This article was downloaded by: [190.82.172.

166]
On: 01 February 2013, At: 10:57
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Anatolia: An International Journal of
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rana20
Untangling the messy legislative basis
of tourism development planning: five
cases from Australia
Sacha Reid
a
, Lisa Ruhanen
b
& Nicole Johnston
a
a
Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management,
Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia
b
The School of Tourism, The University of Queensland, Brisbane,
QLD, 4072, Australia
Version of record first published: 14 Aug 2012.
To cite this article: Sacha Reid , Lisa Ruhanen & Nicole Johnston (2012): Untangling the messy
legislative basis of tourism development planning: five cases from Australia, Anatolia: An
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 23:3, 413-428
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2012.714791
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Untangling the messy legislative basis of tourism development
planning: ve cases from Australia
Sacha Reid
a
*, Lisa Ruhanen
b
and Nicole Johnston
a
a
Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management, Grifth University, Gold Coast,
QLD, 4222, Australia;
b
The School of Tourism, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072,
Australia
(Received 23 December 2011; nal version received 19 July 2012)
This article reports on a scoping study examining the legislative basis for tourism
development and planning in Australia. While planning is vital to facilitate strategic
decision-making regarding the appropriate nature and scale of tourism-related
developments within a destination, the legislative frameworks that provide for, control
and regulate many aspects of tourism development have neither been identied nor
collated in an integrated manner. This research used a case-study methodology to
examine the range and scope of legislation impacting tourismdevelopment in Australia.
The study identied 285 current Acts that were categorized into ve broad themes. On
the basis of these ndings, a number of recommendations for identication,
collaboration and education regarding the legislative environment have been postulated.
Keywords: legislation; tourism development and planning; case study
Introduction
This scoping study provides an insight into the messy legislative environment impinging
on tourism development and planning within Australia. Australian tourism has set
aggressive tourist growth forecasts through until 2020, with a strategy to almost double
overnight tourist expenditure. To achieve these forecasts, signicant investment in tourism
product quality and development is required. However, the Commonwealth governments
Jackson Report identied that Australias complex array of planning and regulatory
requirements across states and territories deliver a serious disincentive to prospective
tourism investors (Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism [DERT], 2009a, p. 26).
Tkaczynski, Driml, Robinson, and Dwyer (2011) also found that the complexity and length
of approval processes in many jurisdictions were a signicant impediment to tourism
development and investment. It is the multiple and often overlapping legislative
requirements affecting tourism planning and development that are limiting development
applications and implementation (Department of Industry, Tourism & Resources, 2006;
DERT, 2009a, 2009b; Tkaczynski et al., 2011).
While there has been an array of academic research examining tourism planning and
policy contexts (Erkus-O

zturk, 2010; Gunn & Var, 2002; Hall & Page, 2006; Krutwaysho
& Bramwell, 2010; Riddell, 2004), a comprehensive review of legislation that impacts
tourism development has been overlooked. As McGehee, Meng, and Tepanon (2006,
ISSN 1303-2917 print/ISSN 2156-6909 online
q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2012.714791
http://www.tandfonline.com
*Corresponding author. Email: s.reid@grifth.edu.au
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 23, No. 3, November 2012, 413428
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

p. 685) noted, although the importance of legislation in tourism development is
inherently realized among tourism academics and practitioners, there has been limited
research conducted. This article responds to this gap and presents a scoping study of these
issues in the Australian context. Specically the study sought to examine the range of
legislation that impinges on tourism development at the state and federal levels in
Australia. A case-study approach in ve settings was used to explore and illustrate in
practice the complex, often messy interactions, and competing legislative environments
affecting tourism development. While governments at all levels will need to work with
tourism industry operators to implement the strategy and monitor progress (Department
of Resources, Energy & Tourism, 2011, p. 1), a number of impediments to tourism
development and planning were identied. These impediments provide a framework for
dialogue and regulatory reform to facilitate more effective tourism development.
Literature review
Planning is a future visioning initiative that incorporates designing for the future by
exploringconsequences before makingchoices (Healey, 2009). Hall andPage (2006, p. 321)
note, planning for tourism occurs in a number of forms (development, infrastructure,
promotion and marketing), structures (different government and non-governmental
organizations), scales (international, national, regional, local, sectoral) and times (different
time scales for development, implementation and evaluation). However, planning for
tourism has been advocated by many in response to the negative impacts that can arise for
host destinations from tourism activity. As Riddell (2004, p. 178) notes:
unplanned and under-regulated tourism expansion, with little thought or heed for the
wellbeing of the actual environment, the actual heritage, the actual communities being visited,
or indeed the actual tourists enjoyment, will wear down the very attractions on which the
industry is predicated.
Sentiments echoed by many authors who note that the failure to proactively plan for the
nature and scope of tourism development has left many destinations with a legacy of social
and environmental problems (Fredline, Deery, & Jago, 2005; Gu & Wong, 2006; Haley,
Snaith, & Miller, 2005; Murphy & Murphy, 2004; Northcote & Macbeth, 2005; Tovar &
Lockwood, 2008).
Contemporary planning is increasingly encompassing a wider range of considerations,
including environmental protection, commercial and corporate interests, and public
opinion (Dredge, 1999). This shift can also be seen in approaches to tourism planning
where a holistic systems approach has evolved (Gunn & Var, 2002). The holistic approach
noted by Gunn and Var (2002) can be attributed to the emergence and adoption of the
sustainable development concept and its widespread integration into tourism planning
activities. However as McCool (2009, p. 136) identies, tourism planning occurs in
messy contexts where the sector and markets are continually changing, goals conict
and causeeffect relationships are uncertain. It is evident that tourism development and
planning activities are undertaken for destinations, which are in fact complex systems of
public- and private-sector interests, coupled with host communities, the natural and built
environment and broader sociopolitical frameworks. Therefore, a challenge for planners
and legislators is balancing the often incongruent goals of tourism development with
planning for unknowable circumstances.
Tosun (2001) highlighted that the goals and objectives enacted within legislation have
a signicant inuence on tourism development. In Turkey, for example, goals for
increasing both supply- and demand-side aspects of tourism development resulted in
414 S. Reid et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

