lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 31 (2010) 104–112

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Place change and tourism development conflict: Evaluating public interest

Dianne Dredge*

School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 7 January 2008Accepted 12 January 2009

Keywords:TourismPlacePublic interestLocal politicsDestination management

* Tel.: þ61 07 37357495.E-mail address: dianne.dredge@scu.edu.au

0261-5177/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.004

a b s t r a c t

As a set of economic activities, tourism trades on the character of special places. Conflict can emergewhere local residents perceive that tourism development proposals challenge the special qualities ofplace, and where place meaning and attachments are compromised. A key function of government inmediating conflict is to protect public interests, yet explicit consideration of public interest in tourismdevelopment conflict is unusual. This paper argues for a reinvigoration of public interest in the mediationof tourism development conflicts. It explores the concept of public interest and how governmentsinterpret and give meaning to it in development debates. In a case study of a cruise ship terminalproposal on the Gold Coast, Australia, the state adopted a neoliberal interpretation of public interestwherein increased global competitiveness of the destination was the overriding common good pursued.Local and diverse interests were marginalised in the debate. The paper concludes that in order toreinvigorate public interest, a public interest evaluation framework for tourism development is needed.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Tourism, as a set of economic activities, trades on the physical,social, environmental and cultural character of special places(Williams, 2002). Such destinations can also be sites of develop-ment conflict, particularly where new tourism development chal-lenges existing place values and local attachments (e.g. Church,2004; Gillen, 2004; Healey, 2005; Healey, de Magalhaes, Madani-pour, & Pendlebury, 2003). Literature is rich with stories of devel-opment conflict, analyses of tourism impacts on local communitiesand the accounts of dispute resolution and collaborative tourismplanning (e.g. Bramwell & Lane, 2000). Yet, the role of the state andinterpretations of public interest are important but little under-stood influences in tourism development conflict and in discoursesof place change. This paper addresses this gap, exploring the natureof public interest in tourism development conflicts and, in partic-ular, the role of the state in interpreting and empowering certainpublic interests.

Public interest is an enduring topic in planning and public policyresearch (Pal & Maxwell, 2004; Wells, 2007). This is because a keyfunction of government is to protect and enhance public interests.According to Arts and Van Tatenhove (2004), in recent times publicinterest has been lost within new vocabularies and fashionableconcepts in planning and policy development. These includegovernance, communicative action, networks, empowerment and

All rights reserved.

complexity wherein explicit consideration of public interest hasbeen replaced by an increased focus on mediation, negotiation,compromise and collaboration. In these practices the interests ofparticipants active in development discourses are mediated; thosewithout a voice or not present may not have their interests broughtto bear in the dialogue. As a result, overarching public interests havegiven way to a mediated bricolage of active interests. Accordingly,public interest is a slippery, subjective and dialectical concept.

From this perspective, three questions emerge to provide thefocus for this paper. Firstly, what is public interest in place change?Secondly, how is public interest taken into account in tourismdevelopment conflicts? Thirdly, how does the state define andpursue public interest during episodes of development conflict andplace governance? In addressing these questions, this paperexplores the production of tourism destinations in the globalmarketplace and the drivers of destination development andinvestment attraction. The paper then explores the nature of publicinterest within this process of destination development beforeidentifying four perspectives or positions of the state. Derived fromliterature, these four perspectives are then explored in a case studyof a proposed international cruise ship terminal on The Spit, GoldCoast, Australia. The proposed development was located on one ofthe last parcels of undeveloped coastal land in this densely builttourist city and generated significant conflict between local resi-dents and the State government. Underpinning this case study isthe assumption that understanding the role of the state and itsinterpretations of public interest can help inform future planningpractice, and in particular, provide insights into managing tourismdevelopment conflicts involving significant place change.

D. Dredge / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 104–112 105

2. The role of public interest in tourism development andplace change

Despite the growing body of multi-sectoral and multidisci-plinary planning and policy issues that transcend spatial bound-aries, the state retains a strong place-based dimension (Held, 1989).Elected representatives represent the interests of communitieswithin divisions, wards and electorates; the state exists at local,regional and national scales. Therefore, it is not surprising thatmultiple place values and meanings can also be historicallyembedded in the organisation and functioning of different parts ofthe state. Just as communities attribute values and meaning toplaces through their lived experiences and attachments, the statealso ascribes values and meaning to places in the way it conducts itsactivities. For example, land use regulation and strategic planningare state activities that can create and modify spatial character.Place marketing and promotion are other forms of state activitythat project place meanings. Different arms of the same govern-ment, or different levels of government may manifest differentvalues about places. As Shaw and Williams (2004, p.187) observe‘the local state is at the heart of the response to change’.

