chapter one introduction - uq espace158104/n02content-ruhanen... · chapter one introduction ......
TRANSCRIPT
1
Chapter One
Introduction
1.0 Introduction
The concept of sustainable development has had a considerable impact on the study of
tourism development, planning and management. As a subset of sustainable
development theory, sustainable tourism planning has been seen by many as a means of
maximising the positive and minimising the negative impacts of tourism activity on
destination communities. Although the concept has received in-principle support from
academia, government and industry, more critical viewpoints have emerged questioning
the extent to which sustainability doctrine is actually put into tourism planning practice.
Therefore this study investigated the transference of sustainable tourism theory to
practice by examining the extent to which the sustainable tourism planning philosophy is
utilised in the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland.
Additionally the study sought to develop a theoretical framework to facilitate the
application of sustainability principles to local tourism destination planning.
To provide a background to the research issue and objectives, this chapter begins with an
overview of the recognised need for tourism destination planning, the subsequent
emergence of sustainable tourism planning and the more recent arguments for utilising
the strategic visioning approach to tourism destination planning. The research issue and
gaps in the body of knowledge are addressed before the three research objectives of the
study are articulated. Also provided is a brief overview of the research methodology and
the key methods employed to address the research issue. The study context is then
outlined detailing the significance of tourism to Australia and Queensland. Also
examined is tourism within the Australian governmental system and more specifically
local government planning for tourism in Queensland. The final section of the chapter
outlines the structure of the thesis, providing a brief overview of the purpose and contents
of each of the chapters.
2
1.1 Background
Tourism has had a profound impact upon destinations worldwide, and the 808 million
international arrivals in 2005 indicate the magnitude and economic significance of global
tourist activity (World Tourism Organization [WTO], 2006). Tourism can undoubtedly
create positive economic returns for destination countries; foreign exchange earnings,
employment growth, tax revenues, and can substantially stimulate the economy overall
(Inskeep, 1991). In the years following World War II, with the recognised beginning of
mass tourism, nations, states, cities and regional areas began actively promoting
themselves as tourism destinations, committing considerable funds towards tourism
development (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000). However by the mid 1960s other, more
cautionary and critical viewpoints about tourism were being aired (Jafari, 1990). It had
become evident that along with its positive returns, tourism activity also brought many
negative influences to a destination, often adversely impacting upon the natural
environment and social fabric of the destination community. Concerns over ecological
impacts and a wish to preserve cultural identities arose as the somewhat uncontrolled
growth of tourist facilities and movements threatened natural environments, burdened the
limited resources of some destinations and the economic benefits were realised to be
seasonal and somewhat uncertain. As Coccossis (1996, p.1) states,
“The expansion of tourism has had a profound impact on many
destinations. In some areas it has revitalised local economies whilst in
others it has destroyed them; in some areas it has reinforced local identity
whilst in others it has destroyed customs, traditions and social relations; in
some areas it has helped protect environmentally sensitive areas whilst in
others it has wrought havoc with local ecosystems and local resources”.
The negative impacts of tourism have primarily been attributed to inadequate or non-
existent planning frameworks for tourism development. As Murphy (1985) noted,
tourism was seized upon with little forethought concerning a viable tourism product, the
social and environmental consequences of development, or the spill over effects into
surrounding areas. The failure to proactively plan for tourism development has left many
3
destinations with a legacy of social and environmental consequences. The experience of
such destinations has shown that it is often too late to reverse or redirect unwanted
development once it has become established in a destination and these destinations will
always suffer from environmental and social problems that are both detrimental to
tourists and residents (Gunn, 1994; Hall, 1998). Therefore it has been widely advocated
that tourism development should not be permitted to progress in an ad hoc manner
without an overall guiding framework and predetermined strategies toward development
objectives (Hall, 2000; WTO, 1994).
Various tourism planning approaches have evolved over the years including the
economic, physical, environmental and community approaches, and as their names
indicate, have tended to focus on specific aspects of destination planning and
management. However the sustainable tourism planning approach has emerged as one of
the most comprehensive and accepted approaches, and can generally be viewed as
encompassing the key ideals of each of the previously mentioned planning methods. The
sustainable concept arose in response to broader international concerns over ecological
issues. It has been advocated for the tourism sector as a possible solution to the
environmental and social degradation of the industry’s resources and due to the fact that
tourism is a resource dependent industry (Cooper, 1995; Murphy, 1998).
The sustainable approach to tourism planning is based on the achievement of two
prerequisites: a strategic and long-term orientation in tourism planning and multiple
stakeholder participation in the planning process (Simpson, 2001). The first of these
prerequisites requires strategic planning to supersede conventional planning approaches
(Dutton & Hall, 1989). Strategy as it applies to sustainable tourism planning and
development seeks to achieve three basic strategic objectives: conservation of tourism
resource values; enhanced experiences of the visitors who interact with tourism
resources; and the maximization of the economic, social and environmental returns to
stakeholders in the host community (Hall, 2000). The second identified prerequisite is
the engagement and participation of multiple stakeholder groups in the planning and
decision-making process. This is considered a pivotal issue in a sustainable approach as
4
in typical planning processes stakeholders are consulted minimally near the end of the
process, which leaves little chance for meaningful input into the process. Therefore
authors such as Faulkner (2003) have claimed that the achievement of sustainable
development objectives hinges on the adoption of a participatory model, involving the
meaningful engagement of the community, along with industry stakeholders and relevant
government agencies, with the objective of generating agreement on planning directions
and goals. Based on these two identified prerequisites, under the sustainable approach
tourism planning is strategic, that is it is proactive and adopts a long-term planning
horizon, while also seeking out and being responsive to stakeholder needs (Hall, 2000;
Ritchie, 1999).
While the theoretical concepts of sustainable tourism development have been well
addressed in the academic literature, authors have recently begun to investigate practical
processes, models and frameworks so that the sustainable tourism philosophy,
encompassing the previously mentioned caveats, can be implemented at the destination
level. One model which is beginning to receive attention for its underpinning
sustainability philosophy is the concept of strategic visioning (Faulkner, 2003; Ritchie,
1999). Strategic visioning for tourism destinations has been described as a new but
important extension of the more common process of strategic planning in tourism
(Ritchie, 1999). Even though the direction for tourism development is implicit in a
traditional strategic planning process, strategic visioning has a stronger emphasis on
bringing together the views of the many and varied stakeholders of the destination
community through collaborative and participative processes with the objective of
establishing directions for tourism development in the longer term so the principles of
sustainable tourism development are adopted as a fundamental philosophical foundation
for the planning process (Ritchie, 1999). The process is founded on destination
stakeholders being actively involved in decision making and planning for future
development, through a publicly driven process based on stakeholder values and
consensus. This consensus is expressed through the ‘sharing of a common vision’ which
provides an agreed benchmark towards which both the general community and the
tourism sector can more effectively direct their efforts (Faulkner, 2003; Ritchie, 1999).
5
While the ideal vision may not always be realized, the process does provide a means for
ensuring that a longer-term perspective informs day-to-day decision-making, as opposed
to ad hoc and centralised decision-making, which is an often-cited problem in tourism
planning.
Although the concept of strategic visioning as a tourism destination planning process is
relatively new, its theoretical underpinnings and empirical evidence from several
practical applications, suggest that it may be a useful process for achieving the
sustainable approach, while incorporating the caveats of strategic planning and multiple
stakeholder participation. For example Faulkner (2003) reports that the development and
articulation of a shared vision among Gold Coast stakeholders was the initial and most
critical step in the consultative process that lead to the development of the destination’s
tourism strategy. The objective was to develop a vision that ensured consensus among
primary stakeholders and in turn provided a focus for the strategic planning process and a
vehicle for mobilising cooperative action (Faulkner, 2003).
1.2 Research Issue
While the theory of sustainable tourism planning has been discussed at length in the
literature, with numerous case studies attesting to the fact that tourism destinations have
realised the error of their ways and are now embracing planning practices based on the
philosophies of sustainability, some authors disagree. There have been suggestions that
the tourism industry has been slow to adopt sustainability principles and actually put
them into practice due to the fact that economic motivations are always given priority
over social and ecological issues. The result being that the economic approach is still the
dominant tradition towards tourism development and planning practiced in many
countries and destinations (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998).
A further issue that the literature has overlooked is how the sustainable paradigm is
actually applied in practice. It has been suggested that a preoccupation with defining the
concept of sustainable tourism has seen the practical aspects ignored, with Garrod and
6
Fyall (1998) claiming that tourism researchers have spent so much time ‘squabbling’
over definitions that they have not considered how the concept might actually be
implemented in practice. Similarly Faulkner (2003) finds that although participation and
collaboration in tourism planning has been widely discussed in the literature, this has
been at the expense of developing clear and concise formulas for how this can occur in
practice. Where models have been proposed, such as strategic visioning, aside from
some descriptive accounts they have not been examined in detail. Simpson (2001, p.4)
also noted such discrepancies,
“Whilst the concepts of stakeholder participation and strategic orientation are
widely endorsed as valuable contributors to sustainable development, there have
been no previous attempts to gauge the extent to which such considerations play
their part in real world tourism planning processes”.
1.3 Research Objectives
The deviations between sustainable tourism planning theory and practice represent a
significant gap in the body of knowledge. Therefore, the aim of this study was to firstly
examine the extent to which sustainable development principles, including the identified
prerequisites of strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are integrated into the
planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland. The second aim was to
examine the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning model for
integrating sustainability theory into tourism destination planning. The aims of the study
were expressed through three research objectives:
1. To investigate the current planning practices of local tourism destinations in
Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable
development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation are integrated into
the tourism planning process.
2. To examine destination stakeholders perceptions of the local tourism planning
process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development,
strategic planning and stakeholder participation underpin the process.
7
3. To consider the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning
approach for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic planning
and stakeholder participation into local tourism destination planning.
The study focused specifically on the planning practices of local tourism destinations in
Queensland, Australia (Figure 1.1). Although the integration of sustainable development
principles into tourism planning for all types of destinations is vital; local tourism
destinations were investigated for this study as it is at the local or community level where
tourism’s negative influences are generally felt most acutely (Aronsson, 2000; Ashworth,
1995; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995; Tosun, 1998). A further factor is that the local
level is often characterised by inadequate tourism planning frameworks and coordination
between stakeholders, compounded by the fact that the local government authority has
considerable influence over tourism development in the area. The literature also
indicates that a strategic visioning process may be of considerable benefit to local level
planning processes. Due to the researcher’s location local tourism destinations (equated
with Shire Council areas) in Queensland, Australia were examined (Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.1: The Location of Queensland
Q u een sla n dW estern A u stra lia
N orth ern T errito ry
S o u th A u stra lia
V ictoria
T asm a n ia
N ew S o u th W a les
A u stra lia n C a p ita l
T errito ry
Source: Wikipedia, 2005
8
S
Figure 1.2: Local Tourism Destinations (Local Government Areas), Queensland
Source: Queensland State Government, Department of Local Government and Planning, 2004
Douglas
Thuringowa
Sarina
Redland
Gold Coast
9
To examine the research issues and address the stated objectives, a two-fold qualitative
research process was developed (Chapter Five). Firstly, the planning practices of local
tourism destinations in Queensland were investigated utilising the most recent, publicly
available tourism specific planning documents of each of the 125 local tourism
destinations in Queensland (excluding the 32 Aboriginal Land Councils) (Figure 1.2).
This stage of the research aimed to examine the extent to which sustainable development
principles, including strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are incorporated
into local tourism destination planning practices. To assess this a tourism planning
process evaluation instrument developed by Simpson (2001) was used. Due to the focus
of this particular study additional evaluative criteria were added to the instrument from
the literature on sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder
collaboration. This stage of the research also provided the sampling framework for the
second phase of the study.
Building on the secondary data analysed in stage one, the second phase of the qualitative
research process investigated the perceptions of destination stakeholders who had
participated in the planning process for their destination. From the review of tourism
planning documents conducted in stage one five case study tourism destinations were
selected to sample respondents for the stakeholder interviews. These destinations were:
Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City; Redland Shire; Sarina Shire and Thuringowa City
(Figure 1.2). This stage of the research examined destination stakeholder’s perceptions
of the tourism planning process and their views on the incorporation of sustainable
development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into the planning
process. This was considered an important aspect of the research as Faulkner (2003) has
noted that the establishment of a more strategically focused and sustainability oriented
model ultimately hinges on the degree to which leading players among the stakeholder
groups embrace it and champion the cause. This phase of the research also examined
destination stakeholder’s perceptions of strategic visioning and its applicability for local
tourism destination planning.
10
1.4 Study Context
Tourism in Australia, although not large by world standards still makes a significant
contribution to the nation’s export receipts. There were 5.2 million visitor arrivals to
Australia during the year ended 30 September 2004, an increase of 11% relative to the
previous year (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004). In the same period international
visitors consumed $16.7 billion worth of goods and services, representing 11% of total
exports, with forecasts predicting tourism export earnings for Australia to reach $27.9
billion by 2013 (Tourism Forecasting Council, 2004). While international tourism is a
major source of tourism revenue for the country, domestic tourism generates A$38 262
million and in 2001 Australians took 74 585 000 trips and spent 289 644 000 nights away
from home (Cooper & Ruhanen, 2005). Further the tourism industry employed 540, 700
people in Australia in 2002-03. Similarly tourism is a significant economic sector for the
state of Queensland. Queensland is more dependent on tourism for employment and
income generation than any other state in Australia, and tourism is Queensland’s largest
and fastest growing export (Hall, 2003). In Queensland more people are employed in
tourism than in agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining combined, with an estimated
10% of the workforce, or 135,000 people, working in tourism (Tourism Council of
Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd). These tourism growth projections highlight the
need for properly planned tourism growth and development and management of the
industry’s future, particularly given the fact that much of Australia and certainly
Queensland’s tourism product is based on environmental and cultural attractions, both of
which are highly susceptible to tourism’s negative impacts.
Sustainable tourism has emerged as a significant concept in tourism policy statements in
Australia (Hall, Jenkins & Kearsely, 1997). Hall (1998, p.21) notes that, “the principles
of sustainable development have become a highly contentious issue in Australian
politics…and controversy over tourism development indicate that the concept of
sustainable development may have direct application to the Australian tourism industry”.
In Australia, as with many other countries, the 1987 Brundtland report of the World
Commission of Environment and Development, and the United Nations Agenda 21,
11
highlighted the detrimental impacts some forms of activity were having on the
environment. In response to this the Commonwealth government released the National
Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development in 1992, focused on implementing the
recommendations of the Brundtland commission and Agenda 21. The strategy aimed to
provide broad directions for government policy and decision making at the local, regional
and national level, while facilitating a coordinated and cooperative approach to
ecologically sustainable development (Commonwealth Government, Department of
Environment and Heritage, 2005).
In terms of governmental structures for tourism; tourism is not explicitly mentioned in
the Australian Constitution, so the legal responsibility for tourism has developed under
the division of powers for those areas which impinge on the tourism industry, including
quarantine, aviation, customs and excise, corporations and international trade (Hall, 2003;
Ruhanen, 2005). Tourism in Australia is predominantly market driven and unlike other
sectors, the federal government has not tried an interventionist approach towards tourism.
Basu (2003) notes that the Commonwealth government is more directly involved in
marketing rather than monitoring the growth of the industry, with facilitation and
coordination of tourism occurring through its agency ‘Tourism Australia’. However in
2003 the Commonwealth released a tourism white paper, ‘A Medium to Long Term
Strategy for Tourism’, a considerable undertaking and the first of its kind in Australia
with consultations at approximately 50 locations around the country, two discussion
papers accessed by 132,000 people and some 425 written submissions over a two year
period. The white paper committed $235 million in new public investment increasing
total direct expenditure on tourism to over $600 million, with the goal of positioning
Australia as a world leader in the provision of tourism goods and services
(Commonwealth Government, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2005).
Although the Commonwealth’s direct powers for tourism under the Constitution are
slightly abstract, the States do have considerable responsibility for many facets of
tourism. The States and Territories are primarily responsible for infrastructure and
facility development, planning and regulation and as with the Commonwealth
12
government, promotion and marketing both internationally and domestically. The State
tourism authorities also fund regional tourism organizations (RTOs), which are
responsible for regional marketing and promotion and assist in developing and managing
tourism at a regional level (Appendix One). Within each tourism region, local tourism
authorities (LTAs) market visitor services and attractions for their specific local area,
which are generally based around Shire Council government boundaries, and in turn
receive funding from their respective Shire Councils and industry members. The
Australian public sector tourism system is presented in Table 1.1, using the Queensland
public sector tourism structure as an example of the RTO and LTA network.
Table 1.1: Public Sector Tourism Structure
Government Structure
Public Sector Tourism Structure
Queensland Public Sector Tourism Structure
Commonwealth Government
Tourism Australia -
State and Territory Governments
State Tourism Authorities
Tourism Queensland
-
Regional Tourism Organisations
(Appendix One)
Brisbane Marketing Bundaberg Region Ltd
Capricorn Tourism Fraser Coast South Burnett RTB
Gladstone Area Promotion & Development Gold Coast Tourism Bureau
Mackay Tourism Ltd Outback Queensland Tourism Authority
Southern Downs Tourist Association Toowoomba & Golden West RTA
Tourism Sunshine Coast Tourism Tropical North Queensland
Tourism Whitsundays Townsville Enterprise
Shire Council Areas
Local Tourism Associations
(Appendix Two)
Each of the 125 Shire Council areas in Queensland generally has at least one LTA.
This myriad of government involvement in tourism, as can be expected, causes
considerable overlap of aims, objectives and responsibilities, and has resulted in a
somewhat uncoordinated approach to tourism development, management and planning in
Australia. At each level of government, Commonwealth, State and Territory, regional
and local, there has been a tendency and an inherent organisational mandate to focus on
13
promotion and product development, usually in that order. It has been noted that a
preoccupation with marketing in Australia, at the expense of research, strategic planning
and other activities has been to the detriment of a more balanced and rational approach to
the development of the tourism industry (Faulkner, 2003). Hall (2003, p.200-201)
provides an interesting commentary that illustrates the overemphasis on tourism
marketing in Australia. He writes that,
“The transfer of funds from policy, planning and research to the
promotional functions of state government agencies led the then Director
of the Bureau of Tourism Research, Dr Bill Faulkner, to comment publicly
on the emergence of ‘advertising fundamentalism’, whereby research
programs were being downgraded to spend more money on advertising.
As Faulkner commented: it is unlikely that research into, for instance, the
environmental and social impacts of tourism would be carried out under
the market forces regime, even though the problems in these areas could
eventually render the tourism product of particular regions unsaleable.
That Dr Faulkner hit a raw nerve with his comments was indicated by the
reply of the New South Wales Minister of Tourism… who stated that: to
accuse the commission of ‘advertising fundamentalism’ merely highlights
deficiencies in Mr Faulkner’s own research into this subject. Over a
decade later such a debate remains very relevant, and the minister’s
comments reflect a deep division as to the role and character of
government involvement in tourism in Australia and as to the future nature
of tourism development. More often than not, success in tourism in
Australia is measured in terms of numbers of visitors and their expenditure
rather than the net benefits to be gained from tourist visitation and
associated tourism development”.
It would not be unrealistic to suggest that little has changed in what could effectively be
called a ‘marketing vs. management’ mentality in Australia. However it is increasingly
being noted in public sector tourism organizations that there is a need for planning to gain
the maximum return on assets and investments, as well as minimising the negative
14
impacts of tourism activity. This can be seen with Tourism Queensland recently
changing the description of their core activities from destination marketing to destination
management, although the realities of this shift in emphasis are still to be proven.
Similarly, although Hall et al (1997) have claimed that the concept of sustainability has
had a substantial impact on planning ideas and philosophies in Australia, the actual
change in approach is still somewhat questionable and as such was addressed in this
study.
The above discussion has briefly highlighted some of the complexities of tourism
management and planning in Australia generally. However due to the focus of this study
it is necessary to look more closely at tourism planning and management at the local
level, or Shire Council area, bearing in mind the issues discussed previously. Local
government has a critical role to play in tourism development and increasingly this role is
extending beyond the traditional duties of funding their LTA (Richins & Pearce, 2000).
Local government is closest to many of the problems associated with tourism
development and to the demands of residents (Aronsson, 2000), and as such Hall (2003)
considers local government best suited to coordinate tourism development at the local
level. However Hall (2003) does go on to note that the role of local government in
tourism has tended to be neglected by State and Commonwealth governments and at
times by the tourism industry. This can be attributed in part to the fact that local
government does not derive its power from the Commonwealth Constitution but from its
relevant State government constitution. Despite this local government still has
considerable influence over tourism within its constitutional responsibilities of land-use
planning, development applications for tourism-related land uses, and provision of local
infrastructure and public amenities.
Despite the inherent difficulties local authorities have been called upon to play a greater
role in the planning and management of tourism within their area. A Tourism Council of
Australia and Tourism Queensland (nd) report notes that, although most local
government authorities have formulated statements applying to tourism, these are found
in a variety of guises such as meeting minutes and other planning documents which act,
15
by proxy, as partial guidelines for the development of tourism. The report states that
local government must have clear goals and policies for tourism and should adopt a
specific policy document for tourism. A number of reasons for this are cited: councillors
may be replaced every four years but a policy document can ensure continuity of
commitment to tourism; forward planning and budget allocations for tourism are essential
for the integrated and coordinated approach needed for sustained business growth and
operation; industry sector representation in an area may change, thus altering emphasis
and thrust; and a policy document ensures that industry, local and regional tourism
organisations, state government agencies and the local council work together to benefit
the community (Tourism Council of Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd). Other key
issues highlighted in the report include; the fact that residents will be far more inclined to
support the development of tourism if they are given the opportunity to voice their
opinions, concerns and aspirations, and that to be successful in achieving balanced
development of tourism in any locality or region, there must be substantial local
government input and involvement. It is also noted that the tourism development plan
should be a strategic document, giving the direction and focus stakeholders need as a
basis for decision-making.
The 1997 Queensland Integrated Planning Act (IPA) also impacts upon tourism planning
at the local destination level in Queensland. The purpose of the IPA is to balance
community well being, economic development and the protection of the natural
environment by providing a framework for managing growth and change within the State
(Table 1.2). Although the IPA does not explicitly address tourism, the planning scheme
outlines the development outcomes sought for the local government area as a whole:
allocates land for different uses; indicates the location and nature of major infrastructure;
and, identifies areas or places that constrain the use of land due to their environmental
value or their adverse effects on development (Queensland State Government, 2004).
Further, community consultation is encouraged under the IPA and is considered by the
Local Government Association of Queensland (2003) as an essential part of local
government decision-making processes.
16
Table 1.2: Queensland Integrated Planning Act- Ecological Sustainability Principles
Protection of ecological process and natural systems 1. Air quality 2. Nature conservation 3. Land maintenance 4. Water quality
Economic development 5. Economic activity 6. Resource availability 7. Energy efficiency 8. Resource usage 9. Affordability
Maintenance of community well-being 10. Community needs 11. Infrastructure efficiency 12. Public safety 13. Heritage conservation 14. Public spaces 15. Amenity 16. Community harmony
Source: Queensland Government, Department of Communication and Information, Local
Government, Planning and Sport (2000)
1.5 Thesis Structure
The remaining chapters of this thesis build upon the issues briefly introduced in this
chapter. Chapters Two, Three and Four outline the literature review conducted for the
study. Figure 1.3 diagrammatically represents the key literature themes of the thesis,
with the sustainable development philosophy perceived as underpinning the concepts of
strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration in tourism planning which collectively
provide the foundation for the concept of strategic visioning.
Chapter Two introduces the underpinning philosophy of this thesis, the concept of
sustainable development. The application of the concept to the tourism destination
context is examined, and the key definitions and issues are addressed. The caveats to the
sustainable tourism planning approach: a strategic orientation towards tourism planning
and enhanced levels of multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process
17
(Simpson, 2001), are introduced. The current state of the sustainability debate is also
considered including the identified need to move the sustainability concept towards
practice.
Figure 1.3: Thesis Literature Themes
Sustainable Development (Chapter Two)
Strategic Planning (Chapter Three) Stakeholder Participation (Chapter Three)
Strategic Visioning (Chapter Four)
Chapter Three further explores the two identified caveats to the sustainable approach to
tourism planning. Firstly the need for strategic tourism planning is addressed, including
an examination of the evolution of tourism planning approaches and the strategic
planning concept as it has been applied in the organizational context. The second caveat,
stakeholder participation and collaboration in planning is addressed including an
overview of the evolution of public participation in planning and the extension of this
concept to tourism. The key stakeholders in tourism destination planning are examined
in addition to the more recent calls to move beyond participation and engage in multiple
stakeholder collaboration and cooperation.
Chapter Four looks at the strategic visioning concept. Beginning with a discussion of the
organizational applications of vision and the extension of this concept by Senge (1990) to
the notion of shared vision and learning organizations, the use of vision in the community
context is also examined. Finally the use of strategic visioning as a tourism destination
planning tool is considered, as is the more recent view that visioning can contribute
towards the achievement of sustainability.
18
Figure 1.4: Thesis Structure
Chapter Five outlines the research methodology employed for the study including the
researcher’s constructivist theoretical perspective, which in turn dictated the ontology,
epistemology and methodology underpinning the study. The two-phase qualitative
research process is also outlined. The first stage of the research found that 30
destinations had a tourism plan and these were assessed utilising content analysis and
underpinned by the use of a tourism planning process evaluation instrument developed by
Chapter One Introduction
Chapter Two Sustainable Tourism
Chapter Three Strategic Planning &
Stakeholder Participation
Chapter Four Strategic Visioning
Chapter Six Objective One Results
Chapter Five Methodology
Chapter Seven Objective Two & Three
Chapter Eight Discussion
Chapter Nine Conclusion
19
Simpson (2001). The second stage of the research involved in-depth, semi-structured
interviews with 31 destination stakeholders in five local tourism destination case study
areas in Queensland. Case study destinations selection was based on the outcomes of
stage one of the research. This stage examined destination stakeholders’ perceptions of
the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable
development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process, as
well as stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning as a planning model.
Chapter Six addresses the results of the first objective of the study. The overall results of
the planning document analysis are presented to illustrate how local tourism destinations
in Queensland met with the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation
instrument. The individual analysis of each of the local tourism plans is also detailed to
demonstrate the extent to which they match the evaluative criteria of the instrument.
From the individual analysis, each of the plans are quantitatively weighted and ranked in
terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria, to allow for the selection of
case study destinations as per the second objective of the study. Importance-performance
analyses are also presented for both destinations that did have a tourism planning
document and those that did not, to assess any correlation between the importance of
tourism to the destination and undertaking local level tourism destination planning.
Chapter Seven provides the results of the second and third research objectives of the
study. This chapter presents the results and analysis of the 31 interviews conducted with
stakeholders from the five case study destinations regarding their perceptions of the local
tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable
development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are incorporated.
Additionally the interview results regarding stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning
as an alternative planning practice are discussed, with more detailed results presented for
the two destinations which have previously undertaken a strategic visioning process
(Redland Shire and Gold Coast City).
20
Chapter Eight draws together the findings of the two results chapters. In addressing the
research objectives it was found that sustainability is not the underlying approach to local
tourism destinations in Queensland as evidenced by an over emphasis on economic
concerns, short-term planning horizons and the exclusion of key stakeholder groups from
the process. To address these issues a conceptual framework of the strategic visioning
approach to tourism planning is proposed as a possible means for ensuring sustainability
philosophies including strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are incorporated
into the local tourism planning process. The applicability of the framework, identified in
both the literature and confirmed by stakeholder respondents was considered in light of
the challenges identified in the research of incorporating sustainability principles into a
local tourism planning process.
Chapter Nine provides a concluding overview of the study, and demonstrates the
significance of the research and the contribution to the body of knowledge. In addition
the contribution of the study to local level tourism planning practice is discussed, with
implications for further research suggested, particularly the testing and refinement of the
proposed strategic visioning framework.
1.6 Chapter One Summary
This chapter has introduced the key concepts and issues associated with this study. The
concept of sustainable tourism planning is seen as a means of maximising the positive
and minimising the negative impacts of tourism activity on destination communities.
Despite the merits of such an approach, some authors have questioned whether the
doctrine is actually being put into practice, alluding to preoccupations with economic
returns at the expense of environmental and social issues. Additionally other authors
have cited a dearth of practical planning models for integrating sustainability theory
concepts into practice. It is this theory and practice gap that this study has addressed
through three research objectives and a two-phase qualitative research method.
21
While any number of contexts could have been utilised to examine the research issue,
local tourism destinations in Queensland, Australia were selected as the research sample
for this study. Like many countries tourism is an important economic activity in
Queensland. Further the local tourism destination level is recognised as the most
susceptible to the negative impacts of tourism and has therefore been purported as an
appropriate level to utilise sustainable planning approaches. Chapter Two introduces the
sustainable development concept and its application to tourism destination planning.
22
Chapter Two
Sustainable Tourism Development: The Underpinning Concept
2.0 Introduction
The concept of sustainable development, although not specifically targeted at tourism
development, has undoubtedly had a considerable impact on the tourism sector.
Sustainable development aims to ensure the provision of lasting and secure livelihoods,
which minimise resource depletion, environmental degradation, cultural disruption and
social instability (Hall, 1998). The notion of sustainable tourism development has arisen
as a possible solution to the environmental and social degradation of the industry’s
resources and due to the fact that tourism is a resource industry which is dependent on
nature’s endowment and society’s heritage (Murphy, 1994). Although there is
considerable polarization in viewpoints and definitions of sustainable tourism, it is
recognised that achieving sustainability in a tourism context requires: a strategic
orientation towards tourism planning and enhanced levels of multiple stakeholder
participation in the tourism planning process (Simpson, 2001).
This chapter introduces the underpinning philosophy of the thesis, the concept of
sustainable development. The evolution of sustainability and its application to tourism
development is examined, as are some of the key definitions, principles and issues
associated with the notion of sustainable tourism development. The two acknowledged
caveats of a sustainable approach: strategic planning and stakeholder participation are
also introduced, before considering the state of the sustainability debate. Finally the need
to move the sustainability concept from theory to practice is discussed.
2.1 The Sustainable Development Concept
The term sustainable development first arose in the 1980 World Conservation Strategy
(International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), although some
claim that the concept goes back much further (Butler, 1998; Conway, 1998; Malthus,
23
1986; Rohe 1997). For much of the post-war period, the desire and push for change and
economic development was unchallenged (Bramwell & Lane, 1993), and it was not until
the 1970s that concerns emerged over the exploitation of the natural environment and the
links between environment and development (Buhalis & Fletcher, 1995; Dalal-Clayton &
Bass, 2002). The failure of economic development growth models to take into account
the ecological consequences of economic expansion (Hardy & Beeton, 2001) saw
sustainable development emerge as a means and/or philosophy to rectify the past and
alter current industrial behavior by shifting the focus from the achievement of short-term
economic growth goals at the expense of environmental and social concerns.
The concept is credited as gaining international momentum and recognition following the
1987 World Commission on Environment and Development (WECD), known as the
Brundtland commission. Although widely criticized in the intervening years (MacLellan,
1997; Mowforth & Munt, 1998) the WCED (1987, p.43) first coined the often-quoted
definition, that sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
The commission also developed the first of the many principles of sustainability
including: a need for holistic planning and strategy making; the importance of preserving
essential ecological processes; the need to protect both human heritage and biodiversity;
development to occur in such a way that productivity can be sustained over the long-term
for future generations; and the need for a better balance of fairness and opportunity
between nations (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002; Hall, 1998;
Murphy, 1994; Swarbrooke, 1998). The Brundtland report received almost universal
acceptance by governments, industry and the public, and has since spawned a vast array
of refinements, applications and policies (MacLellan, 1997; United Nations, 2003).
The sustainable development discussion was further conceptualized in 1992 by the
United Nations with Local Agenda 21 (LA21), a plan of global, national and local action
for every area in which humans impact on the environment. Reaffirmed at the World
Summit on Sustainable Development held in 2002 (United Nations, 2003), LA21
highlighted that the transformation to a more sustainable world is linked to a visionary
24
political leadership, supportive administrations, networks of experience sharing, alliances
with non-governmental organisations and local industry, and effective community
mobilisation (Voisey, Beuermann, Sverdrup & O'Riordan, 1996). One of the key
principles of LA21 is that sustainability can only be achieved through planned,
democratic, cooperative means, including community involvement in decisions about the
environment and development (Jackson & Morpeth, 1999; Ritchie & Jay, 1999).
2.1.1 A Contentious Philosophy
Sustainable development, having been on the global agenda in some form for over two
decades is, broadly speaking, an accepted concept (Baker, 2006; Brown, 1995; Dalal-
Clayton & Bass, 2002; Mawhinney, 2002; Rao, 2000; Reid, 1995; Sofield, 2003; United
Nations, 1998). Support for the concept has been attributed to the appealing semantics of
the term, which offers the attractive, although somewhat contradictory, possibility of
continuing economic development that does not unduly strain the earth’s environmental,
socio-cultural or economic carrying capacities (Aronsson, 2000; Weaver & Lawton,
1999). Sustainable development implies built environments become more liveable
through the substantial re-use of existing manmade and natural resources, ecosystems
become healthier, economic development becomes more responsive to the needs of place
rather than furthering the profits of a powerful few, and the benefits of improved
environmental and economic conditions become more equitably distributed (Barke &
Towner, 2003; Berke, 2002). Farrell (1999) refers to the ‘sustainability trinity’, of equal
consideration to the economy, society and the environment, which has been described as
an ethical requirement for social responsibility for present and future generations (Berke,
2002; Dutton & Hall, 1989; Ireland, 1997).
The sustainability concept received bureaucratic and business support because it did not
reject economic growth, but actually suggested that economic growth could enhance
environmental protection through a free market (Hardy & Beeton, 2001). As Bramwell
and Lane (1993, p.1) observe, “sustainability brought the cautious but sometimes
negative thinking of the conservationist together with the positive but sometimes heedless
25
world of the developer”. The international acceptance of sustainable development can
also be credited to its emergence at a time when scientific, economic and environmental
problems were converging, fuelled by a rapidly growing conservation movement
(Beaumont, Pederson & Whitaker, 1993; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Harris & Leiper, 1995;
McKercher, 1993).
Despite the general acceptance of the underlying philosophy, definitional debates have,
and continue to, dominate discussion of the sustainable development concept (Barbier
1987; Steer & Wade-Gery, 1993). Some have claimed that the concept of sustainable
development is ambiguous, and some have even described it as an oxymoron (Hempel,
1999; O’Riordan, 1978). Much of the criticism levelled at the broader concept of
sustainable development is reflected in the sustainable tourism development literature.
2.2 The Sustainable Tourism Development Concept
Chapter One highlighted the considerable size and importance of the tourism industry to
the world’s economy and due to its magnitude, tourism’s potential to contribute to
sustainable development is considered to be substantial (Hunter, 1997). Despite this
tourism was not specifically addressed in LA21. However tourism’s global economic
importance and significant use of natural resources saw the World Tourism Organization
(WTO) introduce an action plan for sustainable tourism development- ‘Agenda 21 for the
Travel and Tourism Industry’ (Wall, 1997). In 1999 the WTO further developed a global
code of ethics for the responsible and sustainable development of international tourism
which included nine articles outlining the basic rules for governments, tour operators,
developers, travel agents, workers, as well as communities and the tourists themselves
(Neto, 2003; WTO, 2001). Within this context it was observed that tourism can
effectively contribute to sustainable development when:
“…it operates within natural capacities for the regeneration and future
productivity of natural resources; recognises the contribution that people
and communities, customs and lifestyles, make to the tourism experience;
accepts that these people must have an equitable share in the economic
26
benefits of tourism; and is guided by the wishes of local people and
communities in the host areas” (Eber, 1992, p.7).
The application of sustainable development ideologies to the tourism sector, while
certainly influenced by the broader sustainability debate, also evolved alongside the
increasing dissatisfaction with the negative environmental and social impacts of tourism
activity (Figure 2.1). The notion of ‘sustainable tourism’ arose in recognition of the
inherent tensions and frictions created by the interactions between the tourism industry,
visitors, the environment and the host communities. Described as a ‘tourism centric’
view (Hunter, 1995), sustainable tourism advocates the management of all resources
upon which tourism depends in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can
be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological
diversity and life support systems (Murphy, 1994). Butler (1998, p.27) notes, “the term
‘sustainable tourism’, rightly or wrongly has become widely accepted as meaning tourism
that is developed and operated in such a manner as to follow these principles”.
Figure 2.1: The Evolution of the Sustainable Tourism Concept
1960 1970 1980 1990
Source: Adapted from Swarbrooke, 1998
Sustainable tourism is intended to be a positive and proactive approach to tourism
development, attempting to ensure the long-term viability and quality of both natural and
Recognition of the potential impacts of the boom in mass tourism
Growth in the concept of visitor management
The birth of the concept of green
tourism
Growth of the concept of sustainable tourism
Recognition of the importance of community
participation
27
human resources (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Hughes, 1995; Sharpley, 2000; Swarbrooke,
1998). Unlike sustainable development which is underpinned by the concept of
development, sustainable tourism has changed its focus from the traditional notions of
environmental ethics, quality of life and cultural integrity with growth and progress, to
include business viability and customer satisfaction (Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Muller,
1994; Prosser, 1994). Here sustainable tourism can be considered a means of alleviating
the economic deterioration arising from poorly planned and managed tourism
development in an attempt to maintain, in perpetuity, the characteristics that make it a
desirable place for residents to live and tourists to visit (De Lacy, Battig, Moore &
Noakes, 2002; Manning & Dougherty, 2000).
2.2.1 Defining Sustainable Tourism
While sustainable tourism has attracted a high level of support at the conceptual level
(MacLellan, 1997), there is little agreement in defining the concept. This can no doubt be
attributed to the fact that sustainable tourism has been described as ambiguous, vague,
parochial, sectorial, a cliché, a mythical concept, and a ‘lion’s den’ of semantics (Butler,
1993; Hunter, 1995; McKercher, 1993; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Muller, 1994; Orams,
1995; Robinson, 1999; Swarbrooke, 1998). Different perceptions and interpretations of
sustainable development principles and their application to the tourism sector have also
played an important role in the way in which sustainable tourism has been defined within
the literature, hence numerous authors have offered definitions (Archer, Cooper &
Ruhanen, 2004; Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Buckley, 1996; Cater & Goodall, 1992; Cronin,
1990; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Harris & Leiper, 1995; House, 1997; Inskeep, 1991;
Swarbrooke, 1998). This has stemmed criticisms that academics have been inwardly
focused on defining and debating the concept which has confused researchers, visitors,
residents, businesses and governments alike, and not contributed in any meaningful way
to considerations of how the concept might be put into practice (Berry & Ladkin, 1997;
Orams, 1995; Swarbrooke, 1998). Garrod and Fyall (1998, p.200) argue that, “unless
these definitions can be translated into something that is meaningful in practice, they
28
remain at best academic curios, at worst a threat to the achievement of genuinely
sustainable tourism”.
The most commonly cited definition, and the one used to guide this research is the WTO
(1998, p.19) definition that sustainable tourism development,
“…meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting
and enhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading to
the management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and
aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity,
essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support
systems”.
To move beyond the search for a unitary and precise definition Bramwell (2004) calls for
a need to view sustainable tourism development as a social and political construct and as
a terrain of discourses. It can be seen as similar to concepts such as democracy, liberty
and social justice where there is a readily understood ‘first-level of meaning’, but around
them lie a number of fundamental contestations. While there is debate over the concept’s
definition, there is more agreement regarding the principles of sustainable tourism.
2.2.2 Underpinning Principles
Sustainable tourism has come to represent and encompass a set of principles, policy
prescriptions, and management methods, which chart a path for tourism development
such that a destination’s environmental resource base (including natural, built, social and
cultural features) is protected for future development (Welford & Ytterhus, 2004).
Sustainability is often referred to in terms of the metaphorical ‘triple bottom line’,
referring to the consideration of economic, social and environmental goals and outputs.
In this respect the WTO (1993, p.11) considers that tourism is sustainable when it
“improves the quality of life of the host community; provides a high quality of
experience for the visitor; and maintains the quality of the environment on which both
the host community and the visitor depend”.
29
The United Nations (2003) propose a set of 18 core principles for sustainability
(Appendix Three) including broad based stakeholder participation and control, equitable
distribution of benefits, a long term planning horizon, and acceptable scale of
development. These principles are set as overarching goals and objectives of the tourism
sector, that is, practices destinations should aim to achieve to meet the principles of
sustainable tourism development. It is generally acknowledged that, in conjunction with
such broad principles, there are a number of implications or basic elements critical to the
sustainable tourism development agenda. Bramwell and Lane (1993) note that there is a
need for holistic planning and strategy formulation, preservation of ecological processes,
protection of human heritage and biodiversity, and sustained productivity over the long
term to benefit future generations. Ritchie (1999) also identifies several planning related
aspects necessary for sustainable tourism development including the need for a long-term
planning horizon; an integrated and cumulative perspective of environmental, social and
economic impacts, integrating tourism planning and development in the broader social,
economic and environmental planning agenda of the destination and ensuring an
approach to tourism planning and development that reflects the broader trends and
expectations with regard to the level of community consultation involved. These
implications reflect the requirement that strategic planning and stakeholder participation
are fundamental in achieving, or attempting to achieve sustainable tourism. As such,
these concepts are briefly introduced here and discussed in further detail in Chapter
Three.
2.2.2.1 Strategic Planning for Sustainable Tourism
The WTO (1983, p.10) have claimed “the absence of planning and failure by the public
sector to assume responsibilities…has been responsible for most of the negative results of
tourism development”. As such strategic tourism planning is considered imperative to
ensure that a destination’s resources are managed and sustained for the future and the
different interests such as environmental, financial, community and tourist satisfaction
are addressed (Hall 2000; Hardy & Beeton, 2001). Wahab and Pigram (1997) claim it
requires a broad vision, which encompasses a larger time, and space frame than what
30
would be traditionally required in normal tourism planning and decision-making. Cooper
(1995) concurs noting that there is a clear synergy between the adoption of sustainable
tourism principles and the disciplined, longer-term perspective provided by the strategic
planning of both destinations and markets. Strategy in the case of sustainable tourism
planning and development seeks to achieve three basic strategic objectives: conservation
of tourism resource values; enhanced experiences of the visitors who interact with
tourism resources; and the maximisation of the economic, social and environmental
returns to stakeholders in the host community (Dutton & Hall, 1989; Hall, 2000).
Sustainable tourism offers the means for a more holistic framework for planning, policy
and development than has previously been the case, while ensuring that tourism’s
benefits are equitably distributed between all stakeholders (Harrison & Husbands, 1996;
Page & Thorn, 2002; Wall, 1997). It requires a “social process through which ways of
thinking, ways of valuing and ways of acting are actively constructed by participants”
(Healey, 1997, p.29). As a result sustainable tourism planning is seen as a multiple
stakeholder process in which individual interests are brought together in order to decide
over the ‘tourism commons’ such as facilities for the tourists and the local population
(Briassoulis, 2002). As defined by the WTO (2004, p.7):
“Sustainable tourism development requires the informed participation of
all relevant stakeholders, as well as strong political leadership to ensure
wide participation and consensus building. Achieving sustainable tourism
is a continuous process and it requires constant monitoring of impacts,
introducing the necessary preventive and/or corrective measures whenever
necessary. Sustainable tourism should also maintain a high level of tourist
satisfaction and ensure a meaningful experience to the tourists, raising
their awareness about sustainability issues and promoting sustainable
tourism practices amongst them”.
31
2.2.2.2 Stakeholder Participation for Sustainable Tourism
Amongst the literature on sustainable tourism there is widespread agreement that broad
based and multiple stakeholder participation, particularly that of the local community, in
the tourism planning process is essential (Berke, 2002; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999;
Caffyn & Jobbins, 2003; Eligh, Welford & Ytterhus, 2002; Gee & Fayos-Sola, 1997;
Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Holland, 2000; Lankford & Lankford, 2000; Marien & Pizam,
1997; Murphy, 1988; Pforr, 2001; Richards & Hall, 2000; Robinson, 1999; Sadler, 2004;
Swarbrooke, 1998). As Singh (2003) notes, no form of tourism development, however
ingeniously conceived, can foster sustainability if it fails to respect the needs and
aspirations of the local people. Therefore, the achievement of sustainable development
objectives is considered to hinge on the adoption of a participatory model, involving the
meaningful engagement of the community, along with industry stakeholders and relevant
government agencies (Faulkner, 2003). The interaction amongst the stakeholders of a
tourism destination, can also be described in terms of collaboration or synergies (Aas,
Ladkin & Fletcher, 2005; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Buhalis & Cooper, 1998; Laws,
Scott & Parfitt, 2002; Reed, 1999), that is:
“A process of joint decision-making among autonomous, key stakeholders
of an inter-organizational, community tourism domain to resolve planning
problems of the domain and/or to manage issues related to the planning and
development of the domain” (Jamal & Getz 1995, p.188).
Sustainability has been viewed as an overarching framework which can dramatically shift
the practice of local participation from dominance by narrow special interests towards a
more holistic, inclusive and empowered view (Berke, 2002; Sadler, 2004). It is also
credited with promoting the consideration of the economic, environmental and social
impacts of tourism (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Murphy, 1988; Pforr, 2001) and can
facilitate a common sense of ownership and direction for the myriad of stakeholders,
while at the same time sharpening the guiding objectives of the destination (Cooper,
1997). These issues will be further explored in Chapter Three.
32
2.3 The State of the Sustainability Debate
The lack of a widely accepted definition has caused some confusion over what
sustainable tourism actually means (Berry & Ladkin, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998), and the
differing viewpoints on the concept have led many to question the validity of achieving
sustainability. Hunter (1997) notes that however attractive the notion of sustainable
tourism is as a balanced development option, difficult questions remain to be addressed:
How the concept can be achieved? How is it determined when sustainability has been
achieved? What does protecting the resource base mean? What are the needs of future
generations? (Beckerman, 1992; Hunter, 1997; Lele, 1991; Liu, 2003; McMinn, 1997;
Sofield, 2003; Stabler, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998). The difficulty and inherent
subjectiveness in these questions has seen some claim that it is an intellectually appealing
concept with little practical application (Wheeler, 1993); or that completely sustainable
tourism is most likely a myth, as development requires environmental and social sacrifice
to some degree and therefore we can only hope to make tourism more sustainable than it
was before (Aronsson, 2000; Basu, 2003; Butler, 1998; Goodall & Stabler, 1997;
Swarbrooke, 1998).
2.3.1 Sustaining Tourism or Sustainable Tourism?
Some have seen sustainable tourism as a panacea for the ‘evils’ of mass tourism activity.
It has been suggested that sustainable tourism requires the replacement of mass tourism
activity with small-scale developments and enterprise (Clarke, 1997; Liu, 2003; Simpson
& Roberts, 2000), spawning the notions of alternative, appropriate, responsible, green,
nature, community-based, rural, or soft tourism, often incorporated within the banner of
‘ecotourism’ (Blank, 1989; Boo, 1990; Fennell & Eagles, 1990; Haywood, 1988;
Holland, 2000; Kariel, 1989; Krippendorf, 1987; Lane, 1989; Murphy, 1985; Pezzey,
1989; Singh, Theuns & Go, 1989). The notion of ecotourism is viewed by many as a
beneficial by-product of the sustainability agenda due to the idea that ecologically fragile
areas can be protected with the financial returns of ecotourism activities (Diamantis &
Ladkin, 1999; Neto, 2003; Wight, 2003).
33
Although a widely acknowledged concept (Blamey, 2001; Boo, 1990; Campbell, 1999;
Cater & Lowman, 1994; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Fennell, 1999; Honey, 1999;
Lindberg, Wood & Engeldrum, 1999; Weaver, 1998), the notion that ecotourism is
synonymous with sustainable tourism has received considerable criticism. Wall (1997,
p.46) notes that,
“The interchangeable use of the terms ecotourism and sustainable
tourism…displays an inadequate understanding of both terms for, clearly,
not all forms of ecotourism are sustainable and not all sustainable tourism
needs to be in natural areas”.
The idea also shows a divergence from sustainable development theory, which is based
on the substantial re-use of existing manmade and natural resources (Barke & Towner,
2003). Concern has also been expressed that such activities are actually more harmful
than conventional ‘mass’ tourism as the average ecotourist is more demanding
environmentally than the mass tourist who may not need to visit remote locations, and
whose needs and wastes can be more readily planned for and managed in large numbers
incorporating economies of scale (Butler, 1993; Fyall & Garrod, 1997; Harris & Leiper,
1995; Kirstges, 2003; Lück, 2003; Simpson & Roberts, 2000; Wall, 1997). It is also
widely claimed that ecotourism is simply a profit-driven, marketing gimmick to attract
new visitor segments and give green credentials and moral rectitude to tourist activities
(Butler, 1998; Croy & Hogh, 2003; Dewhurst & Thomas, 2003; Diamantis & Ladkin,
1999; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Harris & Leiper, 1995; Hunter, 1995; McKercher, 1993;
Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Muller, 1994; Neto, 2003; Swarbrooke, 1998; Wheeler, 1997).
Therefore Swarbrooke (1998) cites a need for more critical evaluations of existing
thinking and techniques in the area of sustainable tourism, and believes that there are too
many ‘sacred cows’ that are not being challenged, such as the assertion that small-scale
tourism is inherently more sustainable than mass tourism, regardless of the environment
in which it takes place.
Sustainable tourism calls for adherence to the broader sustainability concept in all types
of tourism activities, by all segments of the tourism industry and by all scales of tourism
(Butcher, 1997; Clarke, 1997; Diamantis & Ladkin, 1999; Farrell & Twining-Ward,
34
2005; Husbands & Harrison, 1996; Inskeep, 1991; Neto, 2003; WTO, 1995). The
challenge, however is that as a goal it sounds both right and viable, but that as an
objective, it may not be so easily attained (McMinn, 1997; Slee, Farr & Snowdon, 1997),
particularly in the context of a capitalist society (Aronsson, 2000; Singh, 2003).
However it should not be conceived in terms of a device by which to measure the
appropriateness of a particular tourism activity, nor should it be used as a means to
legitimise the use of newly discovered tracts of the world, but rather as a philosophical
base and idealised global target to which all forms of tourism must aspire (Godfrey,
1996; McMinn, 1997).
2.3.2 The Policy and Practice Response
Sustainability issues have become a key driver of the social and political agendas in many
countries (Berke, 2002; Jayawardena, 2003), and initiatives such as LA21 are considered
to be the primary framework for establishing tourism development plans around the globe
(Harrison, Jayawardena & Clayton, 2003). The public sector has assumed much of the
responsibility for leading the move towards developing more sustainable forms of
tourism, and Hunter (1997) notes that it is difficult to imagine the formulation and
implementation of any approach to sustainable tourism in the absence of strong local
authority planning and development control. This is due to the fact that the public sector
usually has a mandate to represent the whole population, not just particular interest
groups or stakeholders; it has the requisite legislative framework for action; it is seen to
be impartial without commercial interests; and because it is not constrained by short term
financial objectives it should be able to take a longer term view (Sinclair & Jayawardena,
2003; Swarbrooke, 1998). Despite this, it has been noted that the application of
sustainability will depend on the government’s values and ideologies (Godfrey, 1998;
Hall, 1998; Liu, 2003; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; McMinn, 1997; Weaver, 2006).
A number of authors have documented the growth in sustainability policy statements,
strategies, guidelines and initiatives from national, regional and local governments,
tourism organizations, businesses and local communities (Augustyn, 1998; Bramwell,
35
2004; Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Hardy & Beeton, 2001; Jepson, 2004). Cooper (1997)
also claims government are integrating sustainability principles into policy as evidenced
by a changing perspective from the short (1 to 5 year planning horizons) to long term (10
to 20 year planning horizons), which in turn has seen the adoption of a strategic approach
to both markets and destination planning and management.
However government at all levels has received criticism for hijacking, and even abusing
the sustainable term, to legitimise tourism development, achieve self-serving outcomes,
and even as a political slogan (Bramwell, 2004; Hempel, 1999; MacLellan, 1997;
Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Stabler, 1997; Wall, 1997). Government policies and plans for
sustainable tourism development have been described as little more than statements of
platitudes and rhetoric, backed by glossy images (Berke & Manta Conroy, 2000; Pforr,
2001; Pigram, 1990; Slee et al, 1997). There are “many apocryphal accounts of
governments, as well as destination communities, paying lip-service to sustainable
tourism in order to gain funding with a view to applying it to economic development
through tourism. It is little wonder, therefore, that the term sustainable tourism is derided
as a monumental oxymoron” (Stabler, 1997, p.4). There have also been criticisms that
governments have adopted sustainable tourism development ideologies with “so much
enthusiasm but so little real action” (Butler, 1997, p.119).
The role of government is such that they are encouraged to grow tourism as a means of
economic development and growth, and policies pursued are therefore most suited to the
interests of the national economy and the tourism industry (Bramwell, 2004; Dymond,
1997). Bramwell (2004, p.32) notes that as a result, “governments frequently talk ‘green’
but, in practice, usually give priority to economic growth over environmental protection”.
Consequently sustainable tourism policies may give the appearance of a paradigm shift
but in reality are focused on traditional concerns of economic returns (Butler, 1991;
Dovers & Handmer, 1993; Harrison et al, 2003; Wight, 2003). This has been found to be
the case in Australia, where despite suggestions that sustainability is a ‘motherhood’
issue (McKercher, 1993), economic goals are given a far higher priority than social and
environmental concerns in state and national government’s tourism policy agenda (Hall,
36
1994). Studies of Scotland (MacLellan, 1997), Southern Europe (Bianchi, 2004) and
Sweden (Aronsson, 2000) have aired similar criticisms noting that policy is overtly
focused on economic growth targets with sustainability addressed only to the extent that
it does not challenge the core pillars of free markets and profit maximisation. Spain has
also received criticism for its policies (Barke & Towner, 2003; Bianchi, 2004; Hunter-
Jones, Hughes, Eastwood & Morrison, 1997) where the term has been adopted more in
name than in actual practice, and new development still shows little sign of learning from
the negative experiences of many Spanish destinations. While overriding economic
objectives are obviously an issue, some have also attributed such problems to a general
lack of understanding by government of the principles underlying sustainable tourism
development (Harrison et al, 2003; MacLellan, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998). The role of the
government in sustainable tourism planning will be further addressed in Chapter Three
(section 3.3.3.1).
The private sector of the tourism industry has also been the target of much criticism
regarding sustainable tourism, despite the reports of some operators within the
hospitality, transport and attractions sectors introducing environmental measures such as
energy conservation, recycling and waste reduction, and triple bottom line accounting
(Checkley, 1992; Dwyer, 2005; Jayawardena, 2003; Murphy, 1998; Swarbrooke, 1998).
Harris and Leiper (1995) however, warn against assuming this is the norm. In the UK the
public sector have designed initiatives to encourage voluntary action at the level of the
individual business although this has focused mainly upon the production of good
practice guides emphasising the compatibility of environmental policies with business
success. It has been claimed that this may be the best way of stimulating business
interest in environmental concerns (Dewhurst & Thomas, 2003; Dutton & Hall, 1989;
Hall, 2000; Middleton & Hawkins, 1998). Others, however, are not so complementary of
such sustainability initiatives. Wheeler (1994, p.651), a strong critic of sustainable
tourism, notes that, “just a never-ending series of laughable codes of ethics: codes of
ethics for travellers; codes of ethics for tourists, for government and for tourism
businesses. Codes for all, or more likely codeine for all”. Such statements highlight that
despite such initiatives, the private sector has no pervasive or deep embrace of the
37
concept aside from its use as a marketing or re-branding tool, which serves self-interests
of financial sustainability (Eligh et al, 2002; Weaver, 2006).
Policy and practice progress towards sustainable tourism development can be seen in an
excerpt from Swarbrooke (1998, p.vii),
“In recent years, the concept of sustainable tourism has taken centre stage in
the tourism world. So much has been written and spoken about sustainable
tourism that one could be forgiven for thinking there is nothing left to say
on the subject. However, for all the words, there are still relatively few
examples of successful sustainable tourism initiatives…in other words we
have failed to put theory into practice. Even where attempts have been
made to turn words into action, the results have generally been very
limited”.
Trousdale (1999) also acknowledges that despite the widely acknowledged need for more
sustainable development in tourism, there remains a large and growing gap between
sustainability doctrine and actual achievements.
2.3.3 Sustainability Indicators and Measurement Models
The gap between theory and practice can be attributed to the fact that while it is relatively
easy to conceptualise and proselytise about the need for sustainable tourism development,
it is far more challenging to develop an effective, yet practical measurement process
(Murphy, 1998). However, as sustainability is increasingly being viewed as “a necessity,
not just an ‘ethical option’ for tourism development” (Cabrini, 2004, p.2), a series of
instruments and tools have been developed. Although not without criticisms (Butler,
1997; Coccossis & Parpairis, 1995; James, 2001; Liu, 2003; McMinn, 1997; Rigby,
Howlett & Woodhouse, 2000; Swarbrooke, 1998; Velikova, 2001), the concepts of
thresholds and carrying capacity have been proposed as providing practical ways to
understand the net effects of the positive and negative impacts associated with tourism
(Bosselman, Peterson, Craig & McCarthy, 1999; Cooper, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert &
38
Wanhill, 2005; D’Amore, 1983; Dymond, 1997; Pigram, 1990; Quattrone, 2002; Rigby et
al, 2000).
Indicators for sustainability have also been proposed in an attempt to determine critical
levels of tourism activity on a place (Barke & Towner, 2003; Basu, 2003; Dymond, 1997;
Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Rebello & Baidal, 2004; Weaver, 2006). It is claimed that
indicators of sustainable tourism can be used as an early warning system to trigger
planning and management strategies, thus preventing irreversible tourism impacts. The
WTO (1995) have developed a range of sustainable tourism indicators for site protection,
stress, use intensity, social impact, development control, waste management, planning
process, critical ecosystems, consumer satisfaction and tourism contribution to the local
economy. The use of indicators, particularly at the local level, has been recommended to
provide benchmarks of change and progress (James, 2001). A further area, which is
receiving increasing attention, is sustainability accreditation (or ecotourism
accreditation). A plethora of programs have emerged over recent years such as Green
Globe 21, the European Blue Flag Campaign and the WWF’s PAN Parks program
(Harris, Griffin & Williams, 2002), designed to provide formal assessments and
benchmarks of an organization’s sustainability performance.
A variety of sustainability tools and models have also been proposed in an attempt to
monitor progress towards sustainability. Some of these include: demand/visitor
management strategies, land use and environmental impact assessments and socio-
economic indicators (Ashworth, 1995; Buhalis & Fletcher, 1995; Deery, Jago &
Fredline, 2005; Fyall & Garrod, 1997; Manning & Dougherty, 2000; McCool, 1993;
McCool & Lime, 2001; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Rebello & Baidal, 2004; Stabler, 1997;
Swarbrooke, 1998; Westlake, 1995). Models such as the ‘tourist ecological footprint’
(Hunter, 2002), barometer of tourism sustainability (Ko, 2001), tourism optimisation
management model (McCool & Lime, 2001), sustainability assessment maps (Ko, 2005),
and codes of conduct and good practice (Twynam & Johnston, 2002), among others,
have also been recommended.
39
It has been suggested that, despite the model or approach taken, the tourism industry
should adopt a safe minimum standard approach to development which aims to minimise
the risk that irreversible changes will foreclose development opportunities for future
generations (Liu, 2003; Pigram, 1990). There is some degree of consensus that a holistic
and iterative strategic framework for planning the future development of an area is
required, which assesses development on an ongoing basis to identify impacts and
provide information to guide subsequent responses (Dymond, 1997). Such a framework
has been seen as the responsibility of the public sector as it is often suggested that local
authorities are most appropriate for assuming responsibility for sustainable development
as they provide an existing and critical operational link between ministerial and
legislative directives and the varied components of the operating tourism industry
(Aronsson, 2000; Ashworth, 1995; Dymond, 1997; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995).
2.3.4 Factors for Success
The WTO (2004, 2000) have identified a range of success factors for achieving
sustainability, most of which centre on stakeholder participation in tourism destination
planning. It is considered necessary that the local community has the opportunity to
participate and that cooperation exists between stakeholders, in addition to a commitment
to the environment and monitoring mechanisms to ensure the continuous improvement of
the process. These WTO success factors have been supported in other studies (Butler,
1997; Dutton & Hall, 1989; Evans 1997; Lew & Hall, 1998; Nitsch & van Straaten,
1995).
The planning horizon is also considered a vital factor in achieving sustainability and it
has been noted that there is a need to overcome, the often reverted to, short-term
perspective (Cooper 2002; Jepson, 2004; Lew & Hall, 1998; Swarbrooke, 1998; von
Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003). For this reason the notion of vision and visioning is believed
to be a contributor to sustainable tourism planning success. Page and Thorn (1997) note
the need for a national vision for tourism to guide efforts to achieve sustainable tourism
at the regional and local level, and Jayawardena (2003) has found a vision is necessary to
40
connect with stakeholders. Beatley (1995) also considers visioning a necessary planning
technique due to the future oriented requirements of sustainable tourism planning.
Planners and their communities must foresee and shape the scope and character of future
development, identify existing and emerging needs, and fashion new or amend existing
plans and policies to ensure that those needs will be met and that communities will be
able to continually reproduce and revitalise themselves (Berke, 2002). Such efforts entail
feedback, learning, and adaptive change through trial and error in which communities
generate knowledge and discover practical applications toward sustainability (Berke,
2002). To build this knowledge base Fyall & Garrod (1997) suggest that defining the
concept of sustainable development and establishing it as an objective of the tourism
industry is in fact the first step in achieving genuinely sustainable tourism.
Sustainable tourism planning, as discussed, also requires at a minimum stakeholder
involvement and participation, but ideally cooperation and collaboration. To ensure the
success of such efforts it is necessary to understand and diffuse the power base of
particular stakeholder groups through the empowerment of the local community (Bianchi,
2004; Brown & Essex, 1997; Hunter, 1997; Jamal & Getz, 1995; von Friedrichs
Grangsjo, 2003), otherwise “sustainable tourism simply recycles old methods such as
participation in a new language” (Crouch, 1994, p.98).
A holistic approach to destination management has also been identified as a key factor
arising from the sustainable tourism development agenda (Bramwell & Lane, 1993;
Faulkner, 2003; Ritchie, 1999). A destination management approach not only
incorporates strategic planning and broad based stakeholder participation, but also
recognises the need for planning that is not driven solely by a destination marketing
perspective. As Faulkner (2003, p.50) notes, “one of the more obvious implications…is
the need for a more comprehensive, integrated and holistic approach that goes beyond the
traditional focus on destination marketing to take into account a broader range of
environmental, social and economic issues”. The tendency to adopt a market orientation
towards tourism planning was noted as a challenge in many countries including Australia
(Chapter One).
41
Other aspects of success have also been identified in studies of sustainable tourism and
the sustainable tourism planning process including the need to: gain political support;
establish appropriate organizational structures; ensure experienced, knowledgeable and
involved local authorities; and secure adequate funding and resources (Brown & Essex,
1997; Hunter, 1997; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995; Nitsch & van Straaten, 1995).
Butler (1997) also identifies the need for clarification of the effects of changes associated
with tourism compared with other forms of development, and regulation and control of
the rate, type and level of development, while Lew and Hall (1998) add the need to
readdress the value orientation so that tourism impacts take precedence over market
economics.
2.4 Moving the Sustainability Concept Towards Practice
The sustainable tourism concept is fraught with debate, disagreement and contention.
However it is the position taken by many, and the one used to guide this research, that
sustainable tourism is not a product, but a necessary philosophical base to underpin and
provide direction for tourism destination planning. While accepting that actual
sustainability may only ever be approached rather than permanently achieved (Butler,
1997; Milne, 1998), Beatley (1995) advocates that the difficulties associated with
sustainability should not paralyse us into complacency or non-action. He highlights the
role of planners in “promoting the dialogue about sustainability and in conceiving public-
policy solutions that promote sustainability” (Beatley, 1995, p.392). The notion that
inaction is unacceptable is supported by Bramwell and Lane (1993, p.3) who note that,
“One must ask what the alternatives are to developing more sustainable
tourism- presumably either sit back and do nothing or else to criticise
without offering any realistic, practical ways forward. Both alternatives
seem likely to…allow the negative effects of tourism to increase further in
scale”.
42
While there is opportunity for academic debate and discourse regarding the concept, this
must take second place to the development of practical tools, particularly in the area of
planning, for destination planners, managers and their communities to address
sustainability, “it is easy to discuss sustainability but…the time has come to walk the
talk” (Bramwell & Lane, 1993, p.4). A key problem is that there is a ‘grey’ area of
rhetoric between sustainability principles and translation into workable objectives and
standards (Goodall & Stabler, 1997) and to overcome this a number of authors have
noted the need to move on from the conceptual debate and given consideration to the
actual practice of sustainable tourism development (Fyall & Garrod, 1997; Liu, 2003;
Pearce & Turner, 1993; Slee et al, 1997; Welford & Ytterhus, 2004).
2.5 Chapter Two Summary
This chapter has provided an overview of the sustainable tourism development concept,
and more importantly critiqued the state of the sustainability debate to help place the
research issue in the context of current international perspectives on the topic. There is
obviously considerable debate regarding sustainable tourism and its practical application.
While it is important to acknowledge this, it is considered that the sustainable tourism
development concept does offer guidelines and philosophies by which current and future
tourism development decisions can be measured against. By utilising a sustainable
development approach to planning at least some progress can be made towards ensuring
economic, environmental and social aspects are given, ideally equal, but at least due
consideration. This is surely better than no action at all (Bramwell & Lane, 1993).
It was identified that a potential inhibitor is moving the sustainability concept from
theory to practice. Although it may appear that progress is being made in this area,
studies such as Jepson’s (2004) highlight that while planning documents are increasingly
identifying sustainable development as their conceptual basis, this is not carried through
into actual policies and programs. Therefore if sustainability is to move beyond a vague
idealism, the task ahead for planners is to translate theory into practice as the gap is
43
growing rapidly between sustainability doctrine and actual achievements (Berke, 2002;
Trousdale, 1999).
In spite of these challenges, the sustainable tourism development concept has received
more acceptance as a broad framework for planning than as a quantifiable and achievable
objective. Similarly the requirement that strategic planning and stakeholder participation
must underpin a sustainable approach to tourism planning has received some level of
agreement amongst authors. Chapter Three examines the concepts of strategic planning
and stakeholder participation as contributors to sustainable tourism in more detail.
44
Chapter Three
Strategic Planning and Stakeholder Participation as Contributors to
Sustainable Tourism
3.0 Introduction
The negative impacts of tourism activity have primarily been attributed to inadequate or
non-existent planning frameworks for tourism development. Therefore it has been
advocated that tourism planning is vital to offset the harmful, and attempt to maximise
the positive, impacts that tourism can have on a destination community. While several
different approaches have evolved, tourism planning based on the philosophies of
sustainability has emerged as one of the most comprehensive approaches. However, two
critical concepts have been identified as precursors to a sustainable approach to tourism
planning: a strategic orientation towards tourism planning and enhanced levels of
multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process (Simpson, 2001).
This chapter examines the concepts of strategic planning and stakeholder participation.
Although inextricably linked in the context of sustainable tourism development, each of
these concepts has evolved from a distinct and considerable body of literature. This
chapter firstly discusses the need for tourism planning and the various tourism planning
approaches that have emerged, before examining the notion of strategic tourism
destination planning, including an overview of the organizational origins of strategy and
strategic planning. Secondly stakeholder participation in tourism planning is discussed.
Beginning with an overview of public participation and citizen democracy ideologies, the
evolution of these concepts to tourism is examined. The three key stakeholder groups in
tourism destinations, the government, the industry and the resident community are also
addressed, as well as the more recent calls to move beyond the notion of participation to
engage in stakeholder collaboration and cooperation in tourism destination planning.
45
3.1 Impetus for Tourism Destination Planning
In the ‘boom’ years following World War II, increased leisure time, higher disposable
incomes, migration and rapid advances in transportation technology saw unprecedented
levels of international travel. Governments around the world soon recognised the
potential of their natural and cultural assets as attractors for travellers and in turn
stimulants for economic development (Coltman, 1989; Cooper & Pigram, 1984; Crouch
& Shaw, 1992; Goeldner, 1992; Harrison, 1992; Holloway, 1994; Yau & Chan, 1990).
Murphy (1985, p.155) claims that as a result countries were “lured…into the business
with little forethought concerning a viable tourism product, the social and environmental
consequences of development, or the spill over effects in surrounding areas”.
The approach to tourism development was essentially myopic both in terms of economic
objectives, which were seen to be a self-justifying end, and in terms of planning (Archer,
1997; Coccossis, 1996; Goeldner, 1992; Lickorish & Jenkins, 1997; McKercher, 1992;
Murphy, 1985; Spanoudis, 1982). The rapid pace and confidence associated with tourism
activity often meant that responses to impacts were matched by ad hoc responses
reflecting the optimism (Bosselman, Peterson, Craig & McCarthy, 1999; Briassoulis,
2002; Hall, 1998; Cooper & Jackson, 1989; Young, Richins & Rugimbana, 1993). Little
if any thought was given to the structured development of destinations and the idea of
such planning was an unpopular idea (French, Craig-Smith & Collier, 1995; Gunn, 1988).
Where planning was utilised it was perceived as simply a process to select a hotel or
resort site, ensure there was transportation access to the area, and to organise a tourist
promotional campaign (Inskeep, 1991). The WTO (1994, p.iix) note that
“These uncontrolled developments may have brought some short-term
economic benefits but over the long term have resulted in environmental and
social problems and poor quality tourist destinations…it is obviously better to
plan for controlled development initially, and prevent problems from arising
in the first place”.
46
3.1.1 Tourism Planning
Planning essentially refers to thinking and making decisions about current and future
activity (Ackoff, 1970; Bryson & Einsweiler, 1988; Koontz, 1958; Lang, 1986;
Ozbekhan, 1969; Sawyer, 1983; Snyder & Glueck, 1980; Steiner, 1969; van Gunsteren,
1976; Wilkinson, 1997). Physical planning is a practice that has taken place for centuries
(Gunn, 1994), and Mason and Leberman (2000) claim that modern physical or urban
planning can be traced back at least two hundred years to the United Kingdom, where
town planning emerged as the population became increasingly urbanised and
industrialized, and the associated environmental and social problems escalated.
While physical planning is still primarily concerned with residential, commercial and
industrial land uses there has been a move away from the preparation of ‘master’ plans
which are seen to be too rigid and not feasible to implement over an extended period
(Butler & Hall, 1998; Healey, 1997; Inskeep, 1991). More recent approaches focus on
planning as an ongoing, flexible process, conducted incrementally with continuous
monitoring and feedback on the effects of implementation, in order to influence decision
making for the next stage of development (Inskeep, 1991; Mason & Leberman, 2000). In
this context planning is increasingly encompassing a wider range of considerations,
including environmental protection, commercial and corporate interests and public
opinion, which have previously been considered outside a physical planners domain
(Dredge, 1999). Gunn (1994) further supports the move towards ‘new’ planning and
notes that a broader and more effective planning philosophy is being employed and
frequently terms such as public involvement, participatory planning, grass roots planning,
and integrative planning are being linked to modern planning. Lang (1986) describes this
as a ‘learning adaptive model of planning’ and suggests it is capable of creating a sense
of commonality which may motivate actors to seek new forms of collaborative action;
and in turn build capacity to respond effectively to changes as well as generate change
when necessary.
47
In the context of tourism, planning broadly refers to the anticipation and regulation of
change to mitigate negative development issues through the promotion of orderly
development and increasing the social, economic and environmental benefits of tourism
to an area, while satisfying the needs of residents and guests (French et al, 1995; Inskeep,
1991, 1988; Jansen-Verbeke, 1992; Jenkins, 1991; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Murphy,
1985; Timothy, 1999; van Harssel, 1994). It can also be viewed as a decision-making
and organizational process for determining and designing preferred future tourism
development (Chadwick, 1971; Fridgen, 1991; Haywood, 1988; Inskeep, 1991; Poon,
1993; Veal, 1994). The experiences of early tourism destinations highlight the fact that
completely unregulated or unplanned tourism development will almost certainly lead to
the degradation of the physical and social resource base upon which tourism and the
destination community depends (Butler, 1980; Doxey, 1975; Formica & Uysal, 1996;
Gunn, 1994; Hall, 2000; Inskeep, 1991; Lundberg, 1972; Manning & Dougherty, 2000;
Smith, 1992; Veal, 1994). Therefore destinations with carefully planned development are
likely to experience the most success in terms of high tourist satisfaction level, positive
economic benefits, and minimal negative impacts on the local social, economic, and
physical environments (Timothy, 1999). In this context a tourism destination is broadly
defined as a physical space in which a visitor spends at least one night and includes
tourism products such as support services and attractions (WTO, 2004). Destinations
may further be defined by geographical or political boundaries (Bieger, 1998;
Capenerhurst, 1994; Pearce, 1989).
Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1971) identify a number of reasons why public authorities
might instigate tourism planning including; to launch or develop the tourism industry in
an area with the objective of the plan being to initially assess opportunities for tourism
development; to organise regional development around an existing resort and/or to
protect resources; to control spontaneous development by individual entrepreneurs; to
protect and enhance the resources of the area; and, to integrate tourism development into
the overall policies of regional and economic planning. Hall (1998, p.244) reiterates the
importance of integrating tourism within the wider planning process in order to “promote
48
certain goals of economic, social and environmental enhancement or maximisation that
may be achieved through appropriate tourism development”.
The processes and techniques of planning have had to adapt to ever increasing rates of
political, social, cultural, economic and environmental change and as such there has been
a significant evolution in tourism planning paradigms from narrow concerns with
physical planning and promotion to a more balanced form that recognises the need for
greater community involvement and environmental sensitivity (Getz 1987; Gunn, 1977;
Inskeep 1991; Murphy 1985; Pearce, 1989; Timothy, 1999; Tosun & Jenkins, 1998). The
various tourism planning approaches have been described in terms of evolutions of
government policy (Airey, 1983; Cooper, 1995; Din, 1992; Getz, 1986; Godfrey, 1996;
Hall, 1998; Lundberg, 1972), platforms (Jafari, 1990), and as a series of methodologies
developed in response to dissatisfaction with planning efforts (Jain, 2000; Tosun &
Jenkins, 1998). Based on the traditions of tourism planning originally proposed by Getz
(1986) and further conceptualised by Hall (2000), five approaches to tourism planning
are considered: economic, physical, environmental, community and sustainable.
Table 3.1: Overview of the Evolution of Tourism Planning
Time frame
Tosun & Jenkins (1998)
Hall (1998) Jafari (1990) Getz (1986) / Hall (2000)
Current Study
1950-1960s
Unplanned development
era
Streamlining of policies
Advocacy Boosterism Economic
1960-1970s
Supply oriented
Marketing and supply
- Economic Physical
1970-1980s
Demand oriented
- Cautionary Physical and spatial
Environmental
1980-1990s
Integrated - Knowledge- based
Community Community
1990-2000…
Collaborative Pubic- private partnerships
Public platform
Sustainable Sustainable
Jafari (1990) proposes a series of platforms, which encapsulate the evolving perspectives
of tourism and it’s associated impacts. The first is considered the advocacy platform,
which arose following World War II where economic reconstruction and expansion of
tourism underpinned favorable views of tourism development. The cautionary platform
49
emerged in the early 1970s and challenged the advocacy platform with the negative
consequences of tourism. Sociologists and anthropologists began to criticize the overt
emphasis on tourism economics and this spawned a major increase in academic research
on tourism. The third platform, adaptancy, which arose in the 1980s addressed
alternative forms of tourism and focused on new, green, responsible, and soft tourism
which was argued to have fewer negative impacts. Jafari’s (1990) final platform is the
knowledge based platform which, arising in the 1990s aims to position itself on a body of
knowledge and learn from the mistakes of the past. However Jafari (1990) does add the
caveat that no one platform has replaced another and all can be found concurrently in the
tourism literature.
3.1.1.1 Economic Approach to Tourism Planning
The economic approach is recognized as not only one of the first approaches to tourism
planning, but is said to have been the dominant tradition towards tourism development
and planning since the early 1960s (Getz, 1986). Depicted by Getz (1986) as
‘boosterism’, it is based on the ‘simplistic’ assumption that tourism development is
inherently good and of automatic benefit to the hosts so little if any attention is given to
the negative impacts of tourism activity. This can be attributed to the fact that a tourism
destination’s success is invariably measured in terms of economic returns, and is based
on the assumption that cultural and natural resources are commodities to be utilised for
tourism development (Kaiser & Helber, 1978).
Under the economic tradition, tourism is seen as an industry which can be used as a tool
by governments to achieve certain goals of economic growth and restructuring, with
planning emphasizing the economic impacts of tourism and its most efficient use to
create income and employment benefits for regions or communities. One of the main
characteristics of the economic approach is the use of marketing to attract the type of
visitor who will provide the greatest economic benefit to the destination, given the
destination’s specific tourist resources. Getz (1986) actually describes this approach as a
form of ‘non-planning’ as where planning does occur it focuses on forecasting tourism
50
demand for the sole purpose of promotion and development as opposed to ensuring levels
of demand are appropriate to the resources and social carrying capacity of a region. In
retrospect the emphasis on this type of tourism planning can be attributed to the fact that
it evolved in a period where the positives of tourism were highly publicised and neither
the tourists nor the host community were aware or yet had reason to be concerned about
the impacts of tourism (Bhatia, 1986; Krippendorf, 1982; Murphy, 1985).
3.1.1.2 Physical Approach to Tourism Planning
Considered to have evolved alongside the economic approach, the physical (or land-use)
planning approach reflected a supply orientation towards development due to high levels
of tourist demand (Baud-Bovy, 1982; Choy, 1991). As with the economic, the physical
approach also demonstrated a lack of understanding or unwillingness to consider the
negative impacts of tourism development. Most tourism development plans were based
around detailed surveys and appraisals of the physical resources of the destination;
primarily concerned with land use planning for specific resort complexes, hotels and
visitor areas (Baud-Bovy & Lawson, 1971). Destination resources were carefully
analysed and combined with market surveys to produce an attractive image of future
tourism development, defining the necessary infrastructures and pointing out favourable
locations for the various facilities which was primarily for the benefit of investors and
developers (Baud-Bovy, 1982; Choy, 1991; Getz, 1986; Godfrey, 1996). In this way
planning became isolated, site-specific and non-integrated ventures, with little or no
concern about possible spin-off effects of proposals and projects on adjacent areas or
environments (Murphy, 1985).
Later approaches to physical planning reflected a growing recognition of tourism’s
ecological base and the need for development to be based upon certain spatial patterns
that would minimise the negative impacts of tourism on the physical environment. To
address the natural resources of a region and the capacity or limitations of sites to
withstand tourism infrastructure the concepts of physical and social carrying capacity,
environmental thresholds and acceptable or desirable rates of change became an issue
51
(Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998). Based on the work of geographers and land-use planners,
tourism planners sought to manipulate travel patterns by concentrating or dispersing
tourists in specific areas (Doswell, 1997; Hall et al, 1997; Pearce, 1989). While these
plans did begin to address the natural resources and travel patterns that occur within a
tourism destination, they failed to give attention to all attributes of the destination.
3.1.1.3 Environmental Approach to Tourism Planning
While the physical approach provided some early considerations of the impact of tourism
activity on the destinations natural resources, the environmental approach to tourism
planning gained force as the effects of tourism activity became tangible and recognisable
(Krippendorf, 1982). As the global conservation movement of the late 1960s and 1970s
gained momentum, tourism as a highly visible industry came under close scrutiny for its
impacts on the environment. During this period attention was forced away from a purely
economic and physical planning focus and began to address environmental concerns
(Godfrey, 1996). Host communities were forced to come to terms with the irreversible
and damaging effects of tourism on the environment, particularly in the larger tourist
areas where the negative effects of tourism on the environment had become very visible:
haphazard and unplanned building and settlement, architectural destruction of the
landscape, and the disturbance of the balance of nature (Krippendorf, 1982).
Throughout this phase the relative failure of the previous planning approaches which had
focused heavily on the positives of tourism became evident and led to the development of
a more comprehensive planning approach which recognised the importance of external
ramifications and where possible the need to accommodate them (Choy, 1991; Edington
& Edington, 1986; Romeril, 1989; Smith & Jenner, 1989). The environment in most
cases is the tourism product and people travel to an attraction or destination because of its
climate, its scenic beauty, or its manmade attractions (Kaiser & Helber, 1978). It was
realised that if the environment were overly degraded, tourists would no longer visit and
that it would therefore be in the best interests of the industry to protect the environment in
order to protect their livelihood. In an attempt to build suitable interactions between
52
tourists and the natural environment, Ocko (1990) claims that environmentally sensitive,
responsible, low-impact, alternative and ecotourism emerged as some of the new labels
that allow for ‘guilt-free’ travel (Chapter Two, section 2.3.1).
3.1.1.4 Community Approach to Tourism Planning
In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, as the numbers of tourists grew it was
acknowledged that not only was tourism having irreversible and damaging effects to the
natural environment, but it was also harming host communities and cultures. Tourism’s
potential as an economic force had been seized upon by government at all levels, but the
result has been top down planning and promotion that left destinations with little input
over their own destinies (Murphy, 1985). In addition, local residents while suffering the
negative impacts of tourism activity often did not receive any of the positive economic
returns of tourism. As Akis, Peristianis and Warner (1996, p.481) note, “governments,
perhaps persuaded by foreign entrepreneurs assurance of streets paved with gold, took
little trouble to consult with local residents”. The community approach to tourism
planning recognised the need to develop more socially acceptable guidelines for tourism
expansion while also addressing the need for local control over the development process
(Murphy, 1985). Considered a form of ‘bottom up’ planning, residents are the focal point
of the tourism planning exercise rather than the tourists, and the community, which is
often equated with a region of local government, is regarded as the basic planning unit
(Hall, 1998).
One of the key components of the community approach is the notion that in satisfying
local needs it may also be possible to satisfy the needs of the tourist, as tourism more than
any other industry relates to the total community, as it is a feature or combination of
features of that community that attracts tourists (Blank, 1989; Gunn, 1994; Hall, 1998;
McIntosh & Goeldner, 1986). The community approach to tourism planning stemmed
from the recognition that the community, and indeed a range of stakeholder groups
should participate in the tourism planning process. This concept is further discussed in
section 3.3 of this chapter.
53
3.1.1.5 Sustainable Approach to Tourism Planning
While reflecting the growing international debate on sustainable development generally
(Chapter Two), the sustainable approach to tourism planning in effect began to draw
together the distinctive approaches of the economic, physical, environmental, and
community approaches to tourism planning (Potts & Harrill, 1998). This is due to the
fact that sustainable development has the primary objective of providing lasting and
secure livelihoods, which minimise resource depletion, environmental degradation,
cultural disruption and social instability (Hall, 1998; Page & Thorn, 1997). Sustainable
development has also been advocated for the tourism sector as a possible solution to the
environmental and social degradation of the industry’s resources and due to the fact that
tourism is a resource industry which is dependent on nature’s endowment and society’s
heritage (Murphy, 1994).
