,0iU:iCi'2"l,ltii, 0;,ISU5T1tINX'jJLt'TuURlsM:iG'c, .. ,."' .... 0.· .. · .. Issues, Debates & Challenges

EDITOR'S PREFACE

We are pleased to welcome you to the international conference on 'Sustainable Tourism: Issues, Debates & Challenges' in Crete. The conference provides a forum for academics, emerging researchers, policy-makers, industry practitioners, and destination management and marketing professionals to discuss and debate key issues in the development and management of sustainable tourism in an era of climate change. The conference attracted delegates from all over the world, a testimony to the conference's broad appeal.

The Conference Proceedings comprise contributions from America, Asia, Canada, Eastern and Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The papers that follow discuss issues on the themes:

• Tourism and the Environment • Globalisation, Sustainability and Development • Sustainable Tourism and Cultural Issues • Local Participation in Decision Making • Sustainable Destination Partnerships • Marketing Issues of Sustainable Tourism • Management strategies for Destinations • Travel Philanthropy, Volunteer and Charity Tourism

Given that there has been only minor editorial intervention, the papers in the Conference Proceedings remain largely the work of the contributors.

We would like to thank all of those who contributed to the success of the conference, particularly the four keynote speakers and the eight speakers of the industry panel:

Keynote speakers: Prof. Bill Bramwell Prof. Richard Butler Prof. Larry Dwyer Prof. Dogan Gursoy

Industry Panel Speakers: Manolis Alexakis, Vice Mayor Sotids Bampagiouris Georgios Dimitriadis Dimitra Kampeli Sean Owens Dr. Panagiotis Pauagiotakopoulos Honorable Zita Sabah Okaikoi Deputy Minister Tokozile Xasa

Without your interest in issues concerning the sustainability of tourism the conference would not have taken place and would not have been so successful. We do hope you enjoy both the conference programme and the social programme.

Dr Eugenia Wickens and Prof Marios Soteriades

5

22 - 25 April 2010 Crete & Santorini

ORGANISING COMMITTEE:

Prof Marios Soteriades Dr Eugenia Wickens Dr Jenny Briedenhann Dr Ioanna Fat·sari Vasiliki A vgeli Dr Elefteria Prinianaki

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE:

Dr Eugenia Wickens Prof Marios Soteriades Dr Jenny Briedenhann Dr Ioanna Fat·sari Vasiliki Avgeli Dr Elefteria Prinianaki Dr Angela Benson Prof Richard Butler Dr Ali Bakir Dr Maria D. Alvarez Muhammet Kesgin Nigel Griffiths Prof Bill Bramwell Prof Larry Dwyer Prof Dogan Gursoy Prof Jacques Spindler Prof Ahmet Aktas Dr Alexis Saveriades Prof Paris Tsartas Prof Stelios Varvaressos Prof Pericles L ytras Dr Sevgin Akis Roney

bucks new university

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Contributors 14

Keynote Speakers

Bill Bramwell 22 Governance for Sustainable Tourism: Some Past And Future Research Directions Richard Butler 23 Sustainability or Stagnation?: Limits, Control and the Life Cycle in Tourist Destinations Larry Dwyer 32 The Relevance of Yield Measures to Achieving Sustainable Tourism Dogan Gursoy xx How to Publish

Industry Panel Speakers

Manolis Alexakis, Vice Mayor xx Green City Sotiris Bampagiouris xx Accredited Hotel Organic Field Open to Guests Georgios Dimitriadis xx Organic Olive cultivation and visitable olive fields Dimitra Kampeli xx Networking for Sustainable Development Sean Owens 52 The Role of Tour Operators in Destination Sustainability Panagiotis Panagiotakopoulos xx European Sustainability Academy project Honorable Zita Sabah Okaikoi x ST-EP (Sustainable Tourism - Eliminating Poverty) initiative by the UNWTO Deputy Minister Tokozile Xasa 53 Responsible Tourism In South Africa

Conference Papers (in Alphabetical order)

Zoe Alexander and Ali Bakir 60 International Voluntourism Experience in South Africa: Does it Change the Volunteer? Habib Alipour 75 An Empirical Assessment of 'Governance' for Sustainable Tourism Development-Towards Practicality: The Case of North Cyprns (TRNC) Maria D. Alvarez and Sevgin Akl§ Roney 95 Environmental Sensitivity among Turkish Tourism Students Kathleen L. Andereck, Nancy G. McGehee, David Clemmons and Seungwoo "John" Lee 104 Experience Expectations of Prospective Voluntourists

