not asked 0 0.00% 7. Question not answered 2 7.41% 27 100.00% Table D.15: Participant response to the question: Have your views changed about Australia’s settler history as a result of visiting this place?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, it hasn’t really changed my views 10 37.04% 2. No, I’m not interested in it 1 3.70% 3. No, it’s not relevant here 1 3.70% 4. I have learnt a little more about it 5 18.52% 5. I think its more inclusive now 0 0.00% 6. I’m mindful of the instabilities caused by colonialism 6 22.22% 7. Yes, living here in the area has really changed my views 2 7.41% 8. Question not asked 0 0.00% 9. Question not answered 2 7.41%

27 100.00% Table D.16: Participant response to the question: Has this site changed your views about Indigenous Australians?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 105 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

Appendix E: Port Arthur

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Local to the area 5 7% 2. General touristic reasons 41 55% 3. Existing interest in history 4 5% 4. It’s a ‘must-do’ site, iconic, ‘on the list’ 9 12% 5. Recommended by friends 5 7% 6. Hosting visitors (friends/family) 7 9% 7. Question not asked 3 4% 8. Question not answered 0 0% 74 100.00% Table E.1: Participant response to the question: What are your overall reasons for visiting today?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Settler/convict/colonial/frontier history 25 34% 2. Combination of settler and Indigenous 12 16% 3. Aboriginal heritage 4 5% 4. Old stuff/things from the past/ Something worth preserving 8 11% 5. Offers comment on current heritage management processes 3 4% 6. Critical of general lack of engagement in heritage issues 2 3% 7. Nominates specific events/places/icons 7 9% 8. Triggers commentary on multiculturalism and immigration 2 3% 9. Question not asked 3 4% 10. Question not answered 8 11% 74 100.00% Table E.2: Participant response to the question: What comes to mind when you hear the phrase ‘Australian Heritage’?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Convict/penal/settlement heritage 37 50% 2. A dissonant heritage (sad, etc.) 7 9% 3. I’m aware of both European and Indigenous heritage here 2 3% 4. It’s a multi-layered history 2 3% 5. It’s a partial heritage 2 3% 6. Old buildings/architecture 2 3% 7. The site represents an important educational episode in Australia’s history 3 4% 8. Question not asked 3 4% 9. Question not answered 16 22% 74 100.00% Table E.3: Participant response to the question: What aspects of Australian heritage are you visiting here today?

106 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, I don’t relate to it 13 18% 2. No, I have no familial links to this heritage 18 24% 3. No, the site doesn’t do enough to engage me 2 3% 4. I haven’t really thought about it 0 0% 5. Yes, a little bit 8 11% 6. Yes, the site has given me a sense of connection 1 1% 7. Yes, I feel part of this history (genealogically) 7 9% 8. Yes, because I’m Australian 12 16% 9. Yes, because I’m in interested in this history 3 4% 10. Question not asked 6 8% 11. Question not answered 4 5% 74 100.00% Table E.4: Participant response to the question: Do you feel part of the heritage represented here?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Sombre, sad 7 9% 2. Prompts personal reflection (of both/either the past and the present) 13 18% 3. Specific commentary on Port Arthur as a tourist destination (positive and negative) 22 30% 4. Conflicting emotions (some positive/some negative feelings) 4 5% 5. My views have changed as it was not as harsh as I was expecting 4 5% 6. I feel better educated 10 14% 7. Nominates physical feelings of cold/wet, etc. 2 3% 8. Question not asked 9 12% 9. Question not answered 3 4% 74 100.00% Table E.5: Participant response to the question: How does it make you feel to visit this place?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, not really/no sensations 14 19% 2. I expected to, but I haven’t 3 4% 3. Feeling moved by the memorial site 5 7% 4. Nominates specific location, which triggered a strong sense of cruelty, anxiety, isolation etc. 16 22% 5. A sense of isolation 2 3% 6. A feeling of shock/anger/empathy at the treatment of prisoners 14 19% 7. Conflicted sensations (beauty of the site versus the suffering) 2 3% 8. I feel intrigued/interested/fascinated 1 1% 9. Question not asked 10 14% 10. Question not answered 7 9% 74 100.00% Table E.6: Participant response to the question: How would you describe any sensations triggered by your visit?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 107 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. The mood doesn’t affect me 0 0% 2. Prompts comparison with a previous visit/s 5 7% 3. Prompts comparison with other historic tourism destinations 3 4% 4. The mood is sombre to reflect the dark heritage 23 31% 5. The mood enhanced by the beauty of the site 7 9% 6. There is a juxtaposition between the beauty and the darkness of the site 4 5% 7. I am relieved by how the site retells the dark history 17 23% 8. The weather/season/time of day affects my mood 7 9% 9. Question not asked 2 3% 10. Question not answered 6 8% 74 100.00% Table E.7: Participant response to the question: How would you describe the mood or atmosphere here?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. It caters to many interests 2 3% 2. It’s a world-class tourist destination 3 4% 3. It’s very immerse experience 11 15% 4. It’s a learning/educational experience 17 23% 5. It offers insight into crime and punishment 7 9% 6. It offers insights into the development of Australia 8 11% 7. It’s a place to reflect on tough/traumatic times 2 3% 8. It links to a story that captivates people 1 1% 9. Question not asked 13 18% 10. Question not answered 10 14% 74 100.00% Table E.8: Participant response to the question: What experiences does visiting a site like this offer?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I don’t know/unsure 5 7% 2. Nominates specific places (etc. Separate Prison/Chapel/Asylum/the ‘Dumb Cell’) 16 22% 3. The architecture 4 5% 4. The memorial 5 7% 5. Excellent tour guides and tours 4 5% 6. Understanding the place as it was (brutality, etc.) 8 11% 7. Thinking about the people (prisoners and prison staff) 14 19% 8. The sheer size of the site 0 0% 9. Nominates non-human elements (cold/weather, etc.) 4 5% 10. Question not asked 8 11% 11. Question not answered 6 8% 74 100.00% Table E.9: Participant response to the question: What elements of this site have had the biggest impact?