channeling generous tourism incentives to pre-determined tourism regions, tourism areas
and tourism centres (Tosun, 2001, p. 295). Tosun (2001) noted that a traditionally
powerful bureaucracy that dominates legislative and operative processes, coupled with
weak industry networks, has resulted in the absence of integrated planning approaches and
unbalanced spatial tourism development. The review of tourism planning in Spain by
Baidal (2004) also concluded that there was a need for processes and preparation of land-
use plans for tourism to be more agile, involving integration from administrators, to ensure
initiatives can be implemented by industry.
However, Erkus-O

zturk (2010, p. 120) stated that, tourismplanning should not be only

in the hands of the central government and some private entrepreneurs (who have strong
relations with central government), but also be in the hands of civil society and other local
actors. Considering a range of stakeholders perspectives and visions spreads the power,
broadening the responsibilities for tourismplanning. Collaborative planning ideally tries to
achieve consensus, not solving all conicts, through decision-making (Bramwell &
Sharman, 1999). Yet such planning approaches have limitations in practice as they fail to
achieve consensus through fair and open processes due to deep-seated vested interests of
participants (Jones, Glasson, Wood, & Fulton, 2011). Nevertheless, it is pertinent, as the
expectations of participants need to be managed, so that implementation of the planning
process occurs. Increasing community collaboration or involvement in this planning
process is integral as those implementing plans are often local ofcials and participants.
As the examination of policy implementation in Phuket, Thailand, by Krutwaysho and
Bramwell (2010, p. 686) found implementation was shown to involve interaction between
different public agencies and tiers of government, who held distinct views about the policies
and their application.
Against this background it has been recognized that tourism activity and development
should be planned for in an integrated and collaborative way to ensure the destination
sustains tourist satisfaction, positive economic benets, and minimal negative impacts on
the local social and physical environments. However, challenges arise for planners as the
decisions they make are nuanced and have to balance idealism [what ought to happen by
and for society] with pragmatism [what can happen with private sector investment]
(Burns, 2004, p. 27). A lack of understanding of the range of sociopolitical inuences on
tourism development and planning exercises is evident. King, McVey, and Simmons
(2000, p. 413) identied a key criticism of tourism planning has been the tendency of
documents to remain as paper exercises, and to sit on government shelves collecting
dust. For plans to be implemented, there is a need for balance idealism and visions with
an understanding of regulations and political factors that inuence tourism development.
The political process in Australia is complicated by multiple levels of governments
exerting varying powers on tourism development.
The Australian legislative environment
Australias tourism sector is complicated with a myriad of organizations and structures
encompassing multiple levels and jurisdictions of government, the private sector and
lobbies, interest groups and industry associations. As Altinay and Bowen (2006, pp. 951
952) note, the governance structure of the country, especially the form of federal
constitution and its institutions, will certainly impact upon the tourism industry and its
environment. Certainly the complex multi-tiered government structure of local, state and
federal authorities in Australia provides a number of challenges in a statutory and legislative
context. For instance, different levels of government tend to have different sets of objectives
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 415
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

to achieve through tourismdevelopment. The messiness occurs for many reasons. One is
that the aims of regional and local governments may diverge from those of federal
government (Hall & Lew, 2009). Also, the myriad of laws and policy areas that impact
tourism, but of which tourismis not the explicit focus, means that tourismis often governed
in an uncoordinated manner whereby tourismissues and policies are disjointedly addressed
(Dredge & Jenkins, 2007; Hall, Jenkins, & Kearsley, 1997; McGehee et al., 2006).
Furthermore, due to the multi-sectoral nature of the industry, tourism impedes on multiple
areas and policy jurisdictions thus simultaneously causing issues in terms of duplication of
aims, objectives and responsibilities (Altinay & Bowen, 2006; Ruhanen, 2006).
Even though Australias Constitution does not explicitly refer to tourism, the federal
government has many powers in respect to regulating areas that inuence tourism,
including world heritage, the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), building codes, airports and
infrastructure, among others. However, challenges arise as the structure of the Australian
government system and the statutory status of federal and state/territory tourism
organizations means that tourism has little to no place, nor involvement, in the
development of laws and regulations that affect the sector. Government agencies often
overlook the issue of tourism when addressing their own industry-related matters and
developing policies (Edgell, DelMastro Allen, Smith, & Swanson, 2008; Gunn & Var,
2002), either intentionally or inadvertently for a number of reasons. For example, an
agency may have differing political agendas and priorities, or a lack of awareness for
tourism and the impact the activity may have on the tourism sector (Dickman, 1998;
Edgell et al., 2008; Urbis & Tourism & Transport Forum, 2011). Owing to the lack of
denitive powers at a national, state or local level, the tourism sector is therefore heavily
reliant on coordination mechanisms that are typically voluntary in nature and as such not
enforceable (Dickman, 1998).
Much of the broader regulatory responsibility for the many areas that impact on
tourism is held by state governments. State government is responsible for a number of
tourism planning activities such as facility development and major infrastructure; and like
the federal government, tourism marketing and promotion (Jenkins & Hall, 1997;
Ruhanen, 2006). Each state and territory also has a state tourism organization (STO) that is
primarily responsible for marketing and promotion at state or territory level (see Table 2).
However, state governments can divest specic legislative powers to local governments,
namely for activities such as local land-use planning and development activities, such as
the provision of local infrastructure and facilities. As a result, local governments also play
a key role in the regulation of tourism-related land uses and have considerable inuence
over the growth and management of tourism at a destination level (Dredge & Jenkins,
2007). For instance, local government is responsible for the approval of tourism
development applications (Ruhanen, 2006; Thompson, 2007). However, state and federal
governments still have the power to review and overrule planning decisions made by local
governments (Dickman, 1998; Dredge & Jenkins, 2007; Thompson, 2007).
Given the previously mentioned challenges associated with multi-tiered government
involvement in tourism development and planning in Australia, this article reports on the
rst empirical study undertaken to investigate the range and scope of federal and
state/territory legislation that impinges on tourism development and planning. While it is
reasonably well accepted that the legislative environment affecting tourismdevelopment is
broad and complex, there have been no previous attempts to catalogue and quantify just how
extensive this issue is (McGehee et al., 2006; Reid, Ruhanen, Davidson, & Johnson, 2010).
While the ndings of this scoping study are unique to Australia, they can provide insights for
other countries as to the plethora of legislation impinging on the tourismsector. Practically,
416 S. Reid et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

