Local Governments Engagement in Tourism

Transcription

LOCAL
GOVERNMENT’S
ENGAGEMENT IN
TOURISM
Final Report
July 2006
'OVERNMENT¬OF¬3OUTH¬!USTRALIA
3OUTH¬!USTRALIAN¬4OURISM¬#OMMISSION
Local Government Association
of South Australia
South Australia. A Brilliant Blend.
South Australia. A brilliant blend is the State’s new brand, embracing all that we have to offer.
The concept has been developed following extensive research and planning by the South Australian
Tourism Commission, in consultation with a wide range of other government agencies.
South Australia. A brilliant blend builds on the State’s main strength—its wine reputation—without
limiting its focus to wine. In fact, the new brand encapsulates South Australia’s diversity while being
modern, creative and inspiring. It is a brand that all South Australians can be proud of and get behind.
The new brand replaces Discover the Secrets of South Australia in the State’s tourism marketing
campaigns, and will also be used by a range of other government agencies in promoting South
Australia.
South Australia. A brilliant blend marks the beginning of an exciting new era in marketing the State as a
holiday and travel destination. We look forward to ensuring everyone discovers the ‘brilliant blend’ that is
South Australia.
For further information about South Australia. A brilliant blend:
http://www.tourism.sa.gov.au/publications/Publications/PDFDocument/BrandSA_handbook.pdf
For further information about the results of this survey:
Ben Clark
Policy and Planning
South Australian Tourism Commission
Ph: 8463 4598
Email: [email protected]
Published by the South Australian Tourism Commission, Adelaide, South Australia
© South Australian Tourism Commission, 2006
ISBN 0-9579506-4-0
Cover: Children at Port Willunga, © South Australian Tourism Commission
This document may be cited as “South Australian Tourism Commission, 2006, Local Government’s
Engagement in Tourism: Final Report, Adelaide, South Australia”
This publication is printed on recycled paper
Local Government’s Engagement in Tourism
July 2006
Foreword
South Australia’s tourism industry generated $3.7 billion in 2004/05, with significant employment
benefits for the State. Besides the apparent economic impact, tourism can also be a catalyst for
community development, bringing environmental, social and cultural benefits as well.
As a dynamic and growing sector of the economy, tourism provides opportunities and presents
challenges, particularly for Local Government, as the provider and manager of infrastructure and
services so often utilised by visitors as well as residents. As the guardian of the ‘showroom’, Local
Government often plays an important role in the overall visitor experience; therefore it is important to
understand the issues this presents.
In recognition of this, the South Australian Tourism Commission (SATC) and Local Government
Association of South Australia (LGA) are forging a stronger partnership to help build sustainable
tourism. This is intended to include a number of priority projects designed to improve the delivery of
strategic tourism and economic development related initiatives for the benefit of Local Government and
the tourism industry.
The first of these projects is the Engagement in Tourism survey, which explored Local Government’s
involvement in a wide range of areas relating to tourism, including the integration of tourism related
responsibilities within council, strategic planning and implementing tourism strategies, as well as
resourcing and assisting the industry in promotion and management of tourism.
The survey response rate of 72 percent was itself a strong indicator of Local Government’s tourism
engagement. Through highlighting strengths of Local Government, as well as areas for improvement,
this survey provides a valuable tool from which to base decisions in building a sustainable tourism
industry for South Australia.
W T (Bill) Spurr
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TOURISM COMMISSION
Wendy Campana
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (SOUTH AUSTRALIA)
South Australian Tourism Commission and Local Government Association
i
July 2006
Executive Summary
The inaugural Engagement in Tourism survey was initiated to provide a benchmark of Local
Government performance in their tourism related responsibilities. In doing so, it intended to highlight
strengths and areas for improvement.
There were numerous positive findings from the survey, notably the unanimous agreement (amongst
surveyed Councils) that tourism offered future economic development opportunities for their Council
area. A majority also considered tourism to be a significant industry in their council area, and agreed
they could play a more supportive role in tourism.
The key strengths of Local Government’s tourism role that emerged from the survey were:
−
Council relationships with external stakeholders in its tourism related capacity, particularly
Regional Marketing Associations, was perceived to be highly effective;
−
the high proportion of Councils that had incorporated tourism into their Strategic Management
Plans, indicating acknowledgement that tourism is part of their broader strategic role, and
−
the support offered by Councils to their tourism industry, either directly eg. Events support, or
indirectly, eg. maintenance of infrastructure and service provision.
The areas for improvement for Local Government tourism engagement that arose from the survey
were:
−
Councils internal coordination of tourism responsibilities ie. how Council organises its internal
structure to facilitate its role in tourism;
−
the need for development of tourism strategies within Councils, and increased use of
performance measurement to gauge the success of Councils tourism strategies and plans, and
−
resource provision for items of strategic importance, such as planning and regional marketing.
These findings will inform the development of an LGA Tourism Policy and subsequent Tourism Strategy,
in addition to providing a clearer understanding of where the issues, priorities and opportunities are for
Local Government in relation to tourism.
On request, each Council will be provided with a comparative analysis of their involvement in tourism
against the State average, and the average for their particular tourism region, which will identify areas of
excellence as well as those areas requiring further consideration.
The response from Victorian Local Government to a similar survey, undertaken by Tourism Alliance
Victoria, has been positive. Regional Councils in particular have improved the integration of tourism with
other Council roles since the first survey. To help drive similar progress here, a series of actions have
been developed to target key areas for improvement. To monitor change future surveys will be
conducted at triennial intervals, with the next to be conducted in 2008.
ii
July 2006
Table of Contents
FOREWORD..............................................................................................................................................I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................II
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. IV
1. THE CHANGING NATURE OF TOURISM ...........................................................................................1
2. SUSTAINABLE TOURISM - THE ROLE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT .............................................4
2.1 WHAT DEFINES SUSTAINABLE TOURISM?..............................................................................................4
2.2 THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT .....................................................................................................7
2.3 THE ROLE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ..................................................................................................7
3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 10
3.1 SURVEY OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 FOCUS GROUP ...............................................................................................................................10
3.3 SURVEY STRUCTURE ....................................................................................................................... 10
3.4 SURVEY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 11
4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 INTEGRATION .................................................................................................................................. 13
4.2 STRATEGIC PLANNING ..................................................................................................................... 18
4.3 EXTERNAL COORDINATION ............................................................................................................... 21
4.4 COMMITMENT ................................................................................................................................. 24
4.5 RESOURCE PROVISION..................................................................................................................... 29
4.6 INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................. 38
5. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 43
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................................... 45
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT IN TOURISM SURVEY FORM ............................................................... 45
EXPENDITURE AREA .............................................................................................................................. 50
iii
July 2006
List of Tables
Page
Table 3.1
Categorisation of survey questions
12
Table 4.1
Respondent Councils by Tourism Region
14
Table 4.2
Five most identified Tourism themes and attributes
15
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1
Domestic visitation to Gateway destinations vs. Regional Australia
(Dec. 2003 – Sept. 2005)
Figure 2.1
2
The relationship between Sustainable Tourism, Nature-based tourism
and Ecotourism
5
Figure 2.2
Local Government Areas in South Australia
9
Figure 4.1
Other Council Plans that feature Tourism
16
Figure 4.2
Aspects of tourism in Council Plans
17
Figure 4.3
Tourism in Council Structure
20
Figure 4.4
Number of Areas within Council with Tourism function
20
Figure 4.5
Council’s working relationship with external stakeholders
22
Figure 4.6
Organisations that Councils contribute to in a tourism-related capacity
23
Figure 4.7
Councils that employ staff with a focus on tourism
25
Figure 4.8
Volunteers assisting Council in a tourism-related capacity
25
Figure 4.9
Strategic Priorities for Councils
27
Figure 4.10
Service Priorities for Councils
28
Figure 4.11
Average financial investments relating to tourism (2003/04)
32
Figure 4.12
Expenditure on Tourism per Rateable Property ($)
33
Figure 4.13
Tourism Expenditure as a Percentage of Council’s Total Operating Expenses
(2003/04)
33
Figure 4.14
Council’s expenditure on Staff (2003/04)
35
Figure 4.15
Council’s Total Contributions to Tourism Organisations (2003/04)
35
Figure 4.16
Total Expenditure of Councils on Visitor Information Centres (2003/04)
36
Figure 4.17
Total Expenditure on Tourism Works – Infrastructure (2003/04)
37
iv
July 2006
1. The changing nature of tourism
As a dynamic, growing industry, tourism can make a positive contribution to economic development. In
the Australian context, tourism contributes approximately seven percent of Gross National Product
(GNP) and employs roughly 550,000 workers. International arrivals are forecast to grow by 5.6 percent
per annum to 9m by 2014, whilst domestic tourism (Australians travelling within Australia) is expected to
grow at 0.9 percent annually (Tourism Australia, 2005b).
Whilst the growth predictions appear promising, recent trends suggest this will not automatically
translate to increased travel across the nation. The trends indicate a steady decline in domestic leisure
travel, which comprises the majority of tourism within Australia, with regional areas being worst affected.
The industry is faced with several significant challenges, particularly within the domestic leisure travel
segment, that will influence the extent of tourism growth (and in some cases, decline):
−
Higher levels of personal and household debt (housing debt particularly among Sydney and
Melbourne residents and credit card debt generally);
−
Changing household consumption patterns (with increases in areas such as Communications,
Household Goods, Furnishings and Health);
−
A decline in the affordability and competitiveness of domestic travel (appears to be most
pertinent for young singles and older non-working people);
−
Leakage from domestic to outbound holidays (particularly among young and midlife singles and
couples along with residents of Sydney and Melbourne); and
−
Changes to the labour market making domestic travel more difficult (includes increased
casualisation of the workforce and continuing long working hours).
(Tourism Research Australia, 2005a, p1)
Additional factors that are particularly affecting South Australia as a destination include the emergence
of low cost airlines, such as Jetstar, offering cheap city-to-city flights, and the increasing price of petrol.
Both these pricing pressures discourage long touring holidays and make flying to a destination relatively
more attractive, particularly for short break holidays. This has led to a significant decline in visitation for
regional areas, with remote areas being particularly hard-hit (Figure 1.1 illustrates this trend over the two
years to September 2005).
1
July 2006
Figure 1.1 – Domestic visitation to Gateway destinations vs. Regional Australia (Dec. 2003 –
Sept. 2005)
Source: National Visitor Survey, 2005
The majority of these factors seem likely to persist at least in the medium term, which may result in the
competitiveness of the sector continuing to deteriorate. Therefore it is imperative that regions think
