Building Sustainable Tourism as an Integral Part of the Resort Community

1

Building Sustainable Tourismas an Integral Part of the

Resort Community

Harold Richins, Ph.D.Professor of Tourism

Thompson Rivers UniversityEmail: [email protected]

Dr. Richins is Professor of Tourism within the Department ofTourism Management at Thompson Rivers University. Previously hewas Dean of the Faculty of Adventure, Culinary Arts and Tourism atTRU. He holds a Ph.D. from James Cook University in Australia anda B.S. and M.S. from University of Oregon. Previously he heldleadership positions for over 15 years in Australian and NewZealand including Waikato University, University of Newcastle andUniversity of the Sunshine Coast. He was also Chair of the ResortManagement program at Sierra Nevada College in Nevada.

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the use of an action research typeparticipatory community method in the development of a sustainabletourism strategy for a resort community in Australia. Through aneffective collaborative approach to tourism management andsustainability, this provides perhaps an innovative example howsustainable tourism methodologies can pave the way for morecommunity integration and empowerment. The paper suggests thatcommunities need to manage tourism development in an inclusivesustainable manner in order to provide both their residents andvisitors with the quality of lifestyle and experiences that theyoften embrace so passionately. In reviewing the establishment ofthe sustainable tourism strategy for the resort community ofNoosa, it is clear that a number of key successes in its processwere achieved. This paper shows an approach to communitygovernance, human capacity building and tourism collaborative

2

development, which suggests an important method in the achievementof long-term resort destination sustainability.

Key Words: Sustainable Destinations; Tourism Strategy; ResortCommunities; Community Governance; Sustainable Tourism

3

INTRODUCTION

Both tourists and residents alike have often been attractedfor similar reasons to regional areas, which have significantnatural attractions such as beaches, lakes, rivers, mountains,rainforests and other natural phenomenon. This increased interesthas often resulted in creating considerable pressure ondevelopment, social and physical infrastructure, as well aspressure on the natural assets which attracted long term lifestylechange and visitation (Hall, Roberts & Mitchell, 2004; Richins &Pearce, 2000; Ryan, Page and Aicken, 2005).

Through the development process, the benefits of increasedinfrastructure and amenity have often been seen in turn as aburden the community caries in its movement through seeminglyinevitable and uncontrollable change. A number of communities havebegun to recognise the importance of taking steps in managingtheir future in ways that are more informed, strategic andintegrated (Blank, 1989; Hall & Richards, 2000; Murphy, 1985;Pearce, Moscardo & Ross, 1996). This process may see tourism notonly in the context of development and marketing (Heath & Wall,1992; Kotler, Haider & Rein, 1993; Morgan, Pritchard and Pride,2002), but as an important and integral component in the makeup oftheir community (Pearce, Moscardo & Ross, 1996; Vasiliauskas et.al., 2004).

Community governance and local human capacity building havebeen considered as a means of addressing, enhancing and preservingimportant assets and resources, as well as sense-of-community andplace, particularly within sensitive regions affected by tourism.These have included such methods as sustainability/sustainable development(Brundtland, 1987; Corson, 1994; Edwards, 2005; EcologicallySustainable Development Working Groups, 1991; Giampietro, 1994),sustainable tourism management (Hunter, 1995; Farrell, 1992; Flint etal, 2002; Mowforth & Munt, 1998; Pigram, 1990; Simpson, 2001;Stettner, 1993; Tourism Canada, 1990), triple/quadruple bottom lineassessment (Gurran, Squires & Blakely, 2006; State of Hawaii, 2006;Spillerand & Lakereport, 2003), integrated community governance methods,and informed community decision-making (Box, 1998; Davidson, 2007;Sullivan, 2001; Vasiliauskas et. al., 2004)

Though sustainable tourism methods have been under somescrutiny (Butler, 1990; Din, 1992; Farrell & Runyan, 1991; Mose,1993; Pigram, 1990; Smith, 1992; Wight, 1993a), they haveattempted to provide answers to issues of sustainability with

4

regard to tourism growth and development in communities.Sustainable tourism has been approached from an ethical-valuespoint of view (Stettner, 1993; Wight, 1993b), a balanced communityfocus (Krippendorf, 1987), and a comprehensive and systemsapproach to tourism community planning (Ecologically SustainableDevelopment Working Groups, 1991).

This paper discusses the use of an action research typeparticipatory community approach in the development of asustainable tourism strategy for a resort community in Australia.Through a collaborative and capacity building approach to tourismsupport, development, management and sustainability, this canpossibly be seen as an example in how sustainable tourismmethodologies can pave the way for more integrated, connected andempowered communities that are also successful resortdestinations.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF NOOSA AS A RESORT DESTINATION

The Queensland community of Noosa is a significant coastalresort destination within two hours of Australia’s third largestcity (Brisbane). It has icon-like well recognised beaches,favourable climate year round, is surrounded by a significantnatural environment (including the most visited national park inQueensland, ERM, 2004; QPWS, 1999), with significant open greenspace and protected areas (Noosa Council, 2006), a very cleanestuarine river system (Noosa Council, 2004), a cosmopolitanvillage atmosphere (Uhlhorn, 2002), with no high-rise developmentand only one traffic light (O’Hare, 2001). The destination alsooffers international standard cuisine (Tourism Noosa, 2007),highly sought after shopping, and has an important hinterland areawith cultural and historical experiences amongst dramatic ruraland natural surroundings (NCAHB, 2002).