the identication of such legislation can assist the tourism industry, developers and
government policy makers. First, to develop effective and implementable tourism plans
there is a need to understand the legislative environment within which tourismdevelopment
and planning operates. Second, the gamut of governmental agencies and departments that
inuence tourism development and planning needs to be identied to ensure that cross-
institutional/governmental networks and communication can be fostered. Finally, an
alignment between operational perspectives and governmental policy is required within the
tourism sector to ensure the sustainability of the sector.
Methodology
An inductive research approach was used to address the objective of this study. First,
secondary data were used to undertake an audit of pertinent legislation. Comprehensive
searches of government (federal and state) websites and direct contact with government
representatives informed the collection of this data. The rst stage of data collection
produced a catalogue of federal and state Acts (an Act is dened as legislation that has
been passed through parliament and has been decreed into law through an Act of
Parliament) that impact on or affect tourism development and planning or the tourism
sector generally. The audit also identied relevant regulatory agencies. It should be noted
that the Acts included in this research were current as on1 March 2010.
The data were analysed using an iterative thematic content analysis process to determine
the range of legislation impacting on tourism development and planning by jurisdiction
(Yin, 2003). Researchers manually open-coded the data by highlighting the aims and
objectives and writing notes about the impact of the Act on tourism development and
planning. Adata-reduction process then collapsed these codes into a range of themes, which
were selectively coded into ve broad-category themes: land-use planning, environment,
tourismoperations and services, cultural heritage and tourismorganizations. This approach
was used to reduce the greater number of themes into fewer content categories (Neuman,
2003; Weber, 1990). These categories also had a number of secondary themes, as evidenced
in the taxonomy of categories and themes depicted in Table 1.
Table 1. Taxonomy of categories and themes.
Category
No. of acts in
category Secondary themes
No. of acts in
theme
Land-use planning 130 Building works and use 45
Infrastructure and transport 43
Land use planning and development 27
Local government 9
Coastal development 6
Environment 89 Marine and sheries 34
Nature conservation 28
Crown land 16
Forestry 11
Tourism operations and 39 Liquor supply and licensing 18
services Casinos and gaming 10
Major events 6
Tourist services 5
Cultural heritage 19 Heritage conservation 11
Indigenous heritage 8
Tourism organizations 8 State tourism organizations 8
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 417
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

Second, a case-study methodology overlaid the secondary data as a means of
examining the messy legislative environment impacting on tourism development and
planning. As Jennings (2001) notes, the advantage of the case-study approach is that in-
depth data are collected and evidenced within a grounded setting. Case studies were
randomly selected to provide geographic spread through Australia and jurisdiction based
on the contexts derived from the key themes of the legislative audit. The case-study
methodology also included a review of key tourism development and planning documents
within the case-study locations. The represented cases studies are the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park (GBRMP), Docklands, Sydney Olympics, Port Arthur Heritage Site and the
Tourism Tropical North Queensland (TTNQ) organization. The cases do not claim to be
representative, however are signicant in terms of Australian tourism. Combined
GBRMP, Docklands and the Port Arthur Heritage site account for just over 22 million
visitors annually (Docklands, 2012; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
[GBRMPA], 2012; Port Arthur Historic Sites Management Authority, 2012). The Sydney
Olympics, as a mega-event, generated a 15% increase in international visitor numbers
during the corresponding reporting quarter and an additional US$ 2.1 billion in publicity
for Australia (Australian Tourism Commission, 2001). Finally, the region of the Tropical
North Queensland attracted 626,000 international overnight visitors and a further 1.3
million domestic overnight visits in the year ending September 2011, representing 32% of
all international and 8% of all domestic visitors to Queensland (Tourism Queensland,
2011). Importantly, each case draws out the complex legislative environment impacting on
tourism development and planning for these regions, events and/or organizations.
A number of limitations to this research are evident. First, the audit of legislation is
limited to federal and state legislation that broadly impacts on tourism development and
planning. While reference is made to business operation and management, health, taxation
and nancial legislation, a comprehensive review of this legislation is not included in this
research project. Further, there are approximately 560 local government bodies in
Australia (Australian Local Government Association, 2012), therefore completing a
review of local planning processes is beyond the scope of this particular research.
Results
Federal, state and local legislation provides mechanisms for assessment of tourism-related
developments, activities and services. Legislation can facilitate tourism development by
identifying allowable uses, types of development and specic areas, or regions in need of
control or protection. In total 285 Acts were identied, which were coded into ve broad
categories of legislation: land-use planning, environmental, tourism operations and
services, cultural heritage and tourism organizations.
Land-use planning
Land-use planning, as implied, involves planning for the use of land (Priemus, Button, &
Nijkamp, 2007). Development, services and activities (impacting on land) are regulated to
achieve sustainable outcomes, mitigate unintended consequences and shape cities, towns
and regions (Dredge, 2010). Five secondary themes representing 130 federal and state
Acts were identied within the land-use planning category: building works and use,
infrastructure and transport, land-use planning, local government and coastal
development. Further, each Australian state and territory has established a system of
planning under their respective state and local planning regulations. However, it is beyond
the scope of this article to discuss each of these systems here.
418 S. Reid et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