critically about their tourism offering, and how it relates to the experience sought after by their target
market.
1
This South Australian Strategic Plan Tourism Implementation Action Plan outlined five Critical Success
Factors that must be addressed if the tourism industry is to achieve the SASP tourism target (T1.13—
increasing visitor expenditure from $3.4 billion in 2001 to $5 billion in 2008).
Of these factors, three are considered most relevant to Local Government:
SA Brand
The recent development of the collegiate South Australia. A brilliant blend brand is one of the keys to
positioning the State in the global marketplace. This collegiate approach involves each of the regions
reinforcing the brand through all their promotion, as well as key State agencies with an interstate or
international presence (eg. PIRSA, Arts SA).
Product Development
2
Like any business sector, tourism cannot market static product in a highly competitive and changing
marketplace. The SA Brand must be strengthened by fresh and exciting experiences, holiday ‘product’
and events to keep pace with interstate and international competitors.
1
2
Copies of this document will be made available on request
‘Product’ in the tourism sense is broadly defined as the facilities (eg. accommodation) and services (eg. cultural tours, restaurants)
that facilitate tourism experiences, for which the visitor generally pays for.
2
July 2006
Positive Policy Framework
There is a need for a far more positive policy framework where the ‘rules’ (ie. Council Development
Plans) are aligned with the vision for tourism. This is particularly evident than in the area of naturebased tourism, as policy has tended to discourage tourism development in high quality natural settings.
This is a problem because experience of nature is a major motivator for travel however, research clearly
shows that SA is the State least associated with having nature experiences. This can be attributed to the
paucity of iconic products that facilitate the experience of nature, which perpetuates a perception that
the State lacks high quality natural settings.
The South Australian Tourism Plan 2003-2008, the Sustainable Tourism Package, Regional Strategic
Planning for Tourism program and the Design Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism Development have all
3
been designed to help address this situation in an environmentally responsible manner .
In addition to these three, the two remaining critical success factors are increased Air Access
(particularly direct inbound flights) and Industry Maturity (reducing the reliance of the industry on
Government ie. SATC) in terms of capacity building.
None of these five critical success factors can be addressed in isolation if South Australia’s tourism
industry is to compete internationally and grow market share. Their inter-dependency means they must
be tackled together and in a collaborative manner by those partners with a role in tourism. As one of
these partners, Local Government has a vital role to play, as outlined in Section 2.
3
Hard copies of each of these documents can be provided on request, or electronic copies can be accessed via
http://www.tourism.sa.gov.au/tourism/default.asp
3
July 2006
2. Sustainable Tourism - the role for Local Government
The travel and tourism industry has undergone significant changes in the past century, particularly with
the introduction of affordable air travel. Over the same timeframe, there have been significant changes
to the global environment. This has caused a realisation that we need to reconsider how we live if we
are to minimise the scale and rate of these changes.
Whilst it is often hard to distinguish the impacts of tourism from those of the general service economy,
there is a move to better manage the impacts that are apparent and understand those that are less
obvious (Brown, 1998, p.50). Areas where tourism's impact can be distinguished include visitor
attractions, passenger transport and accommodation whilst the less obvious ones may include
development pressure and biodiversity loss.
The world's tourism industry leaders recognise that tourism, like any industry, can have environmental
(and social) impacts and have instilled sustainability as a key goal for the industry. Local Government,
through the provision of infrastructure and services, often used by visitors as well as residents, has an
important role to play in helping the tourism industry attain this goal. The adoption of a sustainability
framework in Council practice: from essential services, such as waste management, to higher level
strategic direction, eg. planning policy that supports sustainable tourism development, can make a
significant difference to the localised impacts of tourism.
2.1 What defines sustainable tourism?
Various definitions of sustainable tourism have been promulgated by various tourism organisations and
institutions, some of which portrayed it as a niche segment within the overall tourism market—
mistakenly confusing it with ecotourism. The overarching objective for sustainable tourism is to make all
tourism sustainable, whether it be small-scale ecotourism or high-volume hotels or tour operators.
Sustainable tourism is based on the principles for sustainable development, and is simply defined by the
World Tourism Organisation (WTO) as tourism that:
“meets the present needs of tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for
the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic,
social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological
processes, biological diversity and life support systems.”
World Tourism Organisation, 2003
The terms ‘sustainable tourism’, ‘nature-based tourism’ and ‘ecotourism’ are often used interchangeably
however they are not the same. As shown in Figure 2.1, sustainable tourism is concerned with making
the entire tourism industry sustainable, whilst the latter two are segments of the broader tourism market
that primarily offer experiences in a relatively natural setting.
4
Figure 2.1
July 2006
The relationship between Sustainable Tourism, Nature-based tourism and
Ecotourism
The concept of sustainability lies at the heart of the South Australian Tourism Plan 2003-2008. The
Sustainable Tourism Package, comprising 16 aligned projects and initiatives to help the industry move toward
sustainability, is guided by twelve clear principles, based on the Triple Bottom Line (i.e. on economic, social
and environmental indicators). These are outlined below:
1)
Being different
Achieving a clear sense of difference from other competing destinations. This can be achieved by basing
tourism development and marketing on the inherent attributes and strengths of the destination.
2)
Achieving authenticity
The attractions most likely to be successful, and those with the greatest enduring appeal, are those
which are genuinely relevant to the history, industry, culture lifestyle and natural resources of the region.
3)
Reflecting community values
The most effective way to ensure authenticity is to understand, conserve and enhance the values of the
community. This means representing the past, present and future aspirations of the local community in a
living and dynamic way, rather than ‘embalming’ the past.
4)
Understanding and targeting the market
Understanding the broad market trends and the needs of specific segment(s) is critical. This involves the
development of specialised products based on the inherent attributes of an area.
5
5)
July 2006
Enhancing the experience
People’s motivation for travel is ‘change’ - to seek something they cannot experience at home. The
‘bundling’ of attributes enhances the appeal of a place, and the likelihood of visitation. This achieves a
greater choice of accessible things for the visitor to see and do and a greater critical mass for economic
viability.
6)
Adding value
This can include small to medium scale accommodation facilities, small-scale sales outlets, eating and
other hospitality services in association with established industries (e.g. wine growing, aquaculture, food
production etc). This adds to the experience of visitors and helps to diversify the local economy.
7)
Respecting natural and cultural values
Sustainable tourism development derives its form, character, operation and appeal from these qualities,
and in doing so adds to the special nature of the destination. Tourism should also aim to reduce its
‘ecological footprint’, where practical, in terms of resource use and other broader impacts.
8)
Achieving conservation outcomes
A mutually beneficial alliance can be achieved between the economics of tourism and conservation. That
is, through understanding and enjoyment comes greater appreciation and empathy, advocacy and
protection for the resource.
9)
Having good ‘content’ (‘telling the story’)
Tourism development can interpret (present and explain) natural, social, historic and ecological features.
Telling the story provides a rewarding experience for the visitor and helps conserve the destination.
10) Achieving excellence and innovation in design
Good design respects the resource, achieves conservation outcomes, reflects community values, and is
instrumental in telling the story. It should also invoke an emotional response from the visitor by creating a
relatively authentic experience.
11) Providing mutual benefits to visitors and hosts
Tourism is primarily encouraged as an economic and community development tool. It is not encouraged
for its own sake. For tourism to be successful, it must take into account the benefits that both the host
community and the visitor seek. Only when the local community is a willing host is tourism likely to
present a welcoming face, grow and be sustainable.
12) Building local capacity
Successful tourism businesses are not isolated from their community but collaborate with other
businesses and stakeholders to build a positive and self-sufficient capacity within the destination
and beyond.
6
July 2006
2.2 The South Australian context
Local Government in South Australia has undergone significant structural change over the past decade,
which is evidenced in the amalgamations of many Councils, resulting in a reduction from 121 in 1996 to
the current 68. A map indicating Local Government boundaries at the time of this report is provided as
Figure 2.2.
Over that time Councils have become responsible for a variety of functions that were traditionally
handled at the State or Federal level. This has arisen from a number of factors, including raised
community expectations and legislative changes.
With diminishing resources and a limited revenue base, Councils are increasingly aware of applying a
strategic focus to spending priorities, seeking to direct resources where they will produce the most
benefit for their community. In some cases this may include projects beyond their immediate
boundaries, for a regionally significant investment. This is supported at the Federal level, where
Government funding has increasingly been tied to regional outcomes, and at the State level, which has
sought alignment of Local policies to the State Strategic Plan objectives.
The recent report commissioned by the LGA, ‘Rising To The Challenge: Towards Financially
Sustainable Local Government in South Australia’, highlighted that Councils have some strategic
decisions to make regarding financial governance and asset management. The implications of this for
local government in tourism will be discussed as part of the analysis of questions relating to resource
commitment (Section 4.5).
2.3 The role for Local Government
Many governments around the world have sought, to varying degrees, to instil sustainability within their
tourism sector. Much of this effort has been driven from a national, state or regional level, however the
involvement of local government is critical given the influence that their functions, such as land-use
planning and environmental regulation, can have on the sector (WTO, 2005, p.23).
Maintaining and projecting an attractive tourism destination is largely dependent on three factors:
positive destination image and experience, safety and security, and, fundamentally, the overall
environmental quality. On this basis, the role of local government can have a profound influence on the
success of its local tourism industry, and plays a part in conserving the very asset on which it’s future
depends.
The considerable interaction between the visitor, tourism operators, as well as the environment and host
community, also provides opportunities for local government to contribute to sustainable tourism. Unlike
most industries, tourism can raise the awareness of sustainability issues, for both visitors and hosts. For
visitors, this can often influence their behaviour on return to ‘everyday’ life, while for hosts; it can instil a
desire to improve on current practices (WTO, 2005, p.9).
The increase in devolved responsibility, particularly in areas such as environmental management, aged
care services, and community programs, has placed additional pressures on Council resources. Many
local governments have also broadened their responsibility in the area of economic development, with
7
July 2006
tourism seen as a catalyst for growth. In terms of tourism management, there is a small, but growing,
body of research on the performance of Local Government. In Australia, this includes Visitor Information
Centre data, various management models, and the Victorian model ‘Local Government Health Check’,
on which this survey is based.
Research indicates that the role of Local Government as a player in facilitating sustainable tourism
broadly involves:
−
Strategic Planning
−
Marketing and Promotion
−
Data Collection (largely through Visitor Information Centres)
−
Sponsorship
−
Economic Development
−
Visitor Services
−
Development Control (Zoning through Development Plans, By-laws)
−
Public land management
−
Capacity Building for Community
Managing these roles requires collaboration with operators in the industry, community, visitors and allied
public sector agencies, such as State Tourism Organisations and Economic Development Boards.
