CSIRO Wildlife & Ecology

Resource Futures Program

Dynamic Resource Accounting and Policy Evaluation Project
PO Box 84
LYNEHAM ACT 2602

Ph:

+61 - 2 - 6242 1600

Fax:

+61 - 2 - 6241 3343

Email: Resource.Futures@dwe.csiro.au
Internet: http://www.dwe.csiro.au/research/futures

Working Document 98/01: Trade-Offs in Nature-Based Tourism Management

1998

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 1

Trade-offs in nature-based tourism management1

Romy Greiner
CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, PO Box 84, Lyneham ACT 2602,
ph (02) 6242 1789, email: R.Greiner@dwe.csiro.au

Abstract
The concept of a destination life-cycle suggests that tourism development in a region
tends to follow a prescribed path. Once an area has been discovered by people who
cherish its raw beauty or culture, a small but growing stream of visitors come to see the
attractions and experience the place. As the popularity of the region increases, an
infrastructure develops, provided by the local community, to cater for the needs of the
visitors. With further increasing popularity of the region, external investors are attracted
and spur development. The region turns into a mainstream tourism destination which also
attracts an increasing resident population. As tourism activity reaches the carrying
capacity of the region, it may diminish the very qualities, natural and cultural, that
attracted people to the region in the first place. This development can conclude the boom
phase and lead to a subsequent decline in visitation unless the region provides new
attractions.
This paper argues that, while the cycle of birth, growth, stagnation and decline has been
characteristic for many tourist destinations, it is not inevitable. Factors exogenous to the
destination region constitute a major source of risk for tourism development. However,
there are a range of endogenous factors that can and need to be carefully managed if
sustainable tourism development is to be achieved. Through planning, regulation and
other management tools governments determine the character of a region as a tourist
destination and influence the number and types of people who come visiting. Local
government, in particular, plays a major role in regional development and management.
Through it, people in a destination region have substantial control over development and
tourism activity and management of tourism assets.
The paper uses a region in Tropical North Queensland to exemplify the process and
management of tourism development. It explores the opportunities, difficulties and tradeoffs involved in regional development and tourism planning. It investigates the process of
and difficulties in developing a shared vision for the region and implementing it.

Introduction
Tourism has been growing rapidly in Australia and overseas, for the past four decades.
Particularly in areas where traditional industries such as mining, agriculture and
manufacturing are in recession, tourism represents an alternative for creating jobs and
income growth. Tourism relies directly and indirectly on a wide range of environmental
resources. Scenery, climate, environment and culture are important tourism assets.
Awareness and concern are increasing about the trade-offs associated with tourism-based

This paper is based on a presentation made to the 2nd conference of the Australian and New
Zealand Society of Ecological Economists in Melbourne, 17-20 November 1997.
1

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 2

economic growth, in particular the impacts of tourism on the environment and on the host
communities.
This paper examines some of the forces that drive tourism development. It investigates
management instruments for controlling development and managing tourism in an effort
to achieve sustainable tourism development and applies the theoretical considerations to
the situation of the Douglas Shire in Tropical North Queensland.
Tourism is difficult to define as an industry or a sector. This arises from the broad nature
of tourism as a concept and the range of services involved in satisfying tourist demands
and needs. Tourism embraces various trades and industries, including airline, rail, cruise,
accommodation and food service industries. It involves tour wholesales, retailers, a
variety of attractions, and a wide range of other private and public services and facilities.
It is difficult to define services as tourist-only because may services required for tourism
are also used by non-tourists. Hunter and Green (1995:4) describe tourism as a nebulous
phenomenon, characterised by an amalgam of fragmented trades, organisations and
activities. The term tourism is used in this paper in a broad sense to represent the
amalgam of services and resources used by tourists.
Following the classification of Chadwick (1987), the word tourist describes any person
who travels for the primary purpose of business, other personal business, visiting friends
and relatives, and pleasure.
There is no agreed definition of nature-based tourism, ecotourism or other related forms
of tourism (Goodwin 1996) although ecotourism is recognised as a subset of nature-based
tourism (Brandon 1996). The tourism industry uses the interpretations of these terms
opportunistically to exploit the terms suggestion of responsible consumerism (Wells
1997). For the purpose of this paper, nature-based tourism represents the subset of all
tourism activities which rely on natural attractions at the destination as the major reason
why people visit there. Nature-based tourism is a broad term and encompasses
motivations such as seeing and experiencing landscapes, rainforests, mountains, beaches,
and reefs. It includes trekking as well as driving holidays or hotel-based stays.
The ideas elaborated in this paper refer to nature-based tourism. This paper has been
written with a focus on tourism in Australia and while some ideas are generally
applicable, some of the arguments developed will be limited in their application to naturebased tourism in developed countries.

Tourism development
The destination life-cycle model
Several models have been developed to describe the evolution of tourism at a destination
through a life-cycle process. The model that has attracted the most attention and
application was developed by Butler (1980). The concept of 'tourism destination lifecycle' suggests that tourism development in a region tends to follows a prescribed path.
Butlers destination life-cycle model differentiates six stages in the life of a tourist
destination.
Exploration: An area is discovered by people who cherish its raw beauty or culture.
Visitor numbers are low, visitation is sporadic and accessibility of the destination may
be difficult. The area is yet unchanged by tourism and contact of visitors with local

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 3

people is high. There are no tourism facilities and visitors use of local facilities but
with very little social and economic impact. Parts of Latin America, Asia and
Antarctica are examples here. Geographical conditions may dictate that some regions
never pass beyond the exploration stage (Goodall, 1992).
Involvement: A small but growing stream of visitors come to see the attractions.
Tourism acts as a catalyst for local initiatives to cater exclusively for visitors. The
contact between residents and visitors is close. A tourism destination and season
emerges and advertising is initiated. There is increasing pressure on the public sector
to provide facilities. It is at this stage that community tourism activities and controls
are most important. Some smaller Pacific and Caribbean islands are at this stage of
development (Cooper 1994).
Development: The area is experiencing a dynamic period of growth and change.
Large numbers of new visitors continue to arrive, fuelling growth. Outside investment
is attracted to the destination. This results in a decline in local participation and
control. The appearance of the destination may change. As the popularity of the region
increases, different types of visitors come to the area and a more mass-oriented
tourism market emerges. The phase is characterised by improved accessibility of the
region, more intensive and extensive advertising, and the replacement of basic local
facilities with more sophisticated ones. Artificial attraction are introduced. Auxiliary
facilities and services become necessary to support the rapidly growing tourism
industry which attracts workers from outside the region, hereby increasing the resident
population. Careful planning is necessary at this stage if the destination is to avoid
problems of overdevelopment and deterioration. With decrease in local control,
regional and national planning and control become crucial tourism management tools.
Promotion targets international and domestic tourist-generating areas.
Consolidation: Visitor numbers continue to increase but at a declining rate. The local
economy is largely tied to tourism and dominated by chains and franchises. Marketing
and promotion efforts are increased to extend the tourism season and attract more
distant visitors.
Stagnation: Stabilisation of visitor numbers sets in once capacity levels for many
relevant factors are reached or exceeded, resulting in economic, social and
environmental problems. Tourism development has diminished the very qualities that
attracted people to the region in the first place. Artificial attractions supersede the
natural or cultural ones and the destination is no longer considered fashionable. The
number of new and repeat visitors drops sharply. The area relies increasingly on
business use of its facilities. Surplus capacity increases. Many Caribbean and northern
Mediterranean destinations have entered this stage (Cooper 1994). In Australia,
Surfers Paradise displays the characteristics of this phase.
Decline or Rejuvenation: If the destination fails to address its economic,
environmental and social problems, it continues to loose visitors to other unspoilt
destinations. The industry seeks to survive on package tours, weekend and day
visitors. Tourism facilities are increasingly being replaced by non-tourism
establishments as the area slowly disengages from the industry. This makes the area
even less attractive for visitors and remaining facilities become less viable. This
decline can be the beginning of a permanent decline, or the cycle can begin again with
a rejuvenation phase. This, however, requires a dramatic change in the resource base.
Either a new set of artificial attractions is created or a previously unexploited natural