7

Elizabeth Anderson and Ali Bakir 118 Sustainable Tourism Development in Connemara, County Galway: Policy Interpretation Ausrine Armaitiene, Renata Bertuzyte and Edgaras Vaskaitis 131 Comparative Analysis of Southeast Baltic Sea Coastal Communities' Participation in Sustainable Tourism Development Spyridon A vdimiotis and Panagiotis Papadopoulos 137 Innovation Trends in Tourism: Introducing the Destination Helix over Geo Spatial Networks Model (D.H.over.G.S.N). Vasiliki A. Avgeli and Clio Papoutsaki 151 The Development of Rural Tourism in Chania: The Perspective of Travel Agencies Azizi Bahauddin and Aldrin Abdullah 165 Cultural Tourist Product: The Malay Spa Didier Bede, Caroline Baillet and Orelien Berge 179 The Perceived Value of The Consumption Experience in the Case of Volunteer Tourism Kreshnik Bello and Artur Temo 189 Visitor Management for Sustainability in Protected Areas: The Case of Albania Angela Benson 195 Understanding 'Volunteer' in Volunteer Tourism Adette Bouzon and Joelle Devillard 196 Sustainability in Tourism Organizations - The Communication Imperative Massimo Briani 209 Innovative Strategies for the Sustainability in Mass Tourism Destinations: A Comparative Survey in the Meditenanean Basin Jenny Briedenhann 225 Socio- Economic Criteria for the Sustainability of Rural Tourism Projects in South Africa Alexandra Brunner-Sperdin, Mike Peters and Doris Masser 242 The Influence of Environmental Sensitiveness on Travel Motives: An Empirical Analysis ofWerfenweng/Salzburg Anne J. Campbell 262 Volunteering at the Stock Camp: negotiating social identity Jung-Chen Chang 268 The New Public-Private Relationship in the Sustainable Destination Development, Taiwan Andreas Charalambides 279 Hospitality: Combating The Global Brands At Neighbourhood Level Maria Csete 280 Micro-Regional Analysis Of Sustainability Related To The Adaptive Capacity Of Tourism In Tisza Region, Hungary Susanna Curtin 290 Experiencing the Wild: Wildlife Tourism Demand and Management Implications for Britain's Nature Reserves Bilge Daldeniz and Phaedra Hitchings 304 Making the Difference: a Comparative Study of Motivations for Participation in Community Service-Learning and Volunteer Tourism Andrea Virginia Sousa Dantas, Lissa Valeria Fernandes Ferreira, Moises Chagas Nascimento de Oliveira and Jussara Danielle Martins Aires 305

8

International Tourism and Human Development: The Perspective of the Local Population in the City of Natal, Brazil. Tyler A Demers & Alastair JS Summerlee 319 Determinants for Successful and Sustainable Community-Based Tourism in Botswana Dundar Denizer and Erdem Korkmaz 325 Wine Tourism Potential of the Aegean Coast of Turkey: A Conceptual Work Keith Dewar 335 The Bay of Fundy Community Based Sustainable Tourism Development Issues: Filling in the Gaps Mihail N. Diakomihalis and Dimitris G. Lagos 346 Stakeholders Viewpoint of the Role of Tourism Infrastructures and Superstructures in Tourism Development: The Case of Epitus Tanja Dmitrovfc, Maja Makovec Brencic and Matevz Raskovic 361 The value creation process in the Slovenian hotel industry: a qualitative study Rachel Dodds 371 Sustainable Tourism: A Hope or a Necessity? The Case of Tofino, British Columbia, Canada Paulo Alexandre de Oliveira Duarte 384 Characterization and Evolution of Rural Tourism Market in Portugal Paulo Alexandre De Oliveira Duarte and Ana Rita Pais 392 Use and Perception of the Internet as a Marketing Tool to Promote Rural Tourism Engelina (Lindie) Du Plessis and Melville Saayman 406 Pricing Guidelines for Graded Hotels and Guesthouses in South Africa Nathalie Fabry, Sylvain Zeghni and Jean-Pierre Martinetti 421 Tourism cluster and sustainable development empowerment: the case of the 'Cite de la Culture et du Tourisme Durable, France Ioanna Farsari 431 The Development of a Conceptual Model to Support Sustainable Tourism Policy in North Mediterranean Destinations Viachaslau Filimonau 448 Tourism and Climate Change: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a New Approach for Environmental Impact Assessment of Tourism Accommodation Facilities Amelie Fiorello and Damien Bo 461 Community-Base Ecotourism As An Answer To The New Tourist: An Exploratory Study Anestis Fotiadis, Tsai Hsing-Jung and Huan Tzung-Cheng (T.e.) 470 Sustainable development and Small and Medium Hotel Enterprises in Taiwan Vassilis Fragoulakis and Theodoros Stavrinoudis 482 Complaint Management as a Quality Component of Sustainable Competitive Advantage in 4 and 5 Star Hotels - the Aldemar Hotels & Spa Group Paradigm Mohammad Bagel' Galibaf.and Mohammad Shabanifard 498 Assessment and Prioritization of Urban Tourist Attractions for Modeling Tourist Cities Based on Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) :A Case Study of Sanandaj, Iran Luis Garay Tama.i6n and Gemma Canoves Valiente 515 Leisure and Tourism in Rural Areas: Can a Sustainable Way Forward be Achieved Over Time? An Historical Analysis of Catalonia Spain Ioannis Gliatis, Dimitrios Koufopoulos, Tsoni Tsoni, Dimitrios Georgakakis 524 Strategic Planning Practices in the Greek Hospitality Industry: Empirical Findings from the Greek 5-star hotels Kyriaki Glyptou, Ioannis Spilanis and Helen Vayanni 525 Profile of Sustainability in Tourism Destinations: an evaluating framework