Local Government’s capacity to provide for tourism—as a land use and an activity—whilst managing it
sustainably, will be affected by a number of issues, including: isolation, resources (financial and
physical), community acceptance and governance. The intent of this survey has been to identify where
these issues are, or might be, hindering existing and future tourism within a region.
8
Figure 2.2
July 2006
Local Government Areas of South Australia
Source: Australian Local Government Association, 2006
9
July 2006
3. Survey Methodology
As mentioned previously, the survey draws on earlier work undertaken by the Country Victoria Tourism
Council—the Local Government Tourism Health Check—that commenced in 2002 and was repeated in
2005. This has been positively received by Local Government, with many Councils achieving
measurable improvement over the subsequent three year period.
The survey was adapted for South Australia and forwarded to all Councils, requesting that the CEO
either complete the form or review it prior to lodgement so that the response was reflective of Council’s
position, rather than that of one officer.
3.1 Survey Objectives
The survey was conducted with three objectives in mind:
−
Establish a range of indicators relevant to Local Government engagement in tourism;
−
Provide a benchmark of current resourcing and policy development, which can be measured over
time, and
−
Identify Local Government’s tourism strengths as well as opportunities and priorities for
enhancement of tourism capacity.
These findings are expected to inform the development of a clearer LGA Tourism Policy and
subsequent Local Government Tourism Strategy. The findings will also assist the SATC, through the
Integrated Regional Strategic Tourism Planning process currently being undertaken through a
partnership between the SATC and regional Councils.
3.2 Focus Group
During 2004, a trial survey was tested on a focus group, consisting of seven Councils from metropolitan
and regional South Australia. The feedback received as part of this process was instructive in adapting
the survey for broader dissemination. Councils were selected on the basis of perceived level of tourism
engagement, which included:
•
Whether they have a tourism plan or if tourism is a key part of Council’s Strategic Management
Plan
•
Whether they have a tourism officer
•
Inclusion of ‘tourism’ as a key part of Council website
•
Their relationship with regional tourism groups
3.3 Survey Structure
The format was derived from the Local Government Tourism Health Check, and at the pilot stage,
closely resembled it in content. Following the outcomes from the pilot, a number of refinements were
made, with the survey ending up being 20 questions (the final version is provided as Appendix A).
10
July 2006
Based on the capacity dimensions identified in Section 2.4. A series of questions were used to indicate
the performance relative to each, as identified in Table 1.1 (overleaf).
3.4 Survey Analysis
For the purpose of analysing the findings of this survey, six areas of influence (also referred to as
capacity dimensions) within the structure of Local Government have been identified:
I
Integration (within Council)
S
Strategic Planning
E
External Coordination (with Stakeholders and Industry)
C
Commitment to Implementation
R
Resource provision
N
Industry involvement
Each of the questions has been allocated to one of the dimensions (refer Table 3.1, overleaf), and is
consistent with the categories used in the Victorian model, which will allow for a degree of comparability.
Questions 1, 9, 12 and 15 asked Councils to rank, from 1 to 5, their level of agreement or priority on a
particular issue or their role in tourism relative to their Council area. In all cases a score of one was the
lowest possible ranking with three indicating neutrality and five being the highest.
There were several questions that did not fit neatly into the six defined categories, but which provided
valuable qualitative information about how Council perceives tourism as an industry in its area. The
analyses of these questions have been included in the categories to which they are most relevant.
11
July 2006
Table 3.1 – Categorisation of survey questions
Capacity
dimension
Question
I
Integration
1v. Tourism is a priority industry for Council;
1vi. Coordination of tourism responsibilities within Council;
1a and b The key tourism themes and attributes within the Council
area
6. Incorporation of tourism into Council’s Strategic Management Plan;
7. Other Council plans that feature tourism; and
8. Aspects of tourism covered in Council plan/s.
S
Strategic
Planning
1ii. Tourism offers future economic development opportunities;
1i. and iii Tourism significance - net positive or net negative impact
for Council;
2.Whether Council has a tourism plan or strategy;
2a. When Tourism Plan was developed and last updated;
3. Is Council associated with any other Tourism Plan?
9i. Council promotes the concept of sustainable tourism
development;
9ii. Council’s Development Plan encourages sustainable tourism
development; and
10. Where tourism fits into Council’s organisational structure.
E
External
Coordination
12. Effectiveness of Council’s working relationship with
tourism/development organisations; and
13. Tourism/ economic development organisations Council
contributes to;
C
Commitment
5. Performance measurement for the Tourism Plan/s;
11. Whether Council employs staff with tourism focus;
14c. Whether Council coordinates major events or festivals; and
15. Council’s priorities with respect to its role in tourism.
R
Resource
provision
1iv. Tourism is a burden on Council resources;
11. Staff numbers (Full-time, Part-time, and volunteers);
13. Council contributions to tourism related bodies; and
16. Total Tourism Budget - relative to Council population.
N
Industry
involvement
14. Council assistance to tourism industry;
14a. Types of assistance offered by Council;
14b. Industry uptake of assistance in past year;
17. What Council considers to be the major benefits of tourism in its
area
18. Major problems or issues that tourism presents to Council
19a. How Council could better support tourism, and
19b. Ways to overcome these barriers
12
July 2006
4. Results
The survey was conducted over 3 months, from March to June, to allow Councils adequate time to
compile their responses, recognising that for many a number of staff would need to be involved.
The overall response rate was 72 percent (49 of 68 Councils) with a breakdown of 60 percent of
metropolitan and 75 percent of regional Councils responding. This was in line with expectations, based
on the response rate for the recent Victorian survey (2005), which was 80 percent, with regional
Councils at 87.5 percent: both these rates have increased from previous surveys. It is hoped that future
South Australian surveys will see a similar increase as this, in itself, is an indicator of Local
Government’s engagement in tourism.
To ensure the confidentiality of results for individual Councils, the survey findings are reported in the
aggregate, with no Councils individually identified. As part of the next stage of reporting, participant
Councils can request a summarised version of their results against State and regional averages. To
maintain confidentiality, where less than three Councils have responded for a region, regional results will
not be provided (this applies to the Adelaide Hills and Kangaroo Island regions).
As identified in Table 3.1, the questions are grouped according to the relevant capacity dimension,
rather than in sequential order, to allow performance for each indicator to be benchmarked.
4.1 Integration
This indicator looks at the level of integration within Councils with respect to tourism – from their
perception of the industry as a priority to the incorporation of tourism within key Council plans. This is an
important dimension of tourism capacity as it demonstrates a strategic view of the industry, rather than
narrowing its focus to a single officer or unit.
Perception of Tourism (Q 1.v)
Councils were asked to rate the extent to which they considered tourism to be a priority industry within
their area, on a ‘level of agreement’ scale of one to five (with one being strongly disagree, three being
neutral and five being strongly agree). A majority of Councils (65%) agreed, (ie. considered tourism to
4
be a priority) with only a minority (14%) disagreeing (ie. did not consider tourism to be a priority).
Coordination of Tourism within Council (Q 1.vi)
Only 47 percent agreed that there was good coordination of tourism responsibilities within their Council.
With a third of Councils neutral, and 20 percent disagreeing, there is a requirement for education on
what constitutes best practice in this regard. Responses on the extent to which tourism is covered in
Councils’ plans do however suggest a greater level of coordination than the response to this question
(refer below for analysis of questions 6 through 8).
4
References to agreed are inclusive of ‘agreed and strongly agreed’ and vice versa for disagreed.
13
July 2006
Table 4.1 – Respondent Councils by Tourism Region
Region
Council
Adelaide
Adelaide
Campbelltown
Charles Sturt
Holdfast Bay
Norwood Payneham and St Peters
Mitcham
Port Adelaide
Salisbury
Tea Tree Gully
Walkerville
Adelaide Hills
Barossa
Gawler
Light Regional
Clare and Gilbert Valleys
Goyder
Mallala#
Wakefield#
Ceduna
Cleve
Franklin Harbour
Le Hunte
Port Lincoln
Tumby Bay
Whyalla
Alexandrina
Onkaparinga
Victor Harbor
Flinders Ranges
Mt Remarkable
Northern Areas
Orroroo Carrieton
Outback Areas^
Peterborough
Kangaroo Island
Coorong#
Grant
Kingston
Mount Gambier
Robe
Tatiara
Coorong#
Mid-Murray
Southern Mallee
Berri Barmera
Loxton Waikerie
Mid-Murray
Renmark Paringa
Copper Coast
Barunga West
Mallala#
Wakefield#
Yorke Peninsula
Adelaide Hills
Barossa
Clare Valley
Eyre Peninsula
Fleurieu Peninsula
Flinders and
Outback
Kangaroo Island
Limestone Coast
Murraylands
Riverland
Yorke Peninsula
Response Rate
(%)
67
50
100
100
64
75
71
100
78
60
100
100
# - Councils represented in more than one tourism region
^ - Outback Areas is not a Council under the auspices of the Local Government Act 1999, but a statutory authority administered by the
State.
14
July 2006
What Councils consider are the key tourism themes and attributes within their area (Q.1a and 1b)
This question was posed as a reference-check against themes identified in Regional Marketing
Strategies, and may be used as part of SWOT analysis for future strategic planning. The five most
commonly identified themes and attributes are noted below:
Table 4.2 –Five most identified Tourism themes and attributes
Theme
No.
Attribute
No.
Heritage
24
Coast
13
Coast
20
National Parks
12
Food
18
Heritage
12
Wine
15
Wine
10
Environment
10
Museum
9
It is significant to note that while the coast, environment and National Parks all rated strongly, these are
elements of the South Australian experience that are not well recognised by interstate markets5. Also of
note is that Trails, Boating and Walking also received a high number of responses.
Incorporation into Council Plans (Q 6 through 8)
There are three questions relating to tourism in Council plans or strategic documents. This section deals
with broader Council plans whereas the following section (4.2) examines tourism-specific plans and
development plans.
Tourism has been comprehensively incorporated into the Strategic Management Plans of 14 Councils
(29%) and to some extent in 32 Councils (65%). Taken as an aggregate (94%), this indicates a high
level of acknowledgement of tourism as part of Council’s broader responsibilities.
There were 20 Councils (41%) with plans other than the Strategic Management Plan in which tourism is
featured (discussed in detail under Section 4.2), as well as 11 Councils with stand-alone tourism plans
(and five that were developing theirs). Encouragingly, all but two of the 15 Councils that have, or are
developing, tourism-specific plans had tourism featured in at least one other Council Plan.
Of the 20 Councils that had other plans featuring tourism (besides the Strategic Management Plan), the
majority were found in Business and Corporate Plans, as illustrated in Figure 4.1 (overleaf). Plans listed
under ‘Other’ included site-specific management plans where tourism was a key issue, such as Visitor
Information Centres (VIC). Interestingly, 16 of the 20 Councils did not have a tourism-specific plan.
Only one Council did not mention tourism in any form of plan. On face value, this would suggest that
Councils recognise tourism as part of their broader responsibilities, as evidenced by almost universal
5
As part of the regular Brand Health Study undertaken by the SATC, focus groups in Melbourne and Sydney are asked to rank each
state on their relative strength on key themes. For Coastal and Nature-based experiences (two separate themes) SA is ranked last
and second last, respectively, with considerably lower recognition than ‘top of mind’ states, such as Queensland and New South
Wales.
15
July 2006
incorporation of tourism in at least one strategic document. It does bear mention, however, that there
has been no measurement of the quality of these inclusions (ie. tourism might only be referenced once
or it may not give the necessary direction required).
Figure 4.1 - Other Council Plans that feature Tourism
Number
10
8
6
4
2
O
th
er
VI
In
C
fra
st
ru
ct
ur
e
R
ec
re
at
io
C
n
ul
tu
ra
lP
la
n
Ev
en
ts
C
om
m
un
it y
Bu
si
ne
ss
C
or
po
ra
te
Ec
on
.D
ev
t
0
Council Plans
Aspects of Tourism in Council Plans (Q.8)
In asking what aspects of tourism were covered in Council plans, it was intended to gain a clearer
understanding of what Local Government perceives as its major responsibilities in planning for tourism.
Of the nine options presented, there are four areas that recorded a majority (>50%) response:
−
Working with Tourism Partners – 65%
−
Development Opportunities – 61%
−
Infrastructure – 61%, and
−
Marketing – 57%
Refer Figure 4.2 for results on the remaining five categories.