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 4

resource is utilised. Realistically, an outcome anywhere between these two extremes is

possible. Figure 1 typifies the destination life-cycle model.

Stagnation
visitor numbers

Consolidation
Development
Decline,
Rejuvenation,
or Stagnation

Involvement
Exploration
time

Figure 1: destination life-cycle model

Source: redrawn from Butler (1980)

There have been numerous applications of the destination life-cycle model to regions and
cities across the world. A number of empirical studies identify destinations which closely
typify the model (Tooman 1996). Examples are Atlantic City and the Cayman Islands in
the Caribbean. However, the evolutionary pattern of birth, growth, stagnation, and
decline/renewed growth of a tourist destination, as suggested by the model, is not
inevitable. In fact, most destinations do not follow this path. This has given rise to major
criticism of the destination life-cycle model. The major floor seems to lie with the
assumption that the tourism product of the region remains unchanged while marketing
efforts and strategies adapt at each stage. This implies that if, for example, the tourism
product was to change, the cycle would begin anew.
Most destinations and their tourism product undergo continual change in response to
changes in demand and supply and consequently the shape of their life-cycle trajectories
vary in length, shape and pattern. Also, the development of a region as a tourist
destination is heavily dependent on external forces such as competition, economic growth
and exchange rates, swings in consumer taste and legislation. Despite all the criticism of
the model (for a summary see: Cooper 1994), it has high explanatory value and should
not be reduced to a purely diagnostic tool for ex-post analysis. The life-cycle model
provides an attractive intuitive explanation of the evolution of destinations and has
generated a suite of research. Moreover, it provides a useful framework for analysis of
the growth of destinations, the interplay between markets and physical development and
allows historical examination of the factors that lead to turning points in a destinations
development and the characteristics and leadership styles at each particular stage of the
destinations evolution (Cooper 1994:342).
The life-cycle model provides a baseline for evaluating the implications of change and
growth in tourism. The region faces a trade-off. If growth is to be sustained, the nature of
the tourism products will need to be changed and hence the region changes. If the region
does not want to change, it has to manage tourism within the boundaries that the existing

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 5

tourism product provides. Subsequent sections of this paper explore how the implications
of change can be modelled and used to support strategic planning.

A system perspective
A significant strength of Butlers life-cycle model is that it identifies and analyses
endogenous factors as potential reasons for tourism decline. It addresses the idea of
destination-specific limits to tourism development. This links to the concept of
sustainable tourism development. The term has been comprehensively discussed in the
literature (eg. Hunter 1995; Komilis 1994; Nelson et al 1993). For the purpose of this
paper it is important that sustainable tourism development acknowledges the existence of
limits to tourism growth for various reasons. These limits can be conceptualised as
carrying capacities. Carrying capacities are a relative concept and empirically difficult to
determine (Saleem 1994). Essentially, they relate to relative visitor density and relative
land-use intensity.
Figure 2 conceptualises some of the positive and negative feed-back mechanisms within a
region that influence visitation and therefore tourism success in a region. The initial three
phases of the destination life-cycle model can be explained by a dominance of the
positive loop whereby more visitors attract more investment with more tourism
infrastructure increasing the attractiveness of the region, hereby attracting even more
visitors. If tourist numbers grow beyond the ecological carrying capacity, development is
likely to jeopardise the environmental assets and over-exploit the natural resources of the
destination area. Alternatively, other limiting factors can become obvious first, such as
the social carrying capacity of a destination or sites within it. As tourist numbers increase,
sites become crowded, reducing the enjoyment and experience of the visitors which, in
turn, creates negative word-of-mouth and introduces a negative feedback into the system.
Tourism infrastructure can reduce visitor impact.
Carrying capacities exist for a number of inter-related features of a destination area
(OReilly 1986). Three main aspects of carrying capacity can be distinguished.
Physical (or ecological) carrying capacity is the visitation level of a site beyond
which environmental problems will arise;
Social carrying capacity addresses the socio-cultural implications of tourism from two
perspectives. It describes
a) the level of tolerance of the host population for visitor numbers and behaviour, and
b) the degree of crowding tourists are prepared to accept by other tourists .This can
also be referred to as psychological or perceptual carrying capacity, determining the
lowest degree of enjoyment tourists are willing to accept before they seek
alternative destinations; and
Economic carrying capacity is the ability of the host community to absorb tourism
activities without displacing or disrupting desirable local activities.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 6

xx
-

environmental impact

attractiveness of the region

ecological carrying capacity

xz

tourism infrastructure
+

crowding

+
+

investment

social carrying capacity

+

number of visitors

exogenous factors xy

Figure 2: Positive and negative endogenous feed-backs in regional tourism

development
The factors influencing tourism carrying capacity depend largely on the characteristics of
the destination area. They include features of the natural environment, economic
development levels and structures, social structure, political organisations, and preexisting level and nature of tourism development (Hunter 1995).
While the impacts of tourism are largely determined by tourist numbers, it is also of
importance what type of visitors they are. Tourist types differ with respect to the nature,
magnitude and frequency of interactions with the host community, their activities and
spending patterns, and resource requirements. This aspect of tourism development is
explained in the following section.

Tourism development and visitor types

The life-cycle concept can be applied as a concept within itself. The life-cycle curve itself
can be interpreted as an aggregate of separate life-cycle trajectories for different visitor
segments (Plog 1991). Allocentric visitors, seeking adventure and new destinations,
dominate the exploration and involvement phases. Their numbers drop off as the
destination becomes more popular and they are replaced in the development and
consolidation stages by midcentric tourists who seek some adventure but also comfort
and security. The later stages of stagnation and decline are characterised by an
increased market share of phychocentric tourists who, being risk-averse, seek familiar
destinations, the security of the travel trade. They are attracted by packages and bargains.
Successive waves of different numbers and types of tourists with distinctive preferences,
motivations and budgets visit the destination at each stage of its life cycle. This shift in
visitor types, in addition to visitor numbers, has economic, social-cultural and
environmental implications for the destination because of the different spending patterns
and resource requirements of the visitor types and their interactions with the host
community (Walker et al 1997). The economic implications are further explored below.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 7

tourist numbers

'ps yc ho c e ntric '

'midcentric'
'adventurous'
time

Figure 3: Composite life-cycle: dominance of tourist types

Source: adapted from Walker et al. (1997)
By combining the notions of visitor numbers and visitor types, the life-cycle model
provides a useful framework for understanding how destinations and their markets
evolve. It is an aid to conceptualise tourist impacts and planning responses at various
stages (Cooper 1994). Principally, it gives the region a choice of either enhancing or
embracing tourism growth towards mass tourism and developing the tourism product
away from nature-based aspects to attract and cater for psychocentric tourists.
Alternatively, it can manage its nature-based tourism product to the effect that its
attractiveness is maintained for either allocentric or midcentric visitors. For its continued
success, nature-based tourism relies on the maintenance of environmental resources and
cultural attributes as pillars of the tourism product. It is therefore associated with
(significantly) lower tourist numbers in comparison to the first option. Also, a
development into mass tourism is almost impossible to reverse.