A key role of the state is to protect and enhance public interests.Yet, public interest is a slippery and abstract concept that has defieddefinition despite it being a key theme in planning, public policyand political studies (Pal & Maxwell, 2004; Wells, 2007). Histori-cally, under the scientific management approach to public admin-istration that dominated for most of the twentieth century, publicinterest was determined by bureaucrats making decisions aboutwhat was in the collective public interest and what was not (Ross,1991; Thomas, 1994). Often these values were embedded in theplanning process and were not made explicit. Bureaucrats werethought to know best. Throughout the course of the twentiethcentury, postmodern and post-structuralist scholars have sought todismantle the notion of a common or unitary public interest. Asa result there is an increasingly common view that state institutionsalone do not necessarily ensure policy-making for the ‘commonpublic good’ (Giddens, 1998; Huntington, 1991; King & Kendall,2004). There are multiple publics and diverse public interests thatcoalesce, overlap and even contradict each other. Recent debatesargue for a renewed exploration of public interest and democraticpractices (e.g. Asen, 2003; Greene, 2003). Influenced by JohnDewey’s (1927) treatise on the loss of public sphere and thepotentially negative impact that ‘too many publics’ can have onpublic debate, Greene argues that actors engaged in public debatecan only make good judgements where they are engaged in argu-mentation, discursive practices and behaviours. This communica-tive practice provides the basis of personal development anddeliberative, intelligent public decision-making.

Recent research trajectories have tended to focus on networksand regimes, exploring the nature of power in networked policy-making contexts. Whilst there is little explicit attention on thepublic interest, this literature suggests that public interest is dealt

Table 1Four perspectives on public interest

Rational perspective Neoliberal perspective

Theoreticalinfluence

Rational scientific/bureaucrat asarbiter of public interest

Corporatism/market as arbiterof public interest

Application toplace change

Tools and techniques thatmeasure place identity, valuesand attachment

Dominance of coalitions ofeconomic interests indevelopment discourses

Interpretation ofpublic interest

Public interest defined by‘scientific’ approach ora process through whichdecisions have been fairly andtransparently made

Public interest defined in termsof economic criteria e.g.competitiveness, employment,investment

with via communicative processes where the mediating institutionpromotes a deliberative process that explicitly discusses the publicinterest impacts of potential decisions (Uhr, 2005). As Wells (2007)rightly claims however, this lack of explicit attention to publicinterest within policy debates and the absence of clearly articulatedor balanced public interest tests can often result in rhetorical claimsabout the public benefits derived from development proposals. Asa result, the legitimacy of certain decisions can be questioned andtrust in government can be affected (McAllister & Wanna, 2001; Pal& Maxwell, 2004).

Not surprisingly, there has been little discussion in literatureabout the role and nature of public interest in episodes of placegovernance. There has, however, been growing attention uponnetworked policy-making and place governance in which power isused to explain deliberative decision-making (Booher & Innes, 2002;Healey, 2006). In this line of inquiry, it is the state, and its tourismorganisations in particular, have a direct and powerful influenceover the production of place image and identity but sometimesthese do not necessarily accord with local values and meanings.Powerful interest and narrow economic interpretations of place candominate tourism development discourses and episodes of tourismplace governance. Pal and Maxwell (2004) propose a way forward isto formulate a public interest accountability framework. This is anidea that will be returned to later, but before doing so it is useful toinvestigate how governments might frame public interest.

3. Four perspectives on framing public interest

Drawing from public policy literature, four dominant perspec-tives of public interest in place change discourses are posited. Theseare the rational perspective, the neoliberal perspective, the specificinterests perspective and the participatory perspective (see Table 1).These perspectives are not mutually exclusive. They overlap andintersect in the words and in the expressed and unexpressed posi-tions of the actors and agencies involved in debates about placechange. From time to time these dominant perspectives will move inand out of focus.

3.1. Rational perspective

This perspective is derived from the rational scientific view ofplanning and public management. In this perspective, technicalanalysis and ‘rational’ decision-making drive place change. A rangeof research and evaluative tools and approaches exist to enhancethe rigour of evaluating place change including landscape valuesand amenity analysis and social survey techniques. This perspectiveis underpinned by the notion of ‘public interest’ as an enduringvalue in planning and decision-making processes with thebureaucrat able to make definitive judgements about what is in thepublic interest. More recently this perspective has come underincreasing criticism given that public interest can be defined indifferent ways by different people at different times in the planning

Specific interests perspective Participatory perspective

Clientelism/elite as arbiter of publicinterest

Pluralism/community as arbiter ofpublic interest

Place change decisions based on thepreferences of the ‘governing elite’ whichare often powerful developer groups

Values community approaches to publicengagement, participation andvisioning

Public interest is that which serves ‘elite’or dominating interests

Public interest defined by thecommunity using consultativeprocesses and communicative action

D. Dredge / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 104–112106

and policy-making process (Thomas, 1994). The notion that politi-cians are elected and bureaucrats are appointed to act in theinterests of citizens is increasingly scrutinised, and the legitimacyof bureaucratic definitions of public interest are questioned(McAllister & Wanna, 2001).

3.2. Neoliberal perspective

The neoliberal perspective is underpinned by corporatistphilosophies of public policy. This perspective acknowledges thatmarket forces and corporate interests have gained unprecedentedinfluence within state apparatus in recent decades (e.g. Healey,2005; Madanipour, Hull, & Healey, 2001). Coalitions of corporatepower play a significant role in development discourses and thepower of individuals outside these coalitions is limited. In thisperspective, public interest is narrowly defined as those thatfurther the coalitions’ corporate interests, and does not necessarilyreflect broader public interests.

3.3. Specific interests perspective

This perspective is based on theories of elitism, which hold thatpower in society is located with a select few, and that governmentsrespond favourably to these interests. In relation to developmentdiscourses, this perspective suggests that decisions about placechange will reflect the preferences of the ‘governing elite’. Reviewsof clientelism have observed that elite power has, in the past, beenclosely aligned with economic interests. However, political shifts tothe New Labor in many developed economies suggest thatcommunity interests, social justice and environmental interests aregaining ground.