These correlate closely with the responses for question 15 (analysed in Section 4.3), where Councils
identified their tourism priorities (although it is noted that the categories aren’t completely identical). In
6
question 15, Councils identified infrastructure, positive planning policies and liaison with Regional
Marketing Associations as their three highest priorities.
A majority of Councils (55%) identified marketing as a priority, which was similar to those that included it
in their plans (57%). As a subjective response, the survey does not provide a benchmark of the quality
or consistency of the work that Councils undertake (ie. relative to the State or regional tourism direction).
6
For the purposes of cross-referencing, Development Opportunities and Policy are considered to be similar in that both are likely to
be included within Council Development Plans and related Strategic Plans.
16
July 2006
r
th
e
O
y
or
pp
to
en
W
In
fra
st
ru
ct
ur
e
m
el
op
ev
D
lic
en
Ev
d
an
iv
st
Fe
Po
ts
t
en
al
s
M
an
ag
em
to
r
M
ar
ke
tin
Vi
si
tu
ni
(A
tie
m
s
en
or
ki
iti
ng
es
,p
w
ith
ar
ks
to
)
ur
is
m
pa
rtn
er
s
At
tra
ct
io
ns
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
g
Number of Plans
Figure 4.2 - Aspects of tourism in Council
Plans
Key findings
a)
While a majority of Councils (65%) agreed that tourism is a priority industry within their area, less
than half (47%) of Councils considered their coordination of tourism responsibilities to be ‘good’.
Action: Informing Councils that recorded a negative or neutral response to question 1vi about what
constitutes ‘best-practice’ in terms of coordination of tourism responsibilities.
b)
The extent to which tourism is covered in Council plans—94% have incorporated it into their
Strategic Management Plans, and 41% include it in other plans—suggest that it is ‘on the radar’ for
most Councils.
Action: Assisting Councils that have not incorporated tourism comprehensively into their Strategic
Management Plans when these are next reviewed.
c)
Tourism has been incorporated, either comprehensively or to some extent, in the Strategic
Management Plans of 46 Councils (94%)
Action: Establish criteria for what constitutes ‘comprehensive’ and ‘to some extent’ incorporation of
tourism in Strategic Management Plans. Audit a selection of plans to determine whether Council
perceptions match criteria.
Strong Performers
−
Alexandrina
−
Barossa
−
Holdfast Bay
−
Port Adelaide Enfield
17
July 2006
4.2 Strategic Planning
This refers to the degree of long-term planning (ie. beyond the immediate financial year), which Councils
have dedicated to tourism. This is firstly gauged through the perception that Councils have of the
opportunities tourism offers, as well as the current net impact, before exploring the content of plans that
influence tourism development and management.
Tourism as an opportunity (Q.1ii)
Councils unanimously agreed, with 57 percent strongly agreeing, that the tourism industry offered future
economic development opportunities within their area. In terms of the current impact tourism has on
Council resources, only 24 percent considered tourism to be a burden with a further 30 percent
considering the impact on Council resources to be neutral.
Economic impact of Tourism (Q.1.i, iii and iv)
There were three questions seeking to gauge Council’s perception of the net economic impact of
tourism within their Council areas and specifically on their resources.
The first question was phrased to ascertain whether Council considered tourism to already be significant
within their area, and if so, whether it had a positive impact. The response to this was considered to be
positive, with 73 percent agreement, and only 16 percent disagreement.
By slightly rephrasing the question and asking Councils whether tourism was perceived to have a net
negative impact it was intended to see whether the response rate differed. In this regard, a similar rate
of support was recorded—with 76 percent disagreement—however it is notable that only one council
considered tourism to have a negative impact. Taken together, these results indicate a general
acknowledgement that tourism is a positive force within the majority of Councils that responded.
In terms of whether tourism presented a burden to Councils, the response was mixed, with 45 percent
considering it did not, 31 percent neutral and 24 percent considering it did. This indicates that despite
many Councils perceiving their resources to be burdened, they could see the broader benefits of tourism
for the businesses in their area.
Proportion of Councils with Tourism-specific Plans (Q.2)
Eleven Councils (22%) have a Tourism Plan or Strategy, with a further four Councils (10%) developing
one at the time of the survey. Whilst this leaves the majority (69%) with no tourism-specific plan, it is
encouraging that almost half of these have plans other than the Strategic Management Plan that do
feature tourism. By comparison, 68 percent of Victorian Councils claimed to have tourism strategies.
Twenty percent of Councils are also associated with other Tourism Plans (excluding Regional Marketing
7
Plans but including completed Integrated Regional Strategic Tourism Plans ).
7
At the time of survey, only the Clare and Barossa IRSTP had been completed.
18
July 2006
Of the 11 Councils that had developed Tourism Plans, all but one had reviewed it within the past three
years. Three years was used as a benchmark, given its widespread acceptance as a timeframe for
strategic planning purposes.
Whether Council’s Development Plan encourages sustainable tourism development (Q.9 i and ii.)
This question asked Councils whether they considered they promoted the concept of sustainable
tourism development, to which 73 percent agreed, however only 63 percent felt this was reinforced
through the Council’s Development Plan. Amongst Victorian Councils, where the question was phrased
— ‘whether Council supported the concept of sustainable tourism management’ — there was only 53
8
percent agreement .
There was a notable degree of neutrality on these questions, with 25 percent considering their Council
neither promoted nor discouraged sustainable tourism development. Twenty-seven percent considered
their Development Plan neither promoted nor discouraged sustainable tourism development. Only one
Council stated that it did not promote sustainable tourism development, however four considered their
Development Plans did not encourage sustainable tourism development (of these, three were regional
Councils).
Again, as a subjective response, the Councils are likely to have varying perceptions of what ‘sustainable
tourism development’ actually entails. In many cases it is not until a best-practice tourism development
actually ‘tests’ the Plan that this can be adequately determined. One of the purposes of the Integrated
Regional Strategic Planning process is to ensure clarity in the Development Plan (as it relates to
tourism), by identifying the region’s likely tourism product, and the planning provisions necessary to
encourage those forms of development, in a sustainable manner.
Where tourism fits into Council’s organisational structure (Q.10)
The importance of tourism to a Council, and the level of integration with broader Council strategy and
policy can be partly gleaned by where it is located within the organisational structure. The formation of a
dedicated tourism unit, or a formal Council committee, are taken as indicators of high strategic value.
The inclusion in Economic Development Units is also considered an indication of high value, due to the
commonality of objectives and outcomes. Incorporation within the Visitor Information Centres is
considered a medium indicator, as it implies a greater focus on services rather than strategy. That said,
it is nonetheless important that Council provides some level of visitor service.
When analysing the results (refer Figure 4.3) it must be remembered that just over half the Councils
surveyed have tourism represented in more than one area, with only four having no tourism
representation at all (as shown on Figure 4.4).
At first glance, it would appear that Visitor Information Centres (n=16) are the favoured unit within
Councils for tourism. However, when looking at the combination of Tourism Unit, Economic
Development and Council Committee (n=19) it is apparent that tourism is given high priority within a
number of Councils. The listings under ‘Other’ are also indicative of a medium priority for tourism, with
8
The Victorian survey did not include a question relating to their Development Plan equivalent – the Municipal Planning Scheme.
19
July 2006
many of these including part-funding of regional tourism development officer positions, representation
on regional tourism committees, and Community Services Departments.
Number of Councils
Figure 4.3 - Tourism in Council Structure
20
15
10
5
0
it
it
e
a
/s
nt
Un
Un
itte
tre
are
me
n
n
m
p
d
m
e
o
s
e
m
lo
ati
tifi
uri
ve
nC
Co
en
cre
To
tio
De
cil
d
e
a
i
n
c
R
ou
mi
No
orm
rk/
no
lC
Inf
Pa
o
a
r
c
E
rm
ito
Fo
Vis
r
he
Ot
Area within Council Structure
Number of Councils
Figure 4.4 - Number of Areas within Council with
Tourism function
25
20
15
10
5
0
None
One
Two
Three
Four
20
July 2006
Key findings
d)
The unanimous agreement amongst Councils that tourism offered future economic development
opportunities, and that only one Council considered tourism to have a net negative impact on their
area is very positive.
Action: None required
e)
Almost a third of Councils have, or are developing, tourism-specific plans, whilst almost half of
those without such plans had tourism featured in at least one other plan besides the Strategic
Management Plan. This indicates a high level of strategic planning for tourism.
Action: Assist Councils of tourism significance that are currently without tourism-specific plans to
develop one, or at least feature it in one other Council plan.
f)
The high degree of neutrality on whether Council’s Development Plan supports sustainable tourism
development indicates there may be a need for education on what sustainable tourism actually
entails. This is a key objective of the Integrated Regional Strategic Tourism Planning process.
Action: Informing Councils that recorded a negative or neutral response to question 9b about what
sustainable tourism entails and how it can be incorporated into their Development Plans.
Action: Auditing the effectiveness of a selection of current planning provisions against regional and
State tourism direction.
Action: Encourage Councils to incorporate principles from Design Guidelines for Sustainable
Tourism Development as part of their Development Plan.
g)
Less than half of Councils have tourism incorporated as a ‘high’ priority within their structure (ie.
Tourism Unit or Council committee), however a majority of the remainder have incorporated it as a
‘medium’ priority (VIC or part-funding regional tourism staff).
Action: Through the Integrated Regional Strategic Tourism Planning process, encourage Councils
to accord tourism a ‘high’ priority within their organisational structures.
Strong Performers
−
Alexandrina
−
Ceduna
−
Holdfast
−
Light
−
Mid-Murray
−
Robe
4.3 External Coordination
Effectiveness of working relationship with external organisations (Q.12)
Council’s working relationships with external tourism and development organisations is considered to be
an important indicator of the coordination of its tourism role on a broader scale.
Of the four organisations listed, a majority of Councils considered their working relationship to be most
effective with the authorities that functioned at a regional scale – Regional Marketing Associations and
Development Boards. The effectiveness of Councils relationships with the remaining two—Local
21
July 2006
Tourism Associations and Other Councils—was just under 50 percent in both cases (although it is noted
that there were higher response rates of ‘Not Applicable’ in both these categories).
Whilst only a minority rated their relationships ineffective (ten percent or less for all cases), when taken
together with the rate of ‘neutral’ responses (ranging from 12 to 27 percent) it can be surmised that there
is scope to further strengthen these relationships.
Figure 4.5 - Council's working relationship with external
stakeholders
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Effective (4 or 5)
Neutral (3)
Ineffective (1 or 2)
Not Applicable
0%
ion ation oard ncils
iat
u
B
c
ci
Co
so
so
nt
s
s
r
e
e
A
A
pm Oth
g
ism velo
tin
r
e
u
e
rk
o
Ma cal T nal D
l
io
na
Lo
eg
gio
R
e
R
Tourism/ economic development organisations that Council contributes to (Q.13)
The contribution (financial or otherwise) of Councils to various tourism and economic development
organisations indicates the commitment of Council support for tourism, beyond the strategic level.
The contribution rate to Regional Marketing Associations was 100 percent amongst regional Councils,
with over 87 percent of regional Councils also contributing to Regional Development Boards.
The contribution rate to Festival or Events Committees was 73 percent for all Councils, which indicates
a willingness to be seen to have a practical, as well as strategic, role in tourism.
Organisations listed under ‘Other’ ranged from smaller operator-based committees or community
development boards (as distinct from local/town tourism authorities), to larger authorities with strategic
importance, such as the Adelaide Convention and Tourism Authority.
22
July 2006
Figure 4.6 - Organisations that Councils contribute to in
a tourism-related capacity
100%
80%
N/A
No
Yes
60%
40%
20%
0%
rd
es
ion
ion
oa
tte
iat
iat
i
B
c
c
m
t
so
so
en
om
As
As
C
m
p
ts
ng
lo
sm
en
eti
ve
uri
v
k
e
r
o
l/E
lD
lT
Ma
na
iva
ca
t
al
o
o
i
s
n
L
g
Fe
gio
Re
Re
r
he
Ot
Key findings
h)
The effectiveness of Councils’ working relationship with Regional Marketing Associations, combined
with the fact that most Councils contribute financially to their functioning, is a strong indicator of
external coordination.
Action: Analyse Council contribution rates toward Regional Marketing for Councils across South