Tourism development, economic value and economic impact

Taking above considerations on tourist numbers and tourist types further, economic
theory can be employed to distinguish between nature-based tourisms economic impacts
and its economic value (Wells 1997). Figure 4 shows that, assuming price elastic tourism
demand, the marginal returns per visitor decline with increasing visitor numbers. This
decline depends on the elasticity of tourism demand. The higher the elasticity (reflected
in the steepness of the tourism demand function), the higher the decline of marginal
returns. To increase visitor numbers from v1 to v2, the price per visitation has to decline
from p1 to p2. The gross income from tourism to the destination, as measured in direct
tourist expenditures, changes from the equivalent of the area o-p1-b1-c to the equivalent
of the area o-p2-b2-c. If tourism demand is sufficiently price elastic, increased visitation
may not lead to increased gross income from tourism. Under the assumption that higher
visitor numbers also cause more social, economic and environmental costs to the
destination, the benefit of tourism to a region can decline with increasing visitor numbers.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 8

price of visitation

tourism demand function

b1

p1

b2
p2

o
v1

v2

visitor numbe rs

Figure 4: Visitor numbers, economic value and economic impact of tourism

An increase in visitor numbers from v1 to v2 results in an increase in gross economic
value of tourism which is represented by the areas o-a-b1-v1 and o-a-b2-v2
respectively. However, an increasing proportion of this value does not translate into
income to the destination. This proportion is consumer surplus, representing the amount
which tourists would have been prepared to pay over and above the actual price of a
visitation. For visitation level v1, consumer surplus is represented by the area a-p1-b1.
Consumer surplus increases to the area equivalent of a-p2-b2 for visitation level v2.
Consumer surplus represents the resource rent which visitors extract as opposed to the
resource rent which the people in tourism extract.
To derive the economic impact of tourism for the destination, leakage is another factor
that has to be taken into account. Leakage includes the costs for all services and goods
that the destination region has to purchase externally to satisfy visitor demand. Depending
on the level of dependency on outside goods and services, the proportion of the economic
value of tourism which is retained by the destination as gross economic impact may be
quite small. Multiplier effects may increase this impact. At the same time it is important
to note that direct use by tourists is but one of the economic values which flow from
nature-based tourist destinations (Wells 1997).
At this analytical level, the life-cycle model in combination with economic theory
enhances the understanding of appropriate timing and development of nature-based
tourism strategies. To provide an understanding of the trade-offs involved in tourism
management, the paper goes on to explore the impacts of tourism and management
instruments.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 9

Tourism management
Impacts on the natural environment and host community
Tourism comprises a large array of economic activities which inevitably impact on the
environment in a quantitative and qualitative sense, particularly at the destination level
(OECD 1980). Nature-based tourism has grown in areas which offer distinct and
attractive environmental characteristics. Therefore, it relies essentially on environmental
resources such as scenery, beaches, wildlife, climate, and also the culture of the host
community. Tourists consume environment which is produced and provided at the
destination (Buhalis and Fletcher 1995). The natural environment does not only provide
key inputs to the tourism product of a destination, it also provides indirect services to the
industry. For example, it supplies drinking water and absorbs the wastes generated by
tourists, including refuse and sewage.
Tourism impacts can arise through the construction and operation of tourist facilities or
services and from the activities of tourists themselves. A long list of potential negative
impacts of tourism on the natural environment includes the depletion of ground and
surface water supplies; water pollution through discharge of sewage, and spillages; killing
of animals through hunting and fishing; trampling and damage to vegetation by feet and
vehicles (Hunter and Green 1995). At the same time, there are examples where tourism
has acted as a protector of the natural environment by enhancing the economic value of
some aspects of nature which are of no particular value to other industries.
An example of tourism decline due to environmental degradation caused by tourism is
Lake Balaton in Hungary, a place where Hungarians traditionally go fishing (Hunter and
Green 1995:44). Increasing water pollution from tourism and other development has
cause a decline in fish numbers which in turn has led to a downturn in visitor numbers.
Tourism at any destination is closely interlinked with the host community and its way of
life. While tourism supports employment, services and facilities, it may also impose
various stresses on the host community during growth phases. Major negative social
impact of tourism include congestion, crowding, noise, pollution, crime and increases in
prices (Brown and Giles 1994). This is particularly so during the development phase as
local involvement gives way to external developer interests and pressures. An increasing
ratio of tourist to locals may spur a decline in tolerance towards tourist and a high
transient workers population, particularly during peak seasons, adds to the discomfort.
Problems also occur when tourism declines because this may jeopardise the economic
and social future of the destination area (Hunter and Green 1995).
Negative impacts on the host community may include a loss of life-style through
crowding, increased costs of living and increased crime, while, on the positive side,
tourism generates employment opportunities, additional facilities may improve the
residents life-style and the market for local arts and crafts improves.
Nature-based tourism relies on the maintenance of environmental resources and cultural
attributes for its continued success. One may therefore assume that the industry is
concerned over the potential threat posed by pollution to the success of a destination area.
Hunter and Green (1995) find, however, that this has generally not been the case. The
failing has two main reasons. First, it is difficult to assess tourism impacts. Because
tourism is an amalgam of inter-linked activities it is difficult to determine the impact of
individual activities. Also, tourism activities may be pursued both by tourists and the

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 10

members of the host community. Impacts are often indirect and cumulative. Second, the
environment has traditionally been regarded as a free public good which has led to excess
demand and over-utilisation (Buhalis and Fletcher 1995).
Butler (1991) discusses four main approaches which can be used to decrease the pressure
of tourism on the environment. They comprise
changing/choosing the tourist type: avoiding or moving away from mass tourism to
some form of alternative tourism where responsible visitors are willing to pay for
the exclusivity of the place to forego services and facilities demanded by mass
tourists.
making resources more resistant to pressure: This may involve replacing trails with
boardwalks and providing new infrastructure such as tertiary sewage treatment works.
curbing tourist numbers: This means reducing numbers where they are too high and/or
limiting them before they reach carrying capacity level.
education: the environmental impacts of tourism need to be better understood by
developers and others in the industry, governments and other public sector agencies,
local communities and tourists themselves.
Enhanced awareness of environmental issues, intents and policy formulation do not
necessarily translate into practice without effective tourism planning framework and tools
to implement environmental management. Butler (1991) argues that the most successful
centres such as St Moritz in Switzerland appear to be those where development has been
strictly curtailed through strong local consensus and local authority development control,
particularly building and land use controls.