3.4. Participatory perspective

The participatory perspective is influenced by pluralism andtakes a society-centred view of government. Pluralism is distin-guished by the belief that power is diffused within society and thatthe state must incorporate all views. In other words, there aremultiple publics and multiple public interests that stretch overgeographical scales and across time (Healey, 2005; McAllister &Wanna, 2001). Under this perspective, the challenge for planning isto make explicit these interests and to make trade offs in fullrecognition of the interests at play and the impacts and conse-quences of certain decisions on these diverse interests. This inter-pretation of public interest allows for the subjective rationalities ofindividuals to play a part in determining public interest.

4. Research approach

This paper seeks to develop understandings of the differentperspectives that exist about public interest and place change usinga case study approach. According to Flyvbjerg (2001), good casestudies can provide invaluable opportunities for learning andreflection. Haajer and Wagenaar (2003) and Sandercock (2003)support this view, adding that good case studies involve interpre-tation; they expand practical understandings and sharpen criticaljudgement. This case study involved an analysis of attitudes andvalues about public interest manifested by elected representativesduring an episode of development conflict on The Spit, Gold Coast.The Spit has been subject to many development proposals and hasbeen the site of considerable debate and controversy over the last50 years. The ebb and flow of behaviours and interactions betweenactors and institutional processes and structures constitute whatHealey (2005) terms ‘episodes of governance’. This episode ofgovernance acts as a filter by removing unwanted and/or minor

issues; collecting, collating and prioritising the main issues thathave traction in the community. Analysing these episodes areimportant in understanding how issues emerge; individualepisodes become part of a pattern, and approaches inherited fromthe past are grafted onto today’s issues (Considine, 2005, p.74).Accordingly, scholars such as Flyvbjerg (2001), Sandercock (2003)and Stone (1989) argue that stories and story-telling practice isa powerful catalyst for reflection, learning and change.

The paper adopts a social constructivist perspective, taking as itsstarting point that there are multiple, subjective interpretations ofpublic interest among elected representatives and bureaucrats(Goodson & Phillimore, 2004). In this research a range of datasources was used, including parliamentary debates, media reports,government reports and minutes, local history archives, census andother available statistical data and participant observation at publicinformation days. Parliamentary debates provided the main datasource because the researcher was particularly interested in theway elected representatives, as the main decision-makers, definepublic interest. Parliamentary debates are a widely-accepted datasource for discourse analysis in the policy sciences (Bachtiger,2004). Between 2004 and 2007 there were 1108 instances wherethe proposed cruise ship was raised in the Queensland Stateparliament. Of these, the researchers selected for analysis 38extracts from the parliamentary transcripts. The extracts wereselected based on (1) that the extract contained substantive contentor discussion about the proposal, and (2) the extracts hada discursive component which built upon or rebutted the points ofother speakers. The individual and unique voices and expressionsof elected representatives involved in the conflict provide the focusof this analysis. In this way, knowledge about how public interest isdefined and given meaning in decision-making is derived from thewords, thoughts and actions of decision-makers themselves. Theanalysis of the transcripts examined the words, stories and argu-ments for and against the proposed cruise ship terminal. Particularattention was given to the ideas, values and meanings attributed tothe Spit as a special place, and the public interest values attributedto the Spit. The literature and construction of the perspectives inTable 1 provided the initial impetus and scaffolding for the analysis.

While other stakeholders, such as the local progress associationand local government actors were involved in the debates, thisstudy focuses on the voices of Queensland State elected represen-tatives for two key reasons: (1) because of the influence theseactors had in the decision-making process in this particular case,and (2) because the role of elected representatives is both torepresent pubic interests and to facilitate the contributions ofcitizens to public debate. The task was to untangle these interpre-tations, and explore the values and interests embedded in theirwords to better understand the way in which public interest isconstructed in this particular tourism development conflict. Theepisode of governance examined below, adopts the propertiesidentified by Sandercock (2003, p.13), which provide the basis ofgood analytical reflective policy analysis:

� A temporal or sequential framework that outlines historicalevents;� Coherent explanation of the events using causal mechanisms;� Potential for generalisability;� Presence of recognised, generic conventions (a context, a plot

and the protagonists) and;� Moral tension, which promotes questioning, reflection and

opportunities for learning.

In qualitative research it is important to consider the positioningof the researcher, acknowledging the background, values and biasesbrought to the construction of the research problem, the

D. Dredge / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 104–112 107

interpretation of data and the influences upon the knowledge/understandings created (Goodson & Phillimore, 2004; Hall, 2004;Jamal & Hollinshead, 2001). In this case study the researcher movedbetween critical and interpretive frames in constructions of publicinterest. ‘Critical’ because of a belief that public interest isincreasingly defined as an economic construct wherein local publicvalues are marginalised in the predominantly neoliberal posi-tioning of contemporary Australian governments. This neo-liberalising discourse has come to dominate a wide range ofdevelopment debates including tourism. The research involvedidentifying which interests were being served in the variousconceptions of public policy offered by stakeholders. The researchwas also ‘interpretative’ because of a strong belief that even withinthese neoliberal debates there are multiple interpretations ofpublic interest that are being contested and refined. Theresearcher’s disciplinary formation in constructivist public policyand planning also influences this focus, emphasising the role ofgovernment as a powerful (but not necessarily deterministic)influence in public policy debates (see e.g. Botterill, 2001; Tribe,2004 for a discussion of epistemological issues in tourism). Thisapproach allowed the researcher to move from understandingsabout the ideas of different actors to understandings about inter-actions, deliberation of differing viewpoints and decision-making(Shotter, 1993).