Docklands, adjacent to the Melbourne central business district in the southern
Australian state of Victoria, provides insights into the complex and interdisciplinary
legislative environments impacting on land-use development. This long-term redevelop-
ment project, comprising approximately 700 hectares of former industrial land fronting the
Yarra River, offers a number of precincts (mixed use, commercial, residential, recreational
and touristic). To enable the redevelopment, the City of Melbourne enacted the Docklands
Authority Act 1991 to facilitate whole of site strategic planning and quicker approval
processes. Melbourne City Council, VicUrban and the Docklands Coordination Committee
are responsible for overseeing and coordinating the redevelopment, promoting private-
sector investment, acquiring and disposing of land, levying charges and acting as the referral
authority for the purposes of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Ordinarily, the
Planning and Environment Act 1987 covers all land-use planning controls administered by
the Victorian state and local government authorities.
Despite the site-specic legislation enabling planning and development consent and
approval, a number of other federal, state and local Acts must be considered. Land use and
development governance decisions are affected by a culmination of a further 11 Acts (i.e.
Carlton (Recreation Ground) Land Act 1966, City of Melbourne Act 2001, Crown Land
(Reserves) Act 1978, Cultural and Recreational Lands Act 1963, Emergency Management
Act 1986, Environmental Protection Act 1970 and 1994, Local Government Act 1989,
Melbourne Lands (Yarra River North Bank) Act 1997, Parks Victoria Act 1998 and the
Subdivision Act 1988). In addition, 11 Acts of transport and infrastructure legislation must
also be considered in the development of the site (i.e. the Building Act 1993, Congestions
Levy Act 2005, Disability Discrimination Act, Infrastructure Australia Act 2008,
Melbourne City Link Act 1995, Port Services Act 1995, Rail Corporations Act 1996, Road
Management Act 2004, Road Safety Act 1986, Transport Act 1983 and the Transport
Integration Act 2010). The former industrial site also has a unique maritime historical
signicance that is protected under the Heritage Act 1995 and the Heritage Rivers Act
1992. The Heritage Rivers Act 1992 legislatively provides for the identication and
protection of heritage, river and natural catchments areas, while prohibiting development
and activities that impair the passage of water, recreational and conservation of these
cultural heritage sites.
The introduction of site-specic legislation to facilitate land-use planning and
development has been evidenced in a number of other jurisdictions including Sanctuary
Cove, a tourism and residential resort development in Queensland (Sanctuary Cove Resort
Act 1985) and the redevelopment of formerly industrial land at Subiaco in Western Australia
(Subiaco Redevelopment Act 1994). Site-specic legislation often results in a centralized
authority or agency being responsible for strategic and integrated planning, as well as for
development consent of newprojects within these sites. However, site-specic Acts remove
local democratic and community consultative processes and input:
In practice, approvals of major development projects sponsored by the Docklands Authority
are, for the most part, carried out by Planning Scheme amendments by the Minister. This does
not provide any avenue for residents of the City of Melbourne or the residents of Docklands to
exercise objection or appeal rights, or to make formal submissions on the amendments, since
they are generally not advertised. (Department for Victorian Communities, 2003, p. 22)
Notwithstanding, there are a range of other Acts that need to be identied and adhered to in
large-scale development sites of this nature. Without the governing authority and
respective regulations, the development may have been in a haphazard and most likely
disjointed manner, thus potentially diminishing its touristic appeal.
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 419
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

Environmental
The research identied 89 environmental- and nature-based legislation Acts that impact on
tourism development. Environmental legislation is context specic, relating to dominate
uses, and dependent on location. For instance Queensland (n 16), Northern Territory
(n 12) and Victoria (n 12) are the most prolic legislators of the environment. The
environmental category included sub-themes relating to nature conservation, forestry,
marine environments and sheries, and crown land. The GBR, covering 347,000 square
kilometres and more than 2600 kilometres of Queensland coastline, provides an
interesting case of the complex nature and scope of legislation impacting on tourism
development and planning.
The GBRMPA was established as a statutory body (an organization or authority set up
by law to administer or enforce legislation on behalf of the relevant government) in 1975
to govern the use of the Marine Park and is regulated in accordance with national
legislation, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Act 1975. Through the implementation of this
destination-specic piece of legislation and the use of a statutory body (GBRMPA), the
Marine Parks unique environmental, cultural, scientic and historical values are catered
for and aspects of management, such as tourism, are more effectively handled. To achieve
this, GBRMPA uses a number of legislative instruments and management systems such as
zoning plans, permits and plans of management (POM).
Zoning areas are a statutory measure introduced to limit access and activities
undertaken in specic areas of the Marine Park. For instance, a General Use Zone permits
a number of reasonable activities such as boating and shing, while a Preservation Zone
allows only limited scientic research. Subsequently, these zoning schemes impact on
tourist activities, such as shing and camping, which are regulated and prohibited in some
areas of the Marine Park (such as Preservation Zones). Permits are required for vessels
operating for charter hire, ferry service or for tourism purposes and certain conditions must
be met. Permits are also a requirement for construction activity and infrastructure
development within the Marine Park. POMs are legislative instruments that set out the
policies and strategies regarding management of the Marine Park. However, these POM
need to take into account other plans made under the Marine Parks Act 2004 and the
Nature Conservation Act 1992.
Although the Great Barrier Reef Marine Act 1975 is the main legislative framework,
numerous other Commonwealth Acts are also applicable to the Marine Park, such as
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and the Environment and Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. State legislation is also relevant and includes the
Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, Environmental Protection Act 1994,
Fisheries Act 1994, State Development and Public Works Organization Act 1971 and the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009. Further, the site was World Heritage listed in 1981 and
thus subject to a number of international conventions and treaties relating to its protection.
Despite being managed under the most stringent legislative policies and guidelines,
tourism on the reef still contributes some $6 billion dollars annually to the national
economy (GBRMPA, 2007).
Tourism operations and services
Tourism is a multifaceted sector consisting of a diverse array of interrelated products and
services (Reid et al., 2010). The research identied 39 Acts that inuence tourism
operations and services encompassing four themes: liquor supply and licensing, casino and
gaming, major events and tourist services. Tourism demand and activity stimulates
420 S. Reid et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