Australia to inform development of future Regional Tourism Funding Agreements.
i)
A number of Councils indicated their desire to work strategically with neighbouring Councils on
tourism-related issues other than marketing. A successful example of this being implemented is the
Clare Valley Tourism Alliance, which addresses issues such as infrastructure requirements,
securing major events and planning policy.
Action: Facilitate improved working relationships on tourism-related issues between Councils and
regional stakeholders through collaborative alliances.
Strong Performers
−
Alexandrina
−
Northern Areas
−
Barossa
−
Orroroo/ Carrieton
−
Le Hunte
−
Outback Areas
−
Light
−
Peterborough
−
Loxton Waikerie
−
Whyalla
−
Mid Murray
23
July 2006
4.4 Commitment
The extent to which Councils follow through on planning initiatives is crucial to the overall success of
tourism within its area. This indicator is closely linked to resource provision (4.5) and seeks to gauge the
commitment of Councils in measuring its performance, providing human resources (paid or voluntary),
event management (or support) and overall priorities in respect to tourism.
Performance measurement (Q.5)
As noted previously, 30 percent of Councils have (or are developing) their own Tourism plans, and a
further 26 percent are associated with Regional Tourism Plans (excluding Regional Marketing Plans). Of
these Councils, 71 percent have performance measurement in place, and of those that did not, 10
percent were in the process of developing measures (as plans were being finalised).
In terms of the techniques used to measure performance there was a clear preference for regular
internal committee meetings, and regular reporting to Council, which recorded eight and seven
responses, respectively. Review of the Corporate or Strategic Management Plan, usually undertaken on
a triennial basis, was noted by five Councils. Other techniques included the review of staff performance
relative to the tourism-specific targets within the relevant plans (n=3), community surveys (n=2),
inclusion in the annual report (n=2) and representation on the Regional Marketing Board (n=2). It is
noted that this question did not provide categories for responses; therefore Councils may have more
measures in place than they reported on.
Employment of tourism staff (Q.11 and 11a)
The employment of Council staff with a tourism-specific focus is a strong indicator of commitment. In this
regard, 65 percent of Councils (n=32) had staff with a tourism role, with 21 of these, or 43 percent
overall, having at least one full-time member of staff dedicated in a tourism role. Although it is noted in
some cases this role had crossover with other areas, typically economic development, meaning that the
dedication to tourism was less than a FTE. Of the remaining eleven Councils, nine employed part-time
staff with tourism roles, one relied on volunteers and the other shared responsibility amongst existing
9
staff.
9
It is also noted that some councils outsource elements of their tourism role, a common example being Visitor Information Centres or
Caravan Parks. For the purpose of this study, where these functions have been outsourced they are not counted as Council
employees. It is therefore inevitable that the employment figures provided are a slight underestimate of the reality.
24
July 2006
Numbers of Councils
Figure 4.7 - Councils that employ staff with a focus
on tourism
14
12
10
8
6
FT Staff
PT Staff
4
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
>5
Numbers of Staff
Use of Volunteers (Q.11a)
The use of volunteers provides an indication of the community’s interest in tourism, and their region, as
well as providing Councils with a valuable human resource, particularly where funding provision for
tourism may not be substantial.
Volunteers are utilised by 39 percent of Councils, with the majority of these having a volunteer
contingent of less than 30 staff. Six Councils had more than 50 volunteers each. All of the Councils used
volunteers to assist in the dissemination of visitor information, with other roles including tour guides
(n=7), special events and maintenance/cleaning roles (n=2 each).
Number of Councils
Figure 4.8 - Volunteers assisting Council in a tourismrelated capacity
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Volunteers
0
1 to 10 11 to 30 31 to 50
51 to
100
over
100
Numbers of Volunteers
25
July 2006
Event Coordination or Support (Q.13 through 16)
The coordination of major events or festivals indicates Council’s willingness to actively encourage eventspecific tourism to their region. Many regional events celebrate an intrinsic part of the region’s heritage
or industry, such as Vintage Festival in the Barossa, Oysterfest in Ceduna, and in drawing visitors they
serve to raise awareness of the other attributes their destination offers.
Forty-three percent of Councils took responsibility for organising festivals or events. A further 20 percent
provided assistance, financial or in-kind, preferring to leave the organisation to a dedicated communitybased group or event manager. Unfortunately, many Councils did not indicate the events that were
supported, however the total number would appear to be well in excess of 150, based on those that did
respond.
Councils’ tourism priorities (Q.15)
This question sought to gain a clear picture of where Councils saw their priorities relating to tourism.
Councils were unrestricted in terms of the number of high or low priorities they could allocate therefore
this analysis looks at the overall percentage responses for each category to determine relative priority.
To assist analysis, the results have been separated into two broad categories: strategic—relating to the
longer-term planning and marketing tasks and service—relating to the daily operational matters
pertinent to tourism.
−
Strategic
The equal highest priority (and second overall) at a strategic level was the liaison and support for
Regional Marketing Associations, and positive planning policies, with 76 percent of Councils nominating
these as high priorities. Leadership was the next highest ranked priorities (and equal third overall, with
Event Management), with 61 percent.
The support for, and liaison with, Local Tourism Organisations and Regional Development Boards (in a
tourism capacity) both recorded rates of 59 percent (as a high priority) whilst Marketing was 55 percent.
These results are broadly consistent with the findings of earlier questions, where Councils identified their
working relationship (in a tourism capacity) with Regional Marketing Associations as the most
productive. Given this relationship, it is not surprising that a number of Councils considered their own
marketing efforts to be lowest of all the strategic priorities.
The high priority accorded to planning and leadership is consistent with the high response rate to
question 9, in which 73 percent of Councils considered they promoted the concept of sustainable
development.
26
July 2006
Figure 4.9 - Strategic Priorities for Councils
Percentage
80%
60%
40%
Not Applicable
Low Priority
Neutral
High Priority
20%
0%
g
n
ip
rd
oc
oc
ti o
sh
ni n
oa
ss
ss
r
o
n
B
e
A
A
om
'g
pl a
ad
m
v't
/Pr
rk t
Le
ri s
ve
De
i
g
a
u
t
l
i
n
o
s
ti
lM
na
Area of responsibility
lT
Po
rk e
na
gi o
ca
a
o
i
e
o
g
M
L
R
e
R
−
Service
A clear majority of Councils (86%) saw the provision and maintenance of Infrastructure as a high priority
with respect to their role in tourism. This is also reflected in Council budgets, where infrastructure
spending is the single largest budget item in tourism-related expenditure.
Provision of traditional Council services, such as rubbish collection, was the next highest ranked priority,
at 73 percent, with Event Management as the third highest, at 61 percent.
Management of attractions was ranked the overall lowest priority, with only 39 percent of Councils
considering it a high priority. Interestingly, management of Visitor Information Centres ranked second
lowest, with just under half of Councils (49%) considering it to be a high priority. This is of interest given
that VICs ranked third highest for Council budget expenditure, however it is noted that 7 Councils (14%)
10
did not have VICs . Also, of the nine who ranked VICs as a low priority, three did not have one within
their Council, whilst Tourism Associations and Councils managed three each.
10
All seven were metropolitan Councils
27
July 2006
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
io
ns
nt
M
an
ag
em
en
t
M
an
ag
e
VI
C
At
tra
ct
Se
rv
ic
es
Not Applicable
Low Priority
Neutral
High Priority
Ev
e
In
f
ra
st
ru
ct
ur
e
Percentage
Figure 4.10 - Service Priorities for Council
Area of Responsibility
28
July 2006
Key findings
j)
Whilst a majority of Councils have performance measures in place, these appear to be internally
focused. The use of external measurement techniques (ie. business or visitor surveys) should be
increased, as this could provide Councils with an understanding of how the industry and consumer
value their effort.
Action: Assist Councils that do not have performance measures in place to develop these.
k)
Almost two-thirds of Councils had at least one member of staff with a tourism role, which is a strong
indication of commitment. Surprisingly, less than half of Councils had volunteers involved in
tourism.
Action: None required.
l)
Councils’ priorities regarding tourism were Infrastructure, support for Regional Marketing
Associations and positive planning policies, which reinforced the findings from earlier questions
(Q.8, 12-14).
Action: Encourage Councils that have not been involved in the Integrated Regional Strategic
Planning process to seek commitment from regional partners to undertaking this.
Strong Performers
−
Alexandrina
−
Loxton Waikerie
−
Ceduna
−
Mid Murray
−
Flinders Ranges
−
−
Gawler
−
Robe
−
Holdfast Bay
−
Victor Harbor
−
Le Hunte
−
Wakefield
−
Light
−
Whyalla
4.5 Resource provision
The provision of resources, and perceived value for investment, indicates the priority Councils’ accord to
tourism, however this does not in itself guarantee sustainably managed tourism.
The determination of Councils’ expenditure on tourism is influenced by a degree of subjectivity. This
depends to the extent which Council has attributed, if at all, the expenditure on non-discretionary
activities undertaken as part of its daily activity but which also benefit tourism. Such activities can
include maintenance of essential infrastructure, staff time dealing with tourism-related issues, and
provision of services such as rubbish collection. Non-discretionary expenditure can also include major
infrastructure investment, such as roads, which have tourism benefits but are often required to service
the local population.
The Tourism Impact Model (TIM), undertaken for two South Australian Councils, estimates the financial
impact of tourism on Council expenditure and revenue. This modeling extends to the generic growth-
29
July 2006
related impacts of tourism, ie. the notion that tourism provides employment, therefore results in
additional residential population, providing a stronger rate base for Council. In both cases, the overall
impact of tourism on Council budgets has been relatively neutral, while providing significant employment
and economic benefits to the community.
11
It appears that very few Councils have included the apportionment of non-discretionary expenditure in
their estimates, which is unsurprising given that it was not specifically requested. Those that appear to
have included it tend to be at the upper end of expenditure—as a proportion of total expenses.
Therefore the itemised expenditure of Councils is treated as a guide, and comparisons between
Councils are made with this in mind.
Perception of tourism ‘burden’ (Q.1.iv)
Forty-five percent of Councils did not consider tourism to be a burden on their resources, with a further
31 percent considering the impact to be neutral.
Several of the State’s premier tourism destinations were included within the remaining 24 percent
(n=12) that did consider tourism to be a burden. Despite this perception, ten of those 12 Councils
considered tourism to have a net positive impact on their Council area. As previously noted, this has
been supported by both TIM studies undertaken in South Australia, where tourism has provided
significant employment and economic benefits for the subject Council areas, whilst having a relatively
neutral impact on Council’s budget.
Some possible explanations for why Councils may perceive tourism as a burden include:
−
Seasonal peaks – holiday periods or other seasonal factors that increase demands on Council
infrastructure and services
−
Gateway status –servicing visitors that stop en-route to a destination further afield
−
Separating local vs. visitor use – many services provided for visitors are also used by
residents, however their use may be largely (or entirely) attributed to tourism
−
Assistance – the extent to which tourism partners (or other relevant bodies) eg. SATC, LGA,
offset the ‘burden’ through funding or other strategic support
These factors should be explored by Councils (and regions) when developing their marketing strategy
and destination management plans, which will in turn help in budgeting for tourism-related expenditure.
Tourism budget (Q.16)
As noted in the introduction, the apportionment of Council’s tourism expenditure can vary significantly,
depending on the perception of what is a ‘tourism-related’ expense, and whether non-discretionary items
are included. It is also noted that higher spending Councils can inflate the overall State average (mean),
therefore reference to median values (the middle value in a data set) is included where this variance is
considered to be significant. Also of note is that all figures are for the 2003/04 financial year.
11
For a detailed understanding of how tourism can impact on a Council’s expenditure the ‘Tourism Impact Model for Australian Local
