the quagmire of stakeholder engagement in tourism …€¦ · deliberative, or discursive, models...

Tourism Analysis, Vol. 21, pp. 61–76 1083-5423/16 $60.00 + .00

Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/108354216X14537459508892

Copyright Ó 2016 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 1943-3999

www.cognizantcommunication.com

61

Address correspondence to Christof Pforr, School of Marketing, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Bentley Campus GPO Box

U1987, Perth 6845, Western Australia, Australia. Tel: +61 8 9266 7743; Fax: +61 8 9266 3937; E-mail: [email protected]

tourism industry’s success has been underpinned by

strong support of successive governments to ensure

the Territory’s continuing economic prosperity. But

only since the mid-1990s, with the release of the

Northern Territory Tourism Development Mas-

terplan. A Commitment to Growth (TDMP), has

Introduction

For more than 30 years the tourism sector in the

Northern Territory (NT) of Australia (see Fig. 1)

has experienced significant growth and has thus

developed into a core private sector activity. The

THE QUAGMIRE OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT IN TOURISM

PLANNING: A CASE EXAMPLE FROM AUSTRALIA

CHRISTOF PFORR* AND MARTIN BRUECKNER†

*School of Marketing, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

†Centre for Responsible Citizenship and Sustainability, School of Management and Governance,

Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

After its first election win in August 2001 since the Northern Territory of Australia (NT) was granted

self-government (1978), the incoming NT Labor government released a new tourism plan, the North-

ern Territory Tourism Strategic Plan—2003–2007 in the following year. Turbulent events of 2001 that

had a significant impact on the tourism industry in the NT and included the collapse of the Australian

carrier Ansett Airlines and “September 11” provided the impetus for the new strategy. Purportedly,

this plan was designed to direct and guide the NT tourism industry’s future development based on

sound research and extensive consultation with key stakeholders. Such a partnership approach was

regarded as crucial for the success of future tourism in the Territory. This article specifically focuses

on the formulation process of this Tourism Strategic Plan, exploring in particular the effectiveness

of the underlying consultation process. Adopting a microperspective on tourism planning processes

with the NT case example we portray a unique case that allows us to highlight not only the complex

and dynamic nature of tourism planning during times of significant change in the Territory’s politi-

cal landscape, but also the often-experienced contradictions between tourism planning rhetoric and

practice. Even though we explore a planning process that dates back about a decade, we believe that

the findings of the study are relevant and inform current tourism policy and planning discourses.

Key words: Planning; Consultation; Tourism plan; Stakeholders;

Northern Territory (NT) of Australia

62 PFORR AND BRUECKNER

that has long been pursued across Northern Austra-

lia and represented only an updated version of the

earlier tourism plan (Pforr, 2001, 2006b, 2009).

The defeat of the CLP by the Northern Territory

Labor Party in 2001 marked the end of a 27-year

period of conservative rule in the NT. This certainly

brought about a dramatic shift in the Territory’s

political landscape and presents an interesting back-

drop to this article, as it allows us to examine if and

to what extent tourism policy and planning has been

impacted by this significant political event. Although

the tourism planning process has continued since,

with the latest strategic plan being the Tourism

Vision 2020 (Tourism NT, 2013), this article focuses

specifically on the development of the first tourism

the rapid expansion of tourism trade been accom-

panied by a strategic planning process (Northern

Territory Tourism Commission [NTTC], 1994).

This first overall tourism plan under the patronage

of the then Country Liberal Party (CLP) govern-

ment recognized the need for a better management

of the resources that underpin the attractiveness of

the Northern Territory as a tourist destination. At

the end of the TDMP’s life span the CLP government

initiated an evaluation and review process, which

led to a succeeding tourism plan, the NT Tourism

Development Masterplan 2000–2005. A Commit-

ment to Excellence (Department of Industries and

Business [DIB], 2000). In many ways this docu-

ment did not depart from the developmentalist path

Figure 1. The Northern Territory of Australia.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT IN TOURISM PLANNING 63

In what follows we review relevant literature on

tourism planning, in particular with respect to stake-

holder engagement and consultation processes.

This will provide the conceptual underpinnings for

this article and will form the requisite background

for the ensuing analysis of the consultation and par-

ticipation process underlying tourism planning in

the Northern Territory as it occurred in the devel-

opment of the Northern Territory Tourism Strategic

Plan—2003–2007 (henceforth NTTSP).

Tourism Planning and the Importance

of Stakeholder Engagement

Tourism planning is inherently political, and

managing the diverse interests that shape decision-

making processes is a rather complex undertaking.

In this context, governance is now recognized as an

increasingly significant issue within tourism plan-

ning. It is argued that a governance approach is able

to foster partnerships, networks, and collaborative

arrangements between government, industry, and

community (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Bramwell,

2010; Hall, 2011; Healy, Rau, & McDonagh, 2012;

Pechlaner, Volgger, & Herntrei, 2012; Ruhanen,

Scott, Ritchie, & Tkaczynski, 2010; Volgger &

Pechlaner, 2014; Wesley & Pforr, 2010). Opening

up the political space between public and private

actors in order to better engage with a range of stake-

holders has the potential to lead to more effective

governance (Bramwell, 2011; Bramwell & Lane,

2011; Dredge & Pforr, 2008; Fischer, 2006). It is this

interaction, engagement, and deliberation, which is

described as “participatory governance” and entails

shared decision making and collaboration among

stakeholders, which is seen to enhance planning pro-

cesses (Fischer, 2006; John & Cole, 2000; Kooiman,

1993; Wesley & Pforr, 2010). Thus, governance dis-

course in relation to democracy, collaboration, coor-

dination, stakeholder management, decentralization,

community planning, power politics, institutional

arrangements, and community participation appears

to be a key principle for tourism policy and planning

(Wesley & Pforr, 2010). As argued by Laurian and

Shaw (2009), “since the communicative turn of the

1980s and 1990s, planning theorists support more

deliberative, or discursive, models that emphasize

inclusive dialogue, mutual learning, and collective

problem-solving” (p. 293).

strategy under Labor rule, the Northern Territory

Tourism Strategic Plan—2003–2007, which was

released in December 2002 (NTTC 2002a).

The article analyzes its formulation process and

explores in particular the effectiveness of the under-

lying consultation process and here specifically how

the various stakeholders participated in, and contrib-

uted to, the development of the plan. In the light of

a formal policy commitment by the then Labor gov-

ernment to transparency and genuine stakeholder

consultation and participation by the NT tourism

authority, this article evaluates the implementation

of stakeholder engagement and interaction processes

as they occurred in the negotiation and development

of the NT government’s Tourism Strategic Plan—

2003–2007 (NTTC, 2002a).

