ON THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT REPORT FOR SPRINGBROOK, QUEENSLAND

The results of the study PLANNING TO ACHIEVE COMMUNITY CONSENSUS FOR A LOCAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN A WORLD HERITAGE SITE, A CASE STUDY OF SPRINGBROOK, QUEENSLAND by ARED WOSKANIAN, a Griffith University student, dated NOVEMBER 2015, have been released: see below.

The report needs some comments:

The critical matter is that Springbrook is World Heritage listed. It is mentioned (WHS), but this matter seems to slip away as an aside in the recommendations to become almost irrelevant. WH is so important that it must be recognised everywhere and be the core reason for doing everything at Springbrook. Australia has a history of seeing bush as a place to clean up, to clear, remove, to tame or use as a dump for everything trash, or anyone murdered. This is perhaps why it is so difficult to get the WH listing taken seriously. It does not seem to be made clear that the listing is for diversity, not prettiness for the adulation and gasps of crowds of tourists. Diversity needs special attention and care or else it will be diminished. This is the core matter for Springbrook in its WH recognition.

The 'agreed' recommendations - 'some degree of community consensus':

Conservation Programs

This should always be part of WH areas and adjacent precincts. It should not be a 'special' issue. It is sad that it has to be a 'recommendation' for tourist development.

Interpretive Centre

If there is to be one, this centre needs to be out of the WH area, not because of lack of infrastructure but because the numbers and the infrastructure that the visitors could attract would begin destroying the very place that has to be protected: its diversity. Therefore any centre needs to be on the tourist route, say, at Nerang, a location on the highway between Dreamworld, Movieworld , and the Gold Coast beaches. Nerang is one pathway to Springbrook that could also promote Natural Arch and offer direct access to this portion of the National Park.# It seems to be forgotten that Springbrook National Park is very diverse and fragmented. This is one reason why it needs special care – indeed, an increase in listed area to protect it. From Nerang, those committed and interested in the diversity of this WH region can then make the effort to travel to the WH areas and respect them. It is not a place for the amusement of crowds. Diversity is critically sensitive. It needs to be constantly reinforced just what it is and why. Springbrook is not a place for a centre to attract crowds of tourists interested in souvenirs, entertainment, coffee and a snack, and 'interesting' distractions like extreme views, weather and nature.

Open Air Digital Walk

This gimmick should be a part of the gadgetry in the interpretive centre – away from the WH diversity. Technology like this turns anything/everything into a game; so keep it a good game – in the centre, perhaps complete with forest holograms. Do not turn WH nature into a gadget game of QR codes. “Hey Mum! It works! Look at this!” Everything concentrates on the gadget, never the subject. There is enough 'gadget staring' now without encouraging more. Springbrook does not need hordes of excited, gadget-loving wanderers.

It seems that it is difficult for folk today to understand that doing nothing is sometimes the best outcome. Is the urge to do something a hangover from our perception of bush as being useless space that needs development; or is it the desire for constant entertainment that makes some insist on change, on doing anything different, 'interesting'?

The core question is:
what will this do for the biological diversity of World Heritage Springbrook?

# It is somewhat ironic to note that, on the very day that Ared Woskanian arrived at Springbrook to speak to the group at the hall, a few Asian tourists stopped in the car park to ask where they might find Natural Arch. They had to be redirected off the mountain into Numinbah Valley. An interpretive centre at Springbrook will likewise upset visitors who arrive to see Natural Arch, only to be told that it is not here.

see: http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/why-do-we-care-so-little-for-world_28.html
and

http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/whiz-bang-wunburra-world-heritage-world.html

THE REPORT

PLANNING TO ACHIEVE COMMUNITY CONSENSUS FOR A LOCAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN A WORLD HERITAGE SITE

A CASE STUDY OF SPRINGBROOK, QUEENSLAND

ARED WOSKANIAN

NOVEMBER 2015

What is this booklet about?