5. Research framework

Fig. 1 conceptualises the factors influencing how public interestsare interpreted in development debates. In this figure, combina-tions of cultural, social, economic, natural and physical features(shown at the top of the figure) contribute to the different placemeanings, values, experiences, memories and attachments held bydiverse groups of stakeholders. In the lower part of the figure,government values, structures and processes coalesce to shape theinstitutional environment in which place change occurs. The centreof the figure represents the dialogic space in which public interestsare interpreted and given meaning.

Neoliberalperspective

Participatoryperspective

CITIZENS’ PLACE VALUES, ATT

Derived from the cultural, social, economic, ec

VALUES, PROCESSES AND STR

Derived from public administration ideology; respmethods of community engagement; and in

INTERPRETATION

INTEREST IN EP

GOVERNA

Fig. 1. Influences on interpret

5.1. The influence of citizens’ place values, attachments andmeanings

At the top of Fig. 1, place values, attachments and meanings areconstructed from the social, cultural, economic, ecological, physicalcharacteristics of place. Individuals and groups value combinationsof these characteristics differently, giving rise to unique meaningsand attachments to places. The strength of these meanings andattachments can be a source of great conflict when the specialqualities of place are threatened (e.g. Gillen, 2004; Healey, 2005;Healey et al., 2003). In tourist destinations, these place values andattachments are constituted and reconstituted in the memories anddaily lives of local residents and visitors. But these place values andmeanings are dynamic. Cartier (2005) observes that local inhabi-tants’ social constructions of place are also transformed by the waythat residents engage with and adapt to the tourism activity thattakes place around them. Residents of such destinations modifytheir own behaviours and values over time. In many destinations,where tourism is historically embedded, gradual change as a resultof product development or market shifts can go unnoticed in thedaily lives of residents. Over time such change can have a trans-formational effect on the locality and the daily lives of inhabitants.The very nature of tourism means that the lives of residents and thespecial qualities of local places are deeply entwined with theprocesses of tourism destination identity and development (e.g. seeCartier & Lew, 2005; Crouch, 2000; Dredge & Jenkins, 2003; Shaw &Williams, 2004).

5.2. The influence of values, processes and structures of the state

The lower part of Fig. 1 represents the structures, processes,values and motivations influencing government involvement intourism development and place change. These include the publicadministration ideologies; methods and approaches for engagingin public debates; the way that governments respond to externalpressures and influences; and the processes of government. Asdestinations vie for global tourism markets, there is a need to

Specific interestsperspective

Rationalperspective

ACHMENTS & MEANINGS

ological, physical characteristics of place

UCTURES OF THE STATE

onses to external pressures and influences;stitutional structures and processes

S OF PUBLIC

ISODES OF

NCE

ations of public interest.

D. Dredge / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 104–112108

continually develop and redevelop innovative and competitivetourism products, services and experiences to attract new marketsand maintain repeat visitation (Harvey, 1989; Shaw & Williams,2004). This is particularly the case in destinations where there isstrong competition for increasingly fickle global tourism markets,and where large-scale built attractions and flagship projects areused to reinvigorate destination image (e.g. Norris, 2003; Smith,2006). Governments, interested in securing competitive advantageare courting flagship projects such as stadia, waterfront develop-ments, signature events, museums and galleries in an effort toattract further investment. Prophetically, Peck and Tickell (2002,p.393) argue that this process of urban entrepreneurialism onlyreproduces extralocal rule systems and ‘turns cities accomplices intheir own subordination’. That is, no destination can afford to becomplacent or inactive in these processes of investment attractionand re-imaging. In this sense, government control over economicdevelopment is subjugated to external influences.

5.3. Episodes of governance

These influences on the state, and the characteristics andmeanings attached to place confront each other in the centre ofFig. 1. Increasing competition among destinations means thatgovernments are pressed to secure the ever-elusive competitiveadvantage. The pressure of competition compresses debates overplace change. Where such development proposals are significant,sudden or challenge existing place values beyond the imaginable,fear of change may be a common reaction among local residents.Shaw and Williams (2004, p.21) note that socially constructed‘property rights’ can come into play, where local residents havestrong relationships and perceived ownership rights over localassets of value to tourism. Development conflicts can emerge.During such development debates, attachment can be heightenedas a result of episodes of conflict and collective action. Healey(2006) refers to the mediation of these development conflicts asepisodes of governance.