Noosa Shire experienced rapid growth for over twenty yearsuntil the early 2000’s following increased interest in moving tothis attractive lifestyle community after ongoing visitation tothe region. During this period Noosa’s estimated residentpopulation increased by 62% (27,896 in 1992 to 45,214 in 2002) inthe ten-year period from 1992 to 2002 (Dept. Local Government &Planning, Queensland Government, 2003; D-sipher, 2002). Since apopulation cap (Burrows, 2007; Wilkie, 2005) was initiated thegrowth of Noosa has slowed to less than 1% per year (population of48,600 in 2006) from the previous 3% average per year over the

5

preceding five-year period and close to 6% average growth in theprevious ten years (Queensland Government, 2007; QTC, 2006).

Tourism has been an important industry for Queensland, theSunshine Coast, and Noosa, which is located at the northern end ofthe Sunshine Coast, a couple of hours north of Brisbane (TQ, 2001;2006; TSC, 2002). Many of these visitors to the Noosa area havevery high return visitation rates (EMDA, 2003; 2006; TourismNoosa, 2007), primarily those who are affluent couples, familiesand empty nesters (EMDA, 2006). These significant numbers,however, place substantial pressures on Noosa as a touristdestination (Cato 1979; Gloster, 1997).

Due primarily to these rapid changes and potential for higherimpacts upon a relatively small community and its surroundingenvironment, the newly established Noosa Community Tourism Board(NCTB) in 2001 identified sustainable tourism as a key goal. TheNoosa Sustainable Tourism Strategy (STS) was developed as aframework toward achieving this goal and to ensure that thediversity and strength of its assets would continue to make Noosathe highly desired community in which to live, work, and visit(NCTB, 2001).

BACKGROUND TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM IN NOOSA

Noosa has shown community leadership and innovation in manyways in an Australian coastal context. This has included: sharedmethods of community planning, social entrepreneurship (D-sipher,2002a), community decision-making (Vasiliauskas et. al., 2004), amovement away from just strategic regional government planning tointegrated community sector planning and development (Vasiliauskaset. al., 2004), initiating controls on, and management of fastpaced development (Gloster, 1997), followed much later byimplementing a population cap (Wilkie, 2005) through a method ofstrict property use and development controls (Noosa Council,2006), early implementation of high-rise limitations todevelopment (O’Hare, 2001), having a traffic light limitationpolicy (Noosa Council, 1997), elements of sustainability (Cato,1979; ERM, 2004; Gloster, 1997; Richins & Mathers, 2002; Wright,1996), detailed review of sustainability factors (Noosa Council,2007), and substantial community involvement and participationfrom both grass roots and through support of the local governmentbody (Amstein, 1969; Noosa Council, 1997).

6

After the Noosa local government committed in 2000 tobuilding community capacity and involvement in decision-making, ashort-term board (the Noosa Collaborative Tourism Board) was setup with diverse representation from within the Noosa community tofocus on developing a sustainable foundation to tourismdevelopment and stewardship. After a six-month process of ongoingmeetings and discussions with key stakeholders affected bothpositively and negatively by tourism within Noosa, a betterunderstanding was gained of key issues, needs and impacts withinthe regional area.

The important task in which the Collaborative Tourism Boardwas charged included both a longer-term brief tourism plan for theperiod 2001-2011 and a shorter-term action plan which was expectedto be consistent with the longer range plan (NCTB, 2001). Two keyactions of the interim board were to establish a longer-termcommunity based tourism sector board and to develop a sustainabletourism strategy for the Noosa community.

In order to facilitate community capacity building andinvolvement in decision-making, four additional sector boards fromdiverse representative members of the community were organized inthe year following the Collaborative Tourism Board’s initiation.These sector boards were organized through an open communityconsultation and involvement process and have been considered tobe a second teer method of community involvement and influenceupon local decision making (Vasiliauskas et. al., 2004).

The five community sector board plans were finalised inJanuary 2003, compiled and published in Noosa 2015 - A Chosen Future (D-sipher, 2002; NCAHB, 202; NCEB, 2002a; NCEB, 2002b; NCSB, 2002;NCTB, 2001). During this process there were significant linksacknowledged and developed between all five of the communitysector board plans which pointed to the shared vision andinterconnectedness of the community. This included aspects ofsocial, environmental, cultural and economic sustainabilityincluding the acknowledgement of the need and importance fordiversification of industry within the region beyond theprevailing tourism focus. This also influenced the Noosa localgovernment council to develop priorities that supported a broadcross section of the Shire. A number of themes were outlined inthis five sector board collaborative publication (D-sigher, 2002).These are shown below:

1. A sustainable ecological footprint

7

2. Noosa’s identity and brand3. Encourage the creative, innovative and entrepreneurial4. Environmentally sensitive lifestyles 5. Take a whole of Shire approach to planning and management6. Noosa, a learning community7. Community wellbeing and health 8. Access and mobility 9. Use art and creativity to realise human and community

potential10. Valuing and preserving our heritage 11. Noosa Shire’s housing and built environment12. Community governance

Following the collaborative tourism board’s interim actionplan, a new volunteer tourism board (Noosa Community Tourism Board– NCTB) was formed by the local government council in late 2001(Noosa Council). This occurred after extensive consultation withthe community and numerous submissions on form, function and scopeof the new board. As part of the process, a set of workingprinciples were developed and innovative funding mechanisms wereexplored for the board in order to finance identified projects andlocal tourism promotional needs and also to address issues relatedto the sustainability of tourism and its relationship to thecommunity.