108 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No photos, just memories 2 3% 2. Nominates a specific place 5 7% 3. The buildings/architecture (general) 17 23% 4. The buildings and the grounds together 15 20% 5. The gardens, trees, landscape 6 8% 6. All of it/everything 13 18% 7. Themselves/‘selfies’ 3 4% 8. Particular aesthetics (angles, light, etc.) 3 4% 9. Question not asked 3 4% 10. Question not answered 7 9%

74 100.00% Table E.10: Participant response to the question: What images are you hoping to capture?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Not really, no 1 1% 2. No, I’m just enjoying the moment 1 1% 3. No, I don’t need photos to remember 2 3% 4. I also use books and souvenirs as memory prompts 7 9% 5. Yes (general) 20 27% 6. Yes, I’ll revisit them every now and then 10 14% 7. Yes, I will share with family and friends (online and/or in hardcopy) 16 22% 8. Yes, I create a photo album, photo book, slide-show, etc. 8 11% 9. Yes, otherwise I forget the details 3 4% 10. Question not asked 2 3% 11. Question not answered 4 5%

74 100.00% Table E.11: Participant response to the question: What elements of this site have had the biggest impact?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, none, not really 4 5% 2. No, I was already familiar with this history 10 14% 3. It isn’t as boring as I used to think 6 8% 4. Nominates specific knowledge gained 9 12% 5. It makes me think about family history 2 3% 6. How tough it was 13 18% 7. I’m going to take away the positive message of rehabilitation 4 5% 8. It’s made me reflect critically on contemporary society 5 7% 9. Question not asked 17 23% 10. Question not answered 4 5% 74 100.00% Table E.12: Participant response to the question: Are there any messages about the heritage of Australia that you’ll take away?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 109 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I don’t know/I’m not sure 7 9% 2. All of the layers have piqued my interest 10 14% 3. Recognition on-site of multiple layers 7 9% 4. The memorial/Martin Byrant story 9 12% 5. The story of the convicts 15 20% 6. The Aboriginal history 1 1% 7. The changing uses of the site over time 8 11% 8. Not enough information on all the layers 3 4% 9. Question not asked 10 14% 10. Question not answered 4 5% 74 100.00% Table E.13: Participant response to the question: This is a site with many layers, which louder ‘speaks’ the loudest to you?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I don’t know/I don’t think so/I’m not sure 19 26% 2. No, there is nothing missing/it covers everything 6 8% 3. Yes, but there are always stories left out 7 9% 4. Aboriginal history 14 19% 5. Women/wives/mothers 3 4% 6. The real convict experience is missing 3 4% 7. There is not enough information throughout 3 4% 8. Question not asked 9 12% 9. Question not answered 10 14% 74 100.00% Table E.14: Participant response to the question: Is there any aspect of the site you think is missing?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, the site is about British heritage 9 12% 2. No, it’s too late to add them now 2 3% 3. I’m not sure that there is an Indigenous history here 13 18% 4. Only if there is an Aboriginal story here (not just for the sake of it) 7 9% 5. It could be added, but in a way that doesn’t overshadow the convict narrative 8 11% 6. Yes, definitely (it’s part of Tasmania’s history; that shameful history should be acknowledged) 24 32% 7. Yes, there should be an Indigenous memorial 0 0% 8. Question not asked 5 7% 9. Question not answered 6 8% 74 100.00% Table E.15: Participant response to the question: Do you think there’s any space at Port Arthur for thinking about Indigenous history?