9

Charity Gondwe and Jennifer Briedenhann 535 Philanthropic Tourism: The Case of Malawi Vanessa Gowreesunkar, Chris Cooper, Gowtam Raj Chintaram, Ramesh Durbarry 536 A Study on Residents' Attitudes towards Tourism development in Grand Bay Mauritius and its Implications on Sustainability Monu Rani Gupta 550 Sustainable Tourism for a Developing Nation: Objectives and Suggestions Gonca Guzel Sahin 559 The Evaluation of Service Quality in Sustainable Tourism in Dervishes City Konya by Local Community Maryam Hamedi 573 Sustainable Tourism Development in Iran Freya Higgins-Desbiolles 581 Death by a Thousand Cuts: A Case Study of an Ecolodge Development on Kangaroo Island, South Australia Nathalie Homlong 595 Challenges in Visitation Management at World Heritage Site Geiranger in Western Norway Petros Ieromonachou and James Warren 607 Flows, Accommodation and Revenue: An Analysis of Tourism Trends in CyplUS Rami K. Isaac and Vincent Platenkamp 625 Ethnography of Hope in Extreme Places Ahrendt's Agora in Bethlehem, Palestine Marga J ann 637 Sustainable Ecotourism: Cultural Resort Village, Batiki, Fiji Emmanouil Kaseris 639 The Tourist Destination Marketing Plan Of Rhodes Island Susan Kask, Carol Kline, Kristin Lamoureux 655 Modelling Tourist Decision-Making within the SAVE Market Muhammet Kesgin, Ali Bakir, Eugenia Wickens and Aydin C;evirgen 663 Tourists' Motivation for Visiting Cultural Attractions: an Empirical Study in Alanya Fotis E. Kilipiris 664 Small and Medium Tourism Enterpises in Greece: Sustainability Attitudes and Behavior Aise Kyoung-Jin Kim 674 Responsible Fossil Collecting Behaviour for Sustainable Geotourism Management Aise KyoungJin Kim and Graham Brown 685 An Examination of Nature-Based Tourists' Travel Experiences, Satisfaction And Return Behaviour Carol Kline, David Cardenas and Lauren Duffy 695 Paddling as Economic Development: Paddler Perspectives on Paddle Trail Funding Strategies Georgios Kokkinis, Theodoros Kargidis and Aikaterini Toka 701 Wine related tourism in Northern Greece: Linking the Bottle with the winery. Donruetai Kovathanakul 709 The Internet VS Intelpretation of Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism in the Non Salao Village Kath Lay thorpe 718 An Everyday Encounter: Exploring Interactions Between Volunteer Tourists and Street Sellers in Moshi, Tanzania La Vergne Lehmann 729 Is Water an Indulgence? What Marketing Messages Say About Water Use in

10

Tourism Accommodation in a Dryland Region Jan Lewis 742 World Superbikes and MotoGP: A Global Sport Tourism Phenomenon Yiping Li 754 Landscapes of Hong Kong: Ecotourism in Local Context Brent Lovelock, Kirsten Lovelock and Oystein NOl'mann 759 Sustaining Tourism Entrepreneurship in Peripheral Maritime Communities: New Zealand & Norwegian Experiences of the Transition from Fishing to Tourism

Davood Mahdavi, Majide Parishan and Arastoo Yari 769 Practical Model for Measuring Progress Towards Sustainable Rural Tourism Development (SRTD) in Rural Area of h'an Chryssi Mavrokosta and George Gadanakis 770 Clusters, Partnerships And Innovation Systems as a Tool of Strategic Local Development: The Case Of The Tourist Village Panormo Nancy Gard McGehee and Kathleen Andereck 779 Critical Theory, Social Movement Theory, and Volunteer Tourism Aliye Mentesh 790 The Impacts of Ecotourism in Rural Regeneration Projects, in MeditelTanean Villages: The Case of Cyprus Beata Meyer and Grazyna Rosa 804 Possibilities of Using Riverside Urban Areas in the Process of Creating and Promoting Tourism Products on the Example of City of Szczecin Aleksandr Michelson, Katrin Paadam 814 Sustainable Adaptation of a World Heritage Site to the International Tourism Market: The Perspectives From Economic Anthropology Richard Moore, Richard Hyde and Lydia Kavanagh 820 Planning, Designing and Managing better Precincts: The Development and Testing of a Process Based Planning, Design and Management Assessment Process Tool for Improving Ecological Performance on Medium to Large Scale Mixed Use Precincts with Travel and Tourism Infrastructure Richard Moore 832 Integration of an 'Ecological Vision' on a Small Coral Island Chemnasiri Nartsuda 845 The Development of Organic Farming for Sustainable Tourism: Cases in Thailand. Adeleh Nejati. Spirituality, Health, and Architecture: with respect to Stress 0ystein Normann and Mehmet Mehmetoglu Nature-Based Tourism Experiences: A Research Project from Northern Norway Jeremy Northcote, Pascal Scherrer and Jim Macbeth Assessing Sustainable Visitor Capacity for Small Island Destinations: The Case of Rottnest Island, Australia Constanza Nosi Repositioning a Traditionally Ski Resort into an Environmentally Friendly and Philanthropic Destination: The Case of Montagna Pistoiese (Tuscany, Italy) Fernanda Oliveira and Filipe Silva Ecotourism In Cantanhez, Guinea-Bissau - The Role of Rural Communities Aleksandel' Panasiuk and Adam Pawlicz Economic Problems of Upkeep and Development of Visitor Centres: The Case of West Pomerania Province in Poland