There is an increasingly robust discussion in the literature aboutthe role of the state in these episodes of governance. Madanipouret al. (2001), Mordue (2007), Shaw and Williams (2004) and Urry(2002) are among those who discuss the role of the state in thecontext of global competition. They observe that global competi-tion can bring about development decisions that ignore complexsocial processes and local interests that foster the homogenisationof place, and cause a loss of local identity. The privatisation of publicopen space and the use of spectacle in many locations are evidenceof these trends (e.g. Hannigan, 1998; Zukin, 1995). In such discus-sions, the role of the state is to mediate the local politics of placewith the exogenous forces of globalism. But in doing so, ethical andsocial considerations about what is the public benefit can be side-lined (Mordue, 2007). To understand these processes, Healey(2005, 2006) adopts an institutionalist perspective to argue that theinteractive processes of governance in which networked powerplays out to shape and reshape locality and place meaning. Putsimply, Healey’s argument is that the state has a powerful role toplay in place change. Haajer and Wagenaar (2003) observes that thestate has a powerful role in the structuration of these developmentdiscourses and the processes through which the debate plays out.

The literature dealing with the effects of tourism on place andidentity is significant (see for example the collection of works inCartier & Lew, 2005; Hall, 1994; Judd & Fainstein, 1999; Shaw &Williams, 2004). There is growing concern within this literaturethat processes of globalisation and international competition forthe highly mobile tourism dollar have led to homogenising devel-opment and the consumption of spaces by visitors who generallyhave limited connection or attachment to that place (Rojek & Urry,

1997; Urry, 2002). These processes can often lead to tension andconflict between developers, governments and local communitieswhere place values differ (e.g. Cartier, 2005; Crouch, 2000; Shaw &Williams, 2004; Stokowski, 2002; Williams, 2002). The state hasa significant role in the mediation of such conflicts and in negoti-ating place meanings, but better understandings are needed abouthow the state interprets and empowers public interest values. Thisdiscursive space in which debates about place change occur isshown in the centre of Fig. 1. This discursive space and interpre-tation of public interest in place making constitute part of the littleunderstood ‘black box’ of policy-making whereby policy inputs (e.g.information, analysis and alternative scenarios) are processed anddecisions are made (Easton, 1965). The concern here is that publicinterest and its multiple interpretations is one of the inputs intothis ‘black box’, but it is receiving less and less attention withincommunicative and collaborative planning. The discussion thatfollows is structured to reflect the key dimensions in processes ofplace change shown in Fig. 1.

6. Case study

6.1. The Spit: citizen place values, attachments and meanings

In February 2006, the Save our Spit (SOS) alliance organiseda rally. Over 3000 protesters including 60 boat owners, 100 surfersand 50 divers gathered on a small remnant of coastal public openspace known as The Spit, Gold Coast, to demonstrate their oppo-sition to a State government proposal for the development of aninternational cruise ship terminal on the site. For over 50 yearslocals have maintained strong attachment to the site and opposi-tion to development of The Spit has been unwavering. A fewmonths after the protest, and in response to a continued barrage ofcriticism about the proposal, the then Deputy Premier summed upthe community’s angst, ‘it would be great if [The Spit] was lessenvironmentally sensitive, if people had less emotional attachmentto it – that would make it a lot easier’ (Courier Mail 8/4/2006). Thegenesis of this conflict was found in competing views about publicinterests.

The Gold Coast, located within South-East Queenslandmetropolitan area (pop. 2.8 million) and 100 km south of Bris-bane, the state capital, is one of Australia’s most iconic tourismdestinations. The Gold Coast received 5.9 million day trip visitors,15.6 million domestic visitor nights and 6.4 million internationalvisitor nights in 2006. Within this context, the Southport Spit isa place of multiple meanings within the rapidly changing urbanfabric of the Gold Coast. Since European settlement, much of TheSpit has been subject to tidal inundation, erosion, sand instabilityand storm surge. In 1979 the State government established theGold Coast Waterways Authority to address this problem. Exten-sive works including the construction of breakwaters, channeldredging and the construction of a sand bypass system during the1980s improved the stability area making it more suitable fordevelopment.

As a result, The Spit means different things to different groups.Local residents perceive it as a natural environment created out ofsand deposition processes and aided by government remediationefforts. They have long frequented it for informal recreationpursuits such as surfing, fishing and diving. Today, the northern endof the Spit remains in public ownership. Together, a 10 ha publicpark is located at the tip of The Spit and a 94 ha open space strip,known as Federation Walkway provide one of only two semi-natural coastal environments left on the Gold Coast (pop 500,000).The City’s planning scheme allows some of the densest residential/tourist accommodation (769 bedrooms/ha) immediately south ofThe Spit in Main Beach and Surfers’ Paradise. As a result, a strong

D. Dredge / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 104–112 109

sense of place and local place attachment have contributed to anactive community presence in development debates.

Alternatively, developers perceive The Spit as a space of economicdevelopment opportunity created from shifting coastal sands; theonly significant parcel of undeveloped coastal land remaining in theCity. Since the 1960s these perceptions have been supported bya string of flagship developments approved in the southern part ofThe Spit, including Marineland Aquarium (1965) SeaWorld (1972),Fisherman’s Wharf (1981), Sheraton Mirage Hotel and apartments(1986) and the Nara Resort (1987). Another competing view is heldby the State government. As Crown Land, the Queensland Stategovernment perceives itself as custodian of The Spit, a view sup-ported by considerable state investment in stabilisation and envi-ronmental remediation. As a result, The Spit is characterised bycompeting meanings, attachments and sense of place.

