Tourism Policy, Planning, and Development of Kangaroo Island - Case Study Example

Kangaroo Island Policy, Planning and Development of Tourism Name of Student: Student I.D: A Case Study on Tourism Policy, Planning and Development of Kangaroo Island. Name of Tutor: Date: Contents A Case Study on Tourism Policy, Planning Contents 2 A Case Study on Tourism Policy, Planning 3 Figure 1: conceptualisation of adaptive management 7 A Case Study on Tourism Policy, Planning And Development of Kangaroo Island Background Kangaroo Island consists of a large land area of about 443,000 ha. The population is estimated at 4602 people (ABS, 2006) with a road network of 1,361kms2 according to the Local Government Grants Commission (ABS, 2006). Traditional primary industries that dominated the economy in the past include sheep, cattle production, grains and commercial fishing. This has been succeeded in the past two decades by honey products, cheese, sheep’s milk and wine. Another industry that has thrived in that time has been tourism, with an estimated 19,000 visitors in 1979 (Dudley and Kingscote) becoming 186,000 visitors in 2009, 30% of whom are international (KITOMM, 2010). It is the most significant world class, nature-based ecotourism destination in South Australia. Kangaroo Island consists of a distinct ecosystem which consists of many endemic and rare flora and fauna. Biological integrity has however been maintained making Kangaroo Island one of the last centres of biodiversity in the South Australian region. Major remnants of native vegetation are privately owned together with other areas consisting of pastures that are wholly or partly cleared. Kangaroo Island has mild weather throughout the year, consisting of warm, dry summers with a temperature range of 20-25oC and mild, wet winter with temperatures ranging between 13-15oC. There are 24 land-based protected areas covering 25% of the land under the aegis of the Department for Environment and Heritage. There are also Marine Protected Areas due to the crucial role this environment plays in fishing, aquaculture and other recreational functions (KITOMM, 2010). This case study seeks to analyse the tourism policy, planning and development on Kangaroo Island. It will cover the place of tourism in the greater planning environment of South Australia, the TOMM as a tool for sustainable tourism planning as well as analyse and evaluate various factors that impact on tourism on Kangaroo Island. Issues According to KITOMM (2010) there are several stakeholders who provide funding for the promotion of tourism on Kangaroo Island. These include the Kangaroo Island Council who provide hosting as well as additional office and administrative outlay, Tourism Kangaroo Island, the Kangaroo Island Development Board, KI Natural Resource Management Board or Regional Development Australia, the Department of Environment and Heritage and The Tourism Commission of South Australia that funds specific projects. Other stakeholders include the government, airlines, tour operators, media as well as many local businesses. Kangaroo Island is the fourth most isolated local government region in South Australia and according to the South Australian Gazette Notice of 28th November 2006, the boundaries for several State Government regional institutional arrangements are commensurate with those of the KI council. The Kangaroo Island Development Board is one of two such boards within South Australia established via a financial partnership between one council and the State Government facilitated by the Office of Regional Affairs. The Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) amongst other government departments have established frameworks to categorize, run and resource Kangaroo Island. Other governmental departments with a stake in KI tourism according to SATC (2009) include the Trade and Economic Development; Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia, Planning and Local Government; Premier and Cabinet; Arts SA; Education and Children’s Services; Sports and Recreation; Transport, Energy and Infrastructure; Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. Because it is so isolated, the cost of doing business and residing on KI is raised. This is reflected in higher transportation outlay due to the higher cost of fuel on the highland that naturally raises supermarket prices, as well as the added expenses on farmers’ input costs and off-island sale of products. These limitations also limit the appeal of KI as a holiday destination for residents of Adelaide. This is exacerbated by the cost of freight that increases the cost of accommodation on the island and therefore reduces its demand. The isolation of KI may be viewed as not only an economic setback, but also a social one. This is because the ease of communication between KI and the surrounding communities and regions is hampered. The demand for tourism is driven by economics and the current global upheavals have had an effect on demand and access, exacerbated by the fluctuating exchange rate that can raise the cost of travel. In recent times, travelling overseas has seen a growth in demand but due to a dip in exchange rate of the Australian dollar, there may be a surge in local travel. This may be hampered by the drop in confidence of both consumers and businesses that reduces spending. In the breach, the planning for longer term growth can be done by the following means: Development of a world class experience. Facilitating ease of selection and value addition to holiday packages. Emphasis shifts to more resilient consumers Highlighting the needs of the intra- and inter-state markets (SATC, 2009). Purpose of Study The aims of this study are to evaluate and analyse the policy, planning and development strategies outlined by various bodies for Kangaroo Island in order to gauge their effectiveness in fostering the development of tourism on the Island and to judge relative success in the general context of SA. Method In order to collect data for this study, I have utilised the strategic reports and tourism plans outlined by various stakeholders in the industry. The aim of this is to take an in-depth look at how well the industry is doing in terms of translating policy papers and plans into actual development. After collection of data from these secondary sources a qualitative analysis will be done to assess its success in practise. According to Myers (2000) qualitative analysis has the benefit of depth in explorations carried out so that descriptions are written down in adequate detail to give the viewer a comprehensive overview of the situation. Discussion A comparison of what the Kangaroo Island Council is dealing with in terms of revenues and costs as compared to other councils reveals that there is a higher rate of per capita revenue at $489 and per property at $215 although there are less persons per property. This implies that the financial challenges that face the