857

867

874

886

903

915

Maria Patatoukou and Andl'oniki Tsouchlal'aki 926

11

Development of Tourism and Environmental Impact on the Municipality of Kallithea, Rhodes Adam Pawlicz 940 Economic Evaluation of Niche Tourism Events: The Case of Rewal Chess Festival in Poland Dawn H. Pearcy and Michelle J. Pearcy 951 Examining Community-Based Tourism Entrepreneurship as a Means of Addressing Sustainability: The Case of Jamaica as an Example for the Caribbean Robert E. Pfister_and Yasong (Alex) Wang 964 Tourism Planning for Communities-in-Transition: An Examination of Resident Values and their Attitude Towards Tourism Chand Piar and Aarushi Jain 984 Eco-Tourism: Sustainability and Developmental Issues in Himachal Pradesh India Branislav Rabotic 995 Tourist Guiding from the Perspective of Sustainable Tourism Regina Salvador, Jorge Ferreira, Jose Lucio,Vanessa Camilo & Ivania Monteiro 1005 Sustainable Tom1sm Clusters: The Case of Alentejo's Natural Parks Christos Sarmaniotis, Eugenia Papaioannou, Costas Assimakopoulos 1030 Characte11stics and Dimensions of CRM Systems Employed in Northern Greece Hotels Amir Shani, Dmer Pollack and Nadav Shashar 1041 Developing Mass Marine Ecotourism Through the Establishment of Artificial Reefs: The Case Of The Red Sea In Eilat, Israel Donald Shiner 1050 Handling the Dramatic Impact of Change: A Canadian Case Study in Restoring Destination Identity and Wayfinding to a Rural Area Jose Manuel Simoes_and Carlos Cardoso Ferreira 1060 The Tourism-Territory Nexus: Challenges for Planning Claudia Simons-Kaufmann and Friedrich Kaufmann 1069 Tourism as a Contribution to Sustainable Development in Developing Countries. The Example of a Pro-Poor Community Based Lodge Approach in Mozambique Julia Skupchenko 1078 The Impact of Climate Changing to Development of International Tourism in the Komi Republic Philip Sloan, Willy Legrand and Karina Krauss 1085 The Integration of Fungus Tolerant Vine Cultivars in the Organic Wine Industry: The Case of German Wine Producers Anja Sob oil, Alexander Dingeldey 1097 The Impact of Climate Change on Alpine Winter Tourism: A High Resolution Simulation System in the German and Austrian Alps Dimitris Stavrakis and Dimitra Karageorgou 1111 Responsible Tourism and Strategic Planning: Key of Entry for Sustainability And Development Theodoros A. Stavrinoudis, Paris Tsartas and George Chatzidakis 1126 Wine Tourism Development in Greece: An Investigation of the Wine Producer's View Point Deborah Stevenson 1141 Sustaining Tourism: Identity, Place and the Traveller Wantanee Suntikul 1149 The Impact of Casino Development on Quality of Life in Macau Niki Tavakoli 1160

12

Review the Relevance Between Sustainable Tourism and Urban Sustainability in Order to Present a Dynamic Pattern Milan Todorovic 1173 Methodologies of Power in Local Cultural Sustainability in Summer Music Festivals Giammarco Tosi, Ignacio Ochoa 1174 X-Tourism: A Framework for the 3rd Millennium Paradigms of the Tourism Industry Evangelia D. Tyrogala and Esthir Pitsouli 1180 Achieving Sustainability Towards Alternative Tourism: The Case of Lemnos Island David Urias and David Edgell 1191 Sustaining Ecotourism: The Condor Lodge Conservancy Project Petrus Van der Merwe, Melville Saayman and Liezel Du Plessis 1203 How environmentally friendly are South African National Parks? Efstathios Velissariou Athanassios Karathanos 1204 Wine Tourism: A Framework for Efficient Management in Greece John Vourdoubas 1218 Development of Energy Tourism in Western Crete, Greece John Vourdoubas 1223 Possibilities of Transforming a Small Touristic Island in Greece Gavdos Island - to A Green Island, Independent of Fossil Fuels John Vourdoubas 1229 Achievement of Zero CO2 Emissions Due to Energy Use in Hotels in Crete Caroline A. Walsh and Mark P. Hampton 1235 The Potential for Volunteer Tourism amongst divers with disabilities: Evidence from Malaysia Eugenia Wickens 1248 Volunteer Tourists' Epiphanies in Nepal Gayathri (Gee) Wijesinghie 1249 Changing Virtues and Values of Hospitality: Implications For Pedagogy and Sustainable Practice Honggang Xu and Fan Xiaojun 1262 The Effectiveness of the Interpretation System in Chinese Natural Attractions Hiroyuki Yakushiji 1273 Responsible Tourism: How do Backpacker Tourists Manifest this in an Intercultural Setting Medet Y olal and Ossi Pesiimaa 1289 Service Expectations and Experiences of Russian Tourists in Antalya Hamid Zargham and Zahra Nekooee 1300 Towards Sustainable Tourism Development in the Age of Globalization in the Developing World Stathia Zouganeli, Nikolaos Trihas, Maria Antonaki and Stella K1adou 1312 The Role of Local People in the Development of a Destination Brand: A Bottom Up Approach

13

ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE VISITOR CAPACITY FOR SMALL ISLAND DESTINATIONS:

THE CASE OF ROTTNEST ISLAND, AUSTRALIA

Abstract

Jeremy Northcote Pascal Scherrer

Edith Cowan University Western Australia

Jim Macbeth Murdoch University Western Australia

Small island destinations present some unique challenges when it comes to visitor management. Often characterised by fragile ecosystems, they can be subject to intense pressures from large numbers of visitors carrying out a range of high impact activities in confined areas. This paper will examine the application of the sustainable visitor capacity (SVC) framework - a new visitor management tool designed in Australia -to Rottuest Island in Western Australia, a popular island destination attracting approximately 500,000 visitors per annum. Several modifications of the framework were undertaken in order to streamline it, adapt it to island conditions, and orient it to the particular objectives of the project. The methodology proved valuable in providing an estimate of sustainable visitor capacity that took into account environmental impacts, visitor satisfaction, service capacity and management strategies. The importance of versatility in assessment methods, visitor input and a streamlined approach are highlighted as key success factors.

INTRODUCTION

The realisation that destinations can only handle a limited number of visitors before environmental, social and cultural features experience unacceptable degradation has led to a plethora of visitor management frameworks (VMFs) to help assess and control visitor impacts. Most VMFs have been applied to mainland protected areas. Small island destinations have not featured prominently, at least not in published studies. As environments with fragile ecosystems, high visitor densities, strong seasonal visitation fluctuations and often limited financial/human resources, small island destinations require VMFs that can assess visitor impacts in a timely and cost­effective manner, something currently lacking with existing frameworks.