Although the study investigates a tourism plan-

ning event that dates back about a decade we

believe that this case-specific analysis contrib-

utes to the advancement of the current debate on

tourism governance, in particular “participatory”

governance (Fischer, 2006), by focusing on stake-

holder involvement in tourism planning. There is

evidence from the literature of divergence between

the rhetoric adopted in policy documents with

regards to stakeholder engagement and the reality

of stakeholder consultation and participation at an

operational level (Conrad et al., 2011). We therefore

specifically investigate whether the consultation

process and practices adopted by the NTTC meet

the ideals mapped out in its strategic tourism plan

and also in its Stakeholder Engagement Charter.

Adopting a microperspective on tourism plan-

ning processes with the NT case example we por-

tray a unique case that allows us to highlight not

only the complex and dynamic nature of tourism

planning but also the often-experienced contradic-

tions between tourism planning rhetoric and reality.

With this study we aim to contribute to a greater

understanding of the implementation and effective-

ness of consultation and participation processes

towards an improved quality of tourism planning

and governance of tourism destinations. The study

offers not only interesting insights into governance

theory regarding stakeholder management, collab-

orative arrangements, and community participa-

tion, but it has also potential practical relevance for

tourism destination managers that are confronted

with similar situations.


2010; Dredge, 2006; Dredge & Pforr, 2008; Hall,

2008; Pechlaner et al., 2012; Pforr, 2006a; Timur

& Getz, 2008; Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014). It bears

note, however, that new bottom-up approaches are

not necessarily met with public approval for they

frequently embody what Arnstein (1969) described

as nonparticipatory and tokenistic forms of stake-

holder involvement by government. These are at

risk of being out of step with stakeholder aspira-

tions (Buchy & Race, 2001; McCool & Guthrie,

2001) and fail to overcome the tensions and con-

flicts pervasive in society (Bramwell, 2010). Frac-

tious relationships between planning agencies

and their constituencies that can be observed, for

example, in countries like Australia would attest to

ongoing problems surrounding stakeholder engage-

ment practices. This highlights that despite a more

enlightened rhetoric the gulf between good inten-

tions and practical outcomes can remain wide.

Notwithstanding, the importance of meaning-

ful stakeholder engagement is widely accepted,

and active citizen involvement is seen as the sym-

bolic pillar, indeed the very key to the survival of

democracy in an increasingly individualized world

under neoliberal rule (see for instance Saul, 1997;

Theobald, 1997). Although some commentators

warn of high associated cost in terms of time and

finances (see for instance Davis, 1996; Okazaki,

2008) or the inability of the masses to participate

meaningfully (Schumpeter, 1976), there is gen-

eral agreement that higher degrees of community

involvement will generally lead to better outcomes.

A similar logic applies in tourism planning where,

as noted by Murphy (1985) “more actors should

become involved, those who are experts and those

who are affected” (p. 172).

Within tourism, especially the sustainable tour-

ism field, participation is a recognized element

(Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Mowforth & Munt,

2009; Pforr, 2004, 2015). In expounding Chapter

8 of Agenda 21, the action plan for sustainability

emanating from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (United

Nations Division for Sustainable Development,

1992) calls for “public [access] to relevant infor-

mation, facilitating the reception of public views

and allowing for effective participation.” In a simi-

lar vein, the Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development (United Nations General Assembly,

1992) argues for the facilitation and encouragement

This engagement of, and active participation by,

stakeholders in areas such as planning, policy for-

mulation, as well as program design and implemen-

tation are widely acknowledged as prerequisites

for successful public and private sector processes.

Especially within the public policy arena there is

growing recognition of the importance of govern-

ments’ responsiveness to stakeholder demands,

showing signs of a reemergence of a seemingly

forgotten awareness that stakeholder participation

is axiomatic in a democratic setting. Stakeholder

engagement is traded widely under different termi-

nologies—often interchangeably—such as citizen

or public participation, community or stakeholder

involvement, and active citizenship. Terms such

as these generally imply an interactive process

between members of the public and/or private and

not-for-profit sector organizations and represen-

tatives of a government agency with the aim of

giving participants a direct voice in decisions that

affect them (Munro-Clarke, 1992).

The 1960s saw much interest among early writ-

ers in the community consultation and engagement

field (see for instance Arnstein, 1969; Bachrach

& Baratz, 1962, 1970; Pateman, 1970) to posi-

tion stakeholder participation as a means of giving

a voice to minorities and underprivileged groups

in the context of an increasingly technocratic and

economically rational government apparatus. Gov-

ernment at the time was deemed impervious to

outsider perspectives and hostile to public input,

which explained agitation for the public’s right to

be heard—participation was largely seen as a threat

to government (Barber, 1984). Various Australian

state jurisdictions are still seen to display these

characteristics (Churches, 2000; Walker, 2001).

The neoliberal political shift itself over the last 30

years, however, has also changed government–

society relations. It brought about more collabora-

tive forms of policy making (Vernon, Essex, Pinder,

& Curry, 2005) as Western governments started to

retreat from the provision of public services. This

shift triggered the disappearance of the top-down

approaches traditionally used by public sector insti-

tutions, and in their place have come more decen-

tralized grassroots approaches and inclusive forms

of governance that allow the public and the private

sector to take a more active role in planning and

decision-making processes (Beaumont & Dredge,


what is accepted here as a form of consensus on the

foundations of good, ideal, or successful engage-

ment processes.

Key process principles include (Tuler & Webler,

1999):

Access to process• : Equal opportunity for partici-

pation and receipt of information for all parties

who express interest are affected by the process

or its outcomes, or can contribute to a decision.

This also relates to geographical accessibility

of venues and meeting places and the setting of

timelines.

Power to influence process and outcomes• : The

need for balanced power relations, referring to a

process that is free from prejudice, preferential

treatment, and imbalances in resource required

for effective participation. It also relates to the

representativeness of the process in terms of

reflecting stakeholder views on process design.

Structural characteristics to promote cons•

tructive interactions and facilitation of con

structive personal behaviors: Constructive

interaction draws attention to the discursive nature

of, and social interaction (behavior) involved in,

deliberative processes. Emphasis is placed on

respect, openness, honesty, understanding, listen-

ing, and trust. The behavior of process participants

and managers is genuine, meaning that it is based

on the desire to constructively work towards solu-

tions. The term structural characteristics refers to

the timing, location, and set up of discussion fora

and meetings. Both behavioral and structural char-

acteristics define the quality of the discourse space.

Access to information• : Information flows are

bidirectional between process participants and

process managers, and information is sourced

from both formally recognized experts and infor-

mal experts (e.g., local people, Indigenous people,

amateurs). Information is used as a mechanism for

mutual learning and teaching, involving active lis-

tening, and is transparent and accessible.

Adequate analysis• : This relates closely to the

issue of access to information with emphasis

placed on the quality of data and its analysis. Data

is used for fact finding and informing the debate.

Adequate analysis also relates to accountability

in that decision making is based on “objective”

data rather than on politics or vested interest.

of public awareness and participation underscoring

the importance of public participation within the

sustainability context, especially as it relates to the

operationalization of sustainability principles (see for

instance Carew-Reid, Prescott-Allen, Bass, & Dalal-

Clayton, 1994; Franks, 1996; Lew, 2007; Palmer,

Cooper, & van der Vorst, 1997; Pforr, 2004, 2015).