demand for other products, services and activities (Edgell et al., 2008). For example, in
addition to local consumption, tourists also generate demand for alcohol and beverages.
Eighteen Acts, representative of all the states and territories, regulate liquor licensing, the
types of licenses available (e.g. hotel, restaurant), the conditions that apply to the license
and the restrictions and therefore penalties that apply for the supply of liquor without the
requisite license.
Major events, such as the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, have also been enabled
through the introduction of event-specic legislation. Events showcase destinations to a
much wider audience than just attendees, therefore are important platforms for tourism
marketing and economic development for governments and tourism organizations
(Dansero & Puttilli, 2010; Hiller, 2006; Jago, Dwyer, Lipman, van Lill, & Vorster, 2010;
Reid, 2008). Furthermore, the range of social consequences that arise for host cities
necessitates that governments introduce legislation as well as complex intergovernmental
collaborations for effective event planning (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Horne &
Manzenreiter, 2004). A range of legislation was specically created for the Olympics such
as the Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games Act 1993 (SOCOG Act).
The SOCOG Act was enacted by the New South Wales (NSW) government to full the
obligations and provisions within the Host City Contract to the International Olympic
Committee (IOC; SOCOG, 2001). The Act outlined the organizing committees
responsibilities for: preparing and operating the sports programme; organizing the cultural
programme; establishing the marketing programme in consultation with the IOC and the
Australian Olympic Committee; and providing host broadcaster, television, radio and
other information services. The Act also made provisions for governance and nancial
accountability, acknowledging the role of various other pieces of legislation, such as the
Public Finance and Audit Act, Annual Reports Act, Freedom of Information Act,
Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, Ombudsman Act and the Sydney 2000
Games Administration Act 2000. The NSW government also created the Olympic Co-
ordination Authority Act 1995 that required the Authority and the Environmental
Guidelines to be considered in all developments. The major venue was legislated with the
creation of the Homebush Bay Operations Act. This Act provided powers to manage and
control the Homebush domain area as the landowner, including the legal consent authority
for building and planning approvals under local-government legislation. Furthermore, the
Olympic Arrangements Act 2000 created temporary legislative measure to make changes
to legislation during the Olympic and Paralympic Games in September and October 2000.
Lessons from previous Olympics ensured that in planning for Sydney 2000 a
coordinated approach to transport was required. To enable this, the NSW government
enacted the legislation Olympic Roads and Transport Authority Act 1998 (ORTA). The
ORTA was established as a body to be able to control, for the benets of the Olympic
Games, the myriad of agencies involved in transport planning and operations in Sydney. In
addition, the Olympic Co-ordination Authority also brought together a range of
government agencies and levels of government through memorandum of understandings.
There was a multitude of other legislative measures enacted to ensure the successful
staging of the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Examples included liquor licensing, health and
pharmaceutical arrangements to name a few. Furthermore, the federal government was
involved in enacting federal legislation, Olympic Insignia Protection Amendment Act 1994
and the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996, in an attempt to
stop ambush marketing through regulation for commercial use of the images and indicia
associated with the event. It is evident that an event the size of the Olympics creates unique
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 421
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

and complex intergovernmental collaboration, with the creation of legislation enabling
coordination within a timely manner.
Cultural heritage
The audit identied 19 legislative Acts relating to tourism and the management and
protection of Australian cultural heritage. Heritage buildings and monuments, historic
sites and landmarks, and natural environments are unique draw cards for tourists visiting
Australia. One example is a key Australian cultural heritage site, Port Arthur in Tasmania,
which is a surviving example of a nineteenth-century British convict colony. The site is the
most popular Tasmanian tourist attraction, with approximately 255,000 people visiting
each year (Port Arthur Historic Sites Management Authority, 2012). The Port Arthur
Historic Site Management Authority Act (PAHSMA Act) was introduced in 1987 and a
statutory body, the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, was established to
effectively manage, maintain and control the use of the site.
The Authority has numerous powers that impact on visitors use of the Port Arthur
Historic Site, such as being responsible for permitting, governing and providing various
commercial and tourism-related activities (i.e. selling and hiring of equipment, granting of
leases or licenses to occupy). The PAHSMA Act stipulates that the Authority may
construct, maintain and eliminate roads on the site, with the Authority having constructed
a system of timber and low-impact steel mesh walkways that provide safe and relatively
easy access. In addition, where buildings and areas have been identied as being of a
sensitive heritage nature or pose risk to visitors, access has been restricted. Contributing
signicantly towards the ongoing management, maintenance and preservation of the site,
and ensuring the tourist experience is high quality and authentic, the Act also enables the
Authority to levy and collect fees and charges from visitors (i.e. an admission fee). As the
Authority operates in accordance with the Government Business Enterprises Act 1995,
admission fees are reviewed on an annual basis and adjustments are made in line with
operational requirements. This site also features many valuable items of moveable cultural
heritage including artefacts, convict relics, furniture and rearms. The PAHSMA Act gives
the Authority specic legislative power to ne persons found to be guilty of removing or
damaging any artefact or relic, or ora or timber from the site without approval.
Also a comprehensive statutory framework has been introduced across all levels of
government, which impact the provision of tourism planning and development at the site.
Internationally, the site was awarded World Heritage listing under the Australian Convict
Sites inscription in 2010. This listing ensures that the World Heritage Convention Act 1983
will also apply to the site thus resulting in additional statutory obligations being placed on
the Commonwealth Government. Federally, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 protects this site which is registered on the National Heritage List.
The Authority is therefore required to undertake rigorous assessment processes and
implement a management plan. At the state level, the site is recorded on the Tasmanian
Heritage List which is governed in accordance with the cultural heritage legislation, the
Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995. Both pieces of legislation are designed to protect the
cultural, environmental and heritage values of the site and therefore any proposed
alterations or works that could affect the heritage values of the site require approval from
both the Federal Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts and the Tasmanian
Heritage Council. In addition, as land use and development are generally regulated by local
council planning schemes, approval must also be sought from the Tasman Municipal
Council, which is subject to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. The PAHSMA
422 S. Reid et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