6.2. State values, processes and structures

The episode of governance, the focus of this paper, the MarineDevelopment Project, was proposed in December 2005 and with-drawn in August 2006. The impetus for this episode was thecreation of a Gold Coast Marine Development Project Board bythe Queensland State government. This Board was created to act asthe proponent for an international cruise ship terminal, super yachtmarina and associated facilities to be located at the northern tip ofthe Spit. The proponent was to facilitate the preparation of anEnvironmental Impact Statement, to provide advice to the Premierand Co-ordinator General about the project, and to undertake otherfunctions that may be delegated to the Board. While detailed planswere not released, a notional design was mooted during the publicconsultation phase of the project. The creation of the Board was anarrangement whereby the State government created its ownproponent for the project; this proponent was also to give theGovernment advice on a project; and the Government, taking intoaccount that advice, would make a decision on the proposal! As ifthis wasn’t enough, Anna Bligh, Deputy Premier at the timedeclared:

The government has also announced that, as the first stage ofa proposed development for the Gold Coast cruise ship terminal,expressions of interest will be called from developers at the sametime as an environmental impact study is undertaken (emphasisadded) (Qld Parliamentary Debates 29/09/2005)

These institutional arrangements suggest a State governmentculture that mobilises an economic bias by supporting large-scaledeveloper interests. In creating a proponent the State governmentsought to provide a pathway of least resistance for the developmentassessment. Using this process, the proposal was declareda ‘significant development’ by the State’s Co-ordinator General,which triggered the preparation of an environmental impactassessment (EIS) under State government legislation, effectivelyby-passing the local council. This gave State government bureau-crats direct control over the way in which the EIS was developed,the criteria by which it was assessed, and it enabled recentlyintroduced and more rigorous local government processes to bebypassed. Importantly, this approach also removed the proposalfrom the local arena, with Gold Coast City Council and itscommunities becoming observers in the process. The locus ofcontrol rested in the state capital, with a central State governmentagency, rather than with the local council. As a result, placeattachment and local values were marginalised within widerconsiderations of the state’s public interest.

The Queensland State government commitment to the projectwas justified in terms of the enormous economic contribution to begained from the cruise shipping industry. It followed on from the

State’s Cruise Shipping Plan that sought to establish Queensland asa destination for the rapidly growing world cruise shippingindustry (Queensland Tourism, 2005). In particular, the Project wasforecast to bring one cruise ship to Port every 10 days with aneconomic benefit in the vicinity of $235 million over the next 20years (Qld Parliamentary Debates, Hon Peta-Kaye Croft, Member forBroadwater (ALP) 28/02/2007).

The then Deputy Premier and Minster for State Development,Trade and Innovation, Anna Bligh, reiterated an economic focus inthe public interest:

. Cruise passengers spend an estimated $110 to $140 a daywhile at ports. Each passenger cruise ship injects about$200,000 a day to the local port economies where passengersdisembark. With that sort of economic potential at stake, theGold Coast cruise ship proposal at least warrants our full andthorough investigation. (Qld Parliamentary Debates, Hon AnnaBligh, 09/03/2006).

In August 2006, the proposed project and cruise ship terminalwas withdrawn by the State government citing concerns with theenvironmental impacts, but no further details were given. Inter-estingly, the proposal was scrapped prior to the abovementionedcommunity protest and 1 month prior to State government elec-tions. The development was located in the marginal Laborgovernment held seat of Broadwater. The remainder of this paperexplores the way in which interpretations of public interest playedout in this episode of governance. In the discussion that follows thewords of the various stakeholders and the stories they tell are usedto build better understandings of the different place values andmeanings ascribed to The Spit and how public interest was inter-preted during the episode.

6.3. Interpretations of public interest

The rational perspective is underpinned by the scientific tech-nical approach to planning and policy-making. Socially constructedplace values and meanings are identified using tools and tech-niques that lend a sense of rationality to the evaluation of placechange. In this case study, there is limited evidence of sucha perspective other than a general commitment made to the EISprocess:

The comprehensive EIS to be undertaken will fully analyse theenvironmental and social impacts of the project, including theeffects of dredging on the Broadwater, marine life in the seawayand the effects on recreational pursuits such as surfing,diving and fishing. The EIS process involves communityconsultation, and members of the public will be encouraged toprovide submissions. The community will also be given theopportunity to comment on the draft EIS report and any furtherplans (Qld Parliamentary Debates, Hon. Anna Bligh, 29/5/2005).

Legislation required the EIS process to examine a range of issuesand consider what level of impact is acceptable. Public interest isembedded within but not necessarily explicitly considered in theEIS. In this case, public consultation was relatively tokenistic, withtwo forms of input sought. Consultants held an open day wherebyinterested members of the public could view displays and askquestions, and members of the public were encouraged to submitcomments. The way in which the public consultation process wasstructured and the centralised and tokenistic approach bygovernment was criticised by the Main Beach Progress Association:

The ‘information day’ was intimidating to individuals, tediousfor the consultants, inefficient of time and resources, restricted

D. Dredge / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 104–112110

widespread information flows and minimised the opportunityfor full and open consultation (MBPA, 23/05/2006)

Moreover, complex comments and objections raised during theconsultation process were simplistically classified into 10 cate-gories with 22% being classified ‘general objection’. This process didnothing to recognise or address the diversity of interests over thesite. Such was the degree of mistrust in the consultation processthat only 130 objections were received and analysed during theobjection period despite petitions with over 20,000 signaturesbeing tabled in parliament. Members of the public also preferred toengage with media, with elected representatives, or through publicprotests.