Public input in planning and policy decision has

recognized advantages. Lew (2007), for example,

points to fair and representative decision mak-

ing, while Mahjabeen, Shresha, and Dee (2009)

explain that the active engagement of stakeholders

in planning and decision-making processes enables

a better matching of their needs, interests, and

expectations. Indeed, the list of perceived benefits

of stakeholder engagement is long. Such benefits

relate to the social and political acceptability of pro-

cesses and thus the longevity of process outcomes.

Community involvement can lead to improved

relationships and communication between govern-

ments and the constituencies as well as better risk

communication, community empowerment, owner-

ship of processes, and outcomes. It also facilitates

the formation of social capital, sharing of power,

expertise, and knowledge, as well as greater trans-

parency and accountability, mutual learning, and

building of confidence and self-esteem (see for

instance Barber, 1984; De Sario & Langton, 1987;

Forester, 1988, 1993; Laird, 1993; McCool &

Guthrie, 2001; Moore, 1996; Renn, 1992; Slocum,

Wichhart, Rocheleau, & Thomas-Slayter, 1995;

Webler, 1995).

On the question of what constitutes a good con-

sultation process, the literature points to a number

of key process ingredients, which focus chiefly

on aspects such as participants’ ability to be heard

and to influence process outcomes. Vital in this

regard is the issue of control referred to by Hansen

and Mäenpää (2008) as citizen power, pertain-

ing to processes that enable participants to affect

agencies’ decision making. Equally important is

participants’ access to high levels of information,

technical expertise, and sound process facilitation

(Wray, 2011) to enable both power sharing and

informed decision making. Shown below is a sum-

mary provided by Tuler and Webler (1999) of key

process ingredients, which mirrors other research

findings (Brueckner, Duff, McKenna, & Horwitz,

2006; McCool & Guthrie, 2001; Wray, 2011) and


“improved channels of communication” and stress-

ing the need for close cooperation between indus-

try and government “to maximise the return for

all parties and the Territory” (NTTC, 2002a, p. 1).

Going by appearances, the strategy indeed rested

on extensive consultation work. Appendix A of the

Strategic Plan (NTTC, 2002a) lists a total of 171

stakeholders who purportedly were included in the

consultation process underlying the strategic plan,

ranging from airlines, hotels, and other accommo-

dation providers to tour operators and various gov-

ernment departments.

In light of the NT government’s self-confessed

recognition of the importance of meaningful stake-

holder consultation and the grandiloquence sur-

rounding the tourism strategy planning we present

below an analysis of the experiences of process

participants with a view to determine the degree to

which process rhetoric was matched by perceived

process reality.

In the following, after outlining the research

design, a brief chronology of events in the lead up

to the release of the 2003–2007 tourism strategy

will provide an essential background against which

the strategic plan was developed. This is followed

by an overview of the consultation process that was

meant to underpin the formulation and develop-

ment of the tourism strategy, culminating in a dis-

cussion about the apparent discrepancies between

government rhetoric and stakeholder experiences

concerning the process. The article concludes, giv-

ing consideration to the importance of robust con-

sultation processes as they relate to the protection

of the interests of tourism stakeholders and their

industry as well as the sustainability and efficacy of

government policy making.

Methodology

Of the various methods of analysis available,

the case study method was considered to be highly

suitable for the study’s line of inquiry (Yin, 2009).

Hall, Jenkins, and Kearsley (1997), for instance,

advocate its relevance to tourism analysis within

contextual situations because it emphasizes the

complexities involved in actual tourism situations

and arguably provides stronger real-world linkages

to the theoretical constructs identified in scholarly

discourse (Wesley & Pforr, 2010). They point out

Enabling of social conditions necessary for •

future processes: A participatory process is to

create a discursive climate suitable for future

planning and decision-making activities.

Strict adherence to principles cannot be seen as a

recipe for success (Buchy & Race, 2001; Syme, 1992)

as processes themselves are interpretive and fluid and

very much context specific (Wray, 2011). Nonethe-

less, when appreciating participatory processes as pro-

cesses of collective learning based on the collective

construction and dissemination of knowledge, good

process principles can act as safeguards for this learn-

ing, construction, and dissemination of knowledge

to occur. In contrast, failure to structure engagement

processes around guidelines such as these is likely to

increase the chance of rejection of both process and

outcome (Brueckner et al., 2006).

This brief overview provides a requisite back-

drop against which government processes can be

analyzed and judged. The process of interest here

is the development of the NT government’s NTTSP

(NTTC, 2002a), which at the time was portrayed as

being based on good process principles, speaking

of inclusivity and extensive stakeholder input. The

Tourism Strategic Plan was said to be aligned with

the aims of the NTTC’s Stakeholder Engagement

Charter (2002d), which highlights Tourism NT’s

commitment to transparency and genuine consulta-

tion. According to the Charter (NTTC, 2002d), the

NTTC regards stakeholder consultation as:

a two-way communication;•

interactive;•

information giving and listening;•

showing respect for the views of all parties;•

informing stakeholders; and•

valuing input.•

It was on the basis of this understanding of, and

commitment to genuine stakeholder consultation,

that the NTTSP was promoted as being based on an

extensive research and consultation program and

as an exemplar of sustainability and a partnership-

based approach to strategy formulation.

Upon the launch of the Strategic Plan, then Tour-

ism Minister Chris Burns praised the tangible ben-

efits the consultation work delivered referring to

“stronger relationships at all levels of industry” and


letter to nonrespondents. A total of 44 responses

(39% response rate) to the survey were received.

Times of Uncertainty and Change

As the largest employer and important revenue

generator (second only to the mining industry) at the

turn of the millennium the tourism industry was one

of the Territory’s most important industry sectors

(Pforr, 2001, 2008, 2009). Figures from 2000/2001,

the time point of analysis of this article, aptly illus-

trate these developments. In that 12-month period

the value of tourism to the NT economy was already

significant with 1.7 million visitors contributing

$1.03 billion to the economy, which accounted for

5% of the Territory’s gross state product. The sec-

tor had a share of 8.7% of total employment, which

translated into around 8,400 jobs. Indirect effects

added a further 6,600 jobs and around $1.05 billion

to the local economy (NTTC, 2002b).

However, global and national events took a sig-

nificant toll on Northern Territory tourism, par-

ticularly the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on

the World Trade Center in New York and, only 3

days later, the collapse of Ansett, Australia’s sec-

ond airline. With these events NT tourism entered a

time of uncertainty, and very difficult years for the

local tourism industry followed. With the closure of

Ansett, for instance, which had 42% of scheduled

domestic capacity into the Territory, access was an

immediate problem as more than 60% of domestic

tourists entered the NT by air. The following years

brought about further challenges including the first

Bali bombings, the war in Iraq, and the Severe

Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) pandemic in

Asia. Consequently, the NT tourism industry was

faced with a sharp decline in visitor numbers and

visitor nights in 2001/2002 with a further decrease

in the following year (NTTC, 2002a, 2002b,

2002c; NT Treasury, 2005). According to Tourism

NT (2008), “for the year ending September 2002,

compared to the previous twelve months, interstate

holiday visitation dropped by 3% and international

holiday visitation slumped by 18%” (p. 1).