The sustainable approach to tourism planning is based on a set of fundamental principles
and prerequisites including cooperation, industry coordination, consumer awareness of
sustainable and non-sustainable options, the preservation of ecological processes,
protection of human heritage and biodiversity and sustained productivity over the long
term for future generations (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Dutton & Hall, 1989). The two that
have been identified as the most crucial (Simpson, 2001), and are the most relevant to
this study, are strategic planning that incorporates stakeholder participation and
collaboration. These will be discussed in section 3.2 and 3.3.
The move towards strategic tourism destination planning was investigated by Cooper
(1995) who identified stages in the evolution of strategic planning in the offshore islands
of the United Kingdom (Table 3.2). Cooper concluded from his study that “the
prevailing philosophy of sustainable tourism development in the 1990s is being reflected
in the adoption of strategic planning at many destinations”; evidenced by the strategic
initiatives been implemented in response to the changing problems facing the industry
(Cooper, 1995, p.194). Further it was found that the experience of the islands
demonstrates that the strategic planning process is a difficult one for tourist destinations
54
as they do not function in the same way as companies and therefore other considerations
have to be built into the process- in particular consideration of the differing stakeholders
values and opinions.
Table 3.2: Evolution of Strategic Tourism Destination Planning
Stage Characteristics and Initiatives
Stage 1: Unplanned period
(prior to 1935)
• Predates formal tourist boards • Official tourist policy replacing private initiatives and
local chamber of commerce publicity Stage 2: Annual plans,
budgets and early
strategies (post World
War II)
• Development of annual plans, budgets and some early strategies
• Implementation of public sector tourist boards
Stage 3: Strategic
planning (from 1980s
onwards)
• Strategies developed, funded and led by public sector boards
• Strategies reactive- crisis management- perceived threats • Characterised by top down management and minimal
consultation Source: Cooper, 1995
3.1.1.6 Which Tourism Planning Approach in Practice?
While the above discussion alludes to a chronological progression with one planning
approach superceding its predecessor, as suggested by some authors (Table 3.1), others
have claimed that in reality this is not the case (Jafari, 2005, 1990). Due to the economic
benefits generated by tourism activity Getz (1987, 1986) notes that the economic
approach is still practiced in many countries and destinations, further claiming that
adopting an economic focus is when the real damage to the environment occurs.
According to Getz (1987, p.10),
“Boosterism is still practiced and always will be, by two groups of people:
politicians who philosophically or pragmatically believe that economic
growth is always to be promoted and by others who will gain financially by
tourism. They will go on promoting it until the evidence mounts that they
55
have run out of resources to exploit, that the real or opportunity costs are too
high, or that political opposition to growth can no longer be countered. By
then the real damage has usually been done”.
More recent work by Hall (1998) supports Getz’s notion that economic goals are given
priority over social and ecological issues and economic motivations are still foremost in
tourism planning. Simpson (2001) however, finds that while elements of each approach
can still be discerned in contemporary tourism development processes, it is possible to
detect an increasingly common adherence to sustainable tourism planning, through the
adoption of strategic planning principles (Cooper, 1995).
3.2 Strategic Planning as a Contributor to Sustainable Tourism
Strategic planning is recognized as one of the most important contributors to the
sustainable tourism planning approach (Dutton & Hall, 1989; Hall, 2000; Simpson,
2001). While tourism planning per se has been utilized in various forms and based on a
variety of approaches (section 3.1.1), the sustainable approach to tourism planning
requires destinations to move beyond traditional planning approaches and engage in
longer term strategic planning. Strategic planning is a widely accepted organizational
management technique that offers theories and concepts, which can be applied to
strategic planning in the context of a tourism destination.
3.2.1 The Strategic Planning Concept
The strategic planning concept reputedly evolved from studies of warfare in B.C. times
where military strategies were formulated with the aim of exploiting competitors’
weaknesses through objectives, missions and plans, to achieve an advantageous situation
and ultimately win the battle (David, 1999; Eden & Ackerman, 1998; Joyce & Woods,
1996; Macmillan & Tampoe, 2000; Makridakis, 1990; Oliver, 2001; Quinn, Mintzberg &
James, 1988). This resonates with modern applications of the concept as Porter (1996,
p.62) defines strategy as, “the creation of a unique and valuable position, involving a
56
different set of activities...to choose activities that are different from rivals”. It is
effectively a pattern of purposes, policies, programs, actions, decisions or resource
allocations that define what an organisation is, what it does and why it does it (Ansoff,
1988; Bryson, 1995; Campbell, Stonehouse & Houston, 1999; Chandler, 1962; Hart,
1992).
Modern thinking on business strategy was first applied in the United States and Europe in
the late 1950s and 1960s as cultural, economic and political events began to change the
dynamics and demands of the marketplace, forcing organizations to reconsider their
practices and products (Ansoff, 1979; Forster & Browne, 1996; Fredrickson, 1990; Joyce
& Woods, 1996; Macmillan & Tampoe, 2000). The solution was seen to lie in strategic
planning- a rational, analytical thought process, taking into account the opportunities
offered by the environment, the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation,
culminating in a detailed specification of both the long-term aims of the organisation and
the specific strategy for achieving these aims (Abell, 1980; Ansoff, Declerck & Hayes,
1976; Heracleous, 1998; Hussey, 1999; Kotler, Adam, Brown & Armstrong, 2001).
Strategic planning has been described as “a comprehensive plan of action that sets a
critical direction, and guides the allocation of resources to achieve long term objectives”
(Schermerhorn, 1996, p.160).
The concept of strategic planning is a cornerstone of conventional management theory. It
has proven to be an essential prerequisite for successful organisations (Miller & Cardinal,
1994) since the 1960s when the Harvard Business School developed the first of numerous
strategic planning models (Andrews, 1971; Ansoff, 1991, 1988; Chandler, 1962;
Drucker, 1955; Dyson, 1990; Evans, 2000; Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993; Kotler, Haider &
Rein, 1993; Macmillan & Tampoe, 2000; Miles & Snow, 1978; Mintzberg, 1990; Phillips
& Moutinho, 2000; Porter, 1990, 1985, 1980; Steiner, 1979; Whittington, 2001). The
vast body of literature on strategic planning has not led to a single school of strategic
thought or to an agreed set of concepts that will work well in all circumstances (Camillus,
1996; Eden & Ackerman, 1998; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998; Mintzberg &
Waters, 1985). However there is some level of agreement that there are a number of
57
different types of strategy that can be applied to manage both internal and external
environments and that strategic planning involves the formulation of long-term goals
followed by the allocation of resources to achieve these goals (Chandler, 1962; David,
1999; Ginter & Duncan, 1990; Helms & Wright, 1992; Macmillan & Tampoe, 2000;
Porter, 1987).
A strategic plan will usually describe the present and planned directions and priorities,
consider the scope or domain of action within which the organisation will try to achieve
its objectives, while taking into account the skills, resources or distinctive competencies
to be used to achieve its objectives. In addition it is considered necessary to address
within the plan the advantages that the organisation expects to achieve vis-à-vis its
competitors through its skills and resource deployments; and the synergies that will result
from the ways the organisation deploys its skills and resources (Birla, 2000; Bryson,
1995; Schendel & Hofer, 1979). The concept of stakeholders is important in strategic
planning (Eden & Ackerman, 1998), and as Simpson (2001) finds, a strategic planning
approach should identify critical stakeholder values, use these values to articulate a broad
vision for the future, establish generic goals which will contribute to a realization of
vision, establish specific objectives to bridge the gap between current status and generic
goals, and assign priorities, responsibility and control systems to monitor implementation
effectiveness.
Vision, mission statements, and goals and objectives are all important components of the
traditional strategic planning process (Covin, Slevin & Schultz, 1994; David, 1989;
Graham & Havlick, 1994; Mintzberg & Quinn, 1996; Pearce, 1982; Pearce & David,
1987; Richards, 1986). However the concept of vision is most relevant to this study.
Vision can be expressed as a picture or description of the nature of the organisation’s
business as it is intended to be at some time in the future (Hussey, 1999; Korac-
Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1998; Nanus, 1992; Wolf & Gering, 1998). Generating an
organizational vision has generally been viewed as the capacity of a chief executive
officer or other ‘visionary leader’, with the vision expected to guide the organization and
sustain it during turbulent times (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Brache & Freedman, 1999;
58
Camillus, Sessions & Webb, 1998; Frisch, 1998; Gupta, 1984; Westley, 1992; Westley &
Mintzberg, 1989). As such vision is seen as created in the mind of a leader and followers
will react positively to it when it reflects their values, shows an ideal future, and provides
direction for future behaviour (Nanus, 1992; Thoms & Greenberger, 1998). In reaction to
criticisms of the traditional strategic planning process, namely its structure and inability
to deal with the unpredictability of the real world, the concept of vision has evolved to
that of an emergent and collective process for long-term planning (Mintzberg, 1994). It
was also realised that creating a sense of purpose through a shared vision can bind people
together and propel them to fulfil their, and ideally the organizations, aspirations
(Mintzberg et al, 1998; Nutt & Backoff, 1997; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross & Smith,
1994; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). The concept of strategic visioning is further
explored in Chapter Four.
3.2.1.1 Public Sector Applications of Strategic Planning
Although typically the domain of the private sector, the public and non-profit sectors also
utilise strategic planning in an attempt to understand their external and internal contexts
and to develop effective strategies to link the two and respond effectively to changes in
their environments (Berry & Wechsler, 1995; Bryson, 1995; David, 1999; Wortman,
1979). While traditionally concerned with policy, resources and program management
(Allison, 1979), public agencies, like other complex organisations, operate in turbulent
environments that impose numerous, rapidly changing demands, requiring substantial
adaptive capacity (Gargan, 1993; Nutt & Backoff, 1992; Wechsler & Backoff, 1987).
However while the private sector is oriented towards action in pursuit of profit, public
sector planning is more focused on advocating broader and more diverse participation in
the planning process, understanding its stakeholders, and determining the opportunities
and threats to a community (Bracker, 1980; Bryson, Van de Ven, & Roering 1986;
Denhardt 1985; Eadie 1983; Gregory & Keeney, 1994; Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993; Quinn,
1980; Rubin, 1998).
59
One of the greatest challenges facing public sector planning resonates with tourism
destination planning and that is the diversity of stakeholders that public organisations
must involve in decision-making and implementation phases of strategic planning. As
opposed to the more defined stakeholder groups of the private sector such as
shareholders, employees, and customers, in the public sector the focus of attention is on
how to organise collective thought and strategic action within a network in which no one
person, group, organisation, or institution is fully in charge (Nutt & Backoff, 1995,
1992). It is considered more difficult to organise an effective strategic planning process
when dealing with shared power, and in the public sector, effective strategic planning is a
collective phenomenon typically involving a diverse set of stakeholders, sponsors,
champions, facilitators, teams, and task forces in various ways and at a various times
(Bryson, 1995; Bryson & Roering, 1987). This diversity also makes it more difficult to
identify strategic issues and objectives to satisfy all stakeholders (Bower, 1977; Whorton
& Worthley, 1981). Although time consuming, attention must be given to all stakeholder
groups as the key for success in public organisations is the satisfaction of these groups to
ensure they adopt the strategies and support implementation. The issue of stakeholders is
further addressed in section 3.3.3.1 of this chapter.
3.2.2 Strategic Tourism Destination Planning
The scope of strategy and strategic planning can be extended to destinations, which are
not organisations, but rather a complex mix of individuals, enterprises and natural and
built environments (Haywood, 1990; Haywood & Walsh, 1996; Heath & Wall, 1992;
Tribe, 1997). Despite the differences, strategic planning is not dissimilar to that of the
private sector as it attempts to answer the questions of: Where are we now? Where do we
want to get to? How do we get there? (Hall, 2000).
Tourism destination strategic planning involves making a sequence of choices and
decisions about the deployment of resources committing a destination to a future course
of action (Brownlie, 1994). It requires a deliberate, integrative and formalised plan
which will permit the destination to adapt quickly to changing situations and develop
60
information, planning and control systems to monitor and respond to this change (Chon
& Olsen, 1990; Cooper, 1995). Strategic planning at a destination level also involves
identifying participants in the planning process, establishing structures for undertaking
the process, formulating a vision, mission statements and objectives, and agreeing on a
timeframe for the completion of the various planning stages (Haywood, 1990; Keane, Ó
Cinnéide & Cunningham, 1996).
In the specific context of a tourism destination, strategic planning should be designed to
develop tourism optimally, in terms of local income, employment generation and
maintaining local control, while minimising the negative effects of tourism development
on the environment and social fabric of the community (Atherton, 1992; Butler &
Waldbrook, 1991; Fletcher & Cooper, 1996; Gunn, 1988; Inskeep, 1991; Theobald, 1994;
Timothy, 1999).
Hall (2000) notes that strategy in the case of sustainable tourism planning and
development seeks to achieve conservation of tourism resource values, enhanced
experiences of the visitors who interact with tourism resources; and the maximisation of
the economic, social and environmental returns to stakeholders in the host community.
The process will involve physically developing: a comprehensive and integrated plan of
action for tourism at the destination; a clearly articulated set of goals and objectives
which provide the focus for the plan of action; the establishment of systems for
monitoring and evaluating progress towards goals and objectives; and, an approach to
planning which assesses the existing and anticipated opportunities and threats within the
environment (Faulkner, 1994).
3.2.2.1 Process Benefits and Challenges
There are a number of benefits and motivations for adopting a strategic approach to
tourism destination planning. It has been said that a strategic plan provides a sense of
purpose, ownership and support for both the industry and the public sector, which can
lead to a framework for cooperative action and policies (Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur,
61
1998). Importantly it also emphasizes the need for both short and long term objectives
which can accommodate changing circumstances, and which the sector can be judged
against in the future (Cooper, 1995; Faulkner, 1994; Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur, 1998).
However the complex nature of tourism destinations offers a number of strategic
planning challenges and as a result Cooper (1995) claims that strategic tourism
destination planning is still the exception rather than the rule. One inherent challenge is
the composition of tourism destinations, with a range of public and competing small to
medium sized private sector organizations (Cooper, 1995; Hall, 2000; Mason &
Leberman, 2000). This contributes to the challenge of identifying the vast number of
stakeholders that must be considered in a strategic planning exercise (Farrell, 1999). The
diverse nature of destinations has resulted in strategic planning often being put into the
‘too-hard basket’ (Hall et al, 1997). As Cooper (1995, p.192) notes, “[destinations] do
not function in the same way as companies and therefore other considerations have to be
built into the process”.
A further challenge is the tendency towards ad hoc, short-term and tactical tourism
planning, particularly by the private sector where success is judged by short-term
profitability and volume growth (Athiyaman, 1995; Bozeman & Straussman, 1990;
Cooper, 1995; Haywood, 1990; Ring & Perry, 1985). The public sector has traditionally
been viewed as responsible for higher-order planning, but they too have been found
guilty of lacking a strategic view (Cooper, 1995; Dredge & Moore, 1992; Page & Thorn,
1997). As Jenkins (1991, p.62) notes, “ad hoc responses to tourism opportunities and
problems do not constitute a policy for tourism, they merely provide short-term solutions
to essentially long-term problems”. Faulkner (1994) reports that in the Australian
tourism public sector there has been a fixation with advertising at the expense of a more
balanced strategic approach for the destination. Similarly a WTO study of over 1600
tourism related plans found that in the majority of plans, profit was given priority over
social aspects and little provision was made for environmental protection (Wilkinson,
1997). A further challenge is that when destinations have been in the growth stages of
the destination life cycle, success has obscured the longer- term view, while a declining
62
destination may have difficulty in justifying the overhead costs of an expensive planning
exercise (Hall, 2000).
Ritchie (1994) attributes many of these challenges to the use of traditional, prescriptive
approaches to strategic planning where the public sector owns the strategy and
determines what is best for the destination. He questions whether such an approach is
suitable and suggests the need for more dynamic and evolutionary approaches such as
destination visioning. This requires the envisioning of a destination image,
communicating it to stakeholders and empowering them to enact on the vision. Moutinho
(2000) and Page and Thorn (1997) also support the need to look to the future and shape it
into a strategic vision. The use of strategic visioning as a destination planning tool is
addressed in Chapter Four.
3.3 Stakeholder Participation as a Contributor to Sustainable Tourism
Stakeholder participation is the second identified prerequisite of the sustainable tourism
planning approach (Caffyn & Jobbins, 2003; Dutton & Hall, 1989; Hall, 2000; Simpson,
2001). Sustainable development objectives hinge on the adoption of a participatory
model, involving the meaningful engagement of the community, along with industry
stakeholders and relevant government agencies in the strategic planning process
(Faulkner, 2003). Originating from the notions of participatory democracy and citizen
empowerment, such an approach sees a move away from government dissemination of
decisions towards ‘bottom up’ planning where a broader base of decision makers
contribute to tourism planning (Simpson, 2001).
3.3.1 Public Participation in Planning
The quest for a greater degree of public participation in planning, policy and decision-
making is considered to be one of the major social movements of the 1950s, 1960s and
early 1970s particularly in countries such as North America and Canada (American
Society of Planning Officials, 1956; Burton 1979; Community Planning Association of
63
Canada, 1966; Draper, 1978; Elder, 1975; Gibson, 1975; Sewell & Phillips, 1979).
Public participation is effectively a component of the democratic system that permits
non-elected members of the community to exercise some control over decisions that
affect their lives (Burton, 1979; Wates, 2000), and is based on the recognition that
citizens are the best judges of their own interests (Brohman, 1996; Thompson, 1970). It
has been viewed as a process of change, growth and learning that builds people’s
confidence, capabilities, skills and ability to cooperate, and as a means of arriving at
decisions more efficiently (Benwell, 1980; Draper, 1978; Wates, 2000; Williams, Penrose
& Hawkes, 1998). Public participation is also credited with creating cohesiveness within
a community and overcoming the problems of centrally formed, top-down policies,
which have been criticised for favouring dominant stakeholders (Elder, 1975; Roberts &
Bradley, 1991; Wates, 2000).
Fagence (1977, p.3) notes, “society dictates that meaningful attempts should be made to
reshape the traditional decision-making processes to accommodate strategies of citizen
participation, and it has attracted high emotional content so that any denial of
opportunities for citizen involvement is challenged as a betrayal of the democratic
tradition”. Two worldviews shape the discussion of public participation- elite democracy
and participatory democracy (Gibson, 1975). Elite democracy theory is primarily
concerned with maintaining a competent and stable government, and public participation
is limited to the election of leaders for public office. In contrast participatory democracy
theory advocates that the purpose of democracy is to ensure that the individuals who will
be affected make decisions, thus requiring collective decision-making leading to an
envisioned future by such individuals (Gibson, 1975). While elite and participatory
democracy may be at opposite poles, public participation is generally not seen as a
replacement of traditional decision-making processes, but as a collaborative partnership
with interaction between traditional planners or elected leaders and the general public.
Godschalk and Mills (1966) note however that this partnership requires both planners to
be open to working with citizens and citizens to be active and competent in planning.
64
It seems obvious that such a process will be fraught with impediments. Authors such as
O’Riordan (1978, p.153) claim that mass public participation is idealistic and “in a
representative democracy it is impractical and unnecessary; in a political culture with a
tradition of elitism, it is out of the question”. It is further claimed that participation will
always be a product of the power and value orientations of the dominant political groups
and remains a product of established interests and predominantly under their control
(Dahl, 1961; Lang, 1986; O’Riordan, 1978; Pretty, 1995). In an attempt to maintain
established power decision makers may use token gestures of participation to placate the
public’s desire for participation. Arnstein’s (1969) widely cited model of citizen
participation in decision-making discusses three levels of participation from an illusion of
participation, to various degrees of token participation such as informing, consultation
and placation, to empowerment through partnerships, delegated power and citizen
control.
Figure 3.1: Ladder of Citizen Participation
8. Citizen Control
7. Delegated Power
6. Partnership
5. Placation
4. Consultation
3. Informing
2. Therapy
1. Manipulation
Source: Arnstein, 1969
Aside from power, a range of other impediments to public participation have been
identified including: the type of involvement a member of the general public can actually
have in a participative process; the level and intensity of participation; and, who should
participate in the process and to what extent (Almond & Verba, 1965; Milbrath, 1965;
Degrees of citizen power
Nonparticipation
Degrees of tokenism
65
Mogulof, 1970; Pretty, 1995; Roberts, 1974; Sproule, 1995). Further challenges relate to
the resource requirements and the efficiency of a prolonged and fragmented planning
process (Fagence, 1977; Sewell & Phillips, 1979).
Despite the challenges, Simmons (1994) notes that the public’s right to participate in the
planning of activities that affect their daily lives has become a widely accepted principle
throughout the democratic world. As such the public’s involvement has been sought in
planning for a diverse range of issues including urban development, housing, transport,
energy, parks and recreation, resources management, and regional development. As
tourism has risen in significance and is an industry, which makes such considerable
demands on a community’s resources, it too has faced the call for increased public
scrutiny and involvement (Seekings, 1980; Simmons, 1994). As Murphy (1985, p.172)
states, “public participation as a form of political action has modified existing institutions
and planning procedures to affect social change and environmental preservation, so its
extension to tourism (as an activity so interwoven with community life) becomes
inevitable”.
3.3.2 Community Participation in Tourism Planning
The term community is recognised as contentious and problematic (Bahaire & Elliott-
White, 1999; Capenerhurst, 1994; Dalby & Mackenzie, 1997; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999;
Joppe, 1996; Long, 1991; Long & Glendinning, 1992; Sofield, 2003; Sproule, 1995;
Wilson, 1999), yet for the purposes of this study will be used to refer to the people or
residents of a place where tourism occurs (Burr, 1991; Haywood, 1988; Keogh, 1990;
Murphy, 1985). Community involvement in planning and decision making for tourism
development has become an ideology of tourism planning, akin to the participatory
philosophy outlined previously (Fagence, 1977; Murphy, 1988; Smith, 1977; Tosun &
Timothy, 2003). Participation in tourism planning reputedly originated in Canada as a
result of the difficulties experienced in implementing plans for national parks. These
difficulties occurred as there was little or no interaction between the public and officials,
and planning decisions were seen by the local people as being imposed from the outside
66
(Keogh, 1990; Long & Glendinning, 1992). Further evidence of the need to involve the
public in tourism planning stemmed from the plethora of tourism impact and resident
attitude studies conducted on destination host communities (Allen, Hafer, Long &
Perdue, 1993; Allen, Long, Perdue & Kieselbach, 1988; Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Burns,
1996; Canan & Hennessy, 1989; Davis, Allen & Cosenza, 1988; Dowling, 1993; Doxey,
1975; Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Hernandez, Cohen
& Garcia, 1996; Keogh, 1990; King, Pizam & Milman, 1993; Lindberg, Dellaert &
Rassing, 1999; Liu, Sheldon & Var, 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; Madrigal, 1993; Mason &
Cheyne, 2000; Milman & Pizam, 1988; Murphy, 1981; Murphy & Andressen, 1988;
Pearce, Moscardo & Ross, 1996; Pizam, 1978; Prentice, 1993; Sheldon & Abenoja, 2001;
Sheldon & Var, 1984; Smith & Krannich, 1998; Um & Crompton, 1987).
The legacy of an overemphasis on economic benefits, with little attention given to
negative impacts, has led to what has become a well accepted call for the destination
community to be actively involved in the tourism planning and decision making process
(section 3.1.1.4) (Ap, 1992; Blackstock, 2005; Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Cooke, 1982;
Hohl & Tisdell, 1995; McIntyre, 1993; Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Murphy, 1985; Oppitz,
1997; Rosenow & Pulsipher, 1979; Simmons, 1994; Simpson, 2001; Tosun & Timothy,
2003). This is based on several premises including the rationale that if residents have to
endure the negative impacts that tourism brings, they should be given every opportunity
to benefit from the positive impacts, which are generally economic (Haywood, 1988;
Mitchell & Reid, 2001; Woodley, 1993). Further, residents are regarded as the rightful
custodians of an area, and their needs should not be overridden by outside interests (Din,
1993; Marsh & Henshall, 1987; Williams, 2002). As such, overall development goals
and priorities should be identified by residents to alleviate the perception of open-ended
growth and lack of control as it has been found that when host-tourist encounters sour,
the industry has a tendency to deteriorate and negative effects accrue on the community’s
social structure (Capenerhurst, 1994; Cooke, 1982; Costa & Ferrone, 1995; D’Amore,
1983; Din, 1993; Go, Milne & Whittles, 1992; Gunn, 1994; Haywood, 1988; Keogh,
1990; Long & Glendinning, 1992; McIntosh & Goeldner, 1986; Potts & Harrill, 1998;
Richins, 1995; Woodley, 1993). Murphy (1985, p.153) noted that the tourism industry is
67
like no other as “it relies on the goodwill and cooperation of the local people because
they are a component of the destination experiences. Logically if development and
planning are at cross purposes with the wishes of the host community, resistance and
hostility are likely to occur”.
Ritchie (1993) therefore advocates resident responsive tourism, where those who are
affected by tourism development have the opportunity to be involved in the planning and
development processes. Such engagement is necessary so that a true consensus on the
preferred directions of future development, and the actions necessary to achieve this, can
be developed (Faulkner, 2003). Consequently the tourism planning process would
attempt to reinforce positive and mitigate negative impacts by taking into consideration
the needs of both the tourists and the resident population. Such an approach recognises
that the opinions, perspectives and recommendations of non-industry stakeholders are
just as legitimate as those of the planner or the industry ‘expert’. Gunn (1994) similarly
claims that planning is too important to be left to the planners, and that planning must
encompass a wide constituency, with the role of the planner being to bring all of the
divergent parties together and to help them see how their particular interests are involved
in the development of the tourism destination (Go et al, 1992).
3.3.3 Stakeholder Participation in Tourism Planning
Sustainable tourism requires destination planning, development and decision-making to
be cross-sectional and integrated. While the public participatory approaches primarily
advocate the involvement of the community, a sustainable tourism planning approach
requires a wide range of stakeholder participation to be canvassed in relation to future
tourism development (Potts & Harrill, 1998; Ritchie & Jay, 1999; Simpson, 2001; Smith,
1984; Walsh, Jamrozy & Burr, 2001). In the organizational context a stakeholder is
defined as any group or individual that can affect or is affected by the achievement of an
organisation’s objectives and/or anyone who have or believe they have a vested interest
or can claim legitimate ownership and rights in a corporation’s activities (Clarkson, 1995;
Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1999, 1984; Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Jones
68
& Wicks, 1999; Lang, 1986; Starik 1994; Winn, 2001). It is acknowledged in this
context that failing to incorporate participation from all stakeholder groups will result in
the failure of an organization (Clarkson, 1995; Sautter & Leisen, 1999).
Stakeholder theory was pioneered by Freeman (1984), who suggested that an
organization is characterised by its relationships with various groups and individuals;
including employees, customers, suppliers, governments and members of the community.
The underlying premise of stakeholder theory is that firms are required to acknowledge
that stakeholders are persons or groups with legitimate interests in the organization,
which must be recognised whether or not the organization has any interest in the
stakeholder (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Jones, 1995; Sautter & Leisen, 1999). Freeman
(1984, p.46) notes that, “to be an effective strategist, you must deal with those groups that
can affect you, while to be responsive, you must deal with those groups you can affect”,
and stakeholder theory recognises that various groups can and should have a direct
influence on managerial decision making (Sautter & Leisen, 1999; Timur & Getz, 2002).
Stakeholder theory has been considered a useful approach to address the principles of
sustainable tourism planning (Bramwell & Sharman 1999; Costa, 2001; Gee & Fayos-
Sola, 1997; Roberts & Simpson, 2000; Robinson, 1999; Sadler, 2004; Timur & Getz,
2002; von Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003).
3.3.3.1 Tourism Destination Stakeholders
As with general business settings, tourism destinations have a variety of stakeholder
groups that must be consulted in all stages of planning and decision-making. The co-
existence of multiple stakeholders is one of the defining characteristics of a tourism
destination, with stakeholders in a destination both competing and collaborating (Aas et
al, 2005; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Buhalis & Cooper, 1998; Laws, 1995; Laws et al,
2002; WTO, 2004). These stakeholders may include: the government (international,
national, regional and local); government departments with links to tourism;
international, national, regional and local tourism organizations; tourism developers and
entrepreneurs, tourism industry operators; non-tourism business practitioners, and the
69
community including local community groups, indigenous people’s groups and local
residents (Brown, 1991; Burns, 1998; Farrell, 1986; Freeman 1984; Roberts & Simpson,
2000; Sautter & Leisen, 1999; Simpson, 2001; Wahab & Pigram, 1997). For the
purposes of this study three broad stakeholder groups will be examined: the government,
tourism industry and the resident community of the destination.
The tourism sector unquestionably requires planning and management and this is often
viewed as the responsibility of the relevant government authority of the destination.
Government involvement originally stemmed from an interest in tourism’s economic
advantages, and as Middleton (1974) finds, governments justified their intervention in
tourism to capitalise on the taxes paid by organizations, the indirect taxes paid by visitors
and the employment tourism generated. Government’s have been active in the
development and promotion of towns, regions and countries (Ashworth & Goodall, 1990;
Bramwell, 1994; Charlton & Essex, 2000; Faulkner, 1994; Joppe, 1996; Laws et al, 2002;
Murphy, 1985), but over time, their involvement has extended beyond economic
concerns and revenue generation to address the physical and social ramifications of
tourism activity. As the negative impacts of tourism began to overshadow the positive,
and anti-tourism sentiment grew, government level planning was instigated in an attempt
to control tourism development and mitigate the undesirable socio-economic and
environmental impacts (Inskeep, 1988).
The public sector is generally considered to be the most appropriate body to lead the
move towards developing more sustainable forms of tourism. This is due to the fact that
it usually has a mandate to represent the whole population, not just particular interest
groups or stakeholders; it is seen to be impartial without commercial interests and
because it is not constrained by short term financial objectives it should be able to take a
longer term view (Swarbrooke, 1998). However the government has received numerous
criticisms for its management of the tourism industry. One of the main criticisms is that
governments have imposed top-down planning on the tourism destination and have failed
to adopt truly participative processes (Cooper, 1995; Keogh, 1990; Molotch, 1976;
Murphy, 1985; Reid & Sindiga, 1999). Governments have also received criticism for
70
their lack of will to implement planning and policy, with Vogel and Swanson (1988)
noting that government resources are limited and policies are made incrementally with
little overall direction or coordination and elected officials will often take a short-term
view to get re-elected. Go et al (1992) also see the lack of political will as a common
failing in strategy implementation and claim that this is often the biggest single deterrent
to tourism development, particularly at the community level. Additionally Madrigal
(1995, p.87) finds that “the political organisation of most communities is often dominated
by individuals benefiting either directly from a specific development alternative (property
owners, investors) or indirectly as a result of overall growth (realtors, bankers, property
owners)”, and advocates the need to dismantle the local growth machine in favour of
more participatory planning.
Despite its inefficiencies, the various levels of government are generally recognised as
the best equipped to administer the tourism planning process, particularly when their
comprehensive organisational structure is contrasted with the factional and fragmented
nature of the tourism industry (Simpson, 2001; Timur & Getz, 2002). Akis et al (1996)
also note that some degree of government control may be necessary to prevent too dense
a concentration of development, or the grosser forms of environmental degradation. In
addition, strong leadership is imperative to coordinate the wide range of diverging
concerns, address distorted balances of power, and implement future oriented strategies
(Trousdale, 1999). However, this control should not supersede cooperation and
collaboration with other stakeholder groups.
Local government in particular has a key role to play in tourism destination planning and
management, often because it is at the local level where the impacts of tourism are felt
most acutely and it is the local authority that deals with land use planning (Bouquet &
Winter, 1987; Conlin, 1996; Dredge & Moore, 1992; Farrell, 1986; Godfrey, 1998;
Hunter, 1995; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999; Joppe, 1996; Kemp, 1992; Madrigal, 1995;
McKercher & Ritchie, 1997; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995; Pearce, 1989; Simmons,
1994; Walzer, Deller, Fossum, Green, Gruidl, Johnson, Kline, Patton, Schumaker &
Woods, 1995). Timothy (1998) claims that planning for tourism development usually
71
requires critical, local knowledge, something that is often lacking in large, distant capital
cities among leaders who are less familiar with regional cultures and local conditions.
However local government officials often find themselves in a quandary when it comes
to planning for tourism development because conflicts of interest frequently arise over
how land will be developed (Madrigal, 1995; Williams et al, 1998), with Canan and
Hennessy (1989) noting that conflict generally arises where the local governmental
authority often favours a small elite pro-growth coalition. Additionally local authorities
are not required to look at the wider implications of development outside their boundaries
when making planning decisions and as a result the implications for the regional tourism
product can be ignored, and the view of tourism intrinsically local and internally focused
(Dredge & Moore, 1992).
The private sector operators of the tourism industry are often viewed as the villains in
tourism, due to the perception that they are solely concerned with their profits and as a
result adopt short-term perspectives (Swarbrooke, 1998). The industry has been fortunate
in that most tourism planning has been oriented toward business interests and economic
growth, with the prime motive being commercial and economic gain, both on the part of
the private sector entrepreneurs and governments (Doswell, 1997; Murphy, 1985). As a
result criticisms have been leveled at how the industry develops the physical and tangible
elements of its product and even through to its specific business operations (Mair, Reid &
Taylor, 2000; Swarbrooke, 1998). However despite the criticisms, it is the private sector
that provides the vast majority of infrastructure and services that the tourism destination
relies upon, and in this respect has a significant role to play in the move towards more
sustainable forms of tourism.
Cooperative alliances between public and private sector stakeholders have been cited as
necessary to effectively address development impacts and plan for sustainable tourism
(Fagence, 1996; Jamal & Getz, 2000; Janssen, Kiers & Nijkamp, 1995; Timothy, 1998).
According to Cooper, Fletcher, Gilbert and Wanhill (1993, p.130) “the development of
tourism will not be optimal if it is left in the hands of private sector entrepreneurs, for
they are motivated by profit and loss. However, if tourism development is dominated by
72
the public sector then it is unlikely to be developed at the optimal rate from the economic
point of view. Therefore it is imperative that private and public sector involvement in
tourism planning is balanced to ensure a sustainable balance is achieved”. Poetschke
(1995) recognizes that willing and active cooperation between the public and private
sectors is often difficult to achieve due to fundamentally different operating philosophies.
However, this cooperation is vital as the public sector depends on private investors to
provide services and construct tourist facilities, conversely, private investors require
government approval of, and support for, most projects (Timothy, 1998).
The residents of the destination community, as discussed, are considered one of the key
stakeholders in tourism planning and decision-making. This has occurred as politicians,
government officials and tourism entrepreneurs have tended to overemphasise the
economic factors, and overlook the negative environmental and social impacts. It is also
claimed that if residents have to endure the negative impacts that tourism brings, they
should be given every opportunity to benefit from the positive impacts, which are
generally economic (Woodley, 1993). As Simpson (2001) noted, for sustainability to be
achieved local residents must be permitted to identify salient issues of concern; be the
ones to determine the pace and scale of development and the development must coincide
with the community’s aspirations and abilities. However if the community is to be
considered a legitimate stakeholder group, then it requires direct and meaningful
participation in decision-making to engender a sense of ownership over resulting
decisions. With this sense of ownership comes support for its implementation.
Importantly residents who concur with the tourism goals and objectives set for their
region are more likely to be happy with the outcomes which ensue, and the possibility of
sustainable development choices being made will be considerably enhanced (Leslie,
Harrison & Logan, 2000; Murphy, 1988, 1981; Williams et al, 1998).
3.3.4 Stakeholder Collaboration in Tourism Planning
The sustainable approach to tourism planning requires a strategic process incorporating
the participation and involvement of a variety of destination stakeholders. With such a
73
variety of stakeholders in strategic planning, the issue of cooperation and collaboration
between these groups becomes critical and can be a major factor in determining the
success of the planning process and ultimately the success of the destination (Minca &
Getz, 1995; Murphy, 1985). Many authors have seen public participation as the key to
successful tourism planning, however it has been said that a collaborative and
cooperative approach, where all stakeholders become party to, and share decision making
responsibility for destination planning is more likely to result in acceptable and
successful policies and programs (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Brook, 2000, Farrell, 1986;
Gunton & Flynn, 1992; Hall, 1999; Maitland, 2002; Minca & Getz, 1995; Tremblay,
2000a). Collaboration is defined as the pooling of resources (information, labour, etc),
by two or more autonomous stakeholders, to solve a set of problems, which neither can
solve individually (Aldrich, 1976; Gray, 1985). Stakeholders establish these
relationships and interactions to address a common issue or problem domain and engage
in an interactive process to seek solutions, which go beyond their own limited vision of
what is possible (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Gray, 1989; Gray & Wood, 1991; Selin,
1999). Collaboration is essentially an emergent process where groups learn to manage
their changing environments with joint ownership of decisions and a collective
responsibility for progress (Jamal & Getz, 1995). It can also help stakeholders appreciate
their common interests and realize the advantages to be gained by working together as
opposed to competing with each other (Williams et al, 1998).
Stakeholder collaboration embraces the participative processes recognised as a core
principle of sustainable development, particularly when a wide and representative range
of stakeholders from the local community are able to play an active role and strive
together for common objectives (Caffyn, 2000; Robinson, 1999; Selin, 1999). Achieving
a reasonable degree of consensus on desired directions for tourism development is
considered an important ingredient for long-term success (Ritchie, 1988), and as the
destination community encompasses multiple, interdependent stakeholders who often
hold divergent views on tourism development, collaboration theory is useful for
managing tourism related issues at the destination level (Jamal & Getz, 1995; Reed,
1999). It is also noted that as destination areas grow and the associated problems with
74
this increase, government leaders, resource planners and entrepreneurs will be incapable
of dealing with the problem if each acts in isolation (Parker, 1999). According to Getz
and Jamal (1994), collaboration theory offers insights into a dynamic and flexible
process, which provides for joint decision-making through multi-stakeholder involvement
within a temporary or longer-term structure. The process requires direct dialogue among
participating stakeholders, which has the potential to lead to negotiation, shared decision-
making and consensus-building about planning, goals and actions for tourist destinations
(Berkes, 1995; Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Richins, 1995).
It is claimed that the ‘go-it-alone’ policies of the past are giving way, as government and
public agencies in many developed countries endorse stronger cooperation and
collaboration in tourism planning (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Farrell, 1986; Getz & Jamal,
1994; Gunn, 1988; Jamal & Getz, 1995; Miller, 1987; Potts & Harrill, 1998; Williams et
al, 1998; Woodley, 1993). However others have noted that despite the abundance of
policy statements and documents committing to the approach these examples are still the
exception rather than the rule (Brook, 2000; Selin & Beason, 1991; Woodley, 1993).
3.3.4.1 Challenges of Broad Based Stakeholder Participation and
Collaboration
Although the concepts of broad based stakeholder participation in tourism planning has
been widely advocated in the literature, there have been a number of criticisms about the
viability of such an approach (Haywood, 1988; McCaffrey, Faerman & Hart, 1995;
Taylor, 1995). Community participation in tourism planning has been described as naïve,
unnecessary, unwieldy, time consuming and an idealistic dream (Haywood, 1988;
Tremblay, 2000a). The approach has been criticised for its financial costs, time frame,
the dilution of power and loss of control over matters previously internal to the industry,
the need for education as communities are not equipped to assess and understand tourism
development potential, and their apathy towards participation (Almond & Verba, 1965;
Blank, 1989; Cole, 1997; Cooper & Hawtin, 1997; de Kadt, 1979; Din, 1993; Douglas,
1989; Federspiel, 1991; Haywood, 1988; Inskeep, 1991; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999;
75
Jenkins, 1993; Krippendorf, 1982; Long, 1991; Madrigal, 1995; McIntyre, 1993;
Trousdale, 1999; Vogel & Swanson, 1988; Weaver, 2006; Woodley, 1993).
As with public participation generally, one of the greatest impediments to participation in
tourism planning is that it is often a token gesture. A number of studies have found that
even where public participation has occurred, tourism planning goals have remained
centred on commercial interests and community involvement has been little more than
tokenism (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Hall, 1998; Long & Glendinning, 1992;
Timothy, 1999; Wall, 1996). Joppe (1996) attributes this to politicians feeling the
process threatens their power, as broad based participation and collaboration can alter the
power of ‘traditional power holders’ (Blank, 1989; Kelly, 2001). Power can be seen as
the ability of a party to impose its will on the relationship (Mitchell, Agle & Wood,
1997), and traditional power holders are often seen as retaining their influence over key
decisions and dictating the agenda for development (Reed, 1997). Planning traditionally
implies a superior-inferior set, with the superior element being able to plan and impose its
will upon the rest of the system (Blank, 1989; Robinson, 1999). Participation may be
rationed out to groups but it is done so in the knowledge that the status quo of power is
not threatened (Dye, 1986; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999; Melbeck, 1998; Reid & Sindiga,
1999). In such cases participation can be limited to collecting the opinions of
stakeholders, which is largely a one-way consultation process with little direct dialogue
between the stakeholders and planners (Evans, Fox & Johnson, 1995; Medeiros de Arajo
& Bramwell, 1999; Sofield, 2003).
The planning process is highly political and gaining consensus on a rational,
comprehensive, long-range tourism plan may be impossible given the divergent interests
of the various sectors of a community (Choy, 1991). Bahaire and Elliott-White (1999,
p.246) claim that “community involvement, or public participation, in planning remains
an ambiguous concept but is fundamentally about degrees of citizen power and influence
within the policy-making process”. Other authors have noted that there are naïve
assumptions that the planning and policy process is a pluralistic one in which people have
equal access to economic and political resources (Joppe, 1996; Reed, 1997). Therefore
76
Getz and Jamal (1994, p.154) argue that it is important to “reconceptualise tourism
planning and development as a political process” involving a variety of stakeholders
trying to achieve a consensus of objectives.
A further challenge is that it is often assumed that local authorities are appropriate to
convene power relations, as they will be neutral arbiters in the land development process.
However this is often not the case as the local government usually has a disproportionate
influence and degree of power over the process (Reed, 1997; Simpson, 2001). In Reed’s
(1997) study of power relations it was found that there were a variety of competing
visions for tourism development, struggles over who should make decisions and the
traditional power elite used different kinds of tactics to influence the efforts of
collaboration and to retain their power base. However it was found that through the
commitment of citizen participants, the plan for the development of tourism introduced a
much broader vision of community aspiration than would have otherwise been possible
(Reed, 1997).
3.4 Chapter Three Summary
The concept of sustainability has had a considerable impact on the philosophy of tourism
destination planning. This chapter has examined the identified prerequisites of a
sustainable approach to tourism planning: a strategic orientation towards tourism
planning and enhanced levels of multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism
planning process (Simpson, 2001). The concepts of strategic planning and stakeholder
participation, while evolving from two distinct and substantial theoretical underpinnings
have become interdependent in attempts to achieve sustainable tourism development.
Sustainability not only requires destination planners and managers to engage in strategic
planning as a means of ensuring that tourism’s benefits are equitably distributed between
all stakeholders, but these stakeholder groups must be empowered to participate in the
process (Eligh et al, 2002; Faulkner, 2003; Harrison & Husbands, 1996; Lankford &
Lankford, 2000; Page & Thorn, 2002; Wall, 1997). While stakeholder participation in
strategic planning is not without its challenges, the inherent difficulties should not
77
impede the integration of these concepts into the tourism destination planning process.
Both concepts must be utilised effectively to ensure a sustainable approach to tourism
planning is adopted.
One planning approach, which is increasingly receiving attention for its combination of
strategic planning and stakeholder participation, is strategic visioning. Visioning
approaches to tourism planning have been cited as a means of facilitating destination
stakeholders participation in the strategic planning process, while engaging in a longer-
term planning exercise (Ayers, 1996; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Haywood, 1988; Johnson &
Snepenger, 1993; Kotler, 1993; Mair et al, 2000; Richins, 1995; Ritchie, 1993; Ritchie &
Jay, 1999; Woodley, 1993). The visioning approach to tourism destination planning and
its potential contribution to sustainability is discussed in Chapter Four.
78
Chapter Four
Strategic Visioning: A Planning Approach for Sustainable Tourism?
4.0 Introduction
Visioning is a recognized component of the traditional organizational strategic planning
process. An extension of this concept, the notion of strategic visioning, is increasingly
being viewed as a planning approach which has applications to the tourism destination
planning context. Ritchie (1993) finds that while strategic visioning for tourism
destinations is a new but important extension of the more common process of strategic
planning in tourism, it has a stronger emphasis on bringing together the views of the
many organisations and individuals of both the industry and the destination community
through collaborative and participative processes. It is also seen as a dynamic and
interactive approach as opposed to the more rigid steps of traditional strategic planning
(Westley & Mintzberg, 1989).
This chapter introduces the concept of strategic visioning for tourism destinations.
Firstly the private sector origins of visioning as a component of the traditional strategic
planning process are examined. The extension of this concept to the notions of learning
organizations and shared vision are also discussed, as well as the use of visioning in
community settings. Finally the use of strategic visioning in tourism destinations is
examined and the contribution of the approach to sustainable tourism planning is
discussed.
4.1 The Strategic Visioning Concept
Vision is recognized as an important component of the strategic planning process
(Chapter Three). Vision is defined as a practical and achievable picture or description of
the nature of an organization’s business as it is intended to be at some time in the future.
Ideally, the vision should move people to come together in an alignment of purpose and
provide a point from which strategic plans are developed (Hussey, 1999; Korac-
79
Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1998; Nanus, 1992; Wolf & Gering, 1998). It is essentially a
future goal that the organization is striving towards (Hunt & Buzan 1999), and has been
described by some as the glue that binds individuals together into a common goal
(Hackett & Spurgeon, 1996). Nutt and Backoff (1997) note that a vision should be
depicted as providing a vivid and reachable target that beckons- it should be a picture that
inspires and builds a commitment to change in people.
While vision, along with mission statements and goals and objectives, have been
associated with strategic planning for some time, the process of vision development is
receiving increasing attention, with approaches such as ‘visioning’ recognised as a means
of managing increasingly complex organisations (Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). Vogel
and Swanson (1988) note that strategic planning methodologies are being revised to
include a visioning phase, as leaders are recognising the importance of thinking about the
future, developing goals and coming up with realistic strategies to achieve those goals.
Ayers (1996) actually claims that the visioning approach is the new best practice in
strategic planning, and this concept is supported by Faulkner (2003), Ritchie (1999) and
Ritchie and Crouch (2000), among others. The feasibility of such claims is examined in
chapters eight and nine.
Critics of formal planning argue that we live in a world in which uncertainty, complexity
and ambiguity dominate and in which small chance events can have a large and
unpredictable impact upon outcomes (Langeler, 1992; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). In
such an environment even the most carefully thought out strategic plans are prone to
being rendered useless by rapid and unforseen changes in the environment, and
consequently there is a premium on being able to respond quickly to changing
circumstances, altering the strategies of the organisation accordingly. It has been claimed
that such a flexible approach to strategy making is not possible within the framework of
the traditional strategic planning process (Brache & Freedman, 1999; Westley &
Mintzberg, 1989). Mintzberg (1994) notes that the visionary approach is more flexible as
it sets the broad outlines of a strategy, while leaving the specific details to be worked out.
In other words, the broad perspective may be deliberate but the specific positions can
80
emerge. So when the unexpected happens, assuming the vision is sufficiently robust, the
organisation can adapt- it learns and change is more easily accommodated (Mintzberg,
1994).
Ritchie (1993) draws on the work of Mintzberg to distinguish between the strategic
planning and visioning processes. At one end of the spectrum is the traditional
prescriptive model of strategic planning, where planning is mechanical, formal, highly
structured, logical, and controlled and an exercise for which the chief executive is
ultimately responsible. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the concept of crafting
strategy through a shared strategic vision. This is seen as a dynamic, evolving process in
which strategies develop over a period of time as a result of an ongoing and iterative
process of thinking and acting. However to ensure the effective development and
execution, Koteen (1991) claims that the vision must be compelling and satisfying, pose
clearly stated challenges, offer guideposts on uncertain terrain and commitment for
implementation. Hunt and Buzan (1999) further note that the vision must be achievable,
inspiring, short and visual, while Christenson and Walker (2004) state that the vision
must be: understood, motivational, credible, and both demanding and challenging. It
must also capture the core purpose of the organization and its preferred future state, and
create possibilities that are inspirational, creative, unique, and vibrant, and that offer a
new order that can produce organizational distinction (Nutt & Backoff, 1997).
A considerable amount of attention has been given to the issue of vision and visionary
leadership. Vision has often been viewed as the capacity and responsibility of the leader
of the organization (Hunt & Buzan 1999; Westley, 1992) based on the assumption that
power and control resides with the leader (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Brache & Freedman,
1999; Frisch, 1998; Gupta, 1984; Hendry, Johnson & Newton, 1993; Levin, 2000; Nanus,
1992). It has been said that a vision is an image that is created in the mind of the leader
(Shipley & Newkirk, 1998; Thoms & Greenberger, 1998) and under this scenario the
vision is a target towards which the leader aims their energy and resources (Hackett &
Spurgeon, 1996; Peg & Greenberger, 1998; Senge et al, 1994; Stewart, 1993). Here the
vision is disseminated through the organization, with the leader empowering others to
81
fulfill the vision, and followers reacting positively when it reflects their values, shows an
ideal future, and provides direction for future behaviour (Christenson & Walker, 2004;
Nutt & Backoff, 1992; Thoms & Greenberger, 1998).
However a divergent body of thought has emerged noting that a successful vision
depends on the participation of many people, and that leaders should only act as
facilitators where the vision is built from the collective ideas of those in the organization
(Covey, 1990; Kelley, 1992; Westley, 1992). Shipley and Newkirk (1998) also note that
the emerging use of the term ‘strategic vision’ changes the concept of vision from being
the special view of either a single visionary or select group of leaders to the goal-like
statements that serve as the focus for long-range or strategic plans. Here vision is no
longer as amorphous as it had been when attributed to visionaries or ascribed, and it
begins to acquire the status and acceptability of a formal planning technique (Shipley &
Newkirk, 1998).
This process of empowerment calls for leaders to share the vision creation process with
other people in the organization (Barnes & Kriger, 1986; Kelley, 1992; Kouzes & Posner,
1987; Wheeland, 1993). The level of genuinely empowered and positive interaction
between organization leaders and followers (or organization stakeholders) is said to have
a direct impact upon the quality of the vision (Christenson & Walker, 2004). It is further
believed that a representative group of stakeholders will be better positioned than a
charismatic leader to develop the vision because of the wider experience, diversity of
knowledge and perspective and fuller appreciation of stakeholder constituencies
(Christenson & Walker, 2004). Applications of visioning to public sector organizations
rely in particular on a collective approach to vision development. Nutt and Backoff
(1992) note that a vision detailing the future can generate commitment from key
stakeholders, which is essential for public sector organizations. It is further noted that as
such organizations operate without the feedback provided by profits and losses, their
need for vision is more acute (Kilpatrick & Silverman, 2005).
82
A ‘vision orientation’ has been credited as being a large factor in organizational success
(Collins & Porras, 1997; Koteen, 1991) and the wider the involvement of people in vision
creation, the greater the prospect of improvements in organizational performance
(Hackett & Spurgeon, 1996; Kakabadese, Nortier & Abramovici, 1998; Nutt & Backoff,
1997). Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found that the existence of an organizational vision
had a positive impact on employee performance and attitudes, while Baum, Locke and
Kirkpatrick (1998) discovered that having a vision positively affected organization-level
performance as measured by growth in sales, profits, employment and net worth.
Kilpatrick and Silverman (2005) claim that investing in a vision can pay dividends
beyond just keeping the organization focused. They note that one benefit of developing
an organizational vision is the ease of performance measurement, making it easier to
track successes and identify early warning signs of ineffective programs. Clear visions
can also highlight gaps in talent, funds, and facilities (Kilpatrick & Silverman, 2005).
However Nutt and Backoff (1997) reinforce that the greatest organizational successes
will arise when the vision is developed with ideas drawn from many people.
4.1.1 Shared Vision and the Learning Organization
Considered to be the organizational concept of the future (Flood, 1999), Peter Senge’s
(1990) ‘fifth discipline’ account of the learning organization links the notion of shared
vision with the broader aspects of the strategic planning process. The learning
organization is based on the transition from an individualist to a more collective
orientation, within the framework of a more structured, systematic and strategically
focused approach (Faulkner, 2003). The learning organization is based on systemic
theory, which purports that our actions are interrelated to other people’s actions in
patterns of behaviour and are not merely isolated events (Flood, 1999). As such,
systemic thinking takes issue with the grand narratives of strategic planners who believe
that with intention they can create a better future; “in their reports they innocently indulge
in fictional script writing…. it could happen for all we know, but it seems most unlikely”
(Flood, 1999, p.2). Flood (1999) likens this to complexity theory questioning whether
long term intended action is possible based on the assumption that the way things unfold
83
is inherently unknowable to the human mind, emerging through spontaneous self-
organisation originating from some distant detail, rather than advanced planning.
Senge (1990) claims that the core of the learning organization is based upon five
disciplines: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems
(systemic) thinking. Personal mastery involves expanding our personal capacity to create
the results we most desire, and creating an organizational environment that encourages all
its members to develop themselves toward the goals and purposes they choose. The
second of the disciplines, mental models, refers to the continual process of reflecting
upon, clarifying, and improving one’s internal pictures of the world, and how they shape
our actions and decisions. Shared vision is the third aspect of the learning organization
which requires building a sense of commitment in a group, by developing shared images
of the future to be created, and developing the principles and guiding practices to reach
the future state. Following this, team learning involves transforming conversational and
collective thinking skills, so that groups of people can reliably develop intelligence and
ability greater than the sum of individual members’ talents. The final element of the
learning organization, systems thinking, refers to a way of thinking about, describing and
understanding, the forces and interrelationships that shape the behaviour of systems.
Systems thinking assists in seeing how to change systems more effectively, and how to
act more in tune with the larger processes of the natural and economic world (Senge et al,
1994).
The third of the disciplines, shared vision, is the most pertinent to the current study.
Senge et al (1994) claim that leaders are seeking to achieve the commitment and focus
that comes with genuinely shared visions. The shared vision discipline is essentially
focused around creating a sense of purpose and building shared meaning to bind people
together and propel them to fulfil their aspirations. Shared vision refers to the collective
pictures the people throughout the organization carry, and are committed to, as they are
created from each person’s personal intrinsic vision (Senge, 1990). It entails operating
values, having a common sense of purpose, and a basic level of mutuality as it extends
insights and principles from personal mastery into a world of collective aspiration and
84
shared commitment (Flood, 1999). Shared vision can also provide a focus and energy for
generative learning, expanding an organization’s capacity to create its own future, rather
than be created by the events of the moment (Flood, 1999). Importantly, strategic
priorities are developed from, and clearly linked to, the shared vision (Senge et al, 1994).
While Senge does not offer a prescriptive account on how shared vision should be
generated, it is noted that it is developmental and constructed from a coherent process of
reflection and conversation. Senge et al (1994) actually note that it is most important to
focus on the dialogue, and not just the vision statement, as the process is more important
than the product. This is because the task involves an evolving ongoing process in which
people at every level of the organisation, in every role, can speak on what really matters
to them, and should be heard by both senior management and one another. This moves
the generation of vision from telling to co-creating. Telling refers to the traditional view
of vision with those at the top believing they know what the vision should be and telling
the organisation they are going to have to follow it. People do what they are told either
because they think that those at the top know best, or simply believe they have no other
choice. There is little generative learning. Co-creating, on the other hand, is a
widespread and collaborative process where a shared vision is built around generative
learning. The communication of ideas gathers pace and the vision becomes increasingly
clear, leading to rising enthusiasm (Senge et al, 1994). Having gone through the
frustration and ultimate satisfaction of creating a shared vision, it is believed stakeholders
become more devoted to building shared vision and shared meaning (Senge et al, 1994).
Team learning, the fourth of Senge’s disciplines, is seen as a natural step from a shared
vision effort as collective aspiration gives team members a compelling reason to begin to
learn how to learn together. Senge et al (1994) claim that teams are now recognised as a
critical component of every enterprise and the predominant unit for decision making and
getting things done. As with building shared vision, team learning requires both
discussion and dialogue. Discussion is defined by Senge (1990) as communication where
different views are presented and defended in a search for a best view to support a
decision that must be made. Dialogue is where people suspend their views and enter into
85
deep listening in the sense that the listener visits and explores mental models of other
team members (Senge, 1990). Discussion and dialogue are necessary counterparts in a
quest for achieving consensus and accommodation on decisions in team learning (Flood,
1999). Consensus is based on the idea that people can or will form strong agreement on
what needs to be done and how to do it. Consensus is seen as the linchpin of traditional
planning, decision-making and problem solving (Flood, 1999). However the notion of
consensus is increasingly recognised as unlikely and is considered as contributing to
oppression and reducing diversity of thought. Flood (1999) believes it will be more
realistic to seek to establish accommodation between people due to the inherent diversity
in opinions, attitudes and preferences. Seeking accommodation can be likened to finding
some common ground whilst preserving other differences in opinion (Flood, 1999).
While the learning organization has been widely supported (Garavan, 1997; Garvin,
1993; Marquardt, 1996; Simonin, 1997; Tsang, 1997; Watkins & Marsick, 1993), as with
other forms of collaboration and broader based participation (Chapter Three), there are
inherent challenges. Shared sense of purpose is seen by Senge et al (1994) as often tacit
and obscured by conventional day-to-day practices, the prevailing organizational culture,
and the barriers of the organization’s structure. Flood (1999) notes that one possible
limiting factor comes into play as more people become involved. Although a certain
amount of shared vision is achieved, the more people who are involved, the greater the
potential for a diversity of views which can dissipate focus and may generate conflict
(Senge et al, 1994). Furthermore, it is possible for people to forget their connection to
one another and that they are part of a whole, which moves the approach from one of
joint inquiry to one of individuals in conflict (Flood, 1999). A further challenge is that
people may see a gap between the shared vision and how things actually are, which can
give rise to negative feelings eroding the goals of the shared vision (Flood, 1999). Such
challenges are considered in the development of the strategic visioning framework
proposed in this study (Chapter Eight).
86
4.2 Applications of Strategic Visioning to Community Planning
Stemming from the public participatory movements (Chapter Three), the principles of
strategic visioning have also been extended to the field of community planning (Shipley
& Newkirk, 1998; Walzer & Deller, 1996; Walzer et al, 1995). In this context strategic
visioning aims to establish a long-term vision of what the community can be and achieve
in the long run (Kotler et al, 1993). Communities’ use strategic visioning as a process not
only to identify their desired future, but also to regain control over issues that affect the
community. As Ritchie (1993, p.29) notes, “one of the most compelling forces that has
emerged in recent years is the desire of peoples all over the world to recapture control of
the political processes that affect their daily lives”. Senge et al (1994, p.504) claim,
“every individual deserves the opportunity to be seen and heard as a valuable person who
can contribute to the community”, and based on the learning organization philosophy,
traditional leaders learn how to share decision-making power and support residents
working in self-managed teams. As with public participatory processes and empowered
citizen decision-making, strategic visioning is a form of bottom-up, grass roots
collaboration, which reverses the role of conventional community strategic planning and
management structures. Klein, Benson, Andersen, Herr, Plumb and Davis (1993, p.10)
note, “visioning is a tool for broadening citizen participation, and is thus winning new
constituents for planning”.
In this context visioning has been associated with utopianism and a desire to create a
better or even perfect society (Shipley & Newkirk, 1998). As McClendon (1993, p.147)
notes, “the new paradigm is empowering people’s vision of a better tomorrow”, and
visioning a community’s future urban development plans is the latest iteration of citizen
involvement (Shipley & Newkirk, 1998). In community based applications, strategic
visioning occurs through public involvement; where a group of people proactively seek to
identify their purpose, core values and vision of the future, which are then transformed
into a manageable and feasible set of goals, action plans and/or strategies (Department of
Rural Sociology, nd; Embar, 1995; Stewart, Liebert & Larkin, 2004). The Utah Travel
Council (1998) notes that every successful business, organization or individual has a plan
87
for the future and communities are no different. If nothing else, a community needs to
agree on a shared vision of what it wants to become (Utah Travel Council, 1998). The
importance of community values is recognised in initiatives such as LA21 (Chapter
Two), where it is noted that consultation with various stakeholders is needed in order to
create a shared vision and to identify proposals and priorities for action. The Local
Government Association of Queensland’s (2001) guidelines for integrating community
well being into planning also state that a knowledge of the issues that are of concern to,
and motivate a community, provide a sound basis from which to develop a future vision.
Community visioning is characterised by an emphasis on community assets, weighing up
the options and opportunities on the basis of shared purposes and values, with the process
stressing early and continuous public involvement (Department of Rural Sociology, nd).
A key to this process is that goals and action plans are firmly rooted in the purpose and
values of the local community. It is for this reason that strategic visioning is considered
of particular benefit for communities; as it allows for the creation of a future of choice,
rather than the alternative: the future of someone else’s creation (Bryson, 1995).
For strategic visioning to be successful in a community context, a high level of
participation is required, obviously making the process far more complex than developing
a vision within a single firm (Helling, 1998; Kotler, 1993; Ritchie, 1993). Strategic
visioning for communities specifically seeks to consider as many options as possible, to
search for a broad cross section of participants and wherever possible seek divergent
opinions. The purpose being to develop a cooperative, integrated, and democratically
derived consensus into a single vision, which will determine the long-term strategies for
the future. Acknowledged as a complicated way to achieve a strategic approach,
consensus is considered the only way to gain buy-in for the vision, as plans that resonate
with citizens’ deepest aspirations and values have the best chance of being implemented
(Embar, 1995; Klein et al, 1993). Without a vision that connects people with each other
and to the places of their local landscape, the desirable end-state planning is left
incomplete and opportunities for community building through civic debate are lost.
Resulting plans will be disproportionately devoted to infrastructure development details,
88
without due attention given to community identities that would distinguish one locale
from another (Stewart et al, 2004).
4.2.1 Community Strategic Visioning Models
Although the technical details of ‘how to’ are not part of the visioning process (Stewart et
al, 2004), a number of strategic visioning models have been developed for community
applications (Appendix Four). The Department of Rural Sociology (nd) overview several
of these. The ‘Oregon model’ includes four basic steps: a community profile (where are
we now?), a trend statement (where are we going?), a vision statement (where do we
want to be?), and an action plan (how do we get there?). The Oregon model also
suggests a target year to be chosen that is at least ten, but no more than 25 years in the
future. The ‘Pennsylvania model’ proposes a series of questions to stimulate the vision
including: “what five things would really improve the community?”, “what are the
community’s principal values?”, and “what things in the community should be
preserved?”. This particular process is broken into five tasks: defining the community
boundaries, inventorying and analysing community resources, writing and adopting a
vision statement, developing an action plan, and implementation. The ‘Arkansas model’
focuses on four basic questions: “where have you been?”, where are you now?”, “where
do you want to go?”, and “how will you get there?”. Participants are asked to identify
what they would like to see in their community in the future, and they may be prompted
in specific areas such as economic development, education, parks and recreation, etc.
Walzer et al (1995) reviewed ten visioning programs to identify similarities and
differences in program design. They found that the basic principles of community
strategic visioning programs are similar to those used in the organizational context and
documented in the business management literature. In the first stage, the visioning
programs help guide the formation of a diverse leadership group to take primary local
responsibility for community efforts. The second stage facilitates a series of meetings
during which the community’s situation is assessed and alternative visions are developed
and refined into a plan. At this point the meetings generally result in a statement of
89
vision, goals and tasks for the community to undertake as well as the identification of
priority goals and action strategies. The third identified stage is the implementation of
the vision and action strategies (Walzer et al, 1995). The review further found that
although each of the visioning programs were different, two key common characteristics
for success could be identified. These included local leaders and residents having a clear
understanding of the visioning process and its limitations, particularly the commitment
and effort required to make the program a success. Secondly, a well-balanced
community team of stakeholders is necessary, noting that ignoring segments of the
community will limit the perspective of the team and preclude interesting and productive
ideas, in addition to the fact that if the program participants are not representative the
community may not embrace the vision and resulting strategies (Walzer et al, 1995).
4.3 Applications of Strategic Visioning to Tourism Destination Planning
The participation of the community in tourism and tourism planning is not a new
phenomenon (Chapter Three). As Ritchie (1993, p.379) notes,
“Increasingly, along with all important industry sectors, tourism is being
critically assessed concerning its net contribution to the well being of the
community or region which it both serves and impacts on. As part of this
process, the residents of communities and regions affected by tourism are
demanding to be involved in the decisions affecting their development”.
As with applications to community settings more generally, the strategic visioning
approach to tourism planning, or ‘destination visioning’, has been identified as a
mechanism for residents and other stakeholders to become involved in setting the agenda
of their destination (Mair et al, 2000). Destination visioning is considered a new but
important extension of the more common process of strategic planning in tourism
(Ritchie, 1993). In this context the process has a number of unique elements, and similar
to community applications, visioning for tourism destinations involves bringing together
the views of the many organizations and individuals of both the industry and the
destination community. As Haywood (1988) notes, there is a focus on the evaluation of
90
alternatives, the estimation of probabilities and the determination of the consequences or
impacts of a particular tourism project or event. By focusing on perceptions of the future,
participants in the planning process can learn to paint appropriate images of tourism for
their communities (Haywood, 1988).
While the direction for future tourism destination development is implicit in strategic
planning, the underlying philosophy of strategic destination visioning is to nurture
appropriate forms of development, through a publicly driven process based on
stakeholder values and consensus, rather than through a more “expert-driven” process
based solely on market forces (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000). Strategic visioning for tourism
destinations essentially formulates a framework, which provides broad guidelines as to
the kinds of major facilities, events, and programs that the community finds most
consistent with their values and aspirations for the long term development and well being
of the community (Ritchie, 1993). The vision developed for a destination will define the
nature of long term major developments, many of which are irreversible, so the choice of
vision is absolutely critical, as it will set in motion the development of the destination for
many years to come (Ritchie, 1993; Ryan, 2002).
Faulkner (2003) in a comprehensive discussion of the application of visioning principles
to a tourism destination context identifies a number of contributions vision can make to
the process of shaping a destination’s future. The first of these is that a vision provides a
framework for choosing appropriate responses and for cooperative action. External
events including changes in government policy, international development and random
disasters have the potential to profoundly impact the destination and the direction of
tourism development. While destination stakeholders may have little control over these
events, a long-term shared perspective (a vision) is necessary for not only determining
how they respond, but also for ensuring they respond in a coordinated and effective way.
A second identified contribution is that without a vision, the destination will become
locked into the past. That is, an incremental approach where decision-makers focus on
responding to immediate contingencies in a piecemeal fashion, leading the destination to
91
a position where the options available for coping with longer-term eventualities are
progressively reduced.
A vision also provides a means for ensuring that a longer-term perspective informs day-
to-day decisions (Faulkner, 2003). By creating a more structured, strategically focused
and shared framework for individual enterprises and organizations to operate within, a
vision contributes to ensuring that decision-makers at all levels take longer-term
considerations into account in their daily decisions. A further identified benefit is that a
well designed visioning exercise has the potential to provide a circuit breaker and a call
to action, to the extent that it can be instrumental in galvanising opinion on the need for a
fundamentally different approach from that which has prevailed in the past. Finally, a
well-articulated vision that has been constructed in a manner that ensures it represents a
consensus among primary stakeholders provides a focus for the strategic planning
process and a vehicle for mobilising cooperative action (Faulkner, 2003).
Ritchie & Crouch (2000) acknowledge that developing consensus on a shared ‘ideal
future state’ for a destination is not always easy within diverse, democratic societies.
However what is important is that destination stakeholders agree that the final vision
statement provides both a meaningful and operational ‘dream’ for the future of their
destination- one that reflects the values of the destination stakeholders, while not ignoring
the realities and constraints of the marketplace (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000). It follows that
the meaningful engagement of the community, with industry stakeholders and relevant
public sector agencies, is an essential ingredient in the visioning process. Such
engagement of stakeholders is essential if the vision that eventuates is to provide an
accurate reflection of a truly shared position of all concerned and if it is to provide a
relatively stable reference point for future action (Faulkner, 2003).
Notions of destination visioning also resonate with the collaborative approaches to
tourism planning (Chapter Three) as the visioning process can provide a catalyst for
establishing collaboration among the multiple stakeholders (Faulkner, 2003; Getz &
Jamal, 1994). Bramwell and Lane (2000) note that one of the primary objectives of
92
collaborative arrangements is to develop a strategic vision or plan for a destination, as
collaboration is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem
can constructively explore their differences for solutions that go beyond their own limited
vision of what is possible (Gray, 1989). Ayers (1996) also considers strategic visioning
to be an exercise in collaboration and consensus, as the process addresses issues which
are complex, where many parties are involved in the resolution, no one agency or
organisation has complete jurisdiction over the solution, and there are alternative
solutions requiring both creativity and negotiation.
4.3.1 Strategic Tourism Destination Visioning in Practice
Although not as numerous as community specific visioning examples, or indeed studies
of strategic tourism planning, Ritchie and Crouch (2000) claim that more destinations are
adopting a strategic perspective toward tourism development involving visioning. Getz
and Jamal (1994) support this claiming that studies are emerging where strategic
visioning for tourism destinations is being used as an extension of traditional strategic
planning approaches. Calgary, Canada is recognised as the first destination to use the
visioning process in the early 1990s in an attempt to provide both direction and support
for future tourism development (Ritchie, 1993). Ritchie (1999) reports on the use of
visioning in a national heritage setting, Banff National Park, Canada, where the various
stakeholder groups sought to identify the environmental, economic and social future of
the park. Johnson and Snepenger (1993) also outline the use of a visioning process with
park and forest managers of the Greater Yellowstone Region designed to improve the
management of the region.
Additionally, a number of tourism destination planning studies are emerging claiming the
need for a visioning approach. Woodley’s (1993) study of community based tourism
development found that a significant barrier was the lack of vision. In the case study
projects were initiated by the territorial government without the benefit of an overall
vision for the future of the community and without any consultation on the cumulative
effects of developing numerous individual facilities. The results of a study conducted by
93
Getz and Jamal (1994) concluded that the creation of a communal strategic vision is an
important aspect of strategic planning and found that respondents supported the necessity
of developing a strategic vision. While these studies cite the importance of visioning,
none have yet looked at how the visioning process should be undertaken.
In the Australian context, a comprehensive visioning project was implemented for the
Gold Coast region to determine a preferred future for the destination. The Gold Coast
Visioning Project was a three year project undertaken and funded jointly by the Gold
Coast City Council, the Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism and the
local tourism industry (Chapter Seven). The Gold Coast has traditionally been one of
Australia’s most popular international and domestic tourism destinations. However the
Gold Coast has grown and flourished in a relatively benign regulatory regime, which has
fostered a combative enterprise mentality driven by market forces and a fiercely
competitive business culture with a fixation on profit generation and economic objectives
at the expense of other elements of the sustainable tourism agenda (Faulkner, 2003). A
range of indicators proposed by Faulkner (2003) highlighted the destination was facing
decline: emphasis on high-volume, low yield inclusive tour market and mass tourists; a
decline in visitors length of stay; the destination is well known, but no longer
fashionable; diversification into conventions, conferences, and man made attractions;
market perceptions of the destination becoming over-commercialised, and declining
profits of major tourism businesses. Faulkner (2003, p.43) therefore concluded that the
Gold Coast was a mature destination showing some early signs of stagnation, paralleling
the experience of coastal tourist resorts elsewhere in the world and that,
“…given this, it is clear that a fundamental shift in the approach to
destination planning and management is necessary if the region is to
rejuvenate and remain competitive in the longer term. However,
regardless of the stage the destination has reached the pressures of an
increasingly competitive global environment point to the necessity of a
more comprehensive approach that embraces sustainable development
principles as a framework for tourism development”.
94
The impetus for employing a strategic visioning approach for the Gold Coast was to
examine the impacts and opportunities of sustainable tourism for the community, while
creating a more strategic perspective towards tourism policy, planning, development and
marketing (Appendix Five). Faulkner and Noakes (2002, p.i) report that,
“The Gold Coast Tourism Visioning Project articulates a set of core
values and principles that underpin a preferred future for the sustainable
prosperity of Australia’s leading tourism destination in the medium to
longer term (10 to 20 years). It challenges destination Gold Coast to
move from a past ad hoc approach to tourism to one that integrates
economic, social and environmental dimensions to evolve new patterns of
managing and growing tourism in a more systematic and dynamic way in
this new century. Tourism is a key component of the inevitable transition
to sustainable development strategies in advanced western democracies
such as Australia”.
A strategic visioning program such as the Gold Coast’s can provide a systematic and
practical means for encouraging stakeholders to collaborate on issues affecting the future
of their destination. The Gold Coast model used the creation of a vision, in the format of
a visioning workshop, as a means of engaging stakeholders in decision-making and
setting the foundations for strategic planning in the destination.
In describing the Gold Coast’s visioning project, Faulkner (2003) concurs with Senge’s
view of the learning organization and notes that a vision provides a catalyst for building
collective memory and initiating an organizational learning system at the destination
level. An investment in a visioning process, with the associated planning and evaluation
systems, avoids the need to think through every crisis situation from scratch. Such an
approach not only creates a readiness for the unexpected, but also facilitates the transition
from individual insights to collective action, and establishes an institutional learning and
memory system that reduces the prospects of repeating past mistakes and/or reinventing
the wheel. At the destination level, learning would become embedded within the
organizational structure and would become integral to the planning and management
process, rather than, as is too often the case, a marginal activity restricted to a few
95
specialist researchers (Faulkner, 2003). As Faulkner notes, much of the analysis and
planning that has posed as a strategic approach to destination management in the past has
involved a reductionist approach, whereby it is assumed that we can understand the
whole in terms of an independent assessment of its parts and the whole will necessarily
operate effectively so long as the parts each function well at their own level. The inter-
relatedness of the parts is not taken into account in this perspective and “an entity such as
a tourist destination is therefore a pattern of interrelationships and fixing one problem or
part of it in isolation will not guarantee the whole will survive” (Faulkner, 2003, p.59).
4.4 Strategic Visioning and Sustainable Tourism Planning
The visioning approach to tourism destination planning is considered to be consistent
with sustainable tourism development principles (Choy, 1991; Faulkner, 2003; Smith,
2003). Ritchie and Crouch (2000) claim that anecdotal evidence is indicating that more
destinations are adopting strategic perspectives towards tourism development as
evidenced by: strategic visioning, a concern for the total impact of tourism development
and not just the economic consequences, an eye to the long term as opposed to short term
effects, and an overall objective of sustainable tourism development. Cooper (2002) also
finds that the strategic approach to destination management is evolving into the concept
of destination visioning, noting that there is a clear synergy between the adoption of
sustainable tourism principles and the disciplined, longer-term perspective provided by
the strategic planning and visioning of tourism destinations (Cooper, 2002). Ritchie and
Jay (1999) similarly claim that more sustainable tourism development projects could be
realised through the involvement of the local communities in defining their own futures,
and Page and Thorn (1997) noted that the absence of a national vision for tourism is a
major constraint on achieving sustainable tourism options at the regional and local level.
Faulkner (2003) considers the philosophical foundations of the visioning approach are
encapsulated by sustainable tourism development principles (Figure 4.1). He primarily
attributes this to the interrelationship between the sustainability agenda and strategic
visioning which necessitates an inclusive, community participation approach involving
96
representatives of all relevant stakeholder groups. The effective implementation of the
approach through the participatory model, however, requires the application of
techniques that move from simply consulting to the meaningful engagement of
stakeholders in joint decision-making. Scenario building is considered to be a
contributing factor as it is focused on the future, and the shared vision needs to be attuned
to a collective understanding of the environment and how it is changing (Faulkner, 2003).
It is important, therefore, that a scenario building process, involves an exploration of
possible futures that are informed by the variety of stakeholder perspectives. Faulkner
(2003) also identified the need for adopting a learning organization approach. Intrinsic to
both the visioning and scenario building components is the notion of stakeholders
becoming engaged in a process that ensures they are continually focused on enhancing
and expanding their collective awareness and capabilities. Learning and the building of a
knowledge base that is accessible to all stakeholders therefore needs to become an
integral part of the organisational structure at the destination level. The final aspect
hinges on collaboration in the sense that stakeholders, who normally act autonomously of
each other, must work together towards a mutually acceptable position on their
understanding of emerging challenges, preferred futures for the destination and how these
might be realised. The management of the tension between autonomy and cooperation
will therefore become central to both the development and implementation of the
strategy.
In order to achieve sustainability, Getz and Jamal (1994) claim that it is important to
reconceptualise tourism planning and development as a political process within which the
numerous stakeholders representing the community, industry and environmental interests
can strive together for common objectives. Systematic and integrative strategic planning,
based on a collaborative, learning organization framework can provide the basis for
visioning, goal setting and management of the tourism domain. Choi & Sirakaya (2005)
also note that the paradigm requires an integrated vision, policy, planning, management,
monitoring, and social learning process.
97
Figure 4.1: A Framework for Destination Strategic Management and Planning
Source: Faulkner, 2003
The sustainable development concept has been touted as the new planning agenda for the
21st century and tourism destination visioning has the twin advantages of adopting the
long-term approach whilst also engineering strong community involvement and ‘buy in’
for the future of the destination (Cooper, 2002). However if sustainability is to move
beyond a vague idealism, the task ahead for planners, especially at the local level where
there is the most authority to manage and control development, is to translate the theory
into practice (Berke, 2002; Saxena, 2005).
4.5 Chapter Four Summary
Although the concept of strategic visioning as a tourism destination planning process is
relatively new, its theoretical underpinnings and empirical evidence from several
practical applications suggest that it may be a useful process for achieving the sustainable
approach, while incorporating the caveats of strategic planning and multiple stakeholder
participation. This chapter has highlighted that a strategic visioning planning process can
Techniques Visioning
Learning organisation Collaborationapproach
Scenario building Perspectives Whole of Community destination participation approach model
Principles
Sustainable tourism development
98
not only assist in the development of a long-term focus and vision for the destination, but
it also facilitates multiple stakeholder participation and collaboration.
Faulkner’s (2003) assessment of the strategic visioning process undertaken for the Gold
Coast provides a comprehensive discussion on strategic tourism visioning and highlights
two key benefits of the approach. Firstly, a strategic visioning process acknowledges the
importance of integrating sustainable development principles into destination planning.
Strategic visioning is essentially concerned with establishing directions for tourism
development in the longer term so the principles of sustainable tourism development are
adopted as a fundamental philosophical foundation for the planning process. In addition
the process requires the adoption of a participatory model, where stakeholders are
engaged so that a true consensus on the preferred directions of future development can be
developed. Secondly, although stakeholder participation and collaboration in tourism
destination planning has been widely advocated (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Hall, 1999;
Jamal & Getz, 1995), it is still the exception rather than the rule. One possible reason is
that there is no clear description of how stakeholder participation and collaboration
should occur. A strategic visioning program may provide the systematic and practical
means for stakeholders to collaborate on issues affecting the future of their destination.
99
Chapter Five
Methodology
5.0 Introduction
Chapter Five outlines the methodology employed for the research, that is, both the
underpinning research philosophy and the specific research methods used to collect and
analyse the data. The aim of the study was to investigate the transference of sustainable
tourism theory to practice by examining the extent to which the principles of sustainable
tourism, including the contributing and prerequisite factors of strategic planning and
stakeholder participation, are utilised in the planning practices of local tourism
destinations. Additionally the study sought to examine the applicability of strategic
visioning as a practical planning model for achieving a sustainable planning approach.
To achieve these aims three research objectives were developed:
1. To investigate the current planning practices of local tourism destinations in
Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable
development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation are integrated into
the tourism planning process.
2. To examine destination stakeholders perceptions of the local tourism planning
process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development,
strategic planning and stakeholder participation underpin the process.
3. To consider the applicability of strategic visioning as a practical planning
approach for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic planning
and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning.
An interpretive, qualitative approach was adopted for the research, utilising both primary
and secondary data sources through a two-phase research process designed to meet the
stated aims and objectives of the study. The principles of constructivism and the
analytical tool of content analysis underpinned the study.
100
This chapter presents the philosophical context and details the researchers’ theoretical
perspectives including the ontology, epistemology and methodology underpinning the
research. Qualitative research methodologies are discussed before the two-phase
research process developed for this study is outlined: the content analysis of local tourism
planning documents and in-depth interviews with stakeholders from five case study
destinations in Queensland. Sampling strategies, data analysis methods, ethical
considerations and methodological triangulation and limitations are also addressed.
5.1 The Philosophical Context
Debate abounds between proponents of quantitative and qualitative paradigms,
attributable to the fact that quantitative and qualitative research paradigms represent very
different ways of thinking about the world (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Holliday, 2002).
The quantitative paradigm (or positivist) is synonymous with science or with positive or
observable facts, based on measurable variables, provable propositions and that there is a
normality that can be fathomed and understood by using the right research techniques,
statistics and experiments (Holliday, 2002; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). In contrast, a
qualitative paradigm (also referred to as the phenomenological or interpretivist
approaches) focuses less on facts and more on understanding the meaning events have for
the persons being studied (Patton, 1991). Such a perspective is based on the assumption
that the realities of the research setting and the people in it are mysterious and can only
be superficially touched by the research which aims to “explore, catch glimpses,
illuminate and then try to interpret bits of reality” (Holliday, 2002, p.5). Essentially
qualitative researchers believe that rich descriptions of the social world are valuable,
whereas quantitative researchers are less concerned with such detail (Denzin & Lincoln,
1994).
While the quantitative paradigm has been the dominant and accepted research tradition in
many fields, the use of qualitative research is increasing in a wide range of academic and
professional areas. Marshall and Rossman (1999) claim that qualitative research genres
101
have become increasingly important modes of inquiry for the social sciences and applied
fields such as education, regional planning, nursing, social work, community
development and management. Increasingly qualitative research is being viewed, as
more than a precursor to add rigour to quantitative methods, and an approach that it is not
necessarily impressionistic and unsystematic, but can in fact produce theory development
and not simply descriptive case studies (Charmaz, 2000; Glaser & Straus, 1967).
Within the arena of tourism research, quantitative, positivist methodologies, have also
been the norm, but it is also being recognized that qualitative methodologies can play an
important role in investigating the phenomena of tourism and hospitality (Riley & Love,
2000; Walle, 1997). This has arisen as tourism research is increasingly becoming
occupied with understanding the ‘why’ of the tourism phenomena, and qualitative
methodologies are allowing researchers to investigate the deeper meanings people
attribute to tourism and tourism experiences, events and phenomena (Jennings, 2001).