Management instruments to support sustainable tourism development

Buhalis and Fletcher (1995) argue that once the environment is recognised as an asset to
the tourism industry, an emerging need for its preservation becomes apparent. Tourism
development is dependent on the environment and its quality, and therefore measures
should be taken in order to maintain or improve the quality of the natural resources.
Sustainable tourism development is a challenge because it requires that tourism capacity
and the quality of its products be developed without adversely affecting the physical and
human environment that sustains and nurtures them (Hunter and Green 1995).
Maintaining the integrity of the resource base must be combined with providing and
securing conditions for a recreation experience of high quality to the visitor (Komilis
1994). The destination is faced with the challenge of finding ways of integrating tourismgenerated economic development with the sympathetic management and use of the
destinations natural and socio-cultural resources.
In the paper, the term development has so-far been used in its general sense, looking at
change over time. It is, however, important to acknowledge the meaning of
development in a narrow, project-specific sense and to distinguish this activity from
other tourism activities. While they are linked in that development provides for new
tourist facilities, the motivations of the two economic activities are quite distinct.
Developers are driven by purely financial motivations, particularly when they are not
members of a host community. They are interested in the short-term profits they can

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 11

obtain in the process of buying cheap land, building facilitates and selling them off. Once
these facilities are operational, they become part of the tourism industry. The managers
and new owners have economic as well as other motivations. While they are concerned
with the income stream derived from the tourism activity and the medium to long term
returns on investments, they may also regard their involvement in tourism as a choice of
life-style.
A successful policy framework must include management instruments which address
both activities. While managing and regulating tourism activities, it has to particularly
constrain and guide development because developers, particularly external ones, have
little or no concern for the host community, the environment or sustainable tourism. Also,
because of the amount of money involved, development is particularly subject to
corruption. Mercer (1995:173) substantiates his claim that secret dealings between State
government officials and private developers have always been a feature of coastal resort
development and land speculation in Australia.
An important question of tourism management is whether policies should be developed
and implemented by government or by the industry. Briassoulis (1995) develops a
conceptual framework of tourism impacts and differentiates between external effects of
the industry, resulting in external costs to other industries and the community, and
internalities. The term internalities reflects an industry perspective and includes those
impacts that are not costed by the individual tourism business who produces them but that
are captured by other players in the tourism industry. They exist because tourism is a
compound of interlinked and interdependent activities. Briassoulis (1995:33) concludes
that internalities require the coordinated application of both public and private sector
policies and planning actions.
An array of policies or management instruments are available to the industry and to
various levels of government to control, guide and manage tourism development in a
sustainable manner. The term management instruments should be interpreted broadly and,
although they play an important part, the list is not limited to market-based instruments.
The spectrum of available instruments include financial and economic instruments such
as emission permit trading, user charges, developer contributions, performance bonds and
management levies. They also include legal and regulatory instruments, including
punitive measures designed to avoid misuse of resources, and precautionary standards
(Greiner et al. 1997). Some aspects of tourism lend themselves to management from
within the industry while others rely on public sector policy setting. Table 1 provide an
overview of policy approaches in relation to tourism development and summarises the
advantages and disadvantages.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 12

Table 1: Advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to the

environmental management of tourism
source: adjusted from Nijkamp et al. (1992), cited in Hunter (1995:87)
For

Against

Government

* coordination
* unification
* minimum standard

* less support for implementation

* bureaucracy
* risk of government failure

Industry

* support for
implementation

* economy-driven instead of
ecology-driven

Direct

* result-oriented

* strict, little flexibility

Indirect

* flexibility
* space for creative ideas

* not result-oriented

The paper goes on to explore tourism management and development control instruments
applicable to various levels of government and the industry itself.

Public sector policies

The principal argument for government intervention is the prevention or rectification of
market failure. Different degrees of intervention are perceivable, ranging from commandand-control approaches to the use of economic incentives aimed at encouraging the
market system to behave in a sustainable manner (Hunter 1995). Primarily, the role of
different levels of government is to balance the development of different industries
(treating tourism as one activity complex) in the area by setting a broad framework for
controlling the externalities arising among sectors, setting basic standards for all
developments, and providing the infrastructure needed in common by all sectors.
Public sector policies can provide a regional vision for tourism and coordinate the
economic activities occurring within an area so that the demands for environmental
services are met within the limits of carrying capacities. Hunter (1995:91) claims that it
appears inescapable that tourism development needs to be planned and controlled at the
local level, by those in the public sector with clearly defined responsibility and the power
to implement coordinated planning and development control strategies. Reliance on local
initiatives and self-regulation by the tourism industry without coordinated and pro-active
planning will not result in sustainable tourism development.
Tourism planning is necessarily a component of integrated local and regional planning
(Komilis 1994). Nature-based tourism is highly sensitive to competition of non-tourist
sectors for natural resources and cannot develop profitably and successfully unless the
destination area provides a high level of environmental services (Briassoulis 1995).
Tourism and development need to be integrated, controlled and managed within a longterm and comprehensive planning system.
Zoning, by local and state governments, in association with land use planning and town
planning are central control mechanisms of new tourism-related and other developments.
Green (1995:92) states that a formal, statutory land use planning system has the capacity

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 13

to make a significant contribution to the realisation of sustainable tourism development.

Fundamentally, land use planning is about setting spatial arrangements which reduce
conflicts between industries and are within the limits of the social, economic and
environmental capacity of the area.
Summarising a series of case studies on tourism development from around the globe,
Inskeep (1994) stresses the essential importance of tourism planning. He concludes that
carefully planned and managed destinations are much more likely to be successful on a
long-term basis than unplanned areas. Effective planning is sequential and adaptive, and
based on sound methodological approaches, including the carrying capacity concept.
Product development and marketing go hand-in-hand. Community involvement in
tourism is essential, so are environmental and socio-cultural considerations.
Planning is often supported by regulation which can specify the limits to economic
activities such as area occupied, use density and permissible pollution levels. Regulations
which, for example, require the use of the least polluting technology available are called
performance standards. They provide an incentive for the industry to develop costeffective solutions (Greiner et al. 1997). Such standards are often phased in to reduce
transitional inequities. Development and quality standards, if adopted as part of
regional plans, help ensure that new developments are environmentally appropriate and
meet tourists and residents expectations. Specifications may include density of
development, height and setback of buildings, floor area ratio, parking spaces, and
landscaping requirements.
The presence of a comprehensive planning system and regulations, however, does not
mean that the environment is automatically better protected. A firm commitment to the
policy framework is required. This commitment involves consultation with stakeholders
in the development and implementation process, education of the community and
tourists, ongoing research, and rigorous enforcement of the plan(s).
Price mechanisms are an important group of instruments for managing new development
and resource use. They provide a means for internalising external costs and providing
funds for research. Consistent with the user-pays principle, management costs may be
(largely) covered by user charges. These include charges for day visitors to obtain access
sites or services, as well as fees for operators which are often linked to licences or
permits.
Performance bonds are an effective way of addressing the problem of externalities
arising from new developments. They are a monetary security that (tourism) developers
are required to set aside to ensure that adequate funds will be available for rehabilitation
of a site in the event the activity ceases or is abandoned. Performance bonds are
commonly used in Australia, particularly in the mining industry. They ensure that
sufficient funds for rehabilitation are set aside and readily available so that the
community is not left with the costs of clean-up if a developer goes bankrupt. The
payment of a performance bonds would be a necessary condition for the issue of a
development licence.
Assurance bonds operate like a prepaid fine which is returned when an activity ceases.
Consistent with the precautionary principle, performance and assurance bonds are
mechanisms that shift the responsibility of care from the regulator to the resource user. To
be effective, bonds have to be sufficiently high and their payment must be a necessary

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 14

condition for obtaining a development/operation licence. As the user has to show

compliance to recover the bond, he has a much greater incentive to comply with the
conditions than when, in the absence of a bond, it is uncertain that he may be fined for
non-compliance.