In this crisis context, the Territory’s government

authority responsible for tourism, the NT Tourist

Commission (The Tourism NT Act saw the North-

ern Territory Tourist Commission become Tourism

NT in early 2006), had to respond swiftly to these

that “case studies are an important component of

descriptive tourism research as they help analysts

understand the effects that such factors as choice,

power, perception, values and process have on

tourism planning and policy-making” (p. 22).

Two research questions were developed in order

to examine the nature of the debates and processes

surrounding the negotiation and development of

the NT government’s Tourism Strategic Plan—

2003–2007. The first aimed to better understand

tourism policy and planning and to identify the key

group of stakeholders steering the development of

the NTTSP, while the second investigated how the

various stakeholders participated in and contrib-

uted to the development of the tourism plan. Pursu-

ing a case-study approach this study thus provides

a detailed empirically based analysis.

As this article aims to explain the issues, prob-

lems, and complex processes surrounding the

nature of tourism planning in the NT, a detailed

background analysis using secondary data sources

(e.g., newspaper articles, government publications,

and specialist reports) was first conducted. This

included a thorough examination of NTTC archival

records. These data sets (information from media

releases, memos, cabinet submissions, and letters)

were extracted from the 2002 Tourism Strategic

Plan Files of the Northern Territory Tourist Com-

mission (files 414 and 415) in 2004.

In order to examine the scope and nature of the

consultation process underpinning the development

of the tourism strategic plan, which was claimed to

entail “a comprehensive consultation program with

travel industry partners and stakeholders within the

Territory, nationally and overseas” (NTTC, 2002a,

p. 9), a self-completion mail-out questionnaire was

developed. The questions not only aimed to identify

the core stakeholders in the planning process but

also tried to investigate how stakeholders perceived

the consultation process underlying the development

of the NTTSP and if they considered the process to

be comprehensive. Before the survey was mailed

out in October 2004, a letter of invitation to partici-

pate in the study was sent to those who were listed

in Appendix A of the NTTSP as having been con-

sulted or having contributed to its development. One

hundred and twelve stakeholders agreed to take part

in the research project and were subsequently sent a

copy of the questionnaire, followed with a reminder


2002 there were calls to all NT Ministers and NT

government CEOs to provide a written submission,

the tourism industry was invited to participate in

so-called “industry consultation fora” organized by

the respective Regional Tourism Associations, and

NTTC staff took part in a number of “consultation

sessions” (2002 NTTC files 414 & 415).

The Tourism Strategic Plan’s consultation pro-

cess can be divided into two distinct phases. The

first, from April to June 2002, consisted mainly of

four tourism industry fora. They were coordinated

by the Territory’s four Regional Tourism Associa-

tions (Tourism Top End, Katherine Regional Tour-

ism Association, Tennant Creek Regional Tourism

Association, Central Australian Tourism Industry

Association), which are responsible for the provi-

sion of region-specific information to visitors, the

servicing and maintenance of their membership

base, and the region-specific promotion of their

local tourism assets (NTTC, 2002a). The purpose

of these meetings was to allow the industry to pro-

vide a regional perspective on a number of issues

critical to the future direction of the industry. It is

interesting to note, however, that only a limited

number of industry stakeholders took up the oppor-

tunity to provide their input into the strategic plan-

ning process. At the meeting in Darwin 19 industry

representatives took part, in Alice Springs it was

10, Tennant Creek had 11 industry participants, and

in Katherine only four stakeholders attended (2002

NTTC files 414 & 415).

Phase One of the consultation process also

entailed a so-called “national partners forum” that

was held in Melbourne (Victoria), one-to-one talks

with inbound tourism operators in Sydney (New

South Wales), as well as a number of specific work-

shop sessions with NTTC staff. At the end of June

2002, at the conclusion of Phase One, the NTTC

had also received 37 written submissions (2002

NTTC files 414 & 415).

The outcomes of the initial round of consulta-

tions, the results of the inventory, and the market

research findings were reviewed in a Project Team

meeting in July 2002, leading to a draft “in-house”

plan, which was finalized in August 2002 but not

released for public comment. It was also only pre-

sented in parts to tourism industry representatives

in the second phase of the consultation process

(September–October 2002). During that time key

negative events and initiated a review of strategic

priorities for the industry. This created the impulse

for the development of a new tourism plan for the

Territory, although the actual Tourism Masterplan

at that time, which had been developed by the pre-

vious CLP government, was still valid until 2005.

The new Managing Director of the NT Tourist

Commission, who came into office in March 2002,

announced only 2 months later the development

of a new 5-year strategic plan, which was released

to the public in December of the same year. To

facilitate the new strategic directions, greater

control was given to the NT Tourist Commission

over Indigenous tourism and infrastructure devel-

opment, which had been responsibilities of the

Department of Industries and Business since 1998

(Pforr, 2006a).

The NTTC played a pivotal leadership role in

developing new strategic directions “to guide the

development and growth of tourism in the Northern

Territory” (NTTC, 2002c). In its “Terms of Refer-

ence” it was highlighted the “development of the

Plan will entail broad industry, Government and

community consultation and comprise an assess-

ment of the operating environment, key priorities,

objectives, strategies and key performance mea-

sures” (NTTC, 2002c, p. 3).

Findings

Stakeholder Engagement Process

In consultation with the NT Tourism Minister,

the NTTC Board instigated the process for the

development of a new tourism plan in April 2002.

A first step was the setting up of a “Strategic Project

Team” by the NTTC. The main task of this Project

Team, which consisted largely of a cross section of

NTTC staff, was to assist Senior Management and

the NTTC Board in the preparation of the new tour-

ism plan (2002 NTTC files 414 & 415).

The commencement of the development of a

5-year Strategic Plan was publically announced

in mid-May 2002 with advertisements in all NT

regional newspapers as well as on the NTTC’s web-

site. Members of the community and community

groups were invited to forward written submissions

or to contact their region’s Tourist Association to

communicate their views. Furthermore, in May


wider community. This approach was in line with

the NTTC’s proclaimed “Stakeholder Engage-

ment Charter” (for a summary see Fig. 2), which

was meant to demonstrate the NTTC’s commit-

ment to transparency and genuine consultation and

to ensure that all stakeholders “have a voice in the

development of policies and strategies that affect

tourism in the Territory” (NTTC, 2002d, p. 2).

Furthermore, the Charter also emphasized that

consultation should be “a form of two-way com-

munication,” which is “interactive, includes infor-

mation giving and listening, shows respect for the

views of all parties, informs the stakeholders and

values input” (NTTC, 2002d, p. 2).