Studies addressing tourism planning issues have also tended to adopt qualitative, multi
method approaches, particularly the content analysis of tourism plans and interviews with
stakeholders in the planning process (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Fletcher & Cooper,
1996; Getz, 1992; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993; Pearce, 1998;
Timothy, 1999). Therefore, based on the researchers view that the world is socially
constructed and the inherent relationship between the researcher and subject as humans
excludes total objectivity, a methodological approach based on a qualitative-interpretive
paradigm was adopted for this research, which includes a relativist ontology, a
constructivist (or subjective) epistemology and a qualitative methodology.
5.2 Qualitative-Interpretive Research Paradigm
It is recognised that four major interpretive paradigms structure qualitative research:
positivist and postpositivist, constructivist-interpretivist, critical (Marxist, emancipatory),
and feminist-poststructural (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998) and the qualitative paradigm is
often referred to as: interpretive social science, critical interpretive, interpretivist,
102
constructivist, phenomenological, hermeneutic, reflective, inductive, ethnographic
(Jennings, 2001; Mason, 2002; Ticehurst & Veal, 1999). As the qualitative paradigm
incorporates a myriad of terminology and it appears that every author adopts their own,
“any venture into the literature will reveal that qualitative research is presented under a
confusing array of different and variable headings” (Holliday, 2002, p.17), for the
purposes of this discussion the qualitative paradigm in its broadest sense is referred to as
the interpretivist (interpretive) paradigm. This term has been adopted as qualitative
research is seen as grounded in a philosophical position which is broadly interpretivist in
the sense that it is concerned with how the social world is interpreted, understood,
experienced or produced (Mason, 1996).
The interpretive paradigm is based on the concept of empathetic understanding, and
according to Weber (1978, p.5), “empathetic or appreciative understanding is attained
when, through sympathetic participation, we can adequately grasp the emotional context
in which the action took place”. Researchers are seen to be part of the research process
as they seek to uncover meanings and understandings of the broad interrelationships in
the situation they are researching by relying on the people being studied to provide their
own explanation of their situation or behaviour. The interpretivist paradigm therefore
takes the view that the world is socially constructed and subjective, and that there is no
reality outside of people’s perceptions (Ticehurst & Veal, 1999). That is, the individual
and their world is co-constituted, with the person having no existence apart from the
world, and the world having no existence apart from the person (Maykut & Morehouse,
1994; Valle & King, 1978). It also considers the world as being constituted of multiple
realities, with the researcher assuming an inductive approach to research and
commencing the study in the empirical world in order to develop explanations of the
phenomena (Jennings, 2001). According to Maykut and Morehouse (1994), the way we
understand the nature of reality directly affects the way we see ourselves in relation to
knowledge. Therefore, if knowledge can be separated into parts and examined
individually, then the researcher can stand apart from who or what they are examining.
However, if knowledge is constructed, then the researcher cannot totally be separated
from what is known, i.e. the world is co-constituted.
103
5.3 Theoretical Perspective: Constructivism
The interpretivist-qualitative paradigm is the overarching paradigm for this thesis;
however, the researcher has adopted the more specific notion of constructivism as the
theoretical perspective. While other researchers may argue that interpretivism and
constructivism are comparable theoretical perspectives, the researcher’s interpretation of
the literature is that constructivism is a theoretical perspective within (or a subset of) the
overarching qualitative paradigm, which has been termed the qualitative-interpretivist
paradigm for this study.
Constructivism has been defined as “celebrating firsthand knowledge of empirical
worlds, takes a middle ground between postmodernism and positivism, and offers
accessible methods for qualitative research” (Charmaz, 2000, p.510). Constructivism
assumes that human beings do not find or discover knowledge so much as they construct
or make it. It is based on the assumption that knowledge is a result of human creation,
which becomes apparent with material and cultural resources, as opposed to the
revelation of a natural order that is pre-given and independent of human action (Golinski,
1998). Along with other adherents to the interpretive-qualitative paradigm,
constructivists attempt to understand the complex world of lived experience from the
point of view of those who live it, in that, “particular actors, in particular places, at
particular times, fashion meaning out of events and phenomena through prolonged,
complex processes of social interaction involving history, language and action” (Denzin
& Lincoln, 1998, p.222). Constructivists believe that to understand the world one must
make an interpretation of it, by constructing meaning from the language and actions of
social actors, and determining what is real is a construction in the minds of individuals
(Bloor, 1976; Charmaz, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Bateson (1972) claims that all qualitative researchers are philosophers in the universal
sense that all human beings are guided by abstract principles. Researchers principles are
a combination of beliefs about ontology (what kind of being is the human being? what is
the nature of reality?), epistemology (what is the relationship between the inquirer and
104
the known?), and methodology (how do we know the world, or gain knowledge of it?)
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). These principles will shape how the qualitative researcher
sees the world and acts in it. The interpretivist-constructivist paradigm assumes a
relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjective and constructivist
epistemology (knower and subject create understandings), and a naturalistic qualitative
(in the natural world) set of methodological procedures (Jennings, 2001).
5.3.1 Ontology
Within the social sciences, ontology examines the nature of society, the social processes,
the difference between law and rule, the role of causation and chance and the nature of
planning (Bunge, 1996), and researchers who subscribe to the qualitative-interpretivist
paradigm have an ontological view that the world consists of multiple realities. The
researcher has adopted the theoretical perspective of constructivism for this thesis, which
is underpinned by a relativist belief. Relativism assumes that there is no rational basis for
one belief to be better than another belief, that is, science is only one of a number of
possible perspectives for uncovering the truth (Blackburn, 1996; Guba & Lincoln, 1989;
Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Essentially an ontological relativism assumes that reality is
determined by the concepts of those living within it, thus there are multiple socially
constructed realities (Green, 2002).
According to Jennings (2001) this approach leads the researcher to assuming an inductive
approach to research and commencing the study in the empirical world in order to
develop explanations of the phenomena. Research, as was the case in this study, is
conducted in the natural setting of the participants to build generalizations about a
phenomenon through the participant’s view of the phenomena.
5.3.2 Epistemology
Epistemology refers to the role of observation and speculation, intuition and reason,
analogy and induction, discovery and invention and the formation of constructs and
105
methods of social science (Bunge, 1996), and considers the relationships between the
researcher and the subjects of research. An interpretive paradigm based on a
constructivist relativist approach is premised on the belief that the insider’s view provides
the best view for understanding the phenomenon being studied, because the insider’s
view, or the ‘emic perspective’, allows for the identification of multiple realities
(Jennings, 2001).
As interpretive research is based on the concept of empathetic understanding, in order to
achieve such an understanding, the researcher is obliged to enter the social setting to gain
an understanding of the issues (Jennings, 2001). Therefore the relationship between the
researcher and participant is subjective and value laden, an inherent issue and criticism of
qualitative research. However, the researcher still considers it important to minimize
subjectivity and wherever possible attempted to view the issues under investigation
objectively and minimise the influence of personal bias and beliefs.
5.3.3 Methodology
Methodology refers to the “model, which entails theoretical principles as well as a
framework that provides guidelines about how research is done in the context of a
particular paradigm” (Sarantakos, 1998, p.32). A researcher’s ontology and
epistemology will guide the choice of methodology, so to gather knowledge from the
empirical world, a researcher informed by a constructivist relativist paradigm will use a
qualitative methodology, where attempts are made to understand phenomena based on the
perspectives of those involved (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Jennings, 2001).
Constructivists generally use a naturalistic qualitative methodology, where the
methodological procedures are conducted in the real world under natural settings, with
attempts to study the whole phenomenon and all its complexity rather than breaking the
phenomenon into component parts and studying discrete variables and causal
relationships as is the case in quantitative research (Jennings, 2001). The research
106
methodology does influence the research methods that were adopted for the study, and
these are detailed further in the following sections.
5.4 Qualitative Research Methodology
Qualitative research seeks answers to questions by examining social settings and the
individuals who inhabit these settings (Berg, 2001). Qualitative research methods are a
set of interpretive techniques that describe, decode, translate and attempt to develop
meaning from a phenomenon, as opposed to a quantitative approach, which essentially
records the frequency of the phenomena (Van Maanen, 1983). Such techniques allow
researchers to share in the understandings and perceptions of others and to explore how
people structure and give meaning to their daily lives, through the collection of ‘rich’
information from respondents (Berg, 2001; Brunt, 1997). To analyse this information the
data can be subject to content analysis, a process of organizing it into objective categories
on the basis of themes, concepts or similar features, from which new concepts are
developed, conceptual definitions are formulated and relationships among concepts are
examined in relation to the research question and pre-existing theoretical understandings
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Janesick, 2000; McKee, 2003; Neuman, 2000; Sapsford & Jupp,
1996). However, the constructivist paradigm requires that the categories, themes and
patterns that emerge from qualitative research come from the data and are not imposed
prior to data collection (Janesick, 2000).
Qualitative research is often seen as using multiple methodologies and research practices,
and Brewer and Hunter (1989) claim that qualitative research is inherently multi-method.
The use of multiple methods or triangulation of materials, perspectives and observers in a
single study is done so in an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the
phenomenon in question by adding rigor, breadth, and depth to an investigation (Flick,
1992). As qualitative research does not prescribe to a distinct set of methods (Denzin &
Lincoln, 1998), this study, like others investigating the tourism planning process, has
incorporated methodological triangulation through the use of both primary and secondary
data sources to address the research issue and objectives. Multiple research techniques
107
were also used in an attempt to refine, broaden, and strengthen the conceptual linkages of
the study as illustrated in the research process (Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1: Research Process
Stage One Data Collection
Stage Two Data Collection
Building on the research issues and literature review, a two-phase research process was
developed for this study (Figure 5.1). The first stage of the research involved a
qualitative analysis of tourism planning documents to determine the extent to which the
Tourism planning at the local destination level Content analysis of local tourism planning documents
Case study destination 1
Identification and selection of case study destinations
Case study destination 2
Case study destination 3
Case study destination 4
Stakeholder perceptions of the local tourism destination planning process
In-depth, semi-structured stakeholder interviews
Case study destination 5
The development of a framework for implementing sustainable development principles into local tourism
planning
Literature review
Definition of research issue and objectives
Analysis stage one and two data collection
Recommendations/contribution
108
principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration
are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. It was found that of the 125
local tourism destinations in Queensland 30 destinations had a tourism plan (section 5.5).
Each of these plans were assessed utilising a tourism planning process evaluation
instrument and content analysis. From this analysis five destinations were selected as
cases for further investigation and for the second stage of the study, in-depth, semi-
structured interviews were conducted with stakeholder participants to determine their
perceptions of the local tourism destination planning process (section 5.6). The results of
the two-stage data collection process confirmed assertions raised in the literature that
there was a need for practical models to assist local tourism destinations in addressing
sustainable tourism planning. Therefore the final stage of the research process involved
the development and discussion of the strategic visioning framework for implementing
sustainable development principles into local tourism planning (Chapter Eight).
5.5 Stage One: Tourism Planning at the Local Tourism Destination Level
The first objective of the study was to investigate the current planning practices of local
tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles of
sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated
into the tourism destination planning process. To achieve this, a review of the most
recent, publicly available, tourism specific planning documents of each of the 125 local
tourism destinations in Queensland was conducted. Although there is no legislative
requirement for Queensland local tourism destinations to have a tourism planning
document (Chapter One), Page and Thorn (1997) consider that if such a document does
exist it would indicate a strong commitment to tourism and recognition of the role of
tourism within the economy of the area. For the purposes of this study a local tourism
destination is equated with local shire council areas based on the Australian government
system (Chapter One).
Secondary data sources (tourism planning documents) were considered useful for this
study as they enable researchers to retrospectively examine a phenomenon or process.
109
As Berno (1996) noted, published documents such as government policy can
theoretically highlight the growth of tourism to gain a historical representation of the
associated socio-cultural changes. Hall et al (1997) advocate such an approach as it can
give explanations about what happened during the planning process, as well as highlight
the associated set of values, power and interests. Such an approach has also been used in
other studies examining the tourism planning process, such as Timothy’s (1999) study
where planning documents were examined to understand issues of concern and emphasis
for the study region, while Williams et al (1998) examined planning documents to gain
an insight into the nature of the planning process. Therefore the tourism planning
documents of Queensland local tourism destinations were considered a valuable data
source to address the first objective of the study.
To source the documents, each of the 125 local tourism destinations were contacted via
their respective local shire council to identify the most appropriate person to speak to
regarding tourism planning. This occurred firstly through an introductory email and then
if necessary followed up by telephone. If the destination did have a tourism-specific
planning document the researcher obtained a copy of the documentation for analysis, and
was successful in obtaining all available documents. Tourism-specific planning
documents were sought for further analysis referring to and including tourism strategies,
tourism development plans, tourism management plans, and tourism action plans. Due to
the focus of the study, strategies and plans that focused specifically on tourism
destination marketing were excluded, although a number of the planning documents did
include destination marketing goals and objectives. Similarly regional level plans that
incorporate a grouping of shire council areas were also excluded. Destinations that did
not have a tourism planning document were excluded from further analysis.
As discussed in Chapter Six, 30 of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland had a
tourism specific planning document, and Appendix Six provides a full catalogue of the
planning status for each of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland. A further
more detailed catalogue with pertinent information was developed for the 30 tourism
planning documents to assist in the data analysis stage (Figure 6.1, Chapter Six).
110
Table 5.1: Catalogue of Queensland Local Tourism Planning Documents Catalogue Plan No.
Shire Council Area
Title of Document
Prepared by Prepared for Year
Document identification
code
Local tourism destination
area
Designates title of document
Organisation responsible for
preparing document
Organisation document was prepared for
The year of publication
5.5.1 Stage One Content Analysis
Content analysis is a recognised and common method for analysing secondary data
sources (Janesick, 2000). The use of a qualitative content analysis approach for
analysing secondary material results in data being uncovered progressively through
reading and annotation of the material which leads to the natural creation of categories,
thus uncovering pertinent data for the study (Dey, 1993; Glesne, 1999). However there is
no one single right way to conduct a content analysis (Weber, 1990), therefore to
facilitate the analysis a tourism planning process evaluation instrument developed by
Simpson (2001) was used as a framework for analysing the 30 tourism planning
documents.
The tourism planning process evaluation instrument served to underpin the content
analysis process and assist the researcher in qualitatively determining whether the stated
criteria were addressed in the tourism planning documents. This method is similar to
what Mason (2002) describes as categorical indexing, where the whole of the data set is
indexed according to a set of common principles and measures, with the objective of
applying a uniform set of indexing categories systematically and consistently to the data.
Engaging in a form of data indexing such as this can help the researcher adopt a more
objective approach to the data analysis process.
5.5.2 Tourism Planning Process Evaluation Instrument
Each of the 30 tourism planning documents were analysed based on a tourism planning
process evaluation instrument developed and tested by Simpson (2001) to assess
individual tourism destinations’ planning approaches in terms of sustainable
111
development, strategic orientation and stakeholder participation (Table 5.2). Originally
designed to quantitatively assess the tourism planning process, the instrument is
described as “an aggregate measure of elevator attitudes, culminating in an inventory of
contributing components which together delineate the specific planning process under
review” (Simpson, 2001, p.23). To build the evaluation instrument a pool of potential
items were identified through a conventional literature search and augmented through the
implementation of an experience survey technique conducted with staff members at the
author’s institution (Simpson, 2001). As Simpson’s study was quantitative, extreme care
was taken to alleviate bias and improve reliability, and Simpson (2001, p.23) reports that
“wherever possible items were phrased to require objective evaluations of
fact, rather than subjective expressions of opinion, and considerable care
was taken to clearly define any subjective concepts, in the interests of
minimizing the potential for bias”.
On conclusion of his study Simpson did not purport that the evaluative instrument was
finalized in terms of quantitative reliability and validity and qualitative conclusions were
eventually drawn on the planning processes under investigation. However Simpson does
offer the instrument as a useful starting point from which to commence further
investigative efforts.
Although Simpson’s instrument was not proven to be statistically reliable and valid in
quantitative terms, statistical reliability and validity are not such pertinent concerns for
qualitative research (Patton, 1990). The instrument was therefore deemed to be useful for
the purposes of the first stage of the research in that it provided a comprehensive
framework to conduct a content analysis of the secondary documents. As was outlined
previously, tourism planning studies have tended to adopt qualitative approaches in
analysing tourism plans and it is based on this premise that the researcher rejected the
need to use the instrument in a quantitative manner, and instead utilised the instrument in
a qualitative assessment of tourism planning. The decision to adopt Simpson’s
instrument was based on the considerable effort that was taken to reduce bias in the
construction of the instrument, as such quantitative ‘thoroughness’ can assist the
112
qualitative researcher in reducing some of the inherent subjectivity in qualitative research
(Mason, 2002).
An additional section on the tourism planning approach was added to Simpson’s original
evaluative instrument, based on the literature review, although this is not considered to
have compromised the integrity of the evaluation instrument. The method of analysis
was also slightly altered due to the qualitative paradigm adopted for this study.
Simpson’s study used a panel of assessors to meet quantitative requirement, whereas the
researcher solely conducted the analysis of the planning documents in this study using a
three-point likert type scale. The likert scale was used to assist the researcher in
determining whether the evaluative criteria were evident, somewhat evident or not
evident in the tourism planning documents. A document that had a number of ‘evident’
categories would suggest that the planning process had adopted the principles of strategic
planning and stakeholder participation and in turn sustainable development.
Alternatively if a plan had a number of ‘not evident’ categories it would suggest that the
planning process did not incorporate the principles under investigation. The somewhat
evident category was included so as not to exclude elements of relevance in the document
but which would otherwise be discarded due to the objective statements in the evaluative
instrument.
The tourism planning process evaluation instrument (Table 5.2) included five sections to
assess individual tourism destinations’ planning approaches in terms of sustainable
development, strategic orientation and stakeholder participation and collaboration. The
first section of the evaluation instrument, ‘physical, environment and economic situation
analysis’ (situation analysis), was incorporated as it was considered necessary for a
planning process to include an assessment of existing economic, environmental and
socio-cultural parameters, alongside an evaluation of current visitor activity levels in the
subject area (Simpson, 2001). The ‘strategic indicators of destination planning’ (strategic
planning) section was designed to assess the strategic orientation of the planning process,
and whether a clear base had been established from which planned development can
commence. In this study a long-term, strategic perspective is defined as a planning
113
document of five years or more (Murphy & Murphy, 2004). The situation analysis and
strategic planning sections address the key aspects of the traditional strategic planning
approach recognized in both the general strategic planning literature and the tourism
strategic planning literature through the consideration of overall goals and objectives,
scope or domain of action to achieve objectives, resources and/or distinctive
competencies which will assist in achieving objectives, and skills and resource
deployments (Schendel & Hofer, 1979; Simpson, 2001).
The third section, ‘stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process’
(stakeholder participation) assesses the nature and influence of stakeholder involvement,
including the stage at which involvement occurred and the extent to which local
stakeholder opinion was taken into account in the final planning outcomes (Simpson,
2001). This is considered a key aspect of the process because as the literature suggests,
effective strategic planning is a collective phenomenon typically involving a diverse set
of stakeholders in various ways and at various times (Bryson, 1995; Bryson & Roering,
1987). The ‘destination community vision and values’ section examined the integration
of community values into the tourism planning process and the extent to which the vision
for the future of the destination is in keeping with such values. The final section, the
‘dominant tourism planning approach’ was added to the original instrument to investigate
the issue raised in the rationale for the study (Chapter One) that the tourism industry has
been slow to adopt sustainability principles and actually put them into practice due to the
fact that economic motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues (Getz,
1986; Hall, 1998). In assessing the documents for their tourism planning approach, the
goals and objectives as well as strategies and action plans/agendas within the documents
were examined.
Table 5.2: Tourism Planning Process Evaluation Instrument Physical, Environmental and Economic Situation Analysis
• The planning document describes the area’s principal geographic features • The planning document describes the main characteristics of the local climate • The planning document identifies flora and fauna which are unique to the area • The planning document assesses the resilience and/or fragility of the physical environment • The planning document identifies current population levels and demographics • The planning document identifies current land use and ownership patterns in the area
114
• The planning document identifies the major economic activities in the local area • The planning document establishes the relative importance of tourism, compared with other
industries, to the economic development of the local area • The planning document quantifies the economic benefit of tourism to the area • The planning document quantifies the employment creation ability of local tourism activity • The planning document describes the principal tourism sites in the area • The planning document evaluates the current capacity of tourism plant and infrastructure • The planning document evaluates the adequacy of business skills possessed by local tourism
industry operators • The planning document includes quantitative analysis of current visitor numbers, length of stay
and spending • The planning document acknowledges the need to integrate local tourism strategies with other
local, regional, state and national plans for tourism development Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning
• The time dimension of the planning process reflects a long term orientation • The planning document includes broadly based goals related to the nature and scale of future
tourism development • The planning document identifies broadly based goals related to the economic benefits of future
tourism development • The planning document includes broadly based goals related to environmental protection • The planning document includes broadly based goals related to community values and lifestyle
protection • The planning document includes broadly based goals which emphasize the local benefits of
tourism development • The planning document identifies a range of alternative strategies by which broadly based goals
may be achieved • The planning document evaluates each strategy option prior to determining a range of specific
objectives • Specific objectives support previously established broad goals • Specific objectives selected are based on supply capability as opposed to market demand • Specific objectives target the equitable distribution of tourism’s economic benefits throughout the
local area • Specific objectives for future tourism activity are quantified and readily measurable
Stakeholder Participation and Influence in the Planning Process • The planning document addresses the relationships between destination stakeholders • Relevant state/federal government agencies took part in the planning process • Relevant local agencies took part in the planning process • Governmental opinions (federal, state, or local) influenced the final strategic direction selected • The relevant regional tourism organization took part in the planning process • The relevant local tourism authority took part in the planning process • Regional tourism organization or local tourism authority opinion influenced the final strategic
direction selected • The local tourism industry took part in the planning process • Local tourism industry opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected • Other local non-tourism organizations took part in the planning process • Other local non-tourism organization opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected • Ordinary local residents took part in the planning process • Ordinary local resident opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
Destination Community Vision and Values • The planning document identifies locally important community values • The planning document identifies locally important lifestyle features • The planning document identifies current issues which are critical to residents • The planning document assesses community attitudes to tourism
115
• The planning document assesses the overall quality of life in the area • The planning document includes a vision for the future which aligns with local community values,
attitudes and lifestyles Tourism Planning Approach
• The planning document addresses economic development and growth • The planning document addresses the physical resources of the destination • The planning document addresses the impacts of tourism on the natural environment • The planning document addresses how tourism can benefit the local community • The planning document addresses tourism in the context of sustainable development
Source: Adapted from Simpson, 2001
5.5.3 Ranking of Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents
To provide a more quantifiable and objective assessment of the performance of tourism
planning documents against the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation
instrument each of the plans received a score which allowed for the weighting and
ranking of each of the local tourism planning documents. To assist in determining the
extent to which the analysed plans met with the tourism planning process evaluation
criteria a ranking method was devised, based on a system developed by Zhang, Ruhanen,
Murphy and Cooper (2004), so that a more objective assessment of the qualitative data
could be made.
The ranking was derived from awarding evident items a score of 2, somewhat evident
items a score of 1 and items that were not evident in the plans 0. Within the situation
analysis section there were 15 items and therefore a plan could potentially receive a score
of 30 for this category if all 15 items were evident (15 assessment items x a score of 2).
The strategic indicators items could potentially achieve a score of 24 (12 assessment
items), stakeholder participation 26 (13 assessment items) and destination vision and
values a score of 12 (6 assessment items). A plan that had met with all of the stated
criteria in the evaluation instrument could potentially receive a score of 92. By ranking
the plans in accordance with their compliance with the assessment criteria a total score
was derived. The total score is presented in the final column of Table 6.38 (Chapter Six).
A percentage figure is also provided that shows the plan’s compliance with the
assessment criteria, for example the Cardwell plan had a total score of 24 and the plan
included 26% of the evaluation criteria.
116
5.5.4 Stage One: Summary
The first stage of the research involved a qualitative analysis of available tourism
planning documents for each of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland. It was
found that 30 destinations had a tourism plan and these were assessed utilising content
analysis and underpinned by the use of a tourism planning process evaluation instrument
originally developed by Simpson (2001) to determine the extent to which the principles
of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are
integrated into the tourism destination planning process (Table 5.2).
The results of the first research stage are outlined in Chapter Six. Results of the planning
process evaluation are presented for both the 30 tourism destinations collectively and for
each destination that had a tourism plan. From this individual analysis, each of the plans
were quantitatively weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism
planning criteria to provide the sampling framework for the second stage of the study.
5.6 Stage Two: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Local Tourism Destination
Planning Process
The second objective of the study was to examine destination stakeholders’ perceptions
of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable
development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process. As
discussed, the establishment of a more strategically focused and sustainability oriented
model hinges on the degree to which leading players among the stakeholder groups
embrace it and champion the cause (Faulkner, 2003). It was therefore deemed important
to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions of these key elements as without their support the
planning process would be made redundant. Also addressed in the second stage of the
research process were stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning as per the third
research objective of the study. To address these objectives, in-depth, semi-structured
117
interviews were conducted with destination stakeholders in five local tourism case study
areas in Queensland.
5.6.1 Local Tourism Destination Case Studies
Case studies were utilised in the research as they have been found to be valuable in that a
great deal can be learned from a few exemplars of the phenomenon in question (Patton,
1990). The case study method refers to the systematic gathering of enough information
about a particular person, social setting, event or group to permit the researcher to
effectively understand how it operates or functions (Berg, 2001; Ragin & Becker, 1992).
Collective case studies can also be used which involve the holistic study of several
instrumental cases, whether similar or different in nature, to allow for better
understanding and the enhanced ability to theorize about a broader context (Berg, 2001;
Yin, 1994). Although some authors have suggested that findings are specific to the case
study and cannot be generalized to other cases (Jennings, 2001), cases are selected for
study because they are of particular interest given the study’s purpose (Patton, 1990). It
has also been claimed that case study approaches are beneficial in determining what
happened during the decision making, planning and policy making processes of tourism
planning and policy making (Hall et al, 1997).
From the planning process evaluation conducted in the first stage of the research, each of
the planning documents were numerically weighted and ranked in terms of their
compliance with the tourism planning criteria (section 5.5.3). This allowed for an
objective selection of case study destinations. As with Kaufman and Jacobs (1993)
tourism planning study, case study eligibility for this research was based on selecting
destinations where the tourism planning process was considered ‘advanced enough’ to
allow for informed in-depth interviews with destination stakeholders regarding their
perceptions of the local tourism planning process and how the principles of sustainable
development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are incorporated. In
Kaufman and Jacobs (1993) study participants represented communities for which
strategic planning was far enough advanced to allow for an informed interview so that
118
they could contrast the strategic planning process with other, more traditional planning
approaches. Based on this logic, as only five destinations met with over 50% of the
criteria from the tourism planning process evaluation instrument, five destinations were
selected as case studies to meet the second and third objectives of the study. Incidentally
two of these destinations had also conducted a tourism visioning project for their
destination which allowed for further in-depth analysis of the strategic visioning
approach in relation to the third objective of the study. The five case study destinations
selected were: Redland Shire, Sarina Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City Council, and
Thuringowa City Council.
5.6.2 In-depth Interviews with Local Tourism Destination Stakeholders
In-depth, semi structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders in each of the five
case study destinations selected for stage two of the research. Interviewing is a common
means of collecting data in qualitative research and can be defined as simply, a
conversation with a purpose, with the purpose being to gather information (Babbie, 1998;
Denzin, 1978; Dexter, 1970; Marshall & Rossman, 1999). In-depth interviewing refers
to respondents giving detailed, reflective answers based on consideration of their
evidence and experiences. The advantage of in-depth interviews is researchers have the
opportunity to obtain thoughtful answers based on the experience of participants as well
as gain an insight into the topic from diverse viewpoints. They also allow researchers to
find out about things that they did not directly observe, in this case the tourism
destination planning process. A further advantage is the ability to collect large amounts
of data in a relatively short period of time, as well as allowing for clarification of issues
with participants on their thoughts. In-depth interviews can also be a useful method
when the information is expected to vary considerably, and with the well-acknowledged
diversity in stakeholder attitudes within a destination, this was certainly the case in this
study.
While several types of interview categories can be utilised from completely standardized
to completely un-standardized interview structures (Babbie, 1995; Berg, 2001; Maykut &
119
Morehouse, 1994; Schwartz & Jacobs, 1979), the semi standardized (or semi structured)
interview technique was adopted for this study. Under this type of interviewing
structure, a number of predetermined open questions are asked of each subject in a
systematic and consistent order, but the interviewers have the freedom to digress to probe
beyond the answers to the prepared and standardized questions (Berg, 2001). The
researcher explores a few general topics to help uncover the participant’s views but
otherwise respects how the participant frames and structures the responses which also
allows for questions and discussion to be more suitably tailored to the circumstances of a
particular interview.
An unstructured approach to interviewing is fundamental to qualitative research in that
the participant’s perspective on the phenomenon of interest should unfold as the
participant views it, not as the researcher views it (Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Patton,
1990). Such an approach is also important for researchers who subscribe to the
constructivist theoretical perspective where the onus is on attempting to understand and
interpret the experience from the point of view of those who have experienced it. The
semi-structured interview approach allows researchers to see the basic social process
through respondents telling us what is significant (Glaser, 1992), and was therefore seen
as the most applicable approach for the research based on the researchers constructivist
perspective.
The interview was designed to capture respondents’ reflections of the planning process,
and as with Williams et al’s (1998) study of tourism planning, gain stakeholder
perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses and outcomes of the planning process. An
interview guide was prepared in advance of the interviews based on the key theories and
issues raised in the literature review (Chapters Two, Three & Four) pertinent to the
research objectives of this study. The objective of preparing an interview guide with a
series of questions or topics was to ensure that the same information was obtained from
all participants in the study (Patton, 1990). Respondents were also supplied with the
interview guide in advance so that they had an opportunity to become familiar with the
issues to be discussed. The interview guide included initial screening questions regarding
120
stakeholder’s regular affiliations in the destination, whether they were a resident of the
area, their role in the tourism planning process, their reasons for participating in the
planning process and their perceived influence and ownership of the plan outcomes.
Following these initial questions four broad themes were used to guide the interview,
with a series of prompts and questions for the researcher to use (Appendix Seven).
The first of these themes related to sustainability and included questions regarding
stakeholder views on the concept of sustainability, perceived practical application of the
sustainability concept and any factors that may be facilitating or hindering the adoption
of sustainable tourism planning approaches. The second theme addressed strategic
planning and included questions for stakeholders regarding their destination’s strategic
planning process and more specifically whether the process had provided a framework
for development in the destination, whether it would meet the current and future needs of
the area and the perceived benefits and relevance of local level strategic planning
processes.
The third theme addressed in the interviews related to broad based stakeholder
participation in the tourism planning and decision-making process, including the role of
local residents. Respondents were asked for their views on how the multiple stakeholder
groups were engaged in the planning process, the success of multiple stakeholder
participation and whether stakeholder participation had enhanced the tourism planning
process and resulted in a more accepted tourism plan for the destination. This theme also
addressed stakeholder leadership and responsibility for planning and the role of the local
government authority in local tourism destination planning. The final theme addressed
future planning practices and stakeholder perceptions of the strategic visioning concept as
a tourism destination planning model. Additional questions were included within this
theme for stakeholders from the case study destinations that had previously participated
in a strategic visioning process.
Typically interviews ranged from 45 minutes to an hour, depending on respondents’
willingness to discuss and delve into the issues under investigation. Interviews were
121
tape-recorded with the permission of the respondent to avoid the disruption of note-taking
(King, 1994) and transcribed by the researcher as soon as practically possible after the
interview to allow for clarification and additional notes to be made if necessary. The
interviews were conducted with stakeholders at a time and place of their convenience,
which in all cases was in the case study region (the subject’s natural setting).
5.6.3 Stakeholder Interview Sampling
A sampling strategy was designed to guide the selection of subjects to participate in the
in-depth interviews. Qualitative sampling includes people (or settings) selected for the
goal of gaining a deep understanding of some phenomenon experienced by a selected
group of people (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). In contrast to quantitative sampling
where randomly selecting subjects is necessary to ensure the population is representative
(probability sampling), qualitative research sets out to build a sample through a non-
probability or non-random sample, with every person in the study having an equal chance
of selection (Jennings, 2001). Although there are several possible non-probability
sampling approaches available, the technique adopted for sampling the participants for
the in-depth interviews in this study was a purposive snowball sampling strategy.
Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling strategy that can locate subjects with
certain attributes or characteristics necessary for a study (Berg, 2001). The basic strategy
of snowballing (also referred to as chain or expert sampling) involves firstly identifying
several people with relevant characteristics and interviewing them, at which time these
subjects are asked for the names of other people who possess the same attributes as they
do. Snowball sampling has been found to be useful with difficult to reach participants
because the researcher may not be informed about formal or informal ‘network
connections’ (Jennings, 2001). Medeiros de Arajo and Bramwell (1999) identify the
snowball method as a useful means of identifying relevant stakeholders based on the
views of other stakeholders. They further state that the snowball method can be very
useful at a local level, thus its inclusion as a sampling strategy in this study. The
researcher firstly identified stakeholders from the tourism planning document analysis
122
(stage one research) that played a critical role either as coordinator of the planning
process, on a steering committee or were noted as authors of the strategy. On completion
of interviews these participants were asked to identify other stakeholders, which had been
involved in the planning process. The success of this approach varied between case
studies. For instance in the case of Sarina, all six stakeholders approached participated in
an interview, whereas in the case of Redland Shire a total of ten stakeholders were
contacted, with only six agreeing to participate in an interview (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3: Stakeholder Interview Response Rate
Case Study Destination Response Rate Total Respondents
Redland Shire 60% 6
Sarina Shire 100% 6
Douglas Shire 75% 6
Gold Coast City 75% 6
Thuringowa City 70% 7
While quantitative sampling studies have strict criteria for obtaining statistically valid
samples of the population, the sampling size for qualitative research is not so exact. It
has even been suggested that there are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry as
there is no attempt to make generalisations for the population, as is the case with
quantitative research (Patton, 1990). In determining the sampling size for qualitative
research, it is suggested that one must collect and analyse data in an ongoing process
until no new information is presented (Guba, 1978; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994).
Similarly, Punch (1998) suggests that the process continues until no new data are found,
only confirmation of previous ‘theories’. Authors have found that saturation point may
be reached with as few as twelve participants and no more than twenty (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). For this study, a minimum of five stakeholder respondents from each of the case
study destinations was considered desirable to obtain a total study sample of 25. This
figure was considered acceptable based on previously conducted studies of the tourism
planning process that utilised stakeholders as interview participants (Getz & Jamal, 1994;
123
Timothy, 1999). In total 31 stakeholder respondents were interviewed from the five case
study destinations, which exceeded the minimum acceptable target. It was also found
that a saturation point had been reached in terms of identifying additional appropriate
stakeholders to participate in the study based on the snowball sampling method.
Three main stakeholder groups in local tourism destination planning were identified in
the literature review (Chapter Three): the local government authority of the destination,
members of the tourism industry (operators and service providers) and the destination
resident community. Although it is highly debatable as to who constitutes as a
stakeholder, it is generally accepted that all three parties should have decision-making
responsibility for the future of the destination (Chapter Three), and therefore were
deemed to be the potential participants of this study. Actual participants in the study
included stakeholders from the local government authority of the destination (councillors
and council officers), and members of the tourism industry (private sector operators,
members or staff of tourism associations and similar authorities). Although not
originally identified as a stakeholder, consultants who were retained for the planning
process were also interviewed and actually proved to be key stakeholders (Chapter
Eight). Despite being widely acknowledged as a key stakeholder group, local residents
of the destination community who participated in the planning process could not be
interviewed. As discussed in the limitations of the study (section 5.8), it was not possible
to obtain contact information for local residents for any of the case study destinations,
despite concerted attempts to do so. However many of the respondents from the other
stakeholder group categories were also residents of the destinations under investigation
(Table 5.4).
Respondent’s regular affiliations as well as their role in the local tourism planning
process, and their perceived influence over the tourism planning process are presented in
Table 5.5. Respondents were asked during the interviews to describe their perceived
level of influence over the planning process, which is discussed in Chapter Eight. The
respondent codes listed in the first column of Table 5.5 have been used to identify
124
responses from stakeholder participants in the results of the in-depth interviews in
Chapter Seven.
Table 5.4: Respondent Regular Affiliation and Residence in Destination
Case Study 1-
Redland
Case Study 2-
Sarina
Case Study 3-
Douglas
Case Study 4-
Gold Coast
Case Study 5-
Thuringowa
Affiliation Council 2 3 2 1 2 Industry 1 1 1 1 2 Association 2 2 2 1 1 Consultant 1 0 1 3 2 Total 6 6 6 6 7
Resident Yes 5 5 5 3 4 No 1 1 1 3 3 Resident Average Years
18.5
44.6
31.0
15.0
7.3
Table 5.5: Respondent Role in Planning Process and Regular Affiliation
Role In Planning Process Regular Affiliation Perceived Influence
Case Study 1- Redland R1 Project Consultant Consultant Intermediate R2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High R3 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council Intermediate R4 Consultation Industry Operator Low R5 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority Intermediate R6 Consultation Local Tourism Authority Low
Case Study 2- Sarina S1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High S2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High S3 Steering Committee Shire Council Intermediate S4 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority Intermediate S5 Steering Committee Industry Operator Intermediate S6 Steering Committee Regional Tourism Organisation Low
Case Study 3- Douglas D1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High
125
D2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High D3 Project Consultant Consultant High D4 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority Intermediate D5 Steering Committee Industry Operator Intermediate D6 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority Intermediate
Case Study 4- Gold Coast G1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High G2 Project Consultant Consultant Intermediate G3 Project Consultant Consultant Low G4 Consultation Local Tourism Authority Intermediate G5 Project Researcher Consultant Low G6 Consultation Industry Operator Intermediate
Case Study 5- Thuringowa T1 Steering Committee State Tourism Authority Low T2 Consultation Regional Tourism Organisation Low T3 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High T4 Consultation Industry Operator Low T5 Consultation Industry Operator Low T6 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High T7 Project Consultant Consultant High
5.6.4 Stage Two Content Analysis
Qualitative research generally results in large amounts of rich data, and this was certainly
the case in this research with 31 in-depth interview transcripts. To reduce and transform
the data into an accessible and understandable form, and to draw out various themes and
patterns associated with the participants being studied (Berg, 2001; Dey, 1993;
Neuendorf, 2002), the transcripts were analysed and organised utilising the principles of
content analysis. Researchers subscribing to the constructivist paradigm consider that
data should be analysed through a process of induction, where the researcher constructs
and reconstructs meaning in the data in relation to the research question (Janesick, 2000).
Although statistical analysis programs such as NUD*IST can be employed for certain
types of qualitative data analysis, such software packages are generally not considered
suitable for constructivist approaches and are more applicable to positivist methods, as
the data becomes removed from its contextual origins and from the researchers
constructions and interpretations (Charmaz, 2000).
126
A central idea in content analysis is that the many words of the text are classified into
much fewer content categories, which may consist of one, several or many words (Swift,
1996; Weber, 1990). The researcher analysed the data in accordance with the content
analysis method referred to as the thematic framework approach. This approach involves
organizing the data into categories on the basis of themes, concepts or similar features,
from which new concepts are developed, conceptual definitions are formulated and
relationships among concepts are examined (Berg, 2001; Jennings, 2001; Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Neuman, 2000; Sapsford & Jupp, 1996). Identified themes, concepts
and patterns are then considered in light of previous research and theories, so that
generalizations can be established (Berg, 2001). This constant comparative method
requires the comparison of all the items of data that have been assigned to the same
category, with the aim being to clarify what the categories that have emerged mean, as
well as to identify sub-categories and relations among categories (Berg, 2001). The
benefit of this approach is that it provides a useful method for organizing the content
according to some characteristics prior to the application of the next level of data coding
(Baker, 1999). This approach also avoids the more quantitative content analysis practice
of counting words and paragraphs.
The thematic framework approach has been used previously in qualitative tourism
planning research studies. Medeiros de Arajo and Bramwell’s (1999) study used the
framework approach to analyse interview transcripts from stakeholders which involved a
series of systematic steps of becoming familiar with the material, identifying a thematic
framework, rearranging the data according to appropriate thematic references, identifying
key characteristics of the data, and interpreting the overall findings. Similarly Getz and
Jamal’s (1994) study of collaborative tourism planning employed a qualitative procedure
of data analysis, with statements being sorted into broad categories as they emerged and
then further divided into sub-categories.
127
5.6.5 Data Coding
To undertake a qualitative research process consideration must be given to the process of
data coding. Using a thematic framework approach to data analysis, data coding is a
somewhat subjective process, however Boulton and Hammersely’s (1996) method of
analysing unstructured data is useful. They suggest closely reading the data with a view
to identifying aspects that may be significant, while noting topics or categories to which
the data relate and which are relevant to the research focus, or are in some other way
pertinent to the research issue. The data is then sorted by these categories, identifying
similar phrases, patterns, relationships, and commonalities or disparities to isolate
meaningful patterns and processes. Codes are generally developed analytically or
inductively from the data.
To further refine the data coding process manifest and latent analysis were also used once
the thematic framework approach had been applied to the data sets. Content analysis in
this context examines not only examines the manifest content of the material analysed
(such as words) but also the latent content (the underlying, implicit meaning of a body of
content) (Baker, 1999). Manifest codes are derived from the examination of those
elements that are physical and countable, and is seen as highly reliable as a word or
phrase either is or is not present in a text (Neuman, 1997). Manifest coding, however
does not take into account the symbolism underlying the physical data or the
connotations associated with the context of words and phrases, therefore requiring a
latent or interpretive reading of the text (Berg, 2001). Manifest attributes of text may be
coded and when supplemented with latent analysis, detailed excerpts from relevant
statements are provided to document the researchers’ interpretations.
It has been noted by some that this approach is a controversial coding method, “it is true
that only the manifest attributes of text can be coded, but this limitation is already implied
by the requirement of objectivity” (Holsti, 1968, p.602), so giving a unit of content the
same attention from both methods is reasonably valid and reliable (Babbie, 1998). By
reporting the frequency of a given concept in the text, researchers can provide a more
128
convincing argument (Berg, 2001). To investigate the deeper meanings from the in-depth
interviews that an interpretive constructivist paradigm seeks, manifest analysis is utilized
to determine the extent to which the topics and issues uncovered through the thematic
framework occur, with the latent analysis used to provide detail and attribute meaning to
the stakeholder’s interview responses.
5.6.6 Ethical Considerations
The University of Queensland has strict guidelines relating to ethical approval for
research which the researcher complied with in undertaking this study. These guidelines
extend to the establishment of procedures for the informed consent of research participants,
the protection of participant identity, as well as the appropriate management of research
findings including data storage and member cross checking.
Informed consent involves participants understanding the nature and purpose of the
research and consenting to participate without coercion (Burns, 1997). Participants must
also be made aware of the purpose of the research and how the findings will be used, as
well as any potential risks or harm (de Vaus, 1995). In accordance with ethical
regulations, participants were supplied with an information sheet to be retained for their
record, detailing the nature of the project as well as the contact details of the researcher
and supervisory team should they wish to discuss the project further (Appendix Eight).
In addition participants were provided with a consent form, which was signed and
returned to the researcher before the interviews began (Appendix Nine). Participants
were also made aware both verbally and on the consent form that they were free to
withdraw from the study at any time. In addition participants were notified and their
permission sought for the use of a tape-recorder in the interview. The stated measures
regarding informed consent were deemed sufficient, as the research was not seeking any
type of controversial information from respondents.
Confidentiality and anonymity refers to protecting names and keeping the confidence of
participants in the study. Although qualitative methods preclude total anonymity, as the
129
researcher knows the participant, participants in the study have not been individually
identified in any way in the thesis document and were notified as such in the consent
forms and information sheet provided prior to conducting the interview. Particular
responses have only been identified by the respondent code and respondent’s regular
affiliation (Table 5.5). To further ensure confidentiality and protect participant identity,
the records of the research including audio material and interview transcripts have been
stored by the researcher in a password protected computer and locked filing cabinet.
Member cross checking involves giving participants a copy of the interview transcript so
that they have an opportunity to refute or verify the researcher’s interpretation of their
comments. Member checks are seen as an important process due to the subjective nature
of qualitative research, and are also viewed as a form of methodological triangulation
(Schwandt, 1997). To remove researcher bias all participants in the study were provided
with a written copy of the interview transcripts and were asked to check the documents
for accuracy of meaning and to rectify any comments that they felt had been
misinterpreted.
5.6.7 Stage Two: Summary
The second stage of the research involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews with
destination stakeholders in five local tourism case study areas in Queensland. This stage
of the research was designed to examine destination stakeholders’ perceptions of the
local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable
development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process, as
well as address stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning. 31 interviews were
conducted with stakeholders from five case study destinations, which were selected
based on the outcomes of stage one of the research. The case study approach was
considered useful for the purposes of this research as the holistic study of several
instrumental cases allows for enhanced understanding and the ability to theorize about a
topic in a broader context.
130
In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders due to the
constructivist approach adopted for this study. The interviews addressed several themes
derived from the literature review including sustainability, strategic planning, stakeholder
participation and strategic visioning. Respondents were sampled from the five case study
areas utilising a purposive snowball sampling method to identify appropriate stakeholder
participants from the local tourism destination planning process. The researcher analysed
the data in accordance with the content analysis method referred to as the thematic
framework approach. The thematic framework approach to content analysis was initially
applied to analyse the interview transcripts, with data coded utilising the manifest and
latent method to investigate the deeper meanings from the in-depth interviews that an
interpretive constructivist paradigm seeks.
The results of the second research stage are outlined in Chapter Seven. Stakeholder
interview results are presented according to the previously identified themes of
sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation to address the second
research objective of the study. Additionally the interview results regarding stakeholder
perceptions of alternative planning practices and strategic visioning are presented to
address the third research objective, with more detailed results presented for the two
destinations, which have previously undertaken a strategic visioning process.
5.7 Methodological Triangulation
Several methods were employed for this study, including secondary data content analysis
and in-depth interviews conducted within a case study format. The use of multiple data-
gathering techniques to investigate the same phenomenon is defined as methodological
triangulation, which is a process of mutual confirmation of measures and validation of
findings (Berg, 2001; Blaikie, 1991; Decrop, 1999; Jick, 1983; Leedy, 1993). The
advantages of such an approach are the opportunities to refine, broaden, and strengthen
conceptual linkages while offering perspectives other than the researcher’s own (Borman,
LeCompte & Goetz, 1986; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Triangulation also assists in
generalizing a study as data can be used to corroborate, elaborate or illuminate the
131
research in question (Rossman & Wilson, 1994). Marshall and Rossman (1999) support
such claims as they find that designing a study in which multiple cases, multiple
informants, or more than one data-gathering method are used can greatly strengthen the
study’s usefulness for other settings.
Although it is common for studies with more objectivist assumptions (quantitative) to
triangulate interview data with data gathered from other methods, the triangulation of
research methods was also deemed useful for this study. Even though the study adopted
a constructivist subjective epistemology which assumes an emic (insider) approach, the
content analysis of secondary data is a means of triangulation as it positions the
researcher as an outsider thus being etic in nature (Jennings, 2001). The tourism planning
process evaluation instrument, which was used to guide the content analysis, assisted in
the data triangulation, as it required objective observations of the inclusion of certain
criteria in the planning document. As Simpson (2001) noted in developing the
instrument, items were phrased to require objective evaluations of fact, rather than
subjective expressions of opinion, and considerable care was taken to clearly define any
subjective concepts. Although not proven statistically reliable for a quantitative study,
the care to alleviate subjectiveness and assessor bias was deemed particularly useful for
the current study in assisting the researcher reduce some of the inherent subjectivity in
qualitative research (Mason, 2002).
5.8 Methodological Limitations and Assumptions of the Study
The research is bound within certain delimitations, limitations and assumptions. The
study is delimited by the examination of the tourism planning processes of local tourism
destinations (as defined by Shire Council boundaries) in Queensland. Tourism specific
planning documents including strategic plans, development plans and the like have been
examined, with tourism destination marketing plans excluded from analysis. The study
has not addressed the implementation phase of the plan, only the planning process and
the extent to which it was underpinned by the principles of sustainable development and
the identified prerequisites of strategic planning and stakeholder participation. The study
132
was also delimited by an assessment of the most recent planning document published by
the destination. In terms of selecting destinations for further investigation as per the
second research objective, destinations that ranked below 50% were excluded. This was
based on the fact that such destinations had addressed less than half of the evaluation
items relating to the themes under investigation and were therefore considered unsuitable
to provide an informed view on sustainable development, strategic planning and
stakeholder participation (Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993). It is acknowledged that this is a
subjective judgment and 50% was an imposed pass mark, although an arbitrary figure
was set to allow for a more objective selection of case study destinations. However if
more of the tourism planning documents had received a higher score in the evaluation
assessment this ‘pass’ figure may have been adjusted accordingly. A further delimitation
is that interviews were not undertaken with every participant in the planning process, nor
were they conducted with tourism destination stakeholders who, for whatever reason, did
not participate in the planning process under investigation.
The study and research methods are also limited by several factors. Firstly, stage one of
the research was conducted over a six month period in 2004. It is possible that since this
time additional local tourism planning documents have been released that the researcher
did not identify. Although an inherent and accepted challenge of qualitative research it
must also be noted that the researcher’s personal perspectives may have influenced the
interpretation of the planning documents, despite the use of the tourism planning process
evaluation instrument. In terms of the second stage of the research it was noted
previously that it was not possible to interview ordinary residents of the case study
destinations who had participated in the planning process. Due to privacy laws the
researcher was unable to obtain contact details for these participants and the snowball
sampling method also proved unsuccessful in overcoming this limitation. It was
eventually deemed that residents could not participate in the interviews, and the omission
of their perspectives of the planning process is acknowledged as a limitation of the study
given that destination residents are acknowledged as a key stakeholder (Chapter Three).
Although many of the respondents interviewed were also residents of the area (Table 5.4)
133
due to their regular affiliations they all have some level of vested interest in tourism
within their destination.
The study is also set within several assumptions. Firstly it was assumed that a number of
local tourism destinations in Queensland would have a tourism specific planning
document. In addition it was assumed that the destinations alignment with the principles
of sustainability would influence the content of the tourism planning documents. It was
further assumed that it would be possible to identify key aspects of sustainability,
strategic planning and stakeholder participation from the plans and stakeholder
interviews. The final assumption of the study was that participants from the planning
process would be available to participate in the interviews.
5.9 Chapter Five Summary
This chapter has outlined the methodology employed for the research, including both the
underpinning research philosophy and the specific research methods that were used to
collect and analyse the data. Given the objectives of the study, the issues under
investigation and the researcher’s views that the world is socially constructed and the
relationship between the researcher and subject excludes total objectivity, the qualitative-
interpretive methodological approach was detailed including the constructivist
epistemology, relativist ontology and qualitative methodology.
Qualitative research methodologies and processes were discussed prior to outlining the
two-phase research process undertaken for the study: the content analysis of local tourism
planning documents and in-depth interviews with stakeholders from five case study
destinations in Queensland. The sampling strategies and data analysis methods for both
phases of the research were detailed, as were the methodological limitations and
assumptions of the study. Chapter Six details the results of the first research objective,
the analysis of Queensland local tourism planning documents, and Chapter Seven
addresses the second and third objectives of the study, through the results of the in-depth
stakeholder interviews from five case study local tourism destinations.
134
Chapter Six
Tourism Planning at the Local Tourism Destination Level
6.0 Introduction
The first research objective of the study was to investigate the current planning practices
of local tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the
principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration
are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. To achieve this objective an
analysis of the most recent, publicly available, tourism specific planning documents of
each of the 125 local tourism destinations (Shire Council areas) in Queensland was
undertaken. The evaluation instrument (Table 5.2, Chapter Five) provided the means for
qualitatively assessing the extent to which local tourism destinations in Queensland
addressed the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder
participation in their planning processes as detailed in their respective tourism planning
documents.
This chapter presents the findings from this analysis and is structured into four sections.
To begin with an overview is provided of the number and type of tourism planning
documents for local Queensland tourism destinations. Following this, the overall results
of the plan analysis are presented to illustrate how local tourism destinations in
Queensland on the whole met with the stated evaluative criteria (Table 5.2, Chapter
Five). Thirdly, the individual analysis for each of the local tourism plans is detailed to
demonstrate the extent to which they match the criteria from the tourism planning process
evaluation instrument. From this individual analysis, each of the plans are quantitatively
weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria, to
allow for the selection of case study destinations as per the second objective of the study.
To conclude, importance-performance analyses are presented for both destinations that
did have a tourism planning document and those that did not, to assess any correlation
that may exist between the importance of tourism to the destination and undertaking local
level tourism destination planning.
135
6.1 Audit of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents
To meet the first objective of the study an initial audit was undertaken of tourism
planning documents for each of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland. As
discussed in the methodology chapter, tourism-specific planning documents were sought
for further analysis referring to and including tourism strategies, tourism development
plans, tourism management plans, and tourism action plans. Tourism marketing
strategies and plans were excluded due to the fact that the focus of the study was
sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation.
Of the 125 local tourism destinations in Queensland it was found that 30 destinations
(24%) had a tourism specific planning document (Figure 6.1). The vast majority, 65% or
81 of the 125 destinations, did not have a tourism planning document for their local area.
The remaining 14 destinations (11%) were found to be in the process of developing some
form of tourism plan or strategy at the time of audit. Appendix Six provides a full
catalogue of the planning status for each of the 125 local tourism destinations in
Queensland.
Figure 6.1: Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents (n=125)
Plan in Progress
11%Plan24%
No Plan65%
Although it may be expected that the larger, more popular tourist centres (such as Cairns,
Brisbane) would have a tourism planning document Figure 6.2 highlights that there is no
136
correlation between location and whether the destination has a tourism plan. This can
also be seen when contrasting the destinations that do have a tourism plan with those that
do not, against the number of tourism businesses in the area (the importance of tourism to
the destination). Some of the largest tourism destinations in Queensland (in terms of
tourism businesses) such as Brisbane, Cairns and Townsville do not have a local level
tourism planning document. Interestingly destinations such as Pittsworth have a tourism
planning document yet only have 10 tourism businesses. These issues are further
discussed in section 6.5 of this chapter. However as per the research methods,
destinations that do not have a tourism plan were excluded from further analysis.
Figure 6.2: Importance of Tourism to Destination* and Tourism Destination
Planning Documents
Pittsworth
TownsvilleMaroochy
Gold CoastCairns
Brisbane
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
>5
>10
>15
>20
>30
>40
>50
>100
>200
>300
>400
>500
>1000
>2000
>3000
Tour
ism
Bus
ines
ses
No. of Queensland Local Tourism Destinations (Shire Council Areas)
Tourismplan
Notourismplan
Source: Office of Economic and Statistical Research, 2005 * Note: Tourism business figures based on combined Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants and Cultural
and Recreational Services categories (Appendix Ten).
Table 6.1 outlines the catalogue items for the 30 local tourism destinations in Queensland
which have a specific tourism planning document, including the title of the document,
who it was prepared by, what it was prepared for, and the year the document was
137
published. Consultants prepared approximately half of the planning documents and the
local shire council commissioned the vast majority. The final column in Table 6.1
indicates the year that the plan was published and as can be seen, the majority of the
plans (19) were released between 2000-2003. It can also be seen in Table 6.1 and
diagrammatically in Figure 6.3 that 17 of the 30 documents (56%) were identified (titled)
as strategic plans, eight were (27%) general tourism plans or tourism development plans,
and five were tourism action plans (17%).
Table 6.1: Catalogue of Queensland Local Tourism Planning Documents Catalogue
Plan No. Shire Council
Area Title of Document Prepared by Prepared for Year
1 Atherton Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan
Expert panel Not Stated Not Stated
2 Banana Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan
Consultant Shire Council Not Stated
3 Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy
Consultant Shire Council 2003
4 Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan
Not Stated Not Stated 2003
5 Burdekin Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan
Consultant RTO 1999
6 Caloundra Caloundra Tourism Plan Caloundra Tourism Action Plan
Shire Council Not Stated 2002 2002
7 Cardwell Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan Shire tourism taskforce
Not Stated 2002
8 Chinchilla Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan
Consultant/ Shire Council
Shire Council 2002
9 Crow’s Nest Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan
Shire Council Shire Council 2003
10 Douglas Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy
Consultant Shire Council 1998
11 Gatton Gatton Tourism Strategy Consultant Shire Council 1996 12 Gold Coast Gold Coast City Council’s
Tourism Strategy Tourism
Branch-Shire Council
Shire Council 2003
13 Hinchinbrook Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy
Shire Council/ Development
Bureau
Shire Council 1993
14 Ipswich Ipswich City Tourism Strategy Shire Council Shire Council 1997 15 Kilcoy Kilcoy Shire Tourism
Management Plan Consultant Chamber of
Commerce & Industry
2001
16 Laidley Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy
Consultant Shire Council 1997
17 Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy
Not Stated Shire Council 2002
18 Maroochy Tourism Development Consultant Shire Council 2000
138
Strategy 19 Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism
Strategy Consultant Shire Council 1994
20 Mount Isa Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan
Consultant Shire Council 2000
21 Murilla Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan
Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated
22 Nanango Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan
Consultant Shire Council 2001
23 Noosa Noosa Tourism Plan Noosa Tourism Action Plan
Tourism Board Shire Council 2001 2001
24 Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy Not Stated Shire Council Not Stated
25 Pittsworth Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy
Shire Council Shire Council 2003
26 Redcliffe Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy
Consultant Shire Council 2001
27 Redland Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy
Consultant Shire Council 2003
28 Roma Tourism Action Plan Not Stated Not Stated 2000 29 Sarina Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy Shire Council Shire Council 2002 30 Thuringowa Thuringowa Tourism and
Event Strategy Consultant Shire Council 2000
Figure 6.3: Title of Tourism Planning Document (n=30)
Strategic Tourism Plan
56%
Tourism Plan27%
Tourism Action Plan17%
6.2 Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents
Each of the 30 tourism planning documents uncovered in the initial audit were
individually analysed to determine the extent to which they addressed the criteria from
the tourism planning process evaluation instrument, and these results are detailed in the
following section of this chapter. This section presents an overview of the results from
139
this analysis to illustrate how the local tourism planning process and subsequent local
tourism destination plans in Queensland on the whole met with the stated evaluative
criteria (Table 5.2, Chapter Five). These results are presented in both summative tables
and diagrammatically in bar graphs where the evident and somewhat evident criteria
have been combined into a single dimension so that the extent to which the criteria
appear in the plans can be more easily recognised. The results are presented according to
the evaluation instrument: physical, environmental and economic situation analysis;
strategic indicators of destination planning; stakeholder participation and influence in the
planning process; destination community vision and values; and, tourism planning
approach.
6.2.1 Physical, Environmental and Economic Situation Analysis
The physical, environmental and economic situation analysis section included evaluation
items to assess the existing economic, environmental and socio-cultural parameters, as
well as current visitor activity levels in the destination area (Simpson, 2001). Table 6.2
and Figure 6.4 outline each of the 15 evaluation items and whether they were assessed as
evident, somewhat evident or not evident in the 30 tourism planning documents.
Table 6.2: Physical, Environmental and Economic Situation Analysis n=30 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
The planning document describes the area’s principal geographic features.
9 8 13
The planning document describes the main characteristics of the local climate.
5 1 24
The planning document identifies flora and fauna which are unique to the area.
2 2 26
The planning document assesses the resilience and/or fragility of the physical environment.
3 4 23
The planning document identifies current population levels and demographics.
9 2 19
The planning document identifies current land use and ownership patterns in the area.
5 1 24
The planning document identifies the major economic activities in the local area.
14 1 15
The planning document establishes the relative importance of tourism, compared with other industries, to the economic development of the local area.
10 7 13
140
The planning document quantifies the economic benefit of tourism to the area.
7 0 23
The planning document quantifies the employment creation ability of local tourism activity.
6 1 23
The planning document describes the principal tourism sites in the area.
15 2 13
The planning document evaluates the current capacity of tourism plant and infrastructure.
5 4 21
The planning document evaluates the adequacy of business skills possessed by local tourism industry operators.
3 3 24
The planning document includes quantitative analysis of current visitor numbers, length of stay and spending.
14 4 12
The planning document acknowledges the need to integrate local tourism strategies with national policies for tourism development.
5 5 20
Figure 6.4: Physical, Environmental and Economic Situation Analysis (n=30)
17
6 47
116
1517
7 7
17
96
18
10
13
24 2623
1924
1513
23 23
13
2124
12
20
Geogra
phic
featur
es
Loca
l clim
ate
Flora &
fauna
Physic
alen
viron
ment
Popula
tion & de
mograp
hics
Land
use
Econo
micac
tivitie
s
Impo
rtanc
e oftou
rism
Touris
mec
onom
icbe
nefits
Employm
ent
Touris
msit
es
Infras
tructu
reca
pacit
y
Operat
orsk
ills
Visitor
analy
sis
Interg
rate str
ategie
s
Not Evident
Evident/SomewhatEvident
Even with the evident and somewhat evident categories combined, Figure 6.4
demonstrates that most local tourism destinations in Queensland are not conducting a
physical, environmental or economic situation analysis of the destination for their tourism
planning processes. Of the 15 evaluation items, 10 were not evident in the majority of
documents. This is despite the fact that the items in this category are comprised of
descriptive type information on the local area and baseline data and statistics, which are
generally readily available and should be used as a starting point for any consideration of
141
tourism activity and development within a destination (Simpson, 2001). Very few of the
documents included this primary destination information such as local climate, flora and
fauna, the physical environment, population levels and demographics, and land use and
ownership patterns. Similarly including some level of data or discussion on the economic
benefit of tourism, employment creation ability and current capacity of tourism plant and
infrastructure was also missing from the vast majority of documents, which once again is
baseline information that would be expected in a tourism planning document. Evaluation
items that were included in a number of the plans were descriptions of the area’s
principal geographic features and tourism sites, and half of the documents addressed the
relative economic importance of tourism compared to other industries in the area.
6.2.2 Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning
The strategic indicators of destination planning category contains evaluation items to
establish whether the destination has clear goals and objectives to allow for future
planned development (Simpson, 2001). Table 6.3 and Figure 6.5 outline each of the 12
evaluation items and whether they were assessed as evident, somewhat evident or not
evident in the analysed tourism plans.
Table 6.3: Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning n=30 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
The time dimension of the planning process reflects a long term orientation.
16 6 8
The planning document includes broadly based goals related to the nature and scale of future tourism development.
3 5 22
The planning document identifies broadly based goals related to the economic benefits of future tourism development.
4 0 26
The planning document includes broadly based goals related to environmental protection.
8 2 20
The planning document includes broadly based goals related to community values and lifestyle protection.
8 0 22
The planning document includes broadly based goals which emphasize the local benefits of tourism development.
5 0 25
The planning document identifies a range of alternative strategies by which broadly based goals may be
16 0 14
142
achieved. The planning document evaluates each strategy option prior to determining a range of specific objectives.
4 2 24
Specific objectives support previously established broad goals.
2 8 20
Specific objectives selected are based on supply capability as opposed to market demand.
6 12 12
Specific objectives target the equitable distribution of tourism’s economic benefits throughout the local area.
5 3 22
Specific objectives for future tourism activity are quantified and readily measurable.
9 3 18
Figure 6.5: Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning (n=30)
22
84
10 85
16
610
18
812
8
2226
20 2225
14
2420
12
2218
Long termorientation
Futuredevelopment
Economic goals
Environmental goals
Communitygoals
Local benefit goals
Alternativestra
tegies
Evaluatestra
tegy options
Objectives support goals
Supply capability
Distribution of benefits
Objectives quantifia
ble
NotEvident
Evident/SomewhatEvident
As with the situation analysis category, local tourism destinations in Queensland are not
including strategic indicators of destination planning, demonstrating that little attention is
given to strategic thinking and consideration of the future. Of the 12 assessment items in
this category, the majority of the evaluation items (9) were not evident in over half of the
analysed documents. Although certain assessment items were included in a number of
the documents, these items tended to be quite standard, introductory information,
examples include the time scale of the document and providing a range of alternative
strategies to achieve stated goals.
143
Other evaluation items in this category, which are far more pertinent to any consideration
of strategic destination planning, tended to be overlooked and omitted from the
documents. An obvious indicator of a strategic orientation, ‘broadly based goals related
to the nature and scale of future tourism development’ were not even considered in 22 of
the 30 plans. This could effectively mean that the majority of destinations in the study
have not considered what their destination will be like in the future, and therefore would
have no point of reference to measure, even anecdotally, when the destination has
reached a critical stage of development. Similarly, economic, environmental and social
goals related to tourism are not articulated, nor are ‘specific objectives for future tourism
activity are quantified and readily measurable’, which means there is no point of
reference for ensuring goals are reached and more importantly not exceeded or diverted.
6.2.3 Stakeholder Participation and Influence in the Planning Process
The third category in the evaluation instrument, stakeholder participation and influence in
the planning process, assesses the nature and influence of stakeholder involvement in the
process and included 13 evaluation items (Table 6.4). The stakeholder participation
section more specifically included evaluation items to establish the temporal dimension
of community participation, that is whether involvement took place throughout the
process, or at specific stages only, and to measure the extent to which local stakeholder
opinion has been taken into account in the final planning outcomes (Simpson, 2001).
Table 6.4: Stakeholder Participation and Influence in the Planning Process n=30 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
The planning document addresses the relationships between destination stakeholders
20 6 4
Relevant state/federal government agencies took part in the planning process
22 3 5
Relevant local agencies took part in the planning process
6 10 14
Governmental opinions (federal, state, or local) influenced the final strategic direction selected
0 16 14
The relevant regional tourism organization took part in the planning process
6 4 20
The relevant local tourism authority took part in the planning process
6 6 18
144
Regional tourism organization or local tourism authority opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
0 13 17
The local tourism industry took part in the planning process
7 12 11
Local tourism industry opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
0 19 11
Other local non-tourism organizations took part in the planning process
5 5 20
Other local non-tourism organization opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
0 10 20
Ordinary local residents took part in the planning process
7 6 17
Ordinary local resident opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
0 13 17
As can be seen in Table 6.4, none of the assessment items relating to influence on the
final strategic direction selected were considered evident in the planning documents.
This was due to the fact that unless specifically stated otherwise it was difficult to
determine whether the participation and opinions of a particular stakeholder did in fact
contribute to the final strategic direction selected. Instead these assessment items were
rated as somewhat evident due to the fact that a stakeholders’ participation in the process
(in theory) should have some influence on the final strategic direction selected. However
the in-depth interviews conducted for the second objective of the study are designed to
overcome this limitation and assess the influence of stakeholder groups in the planning
process. The remaining eight assessment items from the stakeholder participation
category, which primarily relate to specific stakeholder group participation, are presented
in Figure 6.6.
Based on the secondary analysis of the planning documents it does appear that local
tourism destinations in Queensland are incorporating the various stakeholder groups into
the tourism planning process and the majority of documents addressed the importance of
relationships and involvement of different destination stakeholders. In terms of specific
stakeholder group participation, the majority of planning processes involved the federal
or state government, and the local tourism industry. The local government was
acknowledged as a participant in just over half of the planning processes, despite the fact
that 22 of the plans were prepared for the local government authority of the area (Table
6.1). Fewer plans discussed the involvement of the relevant Regional Tourism
145
Organisation (10) or Local Tourism Organisation (12), and only 10 plans discussed the
involvement of non-tourism organisations. Although a well acknowledged caveat to
planning processes, and a requirement of the Queensland State Government’s IPA, only
13 of the 30 plans acknowledged the participation and involvement of the local residents
in the tourism planning process.
Figure 6.6: Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process (n=30)
26 25
1610 12
19
10 13
4 5
1420 18
11
20 17
Stakeh
older
relati
onsh
ips
Federa
l/ Stat
e gove
rnmen
t
Loca
l gov
ernmen
tRTOs
LTOs
Touris
mind
ustry
Non-to
urism
org's
Loca
l resid
ents
NotEvident
Evident/SomewhatEvident
6.2.4 Destination Community Vision and Values
The destination community vision and values section examined the integration of
community values into the planning process and the extent to which the vision for the
future of the destination is in keeping with such values (Simpson, 2001). Table 6.5 and
Figure 6.7 outline each of the six assessment items and whether they were assessed as
evident, somewhat evident or not evident in the tourism plans.
146
Table 6.5: Destination Community Vision and Values n=30 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
The planning document identifies locally important community values
2 3 25
The planning document identifies locally important lifestyle features
2 4 24
The planning document identifies current issues which are critical to residents
2 5 23
The planning document assesses community attitudes to tourism
2 5 23
The planning document assesses the overall quality of life in the area
0 3 27
The planning document includes a vision for the future which aligns with local community values, attitudes and lifestyles
1 6 23
Figure 6.7: Destination Community Vision and Values (n=30)
5 6 7 73
7
25 24 23 2327
23
Communityvalues
Lifestylefeatures
Residentissues
Communityattitudes
Quality oflife
Vision
NotEvident
Evident/SomewhatEvident
The integration of community values into the planning process and developing a vision
for the future of the destination taking into account such values was not a focus of the
local Queensland tourism planning processes analysed for this study. Only seven plans
identified current issues critical to residents, assessed community attitudes to tourism or
included a vision statement that aligned with identified community values, attitudes and
lifestyles. These results can possibly be attributed to the fact that as mentioned in the
previous evaluation category, only 13 of the 30 plans acknowledged the participation and
involvement of the local residents in the tourism planning process. Without the
147
involvement of the local community it would be difficult to gauge their values, issues and
attitudes to tourism in the destination.
6.2.5 Tourism Planning Approach
The dominant tourism planning approach category was added to Simpson’s original
evaluation instrument to investigate the issue raised in the rationale for the study (Chapter
One) that the tourism industry has been slow to adopt sustainability principles and put
them into practice due to the fact that economic motivations are given priority over social
and ecological issues. In assessing the documents for their tourism planning approach,
the goals and objectives as well as strategies and action plans/agendas within the
documents were primarily examined. If for example a plan gave considerable attention to
marketing and promotion it was assessed as addressing economic development and
growth. However such a plan might also include strategies for visitor signage (physical
resources of the destination), and was therefore assessed as having more than one
planning approach. Unlike the previous categories the assessment items within the
tourism planning approach were assessed as either evident or not evident (Table 6.6 and
Figure 6.8). These results are presented in a summative form, however Appendix 11
details each of the 30 planning documents and the specific tourism planning approaches
which were evident. The strategies and/or goals that were evident in the tourism
planning documents, and formed the basis for the assessment of the tourism planning
approach are presented in Figure 6.9.
Table 6.6: Tourism Planning Approach n=30 Evident Not Evident The planning document addresses economic development and growth
28 2
The planning document addresses the physical resources of the destination
26 4
The planning document addresses the impacts of tourism on the natural environment
6 24
The planning document addresses how tourism can benefit the local community
9 21
The planning document addresses the sustainable development of tourism
15 15
148
Figure 6.8: Tourism Planning Approach (n=30)
28 26
6 915
4
24 2115
2
Economic Infrastructure Environment Community Sustainable
NotEvident
Evident
Figure 6.9: Strategies/Goals Evident in the Tourism Plans (n=30)
1 1 1 146
14
2022
27
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Marke
ting&
prom
otion
Prod
uct d
evelo
pmen
t
Infra
struc
turede
velop
menVisit
orse
rvice
s
Commun
ityinv
olvem
en
Enco
urag
ene
wop
erators
Lead
ersh
ip&
man
agem
enCult
ural
protec
tion
Emplo
ymen
tNatu
ral a
ssets
The majority of tourism planning documents analysed for this study, overwhelmingly
exhibited the economic and infrastructure tourism planning approaches (Figure 6.8). The
evidence of these approaches can be attributed to the majority of documents focusing on
marketing and promotion (including market research and advertising), product
development and infrastructure development (including access, transport and signage)
149
(Figure 6.9). Few of the plans exhibited the environmental and community tourism
planning approaches, only six and nine respectively. Even where plans were assessed as
exhibiting the community approach this was limited to issues such as leadership,
community involvement in tourism, and training and education. Half of the plans were
assessed as exhibiting a sustainable approach to tourism planning, however very few of
the plans included any specific strategies or goals related to sustainability. Similarly
some of the plans which touted sustainability goals addressed, for example, only
economic and community issues but not environmental.
6.2.6 Summary: Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination
Planning Documents
This section presented the collective results of the 30 tourism planning documents which
were analysed to determine the extent to which they addressed the criteria from the
tourism planning process evaluation instrument (Table 5.2, Chapter Five). The results of
this analysis have shown that generally the local tourism destinations met with very few
of the stated criteria, and performed quite poorly in each of the five evaluation categories.
The situation analysis category showed that the majority of documents failed to include
descriptive, baseline information and statistics such as characteristics and features of the
local climate, flora and fauna and population levels and demographics. Similarly, the
strategic indicators of destination planning evaluation category highlighted the fact that
strategic thinking and consideration of the future of the destination is not featuring in the
tourism planning process. The third evaluation category, stakeholder participation and
influence in the planning process, showed that while tourism destinations in Queensland
appear to be incorporating a variety of stakeholder groups into the tourism planning
process, some of the key stakeholder groups such as the local destination community are
not being included in all cases. Therefore it is not surprising that few of the analysed
documents included evaluation items from the destination vision and values category,
which assesses the extent to which community values and attitudes are incorporated into
the planning process. The final evaluation category examined the dominant tourism
150
planning approach adopted by destinations and whether one approach was emphasised
more than another, due to criticisms that the tourism industry gives priority to economic
issues. This criticism was proven to be correct based on the documents analysed for this
study which overwhelmingly exhibited the economic tourism planning approach, as
evidenced by an emphasis on marketing and promotion.
To provide further detail of these issues the following section outlines each of the 30
tourism planning documents and their individual compliance with the criteria of the
tourism planning process evaluation instrument.
6.3 Individual Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning
Documents
This section presents the analysis of each of the individual local tourism planning
documents, including key information on the destination’s location (see Figure 1.2,
Chapter One), importance of tourism and rationale for undertaking a tourism plan.
Summative tables are used to illustrate the plans’ compliance with the five evaluative
criteria assessment categories: physical, environmental and economic situation analysis
(situation analysis); strategic indicators of destination planning (strategic planning);
stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (stakeholder
participation); destination community vision and values (destination vision), and tourism
planning approach.
Although the results are presented in a summative form for each of the assessment
categories, Appendix 12 shows the compliance of the 30 planning documents with each
of the 51 assessment items from the tourism planning process evaluation instrument and
Appendix 13 provides further details of the stated rationale, objectives and vision
statement for each of the 30 tourism planning documents. As detailed in section 6.4, each
of the plans were assigned a numerical score based on their inclusion of the evaluative
criteria and ranked accordingly from most to least compliant. The plans are presented in
this section according to this ranking order (Table 6.7).
151
Table 6.7: Ranking Order of Tourism Planning Documents*
Catalogue Plan No.
Shire Council Area
Local Tourism Planning Document
27 29 10 12 30 18 19 815 523 26 2722 14 20 11 13 616 324 28 421 25 917 1
Redland Shire Sarina Shire Douglas Shire Gold Coast City Thuringowa City Maroochy Shire Mirani Shire Chinchilla Shire Kilcoy Shire Burdekin Shire Noosa Shire Redcliffe Shire Banana Shire Cardwell Shire Nanango Shire Ipswich City Mount Isa City Gatton Shire Hinchinbrook Shire Caloundra City Laidley Shire Blackall Shire Pine Rivers Shire Roma Shire Bowen Shire Murilla Shire Pittsworth Shire Crow’s Nest Shire Mareeba Shire Atherton Shire
Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy Gold Coast City Council’s Tourism Strategy Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy Tourism Development Strategy Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan Cardwell Shire Tourism Action Plan Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan Ipswich City Tourism Strategy Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan Gatton Tourism Strategy Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy Roma Tourism Action Plan Tourism Development Action Plan Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan Tourism Development Strategy Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan
* Note: Ranking derived from quantitative evaluation scores (Table 6.38)
6.3.1 Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy
Redland Shire is a coastal urban centre adjoining the Queensland state capital of Brisbane
(Figure 1.2). The Shire has a number of natural attractions and tourism is considered one
of the key economic sectors (Redland Shire Council, 2002). The objective of developing
the Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Strategy was to produce a practical strategy that
provides a clear way forward for tourism in the Shire, while critically reviewing aspects
that are preventing the Shire from adopting more sustainable directions (ATS Group,
2003; Redland Shire Council, 2003). The Redland Shire strategy was found to include
152
the majority of the evaluation assessment items and was the most compliant of the plans
with the evaluation criteria (Table 6.8). The majority of assessment items were found to
be evident in both the situation analysis and strategic planning categories respectively.
The stakeholder participation items were also assessed as evident and it was stated in the
plan that consultation was undertaken with stakeholders including government, tourism
bodies, operators and members of the community to identify relevant issues and examine
potential opportunities, through stakeholder workshops, meetings and interviews,
questionnaires, public forums and feedback on a discussion paper. A destination vision
was also articulated which addressed the evaluation items from the assessment criteria,
“A pro-active planning approach is recommended to establish a future
sustainable vision within which we can change our current ways of doing
things, within an acceptable time frame, to ensure that what we do now does
not compromise our ability to achieve this vision” (p.16).
Table 6.8: Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy Plan 27 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
10 0 5
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 7 4 1 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
7 6 0
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 6 0 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
*****
All five of the tourism planning approaches were assessed as evident in the Redland Shire
Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy and the document included strategies such as
management structure, product development, infrastructure, transport, marketing,
research and training. The strategy also made numerous references to the issue of
sustainable development such as,
“Allowing unsustainable practices to go unchecked creates a significant
long-term constraint as substantial retro planning then needs to occur to
153
resolve emerging symptoms... and we are often not addressing the
underlying cause” (p.16).
6.3.2 Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy
Sarina Shire is a rural, agricultural community, located on the east coast of central
Queensland approximately 40 kilometres south of Mackay and at the southern tip of the
Great Barrier Reef (Figure 1.2) (Sarina Shire Council, nd). As with many other rural
regions experiencing declining agricultural activity, Sarina Shire Council initiated the
tourism development strategy as part of its overall program for new economic
development in the Shire (Sarina Shire Council, 2002). The Sarina Shire Tourism
Strategy included a number of the assessment items from the evaluation instrument
(Table 6.9), particularly from the situation analysis and strategic planning categories,
although few of the assessment items were evident in the stakeholder participation
category. Items from the destination vision category were evident as can be seen from
the statement,
“Quite often, during the process of community consultations leading to the
preparation of this strategy, individuals have expressed fear of tourism. One
of the objectives of the public consultation was to dispel these fears and to
involve the different groups and individuals in the planning process” (p.58).
Table 6.9: Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy Plan 29 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
11 2 2
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 9 2 1 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
3 6 4
Destination community vision and values (6) 2 2 2 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
*****
154
All of the tourism planning approaches were assessed as evident in the Sarina Shire
Tourism Strategy, including the sustainable tourism planning approach,
“The approach adopted by the strategy constitutes a major departure from
the traditional approach of tourism development through marketing and
promotion in that it strongly advocates the overriding importance of tourism
product development over marketing and promotion as a tool to boost
sustainable tourism development in the sector” (p.3).
6.3.3 Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy
Douglas Shire is located in Far North Queensland, approximately 100 kilometres north of
Cairns (Figure 1.2). Although the shire has a population of 11,000 the area receives in
excess of a million visitors a year due to the fact that over 80% of the Shire is world
heritage listed with both the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Wet Tropics
including the Daintree National Park and Cape Tribulation, located in or surrounding the
Shire (Douglas Shire Council, 2004). Tourism is the largest economic sector in the
Douglas Shire and the tourism strategy was prepared to guide tourism planning,
management, marketing and development in the Shire (Douglas Shire Council & Port
Douglas Daintree Tourism Association, 1998). The Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy
contained the majority of the situation analysis and strategic planning assessment items
from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.10), an a number of the stakeholder participation
items were also assessed as evident or somewhat evident, with statements in the plan
such as,
“It is intended that the strategy be guided by the principle of managing and
developing the industry cooperatively with the community” (p.3).
The destination vision items were also assessed as evident or somewhat evident in the
plan,
“The population of the Shire feels a strong sense of attachment to and pride
in the Shire, and a deep appreciation of its natural assets. Indeed, high
environmental values are prominent among the community…ensure
155
implementation of this strategy is consistent with the community’s
aspirations” (p.35).
Table 6.10: Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy Plan 10 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
8 4 3
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 7 1 4 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
5 4 4
Destination community vision and values (6) 2 4 0 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
*
*
*
**
Two of the planning approaches were evident in the Douglas Shire plan including the
physical approach where one of the stated aims in the document is to “ensure community
infrastructure and services are supportive of tourism industry development” (p.38), with a
range of supporting strategies and objectives. The other was the sustainable development
approach with the “goal to ensure the ecological, social, cultural and economic
sustainability of existing and future tourism in the Shire” (p.3).
6.3.4 Gold Coast Tourism Strategy
The Gold Coast is a large coastal urban centre located in the South Eastern corner of
Queensland (Figure 1.2). With a current population in excess of 450,000 the Gold Coast
is the sixth largest city in Australia, but does have a range of natural features such as its
beaches and hinterland, built attractions with several large theme parks and is host to a
range of special events and sports, which have made it a popular destination for several
decades with both international and domestic visitors (Gold Coast City Council, 2004).
Despite it’s long association with tourism, the Gold Coast Tourism Strategy was
developed to provide the first formal Council plan for tourism. The strategy was also
designed to provide a framework for many of the planning and policy outcomes of the
156
Gold Coast Tourism Visioning project (Chapter Four) (Gold Coast City Council Tourism
Branch, 2003). The strategy contained a range of assessment items from the evaluation
instrument (Table 6.11), however despite the fact that the strategy emerged from the Gold
Coast Visioning Project, the majority of the items within the destination vision category
were not evident.
Table 6.11: Gold Coast Tourism Strategy Plan 12 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
9 2 4
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 5 2 5 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
8 5 0
Destination community vision and values (6) 1 1 4 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
***
In assessing the tourism planning approach adopted for the Gold Coast tourism strategy it
was evident that the plan predominantly addressed tourism in the context of sustainable
development due to statements such as,
“In an increasingly competitive global environment, a strategic approach
to tourism planning and development is imperative. Yet, history has
shown that economic growth without due regard to its social and
environmental consequences is self-defeating in the longer term. It is
important that Gold Coast City’s tourism industry continues to be
economically, environmentally and socially sustainable” (p.17).