110 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, not really 29 39% 2. No, I have no familial/geographical connections 8 11% 3. Not really; only that I am an Australian 8 11% 4. Yes, there are some connections to my professional life/hobbies/interests 7 9% 5. Yes, there are some connections to my family/ ancestry/ geography 5 7% 6. Yes, the site speaks to me as a human being 1 1% 7. Question not asked 10 14% 8. Question not answered 6 8% 74 100.00% Table E.16: Participant response to the question: Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this site speaks?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, not really 18 24% 2. No, I don’t link settler history with this site 2 3% 3. The site has added to my knowledge 16 22% 4. I have a new appreciation for how difficult life was 11 15% 5. The site has made me think about particular individuals here 5 7% 6. Question not asked 13 18% 7. Question not answered 9 12% 74 100.00% Table E.18: Participant response to the question: Has your visit changed your views on Australia’s settler history?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, nothing to add 37 50% 2. Offers positive comment about the site 18 24% 3. I would like to know more information about Aboriginal history 2 3% 4. There needs to be improved signage/information 2 3% 5. I’m impressed by the site 5 7% 6. I’m disappointed by aspect of my visit 3 4% 7. Question not asked 5 7% 8. Question not answered 2 3% 74 100.00% Table E.19: Participant response to the question: Do you have anything else to add?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 111 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

Appendix F: Sovereign Hill

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. General touristic reasons 34 49% 2. To understand Australia’s history 7 10% 3. Showing friends/family 9 13% 4. We were in the area 10 14% 5. Specifically to see the Light and Sound Show 4 6% 6. Enjoyed our previous visit 3 4% 7. Question not asked 0 0% 8. Question not answered 3 4% 70 100.00% Table F.1: Participant response to the question: What are your overall reasons for visiting today?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. The Australian bush/bushrangers/Ned Kelly/Banjo Patterson 8 11% 2. Vague reference to old things/the past/history 12 17% 3. Specifically nominates historic/ old buildings and artefacts 5 7% 4. Aboriginal/Indigenous culture 3 4% 5. The gold mining past 5 7% 6. Settler/colonial/convict history (like Captain Cook) 11 16% 7. Nature and national parks 2 3% 8. A melting pot of histories 6 9% 9. References personal connections (heritage/ homeland/ pride) 6 9% 10. I don’t know 4 6% 11. Question not asked 2 3% 12. Question not answered 6 9% 70 100.00% Table F.2: Participant response to the question: What comes to mind when you hear the phrase ‘Australian Heritage’?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Acknowledgement that it’s an ‘authentic’ representation of all of Australia’s heritage 14 20% 2. European and Chinese heritage 2 3% 3. The Gold Rush Days/Eureka Stockade 15 21% 4. Reference to mining heritage 7 10% 5. Reference to colonial/settler history 9 13% 6. Reference to living history 7 10% 7. Critical engagement with multiculturalism and colonialism 3 4% 8. I don’t know 2 3% 9. Question not asked 3 4% 10. Question not answered 8 11% 70 100.00% Table F.3: Participant response to the question: What aspects of Australian heritage are you visiting here today?