A closer examination of the consultation process,

however, shows that this government assertion is not

justified, because the NTTC targeted in its consul-

tations mainly the tourism industry via its Regional

Tourism Associations (RTAs). As one participant in

the study highlighted, the consultation process,

Was a very fragmented process with very sparse

consultation/public meetings that leads to suppose

outcomes of the previous phase were communi-

cated to industry stakeholders at industry consulta-

tion fora in Darwin with a video link to Katherine

and in Alice Springs with a link to Tennant Creek

(2002 NTTC files 414 & 415).

This Second Phase of the consultation process

was concluded with a draft (in-house) strategy in

October 2002 for consideration by Senior Manage-

ment, the NTTC Board, and the Minister for Tour-

ism. The final plan was then endorsed by Cabinet

(November 19, 2002) and publicly launched in

December 2002 by the Tourism Minister.

Consultation Program

As outlined above, the Strategic Plan was devel-

oped over a 6-month period in 2002 and the NTTC

had claimed that it entailed extensive consulta-

tion with key industry stakeholders (represented

by the four Regional Tourism Associations), Min-

isters and the respective government departments,

the NTTC Board and NTTC staff, as well as the

Figure 2. Overview of NTTC Stakeholder Engagement Charter (source: NTTC, 2002d).


I wish to advise that . . . did not participate in or

provide input in the NT Tourism Strategic Plan.

Unfortunately . . . did not participate in the origi-

nal plan.

I was not involved in the NTTC Strategic Planning

process. . . . I have canvassed senior staff . . . to ascer-

tain if they had been involved and they had not.

There is no obvious explanation for the stark dis-

crepancy between the claims made by the NTTC

about the inclusiveness of the consultation pro-

cess and the contrasting assessment by the alleged

“individuals and organisations consulted, or who

have contributed to the Plan” (NTTC, 2002a, p. 9).

Nonetheless, in the following sections of this arti-

cle some factors that might have contributed to the

above situation will be explored in greater detail.

It appears that the process was lacking innova-

tive mechanisms to ensure a comprehensive con-

sultation and participatory process for the general

public and interested parties. Consultation through

media invitation seeking written submissions from

the wider community was not conducive to public

participation because only 37 written submissions

had been received at the end of consultation Phase

One (2002 NTTC files 414 & 415). Thus, the new

Strategic Plan was neither a result of an adequate

level of public debate and consultation nor an out-

come of community involvement. Rather, it can

be seen more as a top-down approach that ren-

ders the Tourism Strategic Plan to not much more

than “a prescriptive statement by professionals

rather than an agreement among the various par-

ties” (Hall, 1998, p. 256). This is in stark contrast

to the NTTC’s objective of providing stakehold-

ers with “a voice in the development of policies

and strategies that affect tourism in the Territory”

(NTTC, 2002d, p. 2). Community groups appear to

have been demoted to the margins of the consulta-

tion process and economic interest, represented by

tourism industry peak bodies, taking center stage

as main partners of an albeit limited industry con-

sultation process.

Also, the Tourism Strategic Plan was purport-

edly “engaging in a rigorous consultation process”

(NTTC, 2002a, p. 30) with indigenous stakehold-

ers, which was seen to be crucial for the successful

development of indigenous tourism products. It was

that the most powerful “big boys” orgs [organisa-

tions] and private cos [companies] took the “strat-

egy” over and limited the scope to what they want

the public to hear—and consume.

Another participant commented that,

The input levels from small operators 0–10 employ-

ees is very low and virtually a handful of those

outside Darwin, Katherine, Tennant, & Alice. Sub

regions seem non-existent. Still heavily represented

by gov’n dept [government departments] and large

companies—I worry about the process.

Economic interests, represented by the tourism

industry, in particular the RTAs, were thus appar-

ently given a privileged position in the policy

process, which “may seem appropriate,” as Hall

(1999) comments, “given the need for coordina-

tion between government and industry. . . . How-

ever, such an approach also precludes the input of

a wider range of stakeholders from environmental

organisations, from public interest groups, and the

wider community interests” (p. 284).

Public Participation

It appears, not only from the above comments,

that despite the NTTC’s rhetoric the consultation

process was very limited in scope and breadth. The

adopted approach was obviously not a very effec-

tive mechanism considering the small number of

participants in the industry consultation fora.

Furthermore, of those who took part in the study’s

survey, almost half (46%) were critical about the

consultation process with an astonishing 21%

claiming not to have been involved despite being

listed as “individuals and organisations consulted,

or who have contributed to the Plan” (NTTC,

2002a, p. 9). Some of the participants in the study

commented, for instance,

We were not invited to contribute to the Strategic

Plan.

I was not aware of an NT Strategic Plan. To my

knowledge we were not part of the consultative

process.

Unfortunately I was not approached on any level to

be part of the strategic planning process; I have never

seen the plan or received information about it.


loosely integrated into the planning process. Con-

sequently, effectively integrated tourism planning

and development, which requires a much stronger

coordination and collaboration within government,

was not achieved. The set up of the Project Team

can also be seen as a missed opportunity to capture

potentially valuable contributions from outside the

machinery of government, leading to particularly

parochial public servants’ view. Interestingly, this

approach seems to be in contrast to the measure

taken by the former CLP government, where a spe-

cific Task Force representing a cross section of vari-

ous government agencies assisted in the preparation

of the previous Tourism Development Masterplans

(Pforr, 2001, 2009).

Analysis and Discussion

The data presented above make plain that the

development of the NT government’s Tourism

Strategic Plan was running counter to both what

the literature identifies as good stakeholder engage-

ment principles and importantly the NTTC’s own

Stakeholder Consultation Charter (see Table 1).

With reference to the engagement process princi-

ples identified by Tuler and Webler (1999), only lim-

ited and seemingly selective access was provided to

tourism stakeholders during the consultation phase

with many organizations and tourism operators

indeed unaware of the development of the NTTSP.

Primarily, RTAs were key participants, yet the wider

range of industry stakeholders remained outside the

consultation process. As a result, access to informa-

tion was limited and only available to those inside

the process, affording them a privileged position

also suggested that Indigenous organizations such

as ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Commission) and the Land Councils (areas of

Aboriginal self-governance) “play a pivotal role in

providing services and undertake an advocacy role

on behalf of Indigenous people” (NTTC, 2002a,

p. 31). Yet, the consultation process was not under-

pinned by a partnership approach to capture these

views, despite cultural tourism, next to nature-

based tourism, constituting one of the two building

blocks of NT tourism. Then NT Tourism Minister

even raised the obvious question in a memo (7151)

to the NTTC why no Aboriginal representative

organization took part in the consultation process.

One participant in the study commented,

I am concerned at the lack of response by Indig-

enous organisations. . . . Concerned at the lack of

involvement by Community Gov’t [Government]

Councils. These people/organisations hold the key

to development in smaller communities that in

many cases provide first contact.