Private sector policies

Private sector policies are adequate for addressing some of the environmental
internalities of tourism, brought about by the number and diversity of businesses
involved in the industry (Briassoulis 1995). Environmental resources are regarded as
common property of the tourism businesses which have a common interest in protecting
the environment. Therefore, they may undertake common action to safeguard the
environment through self-regulation and minimise potential conflict among the industry.
To improve its image and reputation, an industry or region can develop guidelines for
operation and performance and encourage its members to comply with voluntary codes
of conduct (Greiner et al. 1997). Voluntary codes act as a motivational incentive for all
members to raise standards and thereby increase profits. They are particularly important
to the tourism industry where countries, regions, or sectors of the industry seek to develop
a specific tourism product and create an image that appeals to their target audiences or
creates the impression of being better or the best. The development of standards
relies on various sectors of a (regional) tourism industry sharing a long term vision which
is specific enough to lead to agreed procedures and ways of conduct. Voluntary codes
take advantage of intrinsic motivation2 and while there is no legal obligation for
compliance with the codes, peer group and industry pressure on black sheep of the
industry are high. The costs associated with compliance are borne by the individual
businesses. There is very little administrative effort involved.
Grants to industry organisations can be used as a cost-effective means to encourage
development of voluntary codes. Annual tourism awards recognise businesses of high
environmental and professional standards and provide them with a marketing edge that
spurs on other operators to do better.
Accreditation is particularly applicable for commercial tourism operators. Operators
learn about their responsibility for the environment which is the essence of the existence
of their businesses. This constitutes an important step in the implementation of the duty of
care principle. Accreditation not only ensures that operators are informed about the
impact their operations have on the environment but also encourages them to educate
their clients about the environment they visit. This mechanism increases the appreciation
of visitors for the environment they come to see and uses the intrinsic motivation of
people to minimise their impact on the place. It improves the visitor experience and may
have more far reaching consequences for encouraging environmentally sound behaviour

2 Intrinsic motivation is a characteristic of people who are complying with a given policy
framework. Use is made of such motivation to design policy instruments that encourage people
who are not complying to change their behaviour, without crowding out the behaviour of
intrinsically motivated individuals. Stakeholder/industry consultation and involvement are
important aspects of utilising intrinsic motivation. In contrast, regulatory instruments seek to
achieve compliance through reward for just-compliance and punishment for non-compliance, thus
leading to extrinsic motivation (Greiner et al. 1997:9).

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 15

once people are back home. Accreditation can be a voluntary measure and therefore a
distinctive feature of an operator or, in combination with a licence, it can have a
regulatory basis that requires accreditation as a necessary condition for being granted a
licence for operating a tour-based tourism business.
Marketing and promotion of the destination is an important cooperative activity for an
industry which is characterised by a diversity of small businesses. There is a recognition
that competition is primarily from other regions and only secondarily from other local
businesses providing services in the same niche. Because of the economic benefits from
tourism for the community through multiplier effects, there is also a case for government
funding/assistance.
In addition to purely government and purely industry based policies, there is significant
scope for co-management between government and an industry. According to comanagement principles, industry and other stakeholders are closely involved in policy
design and administration, hereby utilising intrinsic motivation and maximising
compliance with the policies.
As it is very unusual for one management instrument to be capable of solving a complex
problem, a mix of instruments is necessary to achieve the desired outcome. Government,
community and industry resources are limited and must be deployed where they are most
likely to have the greatest positive impact. Therefore it is important to assess the strengths
and weaknesses of the range of possible management instruments and to identify the
circumstances in which they are most likely to make a positive contribution to the
outcome sought.
Three core criteria are commonly applied for policy evaluation. They are economic
efficiency, equity, and environmental implications. In the literature, this core set is
expanded to lists of criteria of varying form and number. A comprehensive set of criteria,
discussion and application can be found in Greiner et al. (1997).
In the following section, the paper uses a region in Tropical North Queensland to
exemplify the process and management of tourism development.

Tourism development and management in Douglas Shire, Tropical North

Queensland
Tourism development
Douglas Shire is located in Tropical North Queensland, between Cairns and Cooktown. It
covers an area of 2,400 square kilometres and has a population of just under 9,000
(ABS 1996: Regional Statistics QLD). All settlements and economic activity is
concentrated in the coastal zone while more than 80 per cent of the Shire are wilderness
highlands and Daintree Rainforest. The outer sections of the Great Barrier Reef are less
than 30 nautical miles from the coast and can be reached in little more than one hour.
There are two major towns in the Shire. Mossman is the administrative and industrial
centre and the Mossman sugar mill is the biggest employer in town. Port Douglas is a
coastal town and is the centre of tourism activity the Shire.
Tourism is the major industry in the Shire. The Shire provides 8,600 hotel/motel/unit
beds in 48 establishments and 770 caravan/tent sites (Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy.
Draft. 1997). During peak season occupancy rates exceed 90 per cent which means that

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 16

the population virtually doubles. 81 per cent of beds and 40 per cent of caravan/tent sites
are located in Port Douglas (Port Douglas Daintree Tourism Association 1997). Besides
Port Douglas, other accommodation nodes of some significance include Mossman Valley,
Daintree Village and the Daintree/Cape Tribulation area.
Gross income from tourist accommodation alone is $62m annually, compared with a
value of agricultural commodities produced in the Shire of $33m (ABS 1996: Regional
Statistics QLD). A significant share of the $52m in retail turnover is also attributed to
tourism. In addition, the industry supports some 140 tour and transport businesses,
ranging from dive operators, safari and activity tours to car hire and booking agents
(Douglas Shire Tourism Strategy: Draft. 1997).
Unlike most other (coastal) holiday destinations in Australia, Douglas Shire is not located
within close proximity of major population centres. In terms of its dependence on air
travel for bringing visitors into the area, it is rather comparable to an island situation.
Cairns airport was significantly upgraded in the late 1980s to an international airport.
Tourism in the region has grown substantially during the past 15 years. Figure 5 shows
the development of accommodation supply and demand and reveals the explicit impact of
various factors. 1987 marks a very significant increase in tourist accommodation supply,
mainly due to the opening of the Sheraton Mirage resort in Port Douglas with some 300
apartments. In the same year, the Marina Mirage shopping complex opened as did the
new marina for Port Douglas which enabled a significant increase of vessels and marine
tourism activity. Christopher Skase who developed the Sheraton and Marina Mirage also
put extensive efforts into the promotion of his developments and therefore the natural
attractions of Douglas Shire at an international scale. This strategy paid off with a rapid
increase in visitor numbers. However, the pilot strike during 1990 had a highly damaging
affect on visitor numbers given the reliance of the area on air travel. It led to a stagnation
in tourism development until visitor numbers picked up again and occupancy rates rose to
high levels. After the pilot strike, growth in visitor numbers surpassed growth in
accommodation supply, while, since 1994/95, this relationship has been reversed with
consequent decline in the occupancy rate, a sign of increasing overcapacity in the
accommodation sector. This trend is poised to continue given current construction
activity and pending building proposals.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 17