In order to achieve a major strategic action item of the newNCTB, a workgroup was established in late 2002 to develop anintegrated community based method for realizing sustainabletourism within the region. Key goals related to balancing benefitsand commitments of both residents as well as visitors, improvingcommunity brand and identity, building community stewardship andsense-of-place and demonstrating leadership as an internationallyoutstanding coastal community which is fully committed tointegrating sustainability through tourism as well as within thecommunity (O'Hare, 2006; Richins & Mathers, 2002).

DISCUSSION OF THE COMMUNITY SUSTAINABLE TOURISM PROCESS

Unlike more structured research and consultancy studies andprojects, the work-group embarked on a longer-term evolving andparticipatory action research type process. Through this methodthe facilitator (researcher) utilises a participatory communityapproach with planning, processes, actions and evaluations

8

followed by further development. The key role is to positivelyevolve the process and outcomes in a collaborative andparticipatory way within the community of concern (Arnstein, 1969;Bessette, 2004; de Guerre, 2002; de Guerre & Hornstein, 2004;Dick, 2002; Hult & Lennung, 1980; McNiff, 2002; O'Brien, 2001;Reason & Bradbury, 2001). Though it is acknowledged that acommunity is in essence but part of a larger region (Bessette,2004) and will have impacts upon or be impacted by that greaterregion, local government regions have by nature boundaries ofgovernance and control and can by their decision making (Richins &Pearce, 2000) have a large impact on future development ifstrategic steps are taken and strong long term commitments made.It is within this context that focusing on a smaller governmentalregion such as Noosa that lessons might be learned about morecomprehensive strategies to sustainable tourism development.

There were four phases identified for developing the actionresearch process of sustainable tourism at Noosa over a threeyears period. These included a preliminary phase which establishedgoals, approaches and identified potential initiatives as part ofthe sustainable tourism strategy. The next phase was primarily theplanning, investigative and collaborative phase, particularly inpriority areas; phase two was primarily for the development anddescription of important initiatives of the strategy; and phasethree was for the implementation, community review and ongoingprocess of the strategy.

In order to build community capacity and be more inclusive ofcommunity needs and aspirations, the Noosa Sustainable TourismStrategy (STS) development process involved a broad range ofstakeholders representing various interests across the community.The STS Work Group was formed through the identification of keyleaders within the local area who had diverse expertise in thevisitor industry within the context of Noosa. This includedrepresentation from the Noosa Shire Council (CEO), the EnvironmentCommunity Sector Board, Tourism Queensland, academic leadershipand facilitation from an Australian academic institution (theregional university - University of the Sunshine Coast throughtheir Sustainable Tourism Program) and regional districtrepresentation of tourist operations and community involvement.The Strategy was reviewed by further members of Council and theNoosa community sector boards (Economic, Environment, Social andCultural).

9

The sustainable tourism planning process included thedevelopment of strategic tourism and community asset categories(identified as ecological, cultural, economic and socio-community)and sub-categories, vision statements and aims for each of thecategories, and the sub-categories. These were prioritised basedon degree of importance, urgency and risk if not addressed.Significant time was spent in the investigation, discussion,review and completion of individual worksheets for all sub-categories. This strategy, (put forward in 2004) has additionallybeen streamlined and adapted to have a more marketing orientedfocus and is summarized at the Tourism Noosa website (TourismNoosa, 2007).

LITERATURE RELEVANT TO THE COMMUNITY SUSTAINABLE TOURISM PROCESS

For the process of developing a strategy for sustainabletourism in Noosa to proceed, methodologies, concepts and criteriaof “sustainable tourism” and community tourism were explored(Australian Government, 1997; D’Amore, 1993; EcologicallySustainable Development Working Groups, 1991; Godfrey, 1996; Hall,1998; Hunter, 1995; Krippendorf, 1987; Murphy, 1985; Kennedy,1992; Pigram, 1990; Romeril, 1989; Simpson, 2001; Stettner, 1993;Tourism Canada, 1990; Wight, 1993b). Previous to the developmentof the Noosa strategy, Romeril (1989) advocated a completelychanged tourism industry, fully aware of the issues of sustainabletourism development and believed that movements were already beingmade in this direction as evidenced by the following fiveinternational agreements that concentrated on sustainableapproaches: World Conservation Strategy 1980, Brandt CommissionReport 1980, World Tourism Organization Manila Declaration 1980,UNEP/WTO Accord 1982, the Brundtland Report, 1987, and the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED-EarthSummit) in 1992.

In progressing the more comprehensive nature of sustainabletourism, four diverse, but interrelated areas of sustainabletourism were initially identified including ecological, cultural,economic and local sustainability (modified to socio-community;Tourism Canada, 1990). Consistent with this view included theconcept of sustainable endemic tourism, which focuses onrecognising and building on the inherent qualities of a localityin order to complement, rather than detract from, localenvironments, cultures and lifestyles (Kennedy, 1992).