Act stipulates, however, that the Authority may enter into an arrangement with the local
council to control land use and building activities on the subject site, therefore allowing the
Authority to plan more strategically and effectively for tourism. Other Tasmanian Acts and
policies that the Authority must comply with include: Tasmanian State Coastal Policy 1996,
Local Government Act 1993 and Amendment 1995, Tasman Planning Scheme 1979, State
Services Act 2000, National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, Aboriginal Relics
Act 1975 and the Nature Conservation Act 2002.
Tourism organization
The nal category identied nine pieces of legislation relating to tourism organizations.
Tourism Australia is the countrys national tourism organization and was established to
. . . boost international marketing, stimulate growth in domestic tourism, particularly in
regional areas, and pursue structural initiatives to assist in the growth of the industry
(Dredge & Jenkins, 2007, p. 252). Similarly, each state and territory has their own tourism
organization (STOs) as depicted in Table 2.
Tourism organizations are statutory authorities that operate independently of
government departments, with the exception of Australian Capital Tourism in the
Australian Capital Territory and the South Australia TourismCommission. STOs generally
have an advisory role in howtourismis planned, developed and managed (Hall et al., 1997).
They also usually provide guidance to industry, regional (sub)level tourism organizations,
government agencies and other stakeholders on tourism development and planning matters
(Dredge &Jenkins, 2007). Ultimately though, these are marketing- and promotion-focused
organizations. Owing to a lack of legislative powers, these organizations have limited
authority to direct other government agencies and departments to meet tourism-specic
objectives (Hall, 2000). Consequently, to inuence tourismplanning outcomes in Australia,
these organizations rely on partnership arrangements and coordination mechanisms
(Dickman, 1998), such as Memorandum of Understandings and tourism plans.
Government tourism organizations, such as STOs and federal departments, regularly
engage in collaborative discussion and strategy development. An example of which is the
Table 2. Australian state and territory tourism departments and organizations.
Jurisdiction State tourism department
State tourism organization
(STOs)
Australian Capital
Territory
Department of Territory and
Municipal Services
Australian Capital Tourism
New South Wales Department of Industry and
Investment
Tourism New South Wales
Northern Territory Department of Business, Economic
and Regional Development
Tourism Northern Territory
Queensland Department of Employment, Economic
Development and Innovation
Tourism Queensland
South Australia South Australia Tourism Commission South Australia Tourism
Commission
Tasmania Department of Economic Development,
Tourism and the Arts
Tourism Tasmania
Victoria Department of Innovation, Industry and
Regional Development
Tourism Victoria
Western Australia Western Australia Tourism Commission
Board
Tourism Western Australia
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 423
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

Achievement by Partnerships: Tourism Collaboration Intergovernmental Arrangement
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2005, p. 7). However, policies such as these highlight the
position that This Arrangement between parties is not legally binding in any way and
does not give rise to legal rights or obligations (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005, p. 7).
In addition, there are various agreements, arrangements and organizations that operate
within the tourism sphere, such as Regional Tourism Organizations (RTOs). RTOs are
responsible for the management and development of tourism within a region to increase
visitation and yield through marketing (Tourism Alliance Victoria, 2008). These
organizations are generally convened under three main legal frameworks; as limited
liability companies under Federal Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), incorporated associations
registered under the Associations Incorporation Acts of respective states and territories or
as special committees under the Local Government Acts of respective states and territories.
For example, TTNQ is the ofcial RTO for Tropical North Queensland region of
Australia, which includes: the GBR, Cairns, Cairns Beaches and Palm Cove, Port Douglas,
Daintree and Cape Tribulation, Cooktown, Cape York Peninsula, the Gulf Savannah,
Kuranda and Cairns Highlands, and Mission Beach. TTNQ is an industry-funded
incorporated private company limited by Guarantee, with all activities overseen by the
TTNQ Board of Directors (Darveniza, 2009).
Conclusion and implications
Investment in tourism development is essential if Australia is to achieve the aggressive
tourist ow forecasts sought over the next 10 years. Governments and industry have
acknowledged that Australias complex planning and regulatory environment provides a
disincentive to potential tourisminvestors (DERT, 2009a; Tkaczynski et al., 2011; Urbis &
Tourism & Transport Forum, 2011). However, to date the legislative environment that
impinges on tourism development and planning has been overlooked within the academic
literature. Research in each of the ve cases indicates that there is an extensive range of
legislation impacting on tourismdevelopment and planning. The signicance and effects of
legislation is unique and context specic. Often, there are multiple jurisdictions and Acts,
which must be considered in tourismdevelopments. The GBRand Port Arthur Historic Site
provide interesting cases of multi-level jurisdictions, from international treaties and World
Heritage listing to federal and state legislation, impacting on tourism development. The
environmental and cultural heritage signicance of these sites has ensured that governments
at all levels have acted to protect the sites through laws and governance mechanisms.
The nature of tourism predicates that discussions about legislation impacting on
tourism development and planning need to be undertaken with a range of government
departments at local, state and federal levels (Dickman, 1998; Dredge & Jenkins, 2007;
Murphy & Murphy, 2004). Previous national tourism strategies such as the Tourism White
Paper outlined, a whole-of-government approach to tourism, aiming at removing
duplications, maximizing opportunities and facilitating partnerships and innovation
(Australian Government, 2004, p. ix). This sentiment was reiterated in the current national
strategy. Being engaged with and aware of the legislative and policy movements within
these different government departments is a signicant challenge facing STOs, industry
associations and lobbyists. Hall (2008) also acknowledges that a whole-of-government
response lies outside the usual jurisdiction of tourism-specic governance. Although
tourism industry councils (such as the Queensland Tourism Industry Council) and the
national Tourism and Transport Forum organization do much in the way of lobbying
government agencies on the importance of tourism, there is still scope to improve and open
424 S. Reid et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