75

1000
room nights supplied
room nights demanded
occupancy rate

50

600

per cent

visitor nights ('000)

800

400
25

200

0
95/96

90/91

85/86

80/81

Figure 5: Room nights supplied and demanded in Douglas Shire

Source: ABS: Tourism accommodation Queensland
(excludes caravan/tent sites, bed and breakfast, numbers until 1986/87 also exclude holiday units;
numbers for 1997/98 projected)

It can be argued that tourism development in Douglas Shire roughly follows a typical lifecycle trajectory. The present phase may be described as a combination of development
and involvement. While few externally driven developments were instrumental in
developing a highly distinct tourism product, they have also stimulated local involvement.
Local involvement in tourism outweighs external involvement and the character of the
regional industry is very much dominated by small local businesses, as opposed to, for
example, the Gold Coast where tourism activity is mainly a corporate affair. This
assessment is supported by the spending pattern of the major visitor categories, ranging
from people staying in five-star accommodation to backpackers in one-star dormitories.
They all spend a significant amount of money on activities which would be most typical
for midcentric visitors (Table 2).
On the other hand, increasing over-capacities in the accommodation sector may be early
signals of consolidation. This may lead to pressure to increase tourist numbers for the
sake of generating returns on investment. Unless more midcentric tourists can be attracted
to the Shire, this will most likely demand a change in tourism product with the danger of
sliding into mass tourism.
Tourism in the Shire is almost exclusively nature-based. The attractions that bring people
to the area are the Daintree Rainforest and the Great Barrier Reef. Both areas are of
outstanding ecological significance and beauty. They are in close proximity to each other
and easily accessible. Other important features are the climate and beaches. For repeat
visitors, additional features such as the special character and amenity value of
Port Douglas and the safety of the Shire are important. In a recent survey of tourist
operators and managers by CSIRO it became obvious that the tourism industry fully
recognises its reliance on the regions natural resources and regards the preservation of
the reef and rainforest as being of foremost importance, more important than marketing

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 18

and promotion. However, there is little evidence that the industry is investing in the
conservation of these natural resources.
Table 2: Estimated average spending pattern of visitors staying in Douglas Shire
($ per visitor-day)
source: own investigations

Accommodation standard
*****

***

130

60

15

Food, drinks, eating out

70

50

25

Shopping (additional)

80

15

Tours (land and marine)

40

40

40

Other

40

20

10

360

185

95

Accommodation

TOTAL spending

The impacts of tourism, positive and negative, on the host community are reflected in the
findings of a community survey which was conducted by James Cook University in the
Shire in 1989. As Table 3 shows, people are particularly appreciative of the job and
business opportunities that tourism creates, and of the improved amenity value of the
place. At the same time they resent the increased cost of living and real estate and traffic
congestions during peak season.
Tourism management: instruments, opportunities and shortcomings
All three levels of government (federal, state and local) play important roles in the
management of the Douglas region and its natural resources. The Great Barrier Reef, one
of the two natural attractions, is managed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority (GBRMPA), a federal agency, whose regulatory powers reach into the tidal
zone of the rivers that discharge into the Coral Sea waters. GBRMPA applies zoning as a
major management tool for the various uses of the Reef and associated waters. It
approves all infrastructure on the reef such as moorings and pontoons and regulates their
use. It issues licences to marine and river boat operators which are associated with licence
fees. Day visitors to the reef pay a daily fee which supports funding of research and
management. Major criticism of GBRMPA management voiced by dive operators
concerns the perceived lack of enforcement of zoning rules, particularly when they apply
to the conflict between extractive uses (fishing) and non-extractive uses (diving,
snorkelling).

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 19

Table 3: Effects of tourism on the Douglas Shire population:

assessment by local residents (%)
source: adjusted from James Cook University 1989 cited in: Port Douglas and Environs Planning
Study. Appendices. 1995.

Impact
Economic
Job opportunities
Business opportunities
Cost of living
Cost of buying a house

very good
29.0
14.7

Environmental
Native fauna and flora
Scenic beauty of the area
Bush/natural environment
Local parks and gardens

no

19.3

46.7
48.7
33.3
53.0

21.0
33.7

very bad

50.7
61.0
25.3

38.3
23.7

51.7
72.3

43.0
31.7
41.7

19.3

29.7
29.3
15.0
37.0

40.7

bad

53.0
59.0

26.0

Services/Facilities
Medical
Roads and highways
Shopping
Lifestyle
Traffic congestion
Opportunities to eat out
Opport. for social contact
Crime levels

good

43.0

20.0
45.7

The Wet Tropics World Heritage area was listed in 1988 and encompasses an area of
almost 9000 square kilometres. It covers the majority of the Daintree rainforests. 80 per
cent of Douglas Shire are within the Wet Tropics area. The Wet Tropics is managed on
three levels. A State/Commonwealth Ministerial Council coordinates policies and
funding. The Wet Tropics Management Authority is responsible for general planning, and
is advised by Community Consultative and Scientific Advisory Committees. Several
Queensland government departments manage the day-to-day aspects of the Wet Tropics.
A draft management plan has existed since 1994 but has not been ratified as yet due to a
change in Federal and Queensland State Governments.
The scope of tourism activity on the reef and in parts of the rainforest is determined by
above authorities who represent predominantly Federal and State interests. Nevertheless,
local government plays an important additional role in managing these areas and tourism
activities and development within the Shire. Local government has discretionary powers.
It can regulate the use of private land and use incentives. Its core business includes land
use planning, development applications, management of crown lands and management of
environmental risks.
Parts of the present Douglas Shire Council are acutely aware of the role of local
government in tourism management. The following management tools have been initiated
or implemented by the Douglas Shire Council. (The list does not claim to be inclusive). It