Whole of Government Approach

As outlined earlier, a Strategic Project Team had

been formed to coordinate and lead the development

of the Tourism Strategic Plan. However, this approach

certainly did not reflect a whole of government per-

spective in line with the NTTC’s interpretation as

outlined in the Strategy. There it was highlighted that

“the broad nature of the tourism industry requires

cooperation across a number of Government depart-

ments” (NTTC, 2002a, p. 22). In contrast, the Stra-

tegic Project Team consisted mainly of NTTC staff

with other relevant government agencies being only

Table 1

Stakeholder Engagement Principles

Engagement Process Principles

(Tuler & Webler, 1999)

NTTC Stakeholder Engagement Charter

(NTTC, 2002d)

Access to process Two-way communication

Power to influence process and outcomes Interactive

Structural characteristics to promote constructive interactions

and facilitation of constructive personal behaviors

Showing respect for the views of all parties

Access to information Information giving and listening

Adequate analysis Informing stakeholders

Enabling of social conditions necessary for future processes Valuing input


of trust is dependent on structural context (such

as transparency of governance and governmental

processes) and agential endowment (social moods

and collective capital) (see Marks & Zadoroznyj,

2002), and it requires time and process. Positive

past experiences with government processes (e.g.,

competence, unbiased, due process, caring) are

likely to aid the social and political acceptance of

current/future government processes and their out-

comes (see Kasperson, 1986). In contrast, as is evi-

dent in the case presented here, perceptions of bias

and exclusion erode the basis for trust.

The issue of trust and stakeholder control over

process and outcome are closely related (Edelenbos

& Eshuis, 2012). The NTTPS was meant to draw

on the knowledge gained from NT tourism stake-

holders to improve the quality and enhance the

legitimacy of the strategy. Horizontal forms of

decision making such as this require cooperation

between different actors, and trust between actors

is an important precondition for cooperation. Trust

is contingent, however, on the way in which con-

trol is shared and exercised. The closed nature of

the NTTPS process precluded power sharing com-

pounded by its selectivity and exclusiveness. Many

tourism industry stakeholders were found to have

little input in, let alone control over, the consulta-

tion process and the outcomes reached.

Although the rhetoric of the NTTPS gave the

impression of shared governance, the process

reflected programmed governance (see O’Riordan

& Stoll-Kleemann, 2002). Structures were hierarchi-

cal in character, power was centralized, and infor-

mation was controlled. The consultation process was

restricted, limiting stakeholder input and exhibiting a

form of resilience to external change. Key decisions

on process and outcomes remained in the domain of

a narrow policy community, at risk of resulting in

a bureaucratically mediated garbage-can strategy

document (after Walker, 2001).

In short, the consultation process underpinning

the development of the 5-year Strategic Tourism

Plan was characterized by strong political–admin-

istrative control facilitating the dominant economic

paradigm of tourism development in the Territory.

These controlling forces determined the issues of the

debate as well as the scope and nature of the consul-

tation process. The elected NT Labor Government,

despite acknowledging the benefits of interaction,

and the power to influence the process outcomes.

Despite government claims to the inclusivity of the

process, stakeholders’ experience of the consulta-

tion phase points to serious shortcomings, affecting

the ability of interest groups from inside and outside

the tourism industry to participate in the process, let

alone contribute meaningfully or exercise control. In

terms of the NTTC Stakeholder Engagement Char-

ter (NTTC, 2002d), the findings of this study draw

into question the extent to which two-way communi-

cation was enabled, information was shared, and the

degree to which all views held within and outside the

industry were heard and valued.

Relatedly, the structural characteristics of the

process were found to have been a barrier to stake-

holder engagement, relying not only on seemingly

selective industry engagements but also limited

public discussion, which was invited by media

invitation only. The chosen format meant that many

NTTSP stakeholders were restricted to providing

written submissions during the consultation pro-

cess, which itself was poorly advertised and gone

largely unnoticed by many people who the NTTC

in its public documents referred to as critical for the

formulation of the NTSSP; especially indigenous

organizations and small tourism operators.

On the question of adequate analysis, the data

suggest that largely NTTC staff were in charge of

developing the NTTSP with limited and sporadic

input from other government departments and

agencies. Although the process was purported to be

based on a whole of government approach designed

to allow for the holistic assessment of the strate-

gic needs of NT tourism, in the end it was largely

driven by a single department. This in itself does

not suggest that the analysis was inadequate; how-

ever, the analysis lacked the multistakeholder input

that was meant to underpin the NTTSP and thus its

purported robustness (NTTC, 2002a).

Importantly, the negative process experience of

many NTTSP stakeholders provided a poor founda-

tion for future government engagement processes

because the development of the NTTSP lacked

critical trust elements. Trust is decisive in politi-

cal processes for it frames perceptions, communi-

cation, and actions, and it can be regarded as both

integral to, but also a requisite for, public processes.

However, trust needs to be developed, earned, and

nurtured (Giddens, 1991, 1994). The development


A core question emerging from this study has,

however, remained unanswered in the above anal-

ysis—how such a mismatch between the NTTC’s

rhetoric about the consultation process and the real-

ity of its implementation was possible. The discrep-

ancy between rhetoric and reality is most obvious in

the contrasting assessment between the NTTC and

alleged participants on the question of who actually

provided input into the consultation process. One

could see this as a deliberate attempt by the NTTC

to mislead the public about the true nature of the

consultation process adopted in the development

of the Tourism Strategic Plan. In all fairness, how-

ever, it needs to be acknowledged that although the

objectives of the new incoming Labor government

after almost three decades of conservative rule in

the Territory had changed significantly, the NTTC

as an organization might have been simply unable

in its operations to change long-adopted practices

in a short period of time. Particularly, the “Stake-

holder Engagement Charter” might have been just

an attempt by the NTTC to act politically correct

in a new political environment without being able

to engrain these new objectives into its immediate

operational practices.

With our research on the development of the

NT Tourism Strategic Plan—2003–2007 (NTTC,

2002a) and its underlying consultation process as

the key vehicle for this study, we have contributed

to a better understanding of tourism governance by

revealing that the shift from government to gov-

ernance was not made in the Northern Territory

of Australia. In a déjà vu of inquiries on tourism

policy and planning processes, which underpinned

the development of previous tourism plans in the

Northern Territory (Pforr 2001, 2006b, 2009),

again a traditional top-down government arrange-

ment that involved a very narrow range of policy

actors prevailed, and a shift towards more inclusive

systems of governance continued to remain a work

in progress. This is despite establishing public par-

ticipation in decision making as a key feature of

tourism planning and also as a widely accepted cri-

terion of sustainable development (e.g., Bramwell,

2010; Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Graci, 2013; Healy

et al., 2012).

Learning from this, strategic planning processes

in the future need to be truly more inclusive based

on trust and consensus building. Such an approach

engagement, and deliberation in tourism planning,

has thus failed to successfully implement and guide

a more democratic planning process.