The sustainable visitor capacity (SVC) framework is the latest offering in VMFs to aid management authorities in sustainable destination planning and management. It aims to be a rapid site assessment tool that is cost effective and straightforward to use. It is a framework that was first tested on an island destination in Queensland,

Australia, although its application is not intended to be limited to island destinations. This paper will examine a variant SVC model developed by our project team and being tested on Rottnest Island, a popular small island destination off the coast of Perth, Western Australia. With the results of the study due for later release, the current paper will focus on the innovative methodology designed for the project.

ROTTNEST ISLAND

Figure I. Rottnes! Island

Rottnest Island (see Figure 1) is a small island destination (lllan long, Skm wide) located 19km off the coast of Western Australia's capital city, Perth (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Location of Rottnes! Island

The island receives approximately 500,000 visitors annually, many of them local residents from Perth. Approximately two-thirds of visitors come to the island by ferries and one-third by private boat, with the island being only 30-40 minutes from the mainland by fast ferry. There is a range of accommodation offered on the island, but most visitors are day-trippers who come to enjoy the island's world-class beaches, historic sites, natural environment and something that local Western Australian's fondly refer to as the 'Rotto experience', a reference to the status of the destination as a favourite local spot for relaxation and recreation. Visitors make their way around the island mostly by cycling, bus or walking. No private vehicles are pennitted on the island.

There is a long history of recreational use of the island by Perth residents, and while there are pressures to ensure that the island's natural environment and heritage is preserved, there are also pressures to ensure that it remains open to public use. The managing body, the Rottnest Island Authority (RIA), is vested with primary responsibility for operating the island as both a recreation and conservation reserve -a constant balancing act, particularly given that the RIA is highly dependent on revenue from visitation.

A dual purpose zoning approach has developed. A services and accommodation hub has developed at the historical settlement area of Thomson Bay, which includes medium-level development such as housing, accommodation, shops and services. In the conservation area, limited low scale development such as toilet blocks and roads has been permitted. Rottnest Island, like many island habitats, is characterised by fragile dune vegetation, and also contains coral reefs that are highly sensitive to marine impacts from boats, snorkelers and divers that converge on the island in the summer season.

A debate over the sustainable limits of visitation to the island has been taking place for many years. The large number of visitors received annually is placing pressure on the island's natural environment, heritage features and visitor facilities. Consequently, the RIA saw the need for an assessment of capacity of the island to receive visitors at current and projected levels, and contracted our project team to examine the sustainable visitor capacity of selected sites on the island.

The RIA had a notion of sustainable visitor capacity when they first approached our project team, and had some familiarity with the SVC approach being developed by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services which they felt might be appropriate. We took a look at QLD's approach and felt that with some modification it would be a very effective framework to achieve the objectives being sought by the RIA.

SVCCONCEPT

The sustainable visitor capacity concept builds on the recreation carrying capacity concept (Wagar, 1964; Lime & Stankey, 1971), which postulates that sites have a natural limit in terms of how many people can occupy a space before it becomes too many. However, SVC does not postulate naturally defined visitor limits, taking the view presented in the Limits of Acceptable Change approach (Stankey et a!., 1985)

that it is primatily a question of how much change is acceptable at a site as a result of increasing visitor impacts, not about how many visitors can occupy a particular space.

The shift in focus to visitor impacts means that visitor numbers per se are not the sole concern, given that visitor behaviour, frequency of use, environmental conditions and period of use are also relevant factors (Cole, 1994). Impacts are also an outcome of site management (Savetiades, 2000). As Becker (1981:483) points out, it is important to avoid "knee-jerk" reactions when site damage occurs as a result of excessive use, as other options should be considered first such as "hardening" the site, zoning, education, or subtly encouraging the relocation of visitors. These sorts of realisations led to the notion of carrying capacity being abandoned in some quarters in favour of the concept of limits of acceptable change that emerged in the mid-1980s. In the LAC approach, cut-off points are invariably value-based and/or resource-based, not scientifically based, a point made by Manning (2002).This is not to say that sustainable visitor capacity is itself without a scientific basis - it is just a question of where the cut-off should be on a continuum of increasing pressure. Hence, sustainable visitor capacity refers to the maintenance of a desired state of affairs. These limits might be revised at later times based on whether they achieve the desired effect or perhaps as a result of changing priorities. In Manning's (1999) terms, the definition is prescriptive rather than descriptive of capacity, and is primarily a matter of setting standards of desired levels (Shelby & Heberlein, 1986). These standards not only involve considerations of economic, environmental and social issues, but are also policy matters and represent ethical and philosophical views.

VISITOR MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS

The SVC approach builds on previous visitor management frameworks, sharing elements with several approaches, but most closely aligned with the LAC framework. The main problem with the CUlTent LAC framework, which is a problem also shared by the other frameworks, is that it is too unwieldy and expensive to implement (Masters, Scott & Burrow, 2002). Managing bodies are in most cases under­resourced, work on tight schedules, and lack sufficient expertise to apply complex frameworks (Hadwen, Hill & Pickering, 2007), and consequently the use of VMF's has not been as widespread as it perhaps should be.

The SVC approach is intended to simplify the process of measuring visitor limits by taking the best elements of the other models and putting them together in a streamlined and integrated approach. The key aspect of the approach is the pre­defined templates and straightforward SVC calculation process that consists of a series of worksheets that assessors work tluough. Pre-defined criteria are used for landscape classification, impact indicators and calculating limits, so it is essentially a matter of assessors filling in the data assessment sheets and mnning the calculations on a spreadsheet. A panel then reviews the findings and produces recommendations for reducing impacts at the sites to accord with the sustainable parameters defined through the process.