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 20

is essential to recognise the leading force of Mike Berwick who was instrumental in the
Bloomfield Track blockade and is in his second terms as mayor of Douglas Shire.
A town plan has been implemented for Port Douglas. It segregates residential and
(potential) tourism areas to minimise negative social impacts of tourism. The plan
specifies maximum densities, maximum building heights, architectural and landscaping
requirements. It also shows ecologically valuable areas.
Land use plans have been established, the major one is for north of the Daintree River. It
defines the legal activities, commercial or otherwise, of people on agriculturally zoned
and other freehold land. It also addresses issues of water and power supply, and sewage
treatment. Recently, it has been supplemented by a vegetation management plan which
seeks to prevent the clearing of native vegetation on freehold land. The announcement of
this plan has led to increased clearing activities prior to its implementation.
To limit the environmental impacts of tourism in ecologically sensitive areas, the Shire
has introduced bed limits for Daintree village and Daintree/Cape Tribulation area.
However, bed numbers have been creeping above the intended limits in the
Daintree/Cape Tribulation area. This, and a potential lack of scientific evidence to
support the limits has led to a legal challenge by a developer who had a major resort
development at Cape Tribulation rejected by the Douglas Shire council on the grounds of
the plan and an environmental impact assessment.
A tourism development plan for the Shire is in draft stage. It separates the Shire into
tourism precincts and nodes and examines their future role in tourism and development
options. The plan explores ways in which sustainable tourism development can be
achieved by the Shire in collaboration with State and Federal Government Regulations
and above mentioned management agencies.
To mitigate tourism impacts and to contribute to the Shires tourism image, the Shire
provides a number of facilities and services. It manages parks, provides a stinger net and
a year-round beach patrol in Port Douglas, supplies public facilities and clean-up
services, and maintains rural roads. Impact mitigation is of particular importance at those
sites that are popular with tour operators and day visitors who stay outside Douglas Shire.
The Shire makes a financial contribution to the promotion efforts of the Port Douglas
Daintree Tourism Association. This contribution is regarded by the tourism industry as
being inappropriately small. It could be increased if all businesses in the Shire contributed
to it through a tourism levy, which would acknowledge the multiplier effects of tourism
through the community. The idea, when tabled, was rejected vehemently by the Mossman
business community.
A user charge applies for individuals and operators who cross the Daintree river via the
Shire-operated ferry. Residents can purchase a ferry pass and use the ferry service at a
nominal fee. Being a bottleneck, the ferry and the level of user charge constitutes
important management tools for the visitation of the Daintree region. This is particularly
important because the self-drive day-traffic, particularly from Cairns, has been increasing
rapidly after the road to Cape Tribulation was improved and sealed for almost the entire
length.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 21

There is increasing awareness of the impact of nutrient loads on water quality. Sewage
outflow is a major contributor to nutrient loads in the Coral Sea and has potentially
damaging implications for the quality of the Great Barrier Reef. It is expected that
tertiary sewage treatment will be operational in Port Douglas within two year and
Mossman will follow. For tourist operations outside the town centres sewage treatment
regulations exist which state that waste water is to be used for irrigation of specified
areas of land. Another important source of nutrients is sullage from boats. Most tourist
boats have holding tanks and deposit the sullage in the area between the reef and the
mainland. Efforts are in place to reduce the nutrient loads of the rivers associated with
run-off from agricultural land.
The Shire imposes performance bonds on new developments which have to adhere to
architectural and landscaping requirements in order to get the bond repaid. However, the
bonds are so small that developers may find it economically rationale to break the rule
and loose the bond rather than comply.
The Shire required that developers provide environmental impact assessments along
with development proposals. However, the relevance of such statements may have to be
questioned. Experience with EIA suggests that their use is frequently cosmetic and rarely
influences the conduct of those responsible for the enterprise concerned (Coombs
1990:105). At the same time EIAs can detect environmental problems with new
developments before the damage is done and force outright rejection of the proposal or
redesign.
Given the vast range of management tools available to local government and its powers
over some of the premier tourism assets, it seems to be the most effective level at which
to implement tourism management strategies. After all, problems are most apparent at
this level and local policies are likely to receive most support by the host community.
However, local policies have intrinsic disadvantages (Ashworth 1995:60) and leave
much scope for government failure, some of which has already been mentioned.
Councils tend to have members from the business community who are preoccupied with
day-to-day issues ruling the life of ordinary citizens. While recognising the importance of
these issues, Mike Berwick senses a lack of vision and lateral and long-term thinking in
the council. He feels that there is a lack of understanding of the forces and motivations
that drive tourism and where the differences between tourism and development are. While
Council embraces ad-hoc and site-specific management of tourism impacts through
infrastructure, it often impedes strategic decisions towards sustainable resource
management, tourism development and social planning (personal communication,
7 Nov 1997).
Success is often measured in quantity. However, as Jannsen et al. (1995) stress, it is
important that people comprehend that successful tourism development is not a matter of
quantity, ie. tourist numbers, but rather of quality. This argument is supported by Wells
(1997) who shows that marginal benefits from additional visits decline with increasing
visitor numbers because the destination is increasingly foregoing potential tourism
income. There is, however, a danger that tourism increase is seen as way of increasing the
shires rate income which can be used to subsidise infrastructure projects that benefit
predominantly the rural community.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 22

Unlike federal and state governments, local governments are not supported by a
bureaucracy which can provide a continuity of information and knowledge. New
councillors have to learn about a vast array of issues on an individual basis. Councillors
may be swayed by peer group opinion or individuals arguments and may favour budget
expenditures and other decisions which favour an individual or few people at the expense
of the rest of the Shire community.
Local government decisions may be rejected or over-ruled by state government. The latter
happened in 1982 when the Queensland State government, after dealings with the
developer George Quaid, coerced the Douglas Shire council, against its will, into
approving the developers proposal for subdivision of a large area of land in the Daintree
area which he had formerly obtained as pastoral lease and converted into freehold land.
The former happened recently with the current Queensland State Government not
endorsing the land use plan developed by the Douglas Shire for the Daintree area.
A major failing of local government lies in the enforcement of its legislation. It lacks
people who can monitor whether rules are being adhered to. If rules are found to be
violated, local government is often hesitant to take action. This might be for political
reasons or for lack of money to take the offender to court.
CSIRO is currently developing a Tourism Futures Simulator for Douglas Shire(Walker
et al. 1997). This software is envisaged to be a user-friendly tool for the tourism industry
as well as government and tourism managers which will enable them to explore potential
future tourism developments and their economic, environmental and socio-cultural
implications, as well as management approaches. A tourism systems model, based on the
concepts depicted in Figure 2, is the core of the Simulator. This tool has the potential of
assisting the host community to develop a vision for their region and for developing an
adequate tourism management and development control framework in collaboration with
the tourism industry.