Without doubt, the defeat of the CLP by the

Northern Territory Labor Party in 2001 marked the

end of an era of an extraordinarily long period of

conservative rule in the NT and certainly brought

about a dramatic shift in its political landscape. Nev-

ertheless, the machinery of government appeared to

be overwhelmed with little competence to execute

the proclaimed new direction for NT tourism. Con-

sidering its unconditional support in the past for the

CLP’s dealings with tourism, the deficient appetite

for a real change in tourism policy and planning

practice was therefore to be expected. To address

the disconnect between politics and people would

have, however, required a fundamental reform of

institutions and policy processes in the Northern

Territory as well as a critical reflection of existing

power structures.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of this study, Labor’s

adopted planning approach suggests only a very

limited commitment to public debate and input by

indigenous organizations and other community

groups on setting the future directions of NT tour-

ism. Thus, the Tourism Strategic Plan was cer-

tainly not “underpinned by a partnership approach”

(NTTC, 2002a, p. 16) but consistent with the logic

of developmentalism “to guide the development and

growth of tourism in the Northern Territory” (NTTC,

2002c, p. 1). Consequently, the tourism industry via

the four Regional Tourism Associations was given

a privileged position to influence the development

of the Tourism Strategy. Most obvious, however,

was the pivotal role of the NTTC, which carefully

managed and controlled the entire process “from the

top” and ensured that issues were kept on govern-

ment’s “track.” Despite the NTTC’s commitment to

a “whole of government approach” to better reflect

the intersectoral nature of tourism policy and plan-

ning, the findings of this study point to a failure by

government to embrace it with the Strategy formula-

tion remaining narrowly focused on one government

authority. This is, for instance, evident in the compo-

sition of the Strategic Project Team, which reflected

only a narrow bureaucratic view.


Davis, G. (1996). Consultation, public participation and

the integration of multiple interests into policy making.

Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development.

De Sario, J., & Langton, S. (1987). Citizen participation in

public decision making, contributions in political sci-

ence, number 158. New York: Greenwood Press.

Department of Industries and Business. (2000). Northern

territory tourism development masterplan 2000–2005. A

commitment to excellence. Darwin, Australia: Author.

Dredge, D. (2006). Policy networks and the local organisa-

tion of tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 269–280.

Dredge, D., & Pforr, C. (2008). Policy networks and tourism

governance. In C. Cooper, N. Scott, & R. Baggio (Eds.),

Network analysis and tourism: From theory to practice

(pp. 58–76). Clevedon, UK: Channel View.

Edelenbos, J., & Eshuis, J. (2012). The interplay between

trust and control in governance processes: A conceptual

and empirical investigation. Administration & Society,

44(6), 647–674.

Fischer, F. (2006). Participatory governance as delibera-

tive empowerment: The cultural politics of discursive

space. American Review of Public Administration, 36(1),

19–40.

Forester, J. (Ed.). (1988). Critical theory and public life.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and plan-

ning practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Franks, T. R. (1996). Managing sustainable development.

Sustainable Development, 4(2), 53–60.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and

society in the late modern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right. Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press.

Graci, S. (2013). Collaboration and partnership development

for sustainable tourism. Tourism Geographies: An Inter-

national Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environ-

ment, 15(1), 25–42.

Hall, C. M. (1998). Introduction to tourism. Development,

dimensions and issues (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Aus-

tralia: Longman.

Hall, C. M. (1999). Rethinking collaboration and partner-

ship: A public policy perspective. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 7(3–4), 274–288.

Hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism planning, policies, processes

and relationships (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Hall.

Hall, C. M. (2011). A typology of governance and its impli-

cations for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustain-

able Tourism, 19(4–5), 437–457.

Hall, C. M., Jenkins, J., & Kearsley, G. (1997). Tourism

planning and policy in Australia and New Zealand.

Roseville, Australia: McGraw Hill.

Hansen, H. S., & Mäenpää, M. (2008). An overview of the

challenges for public participation in river basin man-

agement and planning. Management of Environmental

Quality: An International Journal of Australian Political

Economy, 19(1), 67–84.

is contingent on forms of collaboration that build

on the expertise and knowledge of all relevant

stakeholders and their willingness to engage in

good faith—a true partnership approach. In order

to close the gap between rhetoric and reality of

tourism policy and planning and to improve the

governance of tourism destinations, more attention

needs to be placed on political power structures that

underpin exclusionary approaches to tourism plan-

ning that reflect only the interests of a very narrow

range of stakeholders.

References

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal

of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). Two faces of power.

American Political Science Review, 56, 947–952.

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1970). Power and poverty. The-

ory and practice. London: Oxford University Press.

Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy. Participatory poli-

tics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of Califor-

nia Press.

Beaumont, N., & Dredge, D. (2010). Local tourism gover-

nance: A comparison of three network approaches. Jour-

nal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 7–28.

Bramwell, B. (2010). Participative planning and governance

for sustainable tourism. Tourism Recreation Research,

35(3), 239–249.

Bramwell, B. (2011) Governance, the state and sustainable

tourism: A political economy approach. Journal of Sus-

tainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 459–477.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011) Critical research on the

governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of Sus-

tainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 411–421.

Brueckner, M., Duff, J., McKenna, R., & Horwitz, P. (2006).

What are they taking us for? The participatory nature of

Western Australia’s Regional Forest Agreement process.

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management,

13(1), 6–16.

Buchy, M., & Race, D. (2001). The twists and turns of com-

munity participation in natural resource management in

Australia: What is missing? Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management, 44(3), 293–308.

Carew-Reid, J., Prescott-Allen, R., Bass, S., & Dalal-Clay-

ton, B. (1994). Strategies for national sustainable devel-

opment. London: Earthscan.

Churches, S. C. (2000). Courts and parliament dysfunctional

in review: Forest management as a case study of bureau-

cratic power. Australian Journal of Administrative Law,

7, 141–156.

Conrad, E., Cassar, L. F., Jones, M., Eiter, S., Izaovicová, Z.,

Barankova, Z., Christie, M., & Fazey, I. (2011). Rhetoric

and reporting of public participation in landscape policy.

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(1),

23–47.


growth of tourism in the Northern Territory. Darwin,

Australia: Author.

Northern Territory Tourist Commission. (2002d). Stake-

holder engagement charter. Darwin, Australia: Author.

Northern Territory Treasury. (2005). Budget paper No. 5.

Northern Territory economy. Darwin, Australia: Govern-

ment Printer.

Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model:

Its conception and use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,

16(5), 511–529.

O’Riordan, T., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2002). Deliberative

democracy and participatory biodiversity. In T. O’Riordan

& S. Stoll-Kleemann (Eds.), Biodiversity, sustainability and

human communities. Protecting beyond the protected (pp.

87–112). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, J., Cooper, I., & van der Vorst, R. (1997). Mapping

out fuzzy buzzwords—Who sits where on sustainability

and sustainable development. Sustainable Development,

5, 87–93.