6.3.5 Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy
Thuringowa City is located in North Queensland, alongside the large regional centre of
Townsville (Figure 1.2). The Shire comprises both rural and urban areas, with several
sites of interest including the Paluma mountain range that is officially part of the Wet
157
Tropics World Heritage Area (Thuringowa City Council, 2003). The recognition that
such assets could be harnessed to develop a sustainable tourism industry for the Shire
provided the impetus for the Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy (ATS Group,
2000). The strategy included a number of the assessment items from the evaluation
instrument (Table 6.12), with a number of items evident from the situation analysis and
strategic planning categories. Within the stakeholder participation category the majority
of items were assessed as evident as,
“During this study a number of stakeholder meetings were held to identify
key issues from the community’s perspective. Attendees included local
government, state government, regional development bodies, tourism
operators and associations” (p.22).
None of the items from the destination vision category were evident in the Thuringowa
strategy.
Table 6.12: Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy Plan 30 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
5 3 7
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 6 3 3 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
7 5 1
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
*
**
The tourism planning approaches evident in the strategy included the economic,
infrastructure and sustainable development approaches. As stated in the strategy,
“The development of the tourism industry in the city requires a planning
platform based on ecologically sustainable development, to support the
future promotion of the natural environment and the social/cultural
elements (people) as principal marketing themes for the City” (p.18).
158
6.3.6 Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy
Maroochy Shire is located approximately 100km north of Brisbane on the Sunshine
Coast (Figure 1.2), and has a range of tourist facilities and attractions. Maroochy Shire
incorporates the key regional centre of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, and is the
largest contributor of tourism receipts to the Sunshine Coast regional economy
(Maroochy Shire Council, 2002). The objective of the Maroochy Tourism Development
Strategy was to establish the foundation and direction for further development of
sustainable tourism throughout the Shire, with 95 actions grouped under five strategic
objectives (Rob Tonge & Associates, 2000). Despite the document’s strategic intentions,
a number of the items were not evident from the situation analysis or strategic planning
categories (Table 6.13). Stakeholder participation items were generally assessed as
evident or somewhat evident as, “twenty-four interviews were conducted with key
operators in the Shire, industry organisations, developers and Tourism Queensland” (p.9)
and “to gain maximum input from industry and the wider community, a series of eight
workshops were held in key centres” (p.1). Although a vision statement was included in
the plan it did not meet with the evaluative criteria for the destination vision category.
Table 6.13: Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy Plan 18 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
7 3 5
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 3 4 5 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
7 4 2
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 1 5 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
***
Two tourism planning approaches were evident in the Maroochy plan. The economic
approach was evident with strategies relating to marketing and information centres, as
159
well as the physical infrastructure approach with transport planning, signage and
attractions/experiences strategies.
6.3.7 Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy
Mirani Shire is a rural sugar producing area located west of Mackay in central
Queensland (Figure 1.2) (Mirani Shire Council, nd). The tourism development strategy
was formulated in recognition of the need to develop a new sector that will raise the level
of economic activity and employment (Centre for Applied Economic Research and
Analysis, 1994). The Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy did include a number of
the evaluation instrument assessment items (Table 6.14), and although strategic indicators
were generally not included, the majority of items from the situation analysis category
were evident or somewhat evident in the plan. Stakeholder participation items were
addressed as somewhat evident,
“The achievement of the tourism policy will require specific initiatives
that are coordinated with a common sense of purpose in mind. Given that
some sections of the local community may be unenthusiastic about
tourism growth because it impinges on their own preferred recreation
activities, there would need to be community discussion of this proposal”
(p.83).
Table 6.14: Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy Plan 19 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
11 2 2
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 2 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 8 4
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 3 3 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
*
**
160
The tourism planning approaches that were evident in the Mirani Shire plan were the
economic approach with marketing and promotion strategies and the infrastructure
approach with transport and product development strategies. Evidence of the inclusion of
the sustainable approach in the plan was limited to statements such as “the overarching
tourism policy goal is ecologically sustainable growth” (p.iii), and the quite unique
statement linking sustainability to marketing theory, “a strategy for sustainable
development of tourism in Mirani Shire must acknowledge: place, product, promotion,
price, planning” (p.84).
6.3.8 Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan
The Shire of Chinchilla is located at the western extent of the Darling Downs region in
southern Queensland, approximately 300 kilometres north west of Brisbane (Figure 1.2)
(Chinchilla Shire Council, nd). Although the shire is largely reliant on primary
production, the Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan was developed in recognition of
tourism’s role as an economic growth option that compliments and builds on the existing
strengths of the Shire (Beeton, Campbell & Carter, 2002). Although the majority of
situation analysis items were included, few of the strategic planning or stakeholder
participation criteria were addressed, and the destination vision items were only assessed
as somewhat evident (Table 6.15).
Table 6.15: Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan Plan 8 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
8 1 6
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 4 1 7 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
2 3 8
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 6 0 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
**
*
161
Several of the tourism planning approaches were addressed in the Chinchilla tourism
plan. The economic, physical and community approaches were evident with strategies
related to the development of a brand/identity, attraction development, product
development and a category on community priorities.
6.3.9 Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan
Kilcoy is a small rural shire located 94 kilometres west of Brisbane (Figure 1.2) (Kilcoy
Shire, 2003). Tourism is recognized as an important contributor to the future economic
development potential of the Shire and the objective of developing the Tourism
Management Plan was to ensure the strategic planning and management of the sector to
achieve successful outcomes (Insight Operations, 2001). However few of the assessment
criteria from the evaluation instrument were evident in the plan (Table 6.16), although all
of the items within the stakeholder participation category were assessed as either evident
or somewhat evident,
“Community and industry consultation included: a field study, survey,
community forum and interviews with community members, local
businesses and all tourism operators in the Shire, as well as relevant
government departments and agencies” (p.9).
Table 6.16: Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan Plan 15 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
4 0 11
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 1 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
8 5 0
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
**
*
162
The economic, infrastructure and to a lesser extent, community approaches were evident
in the plan with strategies relating to leadership and management, marketing, skills
training and product development. The issue of sustainable development was addressed;
“sustainable economic development and diversification is the key to Kilcoy’s future”
(p.7), although the plan’s strategies and actions points tended not to consider sustainable
development.
6.3.10 Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan
The Burdekin Shire is located south of Townsville in North Queensland (Figure 1.2). A
predominantly rural area, the Burdekin Shire actively promotes its tourist offerings,
which are generally based on agricultural production and natural assets (Burdekin Shire
Council, 2005). The Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan evolved from a recognition
that an outcomes-based tourism strategy and action plan encompassing all components of
the regional tourism market was needed (AEC Group, 1999). The plan did include a
number of assessment items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.17), although these
were primarily from the situation analysis category. Several of the assessment items
from the stakeholder participation category were evident in the plan and, although a
stakeholder vision was mentioned in the plan, the vision statement was not articulated in
the document nor were any of the assessment items from the destination vision category.
Table 6.17: Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan Plan 5 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
7 5 3
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 1 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
3 2 8
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
***
**
163
The Burdekin Shire plan incorporated aspects from a number of the tourism planning
approaches. Elements of the economic and physical approaches were evident in the plan,
as were the environmental and sustainable development approaches,
“…ensure the Burdekin’s resources are used in an ecologically
responsible manner as well as maximizing their potential” (p.60).
6.3.11 Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan
Noosa Shire is located on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast (Figure 1.2), and as with other
shires council areas of the Sunshine Coast, tourism is one of the key drivers of the local
economy (Noosa Shire Council, nd). The Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan were
developed as part of the Noosa Shire Council’s new concept of community-based sector
plans, an outcome of the Queensland State Government’s IPA (Tourism Collaborative
Board, 2001). The plan addressed several of the assessment items from the evaluation
instrument (Table 6.18), with the majority of strategic indicator items included. However
the majority of the situation analysis items were not evident, and items within the
stakeholder participation category were generally evaluated as somewhat evident as the
nature of stakeholder participation was not explicit in the document except for,
“Council developed a tourism collaborative board for the purposes of
developing a plan for tourism in consultation with the industry, the
community, Council and relevant state agencies” (p.2).
Within the destination vision category only one of the items was assessed as somewhat
evident,
“Having identified and discussed key strategic issues and desired
strategic shifts, the Tourism Collaborative Board developed a vision to
express the outcomes sought from the Noosa Tourism Plan” (p.6).
164
Table 6.18: Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan Plan 23 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
1 2 12
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 7 3 2 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 8 4
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 1 5 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
**
*
In assessing the tourism planning approach of the Noosa Tourism Plan four of the five
approaches were evident. Although sustainable development was addressed the
strategies included in the plan related primarily to branding, tourism products and
marketing, improving infrastructure and optimising employment.
“The issue of sustainability is of vital concern to all shire residents. The
need to identify current and future capacity limits, to plan for desirable
outcomes from tourism and to integrate outcomes for this sector with that
of all other sectors is of the first order of importance. For a shire with a
high reliance on tourism, the spectra of unsustainability in tourism would
be an economic and social disaster” (p.6).
6.3.12 Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy
Redcliffe Shire is located on Queensland’s Moreton Bay, approximately 35 kilometres
north west of Brisbane city (Figure 1.2), and has a range of tourism stock predominantly
catering for the day trip market (Redcliffe City Council, 2000). Council’s motivation for
undertaking the tourism development strategy was to deliver tangible economic
development, business growth and employment creation outcomes for Redcliffe and its
resident and business community (ATS Group, 2001). Although the majority of
assessment items were not evident in the situation analysis category, a number of items in
the strategic planning category were evident or somewhat evident in the plan (Table
165
6.19). In terms of stakeholder participation a number of references were made, although
they did not detail which stakeholder groups were involved,
“The tourism strategy is strongly steeped in stakeholder consultation and
responds to the issues and aspirations of the community…during this
study a number of stakeholder meetings were held to identify key issues
from the community’s perspective” (p.6 & 18).
The destination vision assessment items were generally assessed as evident in the tourism
plan, despite statements referring to selling the vision to the community that suggests that
community vision and values did not necessarily guide the development of the strategy,
“Conduct community presentations driven by Redcliffe City Council that
explain the tourism strategy, sell the vision and outline the benefits”
(p.88).
Table 6.19: Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy Plan 26 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
2 3 10
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 6 2 4 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 0 12
Destination community vision and values (6) 4 1 1 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
***
**
Several of the tourism planning approaches were evident in the Redcliffe tourism
strategy: economic, infrastructure and community, with strategies relating to themes and
marketing images, market awareness, infrastructure and product development, ensuring
community commitment, market research and funding. The planning document was also
assessed as addressing tourism in the context of sustainable development,
“The tourism strategy adopts an ecologically sustainable planning
approach to tourism planning and development” (p.30).
166
Despite statements such as this, the strategic actions raised in the plan relate primarily to
economic development and growth and the physical resources of the destination.
6.3.13 Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan
Banana Shire is situated in central Queensland, 120 kilometres west of the regional centre
of Gladstone (Figure 1.2). Primary production and mining are the Shire’s major
economic sectors, yet tourism is promoted by several organizations (Banana Shire
Council, 2005). The Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan was commissioned by the
Council to coordinate and better utilise existing community, business and council
resources to develop a sustainable local tourism industry (Tourism Potential, 2003).
Although a number of the situation analysis and strategic planning items were included
(Table 6.20), the vast majority from the stakeholder participation section were not evident
in the plan, as although the document states that stakeholder workshops and meetings
were held, it did not state which stakeholder groups were involved. Similarly despite
including a vision statement the assessment items from the destination vision category
were not included in the document.
Table 6.20: Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan Plan 2 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
6 4 5
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 4 1 7 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 0 12
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
***
Although the planning document makes reference to sustainability, when assessing the
plan in terms of the tourism planning approach, the planning document did not address
tourism in the context of sustainable development. The planning approaches that were
167
evident in the plan were the economic and physical, due to the focus on marketing and
promotion, increasing visitation, improving service and visitor infrastructure.
6.3.14 Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan
Cardwell Shire is part of the Far North Queensland coastal region, situated between
Cairns and Townsville (Figure 1.2). The Shire has traditionally relied on agricultural
outputs, yet as it includes part of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area and adjoins the
Great Barrier Reef, there is recognition that tourism is a sector with high potential
(Cardwell Shire Council, nd). The objective of developing the Cardwell Shire Tourism
Plan was to ensure tourism assets are carefully managed to ensure the long-term
sustainability of not only the tourist industry but also the environmental, social and
cultural values of the Shire (Cardwell Shire Tourism Taskforce, 2003). However few of
the assessment items from the evaluation instrument were included in the document
(Table 6.21). Within the stakeholder participation category the majority of items were
assessed as somewhat evident due to the fact that although the plan was developed
through the “formation of a partnership between the industry, community, Shire Council,
regional tourism organisation and local tourism organization” (p.4), the extent or nature
of their participation on the planning process was not discussed. None of the destination
vision assessment items were evident in the plan despite the fact that a tourism plan
vision is presented.
Table 6.21: Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan Plan 7 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
2 2 11
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 2 8 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 10 2
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
*****
168
All of the tourism planning approaches were evident to some extent in the Cardwell Shire
Tourism Plan. The planning document did propose sustainable development goals yet
the strategies and actions detailed in the plan related only to marketing, visitor services
and branding. This is also despite the fact that the document’s objective was to “develop
a plan that will focus on partnerships, ownerships and mutual responsibility” (p.4).
6.3.15 Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan
Nanango Shire is located west of Brisbane on the Great Dividing Range of the South
Burnett Region (Figure 1.2), and as with most Shires in the region, primary production is
the economic mainstay (Nanango Shire Council, 2005). The Tourism Development
Action Plan sought to focus on actions that can be undertaken by the Nanango Shire
Council, its operators and wider community, to further the development of tourism as an
economic contributor within the Shire (Rob Tonge & Associates & Proactive Tourism
Services, 2001). The plan did include some of the assessment items, although most items
were assessed as somewhat evident (Table 6.22), particularly in the stakeholder
participation category as the only reference in the plan was,
“Extensive consultation has been undertaken to develop this plan, with
personal interviews held with several of the Shire’s tourism operators,
business group representatives and Councillors and staff of Nanango Shire
Council” (p.1).
Table 6.22: Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan Plan 22 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
2 4 9
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 1 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 8 4
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts
**
*
169
- benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
The tourism planning approaches that were evident within the Nanango tourism plan
were the economic and infrastructure, as evidenced by strategies relating to image and
promotion, product development, visitor services and signage.
6.3.16 Ipswich City Tourism Strategy
Ipswich is located in South-East Queensland, a rapidly growing Shire absorbing much of
the urban spread from Brisbane (Figure 1.2). With several attractions such as museums
and historical buildings, tourism is an important economic sector for Ipswich (Ipswich
City Council, 1997). The aim of the Ipswich City Tourism Strategy was to build a solid
base for the development of a sustainable tourism industry that will supplement the local
economy in the next century while conserving the natural and built heritage and
environmental assets (Ipswich City Council, 1997). Few of the assessment items were
evident in the strategy (Table 6.23), with the vast majority of situation analysis items not
addressed in the document. The stakeholder participation items were generally assessed
as either somewhat evident or not evident as the only reference within the plan to
stakeholder participation was a statement that,
“All identified strategies are the result of consultation with tourism
operators, government departments and other associated bodies via
personal contact and a tourism workshop” (p.4).
Table 6.23: Ipswich City Tourism Strategy Plan 14 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
1 2 12
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 4 2 6 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 6 6
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts
*
**
170
- benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
The sole tourism planning approach that was evident in the Ipswich City Tourism
Strategy was the economic development and growth approach. This was evidenced by
strategies relating to tourism product development, marketing, advertising and promotion,
signage and visitor information.
6.3.17 Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan
Mount Isa is located 900 kilometres west of Townsville, on the border of the Northern
Territory (Figure 1.2) (Mount Isa City Council, 2002). Predominantly a mining town,
tourism is seen as an alternative economic sector with development potential, and the
Tourism Masterplan was initiated to ensure haphazard approaches to tourism
development were avoided by establishing a framework that defines appropriate tourism
development (ATS Group, 2000). The masterplan, although quite detailed, met with few
of the evaluation criteria (Table 6.24). Only one item from the stakeholder participation
category was evident, as the only mention of stakeholder participation was an
acknowledgement that the consultants spoke to and/or received information from various
stakeholder groups. In terms of the destination vision category, although a vision
statement was presented in the document, the vision did not meet with the stated criteria.
This was further apparent due to the statement that there is a need to “conduct workshops
to ‘sell the vision’ and obtain commitment from stakeholders in the process” (p.35).
Table 6.24: Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan Plan 20 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
- 1 14
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 3 2 7 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 10 2
Destination community vision and values (6) - 1 5 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts
**
*
171
- benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
In assessing the document for the tourism planning approach, three of the approaches
were evident, including the economic, physical and community approaches. Action
strategies in the plan included: marketing themes, access, community commitment and
training and accreditation. Developing tourism in the context of sustainable development
was not addressed in the masterplan.
6.3.18 Gatton Tourism Strategy
Gatton Shire is located in the Lockyer Valley of south east Queensland 90 kilometres
west of Brisbane (Figure 1.2) (Gatton Shire Council, nd). Although predominantly a
farming area, the aim of the strategy was to undertake an analysis of the tourism potential
of the Gatton Shire and make a number of recommendations that would promote the
development of the Shire's tourism industry in the short term (Prideaux, 1997). Despite
being labelled a strategy, the majority of evaluation items were not evident in the Gatton
Tourism Strategy (Table 6.25). Items from the stakeholder participation category were
generally not evident in the plan, which can be attributed to the fact that stakeholder
participation was limited to,
“A SWOT analysis of Gatton’s tourism industry which was undertaken
with major operators and the Shire Council and a survey of 19 operator’s
views of tourism in Gatton Shire” (p.39).
In terms of items from the destination vision category, although it was stated, “the study
team recommends a community based approach to achieve the common goals of tourism
expansion and success” (p.46), none of the assessment items were evident in the plan.
Table 6.25: Gatton Tourism Strategy Plan 11 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
5 0 10
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 2 1 9 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
0 5 8
172
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
***
The only two tourism planning approaches that were evident in the plan were the
economic and physical approaches. Action strategies in the plan focused solely on
infrastructure, which included signage, tourist facilities, marketing, regional promotion
and product development.
6.3.19 Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy
Hinchinbrook Shire is located between Townsville and Cairns (Figure 1.2), along the Far
North Queensland coastline marketed as the ‘Great Green Way’ (Hinchinbrook Shire
Council, nd). The Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy was undertaken to
provide a framework for the balanced development of tourism throughout Hinchinbrook
Shire, and develop short and mid-term strategic directions for individual sectors of the
local tourist industry, the community and the Hinchinbrook Shire Council (Hauritz,
1993). With only one item evident in the situation analysis and strategic planning
categories respectively, the strategy was found to have not met with the criteria of the
evaluation instrument (Table 6.26). The majority of items within the stakeholder
participation category were assessed as somewhat evident due to the fact that the plan
made reference to the assistance of specific stakeholder groups but did not further
articulate the nature or extent of their involvement. The assessment items from the
destination vision category were not evident in the plan.
Table 6.26: Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy Plan 13 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
1 2 12
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 1 10 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
0 11 2
173
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
**
*
Three of the tourism planning approaches were found to be evident in the Hinchinbrook
Shire Tourism Development Plan. These included the economic approach with the
document including strategies related to marketing, product development, seasonality and
maximizing visitor expenditure; the physical approach with strategies of greening the
shire and transport nodes; and the community approach with strategies for community
involvement, including the local tourism association, volunteer program, service awards
and tourism awareness program.
6.3.20 Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan
Caloundra is the most southern shire of the Sunshine Coast, and tourism is an important
economic sector (Figure 1.2) (Caloundra City Council, nd). The purpose of the tourism
plan was to provide direction and focus to the industry, community and the government
by presenting broad strategies to achieve the desired goals, while also focusing on the
active engagement of Caloundra City's community and industry in shaping the City's
tourism future (Caloundra City Council, 2002). Despite these goals and intentions, the
Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan included very few of the assessment items from
the evaluation instrument (Table 6.27). Within the stakeholder participation category the
items were generally assessed as not evident and can possibly be attributed to the fact that
“the plan was prepared by the Caloundra City Council Economic Development Unit in
cooperation with the Caloundra Tourism Taskforce” (p.3). Despite the plan including a
vision statement none of the assessment items from the destination vision category were
evident.
174
Table 6.27: Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan Plan 6 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
1 0 14
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 3 2 7 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 4 8
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
*****
In assessing the plan for the tourism planning approach it was found that elements of all
five approaches were evident,
“The Caloundra tourism plan goal is a sustainable tourism industry that
works in strong partnership with the community in pursuit of economic,
environmental and social sustainability” (p.17).
Despite this goal, strategies and actions within the plan focused solely on market
research, advertising and promotion.
6.3.21 Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy
Laidley Shire is a rural community located west of Brisbane in the Lockyer Valley
(Figure 1.2) (Laidley Shire Council, 2004). Tourism has being targeted as a
complementary economic sector and the tourism strategy aimed to provide a
comprehensive analysis of the current position of tourism in the Shire and assess both
deficiencies and possibilities for tourism development (Prideaux & Armstrong, 1997).
Overall the Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy did not meet the evaluation assessment
criteria, with the majority of items not evident for each of the categories (Table 6.28).
175
Table 6.28: Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy Plan 16 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
5 0 10
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 1 10 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
0 2 11
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
***
Both the economic and infrastructure tourism planning approaches were evident in the
Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy. Economic strategies included marketing, promotion and
distribution, while infrastructure strategies related to upgrading existing and developing
new products for the Shire.
6.3.22 Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy
Blackall is a remote rural community located west of Rockhampton in Central
Queensland (Figure 1.2) (Blackall Shire Council, nd). Tourism is considered a growing
sector in the Shire and the Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy was
commissioned to assess strategies for developing tourism (The Stafford Group, 2003).
The majority of the assessment items were not evident in the Blackall Tourism and
Economic Vitalisation Strategy (Table 6.29), with only several items included from the
situation analysis category.
Table 6.29: Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy Plan 3 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
4 2 9
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 0 11 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
0 1 12
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
176
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
*
**
In terms of the tourism planning approach adopted, both the economic and physical
approaches were evident, with action strategies of market positioning, product
development and visitor infrastructure. Although reference was made to sustainable
development, none of the strategies or actions related to sustainability.
6.3.23 Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy
Pine Rivers is a primarily urban Shire located on the outskirts of Queensland’s capital
city (Figure 1.2) (Pine Rivers Shire Council, 2004). The Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy
was developed due to Council’s recognition of the economic potential of tourism in the
Pine Rivers, in terms of diversifying the economic base, creating more locally based
employment and providing a sustainable alternative that neutralises land and resource
conflict in potentially environmentally sensitive areas (Pine Rivers Shire Council, nd).
However the strategy was not found to have met the criteria of the evaluation instrument
(Table 6.30), with only one item evident from the situation analysis and strategic
planning categories respectively.
Table 6.30: Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy Plan 24 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
1 1 13
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 0 11 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
0 0 13
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
***
177
In terms of tourism planning, two of the five approaches were evident within the plan,
these being the economic and infrastructure approaches. Strategies included promotion
and marketing, increasing volume and variety of tourism stock, increasing visitor length
of stay and visitor services.
6.3.24 Roma Tourism Action Plan
Roma is a rural town located in South-East Queensland’s Western Downs some 480
kilometres from Brisbane (Figure 1.2), and although a predominantly rural area, Roma
does have several natural and built tourist offerings (Roma Tourism Council, nd). The
objective for undertaking the Roma Tourism Action Plan was not articulated in the
document, nor were the criteria from the evaluation instrument with only three items in
total assessed as evident or somewhat evident (Table 6.31) (Roma Shire Council Tourism
Development Unit, 2000).
Table 6.31: Roma Tourism Action Plan Plan 28 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
0 0 15
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 1 10 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
0 1 12
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
***
The plan was found to have adopted two of the tourism planning approaches, economic
and infrastructure. Strategies in the document included increasing awareness of the
destination, product development, promotion and visitor research.
178
6.3.25 Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan
Bowen is a coastal, agricultural area located in the northern region of the Whitsunday’s in
North Queensland (Figure 1.2) (Bowen Shire Council, nd). Although tourism is a
significant contributor to the local economy due to the area’s natural features and
proximity to the Whitsunday’s, the Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan included
only two assessment items from the tourism planning evaluation instrument (Table 6.32).
Table 6.32: Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan Plan 4 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
0 0 15
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 0 11 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
0 1 12
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
*
****
The plan was assessed as solely adopting the economic development and growth tourism
planning approach. This assessment was based on the fact that all of the strategies related
to increasing visitor numbers, enhancing services and product development.
6.3.26 Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan
Murilla Shire is located west of Brisbane in South-East Queensland (Figure 1.2), and
although the local economy is strongly based on grazing and farming, the area receives a
number of visitors each year (Murilla Shire Council, nd). The objective for undertaking
a tourism plan for the Shire was not articulated in the document, nor were the vast
majority of items from the evaluation instrument (Table 6.33) (Murilla Shire Council,
nd). The only evident assessment item was in the stakeholder participation category.
179
Table 6.33: Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan Plan 21 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
0 0 15
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 0 1 12 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 0 12
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
*
**
Three of the tourism planning approaches were evident within the strategic actions of the
Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan; economic, physical and sustainable development.
Strategies outlined in the document included sustainable tourism products, marketing,
product development, signage and encouraging operators to the Shire.
6.3.27 Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy
Pittsworth Shire is situated 40 kilometres south west of Toowoomba in the eastern
Darling Downs region of Queensland (Figure 1.2) (Pittsworth Shire Council, nd). The
development of a local tourism strategy was based on community acceptance of the need
to do more to encourage and promote tourism in the Pittsworth Shire whilst recognising
that there must be ongoing economic benefits to the community (Pittsworth Shire
Council, 2003). However the Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy was also
assessed as not meeting the majority of items in the evaluation instrument (Table 6.34)
with only one assessment item evident in the strategic planning category.
Table 6.34: Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy Plan 25 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
0 0 15
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 1 0 11 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
0 1 12
180
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
***
The tourism planning approaches evident in the plan were the economic and physical.
The strategies and actions included in the document that underpin the evidence of these
approaches include destination awareness and promotion, visitor infrastructure and
product development.
6.3.28 Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan
Crow’s Nest is located in South-East Queensland, 170 kilometres west of Brisbane on the
Great Dividing Range (Figure 1.2) (Crow’s Nest Shire Council, nd). Although the
objective for undertaking the Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan was not
articulated in the document, it was noted that the Shire is targeting tourism as an
economic sector (Crow’s Nest Shire Council, 2003). However the action plan included
only one assessment item from the stakeholder participation category (Table 6.35). In
terms of the tourism planning approach only the economic approach was evident with
strategies relating to visitor services and information, industry and product development
and marketing.
Table 6.35: Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan Plan 9 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
0 0 15
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 0 0 12 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 0 12
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
*
****
181
6.3.29 Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy
Mareeba Shire, 64 kilometres west of Cairns, is the largest of the four local government
shires on the Atherton Tableland and includes the popular tourist destination of Kuranda
(Figure 1.2) (Mareeba Shire Council, 2004). The rationale for undertaking a tourism
strategy was to promote the integrated development of tourism across the shire by
establishing appropriate physical and social infrastructure that will support the growth
and evolution of the industry (Mareeba Shire Council, 2002). However the Mareeba
Tourism Development Action plan included only one evident assessment item (Table
6.36).
Table 6.36: Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy Plan 17 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
0 0 15
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 0 0 12 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
1 0 12
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
***
**
Three of the tourism planning approach were evident in the Mareeba plan, the economic,
physical and environmental approaches. The economic approach was evident with
strategies for promotion, development of niche tourism markets and information centres,
with the physical infrastructure strategies including signage, road maintenance and the
upgrade of destination locations and services. The environmental approach was assessed
as evident due to the inclusion of a strategy for access and protection.
182
6.3.30 Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan
Atherton Shire is located on the Atherton Tablelands, 90 kilometres west of Cairns in Far
North Queensland (Figure 1.2). Although an agricultural area, the shire has a number of
natural attractions and is popular with visitors travelling from Cairns (Atherton Shire
Council, 2005). Despite the objective of identifying key issues and objectives for
tourism, as well as a set of strategic outcomes and recommendations (Atherton Shire
Council, nd), the Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan, aside from one item
assessed as somewhat evident, did not meet with any of the evaluation instrument criteria
(Table 6.37).
Table 6.37: Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan Plan 1 Evident Somewhat
Evident Not Evident
Physical, environmental and economic situation analysis (15)
0 0 15
Strategic indicators of destination planning (12) 0 0 12 Stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (13)
0 1 14
Destination community vision and values (6) 0 0 6 Tourism planning approach (5)
- economic development and growth - physical destination resources - natural environment impacts - benefits to local community - sustainable development
**
*
**
In terms of the tourism planning approach adopted for the plan, it was evident that the
document predominantly addressed economic development and growth and to a lesser
extent the physical resources of the destination due to the emphasis on marketing-related
actions such as market segments, visitor experiences, and addressing infrastructure gaps
for the target market. Despite the fact that it was stated on page two of the plan that, “to
overcome these gaps and provide the most effective catalyst to the strong and sustainable
development of tourism on the Tablelands…”, sustainability did not feature in either the
plan’s action points or agenda for the future.
183
6.3.31 Summary: Individual Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism
Destination Planning Documents
This section presented the individual results for each of the 30 local tourism planning
documents analysed for the study. Each of the plan’s inclusion of the five evaluative
categories were presented: physical, environmental and economic situation analysis
(situation analysis); strategic indicators of destination planning (strategic planning);
stakeholder participation and influence in the planning process (stakeholder
participation); destination community vision and values (destination vision), and tourism
planning approach; as well as key information on the destination’s location, importance
of tourism and rationale for undertaking a tourism plan.
Looking at each of the plans individually highlights the collective results presented in
section 6.2, where it was found that the local tourism destinations analysed in this study
met with very few of the stated criteria from each of the five evaluation categories.
Despite the fact that over 56% of the plans were titled ‘strategic plans’ (Figure 6.3), very
few of the plans had strategic orientations, and although many documents included a
vision, these appeared to be standalone statements which did not take into account
broader community values and aspirations for the future of the destination. This section
also highlighted that many of the local tourism destinations are rural areas looking to
tourism to diversify the economic base of the Shire. The implication of these issues are
discussed in Chapter Eight.
6.4 Quantitative Ranking of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning
Documents
To provide a more quantifiable and objective assessment of the performance of tourism
planning documents against the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation
instrument, this section presents the quantitative weighting and ranking of each of the 30
local tourism planning documents analysed. To assist in determining the extent to which
the analysed plans met with the tourism planning process evaluation criteria a ranking
184
method was devised, based on a system developed by Zhang et al (2004), so that a more
objective assessment of the qualitative data can be made.
As discussed in the research methods (Chapter Five, section 5.5.3), the ranking system
was derived from awarding evident items a score of 2, somewhat evident items a score of
1 and items that are not evident in the plans a score of 0. Plans could potentially receive
a score of 30 for the situation analysis category if all 15 items were evident (15
assessment items x a score of 2). The strategic indicators items could potentially achieve
a score of 24 (12 assessment items), stakeholder participation 26 (13 assessment items),
and destination vision and values a score of 12 (6 assessment items). A total score for
each plan based on its compliance with the assessment criteria can be seen in the final
column of Table 6.38.
Table 6.39 ranks the planning documents from highest compliance with the criteria to the
lowest. Each of the plans have been further ranked within 25 percent quartiles and Figure
6.10 demonstrates the number of tourism planning documents within each of the
compliance quartiles.
Table 6.38: Tourism Plans Compliance with Assessment Criteria Shire Situation
Analysis (Max score 30)
Strategic Indicators
(Max score 24)
Stakeholder Participation
(Max score 26)
Destination Vision
(Max score 12)
Total Assessment
(Max Score 92) Score % Score % Score % Score % Score %
Atherton 0 0 0 0 1 3.8 0 0 1 1.0 Banana 16 53.3 9 37.5 2 7.6 0 0 27 29.3 Blackall 10 33.3 2 8.3 1 3.8 0 0 13 14.1 Bowen 0 0 2 8.3 1 3.8 0 0 3 3.2 Burdekin 19 63.3 5 20.8 8 30.7 0 0 32 34.7 Caloundra 2 6.6 8 3.33 6 23.0 0 0 16 17.3 Cardwell 6 20.0 6 25.0 12 46.1 0 0 24 26.0 Chinchilla 17 56.6 9 37.5 7 26.9 6 50.0 39 42.3 Crow’s Nest 0 0 0 0 2 7.6 0 0 2 2.1 Douglas 20 66.6 15 62.5 14 53.8 8 66.6 57 61.9 Gatton 10 33.3 5 20.8 5 19.2 0 0 20 21.7 Gold Coast 20 66.6 12 50.0 21 80.7 3 25.0 56 60.8 Hinchinbrook 4 13.3 3 12.5 11 42.3 0 0 18 19.5 Ipswich 4 13.3 10 41.6 8 30.7 0 0 22 23.9 Kilcoy 8 26.6 5 20.8 21 80.7 0 0 34 36.9 Laidley 10 33.3 3 12.5 2 7.6 0 0 15 16.3 Mareeba 0 0 0 0 2 7.6 0 0 2 2.1
185
Maroochy 17 51.5 10 41.6 18 69.2 1 8.3 46 50.0 Mirani 24 80.0 4 16.6 10 38.4 3 25.0 41 44.5 Mount Isa 1 3.3 8 33.3 12 46.1 1 8.3 22 23.9 Murilla 0 0 1 4.1 2 7.6 0 0 3 3.2 Nanango 8 26.6 5 20.8 10 38.4 0 0 23 25.0 Noosa 4 13.3 17 70.8 10 38.4 1 8.3 32 34.7 Pine Rivers 3 1.0 2 8.3 0 0 0 0 5 5.4 Pittsworth 0 0 2 8.3 1 3.8 0 0 3 3.2 Redcliffe 7 23.3 14 58.3 2 7.6 9 75.0 32 34.7 Redland 20 66.6 18 75.0 20 76.9 6 50.0 64 69.5 Roma 0 0 3 12.5 1 3.8 0 0 4 4.3 Sarina 24 80.0 20 83.3 12 46.1 6 50.0 62 67.3 Thuringowa 13 43.3 15 62.5 19 73.0 0 0 47 51.0
Table 6.39: Ranking of Tourism Planning Documents
Assessment Score
Plan Number Local Destination Area/ Shire Score %
76-100% - - - - 51-75% Plan 27
Plan 29 Plan 10 Plan 12 Plan 30
Redland Sarina Douglas Gold Coast Thuringowa
64 62 57 56 47
69.5 67.3 61.9 60.8 51.0
26- 50% Plan 18 Plan 19 Plan 8 Plan 15 Plan 5 Plan 23 Plan 26 Plan 2 Plan 7
Maroochy Mirani Chinchilla Kilcoy Burdekin Noosa Redcliffe Banana Cardwell
46 41 39 34 32 32 32 27 24
50.0 44.5 42.3 36.9 34.7 34.7 34.7 29.3 26.0
0-25% Plan 22 Plan 14 Plan 20 Plan 11 Plan 13 Plan 6 Plan 16 Plan 3 Plan 24 Plan 28 Plan 4 Plan 21 Plan 25 Plan 9 Plan 17 Plan 1
Nanango Ipswich Mount Isa Gatton Hinchinbrook Caloundra Laidley Blackall Pine Rivers Roma Bowen Murilla Pittsworth Crow’s Nest Mareeba Atherton
23 22 22 20 18 16 15 13 54333221
25.0 23.9 23.9 21.7 19.5 17.3 16.3 14.1 5.4 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.1 2.1 1.0
186
Figure 6.10: Ranking of Tourism Planning Documents (n=30)
0
5
9
16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
76-100%
51-75%
26-50%
0-25%
Table 6.39 and Figure 6.10 quite blatantly highlight that the majority of tourism plans
analysed for this stage of the study did not meet with the tourism planning process
criteria. None of the plans included 75% or more of the evaluation criteria, and only 5
met with over 50% of the criteria. This means that the vast majority of tourism planning
documents (24) included less than 50% of the criteria, which were designed to measure
the extent to which the planning process addressed the principles of sustainable
development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation. Although this issue is
discussed further in Chapter Eight, these figures show that very few local tourism
destinations in Queensland are developing tourism planning documents based on the
principles of sustainability and the identified prerequisites of strategic planning and
stakeholder participation. However the primary objective of numerically weighting and
ranking the plans in terms of their compliance with the tourism planning criteria was to
allow for selection of the case studies for the second objective of the study. As only five
destinations met with over 50% of the criteria, all five were selected for further
investigation (Chapter Seven).
187
6.5 Importance-Performance Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism
Destinations
To conclude, importance-performance analyses were conducted for both destinations that
did have a tourism planning document and those that did not, to assess any correlation
between the significance of tourism to the destination and the development of a local
tourism planning document. While the previous section highlighted the poor
performance of local tourism destinations in Queensland in meeting the sustainability,
strategic planning and stakeholder participation criteria, these were for local tourism
destinations that actually did have a tourism plan. As was outlined in the first section of
this chapter, the vast majority, 76% or 95 of the 125 destinations, did not have a tourism
planning document for their local area, including some of Queensland’s most popular
tourist destinations.
Table 6.40 presents each of the 125 local government area (LGA) profiles, their ranked
score (by compliance quartile) if they had a tourism planning document, and key tourism
figures for the area including the number of tourism businesses, the percentage of tourism
businesses compared to all businesses for both the LGA and Queensland as well as the
number of persons employed in tourism and the percentage of persons employed in
tourism compared to total employment for the LGA. These figures show that for many
destinations tourism is a relatively important economic component and employer of local
residents, yet this does not appear to be an indicator that a planning process has been
undertaken to assess tourism activity within the destination. The complete profile for
each local government area is included in Appendix 14.
Table 6.40: Queensland Local Government Area (LGA) Profiles* Shire Council
Area %
Score LGA
Tourism businesses
% LGA total
businesses
% State tourism
businesses
LGA Tourism employment
(persons)
% LGA total
employment 27- Redland 69.5 183 4.5 2.3 2 828 5.5 29- Sarina 67.3 30 5.1 0.4 195 5.3 10- Douglas 61.9 147 16.3 2.2 1 627 24.2 12- Gold Coast 60.8 1 692 7.8 28.2 14 195 13.5 30- Thuringowa 51.0 62 4.8 1.1 1 396 6.1
188
18- Maroochy 50.0 493 7.2 7.9 5 023 10.1 19- Mirani 44.5 24 4.6 0.4 104 4.9 8- Chinchilla 42.3 18 2.3 0.3 97 4.2 15- Kilcoy 36.9 12 4.3 0.2 59 4.7 5- Burdekin 34.7 71 4.5 1.1 283 3.1 23- Noosa 34.7 286 11.2 4.2 2 522 3.2 26- Redcliffe 34.7 87 4.5 1.4 1 234 6.8 2- Banana 29.3 57 3.7 0.9 342 5.1 7- Cardwell 26.0 44 6.0 0.6 543 11.3 22- Nanango 25.0 18 3.8 0.3 133 5.2 14- Ipswich 23.9 233 4.5 4.0 2 396 4.7 20- Mount Isa 23.9 95 9.1 1.5 724 7.1 11- Gatton 21.7 33 2.9 0.5 305 4.8 13- Hinchinbrook 19.5 54 4.4 0.9 244 4.5 6- Caloundra 17.3 230 6.2 3.7 2 399 9.0 16- Laidley 16.3 14 2.3 0.2 196 4.4 3- Blackall 14.1 19 8.6 0.3 42 5.0 24- Pine Rivers 5.4 184 4.3 3.5 3 299 5.6 28- Roma 4.3 48 8.3 0.7 213 6.9 4- Bowen 3.2 114 6.7 1.7 300 5.4 21- Murilla 3.2 14 3.2 0.2 63 5.1 25- Pittsworth 3.2 10 1.7 0.2 73 3.5 9- Crow’s Nest 2.1 23 3.2 0.4 195 4.3 17- Mareeba 2.1 88 6.1 1.4 565 8.1 1- Atherton 1.0 44 5.4 0.7 242 5.7 Aramac 0 3 2.2 0 6 1.6 Aurukun 0 0 0 0 3 0.7 Balonne 0 31 5.0 0.4 131 4.6 Barcaldine 0 18 10.3 0.3 55 7.2 Barcoo 0 4 5.2 0 13 3.6 Bauhinia 0 6 1.8 0.1 6 1.8 Beaudesert 0 104 4.4 1.9 1 520 6.4 Belyando 0 47 7.3 0.8 239 4.9 Bendemere 0 7 3.3 0.1 3 0.7 Biggenden 0 6 2.4 0.1 12 2.0 Boonah 0 25 3.4 0.3 140 4.1 Booringa 0 15 5.4 0.2 56 6.0 Boulia 0 5 7.9 0.1 10 2.8 Brisbane 0 2 936 5.8 51.8 32 874 7.8 Broadsound 0 18 4.0 0.3 121 3.6 Bulloo 0 11 15.9 0.2 26 5.4 Bundaberg 0 166 6.5 2.8 1 005 6.5 Bungil 0 7 1.8 0.1 28 2.4 Burke 0 7 13.4 6.1 36 3.7 Burnett 0 41 4.1 0.6 500 5.9 Caboolture 0 151 4.1 2.8 2 156 5.2 Cairns 0 645 8.7 10.4 7 598 13.3 Calliope 0 28 3.2 0.5 404 6.3 Cambooya 0 1 0.3 0 86 3.8 Carpentaria 0 13 8.1 0.2 105 5.6 Charters Towers 0 52 10.5 0.8 219 6.9
189
Clifton 0 11 2.6 0.2 23 2.4 Cloncurry 0 19 7.3 0.3 145 5.9 Cook 0 50 10.8 0.8 343 8.3 Cooloola 0 104 4.8 1.7 718 5.9 Croydon 0 4 10.5 0 9 6.7 Dalby 0 48 6.2 0.8 230 5.4 Dalrymple 0 8 2.4 0 66 3.7 Diamantina 0 6 15.0 0.1 26 10.1 Duaringa 0 36 6.5 0.6 168 4.7 Eacham 0 34 6.1 0.5 207 8.4 Eidsvold 0 4 2.8 0.1 12 2.6 Emerald 0 50 5.1 0.8 396 5.9 Esk 0 33 3.4 0.5 212 4.2 Etheridge 0 16 13.0 0.3 67 9.3 Fitzroy 0 16 2.5 0.2 209 5.1 Flinders 0 15 5.5 0.2 58 5.6 Gayndah 0 11 3.4 0.2 40 2.8 Gladstone 0 112 7.4 2.0 708 5.9 Goondiwindi 0 37 7.3 0.5 172 7.5 Herberton 0 12 3.8 0.1 87 5.9 Hervey Bay 0 157 9.3 2.3 1 425 11.0 Ilfracombe 0 1 2.4 0 15 7.7 Inglewood 0 11 2.8 0.1 49 4.2 Isis 0 24 4.7 0.4 109 5.6 Isisford 0 1 1.7 0 6 3.3 Jericho 0 7 4.5 0.1 9 1.7 Johnstone 0 105 6.2 1.6 414 5.1 Jondaryan 0 32 3.4 0.6 220 3.8 Kilkivan 0 9 1.8 0.2 34 2.7 Kingaroy 0 38 3.7 0.6 224 4.5 Kolan 0 11 2.9 0.1 63 4.8 Livingstone 0 92 7.2 1.5 1 068 10.5 Logan 0 126 2.4 4.1 3 615 1.3 Longreach 0 33 8.5 0.5 182 8.4 Mackay 0 250 4.6 4.0 2 191 1.6 Maryborough 0 86 6.0 1.4 595 6.9 McKinlay 0 13 7.0 0.2 57 6.3 Millmerran 0 15 3.6 0.2 10.8 4.8 Miraim Vale 0 14 3.8 0.2 154 9.8 Monto 0 11 2.3 0.1 60 4.9 Mornington 0 2 9.6 0 6 1.6 Mount Morgan 0 5 5.2 0.1 36 5.8 Mundubbera 0 8 2.4 6.0 29 2.1 Murgon 0 12 2.9 0.2 48 2.7 Murweh 0 30 6.0 0.5 127 5.3 Nebo 0 11 6.1 0.2 113 8.0 Paroo 0 12 4.7 0.1 32 3.3 Peak Downs 0 15 5.2 0.2 96 6.0 Perry 0 2 2.1 0 6 3.4 Quilpie 0 8 4.1 0.1 36 5.3 Richmond 0 6 3.6 0.1 44 8.7
190
Rockhampton 0 259 8.6 4.4 1 867 7.7 Rosalie 0 14 2.0 0.3 117 3.3 Stanthorpe 0 46 4.5 0.7 259 6.5 Tambo 0 3 3.7 0 15 4.3 Tara 0 14 2.6 0.2 41 3.1 Taroom 0 7 1.3 0.1 46 3.1 Tiaro 0 8 2.2 0.1 61 4.7 Toowoomba 0 318 7.1 5.4 2 372 6.5 Torres 0 25 9.2 0.4 146 4.0 Townsville 0 412 7.8 6.9 3 751 8.7 Waggamba 0 3 0.8 0 30 1.9 Wambo 0 18 2.0 0.2 81 3.4 Warroo 0 2 1.0 0 9 1.6 Warwick 0 81 4.4 1.2 435 5.2 Whitsunday 0 165 12.8 2.6 1 964 21.7 Winton 0 16 7.5 0.3 79 8.0 Wondai 0 16 3.1 0.3 44 2.9 Woocoo 0 0 0 0 42 3.5
Source: Office of Economic and Statistical Research, 2005 * Note: Tourism business figures based on combined Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants and Cultural
and Recreational Services categories (Appendix Ten).
It was noted in the individual analysis of tourism planning documents that many of the
local tourism destinations that did have a tourism plan were rural areas looking to tourism
to diversify the economic base of the Shire. Importance performance analysis graphs
(Figure 6.11) further highlight these figures and demonstrate that for the vast majority of
destinations that did have a tourism plan, tourism was not necessarily an important sector
(quadrant 1: low importance-low performance). Many of these were rural destinations
which have identified tourism as a potential sector for economic diversification such as
Kilcoy (plan 15), Banana (plan 2), Nanango (plan 22), Blackall (plan 3), Roma (plan 28)
and Pittsworth (plan 25), and have developed a strategy in an attempt to capitalise on the
potential of tourism.
The current importance of tourism however is not an excuse for poor performance in
sustainable tourism planning. For destinations such as Chinchilla (plan 8) and Mirani
(plan 19) tourism is not an important economic sector (relative to other businesses) but
the destination still realised the value in sustainable development and planning (quadrant
3: low importance-high performance). In comparison, two destinations, Noosa (plan 23)
and Mount Isa (plan 20) ranked within quadrant two (quadrant 2: high importance-low
191
performance). For these destinations tourism is an important economic sector, yet the
destination planning process met with few of the stated evaluative criteria. Douglas was
the only destination analysed for this study where tourism was of high importance and the
planning process was assessed as high performance (quadrant 4).
Figure 6.11: Tourism Planning Document Score x Tourism Business % of LGA
Total Businesses* (n=30)
21925
241
417
28 3
6
2
1611
2213 14
20- Mount Isa
75
15
23- Noosa
26
10- Douglas
12- Gold Coast18- Maroochy
29- Sarina27- Redland30- Thuringowa19- Mirani
8- Chinchilla
Performance
Impo
rtan
ce
* Note: Numbers assigned to local tourism destinations (Table 6.40)
The final importance-performance analysis graph (Figure 6.12) includes each of the 125
local tourism destination areas. As the vast majority of these destinations did not have a
tourism planning document their performance is 0, and are therefore plotted against the
left axis which makes it difficult to differentiate the importance of tourism to the area.
However the graph does highlight that for some destinations without a tourism plan, such
as Brisbane, tourism is a very important economic sector. The implications of these
issues are discussed in Chapter Nine.
192
Figure 6.12: All Local Government Area’s Performance Score x LGA % of State
Tourism Businesses (n=125)
Performance
Impo
rtan
ce
Brisbane
Cairns
Gold Coast
It should be taken into account when considering the importance of tourism to the
destination that the tourism business figures represent a percentage of total businesses in
the region. For example tourism is arguably an important economic sector for the Gold
Coast highlighted by the fact that the region has 28.2% of the state’s total tourism
businesses (Table 6.40), yet the Gold Coast lies within quadrant three (low importance)
due to the fact that tourism businesses represent only 7.8% of all businesses in the Gold
Coast region. Similarly the Cairns region has 10.4% of all tourism businesses in the
state, yet tourism businesses represent only 8.7% of total businesses in the Cairns region.
6.6 Chapter Six Summary
This chapter presented the results of the investigation into the current planning practices
of local tourism destinations in Queensland as per the first research objective. A
qualitative content analysis of the tourism specific planning documents of 30 local
tourism destinations in Queensland was undertaken, to determine the extent to which the
193
principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration
are adopted, with the results presented both collectively and individually. The plans were
also quantitatively weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism
planning criteria, with the final section presenting a series of importance performance
analysis graphs.
The results of this investigation clearly demonstrate that on the whole the local tourism
destinations analysed in this study do not meet with the stated evaluation criteria used to
determine the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic
planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination
planning process. Although the majority of Queensland destinations do not have a
specific plan to guide tourism development (76%), those destinations that do have a plan
met with very few of the stated criteria. As detailed in the research methods (Chapter
Five, section 5.6.1), five destinations were further investigated for the second and third
objectives of the study: Redland Shire, Sarina Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City and
Thuringowa City. The results of the 31 interviews conducted with destination
stakeholders in these five case study areas are presented in Chapter Seven.
194
Chapter Seven
Stakeholder Perceptions of the Local Tourism Destination Planning
Process
7.0 Introduction
The second research objective of the study was to examine destination stakeholder’s
perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles
of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin
the process. To achieve this objective, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with 31 stakeholders from five case study destinations in Queensland. Case
study destinations were selected based on the compliance of their tourism planning
document with the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument
(Chapter Six). Based on this assessment five local tourism destinations in Queensland
were selected for further investigation for the second objective of the study: Redland
Shire, Sarina Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City and Thuringowa City.
The third research objective of the study was to consider the applicability of strategic
visioning as a practical planning approach for implementing sustainable development
principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning.
Stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning as a practical approach for addressing
sustainability objectives were also elicited during the 31 in-depth interviews. In addition,
two of the selected case study destinations had previously undertaken strategic visioning
planning exercises and their perceptions and experiences of this process as a tourism
planning approach were analysed.
This chapter presents the results and analysis of the 31 interviews conducted with
stakeholders from the five case study destinations, and is structured into three sections.
Firstly background information and an overview of the key elements of the planning
process for each of the selected case study destinations are presented as detailed in their
respective planning documents. Following this, an overview of the 31 survey
195
respondents is provided, including their role in the planning process, their regular
affiliations within the local tourism destination and their perceived influence on the
tourism planning process. The remainder of the chapter presents the results of the 31
interviews conducted with destination stakeholders in the five case study areas regarding
their perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the
principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration
are incorporated, with the results presented according to these thematic categories.
Finally the interview results regarding stakeholder perceptions of alternative planning
practices and strategic visioning are detailed, with additional results presented for the two
destinations which have previously undertaken a strategic visioning process (Redland
Shire and Gold Coast City).
7.1 Overview of the Tourism Planning Documents of the Case Study
Destinations
This section of the chapter presents relevant introductory and background information for
each of the five case study destinations selected for further investigation. In addition, key
aspects from the respective planning documents relating to sustainable development,
strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are presented to provide a context to the
stakeholder survey responses detailed further in this chapter (Table 7.1). The strategic
visioning process undertaken by two of the destinations is also outlined.
As discussed in the previous chapter, only five of the 30 planning documents of local
tourism destinations in Queensland were found to meet with at least half of the criteria in
the tourism planning process evaluation instrument. These destinations were, in order of
compliance: Redland Shire (69.5%), Sarina Shire (67.3%), Douglas Shire (61.9%), Gold
Coast City (60.8%) and Thuringowa City (51.0%).
196
7.1.1 Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy and North
Stradbroke Island Visioning Project
The Redland Shire is located east of Queensland’s capital city, Brisbane, on the coastline
of Moreton Bay (Figure 1.2). The Shire includes a number of mainland urbanized
suburbs and farming areas, as well as several islands including the popular tourist island
of North Stradbroke. Redland Shire has a population of approximately 124,000 and
along with other regions in the Brisbane area is considered one of the fastest growing
areas in Australia. Due to the fact that the Shire is essentially a ‘suburb’ of Brisbane, it
does not have a strong economic base, although the Council considers key industries in
the shire to be small business, tourism and some farming (Redland Shire Council, 2003;
2002).
In 2003 the Redland Shire Council released the ‘Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism
Development Strategy’. The impetus for the tourism plan reportedly stemmed from the
realisation that tourism had not achieved its full potential, and that there was a need to
establish a five-year strategic framework for tourism development in the Shire (Table
7.1). The Redland Shire tourism strategy gave considerable emphasis to the issues of
sustainable tourism development, and acknowledged the importance of strategic planning
and stakeholder participation as contributing factors to the achievement of a sustainable
tourism sector.
In 2002 the North Stradbroke Island community of Redland Shire developed a
‘Sustainable Tourism Vision’ for the island in partnership with the Redland Shire Council
and Tourism Queensland to provide a framework and set of values to guide the future
development of sustainable tourism on the island (Sustainable Tourism Services, 2002).
Sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder participation and collaboration were all
strongly integrated into the visioning process. The intention was not to provide a
prescriptive plan but to provide a direction to guide the establishment of strategic
priorities for ensuring the long-term sustainability of tourism on North Stradbroke Island
and ensure that a longer-term perspective informs day-to-day decisions. Community
197
values underpinned the development of the strategic vision with the objective of bringing
about a level of consensus amongst stakeholders about the preferred direction for tourism
on the island.
7.1.2 Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy
Sarina Shire is located on the east coast of central Queensland approximately 40
kilometres south of Mackay (Figure 1.2) and has a population of 10,000. The economy
of the shire is dominated by coal exporting with the region handling 61.5% of total coal
exports from Queensland, although primary production activities such as sugar cane,
beef, tropical fruit and fishing are also important (Local Government Focus, 2002; Sarina
Shire Council, 2002). In 2002 the Sarina Shire Council released the ‘Sarina Shire
Tourism Strategy’, as part of its program to stimulate and diversify economic activity in
the Shire.
The objective of developing a tourism strategy was to ensure that a holistic approach is
adopted where tourism is developed in harmony with the environment and does not
detract from the local character of the area (Table 7.1). Sustainable tourism development
is presented as a key goal of the Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy, with a strategic focus
towards future development. It is also noted within the strategy that there is a need to
move away from the traditional approach of tourism development through marketing and
promotion. The planning process further sought broad based community participation to
produce a strategy that would be owned and driven by the community.
7.1.3 Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy
Douglas Shire is located in Far North Queensland, approximately 100 kilometres north of
Cairns (Figure 1.2) and although the area has a small population it receives in excess of a
million visitors a year due to its proximity to the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics
World Heritage areas (Douglas Shire Council, 2004). Although traditionally an
agricultural area, tourism is the largest economic sector in the Douglas Shire with
198
significant accommodation stock and tour operations, the majority of which are located in
Port Douglas on the coast. The Douglas Shire Council is renowned for its strong
environmental and conservation values and became the first Green Globe21 benchmarked
community in the Asia Pacific region (Christopher, 2001). Their approach is evident in
the ‘Douglas Shire Sustainable Futures’ strategy (Douglas Shire Council, 2001),
“The Douglas Shire has embarked on a process to become a sustainable
community. Sustainability should underpin everything we do in the Shire. We
are all responsible for safeguarding our environmental and social and economic
requirements- the Shire’s triple bottom line. This document is designed to
ensure that all the decisions we make take into account environmental, social
and economic issues not one in isolation of the others” (p.1).
In 1998 the Douglas Shire Council released the ‘Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy’ to
guide tourism planning, management, marketing and development and achieve their
vision of being recognised as a model of best practice in sustainable tourism (Table 7.1)
(Douglas Shire Council & Port Douglas Daintree Tourism Association, 1998). A
detailed range of principles and goals guided the implementation of the strategy
(Appendix 15). Sustainability goals were a focus of the strategy, with strategic actions
seeking to balance economic, environmental and social considerations. Although the
issue of strategic planning did not feature heavily in the plan, the importance of
stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process was highlighted within the
document, where it is acknowledged that public involvement in tourism planning is
essential and community views need to be taken into account in the development of
tourism as the future of the sector relies heavily on ongoing community support and
involvement.
7.1.4 Gold Coast Tourism Visioning Project and Gold Coast Tourism
Strategy
Gold Coast City is a large South-East Queensland coastal centre (Figure 1.2), and is the
sixth largest city in Australia, with a population of 450,000 (Gold Coast City Council,
199
2004). The Gold Coast has long been acknowledged as Australia’s premier tourist
destination, a position established as a consequence of a fortunate combination of natural
assets and a sequence of visionary entrepreneurs. Although the Gold Coast experienced
quite rapid and successful growth up until the 1990s, a range of indicators highlighted the
fact that Gold Coast was a mature destination showing some early signs of stagnation,
paralleling the experience of coastal tourist resorts elsewhere in the world (Chapter Four).
It was realised that,
“A fundamental shift in the approach to destination planning and
management is necessary if the region is to rejuvenate and remain
competitive in the longer term. However, the pressures of an increasingly
competitive global environment point to the necessity of a more
comprehensive approach that embraces sustainable development principles as
a framework for tourism development” (Faulkner, 2003, p.43).
To address such concerns the Gold Coast Tourism Visioning (GCTV) project was
instigated with the objective of articulating a set of core values and principles that would
underpin a preferred future for the sustainable prosperity of the destination in the medium
to longer term (10 to 20 years). The GCTV project also sought to move from an ad hoc
approach to tourism to one that integrates economic, social and environmental
dimensions to evolve new patterns of managing and growing tourism in a more
systematic and dynamic way (Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Management Research,
nd).
On completion of the GCTV project, the ‘Gold Coast Tourism Strategy’ was released
with the aim of providing the mechanism to implement the findings of the GCTV project
and in so doing ensure the destination remains competitive and sustainable for future
generations (Table 7.1) (Gold Coast City Council Tourism Branch, 2003). The strategy
also sought to provide a framework within Council for the coordination of Gold Coast
tourism through the development of planning and policy outcomes, while assisting
council in prioritising the tourism initiatives for the city. The strategy reiterated the
importance and need for sustainable tourism development, and while not further
200
articulating goals for strategic planning, reference was made to the participation of
internal and external stakeholder groups in the planning process.
7.1.5 Thuringowa Tourism and Events Strategy
Thuringowa City is located along the North Queensland coastline (Figure 1.2), and
borders the much larger regional city of Townsville. The Shire is comprised of urban,
rural and coastal areas, with over 50,000 residents, many of who live in the urban areas of
the Shire (Thuringowa City Council, 2003). While tourism is currently not a major
economic sector for the shire the Thuringowa City Council released the ‘Thuringowa
Tourism and Events Strategy’ in 2000 in an attempt to utilise the area’s significant assets
and attributes for a sustainable tourism industry and destination image for the Shire.
More specifically the objective of the strategy was to establish a planning framework to
guide the development of tourism and related recreational activities in Thuringowa City
(ATS Group, 2000).
The Thuringowa Tourism and Events Strategy contained several references to the
importance of sustainable development, and recognised the need for a planning platform
based on ecologically sustainable development (Table 7.1). Although the strategy did
not refer to strategic planning, stakeholder participation namely community consultation
is acknowledged as a cornerstone of the master planning process.
7.2 Overview of Case Study Destination Stakeholder Participants
This section of the chapter presents an overview of the stakeholder respondents sampled
from each of the five case study destinations. Although this has been previously outlined
in Chapter Five (section 5.6) it is overviewed again here to provide a point of reference
to the stakeholder interview responses presented in the remainder of the chapter. A total
of 31 destination stakeholders were sampled, with respondents including Councillors and
council officers, private sector operators within the tourism industry, members or staff of
tourism associations and similar authorities and consultants who were engaged for the
201
planning process, many of whom were also residents of the destinations under
investigation (Table 7.2). Ordinary residents involved in the local tourism destination
planning process were also sought to participate in the research however as outlined in
the limitations of this study (Chapter Five, section 5.8) their participation was not
possible for a variety of reasons.
Respondent’s regular affiliations as well as their role in the local tourism planning
process are presented in Table 7.2. The final column in this table lists respondent’s
perceived influence over the destination’s tourism planning process under investigation
for this study. During the interviews, respondents were asked to describe the extent of
their influence and involvement in the planning and decision-making process for the
destination. Based on these responses influence has been rated as low, intermediate or
high. The issue of stakeholder influence over the planning process is discussed in
Chapter Eight.
The following section presents the results of the 31 interviews conducted with destination
stakeholders in the five case study areas. Statements by particular stakeholders have
been coded as per the first column in Table 7.3 in addition to the respondent’s regular
affiliation (column three).
202
Tab
le7.
1:O
verv
iew
ofth
eT
ouri
smPl
anni
ngD
ocum
ents
ofth
eC
ase
Stud
yD
estin
atio
ns
Red
land
Shir
eSa
rina
Shir
eD
ougl
asSh
ire
Gol
dC
oast
City
Thur
ingo
wa
City
Obj
ectiv
es-Id
entif
ypl
anni
ngth
ataf
fect
stou
rism
inth
eSh
ire-E
xam
ine
curr
ents
tatu
sof
tour
ism
indu
stry
-Iden
tify
stak
ehol
der
issu
esan
dde
bate
-Iden
tify
hurd
les
prev
entin
gSh
irefr
omad
optin
gm
ore
sust
aina
ble
dire
ctio
ns
-Ens
ure
aw
hole
-of-s
hire
appr
oach
-Tou
rism
deve
lopm
entt
ooc
curi
na
holis
ticm
anne
r-R
ecog
nise
tour
ism
asa
soci
alan
dec
onom
icfo
rce
and
maj
orem
ploy
er-E
nsur
eto
uris
mis
deve
lope
din
harm
ony
with
the
envi
ronm
ent
and
does
not
detra
ctfr
omth
elo
cal
char
acte
roft
hear
ea
-Und
erst
and
the
curr
ent
mar
ket
posi
tion
ofth
eSh
ire-Id
entif
ygo
als,
issu
es,
alte
rnat
ive
futu
resa
ndpo
tent
ial
stra
tegi
es-E
nsur
eto
uris
mis
com
patib
lew
ithco
mm
unity
aspi
ratio
ns-S
tabl
eec
onom
yan
dna
tura
len
viro
nmen
tlo
ngev
ity-A
ppro
pria
tebr
andi
ng,
imag
e,pr
omot
ion
and
mar
ketin
g
-Eth
ical
ly,
soci
ally
,cu
ltura
lly,
econ
omic
ally
and
envi
ronm
enta
llysu
stai
nabl
eto
uris
mde
velo
pmen
t-W
hole
ofde
stin
atio
nap
proa
chto
plan
ning
and
polic
ymak
ing
-Pro
vide
afr
amew
ork
with
inC
ounc
ilfo
rthe
plan
ning
and
polic
you
tcom
esof
the
GC
TVpr
ojec
t-A
ssis
tcou
ncil
inpr
iorit
isin
gth
eto
uris
min
itiat
ives
fort
heci
ty
-Est
ablis
ha
plan
ning
fram
ewor
kto
guid
eto
uris
mde
velo
pmen
t-P
rese
rve
the
attri
bute
sof
the
dist
rict
-Incr
ease
visi
tatio
nan
dle
ngth
ofst
ay-S
prea
dec
onom
icbe
nefit
s-C
reat
eco
mm
unity
bene
fits
Vis
ion
Infiv
eye
ars
time
the
Shire
will
have
asu
stai
nabl
eto
uris
min
dust
ry
Enga
gein
ato
uris
mde
velo
pmen
tpa
thth
atis
econ
omic
ally
,ec
olog
ical
lyan
dso
cial
lysu
stai
nabl
e
Tour
ism
inD
ougl
asSh
irew
illbe
reco
gnis
edas
am
odel
ofbe
stpr
actic
esu
stai
nabl
eto
uris
m
Gol
dC
oast
will
beco
me
one
ofth
egr
eatl
eisu
rean
dlif
esty
lede
stin
atio
nsof
the
wor
ld,
reno
wne
dfo
rthe
sust
aina
ble
man
agem
ento
fits
natu
rala
ndbu
ilten
viro
nmen
t
Inte
grat
eth
eto
uris
mat
tribu
test
osh
owca
sest
reng
ths,
com
plem
ents
the
wid
erre
gion
,di
vers
ifies
the
loca
leco
nom
yan
dha
shig
hap
peal
for
visi
tors
Sust
aina
bilit
yEs
tabl
ish
apr
oact
ive
plan
ning
fram
ewor
kto
Cre
ate
ato
uris
mat
tract
ion
base
asth
e
Ensu
reth
eec
olog
ical
,so
cial
,cul
tura
lan
dec
onom
ic
Itis
impo
rtant
that
Gol
dC
oast
City
’sto
uris
min
dust
ry
Plan
ning
plat
form
base
don ec
olog
ical
ly
203
fast
track
tow
ards
avi
sion
ofsu
stai
nabi
lity
corn
erst
one
tosu
stai
nabl
eto
uris
mde
velo
pmen
t
sust
aina
bilit
yof
exis
ting
and
futu
reto
uris
m
cont
inue
sto
beec
onom
ical
ly,
envi
ronm
enta
llyan
dso
cial
lysu
stai
nabl
e
sust
aina
ble
deve
lopm
ent,
tosu
ppor
tthe
futu
repr
omot
ion
ofth
ena
tura
len
viro
nmen
tan
dth
eso
cial
/cul
tura
lel
emen
tsSt
rate
gic
Plan
ning
Proa
ctiv
epl
anni
ngap
proa
chw
here
asu
stai
nabl
evi
sion
isde
fined
now
todr
ive
plan
ning
Impo
rtanc
eof
tour
ism
prod
uct
deve
lopm
ent
over
mar
ketin
gan
dpr
omot
ion
--
-
Stak
ehol
der
Part
icip
atio
nEn
cour
age
parti
cipa
tion
from
ava
riety
of stak
ehol
ders
-go
vern
men
t,in
dust
ryan
dth
eco
mm
unity
Prod
uce
ast
rate
gyth
atw
ould
beow
ned
and
driv
enby
the
com
mun
ityits
elf
The
stra
tegy
begu
ided
byth
epr
inci
ple
ofm
anag
ing
and
deve
lopi
ngth
ein
dust
ryco
oper
ativ
ely
with
the
com
mun
ity
Impl
emen
ting
the
stra
tegy
isde
pend
ent,
not
only
upon
itsac
cept
ance
with
inC
ounc
il,bu
tals
oup
onits
supp
ortw
ithin
the
wid
erco
mm
unity
Com
mun
ityco
nsul
tatio
nis
aco
rner
ston
eof
the
mas
ter
plan
ning
proc
ess
Part
icip
atio
nM
etho
dsC
onsu
ltatio
nun
derta
ken
with
:-G
over
nmen
t-T
ouris
mbo
dies
-Ope
rato
rs-C
omm
unity
mem
bers
Met
hods
:-W
orks
hops
-Mee
tings
-Inte
rvie
ws
-Que
stio
nnai
res
-Pub
licfo
rum
s-D
iscu
ssio
npa
per
Con
sulta
tion
unde
rtake
nw
ith:
-Loc
algo
vern
men
t-C
omm
unity
and
busi
ness
asso
ciat
ions
-Com
mun
itym
embe
rsM
etho
ds:
-Rep
rese
ntat
ive
stee
ring
com
mitt
ee-P
ublic
mee
tings
Con
sulta
tion
unde
rtake
nw
ith:
-Com
mun
ity-T
ouris
min
dust
ryM
etho
ds:
-Pub
licm
eetin
gs-P
ATA
tour
ism
prod
uct
revi
ew
Con
sulta
tion
unde
rtake
nw
ith:
-Pub
lican
dpr
ivat
eto
uris
mst
akeh
olde
rsat
loca
l,st
ate
and
natio
nall
evel
sM
etho
ds:
-Cou
ncil
tour
ism
task
forc
e-C
omm
ents
ondr
aftt
ouris
mst
rate
gy
Con
sulta
tion
unde
rtake
nw
ith:
-Loc
algo
vern
men
t-S
tate
gove
rnm
ent
-Reg
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tbo
dies
-Tou
rism
oper
ator
s-T
ouris
mas
soci
atio
nsM
etho
ds:
-Mee
tings
204
Table 7.2: Respondent Regular Affiliation and Residence in Destination
Redland Sarina Douglas Gold Coast Thuringowa
Affiliation
Council 2 3 2 1 2 Industry 1 1 1 1 2 Association 2 2 2 1 1 Consultant 1 0 1 3 2 Total 6 6 6 6 7
Resident
Yes 5 5 5 3 4 No 1 1 1 3 3 Respondent average years as resident of destination
18.5
44.6
31.0
15.0
7.3
Table 7.3: Respondent Role in Planning Process and Regular Affiliation
Role In Planning Process Regular Affiliation Perceived Influence
Redland R1 Project Consultant Consultant Intermediate R2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High R3 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council Intermediate R4 Consultation Industry Operator Low R5 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate R6 Consultation Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Low
Sarina S1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High S2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High S3 Steering Committee Shire Council Intermediate S4 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate S5 Steering Committee Industry Operator Intermediate S6 Steering Committee Regional Tourism Organisation
(RTO) Low
Douglas D1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High D2 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High D3 Project Consultant Consultant High D4 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate D5 Steering Committee Industry Operator Intermediate
205
D6 Steering Committee Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate
Gold Coast G1 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High G2 Project Consultant Consultant Intermediate G3 Project Consultant Consultant Low G4 Consultation Local Tourism Authority (LTA) Intermediate G5 Project Researcher Consultant Low G6 Consultation Industry Operator Intermediate
Thuringowa T1 Steering Committee State Tourism Authority (STA) Low T2 Consultation Regional Tourism Organisation
(RTO) Low
T3 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High T4 Consultation Industry Operator Low T5 Consultation Industry Operator Low T6 Management- Steering Committee Shire Council High T7 Project Consultant Consultant High
7.3 Local Tourism Destination Stakeholder Interview Results
The second and third research objectives of the study were addressed through in-depth,
semi-structured interviews with 31 stakeholders from five case study destinations in
Queensland. This section presents the results of the stakeholder interviews for each of
the case studies, with results presented according to the thematic categories derived from
the literature review and used to inform the interview questions (Appendix Seven). For
the second objective of the study the thematic categories are sustainability, strategic
planning, and stakeholder participation. Within each of these themes results are
presented according to the manifest coding undertaken during the data analysis stage.
The sustainability theme includes three factors, the strategic planning theme has five and
the stakeholder participation theme has seven factors. Stakeholder responses have been
collated and are presented in a summative form for each of the respective destinations,
with the various destinations delineated by different colours in the figures. Excerpts
from specific interview respondents are identified by the respondent codes and
respondents regular affiliations (Table 7.3).
206
Stakeholder perceptions of future tourism planning needs and strategic visioning are
presented to address the third objective of the study. Results for this theme include three
factors, with an additional five factors presented from the more detailed results obtained
from the two destinations that have previously undertaken a strategic visioning process
(Redland Shire and Gold Coast City).
7.3.1 Sustainability Theme
Several aspects of sustainable tourism planning and the sustainability concept were
discussed with stakeholders including; their understanding and views of the sustainability
concept, their perceptions as to what motivated the adoption of a sustainable approach to
tourism planning and whether they believe the concept is applied in destination planning
and management practice. Stakeholder responses for this theme have been presented
according to the manifest coding derived from the analysis: sustainability concept,
sustainable planning motivations and concept application.
The first factor arising in the sustainability theme related to stakeholders’ perceptions of
the sustainability concept and its applicability to local tourism destination planning and
management (Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.1: Sustainability Concept (n=31)
6
1
6 6
3
4
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Concept value Practical application
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded
207
Stakeholder respondents from each case study destination generally considered that the
concept of sustainability was valuable and important (27),
“It’s such a vital concept that we have to aim to achieve” (S2/Council),
and,
“I mean sustainability does underpin everything. I don’t think that could be
impressed too much” (G6/Industry).
While acknowledging the value of the sustainability concept, concerns were raised by a
number of respondents that the concept had become the latest catchphrase,
“I think that the word itself is just too easily bantered around (R2/Council)”,
and,
“It’s become a bit of a catchphrase though, a bit like ecotourism was the call
of the 90s” (D3/Consultant).
Concerns over the emergence of the word as a catchphrase was seen by some respondents
as adversely impacting on how the term is used in practice with one respondent noting
that, “there’s a lot of lip service to it definitely” (T7/Consultant). Other respondents
claimed that,
“I think we’re now in danger of having watered down the word. People are
using the word in all sorts of contexts and not necessarily the right contexts,
so that can be dangerous” (D2/Council),
and,
“So I think the principles are really important...I think the jargon’s overtaken
us all and sometimes the use of jargon is replacing the real steps towards some
of these things. To me it’s one of those words that’s really, really over
used…but using the word doesn’t mean that you’re thinking about your water
supply” (G4/LTA).
Similarly,
“Personally the worst thing that ever happened to sustainability was it became
a buzz word, because the word itself has been so overused, in so many
different contexts. People are over it. The concept and the meaning behind it
is still there…but the sustainability word now has a cringe factor and people
208
really shy away from things that have sustainability in the title because it is so
theoretically and philosophically based” (T1/STA).
Five respondents highlighted issues associated with the practical aspects and
implementation of the sustainability concept,
“A lot of people talk about sustainability but what does that actually mean,
and how do we deliver on that? I think that’s one of the key challenges for
industry and for local governments as we move forward” (G1/Council),
and,
“So the theory is not only good but it has to happen, sustainability, it’s more
than just theory these days, its serious stuff” (G2/Consultant).
It was also noted that particular aspects of the theory were overtly focused upon,
“Even the economic component is sometimes overlooked. I think everyone
gets very excited about the green side of things and they don’t actually see
that you can have the most wonderful ecotourism product but frankly unless
it’s going to stand up and can make a buck don’t even bother starting it up
(R3/Council)”.
The second factor in the sustainability theme related to stakeholders’ perceptions on what
motivated the adoption of a sustainable approach to tourism planning for their destination
(Figure 7.2).
Figure 7.2: Sustainable Planning Motivations (n=31)
4
2
5
1
5
1
3
1
2
3
1
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Destinationm anagem ent
M anagem entm andates
Not m otivated
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
G old Coas t
Thuringowa
209
The majority of respondents (20) identified the desire to enhance destination management
practices and manage the impacts of tourism activity on the destination as the motives for
undertaking a sustainable tourism plan,
“We wanted to raise the bar in the whole tourism industry by doing the
strategy and set out a sustainable direction and future” (D2/Council),
and,
“The reason we did the strategy in the first place was because of what was
happening here environmentally, something needed to be done. We knew we
didn’t want to lose that industry but we also didn’t want to spoil and destroy
our assets. We really saw there was a need to do something to get this right”
(D1/Council).
Four respondents noted that the motivation for undertaking a sustainable planning
approach was due to management mandates and planning requirements that sustainability
principles form the basis of the planning exercise,
“There are just too many checks and balances now in terms of environmental
issues, social issues and so on. There are just too many groups out there
monitoring and watching what goes on with government activity, local
government activity, business activity” (D3/Consultant),
and,
“Local governments need to include sustainability assessments. There’s
questions to be asked and sustainability criteria need to be included”
(T6/Council).
It was similarly noted that,
“You have to address the issue of sustainability as there will come a time
you’ve got to be able to stand alone and face the music” (S2/Council).
However a number of the respondents (7) were of the opinion that sustainability was not
the motivating factor in the development of the strategy for their destination,
210
“I don’t know what they were trying to do but I doubt they did a plan to be
sustainable” (T2/RTO).
One respondent noted that the terminology had been adopted but not the practice,
“They jumped on the idea of sustainability as it was a key word. Theirs is a
plan which is really more marketing oriented not sustainability oriented”
(R6/LTA),
and,
“I don’t think there was a real sustainability agenda, but there’s definitely lots
of opportunity for increasing sustainability...and doing that is probably risky,
expensive and beyond any one particular region’s capabilities and so all you
get are little experiments in the margins such as the Gold Coast visioning
project. There’s opportunities for it I just don’t see anyone particularly
interested in doing it. Maybe it’s the scale of the investment, maybe it’s the
idea that you need to retro fit sustainability into these places which weren’t
designed for it in the first place” (G3/Consultant).
The final factor arising from the interviews in relation to the sustainability theme was the
extent to which the sustainability concept was perceived to be practically applied in
tourism destination planning and management (Figure 7.3).
Figure 7.3: Sustainability Concept Application (n=31)
2
3
6
2
4
2
1
3
2 2
1 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Applied practice Practical tools Process challenges Not achieving
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Non responses excluded
211
A number of the respondents (13) perceive that the sustainability concept is being applied
in practice, although they note that there is still room for improvement,
“We see examples of it, it’s not perfect…I think its going to get bigger and
bigger. But still trying to get that combination, that’s the trick”
(T7/Consultant),
and,
“There’s attempts to deliver on this triple bottom line and sustainability but
how that happens, again I think that’s a whole learning curve because as we
learn more about what sustainability means and how we can deliver on it,
we’ll do better at doing it” (G1/Council).
However a number of respondents (8) believe that until practical tools are developed the
concept cannot be affectively applied in practice,
“The theory’s good and the practice can be good if the tools are there for
destinations to use. They have to be tools that had some discipline rigor put
into developing the standards and the methods in which they’re going to be
rolled out” (G2/Consultant).
One respondent noted the need for sustainability indicators as a tool for use in practice so
that the concept can be more effectively applied and managed,
“Professionally the experience that I’ve had is, without clear indicators of
environmental sustainability and social sustainability, it’s impossible to even
enter the word in to the debate unless you have a set of indicators that you can
rely on to say ‘are we or are we not entering the danger zone of the long term
future’. Economically we have had indicators for sustainability for a very long
time...what we don’t have is the equivalent in environmental sustainability
and social sustainability. So until you can get clear indicators on
environmental and social sustainability, it’s an absolutely moot point and just
makes it waffle and we end up writing waffle in the actions to say that we do
nice things. Local government, regional tourism organizations, need to be
given the tools to monitor the progress, understand what changes mean, what
212
they might mean in the future based on case studies and good indicators, and
then be shown what you can do to respond to it, otherwise it’s just
sustainability philosophy” (T1/STA).
Several respondents (3) identified challenges in the planning process and the nature of the
tourism sector as hindering the application of the sustainability concept.
“If they had involved the community to actually have a sustainable tourism
vision they would actually have a better outcome now than they do”
(R5/LTA),
and,
“I think it’s happening, I’d like to think most people in the industry walk the
walk and just don’t talk the talk. I think it’s happening in parts…and there’s
the good, the bad and the ugly as we know in any industry and tourism is no
different and, I think there are genuine operators out there with sustainable
intent. But I daresay for every good one that’s out there making an effort
there’s another turning a blind eye to some of their own business practices.
Certainly we know its happening” (D3/Consultant).
Several respondents (5) believe the sustainability concept is not being applied in tourism
destination planning and management because of overriding planning schemes in some
destinations,
“I don’t think Douglas is sustainable... and that’s only because the town plan
allowed it to happen and so once it’s in place you can’t go and stop it”
(D5/Industry).
Similarly,
“Council’s always this argument that we can’t do anything about it, you know
controlling development, market forces have got to set the pace. But if you
just allow the building to go on and on and on, we’re just destroying the
landscape, and we’re putting more pressure on things but its not necessarily
drawing more people in, and if it is, if you do start to get increases they are
213
coming in at a lower yield so therefore the spend in the economy isn’t as great
as it could be if you kept a control on that” (D6/LTA).
The nature of the destination system was also identified as hindering the application of
the sustainability concept,
“There’s not a chance that the Gold Coast can be sustainable because they
didn’t address transportation to the best of my knowledge. They didn’t address
the mix of the attractions or how they occurred. They looked at some aspects,
but I don’t think they really thought it through” (G3),
and,
“I don’t think there’s anything sustainable about the Gold Coast at the
moment, just the patterns of settlement and road transport and lack of public
transport and I’m not sure there’s many genuine attempts being made in the
tourism industry either” (G4/LTA).
7.3.1.1 Summary: Sustainability Theme
The sustainability theme presented stakeholder respondent’s views on the sustainability
concept and its application in local Queensland tourism destinations. While all of the
respondents considered the sustainability concept to be valuable and important, some
raised concerns that the term had emerged as the latest catchphrase for the sector and
noted a range of problems associated with this trend. Some respondents expressed
concern that the term sustainability had become tourism jargon, which was resulting in
the word being misused and applied to contexts not necessarily associated with
sustainability. Others believed that due to the concept’s strong theoretical and
philosophical associations, practitioners were tending to avoid the term and its associated
meaning. Similarly a number of respondents, although acknowledging the importance of
the concept, highlighted challenges associated with moving beyond the theory and
delivering on the concept. It was also noted that there was a need to ensure a more
balanced view and give due attention to all three aspects of the concept.
214
In terms of stakeholder’s views as to what motivated their destination to undertake a
sustainable tourism planning approach, the majority identified the desire to enhance the
destination’s planning and management practices. Other motivating factors were seen to
be the management mandates and planning requirements, which had created a need to
address sustainability criteria particularly in terms of environment and social issues.
However several respondents were of the opinion that a sustainable tourism planning
approach was not the motivating factor in the development of the strategy for their
destination, that it had simply being labelled as such and that the strategy had continued
to focus on more traditional issues such as marketing.
The final issue arising in the sustainability theme was whether respondents perceive the
sustainability concept is applied in practice. A number of respondents were of the
opinion that there are attempts to apply the concept in practice but note that there is still
considerable room for improvement and expect that with time and experience this will
progress. However other respondents believe that until practical tools for implementation
are developed, the concept cannot effectively be applied in practice. The lack of tools
such as sustainability indicators are seen as a barrier and contributing to the misuse of the
concept as destinations currently do not have any basis for measuring their sustainability
efforts. These tools were considered necessary so that local governments and the like can
monitor progress, understand what changes mean, what they might mean in the future
and take the appropriate actions. Other barriers to the effective application of the concept
were seen to be meaningful engagement of the destination community in the planning
process, private sector practices and overriding town planning schemes which in some
instances are perceived as working at cross purposes with destination sustainability
objectives.
7.3.2 Strategic Planning Theme
The second of the themes arising from the literature review and discussed with
stakeholders related to the strategic nature of the local tourism destination planning
process. Issues raised included; perceived motivations, benefits, challenges and
215
outcomes of the strategic planning process. Stakeholder responses are presented
according to the manifest coding: strategic planning motivation, strategic framework,
strategic planning benefits, strategic planning challenges and strategic planning scope.
The first factor arising in the strategic planning theme related to stakeholders’ perceptions
of the motivation for their destination to undertake a strategic planning process (Figure
7.4).