Government’ contains a detailed methodology and can be accessed via – www.industry.gov.au Copies of the TIM reports for
Alexandrina and Kangaroo Island Councils can be obtained by contacting the South Australian Tourism Commission.
30
July 2006
As a whole, the 49 Councils responding to this survey contributed a total of $13.26 million to tourismrelated expenses, with $10.57 million coming from the 39 Regional Councils. Overall, this comprises 1.5
percent of a total operating expense for those 49 Councils of $861 million. The total tourism expenditure
compares favourably with the Victorian Councils combined figure of $21.18 million, across 61 Councils.
There was considerable variance in Council expenditure with 10 percent of Councils spending more
than $1 million per year and 59 percent less than $200,000 per year. Only five Councils had no tourismspecific expenditure, of which only one was a regional Council.
Regional Councils had higher average expenditure on tourism, at $203,293, than Metropolitan Councils,
at $168,112 (both figures exclude grants and external funding). It should be noted, however that for
Regional Councils the six highest contributing Councils (all over $500,000) accounted for 51 percent of
the regional spend, whilst for Metropolitan Councils, two contributed 79 percent of the total. By
comparison, the average tourism budget for Victorian Councils (statewide) was $367, 283 (excluding
grants).
Regional Councils received an average of $48,987 in grants and external funding for tourism-related
purposes (including infrastructure) than Metropolitan Councils, which only averaged $3,563.
As illustrated in Figure 4.11 the clear funding priority is infrastructure (roads, etc), with staff and VIC
costs ranking second and third, respectively.
Contributions to Regional and Local Marketing bodies, direct marketing and strategic planning are the
three areas of lowest expenditure. When taken together the total contribution for marketing would
actually rank fourth overall, at an average of just over $32,000.
One possible explanation for the low expenditure on strategic planning (average of $5989) is that this is
often undertaken on a cyclical basis (every three to five years) whereas most of the other areas are
undertaken annually. It is also noted that many of the costs associated with strategic planning (and, to a
lesser extent, marketing) are likely to be classified under the expense item of ‘Staff’, unless consultants
or external agencies are engaged. Another possibility is that tourism is considered as part of an overall
strategic planning process so the proportion attributable to tourism is not readily identified.
31
July 2006
Figure 4.11 - Average financial investments relating to
tourism (2003/04)
Expenditure
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
ibu
ntr
Co
r
)
s
g
g
ff
ing
rks
he
VIC f VIC vent ketin
Sta rketin
Ot
Wo lann
r
E
o
a
a
r
t
P
m
r
M
M
jo
s
a
gic
uri
tp
Ma
sm
To trate
uri
(no
o
s
S
T
rie
al
lle
oc
ga
l/L
,
a
n
ms
g io
eu
Council
Re
us
o
M
nt
tio
Grants /External Funds
Area of Expenditure
Areas where Councils contribute the most, compared with grant funding (as a percentage) are Regional
and Local marketing associations (94%), VICs (91%) and Staff (89%). The only area where Councils
rely heavily on grants is Strategic Planning, where they contribute only 49 percent of total expenditure.
To provide a more equitable comparison of Council expenditure on tourism, the total tourism budget for
each Council, excluding grants, has been cross-referenced against the number of rateable properties (to
provide an indication of spend per property) and total operating expenses (to determine the percentage
of Council expenses that are dedicated for tourism).
32
July 2006
Number of Councils
Figure 4.12 - Expenditure on Tourism per Rateable
Property ($)
25
20
15
10
5
0
Zero
One to 25
26 to 50
51 to 75
76 to 100
101 or
greater
Spend per property ($)
Figure 4.12 indicates that, of those with a tourism budget (n=44), the majority of Councils (n=29) spend
less than $50 per rateable property on tourism-related work. There were a significant number of
Councils (n=5) spending more than $101 per rateable property, with all of these being regional Councils.
This is not unexpected, however, given the relatively fewer number of rateable properties for regional
Councils as compared with their metropolitan counterparts, and the likelihood of tourism being of higher
relevance for most regional Councils.
Number of Councils
Figure 4.13 - Tourism Expenditure as a Percentage of
Council's Total Operating Expenses (2003/04)
25
20
15
10
5
0
ro
Ze
%
%
%
%
.5%
10
10
-5
2.5
7
n
6
a
2.
7.6
0.1
5.1
r th
e
t
Percentage
ea
Gr
33
July 2006
Figure 4.13 illustrates the proportion of each Council’s tourism expenditure (excluding grants) as a
component of Total Operating Expenses. Of the 90 percent who have a tourism budget (n=44), almost
three-quarters spend less than five percent on tourism, with an average of 1.6 percent.
Similarly to Figure 4.12, the Councils with the greatest proportional expenditure for tourism are all
regional. This is not unexpected, however, given the comparatively smaller budgets amongst regional
Councils, and the likely higher importance placed on tourism as an economic development tool.
−
Grants
Thirty-five Councils (71%) received grants for 67 tourism-related projects, programs or events in
2003/04, which were funded from 23 different sources. These grants totalled just over $2.6 million,
which comprised 17 percent of the total estimated tourism expenditure by South Australian Councils.
Across the 35 recipient Councils, this worked out to an average grant value of just over $74,400,
however this was influenced by substantial infrastructure-related grants, particularly for tourist road
maintenance, and construction or refurbishment of Visitor Information Centres.
Funding sources were primarily from State Government (n=9), Regional Authorities (n=4) and private
sector (n=5). There were also contributions from neighbouring Councils (n=2), the Federal Government,
the Local Government Grants Commission and the Public Libraries Automated Information Network.
By far the greatest contributor, in terms of number of grants issued, was the SATC, with 30 grants for
either Visitor Information Centres or Infrastructure projects. Regional Development Boards were the next
largest contributor, with 6 grants, followed by nine agencies that contribute to one or two specific
projects or programs. Three Councils also received contributions from local business or progress
associations, and corporate sponsors.
It is unknown whether any of the remaining 14 Councils that did not receive grants had applied for any,
or the success rate amongst applicants – both these questions may be considered as part of future
surveys.
Breakdown by expenditure item
−
Staff
Figure 4.14 identifies the range of Council expenditure on tourism-related staff. On average, staff
expenses are the second biggest item for Council tourism budgets and comprise 18 percent of Council’s
total tourism budget. By comparison, Victorian Councils contributed approximately 44 percent of their
tourism budgets to staff expenses.
Seventeen Councils (35%) do not have any salaried staff with identified tourism responsibility, with 11 of
these being Regional Councils.
Eight Councils received grants or external funding for staff expenses, with six receiving between
$10,000-$50,000. This enabled the provision of five staff—four in tourism development roles and one in
a destination management role.
34
July 2006
Number of Councils
Figure 4.14 - Council's expenditure on Staff
(2003/04)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Zero
Less
than
$10K
$10$50K
$50$100K
$100$200K
Greater
than
$200K
Council Expenditure
−
Contributions to Tourism Organisations
The average contribution of Councils (including grants and external funding) in this item was $16,804,
which was the third lowest tourism-related expense. One quarter of Councils (n=12) had no contribution
for this item, of which eight were metropolitan. Only three Councils received external funding, either
through partner agencies or Councils, or direct from Business. Refer Figure 4.15 for an overview of the
range of contributions by Councils.
Number of Councils
Figure 4.15 - Council's Total Contributions to
Tourism Organisations (2003/04)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Zero
Less than $10-$25K $25-$50K $50-$75K Greater
$10K
than $75K
Council Contributions
35
−
July 2006
Visitor Information Centres
Councils spent an average of almost $38,000, and received an average of $3850 in grants and external
funding, for a combined total of $41, 850 on VICs. Just over one third of Councils (n=17) had no budget
for this item. Refer Figure 4.16, for an indicative breakdown of the contribution split across Councils.
Figure 4.16 - Total Expenditure of Councils on
Visitor Information Centres (2003/04)
Number of Councils
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Zero
$10K
than $75K
Total Expenditure
−
Museums, galleries and interpretive centres
This item falls under the broad ‘Attractions’ category that was ranked as the lowest overall priority
across all Councils (under question 15). It is therefore not surprising to find that just over half of Councils
(n=25) had no budget allocation for this item. The six Councils with total budgets of more than $75,000
for this item considerably influenced the average total expenditure, of just over $30,000 (including
grants). Six Councils received grants or external funds for this item.
−
Major and Regional events
Councils spent an average of $28,122 and received an average of $3306 in grants and external funding,
for a combined total of $31, 359 on Major and regional Events. Just over one third of Councils (n=17)
had no budget for this item, therefore the nine Councils that allocated more than $50,000 to this item
influenced this average considerably. Thirteen Councils also received grants or external funds for this
item, second only to VICs for number of grants received.
−
Destination Marketing
Just over one third of Councils (n=18) had no budget for this item, and ten had a total allocation of less
than $10,000. Across all Councils, this item averaged just over $13,000, and combined with an average
of just under $3000 in grants and external funding, made for a total of $15, 285. For greater clarity, this
item should be considered in conjunction with Contributions to Regional and Local Tourism
Associations, which many Councils would charge with primary responsibility for marketing efforts.
36
−
July 2006
Tourism Works – Infrastructure
This was clearly the highest funded item, both within Council budgets and through grants and external
funding, accounting for 30 percent of total tourism expenditure. The average total expenditure was just
over $98,000, however there were 21 Councils that recorded no expenditure in this item for 2003/04.
The total figure, of $4.74 million, may be artificially inflated due to the apportionment of expenditure on
infrastructure that services residents as well as visitors eg. boat ramp construction. For the purpose of
this survey, this apportionment has been left to Councils’ discretion.
The construction of significant tourism infrastructure, such as Visitor Information Centres, has also
inflated the averages. It is noted that 8 Councils had expenditure greater than $200,000 for this item. In
saying that, it is acknowledged that some infrastructure and general maintenance works to meet local
needs, such as road resealing, may benefit visitors but not have been included.
Number of Councils
Figure 4.17 - Total Expenditure on Tourism Works Infrastructure
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Zero
$10K
than $75K
Expenditure
−
Council Expenditure
Grant Funding
Strategic Planning
As previously noted, this item received the lowest funding from within Council budgets, and relied most
heavily on grants or external funding—roughly on a dollar-for-dollar basis. It also had the lowest
participation rate of all items, with only 13 Councils budgeting for strategic planning (for tourism) over
the 2003/04 year. Possible explanations for this are detailed in Section 4.5, in addressing question 16.
37
July 2006
Key findings
The subjectivity with which Councils have determined their tourism expenditure for the purposes of this
survey requires the averages to be used with caution, however a number of issues have been
highlighted, as noted below:
m) Infrastructure and staff costs are the most significant expenditure items, which is likely to be a
reflection of the priority they are accorded, their relatively higher cost, as well as their relatively
recurrent nature.
Action: None required.
n)
Contributions to Regional Marketing/Local Tourism Associations and Visitor Information Centres are
the items which the highest proportion of Councils contributed (over 90% for both). In the case of
Regional Marketing, the level of contributions is a relatively small proportion of the average
Council’s tourism budget (five percent) and is generally stipulated as part of the regional
agreement.
Action: Inform Councils of the Tourism Impact Model and outcomes from two South Australian
examples undertaken to date, and encourage other Councils to apply TIM to their area. Use the
TIM findings to guide Councils to allocate funding to tourism that is commensurate to its economic
value.
o)
Whilst a majority of Councils (71%) were recipients of grant funding, there appeared to be only a
few funding avenues being accessed. Opportunities to expand this, including leveraging private
sector involvement, should be explored.
Action: Inform Councils that do not currently access grant opportunities of various programs in
place.
Action: Explore opportunities for alternate tourism funding models that Councils may be able to
implement.
Strong Performers
−
Whyalla
−
Mt Gambier
−
−
Barossa
4.6 Industry involvement
Council assistance to tourism industry, type of assistance and rate of uptake (Q.14, 14a and 14b)