Concluding remarks
Tourism development is a dynamic process. Different phases of development can be
differentiated according to visitor numbers over time, visitor types and the level of
external involvement in development and its structure. Nature-based tourism essentially
relies on environmental resources in a quantitative and qualitative sense. Tourism can
only be sustainable as long as it does not exceed the recreational carrying capacities of the
destination which is defined in terms of ecological, social and economic limits. For
nature-based tourism, the ecological carrying capacity of the destination is pivotal, as is
the recognition of a social carrying capacity which determines visitor satisfaction.
Tourism success cannot be measured in tourism numbers alone. Sustainable tourism
development represents a challenge to traditional patterns of economic investment and
growth. There is scope for industry-initiated management in tourism, addressing the
internalities arising between different activities within the industry. The external effects
of the industry, however, have to be managed through public policy at various
government levels. Development, in its narrow sense, has to be controlled by public
sector policy because of its short-term financial motivations. The public sector has a
clearly defined responsibility and the power to implement coordinated planning and
development control strategies. Tourism management can be achieved in co-management
with the industry.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 23

Tourism development is exemplified for Douglas Shire which is currently in a tourism

growth phase and acutely faces the challenge of managing tourism. It is shown that there
is scope for extensive management of natural resource use, tourism activities, and
development by local government. Theoretically, this is the most appropriate level of
government to handle destination-specific management issues. However, government
failure can restrict this potential by failing to develop a vision of tourism for the future,
recognise management needs, devise and implement policies, and enforce them. This
failure is not restricted to one level of government.
Principally, the trade-offs that a destination region is confronted with are:
Is there an alternative to tourism when it comes to increasing per capita welfare in the
shire? The importance of primary and manufacturing industries has been declining and
tourism offers prospects to fill the gap. However, more so than other industries,
tourism is highly dependent on factors external to the destination region.
Sustainable tourism can be achieved at different stages of tourism development. The
destination has a choice at which stage it wants to remain. Tourism product and
promotion as well as development control and tourism management have to reflect
this choice. The question is whether the destination wants developer-controlled
development resulting in mass tourism or some form of alternative tourism whereby
the destination determines the number and type of visitors in keeping with its natural
and cultural assets.
Once a vision for tourism is agreed on it is necessary to decide which policy
instruments are most suitable for managing tourism activity and controlling
development and what is the best balance between public sector policy and industrybased mechanism. It is a challenge to establish an effective, efficient, acceptable and
adaptive tourism management policy. A suite of management instruments and comanagement between government and industry will be necessary to achieve this goal.

Acknowledgments
Thanks to all the people in Douglas Shire who have tirelessly answered my questions.
Special thanks to Mike Berwick for highly valuable discussion time.

References
Ashworth, G.J. (1995) Environmental quality and tourism and the environment. In, H. Coccossis
and P. Nijkamp (eds) Sustainable Tourism Development. Aldershot (UK): Avebury, 4963.
Brandon, K. (1996) Ecotourism and conservation: A review of the issues. Environment
Department Paper No. 33. Washington (D.C.): Global Environment Division, World
Bank.
Briassoulis, H. (1995) The environmental internalities of tourism: theoretical analysis and policy
implications. In, H. Coccossis and P. Nijkamp (eds) Sustainable Tourism Development.
Aldershot (UK): Avebury, 25-40.
Briassoulis, H. and Straaten, J.v.d. (1992) Tourism and the environment: an overview. In, H
Briassoulis and J.v.d. Straaten (eds) Tourism and the environment: Regional, Economic
and Policy Issues. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1-9

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 24

Brown, G. and Giles, R. (1994) Coping with tourism: an examination of resident responses to the
social impact of tourism. In, A.V. Seaton (ed), Tourism: the state of the art. Chichester
(UK): Wiley. 755-764.
Buhalis, D. and Fletcher, J. (1995) Environmental impacts on tourist destinations: an economic
analysis. In, H. Coccossis and P. Nijkamp (eds) Sustainable Tourism Development.
Aldershot (UK): Avebury, 3-24.
Butler, R.W. (1980) The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for Management
of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24:5-12.
Butler, R.W. (1991) Tourism environment, and sustainable development. Environmental
Conservation 18: 201-209.
Chadwick, R.A. (1987) Concepts, definitions and measures used in travel and tourism research. In,
J.R.B Ritchie and C.R. Gouldner (eds) Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research. New
York: Wiley.
Choy, D.J.L. (1992) Life-cycle models for Pacific Island destinations. Journal of Travel Research
30:26-31.
Coombs, H.C. (1990) The return of scarcity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, C. (1994) The destination life cycle: an update. In, A.V. Seaton (ed), Tourism: the state of
the art. Chichester (UK): Wiley. 340-346.
Goodall, B. (1992) Coastal resorts: development and redevelopment. Built Environment 18: 5-11.
Goodwin, H. (1996) In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conservation 5:277-291.
Green, H. (1995) Planning for sustainable tourism development. In, C. Hunter and H. Green,
Tourism and the Environment. A sustainable relationship? London and New York:
Routledge, 93-121.
Greiner, R., Young, M., McDonald, D. and M. Brooks (1997) Management instruments for marine
resources and uses. Report commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Primary
Industries and Energy. Canberra: Department of Environment.
Hunter, C. (1995) Key concepts for tourism and the environment. In, Hunter, C. and Green, H.
Tourism and the Environment. A sustainable relationship? London and New York:
Routledge, 52-92.
Hunter, C. and Green, H. (1995) Tourism and the Environment. A sustainable relationship?
London and New York: Routledge.
Inskeep, E. (1994) National and regional tourism planning: methodologies and case studies. New
York: World Tourism Organisation/Routledge.
Jannsen, H., Kiers, M., and Nijkamp, P. (1995) Private and public development strategies for
sustainable tourism development of island economies. In, H. Coccossis and P. Nijkamp
(eds) Sustainable Tourism Development. Aldershot (UK): Avebury, 65-83.
Komilis, P. (1994) Tourism and sustainable regional development. . In, A.V. Seaton (ed),
Tourism: the state of the art. Chichester (UK): Wiley. 65-73.
Mercer, D. (1995) A question of balance: Nature resources conflict issues in Australia. 2nd ed.
Annandale NSW: Federation Press.
Nelson, J.G., Butler, R., and Wall, G. (eds) (1993) Tourism and Sustainable Development:
Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Waterloo (Canada): Department of Geography.
Nijkamp, P., Kiers, M., and Jansen, H. (1992) Strategies for sustainable tourism. Proceedings of
an International Conference on Architecture of Soft Tourism. Trabzon (Turkey): Yildiz
University Facultuy of Architecture Press.
OECD (1980) The impact of tourism on the environment. Paris: OECD.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 25

OReilly, A.M. (1986) Tourism carrying capacity: concept and issues. Tourism Management
7:254-258.
Plog, S.C. (1991) Leisure Travel. Making it a Growth Market Again! New York: John Wiley.
Saleem, N. (1994) The destination capacity index: a measure to determine the tourism carrying
capacity. In, A.V. Seaton (ed), Tourism: the state of the art. Chichester (UK): Wiley. 144151.
Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. (1994) Critical issues in tourism: a geographical perspective.
Cambridge (MS, USA): Blackwell.
Tooman, L.A. (1996) Applications of the life-cycle model in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
24:214-234.
Waitt, G. (1996) Resorting to Korean tourism in Australia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en
Sociale Geografie 87:3-18.
Walker, P., Greiner, R., McDonald, A.D., Lyne, V. (1997) Benefits and Impacts of Tourism: A
Systems Thinking Approach. Proceeding of the International Conference on Modelling
and Simulation. Hobart, Tasmania, 8-11 Dec., Canberra: The Modelling and Simulation
Society of Australia.
Wells, M.P. (1997) Economic perspectives on nature tourism, conservation and development. .
Environment Department Paper No. 55. Washington (D.C.): Pollution and Environmental
Economics Division, World Bank.

CSIRO Resource Futures

Page 26