10

After consideration by the Noosa Community Tourism Boardworking group, the following notion adapted from Hunter (1995) wasembraced: (1) Meeting the needs and wants of the local hostcommunity in terms of improved living standards, sense-of-community and quality of life, (2) Satisfying the demands of‘appropriate’ visitors and the tourism industry, and continuing toattract them in order to meet the first aim, (3) Safeguarding theoverall resource base for tourism, encompassing environmental,economic, social/community and cultural assets in order to achieveboth preceding aims.

The process taken was also aligned with a further approach orguide, adapted for achieving social entrepreneurship andinnovation. This includes a commitment to community based planningand for community capacity building (Godfrey, 1996; Grisham, 1999;Simpson, 2001; see list below):

People in the community as those responsible for addressinglocal problems

The first step in developing capacity is to develop thehuman resource

Community organizations and institutions developed well tobuild and implement strategy are as important as excellentleadership

Both local and regional focus is important to achievecommunity success

Broad and well represented participation and involvement isimportant for success

Building on both people and other assets is a key to furthersuccess

DETAILS OF THE NOOSA SUSTAINABLE TOURISM STRATEGY PROCESS

Steps in the STS Process.

As mentioned previously, the STS process involved theincorporation of the key components of sustainable tourism in anaction research based community collaboratory approach. Thefollowing (Table 1) shows the key steps in the development processfor the Noosa Sustainable Tourism Strategy.

Table 1 - STS Process Timeline HERE

11

A labor-intensive process involved the completion of detailedindividual worksheets for all fourteen asset sub-categories fromOctober 2002 through March 2003. Consultation with keyrepresentatives of the other four Community Sector Boards(Environment, Economic, Social, and Arts and Heritage - namechanged to Cultural Board), Noosa Council, Tourism Noosa, andothers was then conducted in April and May of 2003. The NoosaSustainable Tourism Draft Strategy was presented to the NCTB in late 2003,and after detailed review and input, the Noosa Sustainable TourismStrategy was approved in mid 2004. The implementation process of theevolving strategy has been in place through 2007.

Summary of Key Issues

As part of the initial process and to gain a deeperunderstanding of each asset sub-category, important issues wereidentified that needed to be addressed. These included areas ofstrategic direction and responsive decision-making, tourismmarketing and brand identity, quality service, parking andtransport issues, information and research, the naturalenvironment and social issues affected by the pressures oftourism. The following is a summary of the most important overallissues, which emerged repeatedly across more than a few of thediscussion sessions and resulting worksheets.

Strategic direction and decision-making. There was formerly nocommunity driven tourism strategy other than with acomplete focus on marketing and advertising. The focus waspreviously not on sustainability, other than economicallydriven. In addition, responsive tourism developmentdecision-making, which focussed on local values and needs,was seen to be a priority. There was a strong interest inensuring Council’s ongoing commitments to communitygovernance through the Community Sector Boards or similarprocess.

Marketing and destination brand identity. A need was seen for acomprehensive marketing strategy, which had not previouslybeen completed. There was also a strong desire for acommunity determined image or brand identity with relevantmarketing programs reflective of sustainable tourism,operator, and visitor needs. The cyclic nature of thetourism industry (seasonality) and the variance in

12

occupancy rates throughout the Shire, were also seen asimportant issues for tourism marketing and productdevelopment. There are large peaks and troughs in thenumber of visitors to Noosa, which has created planning,staff turnover, service, and training challenges. Bothexisting tourism products and potential new tourismproducts were seen as important providing greaterdiversity of experiences for tourists and they neededenhancement. Items of interest for new product developmentincluded involving arts, performing arts, healthylifestyle and soft adventure and eco-tourism activities aswell as indigenous experiences.

Service issues. There was a perceived lack of standardisedhospitality-oriented service with the Noosa region. Aspart of this aspect, service regarding visitorinteractions was also seen as an important area ofconcern. This was also identified by the Noosa TourismMonitor as a key issue in Noosa (EMDA, 2002). With thisperceived lack of standardised service levels there wasalso a need identified for increased actions regardinghospitality, tourism, and management service relatedtraining programs in Noosa.

Environment preserved. There was a strong desire to have keyenvironmental features of Noosa (the waterways, beaches,and National Parks and green spaces) preserved andenhanced in order to ensure visitors continue to findNoosa appealing and to preserve these assets for futuregenerations. The beach and the national park weredetermined to be two of the top three key attractors forNoosa tourists and the June 2003 Tourism Monitor statesthat research findings point to “visitors more interestedin the less material aspects of the holiday – moreinterested in the nature based aspects” (EMDA, June 2003).

Sustainable strategies. There was also a strong need indicatedto address the sustainable strategies outlined in a majorplanning document for a dominant natural feature withinthe region - the Noosa River Plan. This included a needfor more coordination, communication, and cooperationbetween government departments and environmental groupsand smart targeting of efforts to protect Noosa’s naturalresources.

13

Severe weather. There was a concern that inadequatecontingency or long-term plans for severe weatherconditions, which could have a major impact on visitationinterest. There was also a lack of environmentalindicators and benchmarks to understand sustainability inNoosa and to determine methods in order to achieve bestpractice standards.

Transportation systems. One of the most pressing issues wasidentified as the lack of an overall transport systemcapable of meeting Noosa’s current and future parking andtransport needs for visitors and locals that providesefficient, friendly, and easy access to Noosa’s primevisitor destinations as well as hinterland areas.