SVC APPROACH

The SVC process is characterised by nine steps: 1. Definition of site character: values, visitor use levels and patterns

2. Determination of current landscape setting 3. Assessment of visitor impacts 4. Identification of management options 5. Determination of desired landscape setting 6. Identification of management options 7. Implementation of management actions 8. Monitoring of site conditions 9. Five-yearly review

Designed initially by a consultancy firm, the prototype SVC methodology was first applied by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services in Australia to Fraser Island -a popular tourism destination in south-east Queensland. The Queensland model was designed to determine limits for tour groups who operated on the basis of licences awarded by the Queensland government. As our purpose had to account for a broader visitor profile, the model was redesigned to have a more general visitor management use.

The SVC approach adopted for the Rottnest project was somewhat different from the QLD model. The stakeholder approach, which was central to the QLD approach, was reconfigured around visitor surveys rather than using a panel of representatives from stakeholder groups. It was felt by the RIA that involving special interest groups would be counterproductive given the political controversy surrounding management of the island, where consensus was seen to be difficult. Such conflicts between stakeholder groups are a common feature in Australia, particularly concerning coastal zone management (Rockloff & Lockie, 2003). The RIA also felt that the views of special interest groups did not necessarily reflect that of the broader public.

While the project team had mixed feelings about omitting the stakeholder group process, it was felt that if a process such as SVC was to be effective for bodies like the RIA, then it should be flexible enough to incorporate different philosophical approaches and management realities. Nevertheless, the removal of stakeholder group involvement presented an interesting challenge, given that stakeholder group consultation was the cornerstone of QLD's SVC process. A solution was found by reconfiguring the stakeholder component around the visitor surveys, which provided the opportunity for visitors themselves to provide the current landscape classification for sites (step 2), the desired landscape classification (step 5) and management preferences (step 6).

The use of visitor surveys in VMFs is not without its critics. Cole (2001) warns against the use of visitor surveys to determine use limits, given the possibility that biases can result from current visitors tending to favour current conditions (with those who do not favour current conditions tending to avoid those areas and hence do not tend to get surveyed). Additionally, changes to current conditions might meet with disapproval from the current wave of visitors, but through "recreational displacement" (Nielson & Endo, 1977) once changes are applied, may lead to a new wave of visitors who accept the modified situation. Cole suggests that "the rationale for use limits is more likely to come from some careful evaluation of legislative and administrative mandates or the unique value and purpose of any given area than from a survey of current visitors" (2001, p.17).

However it is important that some account is taken of visitor views in any VMF, given that visitors are in most cases the primary stakeholders. While biases do exist when surveying current visitors that need to be kept in mind by those carrying out the assessment, there are also serious biases that can result if visitors do not have some direct input into the assessment process. A robust VMF is one that finds the right balance between visitor input and expert based assessment, so that the views of one group (and the potential biases attendant with those views) do not dominate.

The visitor surveys for the Rottnest study were conducted in three rounds over a 15-month period. The first round took place during the peak 2008-09 Christmas-New Year holiday period involving 1124 on-site surveys conducted at eleven sites. The sites surveyed were a purposive sample selected by the RIA in consultation with the project team, consisting of a mix of popular visitor locations, remote sites, heritage sites and sites suspected of being under intense environmental pressure. The RIA felt that the sites provided a good representative cross-section that would enable the findings to have broader applicability to many other sites on the island. A second round of surveys was conducted in early April 2009, corresponding the autumn 'shoulder' season, when 766 visitor surveys were undertaken at nine sites (two sites being dropped due to an insufficient participation rate during the first round). Another survey round was conducted in October 2009 during the spring 'shoulder' season, when 552 visitor surveys were undertaken at the nine remaining sites. The purpose of the shoulder season survey rounds was to gain an understanding of seasonal differences to ensure that the results were representative of all-year visitation, not only the peak period. For example, visitors who choose to visit at less crowded times of the year may have different preferences in terms of activities, solitude and amenities. A winter survey was planned, but was cancelled due to continual poor weather. The survey team also recorded visitors numbers at sites (including mode of arrival, site distribution and activities) in order to assist in understanding site use. This data was not employed directly in the SVC assessment, but helped the project team understand visitor flow dynamics that complemented the SVC results.

The other main components of the SVC assessment process - the values assessment (step 1), the impact assessment (step 3) and identification of management options (step 4) - were undertaken by a five-member expert assessment panel consisting specialist RIA staff and a consultant geologist, plus a member of the project team acting as facilitator. The assessment was conducted over a two-day period on 31 April - 1 May 2009. For the impact assessment, the expert panel employed the classification system derived from QLD's template which covered environmental, cultural, social and amenity impacts. The results of the environmental impact assessment are shown in Figure 3 (note that pseudonyms have been used for the sites for the time-being until the results can be officially released in mid-20lO).

Big Fish Tucker's Long Arm Mariners' nvironmenlallmpacts

I Boatie'$ Point Ba WindvHead Beach Bav HeronBav Cove AnzacHiH

Geologle.1 .. . . . . Out crop and cliff erosion 4 5 4 9 7 7 9

Dune erosion/disturbance 9 9 7 7 4 9 9

erm disturbance 9 10 6 9 10 10 9 ""' .... Rou!.... ............. ... .. ..•.. . ... .. ..

Widening of walking tracks!vehicle 5 10 9 8 10 9 10 outes

Deterioration of walking tracks! vehicle 6 4 8 5 10 6 4 outes ~rrestrJal FIora &',Fauna ... ... ..... . ...

•• .

~rosion, site compaction and vegetation 8 7 7 5 7 8 10 ross Weed Invasion 4 10 5 4 5 3 5

Vegetation disturbance (understorey) 7 10 8 6 B 8 10 reedamage 3 nla nla nla nla nla 0

W~dlife disturbance 8 5 4 4 4 7 6

~a:r!~l~;F~ora,_& f'alJ"a:','" ,''', • • ... . .. .. .. ..•.... . ... . .