the communication channels between government agencies and STOs to address much of
the ambiguity identied in this research.
Key recommendations emanating from this research are provided to address the
messy legislative environment impacting on tourism development and planning.
Statutory bodies and the industry more generally need to be educated as to the extent to
which tourism is impacted on by various Acts and regulations. Education will ensure that
the directions identied in tourism development and planning exercises have a basis in
current legal frameworks that may go some way towards overcoming the challenges that
tend to arise when implementing tourism plans and strategies. To address this, opportunity
exists within undergraduate and postgraduate tourism degrees, as well as professional
development and management programmes, to incorporate such concepts within the
curriculum to better prepare those entering the public and private sectors of the industry to
understand, and respond to, the impacts of legislation on the sector. Education may also
assist in engaging the range of stakeholders that can be or are affected by tourism
development in the planning phase (Bramwell & Sharman, 1999).
The layering of legislation from differing levels of governance in conjunction with
other policies, not necessarily tourism specic, has a signicant effect on tourism
development and planning (Hall, 2009). This messiness is a signicant factor impeding
tourism development and planning in Australia. Mixed-use redevelopments, such as
Docklands and Subiaco, have demonstrated the effectiveness of site-specic legislation
that provides a governing authority with legislative power for strategic integrated planning
and development decision-making. These powers unburden developers from navigating
the multiple levels and government departments that would otherwise apply. Opportunity
exists within Australia, as many urban and peri-urban sites undergo redevelopment, to
have centralized site-specic development authorities oversee development and planning
assessment. The Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA) in Queensland provides an
example of an organization that works with local and state governments, the development
industry and the community to create best practice urban designed mixed-use
communities. ULDA is responsible for planning and assessing development applications,
thus providing a one-stop point of contact for potential developers.
In addition, further research investment is recommended to identify and interpret the full
range of legislation impacting the tourism sector in Australia. This scoping study was
delimited to federal and state/territory jurisdictions within key legislation categories (i.e.
land-use planning) and as such provides an exploratory review of the myriad of issues.
While all attempts were made to ensure this scoping study was as holistic as possible, the full
range of legislation that impacts on the tourismindustry is certainly larger than the 285 Acts
identied here. Further, the role of local government has been acknowledged as important,
yet it is often overlooked. Additional attention should be given to the impact of federal and
state legislation on the functions and decision-making capacity of local governments with
respect to tourism development and planning. Further research is required to examine the
range and scope of policies and regulations at a local government level.
There is a need, on an ongoing basis, to build on and amend the Australian legislation
database that is an outcome of this study. The creation of an online database or data
warehouse may be coordinated through peak tourism bodies or tourism industry councils.
The need for an online database has been recognized by the United Nations World
Tourism Organization (UNWTO) who developed LEXTOUR in 2002 as an international
referral system facilitating direct access through links to external websites, databases and
information servers on tourism legislative data produced and distributed by authoritative
sources such as parliaments, central government bodies (including National Tourism
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 425
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

Administrations), universities, professional associations, etc. (UNWTO, 2003, p. 1).
Despite attempts to ensure that LEXTOUR remains a reliable source of information in the
process of constructing the Australian database, it was found that the content on the
LEXTOUR database is not comprehensive, dated and extremely difcult to navigate. It is
recommended that a specic database system is developed for Australia and maintained by
one of the aforementioned organizations.
In conclusion, this research provides an attempt to examine the range and scope of
legislation impacting on tourism development and planning. The research identied that
there were ve key categories of legislation: land-use planning, environmental, tourism
operations and services, cultural heritage and tourism organizations. The challenge for the
tourism industry is identifying relevant legislation within each jurisdiction that applies to
potential tourism developments. Decoding this messiness may be achieved through the
creation of a national database that identies legislation by level of government, region
and legislative categories.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the many people who contributed their time and experience to this project, with a
particular note to Professor Michael Davidson and Ms Sarah OGrady. The Sustainable Tourism
Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC), established and supported under the Australian
Government, funded this research. Members of the Industry Reference Group (IRG) are also
thanked for their guidance on this project.
References
Altinay, L., & Bowen, D. (2006). Politics and tourism interface: The case of Cyprus. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(4), 939956.
Australian Government (2004). Tourism White Paper implementation plan: Achieving platinum
Australia: Implementation plan 2004. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Local Government Association (2012). About ALGA. http://www.alga.asn.au/.
Australian Tourism Commission (2001). Australian tourism commission Olympic Games tourism
strategy. Doi: http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2001/atc/olympicreview.pdf.
Baidal, J. (2004). Tourism planning in Spain: Evolution and perspectives. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(2), 313333.
Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26, 392415.
Burns, P.M. (2004). Tourism planning: A third way? Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 2443.
Commonwealth of Australia (2005). Achievements by partnerships: Tourism collaboration
intergovernmental arrangement. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Dansero, E., & Puttilli, M. (2010). Mega-events tourism legacies: The case of the Torino 2006
Winter Olympic Games: a territorialisation approach. Leisure Studies, 29(3), 321341.
Darveniza, M. (2009). Dening an economic development model for the Cassowary Coast Regional
Council. http://www.thinktnq.com.au/research/8/9/doc-31.
Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism (2009a). The Jackson report on behalf of the Steering
Committee: Informing the national long-term tourism strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia.
Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism (2009b). National long term tourism strategy.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (2006). National tourism investment strategy,
investing in our future. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (2011). Tourism 2020. http://www.tourism.aus-
tralia.com/Tourism_2020_overview.pdf.
Department for Victorian Communities (2003). IDC report on governance of Melbourne Docklands.
http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_le/0017/38150/IDC_Report_on_Gov_of_
Melbourne_Docklands_2004_no_4.pdf.
426 S. Reid et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