Figure 7.4: Strategic Planning Motivation (n=31)
1
2
1 1
3
1
2
3
2
1
2
1 1
4
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Proactive Direction Action Management Education
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Non responses excluded
Respondents had various perceptions as to the motivation for their destination conducting
a strategic planning process. A number of respondents (9) identified the need to be
proactive regarding tourism in the destination,
“There was a need to plan out a strategy because you need to have a vision of
how much development is wanted, what type of tourism they wanted”
(D5/Industry),
and,
“I think it was a call to action to change the way we’ve done things, you know
reorganize the way we do things and move forward” (G6/Industry).
216
Also identified by respondents was the need to set a direction for tourism in the
destination (7),
“To pull together the information and have a strategic intent of where they’re
going” (R1/Consultant),
and,
“It was seen that we were needing to be developing a strategy to make sure we
were heading in the right direction. It was actually at a time of major
downturn in the sugar industry and the coal industry was not returning a lot to
the community, so there was a perceived need for tourism development to
take place in the Shire” (S2/Council).
Other respondents (3) considered the motivating factor for undertaking a strategic
planning process was to instigate action,
“They wanted to get some actions happening, some runs on the board from the
visioning project” (G2/Consultant),
and,
“It was definitely about setting a longer-term vision and setting some really
short-term actions to get there” (T7/Consultant).
Although one respondent believed action had come at the expense of a strategic
approach,
“It was a strategy so the purpose would have been to think about the longer
term future but I don’t think that was the real aim of the document. They
wanted to get their stakeholders on board, they could see tourism had
potential, and they wanted to get going” (T1/STA).
The fourth identified motivation for undertaking a strategic planning process was to
mange tourism’s impacts on the destination (3),
“I think generally we needed to have some sort of tourism statement for
Douglas Shire because it was impacting significantly” (D3/Consultant),
and,
217
“We bought the strategy forward by about two years because of some of the
sort of more urgent issues around tourism issues, tourism development of the
shire and our concerns over where tourism was going...so we brought it
forward for that reason for more of a strategic platform” (R3/Council).
The final motivation identified by respondents was to educate the stakeholder groups
within the destination (4),
“There were things happening in the Shire and we really just wanted to up the
anti of tourism planning in the Shire and put the idea of planning and
management out there to the industry” (D2/Council),
and,
“We needed to know what was going on, judge who the actual tourists were,
which ones were coming, which ones we could attract and relay this back to
the community” (S3/Council).
It was also discussed by one respondent that undertaking the strategic planning process
improved awareness of the tourism sector which assisted in engaging stakeholders in
making more informed decisions about tourism,
“Basically what we were trying to do as part of the strategy was to try to lift
the profile and the understanding within Council about tourism planning and
the tourism market in general, so when transport or when the strategic
planners, the town planners, when parks and recreation go out and develop
another plan they have a recognition of the tourism outcomes that we are
trying to achieve as well, it’s a lot about what the strategy was about”
(G1/Council).
The second factor arising from the strategic planning theme related to the outcomes of the
strategic planning process (Figure 7.5). The majority of stakeholder respondents (18)
considered that as a result of the strategic planning process their destination had a specific
document outlining a directional framework for tourism,
“They’ve got that document, of where they’re going. It’s got to be a positive
so they will never go backwards from that step” (R1/Consultant),
218
and,
“We have this document that leads the way towards our objectives”
(S2/Council).
Similarly,
“There was a lot of stuff in it that set out a framework, you know the vision for
tourism in the Shire, setting out a broad direction” (D2/Council).
Figure 7.5: Strategic Outcomes (n=31)
21
3
6
1
5 5
1
33
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Direction Action Achievement
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Non responses excluded
Stakeholder respondents also identified that an outcome of the strategic planning process
was that the destination now has an agenda for action (2),
“There’s a whole load of large almost theoretical achievements and some
more day-to-day ones as well. We wanted to ensure that we were seen to be
on an action agenda. We wanted really to be talking about things we were
going to be doing and I think that was what the industry wanted, I think they
want to see that something’s happening” (R2/Council).
On the contrary, other respondents (10) discussed the fact that in their view the process
had not lead to any strategic outcomes for the destination,
“I think the intent was always to set up a framework and a more strategic way
of thinking about their issues, you know maturing markets and that sort of
219
thing but I haven’t seen any evidence of that, that there’s been a major shift”
(G4/LTA).
The third factor arising in the strategic theme related to the benefits derived from the
destination undertaking a strategic planning process (Figure 7.6).
Figure 7.6: Strategic Planning Benefits (n=31)
1
2
1 1
3
1
3
2
1 1 1 1
2 2
1 1
2 2
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
Stakeholderbuy-in
Destinationmanagement
Direction Decisionmaking
Framework Awareness
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded
Stakeholder respondents identified a range of benefits resulting from the strategic
planning process undertaken for their destination. The first identified benefit was
stakeholder buy-in to the process (8),
“The vision and direction for the future set out in the strategy was useful in
pulling people together, with some sort of direction for the future”
(D2/Council),
and,
“If you don’t have a plan and a direction people don’t see that end gain and
that end gain has to fit with what the community and council want, so I think
if you don’t have that bigger vision its much harder for people to buy into it,
they don’t see why what you’re doing is important” (T7/Consultant).
220
Also identified as a benefit of the strategic planning process was the improved destination
management capabilities (4),
“I think probably the best use of the tourism plan is that is has actually
informed our planning schemes, it’s been very useful for land use planning,
that was only a part of what it was intended for” (D1/Council),
and,
“You’ve got to set out how you want the landscape to look, not just how
you’re going to make it look that way” (G1/Council).
The third benefit of the strategic planning process discussed by stakeholder respondents
was that the destination now has a direction for tourism (9),
“We have now a vision for the future direction of tourism in the Shire. This is
what a dynamic document is all about, it’s not something that is done and
finished with, it’s something that you use every day. It doesn’t just sit on a
shelf” (S2/Council),
and,
“Council at least has a strategy and people have the opportunity to fit into that
strategy, they can have some sort of direction for the town” (T2/RTO).
The strategic planning process was also considered beneficial because of the resulting
decision-making capacity for tourism in the destination (4),
“Because you’ve got hard and soft infrastructure in terms of planning so if
you’re going to start talking about hundreds of millions of dollars for roads
and rail and airports and power lines, etc. there’s got to be a planning horizon
of 5, 10, 15, 20 years” (G2/Consultant),
and the ability of the process to lead to the creation of a framework for the future of the
destination (2) and raising awareness of the tourism sector in the destination community
(2).
Conversely the challenges of undertaking a tourism destination strategic planning process
were discussed with stakeholder respondents (Figure 7.7).
221
Figure 7.7: Strategic Planning Challenges (n=31)
1
3
2
3
1
5
2
3
2 2
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Implementation Stakeholder buy-in Focus
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Non responses excluded
Approximately half of the respondents (13) considered the implementation phase of
strategic planning as the greatest challenge of the process. Some respondents considered
implementation to be a challenge due to the scope and detail included in the tourism
planning document,
“It has really just been put on the shelf actually. It’s just that there are a long
list of actions at the back, and we haven’t gone through them and said you do
that, you do that, or rearrange them or resource them” (D1/Council),
and,
“I don’t think it’s going to be picked up, I speak to industry and they don’t
even understand it. So the reality is that they need a translator and that could
be the Council’s role and they need to just keep it nice and simple”
(R1/Consultant).
Other respondents viewed the ability to generate the resources required for
implementation as the greatest challenge,
“We’ve found that unless there are some dollars forthcoming or some funds
identified for roll out of some immediate priority actions so you get some
immediate wins on the board in the first 12 to 18 months for a strategy of that
scale it can almost be seen as a waste of time. If you don’t have a strategy in
222
place about how you’re going to resource some of the key priorities people are
going to look at it and say well that wasn’t worth the effort” (D3/Consultant),
and,
“These things are always difficult because unless someone has the money and
desire and effort to implement them its very hard. And to implement
something like this is expensive and the type of things they were talking with
events is very expensive. They need the money, that’s the hardest thing”
(T2/RTO),
with other respondents viewing the timeframe for implementation as a challenge of the
strategic planning process,
“We have come to understand that you can’t achieve all these projects within
the time frame that we had initially thought we would be able to do”
(S2/Council).
The second challenge of the strategic planning process discussed by a number of
respondents (9) was obtaining stakeholder buy-in to the process,
“Unfortunately at the time there was a lot of politics involved and it didn’t get
the majority support on the table for a number of the concepts” (R2/Council),
and,
“The things they really grappled with all the way through this was getting
industry buy in and ownership of it” (G3/Consultant).
Several respondents (3) perceive the main challenge associated with strategic planning is
getting agreement on focus and scope for the process,
“The Council had some really fixed views about development and how to try
and get it funded and we were trying to broaden that picture” (T7/Consultant).
The final factor arising from the interviews in the strategic planning theme related to
stakeholders perceptions of local tourism destination plans and the optimum geographical
scope for a tourism planning exercise (Figure 7.8).
223
Figure 7.8: Strategic Planning Scope (n=31)
5
1
4
1 1
2 2 2
1
2
33 3
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
Local agenda Regional approach Integration
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Approximately half of the respondents (15) discussed the importance of local level
tourism strategic planning. Inherent local characteristics and agendas were considered
reasons for tourism planning to occur at the local destination level,
“You need to create these images that are unique and tap into your characters
in the area and those wonderful cultural stories you’ve got about your area
because if you don’t, you’re just like any other area, what is it that is going to
distinguish you from all of the others?” (R3/Council),
and,
“A local plan is more relevant because within the region such as Tourism
North Queensland we do see ourselves as being a little different, than Cairns
or whoever. We’ve got more pressing issues especially environmentally with
the Daintree and so forth” (D2/Council).
Other respondents cited a local approach due to the difficulty in maintaining local
identity in a regional level plan,
“The real problem that small communities have with anything that is regional
is that the major centres believe that regions start and finish at their city gates.
This is where it very much becomes a problem for small communities, it’s
always very much a battle, a struggle for identity in the smaller communities
in a regional plan” (S1/Council),
224
and in asserting influence over the focus of regional activities and funds distribution,
“I think I see the core of the problem in the structure that has been put in place
for the development of tourism. The dollars flow through to these RTOs and
the dollars flow mainly for marketing and promotion at the expense of tourism
product development and the other problem is that the membership of the
RTOs is mainly the commercial operators and these commercial operators are
more interested in the promotion dollars than anything else. So, as a result
you’ve got all the money directed into that aspect of things, rather than to
further development” (S2/Council).
The need for local level planning was also considered important in generating community
ownership of tourism,
“In terms of getting things happening in a local community you need that
sense of ownership and without it people in the local areas aren’t going to
want to get behind it and want to implement it” (T7/Consultant).
Alternatively a number of respondents (8) discussed the need for planning to occur at a
regional level. A regional planning approach was seen as important for destination
marketing,
“Regional plans are needed especially in terms of marketing a destination, of
course international visitors don’t have any idea about government boundaries
so it’s necessary for regional type marketing to occur” (D1/Council),
and,
“When it comes to tactical things like marketing plans, advertising and
awareness, those things have to be done at a regional level because with 125
local authorities…there’s no way in the world that a visitor from Melbourne,
let alone a visitor from Germany could every come to grips with 125
destinations” (T1/STA).
Regional planning was also considered necessary as major infrastructure developments
occur at a regional level,
“A regional plan is more valuable in that it would set out a broad premise for
preserving transportation, you know scenic corridors or zoning land
225
appropriately for protecting national parks and doing that at a broad scale.
Once you get down to the particular areas, if you’re trying to look at that
particular region without looking at that whole picture then I don’t think
you’ve got a chance” (G3/Consultant).
A further eight respondents advocated an integrated planning approach with
consideration of both local and regional issues,
“The big picture is important but the local issues are important as well, so you
have to really think both ways. It could be difficult to co-ordinate if the region
is huge and the awareness then about the local issues could be minimal, and if
you just focus on the local issues you can be just so stuck in the local issues”
(G5/Consultant),
and,
“I think a plan at both levels needs to exist. People don’t come to Thuringowa;
they visit Townsville or North Queensland. Our plan helped Thuringowa to
understand its role in the region, from a product/experience perspective, as
well as from a marketing perspective” (T6/Council).
7.3.2.1 Summary: Strategic Planning Theme
This theme has presented the interview results relating to stakeholder views on strategic
local tourism destination planning. In discussing the motivation for the destination to
undertake a strategic planning process respondents had various perceptions, including the
need for the destination to be proactive in regards to the amount and type of tourism
development, and in an attempt to reorganise and restructure previous management and
planning practices. Others identified motivating factors included setting a strategic
direction and developing actions, and assessing and managing tourism’s impacts on the
destination, while several respondents considered the motivation to have been to educate
the destination’s stakeholder groups so that they could make more informed decisions
about tourism. In terms of outcomes of the strategic planning process the majority of
stakeholder respondents considered that their destination now has a specific document
226
outlining a directional framework and action agenda for tourism. However other
respondents discussed the fact that in their view the process had not led to any strategic
outcomes for the destination.
Stakeholder respondents identified a range of benefits derived from the strategic planning
process undertaken for their destination, including stakeholder-buy in to the process.
Also identified as a benefit of the strategic planning process was the improved destination
management capabilities, the strategic direction and the decision-making capacity for the
destination which can guide day-to-day decision-making. In terms of challenges, almost
half of the respondents perceive the implementation phase as the greatest test in the
process. Implementation was viewed as a challenge due to the scope of the document,
the need to generate resources for implementing the plan, and the timeframe for
implementation. Other perceived challenges of the strategic planning process were
considered to be obtaining stakeholder buy-in and achieving some level of democratic
agreement between stakeholder groups on focus and scale.
Considering the optimal geographical scope for a tourism destination plan, half of the
respondents discussed the importance of planning for tourism at the local level. Inherent
local characteristics and a need to differentiate the destination from others were viewed
as reasons for local level planning, as was the need to manage specific local issues such
as sensitive environments, which may not be applicable to other destinations within the
region. Other respondents discussed the difficulty in maintaining local identity in a
regional level plan, which was criticised for overemphasising the regional centre, and in
asserting any influence over the focus of regional marketing activities and funds
distribution. Other respondents discussed that plans should be linked to the funding
source for destination activities, which was seen as the local government authority, as
regional plans tend not to have a sole funding agency. The need for local level planning
was also considered important in generating community ownership of tourism.
Alternatively a number of respondents discussed the need for planning to occur at a
regional level. A regional planning approach was seen as important for destination
marketing because visitors are not aware of local government boundaries. It was also
227
seen important as major infrastructure is developed and managed at a regional level. The
remaining respondents advocated an integrated approach to tourism destination planning
which gives consideration to both local and regional issues.
7.3.3 Stakeholder Participation Theme
The concept of stakeholder participation and collaboration in the tourism planning
process was discussed during the in-depth interviews. This theme addressed a range of
aspects and issues associated with multiple stakeholder participation and decision-making
for tourism including the motivations to engage stakeholders in the process, perceived
benefits and challenges of such engagement, and the often cited need to involve residents
of the destination in the planning process. Also discussed were which stakeholder
group(s) should have responsibility for destination planning and the role of the local
government authority in the process. The responses are presented according to the
manifest coding: stakeholder participation motivation, stakeholder participation benefits,
stakeholder participation challenges, local resident participation, local resident ownership
of tourism, stakeholder planning responsibility and local government planning role.
The first factor arising in the stakeholder participation theme was the perceived
motivation for engaging destination stakeholders in the planning process (Figure 7.9).
Respondents had various perceptions as to the motivation for engaging destination
stakeholders in the tourism planning process. A number of respondents (8) identified
stakeholder buy-in to the strategy as the motivating factor,
“You’ve got to do it, you must have that stakeholder buy-in for success”
(R1/Consultant),
and,
“We wanted to have a strategy that was owned by the community, developed
in such a way as it was all about the whole community, so that we had a better
chance when we went to implement” (S1/Council).
228
Figure 7.9: Stakeholder Participation Motivation (n=31)
1
22 2
1
3
22
3
5
3
22
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Stakeholder buy-in Process caveat Stakeholderattitudes
Did not consult
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded
Also identified as a motivating factor for engagement was the fact that stakeholder
consultation is now considered a caveat to any planning process (5),
“I think it’s an accepted practice these days in all planning, you can’t ignore
those who you identify as your key stakeholders. You want to make sure that
its got as much support, because at the end of the day Douglas Shire Council
had to have a document that largely reflected the aspirations of the Council
but also its industry and its community representative groups”
(D3/Consultant),
and,
“You need to get some credibility for the process so you need other people
involved or it just won’t be considered credible” (T3/Council).
The third identified motivator for engaging destination stakeholders in the planning
process was the need to address attitudes towards tourism in the destination (8),
“There was a need to let everyone know what was happening, what we were
hoping to do and find out what they thought about it all and what they wanted
to see happen” (S3/Council).
229
In discussing the motivations for engaging destination stakeholders in the planning
process a number of respondents (9) considered that there was no motivation to engage
stakeholders in the planning process,
“I believe they talked to a couple of people but that it was primarily a
Council document with Councillors involved and I would say they didn’t
consult because they wanted to keep control of it” (G3/Consultant).
The second factor arising in the stakeholder participation theme related to the benefits of
engaging stakeholders in the planning process. Respondents discussed several benefits of
stakeholder participation and involvement in the process (Figure 7.10).
Figure 7.10: Stakeholder Participation Benefits (n=31)
33
1
2
3
6
3
1 11
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Stakeholder attitudes Stakeholder buy-in Implementation
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Non responses excluded
Respondents identified a range of benefits of engaging multiple destination stakeholders
in the planning process for tourism. The first identified benefit of stakeholder
engagement was the ability to elicit the varied attitudes that exist towards tourism in the
destination (17),
“There are a lot of competing groups in the area, all of which have a tendency
to be a little parochial, their a little precious about their own patch and the
consultant would go out and identify these groups, and work out where their
prejudices lay. I think it is very important that you sit down and not only
230
identify but talk to them all and get a feeling of just where they all stood,
before you could start to roll out recommendations” (R3/Council),
and,
“Council couldn’t do it by itself, council are only representing the people and
its one thing to say that you have councils that are elected that are in touch
with everybody but you need to highlight specific issues and you need for
people to comment on those specific issues” (S1/Council).
Also considered a benefit of engagement was the stakeholder buy-in to the process (9),
“The more brainpower you have the better and it’s a document that’s being
agreed to by the community” (S5/Industry),
and,
“You can’t expect anyone to take forward a process if they don’t have
ownership. So they have to come with you on that journey” (R1/Consultant).
A further benefit discussed by two stakeholders was that stakeholder engagement assists
in the implementation phase of the planning process,
“It adds credibility to the whole process and I think a lot of these things you
often know what the answer is before you start, its part of the sales process.
It’s probably cynical but quite often I look for the answer in the consultation”
(T3/Council).
Conversely the challenges associated with engaging destination stakeholders in the
tourism planning process were also discussed with participants (Figure 7.11).
Respondents identified a range of challenges of stakeholder engagement and participation
in local tourism destination planning, including the differing stakeholder values that exist
in a destination community (14),
“In developing that strategy it became pretty obvious that you’ll never get
100% behind it because there are ideas put forward that just had so much
opposition within the community, and the voices really just said, no we don’t
want that” (S5/Industry),
and,
231
“I mean there was the usual debates that emerged and they haven’t really
changed in the years since, the conservation sides versus the development
sides” (D2/Council).
Figure 7.11: Stakeholder Participation Challenges (n=31)
22
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
4
3
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Values Processmanagement
Apathy Education
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded
Similarly it was noted that,
“The social groups, the social planners and various institutions within
government weren’t on the same page as we were in terms of developing
business” (D3/Consultant).
One respondent discussed the fact that if stakeholder values don’t align with the direction
sought by decision-makers it makes the process even more difficult,
“If you’re a council who’s looking to go in a particular direction if you don’t
get the answer you want from your local residents after you’ve gone out and
asked the question, you’ve opened a can of worms that you have to deal with.
Sometimes its easier not to ask the question and just do what you want to do”
(T2/RTO).
The second identified challenge of stakeholder engagement and participation in tourism
planning was considered to be issues associated with managing such a process (9),
including the time scale involved in consultation,
232
“I don’t know how you engage the residents in the planning process without it
turning into a 12 month exercise and by then you miss the boat in most
instances and it becomes a painful initiative and people are just saying get on
with it” (D3/Consultant),
and ensuring the process is constructive,
“I think it has got to be very carefully set up so that it becomes meaningful
rather than just an opportunity for people to mouth off. Even though they
might believe themselves that what they are saying is good stuff, the reality is
its trivial and if a tourism organization gets involved with that its never going
to get to the big stuff” (D6/LTA).
A further process management challenge related to the need to generate models to
improve the quality of consultation,
“Consultation and community input is very poorly undertaken. People are sick
and tired of surveys and they’re sick and tired of consultants and they’re sick
and tired of workshops at night. You’ve got to do it but we’ve really got to
rethink the whole context of how you engage with communities and I think
we probably need new models” (R1/Consultant),
and,
“It is much easier to get participation in small, local areas than in large urban
areas. You have to use different methodologies to get valid results… in the
small communities, its very easy to talk to people and to hold meetings, you
generally get a good representation. In urban areas, meetings aren’t as
effective, as you generally become over represented by interest groups and
can easily lose balance” (T6/Council).
Apathy was also raised as a challenge in engaging stakeholders in tourism destination
planning (6),
“Apathy is a problem, there is a lack of interest and an unwillingness to
participate. They only turn up if something major is going on. People tend to
233
jump up and down if they get left out of these things but then they don’t make
the effort to attend the meetings” (R4/Industry),
and,
“When you’re at the higher level, apathy is a problem, people are interested in
things happening that affect them and that are concrete that they can actually
appreciate what it means. If it’s a strategy to develop experiential tourism in
Thuringowa it doesn’t mean anything to anyone, it doesn’t mean as much,
whereas if that goes down to the next level, to specific projects and what you
could imagine you would see, the level of involvement goes up” (T3/Council).
Apathy was also seen as a challenge in generating ownership of tourism in the
destination,
“If people don’t get involved and don’t take an interest or some sort of
ownership it makes it hard” (S3/Council).
The final challenge identified by respondents of engaging destination stakeholders in
planning related to education (3),
“For residents I think there needs to be a certain level of education about the
tourism industry. I think people assume because they are tourists usually once
a year that they know exactly what the industry wants and that’s sometimes
very different to what the actual industry wants” (G1/Council).
The fourth factor in the stakeholder participation theme was the role of local residents
and their participation in the planning process (Figure 7.12). A number of respondents
discussed that local residents have a democratic right to participate in any planning and
decision-making activities undertaken within their area (14),
“Everyone should be given the opportunity and that’s the great thing
nowadays where government can’t just run off and make decisions, I’m sure
they might try but they’ve got to be accountable” (S4/LTA),
and,
234
“I think Council still needs to be resident driven and I think that the people
that are elected need to make it their business to give everyone the
opportunity to have their say” (T5/Industry).
Figure 7.12: Local Resident Participation (n=31)
4
1
2 2
1 1
3
1
22
3
1
3 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Democratic right Process caveat Apathy Vocal minority
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Non responses excluded
A number of stakeholders discussed the fact that local residents have a right to be
involved because they are impacted upon by any tourism activity in the destination,
“They’re the ones that provide a lot of the beds for visitors. They’re the ones
that provide interesting stories. They’re the ones that work in the shops.
They’re the ones that have to put up with visitors who you know are traipsing
on their turf” (R2/Council),
and,
“I think it’s important because very often tourism properties are running side
by side with private properties. Tourism activities are infringing on their
everyday life, so it’s really important for them to have that input”
(D5/Industry).
In discussing the role of local residents several of the respondents identified the fact that
resident involvement is now considered a prerequisite in the process (10),
235
“All the Government departments require you do it so there is a body of
theory which says you should do it” (R1/Consultant),
and,
“Without them the process would not be worth doing, it wouldn’t stand up”
(S1/Council),
while other respondents discussed that although residents should have a role in tourism
planning and decision-making, apathy hindered this (3) as did vocal minorities
overtaking the process (2).
Emerging from the consideration of local resident participation in tourism planning it was
also discussed whether local resident participation in tourism planning contributes to
resident’s ownership and acceptance of tourism within the destination community (Figure
7.13).
Figure 7.13: Local Resident Ownership of Tourism (n=31)
2
1 1
2
1
2
3
1
3
1 1
4
1 1
5
2
1 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Diverse views Ownership Self-worth Education Tokenparticipation
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded
Respondents generally perceived that local resident involvement did lead to greater
ownership and acceptance of tourism, and a number of respondents discussed the value of
generating ownership (8),
“When it’s being opened up to the community it becomes their project, they
take ownership, and then they support it. Whereas if you got someone in who
236
says we’re going to develop this they don’t have any personal connection to it
and you know if they don’t support you, well you’re in trouble” (S3/Council),
and,
“Having participation definitely makes it stronger, that sense of ownership is
definitely what we try to pitch for people, because Council can’t implement it.
It really is up to the local areas to get behind it and want to implement it.
Because it’s the local people that are going to have to be willing to wear a
little bit of a loss and I think people are always happier with decisions if they
feel they’ve been consulted and do get ownership, even though someone
ultimately has to make the decision and that’s usually council. Where
communities feel most passionate about it usually is that if they don’t feel
consultation was done right, they jack up and try to damage projects. When
they feel they’ve had a say even if they don’t agree totally with the proposals
they often become good supporters” (T7/Consultant).
However the majority of respondents (16) focused on the challenges associated with
attempting to enhance community ownership and acceptance of tourism, namely the fact
that such diverse views towards tourism exist within a destination community and
participation cannot always overcome this. Some respondents discussed the extremities
in opinions within a destination,
“Here it’s a very emotive issue, it’s polarized the community” (D6/LTA),
and,
“You are always going to have anti-development and pro-development and I
don’t think a process can change that too much” (R5/LTA).
Other respondents noted that to overcome issues associated with generating ownership of
tourism in the destination community, resident education was necessary (5),
“You try and dispel some of the myths and that sort of thing, we need our host
community to be our strongest advocates, we need them to be supportive and
understanding and if you don’t then you don’t have a tourism industry”
(R2/Council),
237
as was the need to overcome issues of token participation to contribute to resident
ownership of tourism (2).
The sixth issue in the stakeholder participation theme discussed with respondents related
to which stakeholder groups should be responsible for tourism planning in a local tourism
destination (Figure 7.14).
Figure 7.14: Stakeholder Planning Responsibility (n=31)
2
4
33
2221
23
11
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Collaborative Council Industry Community
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Non responses excluded
The majority of respondents (16) perceive responsibility for tourism planning should be
shared amongst the various stakeholder groups in the destination and therefore advocate
the use of a collaborative planning approach,
“It needs to be an integrated system, you know federal, state, local
governments, your industry bodies, your private operators, and a range of
other business stakeholders, so no one on their own should be responsible for
tourism planning” (G4/LTA).
Respondents cited a range of reasons for the use of a collaborative approach including
stakeholder buy-in,
“Probably the most effective output from the whole planning process, it’s not
actually the document but the understanding that’s gained from the
stakeholders sitting around the table looking at what can be done, and that’s
238
when people start to buy in and if you’ve got them around the table, then they
can buy in. If they’re not sitting around the table and you send them a report
it’s almost impossible for them to feel any ownership” (T1/STA).
Other respondents advocated a collaborative approach to ensure more independent and
un-biased views,
“Thuringowa doesn’t have a clue about tourism and it’s really dangerous for
somewhere like Paluma. The risks are too great to let some pen pusher get it
wrong; it’s just not good enough. There needs to be someone else involved
who’s switched on enough to say this isn’t about making money for the
Council, we have to protect the environment and make sure the communities
within those environments are run pristinely” (T5/Industry),
and,
“It needs to be a range of group’s because if it was just Council it would be
dangerous for them to have control as they have commercial interests as well”
(R4/Industry).
A number of stakeholders (10) advocated the local government authority as the
destination stakeholder who should be responsible for tourism planning and a variety of
reasons were cited for this including that Council is the elected representative of the local
community,
“The Council should stand as the proxy for the community in terms of
impacts, that’s why people elect them” (G3/Consultant),
and,
“Quite often it’s the Council that takes on the sort of final say or ultimate
responsibility, you know they can act on behalf of their community, but the
community and other groups still need to have a say” (S3/Council).
It was also identified that local council has to be responsible for tourism planning, as the
other stakeholder groups in the destination are not capable of planning,
“The tourism industry is always going to be economically driven just because
it is looking for commercial based outcomes. I think the industry finds it
easier to deal with economic issues than social and environmental issues, I
239
don’t quite know whether the industry has quite grappled with how it delivers
some of those bottom line type outcomes” (G1/Council),
and,
“The challenge is where you’ve got a commercially focused model that tends
to have the bottom line as a driving force. I mean the operators are interested
generally for themselves and in the shorter term gain. The idea of taking
planning advice they just can’t come to terms with it” (R2/Council),
nor posses the required resources for planning,
“Council very much drove the strategy; I mean really who else is going to do
it, who else has the money to do it?” (D2/Council).
Several respondents (3) perceive tourism planning to be the responsibility of the tourism
industry of the destination,
“The Council does it, however I think the issue is to get the tourism industry
to take on their responsibilities in strategic planning, and this has been
difficult and still is. They gravitate towards being a promotional body only
rather than a strategic planning body and we want them to play both roles, of
promotion and engaging in strategic planning and protecting their assets and
so on. And the association always backs away from it because it becomes
difficult and controversial and political and they don’t want the hassle, and
they’re not set up for it, they’re picked for their marketing skills. The tourism
industry itself should do, they have their funding from Tourism North
Queensland and it should be subject to performance in strategic asset
management or engaging in strategic planning; you want us to fund
promotion, you get into strategic management. That’s how I think it should be
driven. Places like this where it’s driving the growth and driving the economy,
I think there’s very little attention paid to tourism strategic planning”
(D1/Council),
although it was noted that,
“If industry won’t or can’t do it that’s where Government comes in to play.
Who takes responsibility for that five to ten year planning horizon is one of
240
the problems in the past, there was no one responsible for planning so it didn’t
get done” (R2/Council).
The final factor discussed within the stakeholder participation theme related to the role of
the local government authority in tourism planning for the destination (Figure 7.15).
Figure 7.15: Local Government Tourism Destination Planning Role (n=31)
4
21
32
111
3
11
4
1
5
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strategicdirection
Legislativeauthority
Intermediary Destinationmanagement
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Stakeholder respondents identified a number of tourism planning roles for the local
government authority. The first of the identified roles was in providing strategic
direction for tourism in the destination (12),
“Council has a key role for tourism in a community. We have the ability to
look at the bigger picture, you know what will help the community
economically but we also take into consideration what they actually want”
(S2/Council),
and,
“The tourism association is just not really set up to consult with the rest of the
community on issues and that’s why Councils are important because they can
do that and they can see what’s happening in the whole of the shire and in
other industries. Council has that much bigger picture, we can really look at
things in a whole way for the rest of the Shire” (D2/Council).
241
It was also seen that Council’s are the one stakeholder group that have the planning
experience required to provide a strategic direction for the destination,
“Generally we’d like to see more engagement by industry in the tourism
planning processes but the realities are that the industry hasn’t been that good
as tourism planners…and there are not many tourism entrepreneurs that can
see the big picture from a destination point of view of a cohesive and
coordinated approach to planning” (G2/Consultant),
and,
“The idea of influencing the planning scheme, the idea of influencing
Council’s infrastructure planning, I think you know that’s a challenge the
industry haven’t traditionally done that very well here. I think it’s just the fact
that it just hasn’t had the capabilities to do it really or the driving force to do
it” (R2/Council).
A number of respondents (14) perceived Council’s role in tourism planning to be a part
of their legislative authority over the destination,
“I believe the voice of the public sector is probably best represented by the
Council because at the end of the day they were elected to represent the
people” (D6/LTA).
Council’s legislative authority over destination planning was seen to include their
planning schemes and resource capacity,
“Well councils need to give agreement to initiatives we are trying to
implement because of council planning schemes, and they are the only ones
with any resources to make any difference” (S6/RTO),
and,
“Council’s have a very important role in developing the tourism product of
their community. I mean probably most importantly is that they provide most
of the infrastructure that is used for tourism and for that reason alone they
have a vital role” (T6/Council).
Similarly,
242
“I think in the absence of any other significant funding, local authorities are
really the major generators of funds and therein lies I suppose a lot of the
problems is the parochialism that I suppose you could say rightly that comes
with dispensing your ratepayer’s funds” (G6/Industry).
However other respondents expressed concerns that because of Council’s legislative
authority over the destination they have too much influence,
“Council’s are far too close, and far too political, and there should always be
that really strong consultation with Council, but I’m not sure they should be
run by Council” (D5/Industry),
and,
“I would say that Council as it is run these days is probably not the best
equipped to do anything. It’s just that Council used to be representative of
local residents; Council doesn’t tend to be like that anymore. I do think they
misread or misunderstood what people want. They see what works and what
makes money, like the Gold Coast or Cairns and they see that as being a
money spinner” (T5/Industry).
The third role for council in local level tourism destination planning identified by
respondents was that of intermediary (3) and balancing the tourism industry’s focus on
marketing,
“I suppose there’s a tendency in the industry to focus on marketing and
promotional outcomes as opposed to planning outcomes, and industry
development outcomes. So, that type of public good outcome, balancing that
economic side to the industry because they are very commercially, free market
driven, and Council deliver on some of the other side of the tourism industry,
which would be the environmental and social side. It’s not being delivered in
the free market” (G1/Council).
243
7.3.3.1 Summary: Stakeholder Participation Theme
This theme presented respondent’s perceptions on a range of aspects and issues
associated with multiple stakeholder participation in the tourism planning process. The
first factor arising in the theme was the perceived motivation for engaging stakeholders in
the destination’s tourism planning process. A number of respondents considered
stakeholder buy-in to the strategy to be the motivating factor, while others attributed it to
the fact that stakeholder consultation is now considered a caveat to any planning activity
and it is necessary for the process’ credibility. Attempting to gauge stakeholder attitudes
towards tourism in the destination was also identified by some of the respondents as the
impetus, although a number of respondents considered that there had not been a real
motivation to engage stakeholders in the destination’s planning process. Respondent’s
identified a number of benefits of engaging multiple stakeholder groups in the tourism
planning process including the ability to more objectively determine the diversity of
attitudes towards tourism in the destination as well as obtaining stakeholder buy-in to the
process, with others noting that stakeholder engagement assists when implementing the
plan.
Respondents also discussed a range of challenges associated with engaging destination
stakeholders in the tourism planning process. Differing stakeholder values was a
problem highlighted by a number of respondents, as was the issue of managing the
consultation process in a timely and constructive manner. Apathy was also raised as a
challenge, and respondents cited the need for new consultation models to reinvigorate the
process, and generate ownership of tourism in the destination. Several respondents noted
a need for resident education to overcome some of the challenges of vocal experts. The
fourth issue arising in the stakeholder participation theme related to local resident
participation in the planning process. A number of respondents discussed that in their
opinion local residents, due to the fact they are so heavily impacted upon by tourism
activity, have a democratic right to participate in any planning and decision-making
activities undertaken within their area. It was also noted that resident involvement is a
prerequisite for tourism planning activities and without this participation the process
244
would not be considered valid or credible. Many of the respondents were also of the
opinion that local resident involvement in planning did lead to greater ownership,
acceptance and support of tourism within the destination. However half of the
respondents raised issues associated with attempting to enhance community ownership
and acceptance of tourism, namely the fact that such diverse views towards tourism exist
within a destination community and participation in a tourism planning process cannot
always overcome this.
The sixth issue in the stakeholder participation theme related to which stakeholder groups
should be responsible for tourism planning in a local tourism destination. The majority
of respondents were of the opinion that responsibility for tourism planning should be
shared amongst the various stakeholder groups in the destination and advocate the use of
a collaborative planning approach. Reasons for this included obtaining stakeholder buy-
in to the resulting initiatives; as well as to ensure more independent and un-biased views
as some stakeholder groups may have vested interests. A number of stakeholder
respondents advocated the local government authority as the destination stakeholder who
should be responsible for tourism planning due to the fact that they are the elected
representative of the local community and they have the resource capacity to undertake
strategic planning processes which other stakeholder groups do not always have. Several
respondents discussed that in their view the tourism industry should be more responsible
for strategic destination planning as they overtly focus on promotional and marketing
tasks. The role of the local government authority in tourism planning for the destination
was the final factor in the stakeholder participation theme. It was generally perceived
that Council has a significant role to play due to their resources and capabilities,
especially when compared to other groups in the destination such as the tourism
association. Council was also seen to have a role in balancing the tourism industry’s
focus on marketing. However some respondents expressed concerns that because of
Council’s legislative authority they have too much influence in the destination.
245
7.3.4 Alternative Planning Models and Strategic Visioning
To address the third objective of the study; stakeholder perceptions of strategic visioning,
a series of issues were discussed including respondent’s perceptions of future planning
activities for their destination, as well as their views on the strategic visioning concept.
The strategic visioning process was also discussed in further detail with the 12
respondents of the two case study destinations which have previously undertaken a
strategic visioning process (Redland Shire and Gold Coast City) including the perceived
potential of the model for incorporating sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder
participation in the process.
Stakeholder responses for this theme have been presented according to the manifest
coding derived from the analysis: future planning, strategic visioning benefits and
strategic visioning challenges. For the more specific discussion of the strategic visioning
process with the respondents from the two case study destinations that have previously
undertaken a strategic visioning exercise, results are presented according to the manifest
codes of: strategic visioning motivation, strategic visioning and sustainability principles,
strategic visioning and strategic planning, strategic visioning and stakeholder
participation, and strategic visioning applicability.
Stakeholder perceptions of future tourism planning activities for their destination were
discussed (Figure 7.16). The majority of respondents (24) discussed the importance of
regularly reviewing the tourism plan to take into account changes in the destination,
“I think it’s important for that whole document to be reviewed now, to see
what has been achieved. People will have changed their views, new
developments and that sort of thing” (D5/Industry),
and,
“It will have to be revisited because the usefulness of having a strategic plan
will be lost if you don’t review the situation periodically. You won’t keep on
track with your strategic plan if you don’t know where you are at the
moment” (G4/LTA).
246
Similarly,
“I think they should check how they’re moving towards their longer-term
vision, are they on track or have new problems and even opportunities arisen
which need to be considered” (T7/Consultant).
Figure 7.16: Future Planning (n=31)
2
4
6
2
4
1
5
2
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Review situation Alternate approaches
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
However other respondents (7) acknowledged the need for the document to be reviewed
but believe alternative approaches should be adopted for the planning process. Two
respondents identified that the planning process should follow the strategic visioning
model,
“I think they should move more in the direction of visioning because that is
so much more responsive to change” (R1/Consultant),
and,
“Redlands should look at what was done on Straddie” (R5/LTA).
Other respondents discussed the fact that tourism planning is addressed within the realms
of town planning,
“I don’t actually know if we would do another strategy, probably not because
it’s in the town plan and it’s informed the town planning so much. What you
might need is separate policies from time to time” (D2/Council).
Although one respondent questioned the need for future planning,
247
“They need to look at the bigger picture so I don’t see much point until they
can do that otherwise the same issues are going to keep coming up again”
(T5/Industry).
The concept of strategic visioning and its potential applicability as a tourism planning
process was discussed with respondents (Figure 7.17).
Figure 7.17: Strategic Visioning Benefits (n=31)
2
43
21 111
21
322
33
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Decisionmaking
Engagement Destinationmanagement
Strategicdirection
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded
Respondents identified a number of benefits of adopting a strategic visioning approach to
tourism planning, including the improved decision-making capacity (11),
“I think it definitely helps as far as getting the planning right, if that didn’t
exist, it would be very hard to work out exactly where you’re positioned in the
market and what are some of the issues confronting the market. We have quite
a body of knowledge that we drew upon to inform our strategic planning that
if it wasn’t there makes it all that more difficult, you just don’t have the
background to go on, you have to go on more your anecdotal evidence”
(G1/Council),
and,
“We’ve been seriously thinking of it, there’s questions we want to start asking
because some of the decisions we have to make over the next 10 years are not
248
going to be easy ones, or be popular and people are going to start getting to
grips with what it means to be sustainable” (T3/Council).
Other respondents, in considering the concept’s applicability as a tourism planning
process, discussed the fact that such a process would enhance stakeholder engagement
(7),
“What was important was that groups who had once thought they were on
opposite sides actually started to see that that was not the case. As it went
along we found that the people around the table generally agreed on the same
things it was just that they were using different words but once they sat and
talked they realised that they were in fact saying very similar things”
(R5/LTA),
and contribute to the management of the destination (6),
“I think it’s an excellent exercise in terms of getting a vision for a destination.
It went through everything in terms of the social, environmental, the
economic, the whole lot, it did the whole gamut” (D5/Industry).
Perceived challenges of the strategic visioning process were also discussed with
stakeholders and a range of issues were raised (Figure 7.18). However one respondent
did not believe there are any challenges associated with the process and simply noted that
“I believe it was an excellent process” (R6).
The first perceived challenge of the strategic visioning process was considered to be
stakeholder buy-in (15),
“Getting across to some people that there was a need to do something started
out as a bit of a problem but once people started talking I think everyone soon
realised there were things that needed to be done and some direction was
needed” (R2/Council),
and,
“I guess if you’re setting out to have such a focus on stakeholder buy-in
you’d really need to deliver and it’s hard to get people involved and talking
249
and agreeing what needs to be done. We find that just in the consultation we
do with our plans so I imagine that would be difficult” (D1/Council).
Figure 7.18: Strategic Visioning Challenges (n=31)
11
32
12
1222
4
1
4
0
1
2
3
45
6
7
Stakeholder buy-in
Leadership Resourcing Action planning
Redland
Sarina
Douglas
Gold Coast
Thuringowa
Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded
Stakeholder buy-in was perceived as a challenge due to the various stakeholder attitudes,
“I would guess it’s very difficult to get people to agree on a common vision
because everyone has different ideas if you think say between accommodation
operators and sugar cane farmers. I imagine that would be tough”
(S3/Council),
and the issue of apathy,
“Well I suppose you would run into the same problems as we did with this
plan, apathy is the big problem, people don’t want to talk about what might
happen, they want things to actually happen” (T3/Council).
Respondent’s also perceived leadership and arbitration of such a process as a potential
challenge (3),
“With these sorts of things who is the person that is the final arbiter of the
vision, who says OK this is our vision. And with the public meetings, who
you get at these meetings, and they are the ones saying this is what the vision
250
should be and they might not even be the right people, they could just be the
ones who were free on the day the meeting was held” (D2/Council).
The ability to resource such a process was also perceived as a challenge by several
respondents (4),
“It sounds to me like it would take a lot of time and money” (S5/Industry),
and,
“My guess would be that to do something like that it would take a lot of time
and you’d need to get so many people onboard” (D6/LTA).
Other respondents (4) believe that there should be a move towards action oriented
planning as opposed to longer term planning,
“You have to create momentum with planning and being involved in long
planning style processes where you spend a lot of time thinking strategically
and collecting information to get a strategic view can only be done when
there’s a really serious problem. In a place like Thuringowa, tourism isn’t a
problem it’s an opportunity. So I think for small communities the visioning
process, you’ve got to get moving, you can’t spend too long caught up in the
vision or where you want to go. Spend more time talking about what you want
to do with some vision in mind so that you can start to get a feel for people
and what sort of things they’re interested in at the very early stages of
bringing stakeholders together” (T1/STA).
A range of additional issues were discussed with the stakeholder respondents from the
two case study destinations which had previously undertaken a tourism destination
strategic visioning process. The first of these were stakeholder’s perceptions on the
motivation for their destination to adopt such a planning approach (Figure 7.19).
251
Figure 7.19: Strategic Visioning Motivations (n=12)
4
2
1
2
3
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Destination management Strategic direction Stakeholder buy-in
Redland
GoldCoast
Note: Multiple responses have been coded and non responses excluded
Half of the respondents (6) considered that the motivation for undertaking the visioning
approach to tourism planning was to enhance destination management,
“It was driven very much around that dissatisfaction you know about a
number of things that had been happening” (R2/Council),
and,
“There were a lot of issues which set off the visioning project, or the need to
do the project…leadership and management of the destination” (G6/Industry).
Respondents also identified the generation of a strategic direction as the motivating factor
for embarking on the strategic visioning process (5),
“No one had actually done a vision for the island, no one had stopped and said
what do we want for the island” (R5/LTA),
and,
“There was a need for a more strategic approach to planning for the
destination which had really being lacking and had really led to a lot of the
issues that the Gold Coast was facing” (G2/Consultant).
The third identified motivator for undertaking the strategic visioning process was to
achieve stakeholder buy-in (2),
252
“There are some passionate people over on Straddie and they really wanted to
do something worthwhile that they could all be involved in and take on some
responsibility for. It was a very organic sort of process” (R3/Council).
The second issue discussed with stakeholder respondents who have experienced the
strategic visioning process related to their perceptions of the ability of such an approach
to integrate sustainability principles into the planning process (Figure 7.20).
Figure 7.20: Strategic Visioning and Sustainability Principles (n=12)
3
5
3
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Achievement Awareness
Redland
Gold Coast
Note: Multiple responses
All of the respondents considered that the strategic visioning process was underpinned by
the principles of sustainable development, and half of the stakeholders (6) discussed how
the process contributed towards the achievement of sustainability principles,
“For the first time they have actually put something reasonably concrete
down that they can work with, from that they have now addressed a number
of sustainability indicators. I mean these are all quantum things that they
didn’t always understand. So from a triple bottom line perspective, they are
what I call a best practice case study” (R1/Consultant),
and,
253
“Just for starters they have a strategic direction, they’re thinking longer term;
their stakeholders are involved, so they are starting to achieve the principles of
sustainability” (G2/Consultant).
The remaining respondents (6) discussed the fact that due to the processes emphasis on
sustainability it had raised awareness amongst destination stakeholders of the concept,
“It was important in making us understand the concept of sustainable tourism
development. At first most of us did not know what the term meant but we
spent quite a lot of time actually understanding what sustainable tourism was
all about and we are now champions of that, can now appreciate why
sustainable tourism is so important for the future of the island. People started
to realise that without tourism they wouldn’t have their job or their son
wouldn’t, it really made them think about the whole idea. We are informed
now so if there was a project that we felt was not following the criteria of the
vision you can bet that the community would be galvanised to fight it”
(R4/Industry),
and,
“Now people have an understanding of what it means to be sustainable, that’s
probably the best thing, knowing what we have to do to be sustainable, not
just guessing” (R5/LTA).
Stakeholder perceptions of the strategic visioning process’ ability to incorporate the
principles of strategic planning were also discussed (Figure 7.21). Respondents
considered the visioning process to be a useful means of encouraging destination
stakeholders to think more strategically about tourism in the destination which could then
be reflected in planning (7). As some of these respondents noted,
“The visioning process basically lifted where people’s expectations and their
thoughts were in relation to tourism planning, instead of talking about action
planning they actually knew what strategic thinking was about. Because
people operating a business aren’t trained in that way of thinking, that’s not
how they go about operating…when you’re working with stakeholders that
254
who aren’t used to strategic planning and strategic thinking you’ve got to
actually go through an education process to actually get them thinking at that
level” (G1/Council),
and,
“It contributed towards a more strategic approach to thinking about tourism on
the island. Because these issues are longer term some people just can’t get their
heads around them and they tend to revert to short-term gains” (R2/Council).
Figure 7.21: Strategic Visioning and Strategic Planning (n=12)
6
1
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Strategic thinking Framework
Redland
GoldCoast
Note: Multiple responses
A number of stakeholders (6) also perceived that the strategic visioning process was
beneficial in generating a strategic framework for the destination to work within,
“It gave them a strategic framework that they actually could take ownership
of and within that framework, some direction in terms of next steps”
(R1/Consultant),
and,
“It was definitely strategic in that it gave the island long-term goals to work
towards” (R4/Industry).
Similarly,
“Once we had a vision we then got straight into what to do with the vision
because we realised we could not just stop at a vision. So from there we
255
developed a strategy with priorities which we could then start working on. It
was important to us that it was not just a vision on a piece of paper or a
strategy on a shelf but something that was actually happening” (R5/LTA).
The fourth issue discussed with stakeholder respondents related to their perceptions of the
ability of the strategic visioning approach to integrate stakeholder participation into the
planning and decision-making process (Figure 7.22).
Figure 7.22: Strategic Visioning and Stakeholder Participation (n=12)
5
2
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Stakeholder buy-in Stakeholder attitudes Community ideals
Redland
GoldCoast
Note: Multiple responses
The vast majority of respondents (9) discussed the fact that one of the primary goals of
the strategic visioning process was to seek stakeholder buy-in to the process,
“The intention was to get community involvement for a vision for sustainable
tourism on the island and it dramatically improved relationships between
stakeholders. We actually started to get some real communication happening
and moving away from an us and them mindset just by communicating with
each other through the process. We did finish up with a consensus and when
we put the final document together, every single person involved signed off
on it, which was great. It was absolutely great in getting some consensus on
the future of the island” (R5/LTA),
and,
256
“I think it’s a good way to go about it, it sets it all up and we knew that the
whole idea behind a vision was getting the stakeholders in, that was a big part,
a fundamental part, obviously in having a shared vision” (G6/Industry).
Similarly,
“It was an excellent process in terms of getting stakeholder involvement and
ownership, that was what really drove it and in my view will be why its being
taken on so strongly and people are actually still involved and working
towards putting it into action” (R3/Council),
while one respondent noted that,
“You know a big glossy document doesn’t necessarily promise you delivery,
so in fact the Straddie example, the more I look at it is a very, very simple
little document but what made it probably successful was the people”
(R1/Consultant).
Other respondents (2) discussed the fact that stakeholder participation was a key
challenge in the strategic visioning process due to the competing stakeholder attitudes,
although one respondent makes suggestions for overcoming this,
“I think where you’ve got community or industry groups which are very
fragmented it’s hard to identify who’s speaking on behalf of who. That’s why
I think the survey technique used in the visioning was a good one in this case
for a large destination like the Gold Coast where you’ve got some fairly
strong polarization of views, and we were able to cut through the vocal
minority syndrome” (G2/Consultant).
The final issue discussed with stakeholder respondents who have experienced the
strategic visioning process related to the application of the concept to other destinations
(Figure 7.23).
257
Figure 7.23: Strategic Visioning Applicability (n=12)
1
2
11
4
11
33
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Destinationscale
Processmanagement
Methodology Stakeholderbuy-in
Resources Dissemination
Redland
GoldCoast
All of the respondents considered the strategic visioning approach to be applicable and a
beneficial approach for other tourism destinations to adopt,
“It would be great for other places to use. It was definitely great in getting
everyone together and talking about the way forward” (R4/Industry),
and,
“It would be fantastic for other local areas and there have been suggestions to
use the North Stradbroke Island vision as a pilot for other areas. I think it
would be of benefit to other areas especially if they had a process to follow, our
visioning process would have been a lot quicker if we had a model to work off”
(R5/LTA).
Although respondents supported the approach a range of caveats were highlighted. A
number of respondents (4) suggested that the scale or size of the destination would be a
contributing factor to the success of the strategic visioning approach,
“As a micro community at least you’ve got some sense of an ability for
people to sort of address a common sort of an outcome. Regionally then you
get a bit of disbursement” (R1/Consultant).
In the North Stradbroke Island visioning exercise the scale and nature of the destination
was acknowledged as contributing to its success,
258
“You’ve got a much more aware community over there. I mean they’re aware
of tourism because it’s a driver of the economy and they can see visitors,
whereas here, there’s a lot of disinterest” (R2/Council),
and,
“I think visioning has to be a good way of planning for tourism but because it
was the island and we’ve got a lot of passionate stakeholders over on
Stradbroke it was probably easier. The island is very sentimental to a lot of
people over there, whereas the mainland is probably taken more for granted I
guess” (R6/LTA).
Process management issues were also discussed by a number of the respondents (4),
“As far as I can see the hardest problem is getting together a group of people
who believe that it needs to happen. Once you have that; once you have the
will and the interest to do some sort of strategic planning and to follow it
through, then the rest of it is not rocket science” (G3/Consultant),
and,
“I think you’ve got to keep it simple…I think the management theory scares
them. Strategy scares people, aims, objectives scare people and at the end of
the day they are just strategic things we do to take things forward”
(R1/Consultant).
Several respondents (4) identified the need to adapt the methodology to suit the nature of
the destination,
“The processes can be many and varied in the way you design them, the
methodology that we used in the Gold Coast process, there are other ways that
we could have done some things. I think you need to customize a process for
a destination. I don’t think there’s one model that fits all because the process
is dependent upon multi stakeholder engagement, and while there are many
characteristics across destinations of stakeholders there are also unique
components to particular places, a lot of its to do with personalities and egos
259
and local politics which has to be acknowledged and managed in the process”
(G2/Consultant),
and,
“People will adapt these types of things in the future to suit the destination”
(G4/LTA).
The fourth caveat identified by respondents (2) in considering the applicability of the
concept to other destinations was the need to ensure stakeholder buy-in and commitment
for the process,
“There’s got to be an intent, there has got to be a value proposition that what
we care about and this is what we want to achieve. Because if they haven’t
got ownership of it, it’s not going to happen, if they don’t really care about
the things. I think the biggest challenge on the Gold Coast was, and even on
Straddie, whose vision is it?” (R1/Consultant).
A further issue raised in relation to the applicability of the concept to other destinations
was that of resources (2),
“We obviously had the resources to fund a process like this and its very
expensive, I mean we’re probably talking around a million bucks, maybe a
little bit more. How local governments, other local areas do it, obviously it’s
got to be on a smaller scale but you need to make sure the research is
meaningful at the same time” (G1/Consultant).
7.3.4.1 Summary: Strategic Visioning Theme
This section has presented the results of the discussion with stakeholder respondents
regarding alternative planning practices and the strategic visioning approach to tourism
planning. In considering the future planning requirements for respondent’s destinations,
the vast majority discussed the importance and sufficiency of regularly reviewing their
tourism planning document to monitor changes and opportunities. Other respondents,
although acknowledging the need for the document to be reviewed, believe alternative
260
approaches should be adopted for the planning process. Two respondents believe their
destination should adopt the strategic visioning model because of its capability to
incorporate and monitor changes, while other respondents discussed the fact that tourism
planning is adequately addressed within the realms of town planning and believe it is not
necessary to have a separate document. The concept of strategic visioning was discussed
and respondents identified several benefits. A number of respondents identified the
improved decision-making capacity as a benefit of the process citing the research base
that was an important component of the Gold Coast exercise, with others discussing the
fact that such a process would enhance stakeholder engagement in planning. Perceived
challenges of the strategic visioning process were also discussed and a range of issues
were raised. A number of respondents believed attaining buy-in to the process would be
a challenge due to the difficulty in convincing stakeholders there was a need to set a
direction for the destination. The various stakeholder attitudes and apathy were also seen
as hindering the achievement of a common vision, while others perceived leadership and
arbitration of such a process as a potential challenge, as well as the ability to generate the
necessary resources.
A range of additional issues were discussed with the 12 stakeholder respondents from the
two case study destinations that had previously undertaken a strategic tourism visioning
process. The first of these were stakeholder’s perceptions on the motivation for their
destination to adopt a strategic visioning planning approach. Half of the respondents
cited enhanced destination management as the motivating factor because of
dissatisfaction with issues in the destination. Generating a strategic direction was also
identified by respondents, as was achieving stakeholder buy-in. Respondents were also
asked whether the strategic visioning approach had contributed towards the integration of
sustainability principles into the planning process. All of the respondents considered that
the strategic visioning process was underpinned by the principles of sustainable
development, and a number discussed that as a result there was a greater awareness and
understanding of the sustainability concept, and that by simply having stakeholder
groups involved in setting the strategic direction, the destination was already starting to
achieve some of the principles of sustainability.
261
The ability of the strategic visioning process to incorporate the principles of strategic
planning were also discussed. Respondents considered the visioning process to be a
useful means of encouraging destination stakeholders to think more strategically about
tourism in the destination, which was then being reflected in the planning. A number of
stakeholders also believed that the strategic visioning process had been beneficial in
generating a strategic framework for the destination to work within. The fourth issue
discussed with respondents related to their perceptions of the ability of the strategic
visioning approach to integrate stakeholder participation into the planning and decision-
making process. The vast majority of respondents discussed that one of the primary
goals of the strategic visioning process was to seek stakeholder buy-in and many were of
the opinion that in these two cases it had been successful in doing so. Other respondents
discussed the fact that stakeholder participation had been the key challenge in the
strategic visioning process due to competing and conflicting stakeholder attitudes.
The final issue discussed in the strategic visioning theme related to the perceived
applicability of the process to other destinations. Although all of the respondents
considered the strategic visioning approach to be applicable and a beneficial approach,
especially if there were models in place for other destinations to utilise, a range of
caveats were suggested. The scale and nature of the destination was seen as possibly
influencing the success of the approach, as was the need to obtain stakeholder buy-in and
commitment to the process. A further issue raised in relation to the applicability of the
concept to other destinations was that of resources due to the money and time involved in
such a large process, but many noted these problems could be overcome by adopting the
methodology to suit the nature of the particular destination.
7.4 Chapter Seven Summary
This chapter has presented the results of the 31 in-depth, semi-structured interviews
conducted with stakeholder’s from five case study destinations in Queensland: Redland
Shire, Sarina Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City and Thuringowa City. The
262
interviews sought to examine stakeholder’ perceptions of the local tourism planning
process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic
planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process as well as stakeholders’
views of future tourism planning practices and the strategic visioning planning approach.
The interviews elicited a range of issues relating to destination stakeholder’s perceptions
of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which the principles of sustainable
development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration underpin the process.
Additionally the interview results gave an insight into stakeholder perceptions of
strategic visioning as a tourism destination planning approach. While some of the
interview respondents supported the planning practices of their destinations and believed
the above-mentioned principles were incorporated, a number of respondents raised
criticisms and were of the opinion that the principles under investigation were not
necessarily utilised in the planning process despite assertions by some parties that they
were. The discrepancies in stakeholder opinions are discussed in Chapter Eight, in
conjunction with the results of the secondary document analysis (Chapter Six). In
addition the interview results pertaining to strategic visioning contributed towards the
development of a framework for implementing sustainable development principles into
local tourism planning, a void which was noted not only in the literature review but also
in the stakeholder interview results presented in this chapter.
263
Chapter Eight
Discussion
8.0 Introduction
This study sought to investigate the transference of sustainable tourism theory to practice
by examining the extent to which the sustainable tourism planning philosophy is utilised
in the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland. The contributing
and prerequisite factors of a sustainable approach, strategic planning and stakeholder
participation, were also examined through a content analysis of local tourism destination
planning documents (Chapter Six) and in-depth interviews with stakeholders from five
case study destinations in Queensland (Chapter Seven).
This chapter addresses each of the three objectives developed to investigate the research
issue. From this, the key issues arising from the research process are discussed in terms
of practice and perceptions and considered in light of the relevant literature. The
framework for strategic visioning is addressed as a possible means of ensuring the
sustainability philosophy, including strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are
incorporated into the tourism planning process.
8.1 Addressing the Research Objectives
This section addresses the three research objectives of the study utilising the results of the
two-stage data collection process previously outlined in Chapters Six and Seven.
8.1.1 Research Objective One
The first research objective sought to investigate the current planning practices of local
tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles of
sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are integrated
into the tourism destination planning process. Through an audit of the 125 local tourism
264
destinations in Queensland it was found that only 30 of these destinations had a specific
local tourism plan. Therefore 95 of the local tourism destinations in Queensland either
did not have a plan (81) or were in the process of developing a tourism plan (14) at the
time of sampling. This is despite the fact that local level tourism planning has been
strongly advocated, particularly in LA21, as a means of managing the impacts of tourism
which are recognized as manifesting at the local or community level (Aronsson, 2000;
Leslie et al, 2000; Richins & Pearce, 2000). This result is also interesting considering the
importance of tourism to the state of Queensland. As outlined in Chapter One,
Queensland is more dependent on tourism for employment and income generation than
any other state in Australia and much of Queensland’s product is based on environmental
and cultural attractions, both of which are highly susceptible to tourism’s negative
impacts (Hall, 2003; Tourism Council of Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd).
The initial results of the tourism planning audit raise the question as to what planning and
management controls are in place for the vast majority of local tourism destinations in
Queensland? Through contact with each of the local tourism destinations to determine
their planning status (Chapter Five, section 5.5.1), a number stated that they did not
undertake their own local level planning but participated in regional cooperative
arrangements for product development and marketing. In most cases this occurred
through their respective RTO or other ad hoc associations formed with the primary
intention of marketing a collection of destinations based on geographical or product
similarities. This was also found to be the case with some of Queensland’s most popular
tourist destinations such as Brisbane and Cairns (Chapter Six, section 6.5) as these
destinations are generally the RTO ‘capital city’ and attention is given to planning and
marketing the greater region (Appendix One). These issues are further discussed in
Chapter Nine as an area for future research.
The initial audit of tourism planning documents highlighted the fact that less than a
quarter of the local tourism destinations in Queensland were engaged in local level
planning. However the first research objective specifically sought to determine the extent
to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder
265
collaboration are integrated into the tourism destination planning process. Therefore each
of the 30 local level tourism planning documents were qualitatively content analysed in
accordance with the tourism planning process evaluation instrument (Table 5.2, Chapter
Five). This process demonstrated that the principles of sustainable development,
strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are not integrated into the tourism
destination planning process for the vast majority of destinations investigated for this
study. It was found that most of the planning processes met with less than half of the
cumulative criteria of the evaluation instrument, designed to address recognised aspects
of a sustainable tourism planning process. The failure to address these issues became
more obvious when each of the evaluation instrument sections were examined
individually.
The ‘physical, environmental and economic situation analysis’ and ‘strategic indicators
of destination planning’ sections sought to identify key aspects of the traditional strategic
planning approach recognized in both the general and strategic tourism planning
literature including articulation of goals and objectives, scope or domain of action to
achieve objectives; and resources, skills and other competencies required to achieve
objectives (Chapter Three). The majority of documents failed to include what is
essentially descriptive, baseline information on their destination in the situation analysis
section. Similarly the strategic planning section highlighted the fact that strategic
thinking and long-term considerations of the destination’s future are not featuring in the
tourism planning process.
The third evaluation category, stakeholder participation in the planning process,
investigated the nature and influence of stakeholder involvement. As Simpson (2001,
p.29) states, “the common involvement of local government, regional tourism
organizations and tourism industry practitioners would indicate at least some
philosophical alignment with a conventional approach to business planning”. However
this was not the case for the majority of planning processes examined in this study. The
analysis showed that while some stakeholder groups participated to varying degrees in
266
the tourism planning process, key stakeholders such as the local destination community
were generally not included.
The vision and values evaluation category was used to measure the extent to which the
planning approach integrated community values into the planning process and the extent
to which the vision for the future of the destination is in keeping with such values
(Simpson, 2001). The lack of community representation in the tourism planning
processes investigated is likely to have attributed to the fact that few of the assessed
planning documents included items from the destination vision and values category. The
final section of the evaluation instrument, the dominant tourism planning approach,
investigated the planning approaches adopted by the destinations. This was included to
address conflicting viewpoints in the literature regarding the emphasis of tourism
planning. Some authors have raised concerns that economic motivations are given
priority over social and ecological issues, and are the dominant approach in tourism
development planning (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998), while others have claimed that the
concept of sustainability has had a substantial impact on planning ideas and philosophies
(McKercher, 1993). The analysis of tourism planning documents showed that while
goals, objectives and other declarations of intent are generally made regarding sustainable
development and the importance of sustainable planning, these tended to be superficial
and unsubstantiated statements that were not supported in the subsequent action strategies
and agendas contained within the document. The vast majority of documents did in fact
exhibit the economic approach to tourism planning, as evidenced by a focus on marketing
and promotion, with little or no consideration of the destination’s environmental or social
issues.
To allow for a more exacting assessment of the extent to which the principles of
sustainability were integrated into the planning processes, each of the documents were
quantitatively weighted and ranked in terms of their compliance with the tourism
planning criteria (Chapter Six, section 6.4). This process clearly highlighted the poor
performance of the local tourism destinations in addressing the recognised aspects of a
sustainable tourism planning process. It was found that none of the plans complied with
267
75% or more of the evaluation criteria, only 5 met over 50% of the criteria, and the
remaining 24 plans had less than 50% of the evaluative criteria (16 of which included
less than 25%). The weighting and ranking of the plans further confirmed that the
principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration
have not been adopted in the planning practices for the vast majority of local tourism
destinations in Queensland. The second research objective sought further clarification of
these results through in-depth interviews with participants in five of the tourism planning
processes.
8.1.2 Research Objective Two
The second research objective of the study sought to examine destination stakeholders’
perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent to which they perceive
the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder
participation underpin the planning process. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with 31 stakeholders sampled from five case study destinations. Case studies
were selected based on the compliance of the destination’s tourism planning process with
the criteria of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument (Chapter Six). Based
on this assessment five local tourism destinations in Queensland were selected for further
investigation to address the second research objective of the study: Redland Shire, Sarina
Shire, Douglas Shire, Gold Coast City and Thuringowa City. Interview results were
presented according to the key themes of the study: sustainability, strategic planning and
stakeholder participation (Chapter Seven).
Within the sustainability theme it was found that although the sustainability concept itself
is considered valuable, respondents essentially viewed it as a catchphrase for the tourism
industry and as a result believe there is considerable misuse and incorrect applications of
the term. In order to overcome this it was suggested that there is a need to move beyond
the theory and actually develop means for practically applying the concept. It was also
noted that the concept could not be achieved in practice until there is meaningful and
effective engagement of the destination community in the planning process. While some
268
respondents did consider that their destination had adopted a sustainable planning
approach, others were of the opinion that sustainability was not the motivating factor in
the development of the strategy for their destination, it had simply been labelled as such,
with the planning process continuing to focus on the more traditional issues of destination
marketing and promotion.
The second theme addressed stakeholder perceptions of the strategic planning process.
Respondents cited a range of motivations for undertaking a strategic planning exercise
including; being proactive in regards to the amount and type of tourism development, to
restructure previous management and planning practices, to set a strategic direction and
develop actions, and to assess and manage tourism’s impacts on the destination; all noted
objectives of the strategic planning process (Cooper, 1995; Faulkner, 1994; Hall, 2000;
Hall & McArthur, 1998). In terms of outcomes the majority of respondents considered
that as a result of the strategic planning process their destination now has a directional
framework and action agenda for tourism, although other respondents did not believe the
process had led to any strategic outcomes for the destination. Benefits of a strategic
planning process were seen to include stakeholder-buy in to the process, improved
destination management capabilities, strategic direction and decision-making capacity for
the destination. The main challenges identified were implementation and obtaining
stakeholder buy-in. In considering the most appropriate level for strategic planning to
occur, a local level plan was favoured by half of the respondents because of inherent local
issues, identity and influence over the process, while a regional approach was favoured
by the remaining respondents because of infrastructure needs and a lack of tourist
awareness of local government (local tourism destination) boundaries.
The stakeholder participation theme showed that for many respondents, the main
motivation for engaging destination stakeholders was to ensure buy-in to the outcomes of
the planning process. However a number of respondents cited the fact that stakeholder
participation is a mandate of planning activity, possibly attributing to some respondents
noting that there had not been a genuine motivation to engage stakeholders in the
destination’s planning process. Benefits and challenges were noted which are consistent
269
with those identified in the literature (Ap, 1992; McIntyre, 1993; Mitchell & Reid, 2001;
Murphy, 1985; Oppitz, 1997; Rosenow & Pulsipher, 1979; Simmons, 1994). Benefits
included assessing attitudes and obtaining buy-in to assist in implementation, while
challenges were seen as differing values, process management and apathy. To address
some of the inherent challenges of engaging multiple stakeholder groups, it was
suggested that new consultation models are needed to reinvigorate the process of
stakeholder engagement. Resident participation was also addressed and was seen as
essentially a democratic right and prerequisite for such processes, although involvement
was credited with increasing ownership, acceptance and support of tourism within the
destination. In terms of which stakeholder groups should take a leadership role in local
tourism planning, many respondents saw it as a collaborative task, although others
advocated the local government authority as the most appropriate leader. Local
government’s role in tourism planning was seen to be significant due to their resources
and capabilities and their ability to balance the industry’s tendency towards marketing.
In examining stakeholders’ perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the
extent to which the principles under investigation are implemented into the process, the
research highlighted some strong polarization in views. While some respondents were
complementary and optimistic in their assessment of the planning process, others were
highly critical of the processes used within their destination. With such mixed results it
cannot be categorically determined whether the stakeholders sampled for this study do or
do not perceive the principles of sustainability to underpin the local tourism planning
process. Possible reasons for these divergent views are examined in section 8.2.3.2.
The conflicting perceptions of the participants are not surprising given the benefits and
challenges of tasks such as strategic planning and stakeholder participation in a tourism
destination context (Chapter Three). However respondents’ perceptions of the overall
integration of sustainability principles into the planning process does provide some new
perspectives and confirmation of issues raised in the literature. The need to translate
sustainability theory into practical steps and processes for destinations to follow was
highlighted by a number of respondents. It was noted that until such practical processes
270
are developed the concept can never be effectively and correctly applied in practice. It
was also noted that there is a need to re-examine consultation models to ensure the
process of stakeholder engagement is improved.
8.1.3 Research Objective Three
The third research objective of the study was to consider the applicability of strategic
visioning as a practical planning model for implementing sustainable development
principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning.
To assist in deciding upon and developing appropriate approaches, stakeholder
perceptions of the strategic visioning process were also elicited through the in-depth
stakeholder interviews (Chapter Seven). Initially asked to consider the future planning
requirements for their destination, many respondents believed a revision of the current
tourism plan or other planning frameworks such as town planning would be sufficient to
address and manage the future planning and management needs of the destination. Other
respondents however believed the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning
should be adopted, as it is a more adaptive process capable of meeting the changing needs
of the destination. All respondents were asked to consider the benefits and challenges of
a strategic visioning approach to local level tourism planning. The majority of
respondents considered the benefits of strategic visioning to include improved decision-
making capacity and enhanced stakeholder engagement in planning, while challenges
were seen to lie in attaining buy-in, namely convincing stakeholders there was a need to
set a direction for the destination, and generating the necessary resources for the process.
The respondents (12) that had previously engaged in the strategic visioning process cited
the desire to enhance destination management, generate a strategic direction and achieve
stakeholder buy-in as the primary motivations for undertaking a strategic visioning
exercise. All of the respondents believe the strategic visioning approach had contributed
towards the integration of sustainability principles into the planning process, and noted
that as a result there was greater awareness and understanding of the sustainability
concept. Others discussed the fact that simply having stakeholder groups involved in
271
setting the strategic direction for the destination was a major step towards achieving some
of the principles of sustainability. Respondents also considered the visioning process to
be a useful means of encouraging destination stakeholders to think more strategically
about tourism in the destination which in turn assisted in the actual process of strategic
planning. Similarly many considered that the strategic visioning process is ideal for
obtaining stakeholder buy-in to tourism destination planning. However other respondents
discussed the fact that obtaining stakeholder participation and buy-in to the process had
been the key challenge due to competing and conflicting stakeholder attitudes.
All of the respondents considered the strategic visioning approach to be applicable and a
beneficial tourism planning approach for other destinations to adopt, especially if there
were processes and frameworks available to utilise. However the scale and nature of the
destination was seen as possibly influencing the success of the strategic visioning
approach, as was the need to obtain stakeholder buy-in and commitment to the process.
The issue of resources required for such an exercise was also raised, but many noted that
resource challenges could be overcome by adopting a methodology to suit the nature and
size of the particular destination.
As with the second research objective, the stakeholder responses derived to address the
third objective showed some conflicting views on future destination planning and
management needs. The benefits and challenges of the strategic visioning process were
consistent with those outlined in the literature review (Faulkner, 2003; Mair et al, 2000;
Ritchie, 1993; Ryan, 2002), and the interview responses suggested strategic visioning is a
useful and valid method for integrating the principles of sustainability into the tourism
planning process. All of the respondents believe the approach had been successful in
addressing sustainable development principles; in achieving a strategic and longer-term
orientation towards planning and despite some identified challenges, was seen as a useful
means of incorporating multiple stakeholder participation into the process. The strategic
visioning approach for local tourism destination planning is addressed in section 8.3 of
this chapter.
272
8.1.4 Summary: Addressing the Research Objectives
The primary aim of this study was to examine the transference of sustainable tourism
theory to practice. Three supporting research objectives and a two-stage data collection
process were developed to address this issue in the context of local tourism destinations
in Queensland (Chapter Five).
The first of the research objectives sought to investigate the current planning practices of
local tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the principles
of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder collaboration are
integrated into the tourism destination planning process. The initial audit of local tourism
destinations (Shire Council areas) showed that the majority did not have a local level
tourism plan. The reasons for and implications of this are outside the scope of this study
but do highlight important issues to be considered in further research (Chapter Nine,
section 9.6). However, for the 30 destinations that did have a local level tourism plan, the
qualitative analysis of these documents showed that the vast majority are not underpinned
by sustainable development principles, including the identified prerequisites of strategic
planning and stakeholder participation. It was found that long-term, strategic thinking
about the future of the destination is not featuring in the processes, and while there is
some evidence of multiple stakeholder groups participating, in most cases that does not
extend to the residents of the destination. Therefore it is not surprising that few of the
destinations assess community values and vision for the future. The analysis also showed
that while the term and ideas of sustainable development might be incorporated within
the plan, the actual action strategies revert to economic concerns.
In addressing the first of the study’s research objectives it can be said that sustainable
tourism planning is not underpinning the local tourism planning processes of destinations
in Queensland. However one issue that stood out through this process was that a number
of the planning documents were actually titled ‘sustainable tourism plans’ or included
goals and objectives related to sustainability (Chapter Six, section 6.2), yet performed so
poorly when rated against the evaluation instrument which was specifically designed to
273
assess the integration of sustainability principles into the planning process. The results of
the in-depth stakeholder interviews conducted to address the second objective of the
study highlight some of the reasons for this including the misuse of the concept with
applications to incorrect contexts and a lack of understanding of the concept’s meaning
and how to actually apply it in practice. Other respondents noted that despite being
labelled as such, a sustainable tourism planning approach was not the motivating factor in
the development of the strategy for their destination. These issues are further discussed
in section 8.2.2.1.
The second research objective sought to examine stakeholder perceptions of the local
tourism planning process and the extent to which those involved perceive sustainability
principles to have been incorporated into the process. Stakeholder perceptions of the
tourism planning process were actually quite conflicting; some respondents were of the
opinion that the planning process had integrated the principles of sustainability, strategic
planning and stakeholder participation, while others disagreed. This makes it difficult to
ascertain whether the principles were actually integrated. However the results of the first
research objective can assist in addressing this. As the first stage of the research showed,
none of the analysed documents were found to have met with all or even most of the
sustainability criteria. The top five destinations selected for further investigation met
with just 50-75% of the assessment criteria (Figure 6.10, Chapter Six). In fact the highest
ranked of these destinations only met with 69.5% of the criteria, with the lowest meeting
51%. So even though some respondents considered the process to have incorporated
sustainability principles, the document analysis process showed that they actually did not
address all of the criteria required for a sustainable tourism planning approach. This
therefore raises the question as to how could respondents from the same destination, who
participated in the same process; have such markedly different ideas on the planning
process? Examining respondents’ roles and their perceived influence over the planning
process (Table 7.3, Chapter Seven) provides some answers to these questions and is
addressed further in section 8.2.3.3 of this chapter.
274
One issue that respondents had some level of consensus on was the need to develop tools
and processes to transfer sustainable development principles and theory into practice.
Respondents cited concerns over understanding and actual application of the
sustainability concept into the tourism planning process. This issue is discussed in
section 8.2.1.3.
The third research objective sought to consider the applicability of strategic visioning as a
practical planning model for implementing sustainable development principles, strategic
planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning. The responses of
stakeholders who had participated in a strategic visioning exercise provided some useful
viewpoints to assist in the consideration of the appropriateness of this approach. All of
these respondents considered the strategic visioning approach to be a useful means of
ensuring sustainable development principles underpin the process, even those that cited
challenges with the method. The prerequisites to sustainability, strategic planning and
stakeholder participation, were also seen as adequately incorporated within strategic
visioning. Respondents also agreed upon the applicability of the approach for other local
tourism destinations, noting that models or frameworks would be beneficial for
destinations considering such a process to utilise.
While the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning was considered successful in
integrating the principles of sustainability, respondents had quite divergent views on the
success of the more ‘traditional’ approaches undertaken in some of the case studies.
Taking into account these views and the associated literature (Chapter Three) can the
challenges associated with integrating sustainability principles into local tourism
planning be overcome within a strategic visioning framework? This issue as well as
others raised throughout this section are addressed by looking further at the identified
themes of the study- sustainability, strategic planning, stakeholder participation and
strategic visioning.
275
8.2 Sustainable Tourism Theory to Practice
In addressing the stated research objectives of the study, it was found that local tourism
destinations in Queensland are not incorporating sustainable development principles,
including strategic planning and stakeholder participation, into their tourism planning
processes. A number of issues and points for further consideration were raised and these
are addressed in the following section where the results of the data collection for each of
the study’s themes; sustainability, strategic planning, stakeholder participation and
strategic visioning, are considered collectively.
8.2.1 Sustainability: Practice and Perceptions
As discussed in section 8.1, the research showed that the principles of sustainable
development do not underpin local tourism destination planning processes in Queensland.
This was evident in the results of stage one of the research (Chapter Six) and in a number
of the stakeholder interview responses (Chapter Seven). While the contributing and
prerequisite factors of a sustainable approach, strategic planning and stakeholder
participation, will be discussed separately, in addressing the research objectives several
issues regarding the concept of sustainability and sustainable tourism planning were
highlighted.
8.2.1.1 Overlooking the Triple Bottom Line
One of the key issues arising from the research was the fact that a number of the tourism
planning documents included broad statements and objectives regarding sustainability,
yet performed poorly when the transference of this intent to action was examined. When
each of the documents were analysed for their tourism planning approach (Chapter Six,
section 6.3) it was found that while the concept of sustainability is discussed and a
sustainable planning approach may even have been cited as the driver of the planning
process, the actual action strategies do not support such objectives. For example in plan
six it is stated that,
276
“Our goal is a sustainable tourism industry that works in strong
partnership with the community in pursuit of economic, environmental
and social sustainability”.
Despite stating sustainability goals, the action strategies included in this plan relate solely
to market research, advertising and promotion. Similarly in plan seven it is stated that,
“The goal is to further develop and enhance a successful and united
tourism industry in the Cardwell Shire that contributes to the Cardwell
Shire’s quest for economic, social, cultural and environmental
sustainability and recognises ‘Cardwell Shire’ as being owned by the
whole community”.
Once again the action strategies relate to market research, advertising and promotion.
Environmental and community issues are not addressed at all within the document, nor is
any form of community participation or consultation reported on.
As these two excerpts demonstrate, although statements are made regarding
sustainability, none of the actual strategies or action plans which are to be implemented
or acted upon bear any relation to sustainability in its holistic sense. Economic issues are
addressed, yet there is no mention of environmental and social concerns, both of which
are considered just as crucial in a sustainable approach to tourism planning. While there
are examples of plans that include supporting action strategies for the sustainable
development goals (Chapter Six, section 6.3), it cannot be said that sustainability is the
dominant planning approach for local tourism destinations in Queensland. What was
evident was that the economic and infrastructure approaches are still the prevailing forms
of tourism planning. This was particularly apparent when the strategies and action
agendas within the plans were analysed, where it was found that marketing, promotion,
product and infrastructure development, and visitor services were overwhelmingly
apparent, all of which are trademarks of the economic and infrastructure approaches
(Chapter Six, section 6.2.5). This was confirmed by some of the responses received
through the stakeholder interviews where it was noted that a sustainable tourism planning
approach was not the motivating factor in the development of the strategy for their
277
destination, it had simply been labelled as such and that the strategy had continued to
focus on the more traditional issues such as marketing.
“They jumped on the idea of sustainability as it was a key word. Theirs is a
plan which is really more marketing oriented not sustainability oriented
(R6/LTA)”.
As was the case in Berke and Manta Conroy’s (2000) study, there were no significant
differences in terms of policies and strategies between planning documents with
sustainable development as an underpinning concept and those without.
Such results concur with the issue raised in Chapter One that the tourism industry has
been slow to adopt sustainability principles and actually put them into practice due to the
fact that economic motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues (Getz,
1986; Hall, 1998). Under the economic tradition, tourism is seen as an industry which
can be used as a tool by governments to achieve certain goals of economic growth and
restructuring, with planning emphasizing the economic impacts of tourism, and
marketing to attract the types of visitors who will provide the greatest economic benefit
to the destination. The discussion of tourism planning approaches in Chapter Three
alluded to one planning approach superseding its predecessor, whereas authors such as
Getz (1986) and Hall (1998) contest that this is not the case and due to the economic
benefits generated by tourism activity, the economic approach is the one still practiced in
many destinations. Pigram (1990) also noted that much of the so-called planning that
occurs in tourism is really marketing and this certainly appears to be the case in this
study.
The concept of sustainable tourism, in its simplest form, is founded on the notion of the
triple bottom line, referring to the equal consideration of economic, social and
environmental concerns. While destinations in this study are purporting a sustainable
approach based on a single aspect of the triple bottom line, the question remains as to
whether this is a deliberate disregard of triple bottom line principles by local tourism
destination planners, possibly a reflection of Mowforth and Munt’s (1998) ‘lies, damned
lies and sustainability’, or as a result of a lack of understanding of the concept of
278
sustainability and how to translate the principles into strategies and actions. The
possibility that destination planners deliberately overlook environmental and social
issues may be an issue for further research (Chapter Nine, section 9.6). However the
results of the in-depth interviews suggest that the latter scenario is the most likely.
8.2.1.2 A Problem of Understanding
The inconsistencies between intentions and the strategies for action regarding sustainable
development raised some interesting questions. The stakeholder responses from the in-
depth interviews suggest that this disparity can be attributed to a lack of understanding
regarding the concept of sustainability and what it actually means in terms of destination
planning. It was noted in Chapter Two that the lack of a widely known and accepted
definition has caused confusion over what sustainable tourism means (Berry & Ladkin,
1997; Harrison et al, 2003; MacLellan, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1998). A number of
respondents ascribe this confusion to the widespread and often incorrect application of
the term by the tourism sector to contexts, which are not necessarily associated with the
principles of sustainable development.
“It’s become a bit of a catchphrase…a bit like ecotourism was the call of
the 90s” (D3/Consultant).