This booklet provides a short summary of the results from an Honours research project conducted by an undergraduate student – Ared Woskanian – from Griffith University as part of his Bachelor of Urban and Environmental Planning degree. Paul Burton – Professor of Urban Management and Planning – supervised the project.

The results from this research project may be of interest to the Springbrook community, proponents, local planning practitioners, decision-makers, the general public or other local stakeholders.

What was the research about?

In light of the strong local community opposition towards a Cableway proposal for tourism development in Springbrook National Park (SNP), the research project sought to address two research questions:

1) How can planners try to achieve community consensus when there are conflicting views about tourism development in a World Heritage Site (WHS)?

2) What is a plausible set of tourism development options – as indicated by the community – for Springbrook?

NOTE: This information booklet focuses mainly on the second of these research questions, while both are addressed in the full report of the Honours project, currently under examination at Griffith University.

About Springbrook National Park (SNP)

 SNP is located in the mountainous Gold Coast hinterland in South-East Queensland, Australia. 
 Approximately 2,480 hectares, out of the total 6,500 hectares of SNP, are currently listed as a WHS (UNESCO 2015). 
 Springbrook hosts a small, semi-rural community with a population of approximately 620 residents (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011) within the buffer zone of the WHS.

How was the research conducted?

A list of 20 possible tourism options was developed and then conceptually evaluated through focus groups with three locally-based, community NonGovernment Organisations (NGOs). The three NGOs were:

 Springbrook Chamber of Commerce (SCC); 
 Springbrook Wildlife Appreciation Group (SWAG); and the, 
 Springbrook Mountain Community Association (SMCA).

The SCC, SWAG and SMCA, represent respectively the business, environment, and general community sectors of Springbrook.

The initial list of options was derived from a systematic review of the academic and policy literature on tourism developments in ecologically sensitive areas such as WHSs; and, from face-to-face interviews with local stakeholders.

The feelings and perceptions of the focus group participants were recorded, thematically analysed, and explored in the light of:

 data collected from local stakeholder interviews; 
and, 
 data collected from a recent Visitor Exit Survey in Springbrook.

Results

Some degree of community consensus, albeit to varying extents, was achieved among the three focus groups towards three tourism concepts (see below) – all of which are educational and interpretive based.

1. Conservation Programs – involves visitors participating in activities such as land care, weeding, restoration, rubbish clean-ups or wildlife monitoring. 
 This concept generated positive comments such as “I think it is wonderful”, “we all agree with this one” and “good idea” in the respective focus groups. 
 However, there was also a strong view that operators must be well informed about Springbrook and its landscape; and, the program must be well managed.

2. Interpretive Centre – is a centre which contains interactive and vibrant information exhibits about the ecosystems, wildlife and history of Springbrook. 
 This concept generated positive comments such as “it would be terrific”, “yes, if located in Nerang” and “yes please” in the respective focus groups. 
 However, there were conflicting views about location. The SMCA and SCC share the view that it must be built in Springbrook – to ensure visitors come to Springbrook. Alternatively, the SWAG believes that Springbrook does not have the infrastructure capacity to support an interpretive centre.

3. Open Air Digital Walk – is a walking track with sculptures or signage which link to a Mobile App that contains interactive and educational content about Springbrook. 
 This concept generated positive comments such as “I like this idea best”, “absolutely delightful” and “great idea – but only on existing tracks” in the respective focus groups. 
 There was a strong view held by the SWAG that this must only be done on an existing walking track – as they oppose any additional walking tracks.

How can the research results be used?

It is hoped that the findings from this research can provide useful information and direction to local stakeholders and decision-makers about plausible tourism development concepts for Springbrook – should they wish to pursue tourism development in the future.

A possible next step might be to conduct a wider-ranging public consultation exercise e.g. a questionnaire, to evaluate these three concepts (and any other options) among all residents of Springbrook.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, 2011 Census of Population and Housing: Basic Community Profile: Springbrook (SSC31519), Cat. no. 2001.0, ABS, Canberra. UNESCO 2015, Gondwana Rainforests of Australia: Maps (online), Available: <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/368> (19 May 2015).