council are not as a result of underrating. The rate of per capita total operating expenses is higher than average at $584 but the rateable properties are lower at $7 (SATC, 2009). The process of learning from implementation is known as adaptive management. It involves the development of understanding through implementation of policies and plans. It was envisioned as a technico-ecological model by Walters (1990) among others, but has evolved into a social and civic enterprise as well (Lee, 1993). Different aspects of adaptive management are utilised depending on the interests and needs of the individuals involved. While active adaptive management centres on implementation, the main focus is on learning. In the case of Kangaroo Island, according to the Tourism Plan for 2010-2014, there are difficult times ahead which will mean that Kangaroo Island will have to fight for its share of the tourism pie. This does not mean that there are no opportunities for those willing to embrace innovative trends and pursue a focused and solid strategy for future growth. In order for this to work, it is important that planners look at the past plans and learn from them in order to improve upon their performance. The sixth Tourism plan (SATC, 2009) notes that in the past, getting things done has been overlooked by earlier plans and stresses the need to focus on this strategy by concentrating on a few important actions that are aimed at motivating and engaging the tourism sector in order to achieve revenues of $6.3billion by 2014. Evaluating the adaptive management cycle i.e.: Figure 1: conceptualisation of adaptive management This is a concept that exceeds cumulative assessment that is whether or not the objectives of the strategy have been attained or monies spent as they were budgeted for, into seminal evaluation that involves determining the needs of the consumer and the implications and side effects of implementation and program logic (Cook and Shadish, 1986). To do this effectively requires that it be integrated in implementation with sufficient planning and resources (Allan et al., 2007). However, when setting targets and milestones for all types of natural resource management projects, caution must be taken due to the fact that adaptive management can only be used when the goal is an estimation. Otherwise no room is left for learning and modification. In the case of the Tourism Plan for South Australia and Kangaroo Island in particular, the focus is on the big picture with broad strokes being drawn in order to give an outline of what is required of the tourism sector in order to achieve a specific goal within a specific timeframe. The SMARTER system has been used as a selection criteria for concepts going forward that is Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, Time bound, Extending your capabilities and Rewarding to you (Doran, 1981). Due to the bigger picture outlook of the plan, it leaves some leeway for adjustments to be made to individual plans at the business and council level, should this be necessary. Gunderson et al (1995) asserts that all social and natural systems including tourism are adaptive in nature. They are complex, consisting of different players as noted above, which are more than the sum of their parts. They are composed of a layered structure with the capability to organise themselves or alter form, cooperate or compete, all of which can result in unpredictable multisystem changes (Malanson, 1999). Sustainability theory is about prioritising and integrating social responses into cultural and environmental problems. An economic model of sustainability aims at sustaining natural and financial capital. The Kangaroo Island Tourism Optimisation Management Model is a community tool used to manage sustainable tourism on Kangaroo Island. The focus of KITOMM is the change in attitude and culture evident in the tourism sector and its base of stakeholders. It works on coming up with concrete feasibility data to support the premise that the industry is dependent upon quality of visitor experience and the natural, cultural and social environment surrounding it. This is done through monitoring programmes founded on the environmental health, statistics on tourists, health of the local community, economy and the quality of visitor experience. This system of analysis is a good foundation for ‘taking the temperature’ of the tourist industry in order to establish its level of health. This can act as a foundation in the development of an adaptive strategy. Conclusion Kangaroo Island has a number of advantages as a tourism hub for South Australia. It is the home of the Kangaroo which is the most well known animal in Australia. It has several marine and terrestrial protected areas that are tourist attractions to interstate and foreign nationals. The baby boomers who are in the process of retirement may find its isolation an advantage in the search for beach front property away from the hustle and bustle of cities, and due to their healthy pension schemes, may not find the higher property values too much of a burden. If a collaborative effort comes to fruition without too much conflict between business and conservation, there may be a very good chance of achieving the stated goals within the Tourism Plan. References ABS. (2006). Local Government Grants Commission. Retrieved 18TH October, 2011 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@nrp.nsf/lookup/LGA42250Main+Features12005-2009 Allan, C, Curtis, A, Howard, J & Roberton, S. (2007). 'Informing future practice through evaluation', Veg Futures 06: the conference in the field, Sharing information for regions to manage native vegetation in productive landscapes, Eds D Carr & O Cox, Greening Australia. Retrieved 18TH October, 2011 from http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au/vegfutures Cook, T. D., & Shadish, W. R. (1986). Program evaluation: the worldly science. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 193-232. Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C.S. and Light, S.S. (Eds.). (1995). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. KITOMM. (2010). KITOMM Strategic Plan Kangaroo Island 2010-2013. Tourism Optimisation Management Model. Adopted June 2010 as amended Lee, K. N. (1993). Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington DC: Island Press. Malanson, G.P. (1999). Considering complexity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89:746–53. Myers, M. (2000). Qualitative research and the generalizability question: Standing firm with Proteus. The Qualitative Report, 4(3/4). Retrieved 18TH October, 2011 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/myers.html SATC. (2009). South Australian Tourism Plan 2009 – 2014. January. Retrieved 18TH October, 2011 from http://www.tourism.sa.gov.au Walters, C. J., & Holling, C. S. (1990). Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology, 71(6), 2060-2068. Read More