112 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, not really (unelaborated) 9 13% 2. No, I’m a visitor/tourist 6 9% 3. No, this isn’t connect to be my personal/family’s history 6 9% 4. A little bit/unsure/ambivalence 15 21% 5. Yes (unelaborated) 5 7% 6. Yes, the interactive environment makes me feel connected 9 13% 7. Yes, it strikes a chord with my own memories 7 10% 8. Yes, it’s my (broad) culture so my heritage 6 9% 9. Question not asked 3 4% 10. Question not answered 4 6% 70 100.00% Table F.4: Participant response to the question: Do you feel part of the heritage represented here?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Impressed with the tourist experience 15 21% 2. Disappointed with the tourist experience 3 4% 3. Generic positive feelings (good, nice, relaxed, etc.) 21 30% 4. I feel like I’ve gained knowledge/ reflective/ appreciation 6 9% 5. The site has brought back lots of memories 2 3% 6. I feel a sense of patriotism for Australia 3 4% 7. I feel empathy for now hard life must have been 5 7% 8. I feel nostalgic for times past 1 1% 9. I feel uncomfortable with the history that is hidden here 1 1% 10. Question not asked 9 13% 11. Question not answered 4 6% 70 100.00% Table F.5: Participant response to the question: How does it make you feel to visit this place?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No (unelaborated) 3 4% 2. No, it’s a bit too touristy/modern 6 9% 3. No, previous visits were better/more immersive 2 3% 4. A little bit/unsure/ambivalence 3 4% 5. Yes (unelaborated) 9 13% 6. Yes, the buildings, streets, costumes, demonstrations create an immersive experience 31 44% 7. Yes, because of the memories it triggers 3 4% 8. Yes, definitely: they’ve created that sensation of time-travel 5 7% 9. Question not asked 3 4% 10. Question not answered 5 7% 70 100.00% Table F.6: Participant response to the question: Do you feel like you have stepped back in time?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 113 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. None/nothing 8 11% 2. A feeling of disappointment 2 3% 3. A feeling of starkness 0 0% 4. A feeling of authenticity 2 3% 5. I’m not sure/I don’t know 1 1% 6. A general positive feeling 7 10% 7. Nominates particular smells /sights/tastes that trigger memories/familiar feelings 29 41% 8. Reanimates childhood memories 5 7% 9. Well it’s on the original site, so no 1 1% 10. Question not asked 11 16% 11. Question not answered 4 6% 70 100.00% Table F.7: Participant response to the question: How would you describe any sensations triggered by your visit?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I have no comment/thoughts on that 13 19% 2. It is a positive experience (quiet, pleasant, relaxed, calm) 19 27% 3. It is a negative experience (too touristy, too expensive, better last time) 1 1% 4. It gives you a sense of the spirit of the time 7 10% 5. It makes me reflect on the harshness of the time 4 6% 6. It has educational qualities 2 3% 7. The sounds/sights/smells really draw you in 7 10% 8. Interacting with soldiers, schools, overall site really makes you see/understand 10 14% 9. Very conducive to bringing back/engaging with personal memories 3 4% 10. Question not asked 1 1% 11. Question not answered 3 4% 70 100.00% Table F.8: Participant response to the question: How would you describe the mood or atmosphere here?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Generic criticism of the site 2 3% 2. Neutral comment (i.e. ‘each individual is different’) 2 3% 3. It offers great photo opportunities 0 0% 4. It is a good day out 5 7% 5. It is a positive opportunity to learn about history (for kids, adults and non-Australians) 21 30% 6. This site is an important part of Australia’s history and development 8 11% 7. A greater appreciation for how hard life was back then (compared to today) 10 14% 8. It is a space in which one can immerse themselves in history (engaged) 7 10% 9. It is a moving experience for those with family/personal connections 2 3% 10. Question not asked 10 14% 11. Question not answered 3 4% 70 100.00% Table F.9: Participant response to the question: What experiences does visiting a site like this offer?