The lack of understanding also appears to be compounded by the fact that, as perceived
by the respondents in this study, a gap does actually exist between sustainability theory
and practice. While some authors have adopted the view that the tourism industry and
the wider community are increasingly adopting and recognizing the importance of the
sustainability concept (Hall et al, 1997; Ritchie & Crouch, 2000), this study concurs with
other authors who suggest that there is a growing gap between sustainability doctrine and
its ‘real world’ application (Simpson, 2001; Trousdale, 1999). The respondents certainly
did not deny the importance of the sustainability concept; they just don’t know how to
convert the concept into a form that can be used in destination planning and management.
As Godfrey (1998) argued, it could be seen that the industry has entered a new phase of
sensibility, with many tolerant in principle or even actively supportive of the concept, but
279
this has generally been without a full understanding of its meaning or its implications for
planning and development activity.
8.2.1.3 A Problem of Practice
Stakeholder respondents highlighted the need to overcome the theory-practice gap and
translate sustainability principles into specific strategies and actions. A number of
respondents discussed the difficulty in actually applying the concept in practice.
“A lot of people talk about sustainability but what does that actually mean,
and how do we deliver on that? I think that’s one of the key challenges for
industry and for local governments as we move forward” (G1/Council).
A number of participants in the study considered that the time had come to move beyond
theoretical discussions and actually begin to deliver practically on the concept. However
to enable this to occur respondents discussed the need for practical implementation tools.
It was further noted that the lack of such tools was the greatest challenge in applying the
concept in practice,
“The theory’s good and the practice can be good if the tools are there for
destinations to use” (G2/Consultant).
The difficulty in actually implementing a planning approach is not uncommon. The
preoccupation with theoretical debates and model development at the expense of
practical, hands on processes and procedures for practitioners has been recognised as
hindering tourism planning (Faulkner, 2003; Garrod & Fyall, 1998). Bahaire and Elliott-
White (1999) in their discussion of the implementation of a community tourism planning
model found that as there was no practical implementation blueprint, planning goals
remained centred on commercial interests despite the use of alternative planning models.
In terms of sustainable tourism planning it was noted in Chapter Two that academic
debate and discourse regarding the concept must take second place to the development of
practical tools for destination planners, managers and their communities to implement
sustainability (Fyall & Garrod, 1997; Liu, 2003; Pearce & Turner, 1993; Slee et al, 1997;
Welford & Ytterhus, 2004). As Bramwell and Lane (1993, p.4) noted, “it is easy to
280
discuss sustainability but…the time has come to walk the talk”, and the responses from
this study confirm these assertions. Practical frameworks and processes for sustainable
tourism are further discussed in section 8.3.
8.2.2 Strategic Planning: Practice and Perceptions
Strategic planning is recognised as a key contributor in meeting sustainable development
principles and a means of alleviating some of the negative impacts of tourism activity
(Dutton & Hall, 1989; Harrison & Husbands, 1996; Page & Thorn, 2002; Simpson, 2001;
Wall, 1997). While the previous section highlighted the difficulties associated with
achieving a sustainable approach to tourism planning, it is necessary to consider the more
specific issues arising from the research on strategic planning for local tourism
destinations in Queensland. Particularly given that while there is considerable debate
surrounding the concept and practical application of sustainability, there is some level of
agreement that strategic planning is a key contributor to achieving a sustainable approach
to tourism planning.
8.2.2.1 Short-Term Planning Horizons
It became quite evident in the first stage of the research (Chapter Six, section 6.2) that
key aspects of the traditional strategic planning approach recognized in both the general
and strategic tourism planning literature are not incorporated into the tourism planning
processes conducted for local destinations in Queensland (Cooper, 1995; Faulkner, 1994;
Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur, 1998; Schendel & Hofer, 1979). Tourism destination
strategic planning involves making a sequence of choices and decisions about the
deployment of resources committing a destination to a future course of action (Brownlie,
1994). It requires a deliberate, integrative and formalised plan which will permit the
destination to adapt quickly to changing situations and develop information, planning and
control systems to monitor and respond to this change (Chon & Olsen, 1990; Cooper,
1995). It is recognised that adopting a strategic approach to tourism destination planning
provides a sense of purpose, ownership and support for both the industry and the public
281
sector, which can lead to a framework for cooperative action and policies (Hall, 2000;
Hall & McArthur, 1998). It also emphasizes the need for both short and long term
objectives which can accommodate changing circumstances, and which the sector can be
judged against in the future (Cooper, 1995; Hall, 2000; Hall & McArthur, 1998;
Faulkner, 1994). By not engaging in a strategic planning approach the majority of
destinations in the study would not have given consideration to what their destination will
be like in the future, and therefore would have no point of reference to measure, even
anecdotally, when the destination has reached a critical stage of development. Further, as
a result of failing to address economic, environmental and social goals related to tourism,
there is no means to monitor the attainment of goals and more importantly that such goals
are not unknowingly exceeded or diverted from.
The failure to engage in strategic, long-term thinking regarding the destination is quite
concerning but not necessarily unexpected. As discussed in Chapter One the Australian
public sector has a reputation for being overtly preoccupied with marketing at the
expense of strategic planning (Faulkner, 2003). This marketing versus management
mentality has been to the detriment of a more balanced and rational approach to the
development of the tourism industry. Page and Thorn’s (1997) study of tourism planning
in New Zealand also confirmed the use of ad hoc approaches at the expense of an
integrated planning framework for tourism leading them to conclude that planning is
destined to remain a reactive response to problems and pressures generated by tourism.
This study has confirmed that local level planning in Queensland is conducted without a
long-term strategic view. This is despite the fact that a wealth of literature and case
evidence exists which explicitly warns of the dangers of failing to engage in strategic
planning (Coccossis, 1996; Gunn, 1994; Hall, 1998; Inskeep, 1991; Murphy, 1985). As
the WTO (1994) has noted, uncontrolled development may bring some short-term
economic benefits but over the long term will result in environmental and social
problems and poor quality tourist destinations. They conclude that it is obviously better
to plan for controlled development initially, and prevent problems from arising in the first
place.
282
8.2.2.2 Strategic Planning Will Come Later
Why tourism destination planners in the 21st century would choose to ignore the lessons
of the past is quite intriguing. However for the destinations examined in this study this
certainly appears to be the case. One possible reason that long-term, strategic thinking is
not featuring in the planning process of many local tourism destinations in Queensland is
that the negative impacts of tourism have yet to be experienced,
“You have to create momentum with planning and being involved in long
planning style processes where you spend a lot of time thinking
strategically and collecting information to get a strategic view can only be
done when there’s a really serious problem. In a place like Thuringowa,
tourism isn’t a problem it’s an opportunity” (T1/STA).
Such a response suggests that long-term strategic planning is seen as an activity that is
employed only when a destination is in crisis mode. Butler (1991) claims that tourism
planning is too often reactive rather than proactive, as the prospect of large returns
overturns a cautious approach. If this is the case it is not surprising that the planning
practices of destinations analysed in this study performed so poorly on the strategic
planning criteria of the evaluation instrument. As outlined in Chapter Six (section 6.5), a
number of the destinations examined are rural areas looking towards tourism as an
alternative economic option. If strategic planning is seen as a reactive measure only to be
employed when tourism activity becomes a problem in the destination then these rural
areas that are looking to diversify into tourism would not be thinking towards the future,
but looking at achieving short-term gains to get tourism established in the destination.
This can be attributed to the fact that the vast majority of tourism planning documents
were assessed as primarily utilising the economic and infrastructure approaches to
planning (Chapter Six, section 6.2.5). However it has been found that rural communities
often lack the employment stability, community investments, economic diversity and
social institutions necessary for stability and growth (Potts, Backman, Uysal & Backman,
1992; Verbole, 2000) which often makes tourism an attractive ‘soft’ option to revitalise
and improve economies (Wahab & Pigram, 1997). The need for tourism planning is even
283
more important in such destinations where an inexperienced public and private sector
may have little or no experience in how to properly develop such a sector, how to
integrate it with other sectors of the economy or how to realise the benefits and negate the
negative impacts (Inskeep, 1991; Poon, 1993).
While such destinations may achieve short-term gains the long-term impacts of such
short-sighted actions has proven to be dangerous. It is unlikely that Queensland local
tourism destinations are the first to believe that it is acceptable to kick-start tourism
activity without firstly giving due consideration to what such actions will have on the
destination in the future. Many of the world’s most developed destinations can probably
trace back to a time when tourism was experimented with as an alternative economic and
employment generator, and the need for long-term strategic thinking was seen as
unnecessary. Murphy and Murphy’s (2004, p.3) warning that “those who ignore history
are doomed to repeat it” may well be the case. Rural destinations in Queensland may not
be Majorca or the Mediterranean, but tourism, even on a small scale and especially when
not managed properly, has still been found to create considerable detrimental effects on
the destination.
It is likely that in time these destinations will experience the repercussions for such
oversight, and as Martin and Uysal (1990) noted, while the initial stages of tourism are
usually met with a great deal of enthusiasm because of the perceived economic benefits,
it is only natural that, as unpleasant changes take place in the physical environment and in
the type of tourist being attracted, this feeling gradually becomes more and more
negative. By engaging in a sustainable approach in the early stages of destination growth
tourism planning can be used as a means of alleviating the economic deterioration arising
from poorly planned and managed tourism development in an attempt to maintain, in
perpetuity, the characteristics that make it a desirable place to live and visit (De Lacy et
al, 2002; Manning & Dougherty, 2000).
284
8.2.3 Stakeholder Participation: Practice and Perceptions
Stakeholder participation is also recognised as a contributing and prerequisite factor in
the achievement of a sustainable tourism planning approach. Authors such as Faulkner
(2003) have claimed that the achievement of sustainable development objectives hinges
on the adoption of a participatory model, involving the meaningful engagement of the
community, along with industry stakeholders and relevant government agencies, in an
attempt to generate agreement on planning directions and goals. However the research
results highlighted several issues regarding stakeholder participation in the planning
process, which need to be considered.
8.2.3.1 Missing Stakeholders
It was found in the first stage of the research that while multiple stakeholder groups
generally did participate in the planning processes, one important player was omitted- the
residents of the destination community. This is despite the fact that, for some time,
community residents have being acknowledged as the most important stakeholder group
in a tourism destination (Berke, 2002; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Caffyn & Jobbins,
2003; Eligh et al, 2002; Holland, 2000; Murphy, 1988; Pforr, 2001; Robinson, 1999;
Sadler, 2004). As outlined in Chapter Three a considerable body of literature exists
citing the need for meaningful engagement of residents in any decision-making or
planning activity undertaken and it has been noted that sustainable tourism cannot be
successfully implemented without the direct support and involvement of those who are
affected by it (Marien & Pizam, 1997).
A sustainable approach is based on the meaningful engagement of the community, along
with industry stakeholders and relevant government agencies (Faulkner, 2003). As part
of this process there is a need to evaluate a community’s sensitivity to tourism
development as the first step in planning for sustained tourism development. Simpson
(2001) noted that for sustainability to be achieved local residents must be permitted to
identify salient issues of concern; be the ones to determine the pace and scale of
285
development and the development must coincide with the community’s aspirations and
abilities. To ensure this, the resident community must be considered a legitimate
stakeholder group, requiring direct and meaningful participation in decision-making.
The stakeholder respondents also discussed this requirement in the second stage of the
research, all of who noted the need for, and benefits of engaging the destination
community in the planning process, consistent with that discussed in the literature. As
was the case in converting sustainable development theory to practice (section 8.2.1)
transferring resident participation into practice is also a problem for local tourism
destination planning in Queensland.
The possible reason for omitting the most crucial stakeholder group in a tourism
destination (Leslie, et al, 2000; Murphy, 1988, 1985; Williams et al, 1998) can be seen in
the willingness of respondents to discuss the challenges and problems associated with
stakeholder participation (Chapter Seven, section 7.3.3),
“I don’t know how you engage the residents in the planning process
without it turning into a 12 month exercise and by then you miss the boat in
most instances and it becomes a painful initiative” (D3/Consultant).
The need to re-examine and develop new models of stakeholder consultation and
engagement was also highlighted by some respondents as one of the greatest inhibitors in
achieving a sustainable approach to tourism planning,
“You’ve got to do it but we’ve really got to rethink the whole context of
how you engage with communities and I think we probably need new
models” (R1/Consultant).
Once again, while the importance of stakeholder participation and collaboration in
tourism planning has been widely discussed in the literature, this has been at the expense
of developing clear and concise formulas as to how this can occur in practice (Faulkner,
2003), and Sewell and Phillips (1979) lament that there is no universally applicable or
generally accepted model. Other studies have found that the dominant stakeholder
groups who manage the planning process, most often the relevant government authority,
don’t always understand the need for, or care for, engaging residents in tourism planning
(Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Timothy, 1998). The consideration of new ways of
286
meaningfully engaging multiple stakeholder groups in the planning process, taking into
account these challenges are further discussed in section 8.3.
8.2.3.2 A Point of Contention
Stage one of the research showed quite blatantly that destination residents were not
included in the planning process, and this was confirmed by a number of the stakeholder
respondents in the second stage of the research. However some of the respondents did
consider that the planning process had included all stakeholder groups, including
residents of the destination community. As was the case in the discussion on
sustainability (section 8.2) respondents who participated in the same planning process
had quite conflicting views on what actually occurred. It is an interesting issue to
consider given remarks made by some respondents,
“I believe they talked to a couple of people but that it was primarily a
Council document with Councillors involved and I would say they didn’t
consult because they wanted to keep control of it” (G3/Consultant).
Such comments allude to the issue of power and influence in the planning process, an
acknowledged issue in the stakeholder participation literature (Chapter Three). A
possible reason that certain stakeholder groups viewed the planning process more
positively than others may in fact be due to a much higher vested interest or even perhaps
a personal bias. Re-examining respondents’ roles and their perceived influence over the
planning process (Table 7.3, Chapter Seven) can assist in addressing this issue.
8.2.3.3 Influential Participation
During the stakeholder interviews conducted in the second stage of the research process,
respondents were asked to consider the extent and significance of their personal influence
in the planning process undertaken for their respective destinations. Participant’s
perceived influence was rated as low, intermediate or high (Table 7.3, Chapter Seven)
and plotted on a continuum of core or periphery influence to determine if any one
287
stakeholder group had more influence over the planning process than others (Figure 8.1).
Medeiros de Arajo and Bramwell (1999) have suggested that such an exercise can assist
in assessing stakeholders’ connection to an issue and it has certainly highlighted the
influence of particular stakeholder groups in the planning processes examined for this
study.
It can be seen that in all of the case study destinations the local council was the core
stakeholder with the most influence over the planning process. Consultants were also
found to be highly influential participants in the planning process, interestingly more so
than the other ‘actual’ stakeholders of the destination. In most of the cases the tourism
industry and the state, regional or local tourism associations (STA, RTO, LTA) were
assessed as having a periphery influence, as although they were participants they
perceived their role and influence to be far more limited than others.
Many of the respondents in the study did acknowledge the important role of the local
government authority in destination planning. Local government’s resource and planning
capabilities, the provision of infrastructure and services, and their legislative authority for
the area were seen as the primary reasons for their key role (Chapter Seven, section
7.3.3). Despite the acknowledged leadership role, respondents still considered a need for
the local government authority to work in a collaborative arrangement with other
destination stakeholders in tourism planning. The impact of local government’s ‘core’
influence is discussed further in the following sections.
The consultant was also assessed as a core participant in the processes investigated.
Ideally the consultant, as the tourism planning expert, would act as a conduit between the
core and periphery stakeholders ensuring both have equal representation and influence
over the planning process. Unfortunately this wasn’t the case for the planning processes
in this study, which is no doubt attributable to the fact that in all instances the consultant
was contracted by the local government authority to perform a set task. The role of the
consultant is often overlooked when considering the tourism planning process and given
their considerable influence (Figure 8.1) this is possibly unwise. Several studies have
288
found that too often plans are formulated by ‘experts’ and as a result do not reflect the
aspirations of the broader community (Blommestein, 1988; Din, 1997; King, McVey &
Simmons, 2000; Timothy & White, 1999; Wilkinson, 1997), with claims made that
“tourism has become too important to be left to the experts” (Seekings, 1980, p.253).
Although not necessarily a comparable case to this study, Din’s (1993) study of tourism
planning in Malaysia found that authorities presumed host sentiments to be positive
towards tourism, with Din referring to a quote by a Malaysian authority that “we do not
have to consult with the local people; we know what is good for them”. Comments
received by some respondents in this study intimate similar, although not quite as
transparent sentiments,
“It adds credibility to the whole process and I think a lot of these things
you often know what the answer is before you start, it’s part of the sales
process. It’s probably cynical but quite often I look for the answer in the
consultation. So we did consultation…and I visited Airlie Beach and I
saw the beautiful big swimming pool and I thought that’s alright so I
hunted through the consultation and I found three references from people
who said we are looking for a safe swimming area so we used that to say
oh look people have asked for a nice swimming pool instead of a water
feature” (T3/Council).
Some of the consultant respondents did unofficially discuss the difficulties in convincing
‘clients’ of the need to engage in consultation. However they noted that they were not in
a position to pursue the matter as they were undertaking a paid task at the behest of a
client and for their own ‘personal sustainability’ must appease the customer.
289
Figure 8.1: Perceived Stakeholder Influence in the Planning Process
8.2.3.4 Proxy Participation
Stage one of the research showed that the participation of the resident community did not
feature too prominently in the planning processes investigated for this study. One
CORE INFLUENCE
PERIPHERY INFLUENCE
Council Consult
Council
LTA
Industry
LTA DOUGLAS
SARINA
REDLAND
GOLD COAST
THURINGOWA
Industry
Consult
LTA
Consult ConsultCouncil
LTA
LTA
Industry
Consult
Council
Council
Industry
LTA
Council
RTO
Council
Council
Consult Industry
IndustryCouncil
Council
STA
RTO
290
possible reason cited is that the local government chose to act in its capacity as the
elected representative of the broader community,
“The Council should stand as the proxy for the community, that’s why
people elect them” (G3/Consultant).
If the core and most influential stakeholder group in tourism planing and decision-making
is in a position to act as a substitute for the resident community due to their elected
representative capacity, then this represents a significant challenge in ensuring broad
based, meaningful engagement of the local community. Even more importantly if
consultation with the resident community has not yet been mastered, or is still being
avoided due to ‘representative’ loopholes how are local tourism destinations going to
move towards the notion of collaborative arrangements and partnerships recognised as
enhancing the sustainable approach to tourism planning? (Berkes, 1995; Bramwell &
Lane, 2000; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999).
That resident participation could be overridden by government representation was seen as
concerning to some respondents as it has been noted that local government and
councillors may also have vested interests in the destination,
“Council’s are far too close” (D5/Industry), and, “It needs to be a range of
groups because if it is just Council it would be dangerous for them to have
control as they have commercial interests as well” (R4/Industry).
One respondent quite passionately summed up their view on the need for residents to
have a voice in tourism planning and decision-making,
“Thuringowa [Council] doesn’t have a clue about tourism and…the risks
are too great to let some pen pusher get it wrong. There needs to be
someone else involved who’s switched on enough to say this isn’t about
making money for the Council” (T5/Industry).
Despite the underlying intentions such proxy participation relates directly to Arnstein’s
(1969) ladder of citizen participation (Figure 3.1, Chapter Three). The cases investigated
for this study would certainly be located on the bottom half of the ladder characterised by
291
non-participation and degrees of tokenism. Decisions are effectively made by higher
authorities and dispersed among the public to validate the process. In other cases there
may be perceived levels of potential involvement, through workshops and the like,
however citizens do not have any real decision-making authority and development
reflects the aspirations of the government and industry rather than the communities
involved (Arnstein, 1969; Murphy, 1985). Hall (2000) finds that government in Australia
have generally not integrated community participation, noting that the level of public
involvement in tourism planning can be more accurately described as a form of tokenism
in which decisions, or the direction of decisions, have already been prescribed by
government and communities rarely have the opportunity to say no. Such inaction does
little to contribute towards LA21 objectives which require that sustainable development
can only be achieved through planned, democratic, cooperative means, including
community involvement in decision-making,
“…it stipulates that every local authority must consult its citizens on local
concerns, priorities and actions regarding the environment, development
and other issues, to encourage local consideration of global issues, and to
encourage and foster community involvement” (Jackson & Morpeth,
1999, p.3).
It is also worth reiterating that local governments in Queensland must work within the
1997 Integrated Planning Act (IPA), which has the express purpose of seeking
sustainability, and of which public participation is a crucial component.
As is the case with the destinations investigated in this study, Jackson and Morpeth
(1999) found that in the UK context while isolated initiatives are under way, there is as
yet little evidence of significant community involvement in sustainable development
initiatives, and less still in terms of the implementation of sustainable tourism through the
vehicle of LA21. Similarly studies by Bahaire and Elliott-White (1999), Timothy (1998)
and Hardy and Beeton (2001) found that the government continues to retain the role as
agenda setter and then seller of ideas to the community, concurring with Gibson’s (1975)
theory of elite democracy where public participation extends as far as the election of
leaders for public office (Chapter Three). Hardy and Beeton (2001) note that as a result
292
such management strategies do not reflect all stakeholders perceptions, but rather tend to
reflect those of the regulators, thus concentrating on issues such as infrastructure
provision, with little attention given to the impacts of tourism.
8.2.3.5 Local Government’s Poor Performance in Tourism Planning
The stakeholder influence assessment (Figure 8.1) confirms assertions made in the
literature that local government has a key role to play in tourism destination planning
(Hall, 2003; McKercher & Ritchie, 1997; Richins & Pearce, 2000). The interview
respondents also cited the important role local government plays in tourism planning due
to: their expertise in strategic planning, their ability to look beyond purely economic
outcomes and consider the broader needs of their constituents, and their skills and
capacity for undertaking public consultation. However this study found the tourism
planning processes to be seriously lacking in a number of areas, even in those areas
identified by respondents as capabilities of the local government authority such as
strategic planning.
So if the local government is the core stakeholder and driver of the tourism planning
process, then it is the local government that must be held primarily responsible for the
poor performance in tourism planning and the failure to incorporate sustainability
principles into the process. Studies have found that the application of sustainable
development will depend on the values and ideologies of various stakeholders (Hall,
1998) and Godfrey’s (1998) study of local government tourism officers in the UK found
that officers’ attitudes will impact upon the implementation of sustainability. This is
obviously an area for further investigation in the Queensland context (Chapter Nine,
section 9.6) but does highlight the importance of working with other stakeholder groups
to ensure a more balanced perspective.
It was noted in Chapter One that local government must have clear goals and policies for
tourism, and it is no longer sufficient to simply promote and assume that will be the
answer to developing tourism (Tourism Council of Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd).
293
It was further discussed that such goals and policies should be incorporated within a
strategic tourism development plan, designed to ensure that industry, local tourism
organisations, regional tourism organisation, state government agencies and the local
council work together to benefit the community. In addition it was noted that residents
would be far more inclined to support the development of tourism if they are given the
opportunity to voice their opinions, concerns and aspirations (Tourism Council of
Australia & Tourism Queensland, nd). These are all issues that were overlooked in the
development of the tourism planning documents for the destinations investigated in this
study. The results showed that the plans quite blatantly focused on marketing and
promotion, and failed to look at the long-term, strategic implications of tourism activity,
while the influence of other stakeholder groups on the process was secondary to that of
the council, or in the case of residents either non-existent or tokenistic.
Despite their poor performance there is no doubt that local government does have, and
should have, a key role in local level planning. A study by Carson, Beattie and Gove
(2003) acknowledged local government as a key agent in sustainable tourism
management, yet claimed that there was a lack of understanding of the breadth of
sustainable management implications arising from tourism activity. This was also found
to be the case here, where despite the fact that ‘sustainable tourism’ was espoused in the
plans, the actual actions and strategies to achieve this did not cover the full gamut of
sustainable destination management issues. Dredge (2001) has also criticized local
government in Australia for not being more proactive in planning for tourism
development, however attributes this to the embedded values, beliefs, ideas and
perceptions about local government roles and responsibilities. Similarly, Jenkins (2000)
found that the role of local government in tourism still remains somewhat unclear and
uncoordinated.
Planning for a sector such as tourism has its difficulties and ensuring representative
participation in such a diverse and multi-faceted industry is not an easy feat (Simpson,
2001; Timur & Getz, 2002), particularly for destinations that have little or no experience
in tourism planning. In Australia, like many countries, primary industries have been the
294
mainstay of many areas, but as these economic sectors face decline and tourism rises in
importance, local governments will be forced to re-channel their planning and
management skills to cope with a sector such as tourism (Ruhanen & Cooper, 2004).
Faulkner (1994) believes that for this to be achieved there must be a move away from the
fixation with the short-term aspect of tourism marketing. Further, as was identified in
Chapter Two, there is a need for governments to actually adopt the sustainable tourism
paradigm shift and not just gloss over the issue with ‘statements of platitudes and
rhetoric, backed by glossy images’ (Berke & Manta Conroy, 2000; Pforr, 2001; Pigram,
1990; Slee et al, 1997).
8.2.3.6 Stakeholder Power as a Contributor to Sustainability
This study found that the planning processes of local tourism destinations in Queensland
are not underpinned by the principles of sustainability. It was also found that one
particular stakeholder group had considerable influence over the local planning process,
and as such, must accept responsibility for the poor planning performance. One possible
reason, as discussed, is that there is a lack of understanding regarding sustainability and
transferring the concepts into planning practice. However the fact that there was a single
stakeholder group driving the process points towards an issue that has received attention
in the literature on stakeholder theory, that of stakeholder power.
If this is the case perhaps the adoption of sustainability principles relates directly to
power and influence and the willingness of core stakeholders to address sustainable
development principles. As Faulkner (2003) noted, the establishment of a more
strategically focused and sustainability oriented model is recognised as ultimately hinging
on the degree to which leading players among the stakeholder groups embrace it and
champion the cause. Godfrey (1998) and Hall (1998) also highlighted that the
application of sustainable development will depend on the values and ideologies of the
key stakeholders. As such Pforr (2001) highlights the need to consider the players who
determine the interpretation of sustainable tourism and analyse the political processes and
institutional arrangements in place, since these represent important mechanisms directing
295
and guiding sustainable tourism development. The issue of stakeholder power as a
contributor to sustainability highlights a new area for investigation and is addressed in
Chapter Nine.
8.2.4 Strategic Visioning: Practice and Perceptions
The strategic visioning process has been suggested as a possible model for incorporating
the principles of sustainability into the tourism destination planning process (Faulkner,
2003; Ritchie, 1999) and as such was highlighted as an issue for investigation in this
study.
8.2.4.1 Theoretical and Practical Relevance to Sustainability
The concept of ‘vision’ is an important and recognised component of the traditional
strategic planning process and more recently in tourism strategic planning processes
(Hackett & Spurgeon, 1996; Hunt & Buzan, 1999; Nutt & Backoff, 1997). For this
reason the vision and community values section was included in the tourism planning
process evaluation instrument utilised in the first stage of the research. However it was
found that although vision statements were included these were not based on community
values and visions for the future. This was attributed to the fact that in many cases the
destination community did not participate in the planning process thereby making it
difficult to assess their values and visions for the future of their community.
The concept of strategic visioning has been recognised as a new but important extension
of more ‘traditional’ strategic planning processes. Even though the direction for tourism
development is implicit in a strategic planning process, strategic visioning has a stronger
emphasis on bringing together the views of the many and varied stakeholders of the
destination community through collaborative and participative processes (Ritchie, 1993).
The objective is to establish directions for tourism development in the longer term so that
the principles of sustainability are adopted as a fundamental philosophical foundation for
the planning process.
296
In discussing the strategic visioning approach to tourism planning with respondents,
many identified the improved decision-making capacity and enhanced stakeholder
engagement in planning that could be generated through such an approach. However it
was the views of stakeholders who had previously participated in such a process that
provided some useful insights in considering the applicability of this approach for
incorporating the principles of sustainability into local tourism destination planning. All
of the respondents considered the strategic visioning process to have been successful in
incorporating the principles of sustainability, as well as the identified prerequisites of
strategic planning and stakeholder participation (section 8.3.1).
8.2.4.2 Destination Appropriate Methods
The respondents all considered the strategic visioning process to be applicable to other
local tourism destinations,
“It would be great for other places to use. It was definitely great in getting
everyone together and talking about the way forward” (R4/Industry).
To improve the approach several suggested modifications to the process were offered by
respondents (Chapter Seven, section 7.3.4). Process management, securing resources and
obtaining stakeholder buy-in and commitment early in the process were seen as important
in ensuring the success of the approach. The scale and nature of the destination were also
seen as possibly influencing the success of the approach and Capenerhurst (1994) has
found that within small communities residents will generally react more strongly to
development, as it is far more visible for them. This may be a key factor in considering
the applicability of the process for different size destinations. For example are the values
different in small communities compared to the larger urban cities? Sarina respondents
considered that if it’s not a bottom-up driven process there is no point in undertaking it,
“We wanted to have a strategy that was owned by the community,
developed in such a way as it was all about the whole community, so that
we had a better chance when we went to implement” (S1/Council).
297
Whereas some of the respondents for the more urbanised centre of Thuringowa alluded to
the desire for a fairly tokenistic process so that they could sign off on their strategy,
“It adds credibility to the whole process and I think a lot of these things you
often know what the answer is before you start, its part of the sales process.
It’s probably cynical but quite often I look for the answer in the
consultation” (T3/Council).
Despite these caveats the process was still seen as worthwhile and offering advantages
for tourism destination planning. The need to tailor the process to the destination may
overcome some of the identified challenges,
“I think you need to customize a process for a destination. I don’t think there’s
one model that fits all because the process is dependent upon multi
stakeholder engagement, and while there are many characteristics across
destinations of stakeholders there are also unique components to particular
places, a lot of it’s to do with personalities and egos and local politics which
has to be acknowledged and managed in the process” (G2/Consultant).
8.3 A Proposed Framework: Strategic Visioning for Sustainable Tourism Planning
In addressing the research objectives set for the study and the associated issues arising
from the investigation, it becomes obvious that there are several areas requiring attention
in Queensland local tourism destination planning. It was found that, despite claims to the
contrary, there is still an over reliance on economic concerns namely destination
marketing and promotion, tourism planning processes are adopting short-term planning
horizons and in terms of stakeholder participation, key groups are being omitted while
others have considerable influence and power over the process. The research process led
to the conclusion that the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and
stakeholder participation are not integrated into the local tourism destination planning
process.
298
Despite the logic of sustainable development and its recognised relationship to planning,
as discussed in Chapter Two, there continues to be difficulty incorporating the full range
of its dimensions into local planning policies and programs (Jepson, 2004). There have
been criticisms that the literature is based around defining the concept of sustainable
tourism and has overlooked how the sustainable paradigm is actually applied in practice
(Faulkner, 2003; Garrod & Fyall, 1998). Some authors have noted that the time has
come to “walk the talk” (Bramwell & Lane, 1993, p.4) but there is believed to be a ‘grey’
area of rhetoric between sustainability principles and workable objectives and standards
(Goodall & Stabler, 1997). To address this, a conceptual framework based on the
strategic visioning approach is proposed to assist in the transference of sustainable theory
to local tourism destination planning practice. Strategic visioning has been anecdotally
cited as one possible approach for addressing sustainable tourism planning (Beatley,
1995; Berke, 2002; Jayawardena, 2003; Page & Thorn, 1997).
8.3.1 Why Strategic Visioning?
Strategic visioning for tourism destinations has been described as a new but important
extension of the more common process of strategic planning in tourism (Ritchie, 1999).
The objective is to bring together the stakeholders of the destination community in a
collaborative and participative process in an attempt to establish directions for long-term
tourism destination development. The underlying philosophy is to nurture appropriate
forms of development, through a publicly driven process based on stakeholder values and
consensus aimed at formulating a framework, which provides broad guidelines as to the
kinds of major facilities, events, and programs that the community finds most consistent
with their values and aspirations for the long term development and well being of the
community (Ritchie, 1993; Ritchie & Crouch, 2000).
The strategic visioning process has been described as a mechanism for residents and
other stakeholders to become involved in setting the agenda of their destination (Mair et
al, 2000), with the ultimate effectiveness of the process dependent on destination
stakeholders being actively involved to identify values and generate consensus. This
299
consensus is generally expressed through a common or shared vision for the destination.
Equally important in the achievement of sustainability, the process also provides a means
for ensuring that a longer-term perspective informs day-to-day decision-making, as
opposed to ad hoc and centralised decision-making (Faulkner, 2003; Ritchie, 1999)
(Chapter Two). As such, the strategic visioning approach has been credited with
incorporating the principles of sustainable tourism development as a fundamental
philosophical foundation for the planning process (Choy, 1991; Faulkner, 2003).
The application of strategic visioning to the tourism destination planning context is a
relatively new phenomenon. Its theoretical underpinnings, together with reports from its
practical application in several destinations, suggest that it may be a useful process for
achieving the sustainable approach, while incorporating the caveats of strategic planning
and multiple stakeholder participation (Chapter Four). Two destinations, which have
undertaken the process, were sampled in this study and the respondents identified the
applicability of the approach in meeting sustainable development objectives, including
strategic planning and stakeholder participation (section 8.2.4). In light of the emerging
literature on the topic (Chapter Four), stakeholder interviews and other issues arising
from this study, a framework for the strategic visioning approach to tourism destination
planning was proposed for local tourism destinations (Figure 8.2).
It should be noted that the proposed framework was developed in light of Ritchie (1993)
and Faulkner’s (2003) assertions that strategic visioning is an extension of the more
traditional tourism destination planning process. Therefore the framework proposes a
strategic visioning phase as a precursor to the more traditional, and well documented,
process of strategic tourism destination planning (Chapter Four). As such, the discussion
of the proposed framework focuses on the strategic visioning phase of the planning
process.
300
Figure 8.2: Proposed Strategic Visioning Framework
Strategic Visioning Process
Strategic Planning Process
Shared Strategic Vision Based on
Identified Stakeholder
Values
- Identification of likely core and periphery stakeholders - Identification of stakeholder assets and liabilities - Identification of existing and emergent stakeholder power
Strategic Tourism Planning Tools: Stakeholder Values/ Situation Analysis/
Strategic Orientation
Stakeholder Stocktake
Sustainability Assessment - Recognise and address
knowledge gaps - Assess sustainability in the context of the destination
-Representation by broad base of stakeholders -Agreed upon guidelines for the destination based on stakeholder values -Provide direction and focus for strategic planning phase
Destination Appropriate
Strategic Planning Process
-Destination vision to guide the development of planning and management strategies -Long-term strategic focus -Utilise tourism planning tools to ensure key strategic planning elements are incorporated -Organisational structures for destination resource management
301
8.3.2 Strategic Visioning Phase
The strategic visioning phase of the proposed framework can effectively be viewed as
developing the foundation for the larger tourism planning process. This phase gives
particular attention to identifying and developing strategies for addressing stakeholder
values and incorporating their involvement in the process, problems identified both in the
literature and this study. In addition the strategic visioning phase focuses on
sustainability, namely developing an understanding of the concept and its practical
application in tourism planning, also a significant problem cited in the literature and
stakeholder interviews.
8.3.2.1 The Stakeholder Stocktake: Developing Stakeholder Strategies
Meaningful and genuine stakeholder participation and collaboration in the planning
process is the foundation upon which the strategic visioning process is based and as such
is considered at all stages of the proposed framework. Although an issue that has been
reiterated throughout the literature, it must be reinforced that sustainable tourism cannot
be successfully implemented without the direct support and involvement of those who are
affected by it (Marien & Pizam, 1997; Singh, 2003). As such an assessment of
stakeholder groups should be the first task in the development of the tourism destination
planning methodology, and should be undertaken before the actual planning process
begins. Based on the acknowledged challenges associated with broad based stakeholder
involvement in planning activity (Chapter Three), and the difficulty of managing
stakeholder participation identified by the participants in this study, the first stage of the
process requires a ‘stakeholder stocktake’, in effect an assessment of all stakeholder
groups in the destination.
The stakeholder stocktake includes several critical components designed to contribute
towards the adoption of sustainability principles into the tourism destination planning
process. A first and seemingly basic task is to identify all of the stakeholder groups in the
destination. As noted in Chapter Three, stakeholder theory is based on the premise that
302
firms must acknowledge persons or groups with legitimate interests in the organization,
whether or not the organization has any interest in the stakeholder (Donaldson & Preston,
1995; Jones, 1995; Sautter & Leisen, 1999). For tourism destinations the primary
stakeholder groups are considered to be the government, industry and resident
community. Conceptualising these broad stakeholder groups (and subsets of these
stakeholder groupings) in terms of core and periphery (Figure 8.1) may assist in the
development of stakeholder engagement strategies for the visioning exercise (section
8.3.2.3).
This process should also include an assessment of stakeholder assets and liabilities. It is
widely noted in the literature (Chapter Three) that there are a vast array of challenges
associated with stakeholder participation and this study also highlighted some of the
difficulties including apathy, differing values and conflict. Identifying and recognising
these challenges and of course the benefits that stakeholders can bring to the process may
assist in reducing the tensions often associated with multiple stakeholder involvement.
To further assist it is recommended that appropriate strategies be developed to deal with
these challenges as they arise, as such difficulties cannot be continually used as an excuse
for not including stakeholders in the process and engaging in autocratic planning. For
instance Marien and Pizam (1997) find that citizens will usually refuse to participate in
tourism planning unless it affects their personal income, health or safety or their quality
of life. Acknowledging and accepting this is an important part in preparing for the
process and can assist in guiding the development of appropriate participation and
consultation models.
The effect of stakeholder influence and power over the planning process and its outcomes
should also be acknowledged and assessed before the process moves forward. The
concept of core and periphery stakeholder groups was identified as a key issue in local
tourism planning, and one that can hinder the achievement of sustainability objectives
(section 8.2.3.6). By identifying the relationships and influences of the various
stakeholder groups before planning begins, process management strategies can be put in
place to monitor existing and potentially emergent stakeholder power. However it would
303
be unrealistic to suggest that such actions will totally alleviate power bases, as some
stakeholder groups such as local government, have inherent power and usually vested
financial interests in the process and outcomes of the plan. They are also most likely to
be the stakeholder group that assumes responsibility for managing the process. Once
again token engagement of certain stakeholder groups will do little to address the real
issues of power and will not contribute anything new to the planning process. However it
is suggested that acknowledging the power players before beginning the planning process
can assist in recognising any undue or deviant influence over the process. The use of
multi stakeholder steering committees and the like can also assist in gaining a more
balanced assessment of these issues.
The final element proposed for the stakeholder stocktake stage, and the first exercise to
be undertaken when the visioning process officially begins, is an assessment of
community attitudes towards tourism. It has been said that understanding a community’s
sensitivity to tourism development is the first, and most important, step in planning for
sustained tourism development (Chapter Three). Numerous methods can be utilised to
undertake such an activity including surveys, media campaigns and community
workshops, among others (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Berke, 2002; Choi & Sirakaya,
2005; Glass, 1979; Hall & McArthur, 1998; Healey, 1997; Jepson, 2004; Marien &
Pizam, 1997; Maxwell, 2000; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Murphy 1988; Ritchie, 1988;
Yuksel, Bramwell & Yuksel, 1999). Despite the particular method utilised, which will
ultimately depend on the resources available, what is important is that the exercise is
undertaken. Without an understanding of the broader community attitudes towards
tourism, any efforts or directions developed for the destination may prove to be futile in
the longer term if community does not exist. It should also be noted that this stage is not
seen as constituting stakeholder participation but is considered part of the research phase
of the process. Stakeholder participation in the development of the destination vision is
discussed further in section 8.3.2.3.
The stakeholder stocktake is considered a fundamental component of the proposed
strategic visioning framework. While the need for stakeholder empowerment, power and
304
assessing community attitudes in tourism planning are not new concepts; there has been
little practical discussion of how these issues should be addressed. The strategic
visioning approach proposes that assessments of these issues are conducted as a
preliminary activity in the larger planning process and where necessary appropriate
strategies are devised so that these issues can be managed throughout the process.
However the ultimate success of this phase, and indeed the larger process outlined in the
framework, is dependent on a significant shift in how broad based stakeholder
participation and engagement is viewed by the dominant stakeholder groups.
Stakeholder groups must be empowered to participate in the planning process and make
decisions (Brown & Essex, 1997). It has been quite rightly suggested that without the
process of empowerment “sustainable tourism simply recycles old methods such as
participation in a new language” (Crouch, 1994, p.98). This will require those who
assume responsibility for the planning process, most often the local government, to
genuinely accept the value, benefits and need for broad based stakeholder participation
and engagement. If this fundamental principle of the strategic visioning approach is not
embraced, or is hidden through tokenistic actions, there is little point in moving forward,
as nothing will have changed from the tourism planning processes undertaken previously
and moves towards sustainability will not be achieved.
8.3.2.2 Strategic Visioning as a Learning Process: Understanding Sustainability
It was highlighted in both the literature review (Chapter Two) and the local tourism
destinations investigated in this study that there are some considerable difficulties in
translating sustainability theory to practice. The failure of local tourism destinations to
incorporate the concept of sustainability into tourism planning processes was considered
by many respondents to be attributable to a lack of understanding regarding the concept.
Therefore the strategic visioning phase of the planning process should also be used as a
period of education before embarking on the actual planning process. Similar to the
discussion on auditing stakeholders, an assessment should also be made of the concept of
sustainability. Identifying gaps in the knowledge base of stakeholders, setting
305
sustainability terms of reference and considering what sustainability means for the
particular destination would be valuable in ensuring the principles are translated into the
goals and objectives of the planning process, and more importantly the resulting action
strategies. For example reinforcing the notion of the triple bottom line and how it can be
addressed through sustainable tourism planning would be a key issue in a sustainability
assessment for local tourism destinations in Queensland, which on the whole performed
poorly in this area. Fyall and Garrod (1997) support such a notion as they found that
defining the concept of sustainable development and establishing it as an objective of the
tourism industry are the first steps in achieving genuinely sustainable tourism. This was
proven to be successful in the strategic visioning process undertaken on Stradbroke
Island, with one respondent discussing that,
“At first most of us did not know what the term meant but we spent quite a
lot of time actually understanding what sustainable tourism was all about
and we are now champions of that, can now appreciate why sustainable
tourism is so important for the future of the island” (R4/Industry).
A further issue raised in the study was that some respondents consider long-term
planning and strategic thinking to be a reactive strategy, employed if and when a problem
arises in the destination. This idea certainly does not concur with sustainability principles
where long-term thinking and strategic planning for the destination is of vital importance.
This requires an educational strategy on two levels. Firstly destination planners and
drivers of the planning process must be made aware of, either by their peers or through
higher levels of government, the importance of strategic planning. This would ideally
arise in the sustainability assessment discussed previously, as was the case in the Gold
Coast process,
“The visioning process basically lifted where people’s expectations and
their thoughts were in relation to tourism planning, instead of talking about
action planning they actually knew what strategic thinking was about.
Because people operating a business aren’t trained in that way of thinking,
that’s not how they go about operating…when you’re working with
stakeholders who aren’t used to strategic planning and strategic thinking
306
you’ve got to actually go through an education process to actually get them
thinking at that level” (G1/Council).
The second level would involve educating the general public. The issue of apathy was
raised by a number of respondents as a challenge in engaging the resident community in
tourism planning. An education campaign where the general public can see the
relevance of planning activities and recognise the importance of determining what the
destination will look like in the longer term may help to overcome this. As was noted
previously, the public are unlikely to be motivated to become involved in planning until
the situation has become intolerable and tourism is perceived as a threat to be opposed
(Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999). The public’s ability to block tourism proposals should
not be underestimated (Hawkins & Cunningham, 1996; Murphy & Murphy, 2004). This
is obviously not a situation that tourism destination planners would relish and may prove
far more difficult to ‘manage’ than developing proactive and innovative strategies to
engage the resident community in tourism planning in the early stages of the
destination’s development.
8.3.2.3 Strategic Visioning: Developing the Vision
The first two aspects of the strategic visioning phase are primarily concerned with the
underpinning principles of the strategic visioning concept- ensuring stakeholder strategies
are in place and moving through an educational process regarding the concept of
sustainability. However it is the development of a shared destination vision, which is the
key objective for undertaking a strategic visioning process.
As noted in Chapter Four, vision has been defined as a practical and achievable picture or
description of the nature of the organization’s business as it is intended to be at some time
in the future (Hussey, 1999; Nanus, 1992; Wolf & Gering, 1998). It can be considered as
a future goal or target that the organization is striving towards (Hunt & Buzan 1999; Nutt
& Backoff, 1997), which instills commitment and motivates people to achieve the vision
(Hackett & Spurgeon, 1996; Nutt & Backoff, 1997). In the context of a community,
307
strategic visioning aims to establish a long-term vision of what the community can be and
achieve in the long run (Kotler et al, 1993). Here visioning is characterised by an
emphasis on community assets, weighing up the options and opportunities on the basis of
shared purposes and values, with the process stressing early and continuous public
involvement. Strategic visioning for communities specifically seeks to consider as many
options as possible, with the purpose of developing a cooperative, integrated, and
democratically derived consensus into a single integrated vision, which will set the long-
term strategies for the future. In a tourism destination context, strategic visioning
involves bringing together the views of the many organizations and individuals of both
the industry and the destination community to formulate a framework, which provides
broad guidelines as to the kinds of major facilities, events, and programs that the
community finds most consistent with their values and aspirations for the long term
development and well being of the community (Ritchie, 1993). A well-articulated vision
that has been constructed in a manner that ensures it represents a consensus among
stakeholders then provides the focus for the strategic planning process (Faulkner, 2003).
There is no one right way to develop a vision and it has been said that the technical
details of ‘how to’ should not be prescribed (Stewart et al, 2004). Some of the processes
used in community applications were outlined in Chapter Four and may be useful in
suggesting some more detailed guidelines for destinations to utilise (Chapter Nine,
section 9.6). In the tourism context it was noted in Chapter Four that aside from
Faulkner’s (2003) account of the Gold Coast process, the literature has yet to give
consideration to the actual process of visioning. Senge (1990) also does not offer a
prescriptive account on how a vision should be generated. However he does suggest that
the concept of shared vision in the learning organizational context (Senge, 1990, 1994)
should be a developmental process and constructed from a coherent process of reflection
and conversation. Senge et al (1994) actually note that it is most important to focus on
the dialogue, and not just the vision statement, as the process of visioning is more
important than the product. This is because the process of developing a vision involves
an evolving ongoing process in which people at every level can speak on what really
matters to them, and should be heard by both leaders and one another. In doing so the
308
communication of ideas gathers pace and the vision becomes increasingly clear (Senge et
al, 1994), as was the case in the Stradbroke Island visioning process,
“So the visioning started with a very simple hand holding ceremony on the
Island where people just shared what they felt was important about their
Island, and through that process it was quite amazing that on a half day
workshop, by the end of it they actually appreciated the same values. It was
the same values. They all fundamentally were hoping for a similar outcome
that they were talking, taking completely different perspectives, and they
were using different words. It doesn’t mean the journeys ended but I mean
it was a hell of a good start and I think that’s a pretty powerful thing, so to
a certain extent the vision was a very simple one but it was more
galvanization” (R1/Consultant).
Senge’s team learning discipline can also be seen as useful here. As a natural step from
shared vision, team learning can arise from the collective aspirations, which emerge
through visioning and give team members a compelling reason to begin to learn how to
learn and work together. In a tourism context such a notion may work towards
overcoming the often cited fragmentation of the sector (Ruhanen & Cooper, 2004).
Senge et al (1994) claim that teams are now recognised as a critical component of every
enterprise and the predominant unit for decision making and getting things done. Such a
notion resonates with the need for collaboration and engagement between stakeholders in
an attempt to move towards a more sustainable form of tourism planning (Jamal & Getz,
1995) (Chapter Three).
The Gold Coast model used the creation of a vision, in the format of a visioning
workshop, as a means of engaging stakeholders in decision-making and setting the
foundations for strategic planning in the destination. However one of the main criticisms
levelled at the Gold Coast visioning exercise is the fact that the actual ‘visioning’ came at
the end of the process (Appendix Five), whereas the process undertaken on Stradbroke
Island was considered by participants to be more organic,
309
“I think you can do visions in a variety of ways. I mean the formalised
vision at the Gold Coast was that you pull together, opinion leaders in all
the groups, green groups, community, council, that's one way of doing it.
So you’ve got opinion leaders who then come together to share their
values but again whose vision is it? Another way is you actually go out to
the community in the broad sense and you have you know workshops in
the community and through that you have a statement of intent and to a
certain extent, Straddie was a statement of intent. In fact the vision was
actually ‘what are our values’ and I don’t think it’s wrong. I don’t think
there is any one way to do it” (R1/Consultant).
Walzer et al (1995) note that there are a number of approaches that can be used but in
generating a vision a series of meetings are generally held during which the community’s
situation is assessed and alternative visions are developed and refined. At this point the
meetings generally result in a statement of vision, goals and tasks for the community to
undertake as well as the identification of priority goals and action strategies. Planners
must determine an appropriate scale and scope for developing the vision for their
destination given that the size of the destination, the nature of tourism within the
destination and the resource commitments required, will all be factors for consideration.
Walzer et al’s (1995) review of community visioning programs identified two key
common characteristics for success, which are useful to consider here as guiding
principles for the process. Firstly local leaders and residents should have a clear
understanding of the visioning process and its limitations, particularly the commitment
and effort required to make the program a success. Secondly, a well-balanced
community team of stakeholders is required and ignoring segments of the community
will limit the perspective of the team and preclude interesting and productive ideas, in
addition to the fact that if the program participants are not representative the community
may not embrace the vision and resulting strategies (Walzer et al, 1995).
Despite the approach taken, what is important is that the people who are affected by
tourism development, or want to be included, have the opportunity to be involved in
310
developing the vision for the future of the destination. Such engagement is necessary so
that a true consensus on the preferred directions of future development, and the actions
necessary to achieve this, can be developed (Faulkner, 2003). These issues are discussed
as an area for further research (Chapter Nine, section 9.6).
8.3.2.4 Transition from Visioning to Planning
The objective of visioning is to set out the broad outlines or direction of a strategy, while
leaving the specific details to be worked out through the strategic planning process
(Mintzberg, 1994). However before moving from the strategic visioning phase of the
process to the strategic planning phase, the previously identified ‘foundation principles’
must be adequately addressed. Due to time and financial constraints, and possibly
embedded attitudes towards broad based decision-making, many destination planners will
want to move quickly through the strategic visioning phase. If this is the case, then the
problems identified in both the literature and this study are not going to be rectified, and
there will be no real move towards a tourism planning approach underpinned by
sustainability principles. It is just as important, if not more so, to ensure the first stage of
the planning process, the strategic visioning phase (top triangle, Figure 8.2) has been met
and in effect signed off on by the community before starting the second stage, the
strategic planning process (bottom triangle, Figure 8.2). It is necessary for the destination
vision and direction for the destination to be agreed upon, at least in principle, to frame
the goals and objectives sought from tourism development and activity. Without
progressing through this first phase, the same issues and challenges are going to continue
to arise.
Challenges are likely to arise in the visioning phase of the process as it represents a
significant departure from approaches used in the past, particularly in terms of
stakeholder participation. As discussed, the strategic visioning approach is based on
genuine stakeholder participation, engagement and empowerment (Ritchie, 1993; Ritchie
& Crouch, 2000), and the ultimate effectiveness of the process relies on destination
stakeholders being actively involved to identify values and generate consensus (Mair et
311
al, 2000). The private sector experience of visioning (Chapter Four) highlights the
importance of involving a wide range of stakeholders in the development of the vision
with Nutt and Backoff (1997) noting that the greatest organizational successes arise when
the vision is developed with ideas drawn from many people. The considerable
experience of the private sector should not be ignored when considering the applicability
of strategic visioning for tourism destinations.
While the proposed strategic visioning framework includes recommendations to develop
strategies to overcome some of the likely challenges, it would be unrealistic to suggest
that such actions will alleviate all the problems that might arise in the planning process.
The process of vision development, while offering numerous benefits, is not going to be
an easy task, particularly for destinations such as those in this study which have yet to
master the basics of strategic planning. Ritchie & Crouch (2000) also acknowledge that
developing consensus on a shared ‘ideal future state’ for a destination is not always easy
within diverse, democratic societies. It has also been noted that vision development can
be obscured by day-to-day practices, the prevailing organizational culture and structure
(Senge et al, 1994). Further the more people involved in the development of the vision,
the greater the potential for a diversity of views to break out which can dissipate focus
and may generate conflict (Flood, 1999). Although absolute consensus on the vision
may not be reached it is important that destination stakeholders agree that the final vision
statement provides both a meaningful and operational ‘dream’ for the future of their
destination- one that reflects the values of the destination stakeholders, while not
ignoring the realities and constraints of the marketplace (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000).
Obviously a challenge in undertaking the strategic visioning phase will be the associated
costs and resources required and the respondents in this study noted that resources for
such a process could be an issue. Strategic planning, whether preceded by a strategic
visioning phase or not, still requires stakeholder engagement and an assessment of
community values. Engaging stakeholders will require a financial commitment despite
the method used. Strategic visioning should be conceptualised as not only an extension
of the more traditional strategic planning process, but as a ‘reorganization’ of the
312
strategic planning process. It should also be considered a means of reinvigorating
stakeholder engagement models, a need identified by respondents in this study. By
reorganising the strategic planning process and setting in place the foundations of
stakeholder assessments, engagement and input into a vision of the future of the
destination, the actual strategic planning process may in fact be streamlined and
simplified. When it is time to begin the planning phase it is not necessary to consult with
stakeholders again- this has already been done and their views and values are
documented in the vision statement which provides the focus and direction for the
development of planning and management strategies.
8.3.3 The Strategic Planning Phase
The strategic visioning phase is designed to provide the foundations for the planning
process, keeping in mind that strategic visioning is considered an extension of the typical
strategic planning process undertaken for tourism destinations (Ritchie, 1999). As
discussed, stakeholder participation and engagement has been addressed through the
visioning phase and therefore the strategic planning phase is focused on transforming the
destination vision into planning and management strategies for the destination.
While strategic tourism destination planning has been practiced, in various forms, for
some time, the study of local tourism destinations in Queensland highlighted that this is
not necessarily being undertaken as well as it could. As such the strategic planning phase
of the framework highlights some of the key components of strategic planning which are
pertinent to sustainability.
8.3.3.1 A Long-Term Focus to Guide the Destination
As with undertaking a destination vision, the strategic planning methodology that a
destination can follow is quite varied and in many instances is influenced by the
consultant or planners preference, as could be seen in the planning documents analysed in
this study. Essentially the tourism destination strategic planning process involves making
313
a sequence of choices and decisions about the deployment of resources committing a
destination to a future course of action (Brownlie, 1994). The process is well
documented (Chapter Three) and as such will not be reiterated here except to say that
despite the process used, what is important in the move towards sustainability is that the
planning horizon adopts a long-term, strategic view.
The planning horizon is considered a vital factor in achieving sustainability and it has
been noted that there is a need to overcome, the often reverted to, short-term perspective
if this is to occur (Cooper 2002; Jepson, 2004; Lew & Hall, 1998; Swarbrooke, 1998; von
Friedrichs Grangsjo, 2003). The strategic visioning process is considered a means for
overcoming such short-term outlooks due to its focus on the future and the respondents
who had participated in strategic visioning processes noted this. As such the strategic
planning process would focus on translating the vision into planning and management
strategies, which can be implemented in the destination.
While the strategic planning process can be many and varied, there are recognised
components (Chapter Three). This study found that some of the key elements of
strategic planning, included within the tourism planning evaluation instrument, were
excluded from the planning processes (section 8.1.1). It is suggested that instruments
such as the one used in this study would provide a useful resource for destinations
progressing through the strategic planning phase of the process. Further by ensuring that
the strategic visioning phase has been adequately completed, a number of the sections in
the evaluation instrument would have already been addressed before the actual strategic
planning process begins. In this instance the visioning exercise is conducted in order to
develop enough consensus on purposes and values to guide issue identification and
strategy formulation.
8.3.4 The Framework: Addressing Sustainability
The conceptual framework (Figure 8.2) brings together the notion of strategic visioning,
discussed as an emerging planning approach in the literature, as well as the identified
314
prerequisites of a sustainable tourism planning approach, strategic planning and
stakeholder participation. It also integrates the challenges identified in the research of
incorporating sustainability principles into a local tourism planning process. The
conceptual framework has been portrayed as an hourglass based on the notion that until
the first phase has been completed (the strategic visioning triangle) it is not possible to
fill in the second phase (the strategic planning triangle). It has also been noted that the
first phase is just as important as the second, although it must be acknowledged that it is
also likely to be the most difficult due to the need for broad based and genuine
stakeholder involvement.
Chapter Three highlighted some of the criticisms of broad based stakeholder and
community participation in tourism planning including financial costs, time frame, the
dilution of power and loss of control over matters previously internal to the industry, the
need for education as communities are not equipped to assess and understand tourism
development potential, and apathy towards participation (Blank, 1989; Cole, 1997; de
Kadt, 1979; Douglas, 1989; Federspiel, 1991; Jackson & Morpeth, 1999; Jenkins, 1993;
Long, 1991; Madrigal, 1995; McIntyre, 1993; Trousdale, 1999; Weaver, 2006).
However such difficulties cannot be continually used as an excuse for autocratic planning
which leaves destination stakeholders, particularly the local community, with little or no
input into decisions that affect them. Such entrenched attitudes will also make little
contribution towards sustainability goals.
The proposed framework is conceptual and has not been tested in this research. It does
not offer a blueprint as each destination will have different issues, but it does offer a
framework within which to move towards a sustainable approach to tourism destination
planning. Hall (2000) actually argues that an optimum form of tourism planning is a
contested concept and the variety and complexity of local issues influences sustainability
goals. He therefore states that it may be more productive to focus attention on
developing more generic planning frameworks, which will be broad enough to allow for
flexible interpretation to suit the variety of local issues. As such the proposed framework
for strategic visioning provides some guiding principles, which destinations can utilise
315
and adapt, to engage in planning underpinned by sustainability principles. However, the
framework is proposed as one, which based on the literature and refined by the results of
this study, should be tested for its applicability in further research (Chapter Nine, section
9.6).
The framework offers one assessment of the strategic visioning process for tourism
destinations. As noted in Chapter Four, there is a growing body of literature
acknowledging the benefits of strategic visioning for tourism destinations, yet aside from
Faulkner’s discussion of the Gold Coast process, frameworks and models have not been
proposed. Faulkner’s assessment of the Gold Coast was valuable in this regard yet it too
was conceptual in nature and discussed visioning only in the context of a maturing
destination. However the framework proposed in this study offers some core ideals,
which have applicability to a range of destinations and offer some guidelines for local
tourism destinations to move towards a sustainable approach to tourism planning. As the
process is applied in more destinations the implications and results will contribute to
understanding the relevance of strategic visioning as a contributor to sustainable tourism
planning and highlight areas for modification and further research (Chapter Nine).
8.4 Chapter Eight Summary
This study sought to examine the transference of sustainable tourism theory to practice by
investigating the extent to which the sustainable tourism planning philosophy is utilised
in the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland. In order to address
this issue, three research objectives were developed and investigated through a two-stage
data collection process. In addressing the research objectives it was found that
sustainability is not the underlying approach to local tourism destination planning in
Queensland as evidenced by an over emphasis on economic concerns, short-term
planning horizons and the exclusion of key stakeholder groups from the process.
However some of the reasons for these problems were uncovered in the research where it
was found that the sustainability concept and its application to practice is not understood
and particular stakeholder groups had considerable influence over the planning process.
316
It could be argued that local tourism destinations should master the basics of strategic
planning before attempting to engage in strategic visioning. However the current
approaches of local tourism destinations are doing little in the move towards
sustainability. To address these issues a conceptual framework of the strategic visioning
approach to tourism planning was outlined. The framework is proposed as a possible
means for ensuring sustainability philosophies including strategic planning and
stakeholder participation, are incorporated into the tourism planning process. The
applicability of the framework, identified in both the literature and confirmed by
stakeholder respondents was considered in light of the challenges identified in the
research of incorporating sustainability principles into a local tourism planning process.
Although the framework is conceptual it does offer one method for integrating the
principles of sustainability into the tourism destination planning process and is proposed
as an approach to be tested in further research (Chapter Nine).
317
Chapter Nine
Conclusions
9.0 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which sustainable development
principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation, are integrated into the
planning practices of local tourism destinations. Additionally the study sought to develop
a theoretical framework to facilitate the application of sustainability principles to local
tourism destination planning. The concept of sustainable development and its application
to the tourism sector has received considerable attention within academia and has become
a focus of the policy agenda at all levels of government. The wealth of literature on the
topic would suggest that tourism destinations have embraced the sustainable approach to
tourism planning, however some authors disagree. Both the public and private tourism
sectors have received criticism for their progress towards sustainability, with some
authors noting that sustainability principles are not put into practice due to the fact that
economic motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues (Getz, 1986;
Hall, 1998). Academics have also been criticized for their preoccupation with defining
and debating the definitional aspects of sustainable tourism at the expense of considering
the practical aspects, particularly the development of tools to implement the concept in
practice (Garrod & Fyall, 1998). As Simpson (2001, p.4) noted,
“Whilst the concepts of stakeholder participation and strategic orientation
are widely endorsed as valuable contributors to sustainable development,
there have been no previous attempts to gauge the extent to which such
considerations play their part in real world tourism planning processes”.
In order to determine the extent to which sustainable tourism underpins the planning
practices of tourism destinations, this study investigated the planning practices of local
tourism destinations in Queensland. To address the research issue three research
objectives were developed. The first objective was to investigate the current planning
practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland to determine the extent to which the
318
principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder participation
are integrated into the tourism planning process. The second objective was to examine
destination stakeholders’ perceptions of the local tourism planning process and the extent
to which the principles of sustainable development, strategic planning and stakeholder
participation underpin the process. The third objective was to consider the applicability
of strategic visioning as a practical planning approach for implementing sustainable
development principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local
tourism planning.
This chapter firstly presents the conclusions and implications of the three research
objectives developed for the study. Secondly, the significance of the research is
discussed, as is the contribution the study has made to both theory and practice. The
limitations of the study and applicability of the method are considered before the agenda
for future research is outlined.
9.1 Research Objective One: Conclusions and Implications
It has been said that the sustainable approach to tourism planning is particularly useful at
the local level due to the fact that this is where tourism’s negative influences are felt most
acutely (Aronsson, 2000; Ashworth, 1995; Nijkamp & Verdonkschot, 1995). However,
in addressing the first research objective of the study it was found that the planning
practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland are not underpinned by the
principles of sustainable development. This is despite the fact that at both the
international and national policy levels LA21 guidelines cite the need for sustainability to
be incorporated into local level planning. Such requirements are further reiterated at the
state and particularly local government levels with the 1997 IPA requiring local level
planning in Queensland to be guided by ecologically sustainable development.
The recognised contributors of a sustainable approach, strategic planning and stakeholder
participation, were also not evident within many of the analysed planning processes
(Chapter Six). Long-term, strategic thinking about the future of the destination was not
319
evident and confirms assertions that where the tourism industry does plan, there is a
tendency to revert to short-term perspectives focused on more immediate outcomes
(Cooper 2002; Jepson, 2004; Lew & Hall, 1998; Swarbrooke, 1998; von Friedrichs
Grangsjo, 2003). Similarly while multiple stakeholder groups were cited in the planning
documents as participating in the process to varying degrees, the residents of the
destination, recognised as a vital participant for sustainability, were generally not
included. The need to, and importance of, involving the resident community in planning
has spawned a wealth of academic literature, and not only in the field of tourism (Chapter
Three). Such sentiments are further reflected in policy platforms, but this does not seem
to be transcending to local level tourism destination planning in Queensland. The results
of the study therefore concur with the international situation where some commentators
have noted that broad based participation is not actually incorporated into tourism
destination planning (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Hall, 1998; Long & Glendinning,
1992; Timothy, 1999; Wall, 1996).
Further evidence that the planning practices of local tourism destinations in Queensland
are not underpinned by sustainable development principles could be seen in the fact that
while sustainable development terminology might be incorporated within the plan, the
actual action strategies revert to economic concerns. This result supports the notion that
sustainable tourism policies may give the appearance of a paradigm shift but in reality are
focused on the traditional concern of economic returns (Butler, 1991; Dovers &
Handmer, 1993; Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998; Harrison et al, 2003; Wight, 2003). While the
results of this study are particular to local tourism destinations in Queensland, and cannot
be generalised, this phase of the research has supported the notion that economic
motivations are given priority over social and ecological issues (Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998).
Further the results of this study contradict the assertions discussed in Chapter Three that
there has been a significant evolution in tourism planning paradigms from narrow
concerns with promotion to a more balanced form of planning recognising the need for
greater community involvement and environmental sensitivity (Gunn, 1977; Inskeep
1991; Murphy 1985; Pearce, 1982; Timothy, 1999; Tosun & Jenkins, 1998). As such the
criticisms levelled at the public sector in Australia for their adoption of sustainability
320
principles, in this case, seems to be justified (Faulkner, 2003; Hall, 2003, 1994;
McKercher, 1993) and as such this study concurs with the view that government policies
and plans for sustainable tourism development are little more than statements of
platitudes and rhetoric, backed by glossy images (Berke & Manta Conroy, 2000; Pforr,
2001; Pigram, 1990; Slee et al, 1997).
9.2 Research Objective Two: Conclusions and Implications
To address the second research objective in-depth stakeholder interviews were
conducted, which provided some insights into the reasons why the sustainable approach
is not reflected in the planning practices of local tourism destinations. Although
dominant economic motivations are a factor, the poor performance in sustainable tourism
planning was attributed to a large degree to a lack of understanding regarding the
principles underlying sustainable tourism development and how to apply the concept in
practice. This confirms anecdotal concerns raised in the literature that there is a gap
between sustainability doctrine and its practical application (Harrison et al, 2003;
MacLellan, 1997; Simpson, 2001; Swarbrooke, 1998; Trousdale, 1999) and agrees with
Godfrey (1998) arguments that while the industry may in principle support the concept,
this has been without a full understanding of its meaning or its implications for planning
and development activity. As such there was some consensus by respondents that there
is a need for tools and processes, which could be utilised for tourism planning, an issue
also highlighted in the literature (Chapter Two).
A further issue related to stakeholders influence over the planning process. In all cases
the local government authority was considered to have an important role but was also
seen to have considerable influence over the planning process and its outcomes. This
influence was enhanced in a number of instances where resident participation was
omitted due to the local government acting in their capacity as elected representatives.
Such actions reflect Arnstein’s (1969) notions of non-participation and tokenism, the
result of which is development that reflects the aspirations of the government and
industry rather than the communities involved (Murphy, 1985). These results also
321
support Hall’s (2000) claim that governments in Australia have generally not integrated
community participation, and that public involvement in tourism planning can be more
accurately described as a form of tokenism in which decisions, or the direction of
decisions, have already been prescribed by government and communities rarely have the
opportunity to say no.
These results augment criticisms of the public sector made in the literature (Chapters
Two and Three) and its role in local level tourism planning. While not denying the
important role local government should play, local government as the core stakeholder
and driver of the tourism planning process, must be held responsible for the failure to
incorporate sustainability principles into the tourism planning process. Despite
assumptions regarding the capacity of local government to plan for the destination it does
appear that the desired educational strategies, tools and processes for implementing
sustainability may actually be required for the planners and not the ‘uneducated’ broader
community who have been accused of hindering the planning process (Cole, 1997; de
Kadt, 1979; Din, 1993; Douglas, 1989; Federspiel, 1991; Haywood, 1988; Inskeep, 1991;
Long, 1991; Madrigal, 1995; McIntyre, 1993; Trousdale, 1999; Weaver, 2006).
9.3 Research Objective Three: Conclusions and Implications
The third research objective of the study was to consider the applicability of strategic
visioning as a practical planning approach for implementing sustainable development
principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism planning.
The perceptions of stakeholder respondents who had participated in a strategic visioning
exercise provided some useful viewpoints to assist in the consideration of the
appropriateness of this approach which has been anecdotally cited as one possible
approach for addressing sustainable tourism planning (Beatley, 1995; Berke, 2002;
Jayawardena, 2003; Page & Thorn, 1997). The respondents confirmed the value of
strategic visioning and the contribution it could make to sustainable tourism planning.
All of the respondents considered the strategic visioning approach to be a useful means of
ensuring sustainable development principles underpin the process, even those that cited
322
challenges with the method. The prerequisites to sustainability, strategic planning and
stakeholder participation, were also seen as adequately incorporated within strategic
visioning.
Based on the emerging literature and the perspectives of stakeholders who had
participated in a strategic visioning exercise, a conceptual framework for strategic
visioning was developed (Chapter Eight). The framework incorporates the identified
prerequisites of a sustainable tourism planning approach, strategic planning and
stakeholder participation, and addresses a number of the challenges associated with
sustainable tourism planning identified in the literature and again in this study. The
framework is based on a two-phase approach where a strategic visioning process,
incorporating a stakeholder stocktake of issues, values and power relations, and an
educational strategy for sustainable tourism, precedes the more traditional strategic
planning process for tourism which is guided by an agreed upon vision for the
destination.
The proposed framework, while conceptual and not tested in this research, offers a set of
principles to guide the tourism destination planning process. Further research (section
9.6) and application of the framework will determine its ultimate applicability and
effectiveness as a practical planning approach for implementing sustainable development
principles, strategic planning and stakeholder participation into local tourism destination
planning. However, based on the literature and issues identified in this study the
framework is proposed as one which can assist in the transference of sustainable theory to
local tourism destination planning practice.
9.4 Significance of the Study and Contribution to the Body of Knowledge
This study has found that sustainable tourism planning is not being widely practiced in
local tourism destinations in Queensland, confirming the suspicions of some authors
(Getz, 1986; Hall, 1998) and countering the assertions of others (Cooper, 1995; Ritchie &
Crouch, 2000). As such, the significance of this study lies not only in the insight it has
323
provided into the planning practices of local tourism destinations, but also in the
provision of a conceptual framework for addressing sustainable tourism planning through
strategic visioning. This was achieved despite some limitations to the study as outlined
in Chapter Five. These included the possibility that there may have been additional local
tourism planning documents, which were not included in the analysis, in particular, the
publication of additional documents since the sampling period. An additional challenge,
and one which was not anticipated at the outset of the study, was the inability to
interview ordinary residents of the case study destinations who had participated in the
planning process. Despite concerted attempts to overcome this, it was deemed that
residents could not participate in the interviews, and the omission of their perspectives is
acknowledged as a limitation given that destination residents are acknowledged in the
literature as a key stakeholder. The final limitation, while recognized as an inherent
challenge of qualitative research, is that the researcher’s personal perspectives may have
influenced the interpretation of the data despite the use of more objective measurement
tools such as the tourism planning process evaluation instrument.
Despite these limitations, the research methods employed, particularly the adoption of a
two-phase qualitative approach, proved to be valuable in addressing the objectives of the
study. The use of the tourism planning evaluation instrument in the first phase facilitated
a detailed assessment of the planning practices of local tourism destinations in
Queensland as articulated through their respective tourism planning documents.
Undertaking in-depth, semi-structured interviews in the second phase of the study
complemented the secondary analysis of the planning documents as it provided insights
into the planning process from the perspective of the participants. Variations of this
approach have been used previously (Bahaire & Elliott-White, 1999; Getz & Jamal,
1994; Kaufman & Jacobs, 1993; Timothy, 1999) and the current study has proven the
value of a two-phase research method for studies of tourism destination planning. The
use of the tourism planning process evaluation instrument was a particularly useful
analysis tool and should be utilised in further studies.
324
Chapters Two, Three and Four provided a comprehensive overview of the literature
pertaining to sustainable tourism development, strategic planning and stakeholder
participation, and strategic visioning. In doing so, the study has drawn together and
synthesised quite diverse bodies of literature, and further conceptualised these theories
within the tourism literature. Sustainable tourism planning has unquestionably had a
large impact on tourism, and while a considerable amount has been written on the topic,
there is a recognised gap in the literature regarding sustainability practice. It has been
noted that too much attention has been given to definitional debates on the topic and this
has been at the expense of considering how the concept might actually be implemented in
practice (Faulkner, 2003; Garrod & Fyall, 1998; Trousdale, 1999). Simpson (2001)
further noted that the recognised aspects of sustainable planning, strategic planning and
stakeholder participation, have also not been examined to determine the extent to which
they are incorporated into tourism planning processes. As such, the contribution of this
study lies in addressing the acknowledged research gap in sustainability. It has been seen
that sustainable theory is not translated into practice, confirming that there is a gap and
highlighting some of the reasons for this in the context of local tourism destinations in
Queensland. While economic motivations were proven to be a factor, this study has
shown that the primary reason for the sustainability concept not being implemented in
practice is attributable to a lack of understanding on the part of destination planners,
namely the local government authority.
The issue of stakeholder power and influence arose in the study, particularly that of the
local government authority. In all cases investigated the local government was also the
driver of the planning process and as such responsible for the fact that sustainability
principles did not underpin the process. While studies have discussed the fact that
sustainability depends on the agendas of stakeholders, particularly the local government,
this study has added the notion that due to local governments considerable influence, the
adoption of sustainability principles is also linked to the concept of power. The study
therefore adds a further dimension to the sustainable tourism debate, that stakeholder
influence and power can be the determining factor in the adoption of a sustainable
approach to tourism planning. If one stakeholder group has undue influence over the
325
process, then the likelihood of sustainability underpinning the process could be
significantly reduced depending on their motivations and values. This is obviously an
area requiring further investigation (section 9.6).
A further contribution is the conceptual map of stakeholder influence in the local tourism
planning process (Figure 9.1). The assessment of stakeholder influence (Figure 8.1,
Chapter Eight) highlighted that there were two levels of influence which stakeholders
could be plotted against.
Figure 9.1: Stakeholder Circle of Influence
In all cases the local government had the most significant influence over the process and
as such is deemed to have a ‘core’ influence. Although not acknowledged as a key
stakeholder in the literature, this study has found that the tourism planning consultant had
a significant or core influence over the process. Therefore the consultant has been set
outside the stakeholder circle of influence map, but still linked to the core (Figure 9.1).
The community residents, however, who should have some level of influence over the
planning and would be expected to have at least a periphery influence, were omitted from
the cases investigated in this study. Therefore based on the results of this study residents
CORE
Local Council
PERIPHERY Tourism Industry
Tourist Associations LTA/RTO
INFLUENTIAL CORE
Consultants
ABSENT PERIPHERYCommunity
residents
326
have been termed the ‘absent periphery’ and set on the outer of the stakeholder circle of
influence (Figure 9.1).
A further contribution this study has made to the literature lies in the detailed discussion
and conceptualisation of strategic visioning in a tourism destination context. Strategic
visioning is a well-utilised approach in the private sector and community planning
contexts and the literature review provided a synthesis of this literature in the context of
strategic visioning for tourism destinations. While strategic visioning is beginning to be
referred to in the tourism literature, the potential of the approach has not been considered
in any detail with the exception of the work of Ritchie (1999; 1993) and Faulkner (2003).
However there has been little in the way of detailed accounts and evaluations of its
implementation and this study is the first to appraise stakeholders’ perceptions of the
strategic visioning process and its contribution to sustainable tourism planning. In light
of the literature review and perspectives of the destination stakeholders, a detailed
conceptual framework was proposed.
While there has been considerable research into the concept of sustainable tourism
planning, the development of practical frameworks, processes or models for destination
planners to utilise has tended to be overlooked (Berke, 2002; Saxena, 2005; Simpson,
2001). Therefore the most significant contribution of this study has been the
development of a strategic visioning framework, designed to address the key aspects of
sustainable tourism planning. It offers guidelines and underpinning principles for
planners to utilise in developing a sustainable planning methodology for their destination,
but is deliberately broad enough to allow for flexible interpretation to suit the variety of
local issues (Hall, 2000). The framework for strategic visioning offers one means of
move the sustainability concept forward and provides a platform for future research on
applicable practical approaches for sustainable tourism planning. Further the framework
adds a new dimension to the literature on tourism planning methodologies.
327
9.5 Contribution of the Study to Practice
While the study has made a number of contributions to theory, the research also has
contributions and implications for tourism planning practice. In the context of
Queensland there is now some evidence and understanding of the planning processes of
local tourism destination planning in Queensland. The interest from the Queensland
State Government and state tourism authority in the preliminary papers released from this
research confirm that this study has addressed a knowledge gap regarding local tourism
destinations and their tourism planning practices. This has highlighted that assumptions
cannot be made regarding the extent to which sustainable tourism planning is utilised at
the local level and point to a need for educational campaigns, monitoring or mentoring
systems, so that sustainability does begin to happen in practice- that the paradigm shift
does actually occur. Ideally the paradigm shift would develop organically however the
results of this study suggest that may be some way off. Therefore state government
seems the most appropriate to initiate action in this regard, particularly given the
seemingly blatant disregard for the state’s IPA guidelines for local government.
The proposed strategic visioning framework, while offering a platform for academic
debate, obviously has applications as a tool for practice. The framework offers broad
guidelines and principles for destination planners to utilise in the development of a
sustainable tourism planning methodology for their destination, and not solely at the local
level. Challenges of the planning process are acknowledged and specific strategies are
highlighted to deal with these issues- issues that can arise in all tourism destination
planning contexts despite the scale. A major benefit of the framework in terms of
practice is that it provides the means for overcoming the short-term horizons of current
planning, which as discussed is a threat to the long-term sustainability of tourism
destinations. Further, the development of a shared vision for the destination not only
provides focus for the strategic planning process but also provides a benchmark for
ensuring that a longer-term perspective informs day-to-day decisions. As Faulkner
(2003) noted, a vision statement alleviates the need for the destination to consider every
opportunity and challenge that arises from scratch. Stakeholder participation and
328
engagement is also a key focus of the framework and provides some alternative
approaches for destinations to utilise in tourism planning, considered necessary by
respondents in this study.
The tourism planning process evaluation instrument, originally developed by Simpson
(2001) and utilised in this study provides a useful tool for destination planners. As was
noted in Chapter Five, considerable effort was devoted to developing an instrument that
represented the various requirements of a sustainable approach to tourism planning. As
such the instrument has value for tourism destination planning practice and with
refinement could be utilised as a type of checklist for destinations progressing through
the strategic planning phase of the proposed framework.
9.6 Implications for Further Research
The study has been successful in providing some key insights into the planning practices
of local tourism destinations in Queensland and as such has made contributions to both
theory and practice. However this study, and the development of the conceptual
framework, has provided the foundations for a future research agenda both in an
Australian and international context.
Firstly, similar studies should be conducted to determine whether the lack of a sustainable
approach is unique to local tourism destinations in Queensland, or is a more widespread
problem. Such an analysis should not be limited to local tourism destinations in Australia
and an area for further research would be to investigate this issue internationally.
Stemming from this it would be equally useful to conduct similar examinations of state
and national tourism strategies, both in Australia and overseas, to determine the extent to
which the principles of sustainability are utilised in the various levels of tourism
planning. Such studies would complement exploratory research emerging in this area
internationally (Aronsson, 2000; Barke & Towner, 2003; Bianchi, 2004; MacLellan,
1998) and provide a clearer understanding of the ‘state of sustainability practice’, and
contribute to the consideration and development of new processes, frameworks and
329
models to address sustainable tourism planning for tourism destinations. A second area
for further research relates to the development of new models to undertake stakeholder
consultation and participation. If the calls to move towards collaboration in tourism
planning are to be achieved, appropriate methods must be developed. Adapting some of
the approaches that have been tested and refined in the field of community engagement
(Chapter Three) may be useful in terms of tourism destination planning.
As noted the proposed strategic visioning framework is conceptual and was not tested in
this research. Testing and refinement of the model is obviously an immediate area for
further research. There is also a need for more research into visioning programs that are
beginning to be undertaken in tourism, with evaluations of their successes and failures,
and longitudinal studies to measure their effect on the sustainable development of the
destination.
In the Queensland context the research highlighted some areas for further investigation.
The study highlighted some anomalies, which would be useful to further examine such as
why did the vast majority of local tourism destinations in Queensland not have a tourism
plan? Is it seen as unnecessary, do destinations not have the planning resources or
capabilities, or is tourism seen as a soft development option (Wahab & Pigram, 1997) and
one that does not require planning? Also interesting was that many of Queensland’s most
popular tourism destinations, such as Brisbane did not have a tourism plan (Chapter Six).
Does the Queensland situation contradict Dymond’s (1997) study that where the tourism
industry is considered important it is well looked after, or concur with Long (1994) that
established destinations were no more inclined towards tourism management than their
developing counterparts?
Following on from this, it is necessary to further investigate the role of local government
in local level tourism destination planning, and this has applications both nationally and
internationally. Do destination planners deliberately disregard sustainability and pursue
economic goals as has been suggested or is it actually due to a lack of understanding
regarding sustainability as was surmised by respondents in this study. A further issue
330
that was raised and a new concept in the discussion of sustainability is that of stakeholder
power. Research should be pursued in this area to further investigate the notion raised
from this study that stakeholder power and influence may have a direct contribution to
the achievement of sustainability. Similarly, the role of the consultant in the planning
and decision-making process should be further investigated. Although not a stakeholder
group that was included for investigation in the objectives of the study, the research
showed that consultants do have a high level of influence as depicted in Figure 9.1. Here
they are characterised as an ‘influential core’, despite the fact that they are not usually
considered to be key stakeholders in the tourism destination planning process.
A recurring theme in both the literature review and the results of this study is the need for
education and knowledge. For instance there is a lack of understanding regarding
sustainability and how to implement it in practice, destinations are not adopting a
strategic view to planning and therefore not heeding the lessons of unplanned
developments of the past, there is a lack of awareness regarding the need for, and benefits
of, engaging the resident community in destination planning and decision making. These
are all issues, which have been well discussed in the literature and in many instances have
been transferred to policy, particularly at the international and national levels. The
problem appears to be that the concepts and wealth of knowledge has not been diffused to
the destination level where it is actually needed by those that plan and manage tourism
activity. It is therefore recommended that future research in this area be conceptualised
in terms of knowledge management.
Knowledge management refers to the creation, dissemination and exploitation of
knowledge assets, with the ability to do so recognised as one of the key success factors
for both the public and private sectors in the future. Around the world, particularly in
developed countries, a shift is occurring from commodity-based economies towards
economies driven by knowledge development, innovation and commercialisation
(Ruhanen & Cooper, 2004). Tourism as one of the world’s largest industries and export
earners is not immune from such a paradigm shift and it will be at the public sector or
destination management level where knowledge management strategies and approaches
331
will be needed. This will require tourism policy makers to utilise the collective
knowledge assets of the destination, and the body of knowledge developed by researchers
and governments to ensure the sustained viability and success of the destination in the
global marketplace. As such research should be undertaken in this area to facilitate the
creation of a knowledge management culture at the tourism destination/public sector
level because tourism destinations with their current ad hoc practices will not be
sustainable in the new economy.