This question sought to establish whether Councils provided assistance to tourism related businesses
and organisations, separate from those listed in question 13 (eg. Regional Marketing Associations).
Thirty-three Councils (67 percent), comprising 28 Regional and 5 Metropolitan Councils, offered at least
one form of assistance to the tourism industry, with the most commonly offered forms being:
38
July 2006
Event Management and Support (26 Councils - 54% of Regional and 50% of Metropolitan) – can
include funding or sponsorship, to assistance with insurance and risk management. It also includes
Council’s in-kind contributions, such as equipment, and staff labour, required in operating the event.
Direct Financial Support (19 Councils – 44% of Regional and 20% of Metropolitan) – in the form of
direct funding assistance to operators, such as grants, as well as rate concessions. Results for this
response did not include all of Councils tourism-related contributions (eg. to Regional Marketing
Associations or for events), as these were noted separately.
Business Planning (23 Councils - 54% of Regional and 20% of Metropolitan) – this takes a number of
forms, from the availability of a Tourism or Economic Development Officer to provide advice on grant
applications and assist with business development, to provision of materials (eg. Information Kits). A
number of Councils noted they direct responsibility for this level of support to Regional Development
Boards.
Promotion/Marketing and Information (11 Councils - 23% of Regional and 20% of Metropolitan) – this
includes local promotion through Council publications (eg. newsletters, websites), displays within the
offices and public libraries.
Traditional Infrastructure (4 Councils - 5% of Regional and 20% of Metropolitan) – this includes the
provision of toilet facilities, parks and gardens and signage.
As this question did not prompt responses, there are likely to be a higher number of Councils than those
indicated above that provide these forms of assistance. For example, it is noted that 86 percent of
Councils nominated provision of traditional infrastructure as their highest priority in tourism.
Of the 33 Councils offering assistance, only three did not have any uptake by industry, with 16 (48
percent) having up to 20 businesses taking advantage of the assistance. Almost a quarter of Councils
(n=8) had not quantified the numbers accessing assistance, but commented that they were being
utilised.
What Councils consider to be the major benefits of tourism in their area (Q.17)
Overwhelmingly, Councils cited the economic benefits that tourism brought to their area, with spin-offs
for business (n=24), employment (n=24), investment growth and development (n=20) the major benefit
of tourism. There were also positive references regarding the services (n=9), and infrastructure (n=7)
that were provided for visitors also benefiting the community.
Some of the social benefits included the sense of community (n=13) and promotion for the region that
tourism provides (n=7). There was very little mention of environmental benefits provided by tourism with
only one mention of it being a force for protection of natural areas.
What problems or issues tourism presents to Councils (Q.18)
Similarly to the previous question, the primary concern was with the economic consequences of tourism,
with infrastructure, roads and maintenance (n=30) and increased costs, lack of funding/resources,
39
July 2006
impact on budgets (n=27) being of greatest importance. Remedies to address these challenges are
discussed as part of question 19 (below).
There was little mention of tourism-induced environmental or social problems or issues, which could be
perceived as a positive reflection on visitor management practices across the State. Alternately, for
many areas, visitation is not perceived to be significant enough to be a major management problem.
Whether Council felt they could play a more supportive role in tourism (Q.19)
Fifty-three percent of Councils (n=26) felt they could play a more supportive role in tourism, with a
further ten percent (n=5) being unsure. Of the remaining Councils (n=18) who did not think they could
play a more supportive role for tourism, 16 were from regional South Australia. Further analysis
indicates that seven of these Councils contain some of South Australia’s iconic experiences within their
boundaries.
As noted in the introductory chapter, visitation to regional areas is sharply declining, with many of the
influential factors likely to persist for the foreseeable future. To counter this trend will require a strategic
approach to marketing, but equally importantly, enhancing the experience for visitors so that they are
provided with memorable experiences. Given the significant role of local government in infrastructure
provision, planning policy, amongst their many responsibilities, it is important they are involved in the
process.
How Councils could better support tourism (Q.19a)
Amongst Councils who felt they could play a more supportive role, common responses in how they
could achieve this included:
−
Increased dedication of funding, from within Council but also from Commonwealth and State
agencies, particularly in upgrading infrastructure.
−
Increasing the understanding of the benefits that tourism provides amongst local businesses and
elected members.
−
Having a more supportive stance toward tourism-related projects and initiatives, such as destination
marketing.
−
Working more closely with local and regional authorities that have a tourism focus.
Councils were also asked to identify any barriers to achieving the above, with an overwhelming majority
of comments (n=31) relating to funding, notably the competition within Council budgets for the range of
services provided. Reasons for this varied, in some cases it was due to the low rate base from which
Council could draw, however in many in appears that lack of State or Commonwealth support is a major
constraint.
Other barriers identified included the size of Council areas or lack of focal points making it difficult to
know where to allocate resources: both these may suggest the absence of an strategic approach to
tourism. The perception that tourism may diminish resident’s quality of life, influence of local politics and
parochialism that may undermine regional efforts were also cited as barriers. It was also noted that in
certain aspects of tourism, Visitor Information Centres being one example, the regulatory standards are
being raised, yet there is no additional funding to help Councils meet these obligations.
40
July 2006
In asking Councils to identify ways to overcome these barriers there were numerous suggestions, with
increased incentive funding being foremost (n=19). A range of measures were suggested to achieve
this, ranging from an increase in direct funding from higher levels of government, to regionally-calculated
levies, developer contributions and a scheme similar to Places for People, which sets strategic
12
objectives and provides funding over medium term, rather than on an annual basis .
Other solutions raised included the need for capacity building for local communities, particularly through
additional training, provided through the LGA, for elected members and staff to better understand
tourism. The provision of dedicated ‘tourism development officers’ for each region, to work with the
regional marketing managers in building and improving the physical infrastructure for tourism.
There were also suggestions that lesser known destinations could be better promoted, rather than
focusing on iconic destinations, to share the benefits broadly throughout the state. Whilst this logic
appears soundly based, experience shows that by promoting a destination’s strengths, it is likely to
increase the overall visitor numbers, with a beneficial ‘trickle-down’ effect to nearby areas. This also
reinforces the destination ‘brand’ to would-be visitors, rather than potentially confusing them with a
multitude of themes or messages.
12
Places for People is coordinated by Planning SA, with the aim of improving the quality of the built environment in focal points, such
as Main Streets.
41
July 2006
Key findings
p)
Just over two-thirds of Councils offered some form of assistance to the tourism industry, with
financial support or business planning the preferred form.
Action: Inform those Councils not currently offering assistance of means by which they could better
support tourism, in collaboration with Regional Marketing Associations and Regional Development
Boards.
q)
Councils clearly saw visitor’s economic contribution to local business, with flow-on benefits through
employment and investment, as the key benefit of tourism. Conversely, budgetary pressures
resulting from infrastructure and service provision to cater for tourism were identified as key issues
faced by Councils.
Action: None required
r)
Just over half of Councils considered they could play a more supportive role for tourism, with
numerous suggestions as to how this might be achieved being offered.
Action: Conduct regional workshops to inform Councils of the State’s strategic tourism directions,
and build capacity eg. through highlighting best-practice case studies from other Councils.
Strong Performers
−
Ceduna
−
Flinders Ranges
−
Gawler
−
Grant
−
Loxton Waikerie
42
July 2006
5. Conclusions
Whilst it is encouraging that all Councils consider tourism to offer future economic development
opportunities for their area, as part of a generally positive attitude toward the industry, there appears to
be some uncertainty amongst Councils about how to achieve this.
A majority of Councils considered their relationships with external stakeholders (particularly Regional
Marketing Associations) to be a strength, and this represents an opportunity to further enhance the
capacity of Councils in planning for tourism.
A recent example of this being implemented is the Clare Valley Tourism Alliance, where Chief
Executives of the four regional Councils meet on a monthly basis with the Regional Marketing Manager
and Regional Events Officer to discuss issues of a product development or strategic planning nature
that relate to tourism. The Alliance also acts as an implementation ‘driver’ of actions arising from the
Integrated Regional Strategic Tourism Plan developed for the Clare Valley and Barossa regions in 2005.
Less than half of Councils considered they had ‘good’ coordination of tourism responsibilities. Whilst this
was undefined, and is therefore open to interpretation, it suggests that many Councils seek to improve
their performance in tourism planning and management. A starting point for this is the incorporation of
tourism into Council Strategic Management Plans, and other relevant plans, such as the Development
Plan. Whilst the indicators on both these measures were positive, it is noted that there was no
qualitative measurement for this indicator. The Integrated Regional Strategic Tourism Planning process,
currently being implemented across the State, should help to strengthen both these indicators.
Of those Councils with tourism-specific plans, or aligned with an Integrated Regional Strategic Tourism
Plan (other than for Marketing), the majority had performance measures to gauge their success. It is
noted that most of these measures were internally focused, suggesting an opportunity for greater
external-orientation, such as community, visitor or operator surveys. Given that a majority of Councils
did not have tourism-specific plans, or were party to a Regional equivalent, it may also be worth
Councils monitoring performance against tourism objectives in their Strategic Management Plans.
Council expenditure on tourism, totaling $13.26 million with a median value of $150,000 per annum
(both excluding grants), is a positive indicator of commitment to the industry. It is noted, however, that
the top ten contributing Councils accounted for almost two-thirds of this expenditure.
Areas of relatively low expenditure, compared to total tourism expenditure, included strategic planning
and contributions to Regional and Local Marketing bodies. Given the strategic importance of both these
areas in terms of growing and setting direction for the industry, it is important funding allocations to
these areas are maintained, or in some areas, increased.
There appears to be a preference for spending on tangible items, notably infrastructure and Visitor
Information Centres. Part of the educative process incorporated through Integrated Regional Strategic
Tourism Planning is to improve Councils understanding of the value in funding ‘strategic’ items, and fund
43
July 2006
them accordingly. This approach, in which tourism is valued, rather than just tolerated, may help to
reduce the sense of tourism being the ‘burden’ that some Councils currently perceive it to be.
The practical assistance that many Councils provide to their operators, from financial assistance and
business planning to support for event management, appears to be well received. There were, however,
a number of Councils that had limited uptake (or had not monitored the level of uptake).
In conclusion, the capacity (and enthusiasm) of South Australia’s Local Government to plan for and
manage tourism appears sound, however there are a few areas of concern:
−
Co-ordination of tourism responsibility
−
Incorporation of tourism within Council’s organisational structure
−
Funding for ‘strategic’ tourism issues, such as strategic planning and regional marketing
Whilst many of the remaining indicators are positive, it bears remembering that just over a quarter of
Councils (n=19) did not respond to this survey. Whilst this included six metropolitan Councils and a
number of regional Councils where tourism would be of low strategic importance, it did however include
eight regional Councils with tourism assets of considerable value to the State and regional brand. The
participation of these Councils in the next survey will be an important indicator of a strengthening Local
Government engagement in tourism.