Waterqualil.y 6 2 1 3 3 1 4

Reef damage 5 5 1 1 3 3 3 Sea grass disturbance 5 nla nla 4 nla 2 nla Marine fife 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 AVERAGE 6 7 5 5 6 , 7 n need of urgent attention? > 5 yes yes yes no no ... ... ...

Figure 3. Environmental impact assessment results

SVCINDICES

A series of indices were developed that incorporated the results of the visitor survey and expert panel assessment through a straightforward calculation process. The indices were based on four attributes:

1. Current landscape index 2. Environmental capacity index 3. Social capacity index 4. Facility capacity index

The current landscape index (CLD determines whether the current level of development of the site, as rated by visitors on a scale from 1 to 10, is within acceptable parameters between what the ideal level is and what visitors are willing to tolerate before they would choose not to return to the site. The notion that visitors have tolerance thresholds is based on earlier studies (Northcote & Macbeth, 2008). The preferred, current and maximum ratings are the mean scores from the visitor survey results and are shown in Figure 4.

nla 7

nla

9

8

7

7

9 6 6

. .

nla nla nla nla 7 ...

Within Current Landscape Index Preferred Current Maximum parameters 7

Boatie's Point 3.1 3.9 6.6 yes

Big Fish Bay 2.7 3.7 6.2 yes

Windy Head 2.8 3.3 6.4 yes

Tucker's Beach 3.3 3.7 6.6 yes

Long Arm Bay 2.6 3.3 6 yes

Heron Bay 2.8 3.5 6.5 yes

Mariners' Cove 3.9 4.8 7 yes

Anzac Hill 4.5 5.5 7.1 yes

Figure 4. Current Landscape Index

The environmental capacity index (ECl), as shown in Figure 5, is a ratio of the level of impacts occurring at a site (Figure 3) to the preferred LC level (Figure 4). If the index is higher than 2 (a contingent cnt-off mark), then the site was seen to be receiving too many impacts with respect to its preferred LC state. Because hardening of the site through further development is not desired, a major rethink of access to these sites should be considered in order to alleviate impacts if they cannot be mitigated through 'soft' measures.

Ratio Environmental Capacity Index Impact mean Preferred LC (impact/LC)

Boatie's Point 6 3.1 1.9

Big Fish Bay 7 2.7 2.6

Windy Head 5 2.8 1.8

Tucker's Beach 5 3.3 1.5

long Arm Bay 6 2.6 2.3

Heron Bay 6 2.8 2.1

Mariners' Cove 7 3.9 1.8

Anzac Hill 7 4.5 1.6 >2

measure unacceptable

Figure 5. Environmental Capacity Index

Acceptable

yes

no

yes

yes

no

no

yes

yes

Finding

excessive

excessive

excessive

The social capacity index (SCI), shown in Figure 6, is a measure of the acceptability of current visitation levels as perceived by visitors. The visitation limit is based on visitor survey responses on whether any more people could be tolerated at the site before they would not want to come back. If they answered that the site had reached the limit of crowding or had exceeded it, this was interpreted as the site having reached its limit. The index should be understood as a subjective measure of visitor concerns about visitation levels. If the percentage of responses is above 60%, then this

is a clear majority (6 in 10 people) who favour visitation levels be capped at current levels or reduced. In other words, the site has reached its social carrying capacity.

Social Capacity Index

Boatie's Point

Big Fish Bay

Windy Head

Tucker's Beach

long Arm Bay

Heron Bay

Mariners' Cove

Anzac Hill

measure

Visitation limit reached?

57%

72%

48%

51%

59%

61%

55%

61%

> 60% unacceptable

Reduction necessary?

no

yes

no

no

no

yes

no

yes

Figure 6. Social Capacity Index

Status

overcrowded

overcrowded

overcrowded

Finally, the facility capacity index (FCl) , as shown in Figure 7, is a measure of a demand for further facilities that cannot be met given preferred landscape levels. It is based on the number of additional facilities that are requested by one-third or more participants in the visitor survey. The request for more than three facilities is taken to indicate a high demand for facilities. A preferred landscape level below 3 is not seen to be conducive to developing more facilities, given visitor preference for the landscape to remain natural. Therefore, high facility demand and a low landscape classification is seen to be problematic for a site.

Number Facility Capacity Inde. demanded High demand Preferred lC Provide? Inde.

Boatie's Point 5 yes 3.1 yes acceptable

Big Fish Bay 5 yes 2.7 no unacceptable

Windy Head 3 no 2.8 no acceptable

Tucker's Beach 5 yes 3.3 yes acceptable Long Arm Bay 4 yes 2.6 no unacceptable

Heron Bay 3 no 2.8 no acceptable

Mariners' Cove 5 yes 3.9 yes acceptable

Anzac Hill 5 yes 4.5 yes acceptable

unacceptable= high > 3 high demand <3don't demand + cannot

!measures (33%+) provide provide

Figure 7. Facility Capacity Index

By examining the indices of different sites (Figure 8), an nnderstanding can be gained of their relative sustainable visitor capacities, so that it is possible to determine which sites were under the most pressure.

Environmental Summary of Indices Current Landscape Capacity Social Capacity Facility Capacity

Boatie's Point .,r .,r .,r .,r

Big Fish Bay .,r x x x

Windy Head .,r .,r .,r .,r

Tucker's Beach .,r .,r .,r .,r

long Arm Bay .,r x .,r x

Heron Bay .,r x x .,r

Marinersl Cove .,r .,r .,r .,r

Anzac Hill .,r .,r x .,r

Figure 8. Summary of Indices

A problematic result in 2 or more indices (particularly the ECI and SCI) is seen to offer a clear a mandate to take firm action to better manage visitation to the site. The results indicate three sites (Big Fish Bay, Long Arm Bay and Heron Bay) had exceeded the acceptable SVC threshold and therefore require special attention to reduce environmental impacts, overcrowding and pressures on amenities.