The learning organization concept is a complimentary approach to further conceptualise
the research agenda in this area and one suggested by Faulkner (2003) and discussed in
this study (Chapter Four). Considered to be the organizational management concept of
the future (Flood, 1999), the notion of the learning organization is based on the transition
from an individualist to a more collective orientation, within the framework of a more
structured, systematic and strategically focused approach (Faulkner, 2003; Senge et al,
1994). The collective sharing of knowledge through the development of shared visions
for the future and operating in team learning situations could be of valuable assistance in
overcoming the knowledge gaps in sustainable tourism planning. The tourism sector
could learn from such management approaches, which have been proven in
organizational planning and may have considerable applicability in terms of tourism
destination planning.
Given the nature of the tourism sector it is likely that the concepts of knowledge
management and learning organizations are some way off. Therefore on a more
immediate timeframe there is a need to diffuse the knowledge that resides within
universities, governments and similar organizations to those ‘on the ground level’ who
must actually decide what sustainable tourism means for their community. The research
agenda should look at transforming this knowledge into education programs, tools and
manuals and best practice exemplars to assist in overcoming some of the knowledge
barriers so that the principles of sustainability, strategic planning and stakeholder
participation can be achieved. If progress is not made in this area it seems possible that
stricter government mandates for planning may be forced upon destinations.
332
9.7 Chapter Nine Summary
The tourism growth projections outlined in Chapter One highlight the need to properly
plan for sustained tourism growth and development. Yet this investigation has found that
for local tourism destinations in Queensland, this is certainly not the case. Further,
despite claims that more destinations are adopting sustainable, strategic perspectives
towards tourism development (Ritchie & Crouch, 2000), this was once again not the case
for local tourism destinations in Queensland.
Despite the logic of sustainable development and its recognised relationship to planning,
there is difficulty in incorporating the full range of its dimensions into local planning
policies and programs (Jepson, 2004). Some have attributed this to a preoccupation with
defining the concept and not considering how the sustainable paradigm is actually
applied in practice (Faulkner, 2003; Garrod & Fyall, 1998). As such it has been noted
that the time has come to move sustainability rhetoric into workable objectives and
standards (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Goodall & Stabler, 1997). To address this, a
conceptual framework based on the strategic visioning approach was developed from this
research to assist in the transference of sustainable theory to local tourism destination
planning practice. The framework proposed in this study incorporates some core ideals
and guiding principles, which offer a platform for further research and development to
assist local tourism destinations engage in sustainable tourism planning. Such a
framework will ideally contribute to narrowing the theory-practice gap of sustainable
tourism planning and in turn contribute towards tourism destination planning approaches
underpinned by the principles of sustainable development.
333
References
Aas, C. Ladkin, A. & Fletcher, J. 2005, ‘Stakeholder collaboration and heritage
management’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 28-48.
Abell, D. F. 1980, Defining the Business: The Starting Point of Strategic Planning,
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Ackoff, R. L. 1970, Concept of Corporate Planning, Wiley-Interscience, New York.
AEC Group 1999, Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan, Townsville Enterprise Limited,
Townsville.
Airey, D. 1983, ‘European government approaches to tourism’, Tourism Management,
vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 234-244.
Akis, S., Peristianis, N. & Warner, J. 1996, ‘Residents’ attitudes to tourism development:
The case of Cyprus’, Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 481-494.
Aldrich, H. 1976, ‘Resource dependence and interorganisational relations’,
Administration and Society, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 419-454.
Allen, L. R., Hafer, H. R., Long, P. T. & Perdue, R. R. 1993, ‘Rural residents’ attitudes
towards recreation and tourism development’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 31, no. 4,
pp. 27-33.
Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R. & Kieselbach, S. 1988, ‘The impact of tourism
development on resident’s perceptions of community life’, Journal of Travel Research,
vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 16-21.
334
Allison, G. T. 1979, ‘Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all
unimportant respects?’, in J. Perry & K. Kraemer (eds), Public Management: Public and
Private Perspectives, pp. 457-475, Mayfield Publishing, Palo Alto.
Almond, G. A. & Verba, S. 1965, The Civic Culture, Little Brown, Boston.
American Society of Planning Officials 1956, Guide for Community Planning: An
Annotated Bibliography, American Society of Planning Officials, Illinois.
Andrews, K. R. 1971, The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Dow Jones-Irwin, Illinois.
Ansoff, H. I. 1991, ‘Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s the design school: Reconsidering the
basic premises of strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 6,
pp. 449-461.
Ansoff, H. I. 1988, The New Corporate Strategy, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Ansoff, H. I. 1979, ‘The changing shape of the strategic problem’, in D. E. Schendel & C.
W. Hofer (eds), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning,
pp. 30-44, Little Brown & Company, Boston.
Ansoff, H. I., Declerck, R. P. & Hayes, R. L. (eds) 1976, From Strategic Planning to
Strategic Management, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Ap, J. 1992, ‘Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts’, Annals of Tourism Research,
vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 665-690.
Archer, B. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism: Do economists really care?’, in C. Cooper & S.
Wanhill (eds), Tourism Development: Environmental and Community Issues, pp.23-28,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
335
Archer, B., Cooper, C. & Ruhanen, L. 2005, ‘The positive and negative impacts of
tourism’, in W. Theobald (ed.), Global Tourism: The Next Decade, 3rd edn, pp. 79-102,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Arnstein, S. R. 1969, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute
of Planners, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 216-224.
Aronsson, L. 2000, The Development of Sustainable Tourism, Continuum, London.
Ashworth, G. J. 1995, ‘Environmental quality and tourism and the environment’, in H.
Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp. 49-64, Aldershot,
Ashgate.
Ashworth, G. & Goodall, B. 1990, Marketing Tourism Places, Routledge, London.
Atherton Shire Council 2005, Welcome to the Atherton Tablelands, Available at:
http://www.athertonsc.qld.gov.au/
Atherton Shire Council nd, Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan, Atherton
Shire Council, Queensland.
Atherton, T. C. 1992, ‘Tourism, economics and the environment: Some aspects of
regulation in Australia’, The Benefits and Costs of Tourism: Proceedings of a National
Tourism Research Conference, Nelson Bay, New South Wales.
Athiyaman, A. 1995, ‘The interface of tourism and strategy research: An analysis’,
Tourism Management, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 447-453.
ATS Group 2003, Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy, Redland
Shire Council, Queensland.
336
ATS Group 2001, Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy, Redcliffe City Council,
Queensland.
ATS Group 2000, Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan, Mount Isa City Council, Queensland.
ATS Group 2000, Thuringowa Tourism and Events Strategy, City of Thuringowa,
Queensland.
Augustyn, M. 1998, ‘National strategies for rural tourism development and sustainability:
The Polish experience’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 191-209.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004, Overseas Arrivals and Departures, Catalogue No.
3401.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Ayers, J. 1996, ‘Essential elements of strategic visioning’, in N. Walzer (ed.), Community
Strategic Visioning Programs, pp. 21-36, Praeger, Westport.
Babbie, E. 1998, The Practice of Social Research, 8th edn, Wadsworth Publishing,
Belmont.
Babbie, E. 1995, The Practice of Social Research, 7th edn, Wadsworth Publishing,
Belmont.
Bahaire, T. & Elliott-White, M. 1999, ‘Community participation in tourism planning and
development in the historic city of York, England’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 2, no.
2&3, pp. 243-276.
Bahaire, T. & Elliot-White, M. 1999, ‘The application of Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) in sustainable tourism planning: A review’, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 159-174.
337
Baker, S. 2006, Sustainable Development, Routledge, Oxon.
Baker, T. L. 1999, Doing Social Research, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Banana Shire Council 2005, Introducing Banana Shire, Available at:
http://www.banana.qld.gov.au/index.php/3
Barbier, E. B. 1987, ‘The concept of sustainable economic development’, Environmental
Conservation, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 101-110.
Barke, M. & Towner, J. 2003, ‘Learning from experience? Progress towards a sustainable
future for tourism in the central and eastern Andalucian Littoral’, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, vol. 11, no. 2&3, pp. 162-180.
Barnes, L. B. & Kriger, M. P. 1986, ‘The hidden side of leadership’, Sloan Management
Review, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 15-26.
Basu, P. K. 2003, ‘Is sustainable tourism development possible? Broad issues concerning
Australia and Papua New Guinea’, in R. N. Gnosh, M. A. B. Siddique & R. Gabbay
(eds), Tourism and Economic Development: Case Studies from the Indian Ocean Region,
pp. 140-149, Ashgate, Hampshire.
Bateson, G. 1972, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chandler Press, San Francisco.
Baud-Bovy, M. 1982, ‘New concepts in planning for tourism and recreation’, Tourism
Management, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 308-313.
Baud-Bovy, M. & Lawson, F. 1971, Tourism and Recreation Development, The
Architectural Press, London.
338
Baum, I. R., Locke, E. A. & Kirkpatrick, S. A. 1998, ‘A longitudinal study of the relation
of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms’, Journal
of Applied Psychology, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 43-54.
Beatley, T. 1995, ‘Planning and sustainability: The elements of a new (improved?)
paradigm’, Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 383-395.
Beaumont, J., Pederson, L. & Whitaker, B. 1993, Managing the Environment,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Beeton, B., Campbell, J. & Carter, R. W. 2002, Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan
2002-2010, Chinchilla Shire Council, Queensland.
Beckerman, W. 1992, ‘Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose
environment?’, World Development, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 481-496.
Belisle, F. J. & Hoy, D. R. 1980, ‘The perceived impact of tourism by residents’, Annals
of Tourism Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 83-101.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. 1985, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Change, Harper and
Row, New York.
Benwell, M. 1980, ‘Public participation in planning: A research report’, Long Range
Planning, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 71-79.
Berg, B. L. 2001, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 5th edn, Allyn
and Bacon, Boston.
Berke, P. R. 2002, ‘Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning?
Challenges for the 21st century’, Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 21-36.
339
Berke, P. R. & Manta Conroy, M. 2000, ‘Are we planning for sustainable development?’,
Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 1-13.
Berkes, M. 1995, ‘Community-based management strategies and co-management as tools
for empowerment’, in N. Singh & V. Titi (eds), Empowerment: Towards Sustainable
Development, pp. 138-146, Fernwood Publishing, London.
Berno, T. 1996, ‘Cross-cultural research methods: Content or context? A Cook Islands
example’, in R. Butler & T. Hinch (eds), Tourism and Indigenous Peoples, pp. 376-395,
International Thomson Business Press, London.
Berry, F. S. & Wechsler, B. 1995, ‘State agencies’ experience with strategic planning:
Findings from a national survey’, Public Administration Review, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 159-
168.
Berry, S. & Ladkin, A. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective’, Tourism
Management, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 433-440.
Bhatia, A. K. 1986, Tourism Development Principles and Practices, Sterling Publisher
Private Ltd, New Delhi.
Bianchi, R. V. 2004, ‘Tourism restructuring and the politics of sustainability: A critical
view from the European periphery (the Canary Islands)’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 495-529.
Bieger, T. 1998, ‘Reengineering destination marketing organisations: The case of
Switzerland’, The Tourist Review, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 4-17.
Birla, T. (ed.) 2000, Strategic Management, Gemini Books, New Delhi.
340
Blackall Shire Council nd, Welcome to Blackall, Available at:
http://www.blackall.qld.gov.au/
Blackburn, S. 1996, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Blackstock, K. 2005, ‘A critical look at community based tourism’, Community
Development Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 39-49.
Blaikie, N. W. H. 1991, ‘A critique of triangulation in social research’, Quality and
Quantity, vol. 25, pp. 115-136.
Blamey, R. K. 2001, ‘Principles of ecotourism’, in D. B. Weaver (ed.) Encyclopaedia of
Ecotourism, pp. 5-22, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Blank, U. 1989, The Community Tourism Imperative: The Necessity, The Opportunities,
Its Potential State, Venture Publishing, State College PA.
Blommestein, E. 1988, ‘Environment in Caribbean development: A regional view’, in F.
Edwards (ed.), Environmentally Sound Tourism in the Caribbean, pp. 55-61, University
of Calgary Press, Calgary.
Bloor, D. 1976, Knowledge and Social Inquiry, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Boo, E. 1990, Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls, World Wildlife Fund,
Washington.
Borman, K. M., LeCompte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P. 1986, ‘Ethnographic and qualitative
research design and why it doesn’t work’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 30, no. 1,
pp. 42-57.
341
Bosselman, F., Peterson, P., Craig, A. & McCarthy, C. 1999, Managing Tourism Growth:
Issues and Implications, Island Press, Washington D.C.
Boulton, D. & Hammersely, M. 1996, ‘Analysis of unstructured data’, in R. Sapsford &
V. Jupp (eds), Data Collection and Analysis, pp. 282-297, SAGE Publications, London.
Bouquet, M. & Winter, M. (eds) 1987, Who From Their Labours Rest: Conflict and
Practice in Rural Tourism, Aldershot, Gower.
Bowen Shire Council (nd), Bowen, Available at: http://www.bowen.qld.gov.au/
Bower, J. L. 1977, ‘Effective public management’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 55, no.
2, pp. 131-140.
Bozeman, B. & Straussman, J. D. 1990, Public Management Strategies: Guidelines for
Managerial Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Brache, A. & Freedman, M. 1999, ‘Is our vision any good?’, The Journal of Business
Strategy, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 10-12.
Bracker, J. 1980, ‘The historical development of the strategic management concept’,
Academy of Management Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 219-224.
Bramwell, B. 2004, ‘Mass tourism, diversification and sustainability in Southern
Europe’s coastal regions’, in B. Bramwell (ed.), Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification
and Sustainable Development in Southern Europe, pp. 1-31, Channel View Publications,
Clevedon.
Bramwell, B. 1994, ‘Rural tourism and sustainable rural tourism’, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, vol. 2, no. 1&2, pp. 1-6.
342
Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. (eds) 2000, Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics,
Practice and Sustainability, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. 1993, ‘Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-5.
Bramwell, B. & Sharman, A. 1999, ‘Collaboration in local tourism policymaking’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 392-415.
Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. 1989, Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles, Sage,
Newbury Park.
Briassoulis, H. 2002, ‘Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1065-1085.
Brohman, J. 1996, ‘New directions in tourism for third world development’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 48-70.
Brook, R. 2000, ‘The collaborative approach to resolving tourist related conflict’,
Australian Planner, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 186-194.
Brown, B. 1995, ‘Foreword’, in R. Harris & N. Leiper (eds), Sustainable Tourism: An
Australian Perspective, pp. 1-7, Butterworth-Heinemann, Chatswood.
Brown, G. & Essex, S. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism management: Lessons from the edge
of Australia’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 294-305.
Brown, L. D. 1991, ‘Bridging organizations and sustainable development’, Human
Relations, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 807-831.
343
Brownlie, D. T. 1994, ‘Strategy planning and management’, in S. F. Witt & L. Moutinho
(eds), Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, 2nd edn, pp. 159- 169, Prentice
Hall, New York.
Brunt, P. 1997, Market Research in Travel and Tourism, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Brunt, P. & Courtney, P. 1999, ‘Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 493-515.
Bryson, J. M. 1995, Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organizations: A
Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco.
Bryson, J. & Einsweiler, R. 1988, Strategic Planning: Threats and Opportunities for
Planners, Planners Press, Chicago.
Bryson, J. M. & Roering, W. D. 1987, ‘Applying private-sector strategic planning in the
public sector’, Journal of American Planning Association, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 9-22.
Bryson, J. M., Van de Ven, A. H. & Roering, W. D. 1986, ‘Strategic planning and the
revitalisation of the public service’, in R. C. Denhardt & E. Jennings (eds), Toward a
New Public Service, University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
Buckley, R. 1996, ‘Sustainable tourism: Technical issues and information needs’, Annals
of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 925-928.
Buhalis, D. & Cooper, C. 1998, ‘Competition or co-operation: The needs of small and
medium sized tourism enterprises at a destination level’, in E. Laws, B. Faulkner & G.
Moscardo (eds), Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism, pp. 324-346, Routledge,
London.
344
Buhalis, D. & Fletcher, J. 1995, ‘Environmental impacts on tourism destinations: An
economic analysis’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism
Development, pp. 3-24, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Bunge, M. 1996, Finding Philosophy in Social Science, Yale University Press, New
Haven.
Burdekin Shire Council 2005, Visitor Information, Available at:
http://www.burdekin.qld.gov.au/visitorinfo/
Burns, D. 1996, ‘Attitude towards tourism development’, Annals of Tourism Research,
vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 935-938.
Burns, P. 1998, ‘Tourism planning: An alternative perspective’, Tourism Recreation
Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 73-75.
Burns, R. 1997, Introduction to Research Methods, 3rd edn, Longman, Melbourne.
Burr, S. W. 1991, ‘Review and evaluation of the theoretical approaches to community as
employed in travel and tourism impact research on rural community organisation and
change’, in A. J. Veal, P. Johnson & G. Cushman (eds), Leisure and Tourism: Social and
Environmental Change: Papers from the World Leisure and Recreation Association
Congress, Sydney, pp. 540-553.
Burton, T. L. 1979, ‘A review and analysis of Canadian case studies in public
participation’, Plan Canada, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 13-22.
Butcher, J. 1997, ‘Sustainable development or development?’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.),
Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 27-38, CAB International,
Oxon.
345
Butler, R. W. 1998, ‘Sustainable tourism: Looking backwards in order to progress?’ in C.
M. Hall & A. A. Lew (eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, pp. 25-
34, Longman, London.
Butler, R. W. 1997, ‘The concept of carrying capacity for tourism destinations: Dead or
merely buried?’ in C. Cooper & S. Wanhill (eds), Tourism Development: Environmental
and Community Issues, pp. 11-21, John Wiley, Chichester.
Butler, R. W. 1993, ‘Tourism: An evolutionary perspective’, in J. G. Nelson, R. W.
Butler & G. Wall (eds), Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning,
Management, pp. 27-43, University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo.
Butler, R. W. 1991, ‘Tourism, environment and sustainable development’, Environmental
Conservation, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 201-209.
Butler, R. 1980, ‘The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution’, Canadian
Geographer, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 5-12.
Butler, R. & Hall, C. M. 1998, ‘Tourism and recreation in rural areas: Myth and reality’,
in D. Hall & J. O’Hanlon (eds), Rural Tourism Management: Sustainable Options, pp.
97-108, Scottish Agricultural College, Ayr.
Butler, R. W. & Waldbrook, L. A. 1991, ‘A new planning tool: The tourism opportunity
spectrum’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 2-14.
Cabrini, L. 2004, ‘Opening remarks’, Proceedings of the Public-Private Partnership for
Sustainability Certification of Tourism Activities, Marianske Lanze, Czechoslovakia.
346
Caffyn, A. 2000, ‘Is there a tourism partnership life cycle?’, in B. Bramwell & B. Lane
(eds), Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, pp.
200-229, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Caffyn, A. & Jobbins, G. 2003, ‘Governance capacity and stakeholder interactions in the
development and management of coastal tourism: Examples from Morocco and Tunisia’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 11, no. 2&3, pp. 224-245.
Caloundra City Council 2002, Caloundra Tourism Plan 2002-2012 and Caloundra
Tourism Action Plan 2002-2005, Caloundra City Council Economic Development Unit
and Caloundra City Interim Tourism Taskforce, Queensland.
Caloundra City Council nd, About Caloundra, Available at:
http://www.caloundra.qld.gov.au/website/cityNews/CityNews/About_Caloundra.asp
Camillus, J. C. 1996, ‘Reinventing strategic planning’, Strategy and Leadership, vol. 24,
no. 3, pp. 6-12.
Camillus, J. C., Sessions, R. T. & Webb, R. 1998, ‘Visionary action: Strategic processes
in fast-cycle environments’, Strategy and Leadership, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 20-29.
Campbell, D., Stonehouse, G. & Houston, B. 1999, Business Strategy: An Introduction,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Campbell, L. M. 1999, ‘Ecotourism in rural developing communities’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 534-553.
Canan, P. & Hennessy, M. 1989, ‘The growth machine, tourism and the selling of
culture’, Sociological Perspectives, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 227-243.
347
Capenerhurst, J. 1994, ‘Community tourism’, in L. Haywood (ed.), Community Leisure
and Recreation, pp. 144-171, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Cardwell Shire Council nd, Tourist Information, Available at:
http://www.csc.qld.gov.au/visitors.html
Cardwell Shire Tourism Taskforce 2003, Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan 2002-2006,
Cardwell Shire Council, Queensland.
Carson, D., Beattie, S. & Gove, B. 2003, ‘Tourism management capacity of local
government: An analysis of Victorian local government’, Proceedings of the Council of
Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Educators Conference, Coffs Harbour,
Australia.
Cater, E. & Goodall, B. 1992, ‘Must tourism destroy its research base?’, in A. M.
Mannion & S. R. Bowlby (eds), Environmental Issues in the 1990s, pp. 309-325, Wiley,
London.
Cater, E. & Lowman, G. 1994, Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option?, Wiley, Chichester.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1996, Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas: The State of
Nature Based Tourism Around the World, IUCN, Cambridge.
Centre for Applied Economic Research and Analysis 1994, Pioneer Valley Tourism
Strategy, Mirani Shire Council, Queensland.
Centre for Tourism and Hotel Management Research nd, Gold Coast Tourism Visioning,
Available at: http://www.gu.edu.au/school/thm/centre/cthmr/project.html
Chadwick, G. F. 1971, A Systems View of Planning: Towards a Theory of the Urban and
Regional Planning Process, Pergamon Press, New York.
348
Chandler, A. D. 1962, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial
Enterprise, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Charlton, C. & Essex, S. 2000, ‘The involvement of district councils in tourism in
England and Wales’, Geoforum, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 175-192.
Charmaz, K. 2000, ‘Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods’, in N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, pp. 509-535,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Checkley, A. 1992, ‘The greening of Canadian Pacific Hotels and Resorts: The Chateau
Whistler case’, in S. Hawkes & P. Williams (eds), The Greening of Tourism: From
Principles to Practice- A Casebook of Best Environmental Practice in Tourism, pp. 9-14,
Centre for Tourism Policy and Research Simon Fraser University, Burnaby B.C.
Chinchilla Shire Council nd, Chinchilla Shire, Available at:
http://www.chinchilla.org.au/organisations/shirecouncil/
Choi, H. S. C. & Sirakaya, E. 2005, ‘Measuring residents’ attitudes toward sustainable
tourism: Development of the sustainable tourism attitude scale’, Journal of Travel
Research, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 380-394.
Chon, K. S. & Olsen, M. D. 1990, ‘Applying the strategic management process in the
management of tourism organizations’, Tourism Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 206-
213.
Choy, D. J. L. 1991, ‘Tourism planning: The case for ‘market failure’, Tourism
Management, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 313-330.
349
Christenson, D. & Walker, D. H. T. 2004, ‘Understanding the role of “vision” in project
success’, Project Management Journal, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 39-52.
Christopher, K. 2001, Green Globe Benchmarked Community: Douglas Shire Council,
Queensland, Australia, Available at: http://www.greenglobe21.com
Clarke, J. 1997, ‘A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism’, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 224-233.
Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995, ‘A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating
corporate social performance’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 92-
117.
Coccossis, H. 1996, ‘Tourism and sustainability: Perspectives and implications’, in G. K.
Priestley, J. A. Edwards & H. Coccossis (eds) Sustainable Tourism? European
Experiences, pp. 1-21, CAB International, Oxon.
Coccossis, H. & Parpairis, A. 1995, ‘Assessing the interactions between heritage,
environment and tourism: Mykonos’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable
Tourism Development, pp. 107-126, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Cole, S. 1997, ‘Anthropologists, local communities and sustainable tourism’, in M. J.
Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 219-230, CAB
International, Oxon.
Collins, J. C. & Porras, J. I. 1997, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary
Companies, Harper Business, New York.
Coltman, M. 1989, Introduction to Travel and Tourism: An International Approach, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
350
Commonwealth Government, Department of Environment and Heritage 2005,
Ecologically Sustainable Development, Available at:
http://www.deh.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/overview/index.html
Commonwealth Government, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources 2005,
Tourism White Paper, Available at:
http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectID=EAAEB9F4-
65BF-4956-BF14EDF84B5B9997
Community Planning Association of Canada 1966, The Citizen’s Role in Community
Planning, Community Planning Association of Canada, Ontario.
Conlin, M. V. 1996, ‘Revitalizing Bermuda: Tourism policy planning in a mature island
destination’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism:
International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 80-102,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Conway, G. R. 1998, The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the Twenty-First
Century, Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca N.Y.
Cooke, K. 1982, ‘Guidelines for socially appropriate tourism development in British
Columbia’, Journal of Travel Research, vol, 21, no. 1, pp. 22-28.
Cooper, C. 2002, ‘Sustainability and tourism vision’, Proceedings of the VII Congreso
Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Cooper, C. 1997, ‘The contribution of life cycle analysis and strategic planning to
sustainable tourism’, in S. Wahab & J. J. Pigram (eds), Tourism, Development and
Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability, pp. 78-94, Routledge, London.
351
Cooper, C. 1995, ‘Strategic planning for sustainable tourism: The case of the offshore
islands of the UK’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 191-209.
Cooper, C. P., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D. & Wanhill, S. 2005, Tourism: Principles
and Practice, 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D. & Wanhill, S. 1993, Tourism: Principles and
Practices, Pitman, London.
Cooper, C. & Hawtin, M. (eds) 1997, Housing, Community and Conflict: Understanding
Resident ‘Involvement’, Aldershot, Arena.
Cooper, C. & Jackson, S. 1989, ‘Destination life cycle: The Isle of Man case study’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 377-398.
Cooper, C. & Ruhanen, L. 2005, ‘Demand for tourism in Australia’, in C. Cooper & C.
M. Hall (eds), Oceania: A Tourism Handbook, pp. 17-34, Channel View Publications,
Clevedon.
Cooper, M. J. & Pigram, J. J. 1984, ‘Tourism and the Australian economy’, Tourism
Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 2-12.
Costa, C. 2001, ‘An emerging tourism planning paradigm? A comparative analysis
between town and tourism planning’, International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 3,
no. 6, pp. 425-441.
Costa, J. & Ferrone, L. 1995, ‘Sociocultural perspectives on tourism planning and
development’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 7,
no. 7, pp. 27-35.
Covey, S. R. 1990, Principled Central Leadership, Summit, New York.
352
Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P. & Schultz, R. L. 1994, ‘Implementing strategic missions:
Effective strategic, structural and tactical choices’, Journal of Management Studies, vol.
31, no. 4, pp. 481-503.
Cronin, L. 1990, ‘A strategy for tourism and sustainable developments’, World Leisure
and Recreation, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 12-18.
Crouch, D. 1994, ‘Home, escape and identity: Rural cultures and sustainable tourism’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 2, no. 1&2, pp. 93-101.
Crouch, G. I. & Shaw, R. N. 1992, ‘International tourism demand: A meta-analytical
integration of research findings’, in P. Johnson & B. Thomas (eds), Choice and Demand
in Tourism, pp. 175-207, Mansell, London.
Crow’s Nest Shire Council nd, Tourism Overview, Available at:
http://www.cnnet.com.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=48
Crow’s Nest Shire Council 2003, Tourism Development Action Plan, Crow’s Nest Shire
Council, Queensland.
Croy, W. G. & Høgh, L. 2003, ‘Endangered visitors: A phenomenological study of eco-
resort development’, in M. Lück & T. Kirstges (eds), Global Ecotourism Policies and
Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints, pp. 82-99, Channel View Publications,
Clevedon.
Dahl, R. A. 1961, Who Governs?, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Dalal-Clayton, B. & Bass, S. 2002, Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource
Book, Earthscan, London.
353
Dalby, S. & Mackenzie, F. 1997, ‘Reconceptualising local community: Environment,
identity and threat’, AREA, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 99-108.
D’Amore, L. J. 1983, ‘Guidelines to planning in harmony with host community’, in P.
Murphy (ed.), Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues and Options, pp. 135-159, University
of Victoria, Victoria B. C.
David, F. 1999, Strategic Management Concepts, 7th edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
David, F. R. 1989, ‘How companies define their mission’, Long Range Planning, vol. 22,
no. 1, pp. 90-97.
Davis, D., Allen, J. & Cosenza, R. M. 1988, ‘Segmenting local residents by their
attitudes, interests and opinions towards tourism’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 27,
no. 2, pp. 2-8.
Decrop, A. 1999, ‘Triangulation in qualitative tourism research’, Tourism Management,
vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 157-161.
Deery, M., Jago, L. & Fredline, L. 2005, ‘A framework for the development of social and
socioeconomic indicators for sustainable tourism in communities’, Tourism Review
International, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 69-77.
de Kadt, E. (ed.) 1979, Tourism: Passport to Development?, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
DeLacy, T., Battig, M., Moore, S. & Noakes, S. 2002, Public/Private Partnerships for
Sustainable Tourism: Delivering a Sustainability Strategy for Tourism Destinations,
Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.
354
Denhardt, R. B. 1985, ‘Strategic planning in state and local government’, State and Local
Government Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 174-179.
Denzin, N. K. 1978, The Research Act, 5th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 1998, Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds) 1994, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Department of Rural Sociology nd, Building our Future: A Guide to Community
Visioning, Available at: http://www.drs.wisc.edu/visinf.htm
de Vaus, D. 1995, Surveys in Social Research, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Dewhurst, H. & Thomas, R. 2003, ‘Encouraging sustainable business practices in a non-
regulatory environment: A case study of small tourism firms in a UK national park’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 383-403.
Dexter, L. A. 1970, Elite and Specialized Interviewing, North-Western University Press,
Illinois.
Dey, I. 1993, Qualitative Data Analysis: A User Friendly Guide for the Social Scientists,
Routledge, London.
Diamantis, D. & Ladkin, A. 1999, ‘The links between sustainable tourism and
ecotourism: A definitional and operational perspective’, Journal of Tourism Studies, vol.
10, no. 2, pp. 35-46.
355
Din, K. H. 1997, ‘Tourism development: Still in search of a more equitable mode of local
involvement’, in C. Cooper & S. Wanhill (eds), Tourism Development: Environmental
and Community Issues, pp. 153-163, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Din, K. H. 1993, ‘Dialogue with the hosts: An educational strategy towards sustainable
tourism’, in M. Hitchcock, V. T. King & M. J. G. Parnwell (eds), Tourism in South-East
Asia, pp. 327-336, Routledge, London.
Din, K. H. 1992, ‘The “involvement stage” in the evolution of a tourist destination’,
Tourism Recreation Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 10-20.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. 1995, ‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
Concepts, evidence, and implications’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 1,
pp. 65-91.
Doswell, R. 1997, Tourism: How Effective Management Makes the Difference,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Douglas, D. 1989, ‘Community economic development in rural Canada: A critical
review’, Plan Canada, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 28-46.
Douglas Shire Council 2004, Welcome to Douglas Shire Council, Available at:
http://www.dsc.qld.gov.au/
Douglas Shire Council 2001, Douglas Shire Sustainable Futures: Draft Strategy,
Available at: http://www.dsc.qld.gov.au/sustainablefutures
Douglas Shire Council & Port Douglas Daintree Tourism Association 1998, Douglas
Shire Tourism Strategy, Douglas Shire Council, Queensland.
356
Dovers, S. R. & Handmer, J. W. 1993, ‘Contradictions in sustainability’, Environmental
Conservation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 217-222.
Dowling, R. K. 1993, ‘Tourist and resident perceptions of the environment-tourism
relationship in the Gascoyne region, Western Australia’, GeoJournal, vol. 29, no. 3, pp.
243-251.
Doxey, G. V. 1975, ‘A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and
research inferences’, The Impact of Tourism: Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings of the
Travel Research Association, San Diego, pp. 195-198.
Draper, J. A. 1978, ‘Evolution of citizen participation in Canada’, in B. Sadler (ed.),
Involvement and Environment: Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Public
Participation, Environmental Council of Alberta, Edmonton, pp. 26-42.
Dredge, D. 2001, ‘Local government tourism planning and policy-making in New South
Wales: Institutional development and historical legacies’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol.
4, no. 2-4, pp. 355-380.
Dredge, D. 1999, ‘Destination place planning and design’, Annals of Tourism Research,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 772-791.
Dredge, D. & Moore, S. 1992, ‘A methodology for the integration of tourism in town
planning’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 8-21.
Drucker, P. 1955, The Practice of Management, William Heinemann, London.
Dutton, I. & Hall, C. M. 1989, ‘Making tourism sustainable: The policy/practice
conundrum’, Proceedings of the Environment Institute of Australia Second National
Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
357
Dwyer, L. 2005, ‘Relevance of triple bottom line reporting to the achievement of
sustainable tourism: A scoping study’, Tourism Review International, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.
79-93.
Dye, T. R. 1986, ‘Community power and public policy’, in R. J. Waste (ed.), Community
Power: Directions for Future Research, pp. 29-51, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Dymond, S. J. 1997, ‘Indicators of sustainable tourism in New Zealand: A local
government perspective’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 279-293.
Dyson, R. G. 1990, Strategic Planning: Models and Analytical Techniques, John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester.
Eadie, D. C. 1983, ‘Putting a powerful tool to practical use: The application of the
strategic planning in the public sector’, Public Administration Review, vol. 43, no. 5, pp.
447-452.
Eber, S. 1992, Beyond the Green Horizon: Principles for Sustainable Tourism, World
Wildlife Fund for Nature, Surrey.
Eden, C. & Ackerman, F. 1998, Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management,
SAGE Publications, London.
Edington, J. M. & Edington, M. A. 1986, Ecology, Recreation and Tourism, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Elder, P. S. 1975, ‘The participatory environment in Alberta’, in P. S. Elder (ed.),
Environmental Management and Public Participation, pp. 101-107, Canadian Law
Research Foundation, Ontario.
358
Eligh, J., Welford, R. & Ytterhus, B. 2002, ‘The production of sustainable tourism:
Concepts and examples from Norway’, Sustainable Development, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 223-
234.
Embar, C. 1995, Strategic Visioning, Available at:
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/1995/nov/Strategi.asp
Evans, M. R., Fox, J. B. & Johnson, R. B. 1995, ‘Identifying competitive strategies for
successful tourism destination development’, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 37-45.
Evans, P. 2000, ‘Strategy: The end of the endgame?’, The Journal of Business Strategy,
vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 12-16.
Evans, B. 1997, ‘From town planning to environmental planning’, in A. Blowers & B
Evans (eds), Town Planning into the 21st Century, pp. 1-14, Routledge, London.
Fagence, M. 1996, ‘Regional tourism cooperation’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23,
no. 3, pp. 717-720.
Fagence, M. 1977, Citizen Participation in Planning, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Farrell, B. H. 1999, ‘Conventional or sustainable tourism? No room for choice’, Tourism
Management, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 189-191.
Farrell, B. H. 1986, ‘Cooperative tourism and the coastal zone’, Coastal Zone
Management Journal, vol. 14, no. 1&2, pp. 113-130.
Farrell, B. & Twining-Ward, L. 2005, ‘Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the
context of new knowledge’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 109-122.
359
Faulkner, B. 2003, ‘Rejuvenating a maturing destination: The case of the Gold Coast’, in
L. Fredline, L. Jago & C. Cooper (eds), Progressing Tourism Research: Bill Faulkner,
pp. 34-86, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Faulkner, B. 1994, ‘Towards a strategic approach to tourism development: The
Australian experience’, in W. F. Theobald (ed.), Global Tourism: The Next Decade, pp.
227-231, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Faulkner, B. & Noakes, S. 2002, Our Gold Coast: The Preferred Tourism Future,
Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.
Faulkner, B. & Tideswell, C. 1997, ‘A framework for monitoring community impacts of
tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3-28.
Federspiel, G. T. 1991, ‘Maintaining small town character in a modern resort
community’, Mountain Resort Development: Proceedings of the Vail Conference, Centre
for Tourism Policy and Research, Simon Fraser University, Burbany, Canada.
Fennell, D. A. 1999, Ecotourism: An Introduction, Routledge, London.
Fennell, D. A. & Eagles, P. F. J. 1990, ‘Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A conceptual
framework’, Journal of Parks and Recreation Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 23-34.
Fletcher, J. & Cooper, C. 1996, ‘Tourism strategy planning: Szolnok County, Hungary’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 181-200.
Flick, U. 1992, ‘Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative?’, Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 175-198.
Flood, R. L. 1999, Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable,
Routledge, London.
360
Formica, S. & Uysal, M. 1996, ‘The revitalisation of Italy as a tourist destination’,
Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 323-331.
Forster, J. & Browne, M. 1996, Principles of Strategic Management, Macmillan
Education, Melbourne.
Fredrickson, J. W. 1990, Perspectives on Strategic Management, Harper Business,
Philadelphia.
Freeman, R. E. 1999, ‘Divergent stakeholder theory’, Academy of Management Review,
vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 233-236.
Freeman, R. E. 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.
French, C. N., Craig-Smith, S. J. & Collier, A. 1995, Principles of Tourism, Longman,
Melbourne.
Fridgen, J. D. 1991, Dimensions of Tourism, Educational Institute of the American Hotel
and Motel Association, Michigan.
Frisch, B. 1998, ‘A pragmatic approach to vision’, The Journal of Business Strategy, vol.
19, no. 4, pp. 12-15.
Fyall, A. & Garrod, B. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism: Towards a methodology for
implementing the concept’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles
and Practices, pp. 51-68, CABI International, Oxon.
Garavan, T. 1997, ‘The learning organization: A review and evaluation’, The Learning
Organization: An International Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 18-29.
361
Gargan, J. J. 1993, ‘A public planning perspective on strategic planning’, in R. I. Kemp
(ed.), Strategic Planning for Local Government: A Handbook for Officials and Citizens,
McFarland, Jefferson.
Garrod, B. & Fyall, A. 1998, ‘Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism?’, Tourism
Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 199-212.
Garvin, D. A. 1993, Building a Learning Organization, Harvard Business School,
Boston.
Gatton Shire Council nd, Visitor Information, Available at:
http://www.gatton.qld.gov.au/visitor.htm
Gee, C. Y. & Fayos-Sola, E. 1997, International Tourism: A Global Perspective, World
Tourism Organization, Madrid.
Getz, D. 1992, ‘Tourism planning and destination life cycle’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 752-770.
Getz, D. 1987, ‘Tourism planning and research: Traditions, models and futures’,
Proceedings of the Australian Travel Research Workshop, Bunbury, Australia.
Getz, D. 1986, ‘Models in tourism planning: Towards integration of theory and practice’,
Tourism Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 21-32.
Getz, D. & Jamal, T. B. 1994, ‘The environment-community symbiosis: A case for
collaborative tourism planning’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 152-
173.
362
Gibson, R. B. 1975, ‘The value of participation’, in P. S. Elder (ed.), Environmental
Management and Public Participation, pp. 7-35, Canadian Environmental Law Research
Foundation, Ontario.
Ginter, P. M. & Duncan, W. J. 1990, ‘Macroenvironmental analysis for strategic
management’, Long Range Planning, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 91-100.
Glaser, B. G. 1992, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Versus Forcing,
Sociology Press, Mill Valley CA.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago.
Glass, J. J. 1979, ‘Citizen participation in planning: The relationship between objectives
and techniques’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 180-
189.
Glesne, C. 1999, Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction, 2nd edn, Longman,
New York.
Go, F. M., Milne, D. & Whittles, L. J. 1992, ‘Communities as destinations: A marketing
taxonomy for the effective implementation of the tourism action plan’, Journal of Travel
Research, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 31-37.
Godfrey, K. B. 1998, ‘Attitudes towards ‘sustainable tourism’ in the UK: A view from
local government’, Tourism Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 213-224.
Godfrey, K. B. 1996, ‘Towards sustainability? Tourism in the Republic of Cyprus’, in L.
C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case
Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 58-79, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
363
Godschalk, D. R. & Mills, W. E. 1966, ‘A collaborative approach to planning through
urban activities’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 86-97.
Goeldner, C. R. 1992, ‘Are visitors good for you? On the costs and benefits of tourism’,
The Benefits and Costs of Tourism: Proceedings of a National Tourism Research
Conference, Nelson Bay, New South Wales.
Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. 1984, Ethnography and Qualitative Design in
Educational Research, Academic Press, New York.
Gold Coast City Council 2004, Gold Coast City Council Facts and Figures, Available at:
http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/t_std.asp?PID=255
Gold Coast City Council Tourism Branch 2003, Our Tourism City: Gold Coast City
Council’s Tourism Strategy, Gold Coast City Council, Queensland.
Golinski, J. 1998, Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of
Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Goodall, B. & Stabler, 1997, ‘Principles influencing the determination of environmental
standards for sustainable tourism’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability:
Principles and Practices, pp. 279-304, CAB International, Oxon.
Graham, J. W. & Havlick, W. C. 1994, Mission Statements: A Guide to the Corporate
and Nonprofit Sectors, Garland Publishing, New York.
Gray, B. 1989, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems,
Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
364
Gray, B. 1985, ‘Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration’, Human
Relations, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 911-936.
Gray, B. & Wood, D. J. 1991, ‘Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory’,
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 33-44.
Green, P. (ed.) 2002, Slices of Life: Qualitative Research Snapshots, RMIT Publishing,
Melbourne.
Gregory, R. & Keeney, R. L. 1994, ‘Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder
values’, Management Science, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1035-1048.
Guba, E. 1978, Towards a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in Educational
Evaluation, UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, Los Angeles.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. 1989, Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park.
Gunn, C. A. 1994, Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases, Taylor & Francis,
Philadelphia.
Gunn, C. A. 1988, Tourism Planning, Taylor & Francis, New York.
Gunn, C. 1977, ‘Industry pragmatism vs tourism planning’, Leisure Sciences, vol. 1, no.
1. pp. 85-94.
Gunton, T. & Flynn, S. 1992, ‘Resolving environmental conflicts: The role of mediation
and negotiation’, Environments, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 12-16.
Gupta, A. K. 1984, ‘Contingency linkages between strategy and general manager
characteristics: A conceptual examination’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 9, no.
3, pp. 399-412.
365
Hackett, M. & Spurgeon, P. 1996, ‘Leadership and vision in the NHS: How do we create
the ‘vision thing’?’, Health Manpower Management, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 5-9.
Hall, C. M. 2003, Introduction to Tourism: Dimensions and Issues, 4th edn, Pearson
Education Australia, Frenchs Forest.
Hall, C. M. 2000, Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships, Prentice
Hall, Harlow.
Hall, C. M. 1999, ‘Rethinking collaboration and partnership: A public policy
perspective’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 274-289.
Hall, C. M. 1998, Tourism Development, Dimensions and Issues, 3rd edn, Addison
Wesley Longman, South Melbourne.
Hall, C. M. 1994, Tourism and Politics, Power and Place, Bellhaven Press, London.
Hall, C. M., Jenkins, J. & Kearsley, G. 1997, Tourism Planning and Policy in Australia
and New Zealand: Cases, Issues and Practice, McGraw Hill, Sydney.
Hall, C. M. & McArthur, S. 1998, Integrated Heritage Management, The Stationery
Office, London.
Haralambopoulos, N. & Pizam, A. 1996, ‘Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of
Samos’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 503-526.
Hardy, A. L. & Beeton, R. J. S. 2001, ‘Sustainable tourism or maintainable tourism:
Managing resources for more than average outcomes’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 168-192.
366
Harris, R., Griffin, T. & Williams, P. (eds) 2002, Sustainable Tourism: A Global
Perspective, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Harris, R. & Leiper, N. (eds) 1995, Sustainable Tourism: An Australian Perspective,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Chatswood.
Harrison, D. 1992, Tourism and the Less Developed Countries, Wiley, Chichester.
Harrison, L. C. & Husbands, W. (eds) 1996, Practicing Responsible Tourism:
International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Harrison, L. C., Jayawardena, C. & Clayton, A. 2003, ‘Sustainable tourism development
in the Caribbean: Practical challenges’, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 294-298.
Hart, S. L. 1992, ‘An integrative framework for strategy-making processes’, The
Academy of Management Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 327-351.
Hauritz, K. 1993, Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy, Hinchinbrook
Shire Council, Queensland.
Hawkins, D. & Cunningham, J. 1996, ‘It is ‘never-never land’ when interest groups
prevail’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism:
International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 350-365,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Haywood, K. M. 1990, ‘Revising and implementing the marketing concept as it applies
to tourism’, Tourism Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 195-206.
367
Haywood, K. M. 1988, ‘Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community’,
Tourism Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 105-118.
Haywood, K. M. & Walsh, L. J. 1996, ‘Strategic tourism planning in Fiji: An oxymoron
or providing coherence for decision making?’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds),
Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy
and Development, pp. 103-125, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Healey, P. 1997, Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies,
Macmillan, London.
Heath, E. & Wall, G. 1992, Marketing Tourism Destinations: A Strategic Planning
Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Helling, A. 1998, ‘Collaborative visioning proceed with caution!: Results from
evaluating Atlanta’s Vision 2020 project’, Journal of the American Planning Association,
vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 335-349.
Helms, M. M. & Wright, P. 1992, ‘External considerations: Their influence on future
strategic planning’, Management Decision, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 4-11.
Hempel, L. 1999, ‘Conceptual and analytical challenges in building sustainable
communities’, in D. Mazmanian & M. Kraft (eds), Toward Sustainable Communities:
Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy, pp. 43-74, MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Hendry, J., Johnson, G. & Newton, J. 1993, Strategic Thinking: Leadership and the
Management of Change, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Heracleous, L. 1998, ‘Strategic thinking or strategic planning?’, Long Range Planning,
vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 481-487.
368
Hernandez, S. A., Cohen, J. & Garcia, H. L. 1996, ‘Residents’ attitudes towards an
instant resort enclave’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 755-779.
Hinchinbrook Shire Council nd, Welcome to Our Shire, Available at:
http://www.hinchinbrooknq.com.au/default.htm
Hohl, A. E. & Tisdell, C. A. 1995, ‘Peripheral tourism: Development and management’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 517-534.
Holland, J. 2000, ‘Consensus and conflict: The socioeconomic challenge facing
sustainable tourism development in Southern Albania’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 510-524.
Holliday, A. 2002, Doing and Writing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.
Holloway, J. C. 1994, The Business of Tourism, Pitman, London.
Holsti, O. R. 1968, ‘Content analysis’, in G. Lindzey & E. Aaronson (eds), The
Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edn, pp. 596-692, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
Honey, M. 1999, Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Island
Press, Washington.
House, J. 1997, ‘Redefining sustainability: A structural approach to sustainable tourism’,
in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 89-104,
CAB International, Oxon.
Hughes, G. 1995, ‘The cultural construction of sustainable tourism’, Tourism
Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 49-59.
369
Hunt, J. R. & Buzan, T. 1999, Creating a Thinking Organization, Aldershot, Gower.
Hunter, C. 2002, ‘Sustainable tourism and the touristic ecological footprint’,
Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 7-20.
Hunter, C. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 850-867.
Hunter, C. 1995, ‘On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism development’,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 155-165.
Hunter-Jones, P. A., Hughes, H. L., Eastwood, I. W. & Morrison, A. A. 1997, ‘Practical
approaches to sustainability: A Spanish perspective’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and
Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 263-274, CAB International, Oxon.
Husbands, W. & Harrison, L. C. 1996, ‘Practicing responsible tourism: Understanding
tourism today to prepare for tomorrow’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds),
Practicing Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy
and Development, pp. 1-15, Wiley, New York.
Hussey, D. 1999, Strategy and Planning: A Manager’s Guide, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Inskeep, E. 1991, Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development
Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Inskeep, E. 1988, ‘Tourism planning: An emerging specialization’, American Planning
Association Journal, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 360-372.
Insight Operations 2001, Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan 2001-2004, Kilcoy
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Queensland.
370
Ipswich City Council 1997, Ipswich City Tourism Strategy, Ipswich City Council,
Queensland.
Ireland, M. 1997, ‘Tourism and social responsibility: A philosophical dream or
achievable reality?’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and
Practice, pp. 245-262, CAB International, Oxon.
Jackson, G. & Morpeth, N. 1999, ‘Local Agenda 21 and community participation in
tourism policy and planning: Future or fallacy’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 1-38.
Jafari, J. 2005, ‘Ulysses prize lecture’, Proceedings of the World Tourism Organization’s
Education Council Ulysses Conference, Madrid, Spain.
Jafari, J. 1990, ‘Research and scholarship: The basis of tourism education’, Journal of
Tourism Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33-41.
Jain, S. C. 2000, Marketing Planning and Strategy, 6th edn, South Western College
Publishing, Cincinnati.
Jamal, T. & Getz, D. 2000, ‘Community roundtables for tourism-related conflicts: The
dialectics of consensus and process structures’, in B. Bramwell & B. Lane (eds), Tourism
Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, pp. 159-182,
Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Jamal, T. B. & Getz, D. 1995, ‘Collaboration theory and community tourism planning’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 186-204.
371
James, D. 2001, ‘Local sustainable tourism indicators’, in J. J. Lennon (ed.), Tourism
Statistics: International Perspectives and Current Issues, pp. 188-198, Continuum,
London.
Janesick, V. J. 2000, ‘The choreography of qualitative research design’, in N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, pp. 379-399, Sage,
Thousand Oaks.
Jansen-Verbeke, M. 1992, ‘Urban recreation and tourism: Physical planning issues’,
Tourism Recreation Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 33-45.
Janssen, H., Kiers, M. & Nijkamp, P. 1995, ‘Private and public development strategies
for sustainable tourism development of island communities’, in H. Coccossis & P.
Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp. 65-84, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Jawahar, I. M. & McLaughlin, G. L. 2001, ‘Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An
organizational life cycle approach’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, no. 3, pp.
397-414.
Jayawardena, C. 2003, ‘Sustainable tourism development in Canada: Practical
challenges’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 15, no.
7, pp. 408-412.
Jenkins, C. L. 1991, ‘Tourism development strategies’, in L. J. Lickorish (ed.),
Developing Tourism Destinations, pp. 61-77, Longman, Harlow.
Jenkins, J. 2000, ‘The dynamics of Regional Tourism Organisations in New South Wales,
Australia: History, structures and operations’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 3, no. 3,
pp. 175-203.
372
Jenkins, J. M. 1993, ‘Tourism policy in rural New South Wales: Policy and research
priorities’, Geojournal, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 281-290.
Jennings, G. 2001, Tourism Research, John Wiley & Sons, Milton.
Jepson, E. J. 2004, ‘Human nature and sustainable development: A strategic challenge for
planners’, Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3-15.
Jick, T. D. 1983, ‘Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action’,
in J. V. Maanen (ed.), Qualitative Methodology, pp. 135-148, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Johnson, J. D. & Snepenger, D. J. 1993, ‘Application of the tourism life cycle concept in
the Greater Yellowstone region’, Society and Natural Resources, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 127-
148.
Jones, T. M. 1995, ‘Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and
economics’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 404-437.
Jones, T. M. & Wicks, A. C. 1999, ‘Convergent stakeholder theory’, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 206-221.
Joppe, M. 1996, ‘Sustainable community tourism development revisited’, Tourism
Management, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 475-479.
Joyce, P. & Woods, A. 1996, Essential Strategic Management: From Modernism to
Pragmatism, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Kaiser, C. & Helber, L. E. 1978, Tourism Planning and Development, CABI Publishing,
Boston.
373
Kakabadese, A., Nortier, F. & Abramovici, N. 1998, Success in Sight: Visioning,
International Thomson Business Press, London.
Kariel, H. G. 1989, ‘Tourism and development: Perplexity or panacea’, Journal of Travel
Research, vol. 28, pp. 2-6.
Kaufman, J. L. & Jacobs, H. M. 1993, ‘A public planning perspective on strategic
planning’, in R. I. Kemp (ed.), Strategic Planning for Local Government: A Handbook
for Officials and Citizens, McFarland, Jefferson.
Keane, M. J., Ó Cinnéide, M. S. & Cunningham, C. 1996, ‘Setting the stage to balance
competing trade-offs: Identifying issues affecting tourism development and management
of Inis Oírr’, in L. C. Harrison & W. Husbands (eds), Practicing Responsible Tourism:
International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development, pp. 174-192,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Kelley, R. 1992, The Power of Followership, Doubleday, New York.
Kelly, D. 2001, Community Participation in Rangeland Management, Rural Industries
Research and Development Corporation, Barton.
Kemp, R. 1992, Strategic Planning in Local Government: A Casebook, Planners Press,
Chicago.
Keogh, B. 1990, ‘Public participation in community tourism planning’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 449-465.
Kilcoy Shire 2003, Welcome to Kilcoy, Available at: http://www.kilcoy.qld.gov.au/
Kilpatrick, A. & Silverman, L. 2005, ‘The power of vision’, Strategy and Leadership,
vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 24-26.
374
King, B., McVey, M. & Simmons, D. 2000, ‘A societal marketing approach to national
tourism planning: Evidence from the South Pacific’, Tourism Management, vol. 21, no. 4,
pp. 407-416.
King, B., Pizam, A. & Milman, A. 1993, ‘Social impacts of tourism: Host perceptions’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 650-655.
King, N. 1994, ‘The qualitative research interview’, in C. Cassell & G. Symon (eds),
Qualitative Methods in Organisation Research: A Practical Guide, pp. 14-36, Sage
Publications, London.
Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. 1996, ‘Direct and indirect effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 36-51.
Kirstges, T. 2003, ‘Basic question of ‘sustainable tourism’: Does ecological and socially
acceptable tourism have a chance?’, in M. Lück & T. Kirstges (eds), Global Ecotourism
Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints, pp. 1-20, Channel View
Publications, Clevedon.
Klein, W., Benson, V. L., Andersen, J., Herr, P., Plumb, P. & Davis, N. 1993, ‘Vision of
things to come’, Planning, vol. 59, no, 5, pp. 10-15.
Ko, T. G. 2005, ‘Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: A
conceptual approach’, Tourism Management, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 431-445.
Ko, T. G. 2001, ‘Assessing progress of tourism sustainability’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 817-820.
375
Koontz, H. 1958, ‘A preliminary statement of principles of planning and control’,
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 45-61.
Korac-Kakabadse, N. & Kakabadse, A. P. 1998, ‘Vision, visionary leadership and the
visioning process: An overview’, in A. Kakabadse, F. Nortier & N. B. Abramovici (eds),
Success in Sight: Visioning, International Thomson Business Press, London.
Koteen, J. 1991, Strategic Management in Public and Non Profit Organisations, Praeger,
New York.
Kotler, P. 1993, Marketing Places, The Free Press, New York.
Kotler, P., Adam, L., Brown, L. & Armstrong, G. 2001, Principles of Marketing, Prentice
Hall, Frenchs Forest.
Kotler, P., Haider, D. H. & Rein, I. 1993, Marketing Places, The Free Press, New York.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. 1987, The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Krippendorf, J. 1987, ‘Ecological approach to tourism marketing’,
Tourism Management, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 174-176.
Krippendorf, J. 1982, ‘Towards new tourism policies: The importance of environmental
and sociocultural factors’, Tourism Management, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 135-148.
Laidley Shire Council 2004, Welcome to Laidley Shire, Available at:
http://www.laidley.qld.gov.au/site/
376
Lane, B. 1989, ‘Will rural tourism succeed?’, in S. Hardy, T. Hart & T. Shaw (eds) The
Role of Tourism in the Urban and Regional Economy, pp. 34-39, Regional Studies
Association, London.
Lang, R. 1986, Integrated Approaches to Resource Planning and Management,
University of Calgary Press, Calgary.
Langeler, G. H. 1992, ‘The vision trap’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 46-
60.
Lankford, J. K. & Lankford, S. V. 2000, ‘Tourism and sustainability: Can they be
partners?’, World Leisure Journal, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 4-10.
Laws, E. 1995, Tourist Destination Management: Issues, Analysis and Policies,
Routledge, London.
Laws, E., Scott, N. & Parfitt, N. 2002, ‘Synergies in destination image management: A
case study and conceptualisation’, International Journal of Tourism Research, vol. 4, no.
1, pp. 39-55.
Leedy, P. D. 1993, Practical Research: Planning and Design, 5th edn, Macmillan, New
York.
Lele, S. M. 1991, ‘Sustainable development: A critical review’, World Development, vol.
19, no. 6, pp. 607-621.
Leslie, D., Harrison, T. & Logan, D. M. 2000, ‘The community and tourism
development: A case of a community based tourist attraction’, Environment Paper Series,
vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 74-89.
377
Levin, I. M. 2000, ‘Vision revisited’, The Journal of Behavioral Science, vol. 36, no. 1,
pp. 91-108.
Lew, A. A. & Hall, C. M. 1998, ‘The geography of sustainable tourism: Lessons and
prospects’, in C. M. Hall & A. A. Lew (eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical
Perspective, pp. 199-203, Longman, Harlow.
Lickorish, L. J. & Jenkins, C. L. 1997, An Introduction to Tourism, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Lindberg, K., Wood, M. E. & Engeldrum, D. 1999, Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners
and Managers, 2nd edn, Natraj Publishing, Dehra Dun.
Lindberg, K., Dellaert, B. G. C. & Rassing, C. R. 1999, ‘Resident tradeoffs: A choice
modelling approach’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 554-569.
Liu, Z. 2003, ‘Sustainable tourism development: A critique’, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 459-475.
Liu, J. C., Sheldon, P. J. & Var, T. 1987, ‘Resident perception of the environmental
impacts of tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 17-37.
Liu, J. C. & Var, T. 1986, ‘Resident attitudes towards tourism impacts in Hawaii’, Annals
of Tourism Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 193-214.
Local Government Association of Queensland 2003, Community Consultation Guide for
Queensland Local Government, Local Government Association of Queensland, Brisbane.
378
Local Government Focus 2002, Making Things Happen in Sarina, Available at:
http://www.lgfocus.com.au/editions/2002/february/sarina.shtml
Long, J. 1994, ‘Local authority tourism strategies: A British appraisal’, The Journal of
Tourism Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 17-23.
Long, P. T. 1991, Tourism on our Terms: Rural Community Tourism Impacts and
Policies, Western Governors’ Association, Denver CO.
Long, P. & Glendinning, K. 1992, ‘Community tourism: A framework for development’,
Tourism in Europe: Proceedings of the 1992 Conference, pp. 14-22, Pitman Publishing,
London.
Lück, M. 2003, ‘Looking into the future of ecotourism and sustainable tourism’, in M.
Lück & T. Kirstges (eds), Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives
and Constraints, pp. 199-202, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Lundberg, D. E. 1972, The Tourist Business, Cahners Books, Boston.
MacLellan, R. 1997, ‘The effectiveness of sustainable tourism policies in Scotland’, in
M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 305-322,
CAB International, Oxon.
Macmillan, H. & Tampoe, M. 2000, Strategic Management: Process, Content and
Implementation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Madrigal, R. 1995, ‘Residents’ perceptions and the role of government’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 86-102.
Madrigal, R. 1993, ‘A tale of tourism in two cities’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 20,
no. 2, pp. 336-353.
379
Mair, H., Reid, D. G. & Taylor, J. 2000, ‘Raw material, neutral party or pivotal player?
Assessing community in rural tourism development and planning’, Environment Paper
Series, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 68-74.
Maitland, R. 2002, ‘Partnership and collaboration in destination management: The case
of Cambridge, UK’, in K. W. Wober (ed.), City Tourism 2002: Proceedings of the
European Cities Tourism International Conference, pp. 181-193, Springer Wien, New
York.
Makridakis, S. G. 1990, Forecasting, Planning and Strategy for the 21st Century, The
Free Press, New York.
Malthus, T. R. 1986, An Essay on the Principle of Population or a View of its Past and
Present Effects on Human Happiness, 7th edn, Kelley, Fairfield N.J.
Manning, E. W. & Dougherty, T. D. 2000, ‘Planning sustainable tourism destinations’,
Tourism Recreation Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 3-14.
Mareeba Shire Council 2004, Mareeba Shire Council, Available at:
http://www.msc.qld.gov.au/
Mareeba Shire Council 2002, Tourism Development Strategy for Mareeba Shire,
Mareeba Shire Council, Queensland.
Marien, C. & Pizam, A. 1997, ‘Implementing sustainable tourism development through
citizen participation in the planning process’, in S. Wahab & J. J. Pigram (eds), Tourism
Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability, pp. 164-178, Routledge,
London.
380
Maroochy Shire Council, 2002 Our Community, Available at:
http://www.maroochy.qld.gov.au/sitePage.cfm?code=About_Maroochy
Marsh, N. R. & Henshall, B. D. 1987, ‘Planning better tourism: The strategic importance
of tourist-resident expectations and interactions’, Tourism Recreation Research, vol. 21,
no. 2, pp. 47-54.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. 1999, Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, Sage,
California.
Martin, B. S. & Uysal, M. 1990, ‘An examination of the relationship between carrying
capacity and the tourism lifecycle: Management and policy implications’, The Journal of
Environmental Management, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 327-333.
Marquardt, M. J. 1996, Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to
Quantum Improvement and Global Success, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mason, J. 2002, Qualitative Researching, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, London.
Mason, J. 1996, Qualitative Researching, Sage Publications, London.
Mason, P. & Cheyne, J. 2000, ‘Resident attitudes to proposed tourism development’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 391-411.
Mason, P. & Leberman, S. 2000, ‘Local planning for recreation and tourism: A case
study of mountain biking from New Zealand’s Manawatu Region’, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 97-116.
Mathieson, A. & Wall, G. 1982, Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts,
Longman, Harlow.
381
Mawhinney, M. 2002, Sustainable Development: Understanding the Green Debates,
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Maxwell, J. P. 2000, ‘Managing conflict at the county level: The use of Q methodology
in dispute resolution and strategic planning’, Public Administration Quarterly, vol. 24,
no. 3, pp. 339-354.
Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. 1994, Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and
Practical Guide, The Falmer Press, London.
McCaffrey, D. P., Faerman, S. R. & Hart, D. W. 1995, ‘The appeal and difficulties of
participative systems’, Organization Science, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 603-627.
McClendon, B. 1993, ‘The paradigm of empowerment’, Journal of the American
Planning Association, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 145-147.
McCool, S. F. 1993, Planning for Sustainable Nature-Dependent Tourism Development:
The Limits of Acceptable Change System, The University of Montana, Missoula.
McCool, S. F. & Lime, D. W. 2001, ‘Tourism carrying capacity: Tempting fantasy or
useful reality?’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 372-388.
McIntosh, R. & Goeldner, C. 1986, Tourism: Principles, Practices and Philosophies, 5th
edn, Wiley, New York.
McIntyre, G. 1993, Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners, World
Tourism Organization, Madrid.
McKee, A. 2003, Textual Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide, Sage Publications, London.
382
McKercher, B. 1993, ‘The unrecognised threat to tourism: Can tourism survive
‘sustainability’?’, Tourism Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 131-136.
McKercher, B. 1992, ‘Understanding tourism’s impacts: Six truths about tourism’, The
Benefits and Costs of Tourism: Proceedings of a National Tourism Research Conference,
Nelson Bay, New South Wales.
McKercher, B. & Ritchie, M. 1997, ‘The third tier of public sector tourism: A profile of
local government tourism officers in Australia’, Journal of Travel Studies, vol. 36, no. 1,
pp. 66-72.
McMinn, S. 1997, ‘The challenge of sustainable tourism’, The Environmentalist, vol. 17,
no. 2, pp. 135-141.
Medeiros de Arajo, L. & Bramwell, B. 1999, ‘Stakeholder assessment and collaborative
tourism planning: The case of Brazil’s Costa Dourada project’, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 356-378.
Melbeck, C. 1998, ‘Comparing local policy networks’, Journal of Theoretical Politics,
vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 531-552.
Middleton, V. T. C. 1974, Tourism Policy in Britain: A Case for a Radical Reappraisal,
The Economist Intelligence Unit, London.
Middleton, V. T. C. & Hawkins, R. 1998, Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Perspective,
Butterworth-Heinemann, London.
Milbrath, L. W. 1965, Political Participation, Rand McNally, Chicago.
Miles, M. & Huberman, M. A. 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
383
Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. 1978, Organizational Strategy, Structure and Processes,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Miller, C. C. & Cardinal, L. B. 1994, ‘Strategic planning and firm performance: A
synthesis of more than two decades of research’, The Academy of Management Journal,
vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1649-1665.
Miller, M. L. 1987, ‘Tourism in Washington’s coastal zone’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 58-70.
Milman, A. & Pizam, A. 1988, ‘Social impacts of tourism on Central Florida’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 191-204.
Milne, S. S. 1998, ‘Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the global-local
nexus’, in C. M. Hall & A. A. Lew (eds), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical
Perspective, pp. 35-48, Longman, Harlow.
Minca, C. & Getz, D. 1995, ‘Planning, environment and policy making public and
private-sector cooperation in destination planning: A comparison of Banff and Niagara
Falls’, The Tourist Review, vol. 4, pp. 49-59.
Mintzberg, H. 1994, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Prentice Hall, New York.
Mintzberg, H. 1990, ‘The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic
management’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 171-195.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. 1998, Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour
Through the Wilds of Strategic Management, The Free Press, New York.
384
Mintzberg, H. & Quinn, J. B. 1996, The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts and Cases,
3rd edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J. A. 1985, ‘Of strategies, deliberate and emergent’, Strategic
Management Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 257-272.
Mirani Shire Council nd, Mirani Shire, Available at:
http://www.mirani.qld.gov.au/index.shtml
Mitchell, R. E. & Reid, D. G. 2001, ‘Community integration: Island tourism in Peru’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 113-139.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. 1997, ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principles of who and what really counts’,
Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 853-886.
Mogulof, M. B. 1970, Citizen Participation, Urban Institute, Washington.
Molotch, H. 1976, ‘The city as a growth machine: Towards a political economy of place’,
American Journal of Sociology, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 309-322.
Mount Isa City Council 2002, Tourism, Available at:
http://www.mountisa.qld.gov.au/tourism/tourism.html
Moutinho, L. 2000, Strategic Management in Tourism, CABI Publishing, Oxon.
Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. 1998, Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third
World, Routledge, London.
Muller, H. 1994, ‘The thorny path to sustainable tourism development’, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 131-136.
385
Murilla Shire Council nd, Shire Profile, Available at:
http://www.murilla.qld.gov.au/visitors/profile.shtml
Murilla Shire Council nd, Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan, Murilla Shire Council,
Queensland.
Murphy, P. E. 1998, ‘Tourism and sustainable development’, in W.F. Theobald (ed.),
Global Tourism, pp. 173-190, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Murphy, P. E. 1994, ‘Tourism and sustainable development’, in W.F. Theobald (ed.),
Global Tourism: The Next Decade, pp. 274-290, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Murphy, P. E. 1988, ‘Community driven tourism planning’, Tourism Management, vol.
9, no. 2, pp. 96-104.
Murphy, P. E. 1985, Tourism: A Community Approach, Routledge, London.
Murphy, P. E. 1981, ‘Community attitudes to tourism: A comparative analysis’,
International Journal of Tourism Management, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 189-195.
Murphy, P. E. & Andressen, B. 1988, ‘Tourism development on Vancouver Island: An
assessment of the core-periphery model’, The Professional Geographer, vol. 40, no. 1,
pp. 32-42.
Murphy, P. E. & Murphy, A. E. 2004, Strategic Management for Tourism Communities:
Bridging the Gaps, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Nanango Shire Council 2005, Nanango Shire Council, Available at:
http://nanango.qld.gov.au/
386
Nanus, B. 1992, Visionary Leadership: Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction for
Your Organisation, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Neto, F. 2003, ‘A new approach to sustainable tourism development: Moving beyond
environmental protection’, Natural Resources Forum, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 212-222.
Neuendorf, K. A. 2002, The Content Analysis Guidebook, SAGE Publications, Thousand
Oaks.
Neuman, W. L. 2000, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches, 4th edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Neuman, W. L. 1997, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches, 3rd edn, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Nijkamp, P. & Verdonkschot, S. 1995, ‘Sustainable tourism development: A case study
of Lesbos’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development, pp.
127-140, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Nitsch, B. & van Straaten, J. 1995, ‘Rural tourism development: Using a sustainable
tourism development approach’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable
Tourism Development, pp. 169-186, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Noosa Shire Council nd, About Noosa, Available at:
http://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/index54.php
Nutt, P. C. & Backoff, R. W. 1997, ‘Crafting vision’, Journal of Management Inquiry,
vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 308-328.
Nutt, P. C. & Backoff, R. W. 1995, ‘Strategy for public and third sector organizations’,
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 189-212.
387
Nutt, P. & Backoff, R. 1992, Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Ocko, S. 1990, Environmental Vacations: Volunteer Projects to Save the Planet, John
Muir Publications, Santa Fe.
Office of Economic and Statistical Research 2005, Local Government Area Profiles,
Queensland Office of the Government Statistician, Brisbane.
Oliver, R. W. 2001, ‘What is strategy anyway?’, The Journal of Business Strategy, vol.
22, no. 6, pp. 7-10.
Oppitz, W. 1997, ‘Tourism master plan for communities and regions’, Turizam, vol. 45,
no. 3&4, pp. 87-92.
Orams, M. B. 1995, ‘Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism’, Tourism
Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-8.
O’Riordan, T. 1978, ‘Participation through objection: Some thoughts on the UK
experience’, in B. Sadler (ed.), Involvement and Environment: Proceedings of the
Canadian Conference on Public Participation, pp. 139-163, Environmental Council of
Alberta, Edmonton.
Ozbekhan, H. 1969, ‘Towards a general theory of planning’, in E. Jantsch (ed.),
Perspectives of Planning, pp. 45-155, Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris.
Page, S. J. & Thorn, K. 2002, ‘Towards sustainable tourism development and planning in
New Zealand: The public sector response revisited’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol.
10, no. 3, pp. 222-238.
388
Page, S. J. & Thorn, K. 1997, ‘Towards sustainable tourism planning in New Zealand:
Public sector planning responses’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 59-
77.
Parker, S. 1999, ‘Collaboration on tourism policy making: Environment and commercial
sustainability on Bonaire, NA’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 240-
259.
Patton, M. Q. 1991, ‘Qualitative research on college students: Philosophical and
methodological comparisons with the quantitative approach’, Journal of College Student
Development, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 389-396.
Patton, M. Q. 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd edn, Sage,
California.
Pearce, D. G. 1998, ‘Tourism development in Paris: Public intervention’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 457-476.
Pearce, D. G. 1989, Tourism Development, Longman, Harlow.
Pearce, D. W. & Turner, R. K. 1993, ‘Defining sustainable development’, in D. W.
Pearce (ed.), Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development, pp. 3-14, Earthscan,
London.
Pearce, J. A. 1982, ‘The company mission as a strategic tool’, Sloan Management
Review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 15-24.
Pearce, J. A. & David, F. 1987, ‘Corporate mission statements: The bottom line’,
Academy of Management Executive, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 109-116.
389
Pearce, P. L., Moscardo, G. & Ross, G. F. 1996, Tourism Community Relationships,
Pergamon, Oxford.
Peg, T. & Greenberger, D. B. 1998, ‘A test of vision training and potential antecedents to
leaders’ visioning ability’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3-
19.
Pezzey, J. 1989, Definitions of Sustainability, Discussion Paper no. 9, Institute of
Behavioural Sciences, University of Colorado, Colorado.
Pforr, C. 2001, ‘Concepts of sustainable development, sustainable tourism, and
ecotourism: Definitions, principles, and linkages’, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 68-71.
Phillips, P. A. & Moutinho, L. 2000, ‘The strategic planning index: A tool for measuring
strategic planning effectiveness’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 369-379.
Pigram, J. J. 1990, ‘Sustainable tourism: Policy considerations’, Journal of Tourism
Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 2-9.
Pine Rivers Shire Council 2004, Pine Rivers Shire Council, Available at:
http://www.prsc.qld.gov.au/c/prsc
Pine Rivers Shire Council nd, Opportunities for Tourism in Pine Rivers Shire, Pine
Rivers Shire Council, Queensland.
Pittsworth Shire Council 2003, Local Tourism Strategy, Pittsworth Shire Council,
Queensland.
Pittsworth Shire Council nd, Pittsworth Shire, Available at:
http://www.pittsworth.qld.gov.au/Home.htm
390
Pizam, A. 1978, ‘Tourism’s impacts: The social costs to the destination community as
perceived by its residents’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 8-12.
Poetschke, B. 1995, ‘Key factors for public/private-sector partnerships in island tourism
planning’, in M. V. Conlin & T. Baum (eds), Island Tourism: Management, Principles
and Practice, pp. 53-64, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Poon, A. 1993, Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, CAB International,
Oxon.
Porter, M. E. 1996, ‘What is strategy?’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 61-
78.
Porter, M. E. 1990, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan Press, London.
Porter, M. E. 1987, ‘From competitive advantage to corporate strategy’, Harvard
Business Review, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 2-21.
Porter, M. E. 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance, The Free Press, New York.
Porter, M. E. 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors, The Free Press, New York.
Potts, T. D., Backman, K. F., Uysal, M. & Backman, S. J. 1992, ‘Issues in rural
community tourism development’, Visions in Leisure and Business, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5-
13.
Potts, T. D. & Harrill, R. 1998, ‘Enhancing communities for sustainability: A travel
ecology approach’, Tourism Analysis, vol. 3, no. 3&4, pp. 133-142.
391
Prentice, R. 1993, ‘Community-driven tourism planning and residents’ preferences’,
Tourism Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 218-227.
Pretty, J. 1995, ‘The many interpretations of participation’, In Focus, vol. 16, pp. 4-5.
Prideaux, B. 1997, Gatton Tourism Strategy, Gatton Shire Council, Queensland.
Prideaux, B. & Armstrong, C. 1997, A Tourism Strategy for the Shire of Laidley, Laidley
Shire Council, Queensland.
Prosser, R. 1994, ‘Societal change and the growth in alternative tourism’, in E. Carter &
G. Lowman (eds), Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? pp. 19-37, Wiley, Chichester.
Punch, K. F. 1998, Introduction to Social Research, Sage, London.
Quattrone, G. 2002, ‘Urban development strategies: The tourism city network’, Urban
and Spatial European Policies: Levels of Territorial Government: Proceedings of the
EURA Conference, Turin, Italy.
Queensland State Government 2004, Integrated Planning Act, Available at:
http://www.ipa.qld.gov.au/overview/keyelementsIPA.asp
Queensland State Government, Department of Communication and Information Local
Government, Planning and Sport 2000, IPA Ready Reference, Queensland State
Government, Brisbane.
Queensland State Government, Department of Local Government and Planning 2004,
Queensland Local Government Area Boundaries, 2002, Available at:
http://www.lgp.qld.gov.au/?id=635
392
Quinn, J. B. 1980, Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Irwin, Homewood IL.
Quinn, J. B., Mintzberg, H. & James, R. W. 1988, The Strategy Process: Concepts,
Contexts and Cases, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Ragin, C. C. & Becker, H. S. (eds) 1992, What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of
Social Science Inquiry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rao, P. K. 2000, Sustainable Development: Economics and Policy, Blackwell Publishers,
Malden.
Rebollo, J. F. V. & Baidal, J. A. I. 2004, ‘Measuring sustainability in a mass tourism
destination: Pressures, perceptions and policy responses in Torrevieja, Spain’, in B.
Bramwell (ed.), Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and Sustainable Development in
Southern Europe, pp. 176-199, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Redcliffe City Council 2000, About Redcliffe, Available at:
http://www.redcliffe.qld.gov.au/about_us.htm
Redland Shire Council 2003, Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy,
Available at: http://www.redland.qld.gov.au
Redland Shire Council 2002, Our Redlands…Our Future: Planning Our Future,
Available at: http://www.redland.qld.gov.au/our_redlands_our_future.cfm?doc_id=528
Reed, M. G. 1999, ‘Collaborative tourism planning as adaptive experiments in emergent
tourism settings’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 331-355.
Reed, M. 1997, ‘Power relations and community-based tourism planning’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 566-591.
393
Reid, D. 1995, Sustainable Development: An Introduction, Earthscan, London.
Reid, D. G. & Sindiga, I. 1999, Tourism and Community Development: An African
Example, World Leisure and Recreation Association, Montreal.
Richards, G. & Hall, D. 2000, Tourism and Sustainable Community Development,
Routledge, London.
Richards, M. D. 1986, Setting Strategic Goals and Objectives, 2nd edn, West Publishing
Company, New York.
Richins, H. 1995, ‘Decision making and community commitment in a coastal tourism
region’, Proceedings of the National Tourism and Hospitality Conference, Coffs
Harbour, Australia.
Richins, H. & Pearce, P. 2000, ‘Influences on tourism development decision making:
Coastal local government areas in Eastern Australia’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 207-232.
Rigby, D., Howlett, D. & Woodhouse, P. 2000, A Review of Indicators of Agricultural
and Rural Livelihood Sustainability, Development and Project Planning Centre,
University of Bradford, UK.
Riley, R. & Love, L. 2000, ‘The state of qualitative tourism research’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 164-187.
Ring, P. & Perry, J. L. 1985, ‘Strategic management in public and private organizations:
Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints’, Academy of Management Review,
vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 276-286.
394
Ritchie, J. R. B. 1999, ‘Crafting a value-driven vision for a national tourism treasure’,
Tourism Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 273-282.
Ritchie, J. R. B. 1994, ‘Crafting a destination vision’, in J. R. B. Ritchie & C. R.
Goeldner (eds), Travel Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2nd edn, pp. 29-38, Wiley,
New York.
Ritchie, J. R. B. 1993, ‘Crafting a destination vision: Putting the concept of resident-
responsive tourism into practice’, Tourism Management, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 379-389.
Ritchie, J. R. B. 1988, ‘Consensus policy formulation in tourism: Measuring resident
views via survey research’, Tourism Management, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 199-212.
Ritchie, J. R. B. & Crouch, G. I. 2000, ‘The competitive destination: A sustainability
perspective’, Tourism Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-7.
Ritchie, B. & Jay, G. 1999, ‘Commentary- Local Agenda 21 and community participation
in tourism policy and planning: Future or fallacy by Jackson and Morpeth’, Current
Issues in Tourism, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 39-46.
Rob Tonge & Associates 2000, Maroochy Shire Council Tourism Development Strategy,
Maroochy Shire Council, Queensland.
Rob Tonge & Associates & Proactive Tourism Services 2001, Nanango Shire Tourism
Development Action Plan, Nanango Shire Council, Queensland.
Roberts, L. & Simpson, F. 2000, ‘Developing partnership approaches to tourism in
central and eastern Europe’, in B. Bramwell & B. Lane (eds), Tourism Collaboration and
Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, pp. 230-246, Channel View
Publications, Clevedon.
395
Roberts, M. 1974, An Introduction to Planning Techniques, Hutchinson, London.
Roberts, N. C. & Bradley, R. T. 1991, ‘Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: A study
of public policy initiation at the state level’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol.
27, no. 2, pp. 209-227.
Robinson, M. 1999, ‘Collaboration and cultural consent: Refocusing sustainable
tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 379-397.
Rohe, J. F. 1997, A Bicentennial Malthusian Essay: Conservation, Population and the
Indifference to Limits, Rhodes & Easton, Michigan.
Roma Shire Council Tourism Development Unit 2000, Tourism Action Plan, Roma Shire
Council, Queensland.
Roma Town Council nd, Roma, Available at: http://www.roma.qld.gov.au
Romeril, M. 1989, ‘Tourism: The environmental dimensions’, in C. P. Cooper (ed.),
Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, pp. 103-113, Bellhaven
Press, London.
Rosenow, J. E. & Pulsipher, G. L. 1979, Tourism: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,
Century Three Press, Lincoln.
Rossman, G. B. & Wilson, B. L. 1994, ‘Numbers and words revisited: Being shamelessly
eclectic’, Quality and Quantity, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 315-327.
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. 1995, Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data,
Sage, Thousand Oaks.
396
Rubin, M. S. 1998, ‘Sagas, ventures, quests and parlays: A typology of strategies in the
public sector’, in J. M. Bryson & R. C. Einsweiler (eds), Strategic Planning: Threats and
Opportunities for Planners, pp. 84-105, Planners Press, Chicago.
Ruhanen, L. 2005, ‘Introduction to Australia’, in C. Cooper & C. M. Hall (eds), Oceania:
A Tourism Handbook, pp. 7-16, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Ruhanen, L. & Cooper, C. 2004, ‘Applying a knowledge management framework to
tourism research’, Tourism Recreation Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 83-89.
Ryan, C. 2002, ‘Equity, management, power sharing and sustainability: Issues of the
‘new tourism’, Tourism Management, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 17-26.
Sadler, J. 2004, ‘Sustainable tourism planning in Northern Cyprus’, in B. Bramwell (ed.),
Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and Sustainable Development in Southern
Europe, pp. 133-156, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Sapsford, R. & Jupp, V. (eds) 1996, Data Collection and Analysis, SAGE Publications,
London.
Sarantakos, S. 1998, Social Research, 2nd edn, MacMillan, Melbourne.
Sarina Shire Council 2002, Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy, Sarina Shire Council,
Queensland.
Sarina Shire Council nd, Visitors, Available at:
http://www.sarina.qld.gov.au/visitors/index.shtml
Sautter, E. T. & Leisen, B. 1999, ‘Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 312-328.
397
Sawyer, G. C. 1983, Corporate Planning as a Creative Process: Action Laid Out in
Advance, Planning Executives Institute, Oxford.
Saxena, G. 2005, ‘Relationships, networks and the learning regions: Case evidence from
the Peak District National Park’, Tourism Management, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 277-289.
Schendel, D. E. & Hofer, C. W. 1979, Strategic Management: A New View of Business
Policy and Planning, Little Brown & Company, Canada.
Schermerhorn, J. R. 1996, Management, 5th edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Schwandt, T. A. 1997, Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Schwartz, H. & Jacobs, J. 1979, Qualitative Sociology: A Method to the Madness, Free
Press, New York.
Seekings, J. 1980, ‘Pro bono publico: The case for a systematic system’, in D. E.
Hawkins, E. L. Shafer & J. M. Rovelstad (eds), Tourism Planning and Development
Issues, pp. 251-257, George Washington University Press, Washington.
Selin, S. 1999, ‘Developing a typology of sustainable tourism partnerships’, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, vol. 7, no. 3&4, pp. 260-273.
Selin, S. & Beason, K. 1991, ‘Interorganisational relations in tourism’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 639-652.
Senge, P. M. 1990, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization, Currency Doubleday, New York.
398
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B. & Smith, B. J. 1994, The Fifth
Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization,
Currency Doubleday, New York.
Sewell, W. R. D. & Phillips, S. D. 1979, ‘Models for the evaluation of public
participation programmes’, Natural Resources Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 337-358.
Sharpley, R. 2000, ‘Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical
divide’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-19.
Sheldon, P. J. & Abenoja, T. 2001, ‘Resident attitudes in a mature destination: The case
of Waikiki’, Tourism Management, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 435-443.
Sheldon, P. & Var, T. 1984, ‘Resident attitudes to tourism in North Wales’, Tourism
Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 40-47.
Shipley, R. & Newkirk, R. 1998, ‘Visioning: Did anybody see where it came from?’,
Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 407-416.
Simmons, D. G. 1994, ‘Community participation in tourism planning’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 98-108.
Simonin B. 1997, ‘The importance of developing collaborative know-how: An empirical
test of the learning organization’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 40, no. 5, pp.