The neoliberal perspective is underpinned by greater weightgiven to global competition and investment attraction compared tolocal issues and concerns. Recent criticisms of neoliberalism havebrought a renewed assertion that competition must be balancedagainst community well-being and local benefits. Within the casestudy there is evidence that a neoliberal version of public interestwas the dominant perspective adopted by the government. That is,The Spit was perceived and valued as a space of economic oppor-tunity, one of the few remaining well located undeveloped sites onthe Gold Coast and that change was inevitable:

The Beattie government has a duty to provide, amongst otherthings, economic stability and employment opportunities forthe people of this State.. The state government also has a dutyto balance these [economic] imperatives against other veryimportant considerations. The main one, of course, is care of theenvironment. This suggests the need for a balance, and that iswhat I want: a balance between development and theenvironment (Qld Parliamentary Debates, Mrs Smith(BurleighdALP) 28-2-2006).

In the above statement, the environmental values areacknowledged but the Member for Southport further suggests thatemotional attachment and memories of the place stand in the wayof this change:

However, we have to draw a line somewhere, because wecannot simply pull up the drawbridge at the Gold Coast. I wouldhave liked to pull up the drawbridge in about 1960. That wasquite a nice time for me. Since I was only 12, I did not have theworries of the world on my shoulders. I used to run along TheSpit area of the Gold Coast and there was not a stick of vege-tation there. It was a great place (Qld Parliamentary Debates, MrLawlor (SouthportdALP) 28/02/2006)

In the specific interests perspective, the interests of a fewpowerful individuals underpin development discourses and deci-sions about place change. In this case study a Project Boarddominated by development interests was appointed to oversee theproposal. Parliamentary debates reveal the then Deputy Premiereager to establish the credentials of the Board as being sensitive tolocal perspectives: . ‘we are also finalising the appointment ofa project board to oversee the development. It will include bothpublic sector and well-respected community figures.’ (QldParliamentary Debates, Hon. Anna Bligh, 27/10/2005). However,the backgrounds of most Board members as developers, consul-tants, economic development officers and engineers suggestedthat they were likely to interpret The Spit as space of economicopportunity. Only one board member represented local commu-nity interests.

The participatory perspective acknowledges and values placemeaning, mediating these values within development debates.Deputy Premier Anna Bligh, who grew up on the Gold Coast, payslip service to these different values:

Our vision for the Southport Spit includes a terminal, along witha possible marine facility for super yachts, recreational andcommercial craft and the development of a commercial ortourism related business on properties south of SeaWorld.Vitally, the cruise terminal will occupy just one hectare, or eightper cent, of the existing 12 hectares of Doug Jennings Park andwill include an upgrade of the public recreational amenities inthe park and in other areas of The Spit. Our vision strikes thebalance between public recreational use and further develop-ment (Qld Parliamentary Debates, Hon. Anna Bligh 29/09/2005).

However, at no time was there a more thorough discussionor evaluation of local community interests. Instead, publicinterest was consistently framed around the economic benefits toQueenslanders.

7. Discussion

This paper sought to answer three interrelated questions. Firstly,what is public interest in the context of tourism place change?Within the literature, public interest was found to be slippery andelusive – a dialectical concept impossible to define outside thecontext and the positioning of the person or agency seeking todefine it. There are multiple publics and diverse public interestsstretching across time and space. This case study has demonstratedthat place change can be the source of considerable developmentconflict, and that the impacts of place change are best dealt with byevaluating change within a clearly articulated framework.

The second question addressed how public interest is taken intoaccount in tourism development conflict? This case study revealedthat institutional culture, values, structures and processes hada significant impact upon interpretations of public interest. Deci-sions and processes around the proposal, and the preparation of theEIS, were embedded in the workings of the institution. Theseunquestioned structures and processes impacted on the nature andstyle of public engagement and influence the conceptualisation ofsome public issues as impediments to economic development andprogress. The development assessment process focused on thepublic interests at a broader State level, and local public interestswere diminished and marginalised as a result. This was illustratedin the voices of elected representatives eager to foster state-wideinterpretations of public interest, and in doing so, minimise thelocal public interest concerns.

The third question was how does the state define and pursuepublic interest during episodes of development conflict and placegovernance? The literature revealed that, when faced with the needto make decisions, governments tend to adopt one or more of fourbroad interpretations of public interest: a rational perspectivedetermined by a technical (but value-laden) process, a neoliberalperspective (that values globalisation and economic competition),a specific interests perspective (that values some powerful interestsover others) and a participatory perspective (underpinned by thecollaborative prioritization of issues). In this case study eachperspective was present although not always explicit. Differentperspectives co-existed in the words and actions of stakeholders,which contributed to the mixed messages that protesters receivedduring the conflict.

There was no explicit attempt to define, conceptualise or oper-ationalise the notion of public interest. This lack of attention topublic interest is troubling given that an important role ofgovernments and elected representatives is to protect the publicinterest. Furthermore, the EIS process is, in principle, a process thatsupports governments in making good decisions about develop-ment proposals. This EIS process did not evaluate the impact of theproposal on public interests. In this case study, consistent and

D. Dredge / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 104–112 111

continued efforts by elected representatives to sell the project’seconomic benefits suggest that the neoliberal perspective domi-nated interpretations of public interest. Elected representatives’perspectives were frequently grounded in the neoliberal imperativethat economic competitiveness necessitated place change.