Dickman, S. (1998). Tourism: An introductory text. Rydalmere: Hodder Education.
Docklands (2012). Docklands retail statement 2008: 2012. http://www.docklands.com/cs/Satellite?
blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&
blobwhere=1334640050646&ssbinary=true&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheader
value1=application/pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Dispostion&blobheadervalue2=attach-
ment%3B+lename%3DDocklandsRetailStatement.pdf.
Dredge, D. (1999). Destination place planning and design. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4),
772791.
Dredge, D. (2010). Place change and tourism development conict: Evaluating public interest.
Tourism Management, 31(1), 104112.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2007). Tourism policy and planning. Milton: John Wiley.
Edgell, D.L., DelMastro Allen, M., Smith, G., & Swanson, J.R. (2008). Tourism policy and
planning: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Oxford: Elsevier.
Erkus-O

zturk, H. (2010). Planning of tourism development: The case of Antalya. Anatolia, 21(1),
107122.
Fredline, E., Deery, M., & Jago, L. (2005). Social impacts of tourism on communities. Gold Coast:
Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2007). Great Barrier Reef climate change action plan
20072012. Townsville: GBRMPA.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2012). Great Barrier Reef Marine park tourist visits.
Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Gu, M., & Wong, P. (2006). Residents perception of tourism impacts: A case study of homestay
operators in Dachangshan Dao, North-East China. Tourism Geographies, 8(3), 253273.
Gunn, C., & Var, T. (2002). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Gursoy, D., & Kendall, K. (2006). Hosting mega events: Modeling locals support. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(3), 603623.
Haley, A., Snaith, T., & Miller, G. (2005). The social impacts of tourism: A case study of Bath, UK.
Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 79105.
Hall, C.M. (2000). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relationships. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Hall, C.M. (2008). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Hall, C.M. (2009). Archetypal approaches to implementation and their implications for tourism
policy. Tourism Recreation Research, 34(3), 235245.
Hall, C.M., Jenkins, J., & Kearsley, G. (1997). Tourism planning and policy in Australia and NZ.
Sydney: Irwin Publishers.
Hall, C.M., & Lew, A.A. (2009). Understanding and managing tourism impacts: An integrated
approach. Oxon: Routledge.
Hall, C.M., & Page, S.J. (2006). The geography of tourism and recreation: Environment, place and
space. Oxon: Routledge.
Healey, P. (2009). The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 28, 277292.
Hiller, H. (2006). Post-event outcomes and the post-modern turn: The Olympics and urban
transformation. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(4), 317332.
Horne, J., & Manzenreiter, W. (2004). Accounting for mega-events: Forecast and actual impacts of
the 2002 Football World Cup Finals on the host countries Japan/Korea. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport, 39(2), 187203.
Jago, L., Dwyer, L., Lipman, G., van Lill, D., & Vorster, S. (2010). Optimising the potential of mega-
events: An overview. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1(3), 220237.
Jennings, G. (2001). Tourism research. Milton: John Wiley.
Jenkins, J.M., & Hall, C.M. (1997). Tourism planning and policy in Australia. In C.M. Hall, J.M.
Jenkins, & G. Kearsley (Eds.), Tourism planning and policy in Australia and New Zealand:
Cases, issues and practice (pp. 3748). Sydney: Irwin.
Jones, T., Glasson, J., Wood, D., & Fulton, E. (2011). Regional planning and resilient futures:
Destination modeling and tourism development: The case of the Ningaloo Coastal region in
Western Australia. Planning Practice and Research, 26(4), 393415.
King, B., McVey, M., & Simmons, D. (2000). A societal marketing approach to national tourism
planning: Evidence from the South Pacic. Tourism Management, 21(4), 407416.
Krutwaysho, O., & Bramwell, B. (2010). Tourism policy implementation and society. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(3), 670691.
Anatolia An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 427
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3

McCool, S. (2009). Constructing partnerships for protected area tourism planning in an era of change
and messiness. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 133148.
McGehee, N., Meng, F., & Tepanon, Y. (2006). Understanding legislators and their perceptions of
the tourism industry: The case of North Carolina, USA, 1990 and 2003. Tourism Management,
27(4), 684694.
Murphy, P., & Murphy, A. (2004). Strategic management for tourism communities: Bridging the
gaps. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Neuman, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Northcote, J.K., & Macbeth, J. (2005). Limitations of resident perception surveys for understanding
social impacts: The need for triangulation. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 3950.
Port Arthur Historic Sites Management Authority (2012). Port Arthur historic site management
authority 20102011 annual report. http://www.portarthur.org.au/le.aspx?id=14651%20.
Priemus, H., Button, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2007). Land use planning. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Reid, S. (2008). Identifying social consequence of rural events. Event Management, 11(12),
8998.
Reid, S., Ruhanen, L., Davidson, M., & Johnson, N. (2010). Legal basis of state and territory tourism
planning. Gold Coast: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
Riddell, R. (2004). Sustainable urban planning: Tipping the balance. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ruhanen, L. (2006). Sustainable tourism planning: An analysis of Queensland local tourism
destinations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (2001). Preparing for the games: Ofcial
report of the XXVII Olympiad. Canberra: Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic
Games.
Thompson, S. (2007). Planning Australia: An overview of urban and regional planning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tkaczynski, A., Driml, S., Robinson, J., & Dwyer, L. (2011). Impediments to tourism development
in Australia: A scoping study. Tourism Review International, 14(23), 117128.
Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: The case
of Turkey. Tourism Management, 22, 289303.
Tourism Alliance Victoria (2008). Functions of a regional tourism organization: Fact sheet 05. East
Melbourne: Tourism Alliance Victoria.
Tourism Queensland (2011). Tropical North Qld regional snapshot. http://www.tq.com.au/fms/tq_
corporate/research/destinationsresearch/tropical_north_qld/11%20September%20Regional%
20Snapshot%20Tropical%20North%20Queensland.PDF.
Tovar, C., & Lockwood, M. (2008). Social impacts of tourism: An Australian regional case study.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(4), 365378.
United Nations World Tourism Organization (2003). About the tourism legislation database
(LEXTOUR). http://www.unwto.org/documentation/lextour/en/lextour.php?op=1&subop=2.
Urbis and Tourism and Transport Forum (2011). National tourism planning guide a best practice
approach. Canberra: Australian Government and Australia Unlimited.
Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Designs and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
428 S. Reid et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
9
0
.
8
2
.
1
7
2
.
1
6
6
]

a
t

1
0
:
5
7

0
1

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
3