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pechlaner, H., Volgger, M., & Herntrei, M. (2012). Destina-

tion management organizations as interface between des-

tination governance and corporate governance. Anatolia,

23(2), 151–168.

Pforr, C. (2001). Tourism policy in Australia’s Northern Ter-

ritory—A policy process analysis of its tourism devel-

opment masterplan. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2–4),

275–307.

Pforr, C. (2004). Policy-making for sustainable tourism. In F.

D. Pineda, C. A. Brebbia, & M. Mugica (Eds.), Sustain-

able tourism (pp. 83–94). Southampton, UK: WIT Press.

Pforr, C. (2006a). Tourism Administration in the Northern

Territory in the era of CLP governance (1978–2001). Aus-

tralian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1), 61–74.

Pforr, C. (2006b). Tourism policy in the making. A network

perspective from Australia. Annals of Tourism Research,

33(1), 87–102.

Pforr, C. (2008). Tourism in the Northern Territory: Caught in

an intergovernmental quagmire. Public Policy, 3, 159–174.

Pforr, C. (2009). Tourism public policy in the Northern Ter-

ritory of Australia. Köln, Germany: Lambert Academic

Publishing.

Pforr, C. (2015). Tourism public policy in pursuit of sustain-

ability. Discrepancies between rhetoric and reality. In M.

Hughes, D. Weaver, & C. Pforr (Eds.), The practice of

sustainable tourism: Resolving the paradox. New York:

Routledge.

Renn, O. (1992). Risk communication: Towards a rational dis-

course with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials,

29, 465–519.

Ruhanen, L., Scott, N., Ritchie, B., & Tkaczynski, A. (2010).

Governance: A review and synthesis of the literature.

Tourism Review, 65(4), 4–16.

Saul, J. R. (1997). The unconscious civilisation. Ringwood,

Austrlia: Penguin Books Australia Ltd.

Schumpeter, J. (1976). Capitalism, socialism, and democ-

racy (5th ed.). London: Allen & Unwin.

Healy, N., Rau, H., & McDonagh, J. (2012). Collaborative

tourism planning in Ireland: Tokenistic consultation and

the politics of participation. Journal of Environmental

Policy & Planning, 14(4), 450–471.

John, P., & Cole, A. (2000). When do institutions, policy

sectors and cities matter? Comparing networks of local

policy makers in Britain and France. Comparative Politi-

cal Studies, 22(2), 248–268.

Kasperson, R. E. (1986). Six propositions for public partici-

pation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk

Analysis, 6(3), 116–124.

Kooiman, J. (1993). Modern governance: New government–

society interactions. London: Sage Publications.

Laird, F. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and

technological decision making. Science Technology and

Human Values, 18(3), 341–361.

Laurian, L., & Shaw, M. M. (2009). Evaluation of public par-

ticipation. Journal of Planning Education and Research,

28, 293–309.

Lew, A. (2007). Invited commentary: Tourism planning and

traditional urban planning theory—The planner as an

agent of social change. Leisure/Loisir, 31(2), 383–391.

Mahjabeen, Z., Shresha, K. K., & Dee, J. A. (2009). Rethink-

ing community participation in urban planning: The role

of disadvantaged groups in Sydney metropolitan strat-

egy. Australiasian Journal of Regional Studies, 15(1),

45–63.

Marks, J., & Zadoroznyj, M. (2002). From environment to

public health risk: Trust in urban water recycling. Paper

presented at the ISA World Congress of Sociology, Bris-

bane, Queensland, Australia.

McCool, S. F., & Guthrie, K. (2001). Mapping the dimen-

sions of successful public participation in messy natural

resources management situations. Society and Natural

Resources, 14, 309–323.

Moore, S. A. (1996). Defining “successful” environmental

dispute resolution: Case studies from public land plan-

ning in the United States and Australia. Environmental

Impact Assessment Review, 16, 151–169.

Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2009). Tourism and sustainabil-

ity: Development, globalisation and new tourism in the

third world (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Munro-Clarke, M. (1992). Introduction: Citizen participa-

tion—an overview. In M. Munro-Clarke (Ed.), Citizen

participation in government (pp. 13–19). Sydney, Aus-

tralia: Hale & Iremonger.

Murphy, P. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. Lon-

don: Methuen.

Northern Territory Tourist Commission. (1994). Northern

territory tourism development masterplan. A commit-

ment to growth. Darwin, Australia: Author.

Northern Territory Tourist Commission. (2002a). Northern

territory tourism strategic plan—2003–2007. Darwin,

Australia: Author.

Northern Territory Tourist Commission. (2002b). Annual

report 2001/2002. Darwin, Australia: Author.

Northern Territory Tourist Commission. (2002c). Terms of

reference—Strategic plan to guide the development and


Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2005). Col-

laborative policy-making: Local sustainable projects.

Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 325–345.

Volgger, M., & Pechlaner, H. (2014) Requirements for

destination management organizations in destination

governance: Understanding DMO success. Tourism

Management, 41, 64–75.

Walker, K. J. (2001). Uncertainty, epistemic communities

and public policy. In J. W. Handmer, T. W. Norton, &

S. R. Dovers (Eds.), Ecology, uncertainty and policy.

Managing ecosystems for sustainability (pp. 262–290).

Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Ltd.

Webler, T. (1995). “Right” discourse in citizen participation:

An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P.

Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen

participation: Evaluating models for environmental dis-

course. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.

Wesley, A., & Pforr, C. (2010). The governance of coastal

tourism: Unravelling the layers of complexity at Smiths

Beach, Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tour-

ism, 18, 773–792.

Wray, M. (2011). Adopting and implementing a transactive

approach to sustainable tourism planning: Translating

theory into practice. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,

19(4–5), 605–627.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods

(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D., & Thomas-Slayter,

B. (1995). Power process and participation: Tools for

change. London: Intermediate Technology.

Syme, G. J. (1992). When and where does participation

count? In M. Munro-Clarke (Ed.), Citizen participation

in government (pp. 78–98). Sydney, Australia: Hale and

Iremonger.

Theobald, R. (1997). Reworking success: New communities

at the millennium. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society

Publishers.

Timur, S., & Getz, D. (2008) A network perspective on

managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, 20, 445–461.

Tourism NT. (2008). Case study: Impact of the 11 September

2001 terrorist attacks in the US and 14 September col-

lapse of Ansett Airlines. Darwin, Austrlia: Author.

Tourism NT. (2013). Tourism vision 2020: Northern Terri-

tory’s strategy for growth. Darwin, Australia: Author.

Tuler, S., & Webler, T. (1999). Voices from the forest: What

participants expect of a public participation process.

Society and Natural Resources, 12, 437–453.

United Nations General Assembly. (1992). Rio declaration

on environment and development. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil:

Author.

United Nations Division for Sustainable Development.

(1992). Agenda 21. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Author.

the quagmire of stakeholder engagement in tourism …€¦ · deliberative, or discursive, models...

Documents