It should be noted that the cut-off points for each index were determined in a post-hoc manner after examining the results, being partly based on a value judgement about what was appropriate in light of the RIA's mandate to provide reasonable visitor access whilst protecting the environment, and partly based on what was feasible for environmental managers to address with the resources available. The cut-off points for environmental and social capacities were placed just beneath the score for the third worst performing site for each index. These standards are specific to Rottnest Island and arbitrary to some extent, and might be reassessed over the coming years in light of public feedback, changing values and follow-up site assessment. One area for future research is the possibility of a more informed method for determining cut-off scores, perhaps through including specific questions about standards in the visitor survey and/or an audit of management capacity.

SVC AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL

The SVC model is designed to directly assist managing bodies through presenting viable options for impact mitigation (step 6) based on the SVC measurement. Consequently, the production of the indices is not the end of the process, but the basis for determining management approaches.

Two workshops were held to work through the implications of the results and find ways to bring the sites within acceptable parameters. The first workshop was attended by members of the expert panel, while members of various RIA advisory groups attended the second workshop. The workshops discussed options to improve the regulation of visitation to the

three sites exceeding SVC parameters, including redesigning access routes and transportation options to improve control over visitor access.

One of the advantages of presenting management options as part of the SVC process is that management authorities are not merely presented with a series of figures, but robust management options that can be implemented (step 7). This is important to decrease the likelihood that the SVC findings will gather dust in a report somewhere. The other important reason for seeing the implementation of measures to address SVC is that future monitoring (step 8) and reviews (step 9) should be able to help determine whether the cut-off points and recommended options were sufficient.

CONCLUSION

Although the SVC model is still in an early development phase, it is proving to be an effective and cost-efficient visitor management framework that, once fully developed, should be applicable to other destinations. A report on the results of the Rottnest assessment is being prepared and will be available in the coming months. An important next step will be to examine its applicability to other types of destinations around the world, including heritage sites. One important area highlighted by both the Queensland and Rottnest studies is the importance of adapting the model to particular destination characteristics and, perhaps even more importantly, to the outlooks of those vested with the responsibility of managing sites. In this respect, the SVC model has proven to be flexible enough to be reconfigured to suit quite different management contexts. Future testing of the model at other destinations may lead to further innovations that improve its scope and effectiveness as the next generation of visitor management tools.

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the Rottnest Island Authority. The authors would particularly like to thank Hayley Taylor for her project assistance.

REFERENCES

Allen, P. (1998). Public participation in resolving environmental disputes and the problem of representativeness. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 9: 297-308. Becker, R. Jubenville, A. & Burnett, G. (1984). Fact and judgment in the search for a social carrying capacity. Leisure Sciences, 6(4), 475-486. Cole D. (1993). Trampling effects on mountain vegetation in Washington, Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Research Paper INT-464. Ogden, UT: USDA For. Serv., Intermountain Research Station. Cole, D. (2001). Visitor use density and wilderness experiences: A historical review of research. In Freimund, W. & Cole, D. (comps.), Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience: Proceedings; 2000 June 1-3; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pp.ll-20. Available online at www.srm.arizona.edu/-gimblettiVisitorDensity.pdf

Hadwen, W. Hill, W. & Pickering, C. (2007). Icons under threat: Why monitoring visitors and their ecological impacts in protected areas matters. Ecological Management and Restoration, 8: 178-182.

Lime, D. & Stankey, G. (1971). Carrying capacity: maintaining outdoor recreation quality. In Larson, E. (ed.), Recreation symposium proceedings. USDA Forest Service. Pp.174-184. Lucas, R., Cole, D. & Stankey, G. (1985). Research update: what we have learned about wilderness management. In Frome, M. (ed.), Issues in Wilderness Management, pp. 173-188. Boulder: Westview Press. Manning, R. (1999). Crowding and Catrying Capacity in Outdoor Recreation: From Normative Standards to Standards of Quality. In Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty­First CentUlY. State College, PA: Venture Press, pp.323-334. Manning, R. & Lawson, S. (2002). Canying Capacity as "Informed Judgment": The Values of Science and the Science of Values. Environmental Management, 30(2): 157-168. Masters, D. & Barrow, G. (2002). Sustainable visitor management system: A discussion paper. Available from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ Nielsen, J. & Endo, R. (1977). Where Have All the Purists Gone? An Empirical Examination of the Displacement Process Hypothesis in Wilderness Recreation. Western Sociological Review, 8: 61-75. Northcote, J. & Macbeth, J. (2008). Threshold of tolerability: The impact of management changes to recreational fishing in Ningaloo Marine Park. Tourism Review (Revue de Tourisme), 63(1): 28-35. Rockloff, S. & Lockie, S. (2004). Participatory Tools for Coastal Zone Management: Use of Stakeholder Analysis and Social Mapping in Australia', Journal of Coastal Conservation, 10(12): 81-92. Saveriades, A. (2000). Establishing the social tourism carrying capacity for the tourist resorts of the east coast of the Republic of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 21: 147-156. Shelby, B. & Heberlein, T. (1986). Cal'lying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Stankey, G., Cole, D., Lucas, R., Petersen, M, & Frissell, S. (1985). The limits of acceptable change (LAC) systemfor wilderness planning. General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Wagar, J. (1964). The Cal'lying Capacity of Wild Landsfor Recreation. Forest Science Monograph 7. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.