114 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I don’t know/I’m not sure 3 4% 2. Disappointment that products sold on-site were made in China 2 3% 3. Realisation of how harsh life was back then 5 7% 4. The whole reconstruction/everything 14 20% 5. The huts, houses and living quarters 2 3% 6. The School (memories, experiences) 2 3% 7. The Apothecary 1 1% 8. The free mine tour 4 6% 9. The paid mine tour 1 1% 10. The Chinese quarters 4 6% 11. The re-enactments and demonstrations 10 14% 12. It’s ability to speak to me directly 4 6% 13. Question not asked 12 17% 14. Question not answered 6 9% 70 100.00% Table F.10: Participant response to the question: What elements of this site have had the biggest impact?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. I haven’t taken any (yet/many) 16 23% 2. I prefer to be in the present/rely on my memory 3 4% 3. Everything/anything/the whole experience 16 23% 4. Nominates particular elements of the site (the Theatre, mine shaft, etc.) 8 11% 5. Nominates the ‘authentic’ or the original (historic buildings, features, historical stuff) 7 10% 6. Nominates photos of re-enactors (Red-coats, costumed people) 4 6% 7. Nominates photos of visitors (self, family, other visitors participating) 6 9% 8. Question not asked 7 10% 9. Question not answered 3 4% 70 100.00% Table F.11: Participant response to the question: What images are you hoping to capture?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, I don’t use photos to prompt my memory (unelaborated) 10 14% 2. No, I don’t use photos to prompt my memory (I rely on my recollections, souvenirs, etc.) 6 9% 3. Yes, they bring back memories (printed or otherwise) 27 39% 4. Yes, I like to share them with my family and friends (online or in print) 11 16% 5. Yes, but digital photos don’t facilitate memories as well as print 3 4% 6. Question not asked 8 11% 7. Question not answered 5 7% 70 100.00% Table F.12: Participant response to the question: Will you use your photographs as memory prompts?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 115 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. Not really, as I already had a good grasp of Australia’s history 19 27% 2. Yes (unelaborated) 6 9% 3. A general comment about the need to preserve the past 6 9% 4. A general comment about personal memories 4 6% 5. A strong appreciation for how harsh life was (compared to now) 13 19% 6. Yes, this history was formative in creating Australia’s character 7 10% 7. Question not asked 10 14% 8. Question not answered 5 7% 70 100.00% Table F.13: Participant response to the question: Are there any messages about the heritage of Australia you will take away?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, not for me personally 10 14% 2. Yes, it makes me think of my childhood, family, personal memories 14 20% 3. Yes, it links to interests/hobbies 7 10% 4. Yes, it makes me feel connected to Australia 1 1% 5. Yes, I feel entitled to this heritage 2 3% 6. Yes, the site promotes a feeling of connection (to history, etc.) 8 11% 7. Question not asked 22 31% 8. Question not answered 6 9% 70 100.00% Table F.14: Participant response to the question: Is there any aspect of your personal identity to which this site speaks?

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. My views haven’t changed (unelaborated) 14 20% 2. My views haven’t changed because I was already well-informed 4 6% 3. My views haven’t changed because that question is not relevant to this site 5 7% 4. My views haven’t changed but it has enhanced them (by engaging the imagination, etc.) 4 6% 5. It reinforced my impression that life was hard then 9 13% 6. Yes, I realised the longevity of Australia’s multicultural past 2 3% 7. Yes, I realised how ‘British’ it was 2 3% 8. Yes, it makes clear the links between this and my own history 3 4% 9. Yes, it was interesting to see the wider colonial picture 3 4% 10. Question not asked 17 24% 11. Question not answered 7 10% 70 100.00% Table F.15: Participant response to the question: Has your visit changed your views about Australia’s settler history?

116 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

PARTICIPANT RESPONSE NUMBER % 1. No, not really 46 66% 2. Just that it was a great/positive experiences (as visitor /tourist) 14 20% 3. Nominates a specific detail/fact left lacking in the interpretation 0 0% 4. The price/cost is too high 3 4% 5. Shouldn’t be selling Chinese products 2 3% 6. It was better in previous visits 1 1% 7. It’s important to keep it going 4 6% 70 100.00% Table F.16: Participant response to the question: Is there anything else you would like to add?

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 117 PHOTOS OF THE PAST: THE NEGOTIATION AND IDENTITY OF BELONGING AT AUSTRALIAN TOURISM SITES - FINAL REPORT

118 Western Sydney University APPENDICES

westernsydney.edu.au/ics 119 Contact information 9685 9600 [email protected]

Western Sydney University Locked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW 2751 Australia

WESTERNSYDNEY.EDU.AU