Information and research. Research needs were also identifiedin providing on-going information on visitor, operator,and community perceptions regarding tourism andsatisfaction with tourism products and services is needed.There was also a need indicated for providing thecommunity with information on concepts and best practicesrelated to destination based sustainable tourism.

Social issues in Noosa. Social issues that effect sustainabletourism included a strong interest in diversifying theeconomy of Noosa so that it would be less dependent ontourist visitation. Another issue included the need forquality employment needs to be available in Noosa Shire,particularly to address high youth unemployment. Needswere also indicated for locally affordable, accessiblehousing and other facilities, particularly to address thehousing needs of tourism employees in Noosa.

Though it was acknowledged that a number of the issuesidentified above were not the direct responsibility of the NoosaCommunity Tourism Board, they were highlighted as important issuesrequiring attention in order to achieve sustainable tourism inNoosa.

The provision of a structure or direction to the process

The guiding force for the development and implementation ofthe Noosa Sustainable Tourism Strategy included the provision of astructure or direction to the process. The key purpose of thisdirection was seen to provide a structured means for achieving

14

each identified aim in order to improve and enhance each ofNoosa’s tourism assets/resources. The term “direction” was used inreferring to the creation of key aims, which were to provideleadership for achieving sustainable tourism through effectivedevelopment of vision and values consistent with sustainabletourism.

Besides providing direction to the process, two furtherintegrating approaches were also identified. These included theprovision of information and practices in order to implementstrategies identified. A focus on the provision of information wouldalso help in future decision-making. The key aims for informationprovision were to gain knowledge for decision-making throughappropriate public communications methods, utilising best practicecases and historical contexts and effective research anddevelopment on regional destination based sustainable tourism.Practices were to ensure effective standards would be in place toachieve sustainable tourism directions. The key aims of practicesdevelopment included having effective standards to achievesustainable tourism through development of acceptable communitystructures, indicators, standards, controls and initiatives,effective interpretation, visitor management and monitoringprograms.

Asset resources identified

As mentioned previously, four key sustainable tourismstrategic assets and fourteen specific strategic asset sub-categories were acknowledged during the development process. Oneof the important goals here was a focus on being as comprehensiveas possible regarding the diversity of asset resources, whichrelate directly or indirectly to sustainable tourism in Noosa. Toaccomplish this goal, visions for each primary asset category andkey aims to achieve excellence for each sub-category wereidentified during the initial facilitated process as a way ofcategorising further Noosa’s primary resources (see Table 2).

Table 2 - Strategic Aims of Each Tourism Asset Resource in NoosaHERE

Each asset category was considered to be of equal value andimportance. With Noosa being considered a community-baseddestination resort where visitors experience the place and its

15

attributes (Flint et. al., 2002) each of the assets was regardedto be of potential interest to visitors and also of greatimportance to the Noosa community.

PROGRAMS AND ACTIONS FOR THE NOOSA SUSTAINABLE TOURISM STRATEGY

After full consideration of information from the SustainableTourism Worksheets, the issues identified through theseworksheets, and the vision statements and aims determined throughthe process, the next major step was to determine appropriate andcomprehensive strategies, actions and programs/initiatives toaddress the aims for each asset sub-category. This processidentified sixty-five strategies and seventy-two actionsaddressing these strategies. These were then categorised andbrought together into sixteen (16) different programs or projects.The broad programs and projects generally contained three or moreactions. Table 3 (a & b) below includes the listing of allprograms and their associated actions.

Table 3a & 3b- Complete Listing of All Programs and TheirAssociated Actions. HERE

As part of the process two rigorous NCTB board retreats wereconducted to determine priorities, primary and secondaryresponsibilities of various organizations, suggested timelines andestimated costings. Those who were seen to have either primary orsecondary responsibilities included the Noosa Community TourismBoard (now integrated with Tourism Noosa), the Noosa ShireCouncil, Tourism Noosa, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service,Education and Training providers (TAFE, Universities, other) andother stakeholders. As part of the development process it wasacknowledged that it would be difficult to commit to and implementeach and every one of the programs, however, the process didprovide a more complete basis from which to understand,prioritise, initiate and realize substantial aspects ofdestination based coastal sustainable tourism in Noosa.

DISCUSSION OF THE PROCESS, ITS POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESS ANDCONCLUSION

Challenges and successes.

16

In reviewing the establishment of the NCTB and thesustainable tourism strategy, it is clear that a number of keysuccesses in its process were achieved. The creation andfunctional operation of the Board was a positive success,particularly in its collaborative and integrated nature and alsoas a positive example of social innovation regarding funding, thedevelopment of diverse community capacity and a long-term actionresearch type involvement process. There were numerous challenges,however, in moving from a disjointed board with communicationsissues and dissimilar priorities and interests (the Board’s earlystart-up) to a consensus building approach that has led to anumber of key success factors and initiatives.

After much discussion, an innovative tourism funding levy,tied to associated Noosa tourism industry ratepayers, gainedapproval and was made operational. Following this initiative andafter extensive strategic planning efforts, the sustainabletourism strategy was developed and tied to these levy funds(AU$1.1-1.7 million per year). This provided an opportunity forkey community and promotional based projects to be identified andprioritised. Functional work groups formed over time which wereeventually connected to various projects.