1150-1174.
Simpson, F. & Roberts, L. 2000, ‘Help or hindrance? Sustainable approaches to tourism
consultancy in Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no.
6, pp. 491-509.
399
Simpson, K. 2001, ‘Strategic planning and community involvement as contributors to
sustainable tourism development’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3-41.
Sinclair, D. & Jayawardena, C. 2003, ‘The development of sustainable tourism in the
Guianas’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 15, no.
7, pp. 402-407.
Singh, T. V. 2003, ‘International tourism and economic development’, in R. N. Gnosh,
M. A. B. Siddique & R. Gabbay (eds), Tourism and Economic Development: Case
studies from the Indian Ocean region, pp. 30-39, Ashgate, Hampshire.
Singh, T. V., Theuns, H. L. & Go, F. M. 1989, Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case
of Developing Countries, Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
Slee, W., Farr, H. & Snowdon, P. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism and the local economy’, in
M. J. Stabler (ed.), Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 69-88, CAB
International, Oxon.
Smith, C. & Jenner, P. 1989, ‘Tourism and the environment’, Travel and Tourism
Analyst, vol. 5, pp. 68-86.
Smith, L. G. 1984, ‘Public participation in policy making: The state-of-art in Canada’,
Geoforum, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 253-259.
Smith, M. D. & Krannich, R. S. 1998, ‘Tourism dependence and resident attitudes’,
Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 783-802.
Smith, R. A. 1992, ‘Beach resort evolution’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 19, no. 2,
pp. 304-322.
400
Smith, S. L. J. 2003, ‘A vision for the Canadian tourism industry’, Tourism Management,
vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 123-133.
Smith, V. L. (ed.) 1977, Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Snyder, N. & Glueck, W. 1980, ‘How managers plan: The analysis of managers’
activities’, Long Range Planning, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 70-76.
Sofield, T. H. B. 2003, Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development, Pergamon,
Amsterdam.
Spanoudis, C. 1982, ‘Trends in tourism planning and development’, Tourism
Management, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 314-318.
Sproule, K. W. 1995, ‘Community-based ecotourism development: Identifying partners
in the process’, PACT/WALHI Community-Based Ecotourism Workshop and Seminar,
Bogor, Indonesia.
Stabler, M. J. (ed.), 1997, Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, CAB
International, Oxon.
Starik, M. 1994, ‘The Toronto conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory’, Business
and Society, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 89-95.
Steer, A. & Wade-Gery, W. 1993, ‘Sustainable development: Theory and practice for a
sustainable future’, Sustainable Development, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 23-35.
Steiner, G. A. 1979, Strategic Planning, Free Press, New York.
Steiner, G. A. 1969, Top Management Planning, Macmillan, New York.
401
Stewart, J. 1993, ‘Future state visioning: A powerful leadership process’, Long Range
Planning, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 89-98.
Stewart, W. P., Liebert, D. & Larkin, K. W. 2004, ‘Community identities as visions for
landscape change’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 69, no. 2&3, pp. 315-334.
Sustainable Tourism Services 2002, Sustainable Tourism Vision North Stradbroke Island,
Sustainable Tourism Services, Brisbane.
Swarbrooke, J. 1998, Sustainable Tourism Management, CABI Publishing, New York.
Swift, B. 1996, ‘Preparing numerical data’, in R. Sapsford & V. Jupp (eds), Data
Collection and Analysis, pp. 153-183, SAGE Publications, London.
Taylor, G. 1995, ‘The community approach: Does it really work?’, Tourism
Management, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 487-489.
The Local Government Association of Queensland 2001, A Guideline for Integrating
Community Well-being in Planning, The Local Government Association of Queensland,
Brisbane.
The Stafford Group 2003, Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy, Blackall Shire
Council, Queensland.
Theobald, W. F. 1994, Global Tourism: The Next Decade, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Thoms, P. & Greenberger, D. B. 1998, ‘A test of vision training and potential antecedents
to leaders’ visioning ability’, Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.
3-19.
402
Thompson, D. E. 1970, The Democratic Citizen, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Thuringowa City Council 2003, Thuringowa in Profile 2003, Available at:
http://www.thuringowa.qld.gov.au
Ticehurst, G. W. & Veal, A. J. 1999, Business Research Methods: A Managerial
Approach, Addison Wesley, South Melbourne.
Timothy, D. J. 1999, ‘Participatory planning: A view of tourism in Indonesia’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 371-391.
Timothy, D. J. 1998, ‘Cooperative tourism planning in a developing destination’, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 52-68.
Timothy, D. J. & White, K. 1999, ‘Community-based ecotourism development on the
periphery of Belize’, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 2, no. 2&3, pp. 226-242.
Timur, S. & Getz, D. 2002, ‘Applying stakeholder theory to the implementation of
sustainable urban tourism’, in K. W. Wober (ed.), City Tourism 2002: Proceedings of the
European Cities Tourism International Conference, pp. 194-210, Springer Wien, New
York.
Tosun, C. 1998, ‘Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the local level: The case
of Urgup in Turkey’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 595-610.
Tosun, C. & Jenkins, C. L. 1998, ‘The evolution of tourism planning in third-world
countries: A critique’, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp.
101-114.
403
Tosun, C. & Timothy, D. J. 2003, ‘Arguments for community participation in the tourism
development process’, The Journal of Tourism Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 2-15.
Tourism Collaborative Board 2001, Noosa Tourism Plan 2001-2011 and Noosa Tourism
Action Plan 2001-2004, Noosa Shire Council, Queensland.
Tourism Council of Australia and Tourism Queensland nd, Tourism Works for
Queensland: A Better Understanding of Regional Tourism, 2nd edn, Tourism Queensland,
Brisbane.
Tourism Forecasting Council 2004, Inbound Tourism Forecasts: 2004 to 2013, Tourism
Research Australia, Canberra.
Tourism Potential 2003, Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan, Banana Shire
Council, Queensland.
Tourism Queensland 2005, Map: Queensland Tourism Regions, Available at:
http://www.tq.com.au/industry/knowledge-banks/knowledge-banks_home.cfm
Tremblay, P. 2000, ‘The new age of strategic tourism: From product differentiation to
strategic innovation’, Proceedings of the Council of Australian University Tourism and
Hospitality Educators Conference, Mt Buller, Australia.
Tremblay, P. 2000a, ‘An evolutionary interpretation of the role of collaborative
partnerships in sustainable tourism’, in B. Bramwell & B. Lane (eds), Tourism
Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, pp. 314-332,
Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Tribe, J. 1997, Corporate Strategy for Tourism, International Thomson Business Press,
London.
404
Trousdale, W. J. 1999, ‘Governance in context: Boracay Island, Philippines’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 840-867.
Tsang, E. W. K. 1997, ‘Organizational learning and the learning organization: A
dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research’, Human Relations, vol. 50, no.
1, pp. 73-89.
Twynam, G. D. & Johnston, M. E. 2002, ‘The use of sustainable practices’, Annals of
Tourism Research, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1165-1168.
Um, S. & Crompton, J. L. 1987, ‘Measuring resident’s attachment levels in a host
community’, Journal of Travel Research, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 27-29.
United Nations 2003, Earth Summit Agenda 21, United Nations Department of Economic
and Social Affairs Division for Sustainable Development, New York.
United Nations 1998, Sustainable Development Success Stories, United Nations, New
York.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 1999,
Guidelines on Integrated Planning for Sustainable Tourism Development, United
Nations, New York.
Utah Travel Council 1998, Community Visioning Kit: Tourism Development in Utah,
Department of Community and Economic Development, Utah.
Valle, R. & King, M. 1978, Existential Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology,
Oxford University, New York.
Van Gunsteren, H. R. 1976, The Quest for Control: A Critique of the Rational-Central-
Rule Approach in Public Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, London.
405
Van Harssel, J. 1994, Tourism: An Exploration, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Van Maanen, J. 1983, ‘The moral fix: On the ethics of fieldwork’, in R. M. Emerson
(ed.), Contemporary Field Research, pp. 269-287, Little Brown, Boston.
Veal, A. J. 1994, Leisure Policy and Planning, Longman, Harlow.
Velikova, M. P. 2001, ‘How sustainable is sustainable tourism?’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 496-499.
Verbole, A. 2000, ‘Actors, discourses and interfaces of rural tourism development at the
local community level in Slovenia: Social and political dimensions of the rural tourism
development process’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 479-490.
Vogel, R. K. & Swanson, B. E. 1988, ‘Setting agendas for community change: The
community goal-setting strategy’, Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 41-61.
Voisey, H., Beuermann, C., Sverdrup, L. & O'Riordan, T. 1996, ‘The political
significance of Local Agenda 21: The early stages of some European experience’, Local
Environment, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33-50.
von Friedrichs Grangsjo, Y. 2003, ‘Destination networking: Co-opetition in peripheral
surroundings’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 427-448.
Wahab, S. & Pigram, J. J. (eds), 1997, Tourism, Development and Growth: The
Challenge of Sustainability, Routledge, London.
406
Wall, G. 1997, ‘Sustainable tourism - unsustainable development’, in S. Wahab & J. J.
Pigram (eds), Tourism, Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability, pp.
33-49, Routledge, London.
Wall, G. 1996, ‘People outside the plans’, in W. Nuryanti (ed.), Tourism and Culture:
Global Civilization Change?, pp. 130-137, Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogyakarta.
Walle, A. H. 1997, ‘Quantitative versus qualitative tourism research’, Annals of Tourism
Research, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 524-536.
Walsh, J. A., Jamrozy, A. & Burr, S. W. 2001, ‘Sense of place as a component of
sustainable tourism marketing’, in S. F. McCool & R. N. Moisey (eds), Tourism,
Recreation and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment, pp. 195-216, CABI
Publishing, Oxon.
Walzer, N. & Deller, S. C. 1996, ‘Rural issues and trends: The role of strategic visioning
programs’, in N. Walzer (ed.), Community Strategic Visioning Programs, pp. 1-20,
Praeger, Westport.
Walzer, N., Deller, S. C., Fossum, H., Green, G., Gruidl, J., Johnson, S., Kline, S., Patton,
D., Schumaker, A. & Woods, M. 1995, Community Visioning/Strategic Planning
Programs: State of the Art, North Central Regional Centre for Rural Development, Iowa.
Wates, N. 2000, The Community Planning Handbook, Earthscan Publications, London.
Watkins, K. E. & Marsick, V. J. 1993, Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in
the Art and Science of Systemic Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Weaver, D. 2006, Sustainable Tourism, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Weaver, D. B. 1998, Ecotourism in the Less Developed World, CAB International, Oxon.
407
Weaver, D. & Lawton, L. 1999, Sustainable Tourism: A Critical Analysis, Cooperative
Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.
Weber, M. 1978, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Weber, R. P. 1990, Basic Content Analysis, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park.
Welford, R. & Ytterhus, B. 2004, ‘Sustainable development and tourism destination
management: A case study of the Lillehammer region, Norway’, International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 410-422.
Wechsler, B. & Backoff, R. W. 1987, ‘The dynamics of strategy in public organizations’,
Journal of American Planning Association, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 34-43.
Westlake, J. 1995, ‘Planning for tourism at local level: Maintaining the balance with the
environment’, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds), Sustainable Tourism Development,
pp. 85-90, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Westley, F. 1992, ‘Vision words: Strategic vision as a social interaction’, Advances in
Strategic Management, vol. 8, pp. 271-305.
Westley, F. & Mintzberg, H. 1989, ‘Visionary leadership and strategic management’,
Strategic Management Journal, vol. 10, Summer, pp. 17-32.
Wheeland, C. 1993, ‘Citywide strategic planning: An evaluation of Rock Hill’s
empowering vision’, Public Administration Review, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 65-72.
408
Wheeler, B. 1997, ‘Here we go, here we go, here we go eco’, in M. J. Stabler (ed.),
Tourism and Sustainability: Principles and Practice, pp. 39-50, CAB International,
Oxon.
Wheeler, B. 1994, ‘Ego tourism, sustainable tourism and the environment: A symbiotic,
symbolic or shambolic relationship?’, in A. V. Seaton (ed.) Tourism: State of the Art, pp.
647-654, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Wheeler, B. 1993, ‘Sustaining the ego’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.
121-129.
Whittington, R. 2001, ‘What is strategy and does it matter?’, 2nd edn, Thomson Learning,
London.
Whorton, J. W. & Worthley, J. A. 1981, ‘A perspective on the challenge of public
management: Environmental paradox and organisational culture’, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 357-361.
Wight, P. A. 2003, ‘Supporting the principles of sustainable development in tourism and
ecotourism: Government’s potential role’, in M. Lück & T. Kirstges (eds), Global
Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints, pp. 50-72, Channel
View Publications, Clevedon.
Wikipedia 2005, Queensland, Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland
Wilkinson, P. F. 1997, Tourism Policy and Planning: Case Studies from the
Commonwealth Caribbean, Cognizant Communication Corporation, New York.
Williams, P. M. 2002, ‘Community strategies: Mainstreaming sustainable development
and strategic planning’, Sustainable Development, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 197-205.
409
Williams, P. W., Penrose, R. W. & Hawkes, S. 1998, ‘Shared decision-making in tourism
land use planning’, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 860-889.
Wilson, D. 1999, ‘Consulting the community: A problem in sustainable tourism
development’, The Environment Paper Series, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25-40.
Winn, M. I. 2001, ‘Building stakeholder theory with a decision modelling methodology’,
Business and Society, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 133-166.
Wolf, R. A. & Gering, D. T. 1998, ‘Making strategy work’, The Journal of Business
Strategy, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 11-14.
Woodley, A. 1993, ‘Tourism and sustainable development: The community perspective’,
in J. G. Nelson, R. Butler & G. Wall (eds), Tourism and Sustainable Development:
Monitoring, Planning, Managing, pp. 135-146, Heritage Resources Centre University of
Waterloo, Waterloo.
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our Common Future,
Oxford University Press, London.
World Tourism Organization 2006, UNWTO News, World Tourism Organization,
Madrid.
World Tourism Organization 2004, Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism
Destinations: A Guidebook, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization 2001, Actions in Assisting Developing Countries to
Implement Agenda 21 Undertaken by the World Tourism Organization Since 1992,
United Nations, New York.
410
World Tourism Organization 2000, Sustainable Development of Tourism: A Compilation
of Good Practices, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization 1998, Guide for Local Authorities on Developing
Sustainable Tourism, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization 1995, What Tourism Managers Need to Know: A Practical
Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism, Consulting and
Audit Canada, Ottawa.
World Tourism Organization 1994, National and Regional Tourism Planning:
Methodologies and Case Studies, Routledge, London.
World Tourism Organization 1993, Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local
Planners, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization 1983, Study of Tourism’s Contribution to Protecting the
Environment, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
Wortman, M. S. 1979, ‘Strategic management: Not-for-profit organizations’, in D. E.
Schendel & C. W. Hofer (eds), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy
and Planning, pp. 353-381, Little Brown, Boston.
Yau, O. H. M. & Chan, C. F. 1990, ‘Hong Kong as a travel destination in South-East
Asia: A multidimensional approach’, Tourism Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 123-132.
Yin, R. K. 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn, Sage, Beverly
Hills.
Young, G., Richins, H. & Rugimbana, R. 1993, ‘New directions for tourism planning’,
Proceedings of the National Conference on Tourism Research, Sydney, Australia.
411
Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B. & Yuksel, A. 1999, ‘Stakeholder interviews and tourism
planning at Pamukkale, Turkey’, Tourism Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 351-360.
Zhang, Y., Ruhanen, L., Murphy, P. & Cooper, C. 2004, ‘Communities as regional
destinations: A development potential index’, Proceedings of the Council of Australian
University Tourism and Hospitality Educators Conference, Brisbane, Australia.
412
Appendices
Appendix 1 Queensland Regional Tourism Organisations (RTOs)
Appendix 2 Queensland Local Tourism Authorities (LTAs)
Appendix 3 United Nations Principles for Sustainable Tourism
Appendix 4 Community Visioning Programs
Appendix 5 The Gold Coast Tourism Destination Visioning Process
Appendix 6 Audit of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents
Appendix 7 Stakeholder Interview Schedule
Appendix 8 Participant Information Sheet
Appendix 9 Participant Consent Form
Appendix 10 Local Government Area Profiles - Business Categories
Appendix 11 Tourism Planning Approach Evident in Planning Documents
Appendix 12 Overview of Local Tourism Planning Document Analysis
Appendix 13 Overview of Local Tourism Planning Documents Rationale, Objectives and
Vision Statement
Appendix 14 Queensland Local Government Area Profiles
Appendix 15 Principles and Goals of the Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy
414
Appendix Two: Queensland Local Tourism Authorities (LTAs)
Brisbane Region LTAsBrisbane Valley Tourism Association Inc Caboolture Tourism Esk Visitor Information Centre Boonah Shire Tourism Inc. Ipswich Visitors and Tourism Association Ltd. Lockyer Valley Tourism and Development Association Moreton Bay Coast and Country Tourism Redcliffe Tourism Redlands Tourism Stradbroke Island Tourism Tourism Pine Rivers Wynnum Manly Tourism and Visitor Information Centre Wynnum Manly Regional Development Partnership Bundaberg Region LTAsBiggenden Chamber of Tourism and Development Inc. Gayndah Development Association Gin Gin District Business and Tourism Council Perry Shire Heritage and Tourist Association Inc. Monto Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Mundubbera Enterprise Association Inc. Capricorn Region LTAsBiloela Promotion Bureau Capricorn Coast Tourist Organisation Central Highlands Tourist Organisation Mt Morgan Tourist Association Rockhampton Tourist and Business Information Theodore Tourist Information Fraser Coast South Burnett Region LTAsHervey Bay Tourism Bureau Ltd. Maryborough and Fraser Island Visitor Information Centre South Burnett Tourism Association Inc. Gold Coast Region LTAsBeaudesert Tourism Canungra Information and Historical Association Tamborine Mountain Natural History Assicuation inc. Tweed Coolangatta Tourism Inc. Mackay Region LTAsClermont Tourism Association
415
Pioneer Valley Tourism and Development Association Sarina Tourist Art and Craft Centre Outback Region LTAsBarcaldine Tourist Association Blackall Tourist and Development Association Cloncurry Chamber of Commerce Inc. Cosmos Country Tourism Cunnamulla Visitor Information Centre Historic Woolscour Association Ilfracombe Historical Association Mount Isa Tourism Association Longreach Visitor Information Centre Vision Winton Incorporated Southern Downs Region LTAsAllora Action Association Clifton and District Progress Association Dalveen Sports Club Granite Belt Tourist Association Killarney Area Promotions Association Leyburn Progress Association Texas Visitors Association Inc. Warwick and District Tourist Association Inc. Sunshine Coast Region LTAs Blackall Range Tourism Association Inc. Caloundra Tourism Cooloola Regional Development Bureau Inc. Maroochy Tourism Mooloolaba Tourism Tourism Noosa Toowoomba and Golden West Region LTAsChinchilla Economic and Tourist Development Association Inc. Crows Nest and District Tourist and Progress Association Goondiwindi District Promotions Inc. Injune and District Tourism Association Leichhardt Highway Promotion Committee Miles Tourism Committee Millmerran Shire Tourism and Progress Association Inc. Roma Tourism Association St George Tourist and Museum Association Surat and District Development Association Shire of Tara Development Association Inc. Taroom District Development Association
416
Townsville Region LTAsBurdekin Tourism Association Inc. Cardwell Chamber of Commerce Charters Towers and Dalrymple Tourism Association Hinchinbrook Tourism Association Magnetic Island Community and Development Association Tropical North Region LTAsCairns Tourism Association Inc. Cassowary Coast Development Bureau trading as Innisfail Information Centre Chillagoe Alliance Cooktown Tourism Association Daintree Village Tourism Association Gulf Savannah Development Karumba Progress Association Kuranda Village Promotion Program Mission Beach Tourism Inc. Tourism Palm Cove Port Douglas Daintree Tourism Association Trinity Beach Promotion Association Tropical Tableland Tourism Yorkeys Knob Promotional Group Cape York Peninsula Development Association Inc. Whitsunday Region LTAsBowen Tourism Collinsville District Development Bureau
417
Appendix Three: United Nations Principles for Sustainable Tourism
1. Residents of a community must maintain control of tourism development by being involved in setting a community tourism vision, identifying the resources to be maintained and enhanced, and developing goals and strategies for tourism development and management. Equally important, community residents must participate in the implementation of strategies as well as the operation of the tourism infrastructure, services, and facilities.
2. A tourism initiative should be developed with the help of broad based stakeholder input.
3. Tourism development must provide quality employment. The provision of fulfilling jobs has to be seen as an integral part of any tourism development. Part of the process of achieving quality employment is to ensure that, as much as possible, the tourism infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, shops, etc.) is developed and managed by local people. Experience has demonstrated that the provision of education and training for local residents and access to financing for local businesses and entrepreneurs are central to this type of policy.
4. Broad-based distribution of the benefits of tourism must occur at the tourism destination. Local linkages and resident participation in the planning, development, and operation of tourism resources and services will help to ensure that a more equitable distribution of benefits will occur among residents, visitors, and other service providers.
5. Sustainable tourism development has to provide for intergenerational equity. Equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of tourism development must take place among present and future generations. To be fair to future generations of tourists and the travel industry, society should strive to leave a resource base no less than the one we have inherited. Sustainable tourism development must, therefore, avoid resource allocation actions that are irreversible.
6. A long-term planning horizon needs to be adopted by businesses and destination tourism organizations to ensure that destinations are not used for short-term gain and then abandoned as visitor tastes and business interests move elsewhere. A longer-term horizon encourages the use of proactive strategies to ensure destination sustainability and the establishment of local linkages over time.
7. Harmony is required between the needs of a visitor, the place, and the community. This is facilitated by broad stakeholder support with a proper balance between economic, social, cultural, and human objectives, and recognition of the importance of cooperation among government, the host communities, and the tourism industry, and the non-profit organizations involved in community development and environmental protection.
8. Tourism strategies and plans must be linked with a broader set of initiatives and economic development plans.
9. A need exists for more coordination at both policy and action levels among the various agencies involved and among different levels of government. This is particularly relevant to tourism and environmental policies. Service provisions such as transportation, parking, and water and sewer capacities must also be considered in conjunction with tourism plans and developments.
418
10. Cooperation among attractions, businesses, and tourism operators is essential given that one business or operation can be directly affected by the performance or quality of another.
11. There is a definite need for impact assessment of tourism development proposals. The capacity of sites must be considered, including physical, natural, social, and cultural limits and development should be compatible with local and environmental limits. Plans and operations should be evaluated regularly with adjustments as required.
12. Guidelines have to be established for tourism operations, including requirements for impact assessment. There should be codes of practice established for tourism at all levels - national, regional and local. There is also a need to develop indicators and threshold limits for measuring the impacts and success of local tourism ventures. Protection and monitoring strategies are essential if communities are to protect the resources that form the basis of their tourism product.
13. Tourism planning must move away from a traditional growth-oriented model to one that focuses on opportunities for employment, income and improved local well-being while ensuring that development decisions reflect the full value of the natural and cultural environments. The management and use of public goods such as water, air, and common lands should include accountability on behalf of the users to ensure that these resources are not abused.
14. Sustainable tourism development requires the establishment of education and training programs to improve public. Understanding and enhance business, vocational and professional skills.
15. Sustainable tourism development involves promoting appropriate uses and activities that draw from and reinforce landscape character, sense of place, community identity and site opportunity. These activities and uses should aim to provide a quality tourism experience that satisfies visitors while adhering to the other principles of sustainable tourism.
16. The scale and type of tourism facilities must reflect the limits of acceptable use that resources can tolerate. Small-scale, low impact facilities and services should be encouraged, for example, through financing and other incentives.
17. The tourism process must also ensure that heritage and natural resources are maintained and enhanced using internationally acceptable criteria and standards.
18. Sustainable tourism marketing should include the provision of a high quality tourist experience which adheres to the other principles outlined above, and whose promotion should be a responsible and an ethical reflection of the destination's tourism attractions and services.
Source: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 1999
419
Appendix Four: Community Visioning Programs Location Participants Initiatives Methods
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
•Collaborative committee •Action planning teams •Over 1000 citizens
•Environment •Economic development •Education •Governance •Health •Housing •Human services •Public safety •Transportation
• Facilitated monthly meetings
• Public meetings • Stakeholder surveys • Secondary data analysis
Minot and Ward County, USA
•1000 citizens •Business, civic,
government, education and church organisations
•Education •Quality of life •Economic development •Community leadership •Infrastructure •Government
-
Mequon City, USA
•All citizens invited to contribute
•Citizen committee •Consultant
•Population •Residential areas •Rural landscape •Roads •Development/ land use •City services •Schools •Parks and open space •City centre
• Community forums • Focus groups • Community survey • Secondary data analysis
Central Alabama region, USA
•5000 citizens •Regional cooperation •Natural environment •Economically
competitive •Public transportation •Social equity/ education/
housing •Citizen involvement
• Public meetings
Downtown Wilkes- Barre, USA
•Business, industry and development organizations
•Representatives from government, business, institutional and residents
•500 resident participants
•Market driven development plans •Business improvement
district •New business
development and promotion •Higher education and
downtown taskforce •Downtown residents
association •Preserve and protect
historic resources
• Public meetings • Participant
brainstorming
420
Johnson County, USA
•Steering committee
•Education •Public safety •Land use •Transportation and
infrastructure •Economic development •Natural resources and
environment •Human services •Culture, arts and
humanities •County relationships •Financing and taxation
• Exploration of issues • Issue analysis model • Citizen survey • Community forums
City of Royal Oak, USA
•200 residents •Steering committee
•Neighbourhood preservation •Downtown improvements •Commercial corridor
improvements •Community facilities •Transportation
• Town meetings • Concept plan workshops
City of Tucson, USA
•1200 community members
•Business people and city employees
• Interdepartmental team
- • Public forums • Forums targeting youth,
businesses • Internet site • Bulletin boards • Workshops to develop
indicators of progress towards the vision’s goals
Baltimore region, USA
•Community residents
- • Monthly meetings of stakeholder committees
• Regional vision meetings for residents
• Telephone survey of 1200 residents
• Regional workshop to finalise vision
City of Vancouver, Canada
•Residents, property owners, workers, business owners and community organisations
•Liaison groups
•Create and strengthen neighbourhood centres and character
•Housing needs •Community services •Prevent crime •Art and cultural activity •Open spaces and public
places •Neighbourhood
employment
• Public awareness campaigns
• Communication strategy • Generate interest at a
community event • Workshops
421
•Environment •Engage residents
Brisbane, Australia
•Government •Businesses • Industry •Schools •Community groups • Individual residents
•Environment •Transport and access •Suburban landscape
design •Knowledge infrastructure •Creative culture, arts,
business, government, society
•Community enhancement •Sports and leisure
facilities •Develop and expand
local industry
• Draft documents opened for comment
423
Appendix Six: Audit of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning Documents
Shire Council Area Title of Plan Aramac No tourism plan Atherton Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan Aurukun No tourism plan Balonne No tourism plan Banana Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan Barcaldine No tourism plan Bauhinia No tourism plan Barcoo No tourism plan Beaudesert Tourism plan currently been developed Belyando Tourism plan currently been developed Bendemere No tourism plan Biggenden No tourism plan Blackall Tourism & Economic Vitalisation Strategy 2003 Boonah Tourism plan currently been developed Booringa Tourism plan currently been developed Boulia No tourism plan Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan Brisbane Tourism plan currently been developed Broadsound No tourism plan Bulloo No tourism plan Bundaberg No tourism plan Bungil No tourism plan Burdekin Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan- 1999 Burke No tourism plan Burnett No tourism plan Caboolture No tourism plan Cairns No tourism plan Calliope No tourism plan Caloundra Caloundra Tourism Plan 2002-2012
Caloundra Tourism Action Plan 2002-2005 Cambooya No tourism plan Cardwell Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan 2002-2006 Carpentaria No tourism plan Charters Towers No tourism plan Chinchilla Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan 2002-2010 Clifton No tourism plan Cloncurry No tourism plan Cook No tourism plan Cooloola No tourism plan Crow’s Nest Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan Croydon Tourism plan currently been developed Dalby No tourism plan
424
Dalrymple No tourism plan Diamantina No tourism plan Douglas Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy 1998 Duaringa No tourism plan Eacham No tourism plan Eidsvold No tourism plan Emerald Tourism plan currently been developed Esk No tourism plan Etheridge No tourism plan Fitzroy No tourism plan Flinders Tourism plan currently been developed Gatton Gatton Tourism Strategy- 1996/1997 Gayndah No tourism plan Gladstone No tourism plan Gold Coast Our Gold Coast- The Preferred Tourism Future- 2002
Gold Coast City Council’s Tourism Strategy- 2003 Goondiwindi No tourism plan Herberton No tourism plan Hervey Bay No tourism plan Hinchinbrook Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy-
1993 Ilfracombe No tourism plan Inglewood No tourism plan Ipswich Ipswich City Tourism Strategy 1997-2002 Isisford No tourism plan Isis No tourism plan Jericho No tourism plan Johnstone No tourism plan Jondaryan No tourism plan Kilcoy Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan 2001-2004 Kilkivan No tourism plan Kingaroy No tourism plan Kolan No tourism plan Laidley Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy- 1997 Livingstone No tourism plan Logan Tourism plan currently been developed Longreach No tourism plan Mackay No tourism plan Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy- 2002 Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy- 2000 Maryborough No tourism plan McKinlay No tourism plan Millmerran No tourism plan Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy 1994 Miraim Vale No tourism plan
425
Monto No tourism plan Mornington No tourism plan Mount Isa Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan Mount Morgan No tourism plan Mundubbera No tourism plan Murgon No tourism plan Murilla Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan Murweh Tourism plan currently been developed Nanango Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan Nebo No tourism plan Noosa Noosa Tourism Plan 2001-2011
Noosa Tourism Action Plan 2001-2004 Paroo No tourism plan Peak Downs Tourism plan currently been developed Perry No tourism plan Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy Pittsworth Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy-2003 Quilpie No tourism plan Redcliffe Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy Redland Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development
Strategy- 2003 North Stradbroke Island Sustainable Tourism Vision
Richmond No tourism plan Rockhampton Tourism plan currently been developed Roma Tourism Action Plan- 2000 Rosalie No tourism plan Sarina Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy Stanthorpe No tourism plan Tambo No tourism plan Tara No tourism plan Taroom No tourism plan Thuringowa Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy Tiaro No tourism plan Toowoomba Tourism plan currently been developed Torres No tourism plan Townsville No tourism plan Waggamba No tourism plan Wambo No tourism plan Warroo Tourism plan currently been developed Warwick No tourism plan Whitsunday No tourism plan Winton No tourism plan Wondai No tourism plan Woocoo No tourism plan
426
Appendix Seven: Stakeholder Interview Schedule Stakeholder Participation
• What was your role in the tourism plan? • How did you come to be involved in the planning process?
o Participation ongoing or a one-off role? At what stage? • What were your reasons for participating in the tourism planning process?
o What level of influence do you feel that you had in the final strategic direction selected/ the final planning outcomes?
o By participating in the planning process do you feel a sense of ownership/ responsibility for the plan?
Some questions about other stakeholder groups who participated in the process.
• How did the different stakeholders work together to plan for tourism? o How successful/ unsuccessful was this in your opinion? For what reasons? o Do you think having a variety of stakeholders participating in the process
enhanced the tourism planning process? Why? Why not? o Do you think it resulted in a more accepted tourism plan for the
destination? Why? Why not? • What were the motivations for incorporating a range of stakeholders in the
tourism planning process? o Do you feel that the various stakeholders will abide by the vision and
directions set out in the plan? Why? Why Not? o Do you think stakeholder groups who were not involved in the process
would feel any attachment to/ follow the plan? Why? Why not? • Who would you consider was the champion or leader of the planning process?
o Was it one person/ group? o Was their level of control/ power/ influence disproportionate to other
stakeholder groups? o In your view are they the best equipped to handle tourism planning? Why?
Why not? Some questions about your views of stakeholder participation in tourism planning?
• What are your thoughts on local residents being able to influence and participate in planning and decision making for tourism development?
o Do you feel that they would be happier with tourism activity and development decisions if they are involved?
o Does this matter? o Should this be a consultation, participation or collaboration role? o Do you think it will lead to a better quality of decision making/ broader
scope of issues? • Do you see any barriers to broad local participation?
o If so, do you think these can be overcome? How? • Should any one individual/group be responsible for tourism planning? Why? Why
not?
427
• In your opinion is the optimum tourism planning process one which is highly structured with one person in control or a more flexible process which is facilitated? Why is that?
Tourism planning process and SustainabilityI would like to discuss with you your opinions and thoughts of the tourism plan and the concept of sustainable development:
• Do you believe the objectives and outcomes of the plan meet the current and/ or future needs of the area?
• How successful do you think the plan will be in providing a framework for tourism development for the destination?
o Should it retain the same format or be changed? o Do you consider your tourism plan as a strategic plan?
• What do you see as the benefits of having a long term planning process for tourism development?
• Do you see a local tourism plan as being more relevant for managing tourism development than a regional plan?
I also have some questions regarding the concept of sustainable tourism development?
• What are your views on the concept of sustainable tourism development? (Definition if needed- The primary objective of sustainable development is the provision of lasting and secure livelihoods which minimise resource depletion, environmental degradation, cultural disruption and social instability).
• Do you think the concept of sustainability is realistic/ practical in a ‘real world situation’ or is it just a theoretical concept?
• Do you believe that your destination has a sustainable approach to tourism development, planning and management?
• Do you think that there are any aspects that make/ or prohibit your destination from having a sustainable tourism industry (i.e. the type of tourism product)?
Strategic VisioningFinally I would like to get your views on the concept of strategic visioning. Show definition card.
• Are you aware of the concept of a strategic visioning process for tourism destination planning? (definition/ Gold Coast)
• Do you think a strategic visioning process would improve stakeholder participation and collaboration in tourism planning and decision making?
o Would it be a better way of achieving consensus amongst stakeholder groups on future directions for the destination?
o Will it provide a benchmark towards which both the general community and the tourism sector can more effectively direct their efforts?
• Do you think strategic visioning would contribute towards achieving a more strategic approach to tourism planning?
• Do you think a strategic visioning process would enhance the incorporation of sustainable development principles into the tourism planning process?
428
• Do you think a strategic visioning process would be of benefit to local tourism destinations?
• Do you think your destination would benefit from such a process? Other Questions
• How many years have you lived in the Shire? • Is your work or profession connected with the tourism industry in any way? • Finally are there any points I have not raised about tourism in your Shire that you
would like to mention? Contacts
• Other groups/ organisations/ individuals were involved in the tourism planning process?
o Contact Details:
429
Appendix Eight: Participant Information Sheet
TITLE: Sustainable Tourism Planning: An Analysis of Queensland Local Tourism Destination Planning
INVESTIGATOR: Lisa Ruhanen, PhD Candidate in the School of Tourism and Leisure Management, The University of Queensland
The aim of this research is to investigate the nature of tourism planning within local tourism destinations, particularly in terms of strategic planning, stakeholder collaboration and sustainable development. To do this, I would like to get your views on these issues, as a stakeholder in the tourism planning process for your destination. This will be achieved by interviewing you at a location and time of convenience to you, and this interview will be tape recorded. This interview will last approximately thirty (30) minutes. A transcription of the interview will be distributed to you for you to read through to ensure it is an accurate recording of our interview. Opportunity will exist for you to get in contact with the researcher to discuss any necessary changes. No controversial information is being sought by the research, however you will have the opportunity to withdraw from the research at any time should you wish to do so. Your privacy while participating in the study will be maintained at all times and your name will not be identified in any way. Files and interview transcripts will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in the School of Tourism and Leisure Management at the University of Queensland. This study has been cleared by one of the human ethics committees of the University of Queensland in accordance with the University’s ethical guidelines. Whilst you are free to discuss your participation in this study with the researcher (Lisa Ruhanen on 3381 1338 or 0423 784 370) if you would rather speak to an officer of the University not involved in the study, you may contact the Chair of the Ethical Review Committee, School of Tourism and Leisure Management through the Secretary on (07) 3381 1010.
Thank you for your interest in this research project.
Lisa Ruhanen (Researcher) Professor Chris Cooper and Dr Lee-Jaye Slaughter (Supervisors)
430
Appendix Nine: Participant Consent Form
CONSENT FORM
I, __________________________________________, hereby consent to take part in the study titled “Sustainable Tourism Planning: An Analysis of Queensland
Local Tourism Destination Planning”, being conducted by Lisa Ruhanen of the School of Tourism and Leisure Management at the University of Queensland.
I understand that: (a) My participation is on the basis of anonymity and my identity will not be disclosed in any way within the thesis or subsequent publications. (b) I have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, and this will trigger destruction of any tapes or other forms of communication by the researcher. (c) Provision of contact details below is voluntary and confidential, and is intended only to make it easier for the researcher to contact me to clarify any interview materials.
Signed: ____________________________________ Date:______________________
CONTACT DETAILS Giving the details below is purely voluntary. The aim is simply to make it possible to follow up on any questions that may arise from your interview.
Postal address:___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _________________________________ P/Code:___________ Contact phone number: ( ) _______________________________ Email address: ___________________________________________________
431
Appendix Ten: Local Government Area Profiles - Business Categories
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
Mining
Manufacturing
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply
Construction
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants
Transport and Storage
Communication Services
Finance and Insurance
Property and Business Services
Government Administration and Defence
Education
Health and Community Services
Cultural and Recreational Services
Personal and Other Services
Source: Office of Economic and Statistical Research, 2005
432
Appendix 11: Tourism Planning Approach Evident in Planning Documents
Economic Physical Environmental Community Sustainable Plan 1 � � - - �Plan 2 � � - - -Plan 3 � � - - �Plan 4 � - - - -Plan 5 � � � - �Plan 6 � � � � �Plan 7 � � � � �Plan 8 � � - � -Plan 9 � - - - -Plan 10 - � - - �Plan 11 � � - - -Plan 12 - - - � �Plan 13 � � - � -Plan 14 � - - - -Plan 15 � � - - �Plan 16 � � - - -Plan 17 � � � - -Plan 18 � � - - -Plan 19 � � - - �Plan 20 � � - � -Plan 21 � � - - �Plan 22 � � - - -Plan 23 � � - � �Plan 24 � � - - -Plan 25 � � - - -Plan 26 � � � - �Plan 27 � � � � �Plan 28 � � - - -Plan 29 � � � � �Plan 30 � � - - �
433
Appendix 12: Overview of Local Tourism Planning Document Analysis Documents 1-15 Evaluative Criteria Evidence of Evaluative Criteria
Planning Document 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Physical/ Environmental/ Economic Situation Analysis The planning document describes the area’s principal geographic features
N S N S S N S E N E E S S N N
The planning document describes the main characteristics of the local climate
N N N N S N N N N N N N N E N
The planning document identifies flora and fauna which are unique to the area
N N N N S N N E N N N N N N N
The planning document assesses the resilience and/or fragility of the physical environment
N N N N S N E N N S N E N N N
The planning document identifies current population levels and demographics
N E E N N N N E N S E E N N N
The planning document identifies current land use and ownership patterns in the area
N N N N N N N E N E N E N N N
The planning document identifies the major economic activities in the local area
N S E N E N N E N E E E N N E
The planning document establishes the relative importance of tourism, compared with other industries, to the economic development of the local area
N E S N E E E S N E N S N N E
The planning document quantifies the economic benefit of tourism to the area
N E N N E N N N N E N E N N E
The planning document quantifies the employment creation ability of local tourism activity
N E N N E N N N N S N E N N N
The planning document describes the principal tourism sites in the area
N E N N S N N E N E E E E N E
The planning document evaluates the current capacity of tourism plant and infrastructure
N S S N E N N E N S N N N N N
The planning document evaluates the adequacy of business skills possessed by local tourism industry operators
N N E N E N N N N N N N N N N
The planning document includes quantitative analysis of current
N E E N E N N E N E E E S S N
434
visitor numbers, length of stay and spending The planning document acknowledges the need to integrate local tourism strategies with other local, regional, state and national plans for tourism development
N S N N N N S N N E N E N S N
Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning The time dimension of the planning process reflects a long term orientation
N E N E S E S S N N E N S E E
The planning document includes broadly based goals related to the nature and scale of future tourism development
N E N N N N N E N E N N N N N
The planning document identifies broadly based goals related to the economic benefits of future tourism development
N N N N N N N N N E N N N N N
The planning document includes broadly based goals related to environmental protection
N E N N N S N N N E N E N E N
The planning document includes broadly based goals related to community values and lifestyle protection
N N N N N N N E N E N N N E N
The planning document includes broadly based goals which emphasize the local benefits of tourism development
N N N N N E E N N E N N N N N
The planning document identifies a range of alternative strategies by which broadly based goals may be achieved
N N N N N E E N N N E E N E N
The planning document evaluates each strategy option prior to determining a range of specific objectives
N E N N N N N N N N N E N S N
Specific objectives support previously established broad goals
N N N N N S S N N E N E N S N
Specific objectives selected are based on supply capability as opposed to market demand
N S E N E N N E N E S S E N S
Specific objectives target the equitable distribution of tourism’s economic benefits throughout the local area
N N N N N N N N N S N E N N N
Specific objectives for future tourism activity are quantified and readily measurable
N E N N E N N E N N N S N N E
Stakeholder Participation/ Influence in the Planning Process The planning document addresses the relationships
S E S N E E E E E E S E N E E
435
between destination stakeholders Relevant state/federal government agencies took part in the planning process
N N N N N N S N N N N E N N E
Relevant local agencies took part in the planning process
N N N N N S S N N E S E S S E
Governmental opinions (federal, state, or local) influenced the final strategic direction selected
N N N N N S S N N S S S S S S
The relevant regional tourism organization took part in the planning process
N N N N E N S N N N N E S N E
The relevant local tourism authority took part in the planning process
N N N N N S S N N E N E S N E
Regional tourism organization or local tourism authority opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected.
N N N N S S S N N S N S S N S
The local tourism industry took part in the planning process
N N N N E N S S N E S E S S E
Local tourism industry opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
N N N N S N S S N S S S S S S
Other local non-tourism organizations took part in the planning process
N N N N N N N N N N N E S S E
Other local non-tourism organization opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
N N N N N N N N N N N S S S S
Ordinary local residents took part in the planning process
N N N N N N S E N E N E S N E
Ordinary local resident opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
N N N N N N S S N S N S S N S
Destination Community Vision and Values The planning document identifies locally important community values
N N N E N N N S N E N N N N N
The planning document identifies locally important lifestyle features
N N N N N N N S N E N N N N N
The planning document identifies current issues which are critical to residents
N N N N N N N S N S N N N N N
The planning document assesses community attitudes to tourism
N N N N N N N S N S N S N N N
The planning document assesses the overall quality of life in the area
N N N N N N N S N S N N N N N
The planning document includes a vision for the future which aligns with local community values, attitudes and lifestyles
N N N N N N N S N S N E N N N
436
Tourism Planning Approach The planning document predominantly emphasizes economic development and growth
E E E E E E E E E N E N E E E
The planning document predominantly emphasizes the physical resources of the destination
E E E N E E E E N E E N E N E
The planning document predominantly addresses the impacts of tourism on the natural environment
N N N N E E E N N N N N N N N
The planning document predominantly addresses how tourism can benefit the local community
N N N N N E E E N N N N E N N
The planning document predominantly addresses tourism in the context of sustainable development
E N E N E E E N N E N E N N E
Documents 16-30 Evaluative Criteria Evidence of Evaluative Criteria
Planning Document 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Physical/ Environmental/ Economic Situation Analysis The planning document describes the area’s principal geographic features
E N E E N N S N S N E E N E S
The planning document describes the main characteristics of the local climate
N N E E N N N N N N N E N E N
The planning document identifies flora and fauna which are unique to the area
N N N N N N N N N N N E N N S
The planning document assesses the resilience and/or fragility of the physical environment
N N N S N N N N N N N E N N S
The planning document identifies current population levels and demographics
N N S E N N N N N N N E N E E
The planning document identifies current land use and ownership patterns in the area
N N E E N N N N N N N N N S N
The planning document identifies the major economic activities in the local area
E N E E N N E E N N N E N E N
The planning document establishes the relative importance of tourism, compared with other industries, to the economic development of the local area
E N S E N N S S N N S N N E N
437
The planning document quantifies the economic benefit of tourism to the area
N N N E N N N N N N N N N E N
The planning document quantifies the employment creation ability of local tourism activity
N N E E N N N N N N N N N E N
The planning document describes the principal tourism sites in the area
E N E E S N E N N N E E N E E
The planning document evaluates the current capacity of tourism plant and infrastructure
N N N E N N N N N N N E N S E
The planning document evaluates the adequacy of business skills possessed by local tourism industry operators
N N S S N N S N N N N N N E N
The planning document includes quantitative analysis of current visitor numbers, length of stay and spending
E N E E N N N S E N S E N E E
The planning document acknowledges the need to integrate local tourism strategies with other local, regional, state and national plans for tourism development
N N N N N N S N N N S E N E E
Strategic Indicators of Destination Planning The time dimension of the planning process reflects a long term orientation
E N E N E S E E N E E E S E E
The planning document includes broadly based goals related to the nature and scale of future tourism development
N N N S S N N S N N N S N S N
The planning document identifies broadly based goals related to the economic benefits of future tourism development
N N N N N N N N N N E E N E N
The planning document includes broadly based goals related to environmental protection
N N S E N N N E N N N E N E E
The planning document includes broadly based goals related to community values and lifestyle protection
N N E N N N N N N N E E N E E
The planning document includes broadly based goals which emphasize the local benefits of tourism development
N N N N N N N E N N N N N E N
The planning document identifies a range of alternative strategies by which broadly based goals may be achieved
N N E N E N E E E N E E E E E
The planning document N N N N N N N E N N N E N E S
438
evaluates each strategy option prior to determining a range of specific objectives Specific objectives support previously established broad goals
N N N N N N N S N N S S N S S
Specific objectives selected are based on supply capability as opposed to market demand
S N S S N N S S N N S S N E S
Specific objectives target the equitable distribution of tourism’s economic benefits throughout the local area
N N S N S N N E N N E E N N E
Specific objectives for future tourism activity are quantified and readily measurable
N N S N E N N E N N E S N E E
Stakeholder Participation/ Influence in the Planning Process The planning document addresses the relationships between destination stakeholders
N E E E E E E E N S E E S E N
Relevant state/federal government agencies took part in the planning process
N N E N S N N S N N N E N N E
Relevant local agencies took part in the planning process
N N E S S N S S N N N E N S E
Governmental opinions (federal, state, or local) influenced the final strategic direction selected
N N S S S N S S N N N S N S S
The relevant regional tourism organization took part in the planning process
N N E N S N N S N N N E N N E
The relevant local tourism authority took part in the planning process
N N E S S N N S N N N E N N E
Regional tourism organization or local tourism authority opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected.
N N S S S N N S N N N S N N S
The local tourism industry took part in the planning process
S N E S S N S S N N N E N S E
Local tourism industry opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
S N S S S N S S N N N S N S S
Other local non-tourism organizations took part in the planning process
N N N N S N S N N N N E N E E
Other local non-tourism organization opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
N N N N S N S N N N N S N S S
Ordinary local residents took part in the planning process
N N E S N N S N N N N S N E E
Ordinary local resident opinion influenced the final strategic direction selected
N N S S N N S N N N N S N S S
439
Destination Community Vision and Values The planning document identifies locally important community values
N N N S N N N N N N E S N N N
The planning document identifies locally important lifestyle features
N N N N S N N N N N E S N S N
The planning document identifies current issues which are critical to residents
N N S S N N N N N N E S N E N
The planning document assesses community attitudes to tourism
N N N S N N N N N N E S N E N
The planning document assesses the overall quality of life in the area
N N N N N N N N N N N S N N N
The planning document includes a vision for the future which aligns with local community values, attitudes and lifestyles
N N N N N N N S N N S S N S N
Tourism Planning Approach The planning document predominantly emphasizes economic development and growth
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
The planning document predominantly emphasizes the physical resources of the destination
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
he planning document edominantly addresses the impacts
f tourism on the natural nvironment
N E N N N N N N N N N E N E N
The planning document predominantly addresses how tourism can benefit the local community
N N N N E N N E N N E E N E N
The planning document predominantly addresses tourism in the context of sustainable development
N N N E N E N E N N E E N E E
Key 1. Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan 2. Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan 3. Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy 4. Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan 5. Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan 6. Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan 7. Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan 8. Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan 9. Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan 10. Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy
440
11. Gatton Tourism Strategy 12. Gold Coast Tourism Strategy 13. Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy 14. Ipswich City Tourism Strategy 15. Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan 16. Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy 17. Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy 18. Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy 19. Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy 20. Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan 21. Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan 22. Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan 23. Noosa Shire Tourism Plan and Action Plan 24. Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy 25. Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy 26. Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy 27. Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy 28. Roma Tourism Action Plan 29. Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy 30. Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy
E. Evident S. Somewhat Evident N. Not Evident
441
Appendix 13: Overview of Local Tourism Planning Documents Rationale,
Objectives and Vision Statement
Atherton Tablelands Strategic Development Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
An expert panel was selected to consider the best options for development of the tropical Tablelands and to develop a tourism strategic development plan. The focus of this review and subsequent investment decisions it may lead to: attract new tourism segments to the region; increase penetration to the region from existing TNQ tourism arrivals; and increase length and value of stay to the Tablelands.
Document Objectives
To identify key issues and objectives for tourism, as well as a set of strategic outcomes and recommendations.
Vision Statement
Not stated
Banana Shire Tourism Development Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
There are a variety of organisations involved in developing and marketing tourism in Banana Shire. Each of these organisations is pursuing various activities to promote or develop tourism in the Shire, often in an ad hoc manner and sometimes without having specific objectives or a focus on the customer (visitors). As a consequence, council commissioned the tourism development plan to recommend how to unite, coordinate and better utilise existing community, business and council resources to develop a sustainable local tourism industry. It will also be used as a map of the way forward for the development and marketing of tourism in the Shire.
Document Objectives
An assessment of the Shire's existing local tourism industry and product; identification of tourism development opportunities, giving consideration to existing strengths and weaknesses, industry trends and forecasts; and recommendations on the way forward, including prioritising of projects/programs, and production of action plans and cost estimates for projects/programs
Vision Statement
Bringing together the comments and needs expressed by stakeholders in the Shire, the following vision statement or overarching purpose has been drafted for the tourism development plan for consideration by Council, tourism industry operators and the community- 'To develop the unique natural, heritage, rural and industrial attractions of Banana Shire, its supporting visitor infrastructure, and crossroads position, and target selected visitor markets, through coordinated initiatives and cooperative efforts by Council, industry operators and the community to deliver sustainable economic benefits to the community.
Blackall Tourism and Economic Vitalisation Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The consultants were commissioned by Blackall Shire Council to: conduct research to determine the state of tourism to Blackall; agree, with Council, on strategies for developing tourism to Blackall; and prepare a document that recorded the steps to be taken by Council to implement agreed strategies.
442
Document Objectives
Background information regarding tourism in the region; and a series of issues and recommendations regarding: funding, the establishment of an advisory committee, access, the visitor information centre, tourism product and tourism infrastructure and marketing.
Vision Statement
Not stated
Bowen Tourism Development Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
Not stated
Document Objectives
Not stated
Vision Statement
Not stated
Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The Burdekin Shire Tourism Action Plan evolved from a recognition that the Burdekin Region required an outcomes-based tourism strategy and action plan encompassing all components of the regional tourism market.
Document Objectives
Provide an overview of the key research strategies and workshops undertaken in the Burdekin region (or relevant to the Burdekin region) and specifically relating to tourism; the current tourism status; industry consultation and recommended action plans and strategies.
Vision Statement
The issue of a stakeholder vision was mentioned in the plan but a vision statement was not articulated.
Caloundra Tourism Plan and Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The purpose of the tourism plan is to provide direction and focus to the industry, community and the government by presenting broad strategies that are developed to achieve the desired goals. The preparation of this tourism plan and action plan is one of the many initiatives that are engaged in developing a successful local tourism strategy for the Caloundra City region. Given the significance of tourism, Caloundra City Council's initiatives in the development of the local tourism strategy include a strong focus on the active engagement of Caloundra City's community and industry in shaping the City's tourism future.
Document Objectives
To provide broad strategies and activities for the tourism industry, the community and the Council. The plan details background issues, a vision, goals, strategies, funding requirements and a three year tourism action plan.
Vision Statement
The Caloundra City Council, the Economic Development Unit and the Tourism Taskforce developed a vision to articulate the outcomes sought from the Caloundra Tourism Plan by 2012. The Tourism Plan Vision for 2012 is: 'a sustainable local and regional tourism industry that complements Caloundra's unique natural assets and preferred lifestyle and is recognised for its encouragement for cooperation and coordination in offering memorable experiences for its visitors. This vision will be achieved with a tourism industry that: encourages cooperation and coordination from all sectors of the
443
community; recognises that 'Caloundra the Brand' is owned by the whole community; respects and complements Caloundra City's natural assets; respects and enhances the environment in which it is located and operates and has the commitment to provide best practices and is driven by continuous and high quality research and development in all aspects of the industry.
Cardwell Shire Tourism Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
Cardwell Shire and surrounds has traditionally relied on agricultural outputs, yet its diverse cultural history and natural areas (bordered by the Wet Tropics and Great Barrier Reef) mean that there is no doubt that the Cardwell Shire has high tourism potential. At the same time, these valuable 'tourism assets' need to be carefully managed to ensure long term sustainability of not only a healthy tourist industry but also the environmental, social and cultural values inherent of the Shire. There is a clear need for the community of Cardwell Shire to embody the strengths of its local tourism industry and collaborate with the wider region in developing strategies to accommodate visitors to the shire whilst at the same time developing strategies to attract visitors to the shire. The result will be a plan for tourism that will focus on partnerships, ownership and mutual responsibility.
Document Objectives
To develop a plan that will focus partnerships, ownerships and mutual responsibility; and the development and functions of the Tourism Taskforce.
Vision Statement
The Tourism Plan Vision for 2006 is ‘A community and tourism industry that works so well together that the Cardwell Shire and Great Green Way is internationally recognised as an innovator in achieving interdependent economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability’.
Chinchilla Shire Council’s Tourism Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
To place tourism in the context of Chinchilla Shire and the Shires developmental aspirations. For Chinchilla, tourism is an economic growth option that compliments and builds on existing strengths of the Shire.
Document Objectives
The tourism plan was developed as a follow up to the Chinchilla community 'Future Search' and tourism workshop.
Vision Statement
The Chinchilla Future Search workshop agreed on the following vision for Chinchilla: 'By 2010 Chinchilla will be a progressive and informed community that is characterised by innovative industries, a capacity for community action, and tolerance with a brand image that is seen and understood by Australian society as a benchmark for rural living. It will have a reputation as the most liveable shire in Australia'. The vision sees tourism in Chinchilla as being an addition to the community's portfolio of economic activity.
Crow’s Nest Tourism Development Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
Not stated
Document Objectives
Not stated
Vision Statement
Not stated
444
Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The Port Douglas and Daintree tourism strategy has been prepared to guide tourism planning, management, marketing and development. It is not intended that the strategy override existing planning frameworks, rather it be used as a guide where discretion is provided. As such the tourism strategy has been prepared having considered, and to be generally consistent with a range of other relevant regional plans.
Document Objectives
To develop an understanding of the diversity of tourism products, visitor patterns and evaluate the current market position of tourism in the Shire, while identifying goals for tourism in the Shire; alternative tourism futures for the Shire; tourism issues and potential strategies for their resolution; mechanisms to ensure tourism in the Shire is compatible with community aspirations, a stable economy and the longevity of the natural environment; and appropriate branding, image, promotion and marketing opportunities.
Vision Statement
Tourism in Douglas Shire will be recognised as a model of best practice sustainable tourism which presents our unique reef and rainforest areas and cultural heritage whilst benefiting the local community including Aboriginal groups.
Gatton Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The aim of this report is to undertake an analysis of the tourism potential of the Gatton Shire and make a number of recommendations that will promote the development of the Shire's tourism industry in the short term.
Document Objectives
The objectives of this report are to: provide an inventory of all existing tourist related operations that are located within the Shire of Gatton; identify existing methods for the promotion of tourism in Gatton; identify trends of tourism in Gatton, if any; identify possible roles for all parties involved in Gatton Shire's tourism industry; discuss roles that are of concern to the tourism operators in the Shire; list opportunities for further tourism growth; and provide recommendations for Council and operators in the Shire's tourism industry.
Vision Statement
Not stated
Gold Coast Council’s Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The development of this strategy recognises the importance of tourism to the local economy and provides Council with its first formal tourism strategic plan for the city and surrounding hinterland. Our Tourism City also provides a framework for many of the planning and policy outcomes generated from the GCTV project.
Document Objectives
Provide a framework within Council for the coordination of Gold Coast tourism and the development of planning and policy outcomes; assists council in prioritising the tourism initiatives for Gold Coast city; aims to position tourism as part of the social fabric of the community as well as the major industry in Gold Coast city; develops a mechanism for stakeholder coordination through fostering internal relationships with Council and continuing to build Council's partnerships with over levels of government and the private sector; and supports
445
the ongoing marketing and promotion of Gold Coast city through the Gold Coast tourism bureau.
Vision Statement
The objective of this strategy is to fulfil the following statements: (1) Gold Coast city will remain Australia's premier tourism destination. A prosperous, growing tourism industry will be promoted through a sophisticated approach to tourism development that is ethically, socially, culturally, economically and environmentally sustainable. (2) through a collaborative, innovative, whole-of-destination approach to tourism planning and policymaking, Gold Coast City Council is a global leader in local government tourism destination management.
Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The Hinchinbrook Shire Tourism Development Strategy has been undertaken to provide the framework for: the balanced development of tourism throughout Hinchinbrook Shire, and short and mid-term strategic directions for individual sectors of the local tourist industry, the community, the Development Bureau of Hinchinbrook and Cardwell Shires and the Hinchinbrook Shire Council.
Document Objectives
To establish a common goal and objectives for the local industry, community, development bureau and council in the development of tourism; to develop strategies to achieve these objectives; to develop a time schedule for the implementation of these strategies including priorities and responsibilities; to implement monitoring methods to identify achievement of objectives and effectiveness of strategies.
Vision Statement
Not stated
Ipswich City Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The Ipswich City tourism strategy is a document aimed to build a solid base for the development of a sustainable tourism industry that will supplement the local economy in the next century while conserving our natural and built heritage and environmental assets.
Document Objectives
The purpose of the strategy is to provide clear direction to local tourism operators and other associated businesses on the aims and objectives of tourism development within Ipswich City and the activities being provided by the Ipswich City Council.
Vision Statement
To make Ipswich a desirable destination offering quality experiences for tourists and economic benefits for the community.
Kilcoy Shire Tourism Management Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The Kilcoy Chamber of Commerce and Industry has recognised the importance of the tourism industry sector as a vital part of the economic development and future of the Kilcoy Shire. In recognition of the importance of tourism, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry applied for and received funding to develop a tourism management plan for the Kilcoy Shire. Tourism within the Kilcoy Shire already represents a major component of the economic mix and is one of the key sectors for future economic development. Like any economic development activity the ability to develop a strategic plan and manage the direction of this sector is vital to achieving successful outcomes.
446
Document Objectives
Not stated
Vision Statement
Not stated
Laidley Shire Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The study was commissioned by the Laidley Shire Council to conduct an analysis of the tourism potential of the Laidley Shire and from this analysis develop a five year tourism strategy.
Document Objectives
The report is a comprehensive analysis of the current position of tourism in the Shire and assesses both deficiencies and possibilities for tourism development. The report makes a number of recommendations which collectively build into a suggested tourism development strategy designed to improve the Shire's existing tourism infrastructure and tourism related businesses. The strategy also maps out a series of possible tourism futures that the Laidley Council can strive towards.
Vision Statement
Not stated
Mareeba Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
To promote the development of tourism in an integrated fashion across the Shire by establishing an appropriate level of physical and social infrastructure that will support the growth and evolution of this critical industry.
Document Objectives
Not stated
Vision Statement
Not stated
Maroochy Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The Maroochy Shire Tourism Strategy was commissioned by Council and established the foundation and direction for further development of sustainable tourism throughout the Shire during the next 3-5 years.
Document Objectives
The tourism development strategy has been developed from extensive consultation and fieldwork throughout the Shire and is presented as an action plan which brings together 95 strategies (actions) based on the recommendations and key issues contained in the body of the report. The strategies are grouped under five strategic objectives which provide an integrated approach and blueprint for the future.
Vision Statement
By the year 2005, Maroochy Shire will be positioned as the primary visitor destination in the region, offering a wide range of facilities and experiences, with strong, sustained growth in the domestic, special-interest and international markets.
Mirani Pioneer Valley Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of There is a pressing need for the development of a new leading sector in the
447
the Plan regional economy that will raise the level of economic activity and provide jobs. Tourism is particularly well suited for this role because of its labour intensive nature and consequently significant regional impact. The primary objective of the study, therefore, is the formulation of a tourism development strategy for the Pioneer Valley, which includes Mirani Shire.
Document Objectives
Not stated
Vision Statement
Not stated
Mount Isa Tourism Masterplan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
Whilst we all recognise the need to develop tourism for Mount Isa, a haphazard approach to tourism development may compromise the very qualities that make Mount Isa a potentially sought after destination. A framework must be established which defines what constitutes appropriate tourism development.
Document Objectives
The report serves as a guiding framework for tourism development over the next 10 years and provides a planning framework within which tourism issues should be addressed.
Vision Statement
To integrate the tourism assets and attributes of Mount Isa into a unique experience that reflects the unique qualities of the district, creates a strong destination image, assists in diversifying the local economy and has high appeal for the community, intrastate, interstate and international visitors.
Murilla Shire Tourism Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
Not stated
Document Objectives
Not stated
Vision Statement
Not stated
Nanango Shire Tourism Development Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The report provides a tourism development action plan commissioned by Nanango Shire Council in parallel with the South Burnett Regional Tourism Strategy and is designed to be read in conjunction with the regional strategy, which addresses the wider strategic issues and market development. The Nanango Tourism Action Plan focuses on the actions that can be undertaken by the Nanango Shire Council, its tourism operators, business operators and wider community, to further the development of tourism as an economic contributor within the Shire.
Document Objectives
The tourism action plan focuses at the local level, taking into account the strategies proposed for the South Burnett region but reflecting opportunities to develop tourism activity and benefits within the Nanango Shire. The action plan comprises 31 recommendations together with a series of actions in the categories of: image and prominence for the shire; structure of the tourism industry and support; and product development.
448
Vision Statement
Not stated
Noosa Tourism Plan and Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
In preparing the new IPA based Land Use Planning Scheme, it became apparent to council that whilst the Scheme describes a vision for the preferred future for Noosa, the tools of the Planning Scheme itself (development control), cannot alone achieve the preferred community visions. Other sectors in our community including other arms of government, the private sector and voluntary agencies play vital roles in our community and are all essential contributors to the final community outcomes. To achieve a greater focus on partnerships, ownership and mutual responsibility for implementation between the community, community organisations, council and state agencies, council has embarked on a new concept of community based sector plans. Clearly tourism is a major industry in Noosa Shire. It contributes significantly to and impacts on the economy, the environment, lifestyle social and characteristics of the community. Given this significance, council selected tourism as the first sector in this community sector planning process.
Document Objectives
The tourism plan charts a course for the tourism industry, the community and the council that should contribute to the realisation of economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Vision Statement
Having identified and discussed key strategic issues and desired strategic shifts, the tourism collaborative board developed a vision to express the outcomes sought from the Noosa tourism plan by 2011, together with goals and strategies to achieve the plan. The tourism plan vision for 2011 is: A community and tourism industry that works for well together that Noosa is internationally recognised as an innovator in achieving interdependent economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Pine Rivers Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
Council to recognise the economic potential of tourism in the Pine Rivers economy in diversifying the economic base, creating more locally based employment within existing and provincial communities and providing a sustainable alternative that neutralises land and resource conflict in potentially environmentally sensitive areas.
Document Objectives
A series of strategies and subsequent actions.
Vision Statement
Not stated
Pittsworth Shire Council Local Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The development of a local tourism strategy has been based on the community acceptance of the need to do more to encourage and promote tourism in the Pittsworth Shire whilst recognising that there must be ongoing economic benefits to the community.
Document Objectives
A number of strategic issues and directions have been developed under each element of the plan and are designed to give direction and guidance to council
449
and the community when dealing with tourism development and promotion. Vision Statement
Not stated
Redcliffe Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The motivation for the review stems from a firm desire and commitment on behalf of Council to continue to devise, and implement strategies and initiatives that will deliver tangible economic development, business growth and employment creation outcomes for Redcliffe and its resident and business community.
Document Objectives
The strategic process comprises the following elements: the development of a planning framework to define the parameters of the tourism strategy; an assessment of the study area’s internal capabilities and external environments; a definition of the desired end-state or vision to be achieved at the end of the planning process; and the tourism development strategy itself, which includes strategic objectives and prioritised actions to reach this desired end-state.
Vision Statement
The tourism strategy establishes a 10 year program of activities that seeks to create the following vision: “To integrate the recreation and tourism attributes of Redcliffe into a unique and diverse themed experience that showcases the strengths of the City, creates a strong destination profile, complements rather than competes with the wider region, diversifies the local economy and has high appeal for visitor markets and the local community”.
Redland Shire Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The project was undertaken because of the realisation that tourism in Redland Shire has not achieved its full potential. The Redland Shire Council has determined a need to establish a five-year strategic framework for tourism development in the Shire.
Document Objectives
The consultants have endeavoured to produce a practical strategy that provides a clear way forward for tourism not only within the Shire, but also within the broader regional context (p.8). Some of Council’s major objectives of this planning exercise were to: examine previous planning that directly or indirectly affects the Shire’s tourism industry and evaluate its current relevance; undertake through field evaluation and stakeholder consultation an examination of the current status of the tourism industry; identify current stakeholder issues and concerns and seek to identify areas of consensus and address areas of debate amongst the array of different stakeholder groups; and provide an independent evaluation of the issues facing the industry and a critical review of those current hurdles that are preventing the ability of the Shire to adopt more sustainable directions (p.9).
Vision Statement
The tourism industry, the community and government must decide what they want from tourism in the Shire. The process of consultation seeks to identify the differing views of stakeholders and attempt to strike a balance between those views in order to achieve the best outcome possible. After an extensive process of consultation and research, the following vision has been formulated: ‘In five years time, Redland Shire will have a sustainable tourism industry working cohesively throughout the Shire, delivering a diverse array of consistently high quality experiences throughout the year that encourage
450
traditional day trip and tourism markets to stay longer, spend more and attract new experiential market sectors to the Shire. Tourism will be seen to integrate with as opposed to inundate the natural, social and economic values of the Shire to preserve and play a pivotal role in retaining the unique character of each of the Shire’s distinctive settings. The natural and cultural assets that underpin the success of the industry will be protected and showcased through best practice approaches to ensure that the needs of the Shire’s residents and the tourism industry share a common vision’.
Roma Tourism Action Plan Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
Not stated
Document Objectives
Not stated
Vision Statement
Not stated
Sarina Shire Tourism Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
The tourism development strategy is a Sarina Shire Council initiative as part of its overall programme for new economic development in the Shire.
Document Objectives
The strategy reviews the current situation with regards to tourism development in the Shire and concludes that the sector is still in the embryonic stage. Although the strategy does not make any formal suggestion, it implicitly recognises that need for an institutional and consultative framework to be set up in partnership with the local council to coordinate and drive the tourism development efforts of the Shire. This is seen as the driving force which should initiate and direct actions towards the implementation of the tourism development strategy.
Vision Statement
Our vision is: to develop and promote the Shire as a quality, competitive and affordable tourist destination to both domestic and international visitors; to promote diversity in the development of our tourism base; and to engage in a tourism development path that is economically, ecologically and socially sustainable in the long term.
Thuringowa Tourism and Event Strategy Plan Overview Rationale of the Plan
It has long been recognised that Thuringowa possesses significant assets and attributes that can be harnessed to develop a sustainable tourism industry and over time develop a destination image for the locality. To date however, there has been no clear consensus on how to exploit this potential, resulting in the fact that tourism as an industry is still in its infant stages, characterised by the independent operation of tourism products in the locality and significant variation in quality of product and delivery. The current infant status of the industry however provides an ideal opportunity to develop a planning approach that sows the seeds to develop a sustainable tourism industry without having to undo potential problems of the past. In recognition of the need to coordinate tourism development to achieve optimal results for Thuringowa, the council commissioned this report, which represents a tourism and event strategy for this
451
city. This strategy/masterplan has been prepared in response to an initiative by the Thuringowa City Council to establish a planning framework, which guides the development of tourism and related recreational activities in the local government area.
Document Objectives
To establish a planning framework to guide the development of tourism and related recreational activities in Thuringowa City.
Vision Statement
The tourism masterplan established a ten year program of activities that seeks to create the following vision: ‘to integrate the tourism attributes of Thuringowa into a unique and diverse themed experience that showcases the strengths of the district, creates a strong destination profile, complements rather than competes with the wider region, diversifies the local economy and has high appeal for the community and domestic and international visitors’.
453
App
endi
x14
:Que
ensl
and
Loc
alG
over
nmen
tAre
aPr
ofile
sLo
cal
Des
tinat
ion
%Sc
ore
LG
ASq
km%
Stat
eSq
km(1
734
190)
LGA
Popu
latio
n%
Stat
epo
pula
tion
(388
203
7)
LG
AT
ouri
smbu
sine
sses
%L
GA
tota
lbu
sine
sses
%St
ate
tour
ism
busi
ness
es
LG
AT
ouri
smem
ploy
men
t(p
erso
ns)
%L
GA
tota
lem
ploy
men
t
Red
land
69.5
537
012
777
73.
318
34.
52.
32
828
5.5
Sarin
a67
.31
444
0.1
997
90.
330
5.1
0.4
195
5.3
Dou
glas
61.9
245
60.
111
654
0.3
147
16.3
2.2
162
724
.2G
old
Coa
st60
.81
406
0.1
469
214
12.1
169
27.
828
.214
195
13.5
Thur
ingo
wa
51.0
186
70.
157
448
1.5
624.
81.
11
396
6.1
Mar
ooch
y50
.01
163
0.1
141
069
3.6
493
7.2
7.9
502
310
.1M
irani
44.5
328
00.
25
299
0.1
244.
60.
410
44.
9C
hinc
hilla
42.3
870
10.
56
133
0.2
182.
30.
397
4.2
Kilc
oy36
.91
445
0.1
346
70.
112
4.3
0.2
594.
7B
urde
kin
34.7
505
30.
318
636
0.5
714.
51.
128
33.
1N
oosa
34.7
869
0.1
4760
61.
228
611
.24.
22
522
3.2
Red
cliff
e34
.738
052
303
1.3
874.
51.
41
234
6.8
Ban
ana
29.3
1575
50.
914
266
0.4
573.
70.
934
25.
1C
ardw
ell
26.0
306
20.
211
230
0.3
446.
00.
654
311
.3N
anan
go25
.01
735
0.1
870
00.
218
3.8
0.3
133
5.2
Ipsw
ich
23.9
120
40.
113
557
93.
523
34.
54.
02
396
4.7
Mou
ntIs
a23
.943
343
2.5
2066
30.
595
9.1
1.5
724
7.1
Gat
ton
21.7
157
90.
116
296
0.4
332.
90.
530
54.
8H
inch
inbr
ook
19.5
288
20.
214
585
0.4
544.
40.
924
44.
5C
alou
ndra
17.3
109
40.
186
468
2.2
230
6.2
3.7
239
99.
0La
idle
y16
.370
10
1335
10.
314
2.3
0.2
196
4.4
Bla
ckal
l14
.116
384
0.9
165
90
198.
60.
342
5.0
Pine
Riv
ers
5.4
750
013
922
83.
618
44.
33.
53
299
5.6
Rom
a4.
378
06
752
0.2
488.
30.
721
36.
9B
owen
3.2
2117
71.
212
568
0.3
114
6.7
1.7
300
5.4
Mur
illa
3.2
607
40.
42
725
0.1
143.
20.
263
5.1
Pitts
wor
th3.
21
090
0.1
489
60.
110
1.7
0.2
733.
5C
row
’sN
est
2.1
163
10.
111
677
0.3
233.
20.
419
54.
3M
aree
ba2.
153
645
3.1
1865
90.
588
6.1
1.4
565
8.1
454
Ath
erto
n1.
062
30
1099
40.
344
5.4
0.7
242
5.7
Ara
mac
N/A
2336
11.
371
20.
03
2.2
06
1.6
Aur
ukun
N/A
738
30.
41
166
00
00
30.
7B
alon
neN
/A31
144
1.8
558
70.
131
5.0
0.4
131
4.6
Bar
cald
ine
N/A
844
30.
51
692
018
10.3
0.3
557.
2B
arco
oN
/A61
974
3.6
464
04
5.2
013
3.6
Bau
hini
aN
/A23
641
1.4
224
00.
16
1.8
0.1
61.
8B
eaud
eser
tN
/A2
854
0.2
5939
31.
510
44.
41.
91
520
6.4
Bel
yand
oN
/A30
281
1.7
1052
40.
347
7.3
0.8
239
4.9
Ben
dem
ere
N/A
392
80.
299
40
73.
30.
13
0.7
Big
gend
enN
/A1
316
0.1
153
70
62.
40.
112
2.0
Boo
nah
N/A
192
20.
18
567
0.2
253.
40.
314
04.
1B
oorin
gaN
/A27
826
1.6
186
10
155.
40.
256
6.0
Bou
liaN
/A61
093
3.5
553
05
7.9
0.1
102.
8B
risba
neN
/A1
327
0.1
957
010
24.7
293
65.
851
.832
874
7.8
Bro
adso
und
N/A
1854
61.
16
489
0.2
184.
00.
312
13.
6B
ullo
oN
/A73
805
4.3
474
011
15.9
0.2
265.
4B
unda
berg
N/A
960
4580
11.
216
66.
52.
81
005
6.5
Bun
gil
N/A
1333
80.
81
959
0.1
71.
80.
128
2.4
Bur
keN
/A41
990
2.4
172
30
713
.46.
136
3.7
Bur
nett
N/A
200
40.
125
891
0.7
414.
10.
650
05.
9C
aboo
lture
N/A
122
50.
112
672
93.
315
14.
12.
82
156
5.2
Cai
rns
N/A
185
00.
112
745
43.
364
58.
710
.47
598
13.3
Cal
liope
N/A
654
70.
416
210
0.4
283.
20.
540
46.
3C
ambo
oya
N/A
631
05
547
0.1
10.
30
863.
8C
arpe
ntar
iaN
/A68
335
3.9
410
50.
113
8.1
0.2
105
5.6
Cha
rters
Tow
ers
N/A
420
883
20.
252
10.5
0.8
219
6.9
Clif
ton
N/A
867
0.1
249
20.
111
2.6
0.2
232.
4C
lonc
urry
N/A
4811
22.
83
836
0.1
197.
30.
314
55.
9C
ook
N/A
117
090
6.8
885
90.
250
10.8
0.8
343
8.3
455
Coo
lool
aN
/A2
967
0.2
3562
40.
910
44.
81.
771
85.
9C
royd
onN
/A29
581
1.7
286
04
10.5
09
6.7
Dal
byN
/A48
010
199
0.3
486.
20.
823
05.
4D
alry
mpl
eN
/A68
346
3.9
348
50.
18
2.4
066
3.7
Dia
man
tina
N/A
9483
25.
530
60
615
.00.
126
10.1
Dua
ringa
N/A
1814
31.
07
724
0.2
366.
50.
616
84.
7Ea
cham
N/A
112
70.
16
405
0.2
346.
10.
520
78.
4Ei
dsvo
ldN
/A4
809
0.3
936
04
2.8
0.1
122.
6Em
eral
dN
/A10
365
0.6
1350
20.
350
5.1
0.8
396
5.9
Esk
N/A
393
40.
215
206
0.4
333.
40.
521
24.
2Et
herid
geN
/A39
309
2.3
100
70
1613
.00.
367
9.3
Fitz
roy
N/A
590
50.
310
280
0.3
162.
50.
220
95.
1Fl
inde
rsN
/A41
538
2.4
203
30.
115
5.5
0.2
585.
6G
aynd
ahN
/A2
709
0.2
293
90.
111
3.4
0.2
402.
8G
lads
tone
N/A
163
028
503
0.7
112
7.4
2.0
708
5.9
Goo
ndiw
indi
N/A
150
502
30.
137
7.3
0.5
172
7.5
Her
berto
nN
/A9
604
0.6
550
80.
112
3.8
0.1
875.
9H
erve
yB
ayN
/A2
357
0.1
4937
11.
315
79.
32.
31
425
11.0
Ilfra
com
beN
/A6
576
0.4
367
01
2.4
015
7.7
Ingl
ewoo
dN
/A5
879
0.3
263
70.
111
2.8
0.1
494.
2Is
isN
/A1
701
0.1
614
10.
224
4.7
0.4
109
5.6
Isis
ford
N/A
1050
10.
630
10
11.
70
63.
3Je
richo
N/A
2187
31.
31
101
07
4.5
0.1
91.
7Jo
hnst
one
N/A
163
90.
119
523
0.5
105
6.2
1.6
414
5.1
Jond
arya
nN
/A1
910
0.1
1386
40.
432
3.4
0.6
220
3.8
Kilk
ivan
N/A
326
40.
23
283
0.1
91.
80.
234
2.7
Kin
garo
yN
/A2
422
0.1
1230
20.
338
3.7
0.6
224
4.5
Kol
anN
/A2
650
0.2
455
00.
111
2.9
0.1
634.
8Li
ving
ston
eN
/A11
775
0.7
2822
20.
792
7.2
1.5
106
810
.5Lo
gan
N/A
251
017
333
14.
512
62.
44.
13
615
1.3
Long
reac
hN
/A23
561
1.4
400
90.
133
8.5
0.5
182
8.4
456
Mac
kay
N/A
289
70.
279
824
2.1
250
4.6
4.0
219
11.
6M
aryb
orou
ghN
/A1
234
0.1
2559
50.
786
6.0
1.4
595
6.9
McK
inla
yN
/A40
885
2.4
103
80
137.
00.
257
6.3
Mill
mer
ran
N/A
452
10.
33
367
0.1
153.
60.
210
.84.
8M
iraim
Val
eN
/A3
778
0.2
511
30.
114
3.8
0.2
154
9.8
Mon
toN
/A4
322
0.2
247
30.
111
2.3
0.1
604.
9M
orni
ngto
nN
/A1
231
0.1
104
20
29.
60
61.
6M
ount
Mor
gan
N/A
492
03
052
0.1
55.
20.
136
5.8
Mun
dubb
era
N/A
419
30.
22
395
0.1
82.
46.
029
2.1
Mur
gon
N/A
695
04
972
0.1
122.
90.
248
2.7
Mur
weh
N/A
4074
02.
35
019
0.1
306.
00.
512
75.
3N
ebo
N/A
1003
50.
62
144
0.1
116.
10.
211
38.
0Pa
roo
N/A
4772
72.
82
170
0.1
124.
70.
132
3.3
Peak
Dow
nsN
/A8
127
0.5
315
40.
115
5.2
0.2
966.
0Pe
rry
N/A
235
90.
143
70
22.
10
63.
4Q
uilp
ieN
/A67
613
3.9
107
30
84.
10.
136
5.3
Ric
hmon
dN
/A26
602
1.5
114
50
63.
60.
144
8.7
Roc
kham
pton
N/A
189
059
662
1.5
259
8.6
4.4
186
77.
7R
osal
ieN
/A2
200
0.1
896
30.
214
2.0
0.3
117
3.3
Stan
thor
peN
/A2
697
0.2
1057
50.
346
4.5
0.7
259
6.5
Tam
boN
/A14
105
0.8
633
03
3.7
015
4.3
Tara
N/A
1168
00.
73
958
0.1
142.
60.
241
3.1
Taro
omN
/A18
645
1.1
255
00.
17
1.3
0.1
463.
1Ti
aro
N/A
218
70.
14
941
0.1
82.
20.
161
4.7
Toow
oom
baN
/A11
70
9404
32.
431
87.
15.
42
372
6.5
Torr
esN
/A1
857
0.1
1041
90.
325
9.2
0.4
146
4.0
Tow
nsvi
lleN
/A1
869
0.1
9792
32.
541
27.
86.
93
751
8.7
Wag
gam
baN
/A13
400
0.8
300
80.
13
0.8
030
1.9
Wam
boN
/A5
713
0.3
529
20.
118
2.0
0.2
813.
4W
arro
oN
/A13
659
0.8
106
30
21.
00
91.
6W
arw
ick
N/A
442
30.
321
530
0.6
814.
41.
243
55.
2
457
Whi
tsun
day
N/A
267
90.
216
874
0.4
165
12.8
2.6
196
421
.7W
into
nN
/A53
935
3.1
154
30
167.
50.
379
8.0
Won
dai
N/A
357
80.
24
339
0.1
163.
10.
344
2.9
Woo
coo
N/A
200
60.
13
163
0.1
00
042
3.5
Sour
ce:O
ffic
eof
Econ
omic
and
Stat
istic
alR
esea
rch,
2005
,Loc
alG
over
nmen
tAre
aPr
ofile
s,Q
ueen
slan
dO
ffic
eof
the
Gov
ernm
entS
tatis
ticia
n,B
risba
ne.
458
Appendix 15: Principles and Goals of the Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy Principles: • Focus on quality tourism products and
yield rather than volume. • Provide a high quality of service using
our tropical hospitality. • Manage and develop the industry
cooperatively with the community. • Focus on presenting reef and rainforest. • Encourage a diversity of experiences
and opportunities for varied markets. • Present our unique Aboriginal and
cultural values with respect and integrity as agreed by the traditional occupiers of the land.
• Promote and present other cultural values in accordance with best practice.
• Present our values in an appropriate way.
• Maintain an attractive natural and built landscape and social atmosphere.
• Maximise the use of local business, services and employees.
• Provide a stable career for local tourism employees.
• Market, promote and advertise honestly, developing realistic expectations.
• Control development to protect agricultural land, the environment and lifestyle.
Goals: • Sustainable Tourism: To ensure the
ecological, social, cultural and economic sustainability of existing and future tourism in the Shire.
• Precincts and Nodes: To promote a variety of tourism precincts and nodes where appropriate within the Shire which provide a diversity of experiences based on their natural and cultural characteristics.
• Tourism Organisation and Management: To have adequately resourced tourism management in the Shire through an efficient, coordinated and consultative organization.
• Tourism Marketing: To promote the Shire’s unique tourism value and attractions in an honest and effective way.
• Product Development: To provide for sustainable growth and develop appropriate tourism products for changing markets.
• Infrastructure Development: To ensure appropriate infrastructure provides a variety of tourism opportunities.
• Implementation, Monitoring and Review: To ensure the ongoing management of tourism marketing and development is considered, coordinated and based on cooperative approaches.
Source: Douglas Shire Council, 1998