To apply the findings from the survey in a practical response, the following Actions have been identified
as priorities:
−
Assist Councils that have not incorporated tourism comprehensively into their Strategic
Management Plans when these are next reviewed.
−
Assist Councils of tourism significance that are currently without tourism-specific plans to develop
one, or at least feature it in one other Council plan.
−
Assist Councils that do not have performance measures relevant to tourism to develop these.
−
Inform Councils about what sustainable tourism entails and how it can be incorporated into their
Development Plans, and other relevant strategic plans.
−
Facilitate improved working relationships on tourism-related issues between Councils and regional
stakeholders through collaborative alliances.
−
Encourage Councils that have not been involved in the Integrated Regional Strategic Planning
process to seek commitment from regional partners to undertaking this.
−
Inform Councils of the Tourism Impact Model and outcomes from two South Australian examples
undertaken to date, with the goal of having at least two other Councils apply TIM to their area.
−
Conduct regional workshops to inform Councils of new Strategic tourism directives, and build
capacity eg. through highlighting best-practice case studies from other Councils.
The remaining actions (identified within the summary boxes at end of each subsection) will also be
pursued, but over a longer timeframe. To complement this work, the SATC will work with the LGA to
develop a Tourism Policy for Local Government, to provide overarching direction for Council
involvement in tourism.
44
July 2006
Appendix A
Local Government Engagement in Tourism Survey Form
45
July 2006
Survey Form
The South Australian Tourism Commission, in partnership with the Local Government Association is
undertaking this survey to gain a better understanding of Local Government’s involvement in tourism.
Your Council’s response will be treated with confidentiality.
Due to the wide range of information required, the Chief Executive Officer, or an appropriate senior staff
member should complete this survey, with input from relevant staff. In the event that the CEO does not
complete the form, it is requested that they review it prior to lodgement, to ensure the response is
consistent with Council’s position.
Your time is greatly appreciated as the outcomes will increase our collective knowledge and ultimately
benefit South Australian tourism and Local Government.
Council Name:
Council Officer:
Phone Number:
Email:
1. We are interested in how your Council perceives tourism. Please indicate to what extent your Council
would agree with the following statements?
Strongly Disagree
1
Neutral
2
3
Strongly Agree
4
5
Tourism is already a significant industry with net positive
impacts for this Council area
Tourism offers future economic development opportunities
for this Council area
Tourism has a net negative impact for this Council area
Tourism is a burden on Council resources
Tourism is a priority industry within this Council area
There is good coordination of tourism responsibilities within
this Council
1a. What does your Council consider to be the key tourism themes within its area? eg. coast, wine and
food, heritage, etc.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
1b. What does your Council consider to be the key tourism attributes within its area? eg. museum,
national park, shopping precinct, etc.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
46
July 2006
2. Does your Council have a stand-alone tourism plan, policy or strategy?
Yes
No, but in the process (go to question 3)
No (go to question 3)
2a. When was this developed and when was it last updated?
Developed:
_____________ Updated:
_____________
3. Is your Council associated with any other Tourism Plan? (excluding Regional Marketing Plan)
Yes (please specify) ____________________________________________________
No
4. How were the plans developed? (please tick all that apply)
Council Plan
Regional Plan
Local tourism reference group
Consultant employed
Specialist Council Officer
Strategic support by SATC and/or Regional Marketing
Committee/ Regional Tourism Board
Other (please specify) ________________________
5. Does Council have mechanisms for monitoring/evaluating/revising performance relating to
goals/targets in the relevant plans? (eg: regular meetings, annual or quarterly reports)
Yes (please specify)______________________________________________________
No
6. Are the goals/directions in the plan, (or is tourism in general) incorporated into the Council’s Strategic
Management Plan?
Yes, comprehensively
No
Yes, to some extent
7. Please list any other Council plans that feature tourism (eg: Corporate Plan, Event Plan, Business
Plan) _______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
8. What aspects of tourism are covered in Council’s plans?
Marketing
Infrastructure (Amenities, parks)
Management of visitor impacts (ie.
Council’s working relations with tourism
environmental degradation)
partners
Festivals and Events
Attractions
Development opportunities
Policy
Other (please state) ______________________________________________________
9. Please indicate how strongly your Council agrees with the following statements
Strongly Disagree
1
2
Neutral
3
Strongly Agree
4
5
Council promotes the concept of sustainable tourism
development
Council’s Development Plan encourages sustainable tourism
development
47
July 2006
10. Where does tourism fit into the organisational structure of your Council? (Please tick all that apply)
As a stand alone tourism unit
Formal Council committee
Within an economic development unit
Within a park/recreation unit
Visitor Information Centre/s
There is no identified area responsible for tourism
Other (please specify) _____________________________________________
11. Does your Council employ staff with a focus on tourism (including Visitor Information Centres)?
Yes (please indicate numbers)
Full-time
______________
Part-time
______________
Volunteers
______________
No.
11a. In relation to staff employed with some specific role in tourism please describe this role
Full-time
_____________________________________________________________
Part-time
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Volunteers
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
12. How effective is Council’s working relationship with the following entities?
Very ineffective
N/A
1
Neutral
2
3
Very effective
4
5
Regional Marketing Association//Tourism
Committee/Board
Local/Town Tourism Association
Regional Development Board
Other Councils – eg. Through regional funding
agreements (please identify)__________________
12 a. If ineffective or neutral, how do you think this can be improved?
(i) Regional Marketing Association/Committee/Board ______________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
(ii) Local/Town Tourism Association ____________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
(iii) Regional Development Board ______________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
(iv) Other Councils – eg. Through regional funding agreements _______________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
48
July 2006
13. Which of the following organisations/boards/committees does your Council contribute to, in a tourism
related capacity?
Organisation
Yes
No
Regional Marketing Association//Tourism Committee/Board
Local/Town Tourism Association
Regional Development Board
Festivals/Events Committees
Other tourism related bodies
Please name the relevant organisations, boards and/or committees
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
14. Does your Council provide assistance to tourism related businesses/operators/
organisations/groups?
Yes
No (go to question 16)
14a. What types of assistance are offered by Council? (eg. business planning, materials and labour,
grants, rates concessions)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
14b. How many tourism operators/businesses/organisations/groups have taken advantage of any of
these forms of assistance in the past twelve months? ____________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
14c. Does your Council coordinate any major events or festivals? Please list:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
15. Please identify your Council’s priorities with respect to its role in tourism
Lowest Priority
1
Neutral
2
3
Highest Priority
4
5
Liaison/support for:
(i) Regional Marketing Committee/Board/ Association
(ii) Local/Town Tourism Associations
(iii) Regional Development Board
Traditional infrastructure, eg parks, roads, lookouts
Traditional services, eg parking control, litter removal
Management of tourism attractions
Promotion/marketing/information
Event management and support
Leadership
Positive planning policies to encourage sustainability
Management of Visitor Information Centre
Other (please specify) _________________________
49
July 2006
16. Please identify as accurately as possible your Council's financial investments in relation to tourism in
2003/2004
Expenditure Area
Council
Funds
Grant/External
Funds*
TOTAL
Direct costs for staff (from question 10)
Contributions to Local tourism associations;
Regional marketing boards/ committees/assoc.
Visitor Information Centre/s (VICs)
Museums, galleries or interpretive centres, etc.
that are not part of VICs
Major and/or Regional events
Destination Marketing:
eg. brochures, advertising campaigns,
PR/editorial services
Major Tourism works/projects:
Infrastructure, new developments etc.
Strategic Planning & Policy Development
(including progress monitoring)
Other **
TOTAL
*Please identify the source and purpose of any grants or external funds:
Source
Purpose
**Please list what types of expenditure have been estimated in this line
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
17. What does your Council consider to be the major benefits of tourism in its area?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
50
July 2006
18. What are some of the major problems or issues that tourism presents to your Council?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
19. I believe this Council could play a more supportive role in tourism:
Yes
No
Unsure
If yes, how could it do this? ____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
19a. This Council is hampered in playing a more supportive role for tourism by:
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
19b. Ways to overcome these barriers would be:
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
20 Does your Council support the use of the results from this survey to allow for comparison between
Council areas? This is intended to allow comparison of Councils with similar characteristics (eg.
population, geographical location).
Yes
No
Your assistance in completing this survey is appreciated. Please use the remainder of this page to
provide any information you think the LGA and/or the SATC would find useful.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you.
51
July 2006
References
Advance Tourism, 1998, Local Government: Better Tourism Results (draft), Melbourne
Australian Government, 2004, Tourism White Paper: A Medium to Long Term Strategy for Tourism,
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra
Brown, F 1998, Tourism Reassessed: Blight or Blessing?, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK
Carson, Dean and Beattie, Sarah, 2002, Local Government indicators of sustainable management of
tourism, Country Victoria Tourism Council, Melbourne
Financial Sustainability Review Board, August 2005, Rising To The Challenge: Towards Financially
Sustainable Local Government in South Australia: Volume 1 – Overview and Volume 2 – Supporting
Analysis, South Australian Local Government Independent Inquiry, viewed at
<http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/customdata/inquiry/Publications.html>
Local Government Association of SA, 2003, Local Government Context: A Snapshot of Local
Government in SA, viewed at < http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/LG_Context_pdf1.pdf>
Minister’s Tourism Round Table Working Group, 2005, Removing the Barriers to Tourism Investment in
Regional South Australia (Draft), Government of South Australia, Adelaide
South Australian Tourism Commission, 2002, South Australian Tourism Plan 2003-2008, Government of
South Australia, Adelaide
— —, 2005, Sustainable Tourism Package, Government of South Australia, Adelaide
— —, 2006, Tourism Research - At a Glance: Issue 62, January 2006, Government of South Australia,
Adelaide
Tourism Alliance Victoria, 2006, Local Government Indicators of Sustainable Management of Tourism:
2002 – 2005 Comparison Report, Tourism Alliance Victoria, Melbourne
Tourism Australia, 2005a, Domestic Overnight Leisure Travel: Recent Trends And Challenges, Tourism
Australia, Canberra
——, 2005b, Forecast - Tourism Forecasting Committee October 2005 Forecasts (to 2014), viewed at
<http://www.tourism.australia.com/content/Research/Tourism%20Forecasts/tourism_forecasts_october_
2005_updated.pdf>
United Nations Environment Program and World Tourism Organisation, 2005, Making Tourism More
Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers, Paris, France and Madrid, Spain.
World Tourism Organisation, Global Code of Ethics for Tourism, viewed at <http://www.worldtourism.org/code_ethics/eng/brochure.htm>
— —, Climate Change and Tourism: Proceedings of the first International Conference; Djerba, Tunisia,
9-11 April 2003, viewed at <http://www.world-tourism.org/publications/pr_1330-1.html>
52

Local Governments Engagement in Tourism

Transcription

Similar documents

Tourism program brochure

INTECAP, Guatemala

presentation

if you want to know what our customers say about us.

Prince Edward County, Canada

Why travel with Solmartour? - World Travel Market Latin America

Greater Gadsden, AL - Southeast Tourism Society

Tourism plays. Even in untraditional businesses.

Cherating, Malaysia - Collaborative for Sustainable Tourism and

Buis les Baronnies Presentation DefisMed 0804 Presentation