Benefits of a community driven sustainable tourism strategy

In order to provide awareness of the benefits of asustainable tourism strategy in Noosa, a list of stakeholders wereidentified and advantages acknowledged. Regarding primarystakeholders, for tourism operators, the benefits were seen toinclude economic sustainability, a sense of social responsibilityand also predictability for development. For visitors, benefitswere identified as the diversity of experience, satisfaction,respect for place and commitment to returning to the destination.For residents, benefits include the potential for regionalvibrancy, further development of a sense-of-community, qualitylifestyle, liveability, employment and a sustainable community.Regarding secondary stakeholders, other regional businessenterprises may benefit by economic multipliers, through aspringboard effect, and through increased economic predictability.For tourism developers, benefits were seen to include more clarityof community and council expectations, increased efficiency indevelopment application and approval, pathways, return oninvestment. The potential benefits for the local Noosa Councilincluded more community cohesiveness, increased predictability,

17

more effective planning, and a positive movement toward a vibrantand satisfied community. For community interest groups benefitsincluded having diverse needs and issues respected and met. ForNoosa community sector boards, a sustainable tourism strategy wasseen to offer cohesiveness, integration, and long-term communitysuccess with positive relationships developed between potentiallyadverse groups. Finally, for other government organizations,benefits included increased commitment, support, initiatives andprograms directed toward the local sector.

Though there were clear differences of interests andpriorities, the strategic process has enabled more successfulrelationships to form between the Noosa Council, the volunteerNCTB board and other community stakeholders. This also hasinvolved increased positive and collaborative relationshipsbetween the local council and the other four community sectorboards.

Marketing is not the answer to community tourism development

Even though tourism often creates significant economic,employment and social benefits for communities, there areassociated challenges, and Noosa will need to manage its growingtourism market in a sustainable manner in order to continue toprovide both its residents and its visitors with the quality oflifestyle and experiences that it currently embraces sopassionately. Marketing as an overwhelming priority (Ainsworth,2007) is not necessarily the answer to long-term success,especially when there is such a high awareness of a destinationsuch as Noosa. Small decision-making without strategic issues ofsustainability being addressed may have substantial negative long-term effects (Kahn, 1996; Odum, 1982). There are still manychallenges ahead regarding the success of sustainable tourism inNoosa. With the majority of NCTB board funds levied from Noosabusinesses going to marketing and product development, forexample, this creates great challenges in prioritising andimplementing the non-marketing/non-economic aspects of theoriginal sustainable tourism strategy. Additional challengesinclude impacts from the neighbouring local government areas, withpressures toward amalgamation and where development control andsustainable practices have been less of a priority. Lacking acomplete and on-going commitment to the major strategic directionsof all key assets identified in the strategy, the achievement of

18

comprehensive sustainability within Noosa may be difficult torealize.

Without a long-term vision, well-defined goals, ongoingcommunity stakeholder involvement and a complete commitment toestablishing and implementing realistic and integrated sustainabletourism strategies, the future makeup of the Noosa resortcommunity and its regional tourism industry may be in jeopardy(Richins & Mathers, 2002; Vasiliauskas et al, 2004). With an on-going dedication to many of these sustainable tourism strategiesand their corresponding actions, however, there is a much betterpossibility of furthering the success of the last five to sixyears of collaboration, inclusion, community governance andcapacity building within the Noosa region in achieving long-termresort destination sustainability.

19

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, D. (2007) ‘Tourism Noosa Takes Out Top Marketing Award’, NoosaTourism, 26 February 2007.

Arnstein, S. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, AmericanInstitute of Planners Journal, July. pp216-224.

Australian Government. (1997) Coastal Tourism - A Manual for SustainableDevelopment, Australian Government.

Bessette, G. (2004) Involving the Community: A Guide to ParticipatoryDevelopment Communication, Ottawa: International DevelopmentResearch Centre.

Blank, U. (1989) The Community Tourism Industry: Imperative - The Necessity, theOpportunities, It's Potential, Venture: State College, PA.

Box, R. (1998) Citizen Governance: Leading American Communities Into the 21stCentury, Sage.

Brundtland, G. (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Burrows, J. (2007) Noosa Council leads the way, Sunshine Coast ECO News,June-July, 2007.

Butler, R. W. (1990) ‘Alternative tourism: Pious hope or trojanhorse?’ Journal of Travel Research. 28(3), 40-45.

Cato, N. (1979) The Noosa Story: A Study In Unplanned Development, JacrandaCorson, W. (1994) ‘Changing course: An outline of strategies for a

sustainable future’, Futures, 26(2), 206-223.D'Amore, L. (1993) ‘A code of ethics and guidelines for socially

and environmentally responsible tourism’, Journal of Travel Research.31(1), 64-66.

Davidson, B. (2007) Noosa. A case study in Sustainability. Capping the population.LGMA National Congress. Hobart. Tasmania

de Guerre, D.W. & Hornstein, H. (2004) ‘Active Adaptation ofMunicipal Government - An Action Research Report’, The InnovationJournal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 9 (1).

de Guerre, D.W. (2002) ‘Action Research as Process: The two stagemodel for active adaptation’, Ecclectica, Brandon University, Vol2002, No. 4.

Dick, B. (2002) Action research: Action and research, Accessed on May 4,2007 from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.html.

Din, K. (1992) ‘The "involvement stage" in the evolution of a

20

tourist destination’, Tourism Recreation Research. 17(1), 10-19. D-sipher (2002) Noosa 2015 – A Chosen Future, Noosa Council.Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups (1991)

Ecologically sustainable development working groups final report – Tourism,Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian GovernmentPublishing Service.

Edwards, A. (2005) The Sustainability Revolution – Portrait of a Paradigm Shift,New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC

EMDA (2002) Noosa Tourism Monitor, Economic and Market DevelopmentAdvisers.

EMDA (2003) Noosa Tourism Monitor, Economic and Market DevelopmentAdvisers.

EMDA (2006) Noosa Tourism Monitor, Economic and Market DevelopmentAdvisers.

ERM. (2004) Noosa North Shore Eco-Tourism Portal Flora and Fauna Survey Report.Environmental Resources Management, Petrac.

Farrell, B. & Runyan, D. (1991) Ecology and tourism, Annals ofTourism Research, 18(1), 26-40.

Farrell, B. (1992) Tourism as an element in sustainabledevelopment: Hana, Maui. In V. L. Smith & W. R. Eadington(Eds.), Tourism alternatives (pp. 115-134), Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press.

Flint, R.W, Frick, F.C., Duffy, A., Brittingham, J., Stephens, K.,Graham, P. & Borgmeyer, C. (2002) Whistler, Its Our Future – SustainIt,Characteristics of Sustainable Destination Resort Communities, ResortMunicipality of Whistler, BC, Canada.

Getz, D. (1997) Event Management and Event Tourism, CognizantCommunication Corp., New York.

Giampietro, M. (1994) ‘Using hierarchy theory to explore theconcept of sustainable development’, Futures. 26(6), 616-625.

Gloster, M. (1997) The Shaping Of Noosa, Noosa Blue Publishing, 1997.Godfrey, K. (1996) Towards sustainability? Tourism in the Republic

of Cyprus. In L.C. Harrison, and W. Husbands. Practicing ResponsibleTourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development.New York: John Wiley and Son.

Grisham, V. (1999) Tupelo: The. Evolution of a Community, KetteringFoundation Press, Dayton, Ohio.

21

Gurran, N., Squires, C., & Blakely, E. (2006) Meeting the Sea ChangeChallenge: Best Practice Models of Local & Regional Planning for Sea ChangeCommunities, National Sea Change Taskforce. University ofSydney.

Hall, C. (1998) Introduction to tourism: development, dimensions and issues. 3rd

Ed., Longman, Australia.Hall, D., & Richards, G. (2000) Tourism and Sustainable Community

Development, Routledge: London.Hall, D., Roberts, L. & Mitchell, M. (2004) New Directions in Rural

Tourism - New Directions in Tourism Analysis, Ashgate Publishing:Burlington, Vermont.

Heath, E., & Wall, G. (1992) Marketing Tourism Destinations: A StrategicPlanning Approach, Wiley.

Hult, M., & Lennung, S. (1980) "Towards a Definition of ActionResearch: A Note and Bibliography," Journal of Management Studies,(17:2), 1pp. 242-250.

Hunter, C. (1995) ‘On the need to re-conceptualise sustainabletourism development’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(3), 155-165.

Kahn, A. (1966) ‘The tyranny of small decisions: market failures,imperfections, and the limits of economics’, Kylos. 19:23-47.

Kennedy, I. (1992) Endemic tourism: A profitable industry in a sustainableenvironment, Towards a vision for Australia and the region,Sydney: Pacific Asia Travel Association.

Kotler, P., Haider, D. & Rein I. (1993) Marketing Places, Free Press:New York

Krippendorf, J. (1987) The holiday makers: Understanding the impact of leisureand travel, Oxford, England: Heinemann.

McNiff, (2002) Action research for professional development, Accessed onlineMay 4, 2007 at http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. & Pride, R. (2002) Destination Branding,Second Edition: Creating the unique destination proposition, ElsevierButterworth-Heinemann: Oxford

Mose, I. (1993) ‘Hohe Tauern National Park: Test case for "softtourism" in the Austrian Alps? Experiences with projects in theupper Pinzgau Region’, Tourism Recreation Research, 18(1), 11-19.

Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability. New Tourism in theThird World, London: Routledge.

Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: A community approach, Routledge, New York.

22

NCAHB. (2002) Noosa Community Sector Plans Arts and Heritage Sector Plan 2002 –2015, Prepared by the Noosa Community Environment Board, NoosaCouncil.

NCEB. (2002a) Noosa Community Sector Plans Economic Sector Plan 2002 – 2015,Prepared by the Noosa Community Environment Board, NoosaCouncil.

NCEB. (2002b) Noosa Community Sector Plans Environment Sector Plan 2002 – 2015,Prepared by the Noosa Community Environment Board, NoosaCouncil.

NCSB. (2002) Noosa Community Sector Plans - Social Sector Plan 2002 –2015.Prepared by the Noosa Community Social Board, Noosa ShireCouncil.

NCTB. (2001) Noosa Tourism Action Plan 2011, Noosa Collaborative TourismBoard.

Noosa Collaborative Board. (2001) Tourism Plan 2001-2011 and Action Plan2001-2004, Noosa Collaborative Board.

Noosa Council. (1997) Shire of Noosa Strategic Plan, Noosa Council.Noosa Council. (2003) Noosa Council Corporate Plan 2003-2007, Noosa

Council.Noosa Council. (2004) The Noosa River Plan. Noosa Council Strategic

Planning Section, Noosa Council.Noosa Council. (2005) Community Grants Program Guidelines, Noosa

Council. Noosa Council. (2006) Noosa Shire - The Noosa Plan, Noosa Council. Noosa Council. (2007) Review Of Non-Financial Sustainability Indicators, Noosa

Council. Noosa Tourism (2007) Sustainable Tourism, Viewed on June 15, 2007 at:

http://www.tourismnoosa.com.au/members/mem_index.htmlO'Brien, R. (2001) An overview of the methodological approach of action

research, In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Theory and Practice ofAction Research. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal daParaíba. (English version), Accessed online on May. 4, 2007from http://www.web.ca/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html.

Odum, W.E., (1982) Environmental Degradation And The Tyranny OfSmall Decisions. BioScience. Vol 32 No.9; Oct 1982; pp:728-729.

O'Hare, D. (2001) ‘Articulating the Heritage Tourism Resource inCoastal Towns: a Case Study of Noosa’, In Proceedings HeritageEconomics: Challenges for heritage conservation and sustainable development in the

23

21st Century. pp. 97-107. Australian National University,Canberra.

O'Hare, D. (2006) ‘Mobilising Myths in Paradise: the planning anddevelopment of Noosa as not another Gold Coast’, in Childs,Iraphne R.W. and Hudson, Brian .J., Eds. Queensland GeographicalPerspectives, pp. 91-109. Royal Geographical Society ofQueensland.

Pearce, G., Moscardo, G. & Ross, G. (1996) Tourism CommunityRelationships, Pergamon: Oxford.

Pigram, J. (1990) ‘Sustainable tourism - Policy considerations’,Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(2), 2-9.

QPWS. (1999) Management Plan Noosa National Park, Queensland Parks andWildlife Service.

QTC. (2006) Noosa Shire Council Benchmarking Report, Queensland Treasury.Queensland Government. (2007) Noosa Shire Population and Housing Fact Sheet,

Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation,Queenland Government.

Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (2001) Handbook of Action Research:Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Richins, H. & Mathers, D. (2002) Sustainable Tourism Strategic DevelopmentReport for Noosa Shire Community, NCTB.

Richins, H. & Pearce, P. (2000) ‘Influences On Tourism DevelopmentDecision Making: Coastal Local Government Areas In EasternAustralia’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 8(3) 207-231.

Richins, H., Mathers, D., Gaber, C., Richins, K., & Griffin, V.(2004) Noosa Sustainable Tourism Draft Strategy, Noosa Community TourismBoard. Noosa Shire Council.

Romeril, M. (1989) ‘Tourism and the environment -- accord ordiscord? Tourism Management, 10(3), 204-208.

Ryan, C., Page, S, & Aicken, M. (2005) Taking Tourism to the Limits: Issues,concepts and managerial perspectives - Advances in Tourism Research. Elsevier.

Simpson, K. (2001) ‘Strategic Planning and Community Involvementas Contributors to Sustainable Tourism Development’, CurrentIssues in Tourism, Vol. 4, No.1.

Smith, R. (1992) ‘Beach resort evolution: Implications forplanning’, Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 304-322.

Spillerand, R. & Lakereport, C. (2003) ‘Investing In Culture – The4th Bottom Line’, Ethical Investor. No. 22 Pg. 14.

24

State of Hawaii. (2006) Dept. of Business, Economic Developmentand Tourism, Planning For Sustainable Tourism - Project Summary Report,Honolulu.

Stettner, A. (1993) ‘Community or commodity? Sustainabledevelopment in mountain resorts’, Tourism Recreation Research,18(1),3-9.

Sullivan, H. (2001) ‘Maximising the Contribution of Neighbourhoods- The Role of Community Governance’, Public Policy and Administration,Vol. 16, No. 2, 30-49.

Tourism Canada. (1990) Tourism Stream Action Strategy Committee produced thepublication: An Action Strategy for Sustainable Tourism Development, Globe '90,Tourism Canada. March 1990.

Tourism Noosa (2007) Local Government Reform Submission, Tourism Noosa. TQ. (2001) Facts and Figures, Tourism Queensland.TQ. (2006) Sunshine Coast Regional Snapshot - Year Ended June 2006, Tourism

Queenland.TSC. (2002) Annual Report, Tourism Sunshine Coast.Uhlhorn, B., (2002) Noosa the Brand, George Patterson Bates,

Brisbane, Australia.Vasiliauskas, E., Norris, R., Kennedy, A., Bryan, A. and Richins,

H. (2004) Choosing Noosa’s Future: Involving The Community In LocalGovernance, In Rainnie, A. and Grobbelaar, M. (ed.) NewRegionalism in Australia. Ashgate Publishing, Oxon.

Wight, P. (1993a) ‘Ecotourism: Ethics or eco sell?’ Journal of TravelResearch, 31(3), 3-9.

Wight, P. (1993b) ‘Sustainable ecotourism: Balancing economic,environmental and social goals within an ethical framework’,Journal of Tourism Studies, 4(2), 54-66.

Wilkie, F. (2005) Explaining Noosa's Population Cap, Noosa News, February12, 2005.

Wright, S. (1996) Noosa Experience, Kingsclear Books.

25

Table 1 - STS Process Timeline

26

Table 2 - Strategic Aims of Each Tourism Asset Resource in Noosa

27

Table 3a - Complete Listing of All Programs and Their AssociatedActions.

28

Table 3b - Complete Listing of All Programs and Their AssociatedActions.