In this sense, scale and distributional effects are importantconsiderations in assessing the impact of a proposal on publicinterest. Local publics are directly impacted by place change asso-ciated with large-scale tourism projects promoted by upper levelsof government, but should their interests be given more or lessweight than those of a distant community that may benefit frommultiplier effects? Constructing a public interest evaluationframework can assist government decision-making by improvingtransparency and accountability. Based on the shortcomings of thecase study, such a framework should:

� Address the collective interests of the public;� Acknowledge the diversity of interests over time and across

scales;� Evaluate the different development scenarios (e.g. develop-

ment versus no development) in terms of the public interests;� Have a clearly defined process based on a clearly identified set

of public interest criteria or questions;� Explain the evaluation in a transparent manner that facilitates

community learning.

A public interest evaluation framework might include consid-eration of the following dimensions and questions:

Dimensions Sub-dimension Public interest questions

Interests Contemporary interests �What are all the contemporary interests that might be impacted by the proposal?Future interests �What are the future communities of interest that might be impacted by the proposal?

Values Current impact � To what extent will contemporary communities of interests be impacted positively or negatively?Future impact � To what extent will the future communities of interest be impacted positively or negatively?Acceptable level of place change � How might the place change over time and to what extent is this acceptable to current and future

communities of interest?Spatial distribution

of interestsContemporary distribution �What is the distribution of these impacts on different contemporary communities of interest?Future distribution �What is the distribution of these impacts on different future communities of interest?Spatial scale � Does the proposal affect different communities of interest at different scales?Weighting � Should the impacts on some of these communities of interest be given more weight than others?

Process Fairness � Do institutional structures and processes favour some interests more than others?Inclusion � Do institutional structures and processes allow different public interests to be articulated and voiced?

� How might other or ‘excluded’ voices be identified and taken into account?Transparency � Does the decision-making process clearly articulate the value given to different interests?Tools & techniques �What are the strengths and weaknesses of the tools and techniques used to identify and evaluate public

interests? (i.e. evaluate the value of surveys, polls, petitions, etc)Place attachment Contemporary place meaning &

attachment� Has the meaning/attachment to place of contemporary communities of interest been acknowledged andaddressed in the debate and decision-making?

Future place meaning & attachment �Has the meaning/attachment to place of future communities of interest been acknowledged and addressed inthe debate and decision-making?

8. Conclusion

An examination of place change in this paper reveals that theconcept of public interest could be reinvigorated in an effort toimprove governments’ role in mediating place change. Hall (1994)called for greater attention on public interest in tourism develop-ment issues, but to date such attention has been scant. This casestudy suggests that governments engaged in neoliberal global-isation imperatives such as investment attraction, job creation andcompetition have specific interpretations of public interest.Furthermore, governments further these interpretations becreating institutional structures and processes that support thesevalues. In this case study, the Queensland State government

exacerbated development conflict by creating structures andprocesses that distanced evaluation of the proposed developmentfrom the local community. In doing so, the government diminishedlocal social meanings and attachments that were not consistentwith the neoliberal objectives it was pursuing.

The significance of this paper has been to demonstrate the needto reinvigorate the concept of public interest in mediating placechange and to put forward a public interest evaluation frameworkfor place change. Discourses about tourism development and placechange involve decisions about what communities value. Thisrequires a structured and rigorous approach to understanding,evaluating and managing the tensions and differences that mayexist between stakeholders. That is, any attempt to reconcilecompeting claims on place involve an understanding of the socialprocesses and practices that contribute to place values, meaningsand attachments at different geographical scales. It also shouldinclude fair and open consideration of values, common interests,diversity of interests and majority opinions about place change.These different conceptions of public interest in place change canalso be sites of innovation and problem solving if clearly examinedand evaluated in transparent and accountable processes.

Underpinning this paper is the assumption that interrogatingthe role of the state, and its interpretation of public interest in placechange can help inform future planning practice. This paper drawsupon and weaves together understandings from geography, plan-ning, public policy and politics in an attempt to better under-standing the production of place during episodes of governance.This is particularly important given the increasing number of cases

where governments are no longer ‘independent’ arbiters of devel-opment proposals, but are actively involved in conceptualising andfacilitating development.

References

Arts, B., & Van Tatenhove, J. (2004). Policy and power: a conceptual frameworkbetween the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ policy idioms. Policy Sciences, 37, 337–356.

Asen, R. (2003). The multiple Mr. Dewey: multiple publics and permeable bordersin John Dewey’s Theory of the Public Sphere. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39,174–188.

Bachtiger, A. (2004). Deliberative politics in action: Analysing parliamentary discourse.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journalof Planning Education and Research, 21, 221–236.

D. Dredge / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 104–112112

Botterill, D. (2001). The epistemology of a set of tourism studies. Leisure Studies,20(3), 199–214.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (Eds.). (2000), Tourism collaboration and partnerships:Politics, practices and sustainability, Vol. 26. Clevedon: Channel ViewPublications.

Cartier, C. (2005). Introduction: touristed landscapes/seductions of place. InC. Cartier, & A. Lew (Eds.), Touristed landscapes: Geographical perspectives onglobalisation and touristed landscapes. Oxon: Routledge.

Cartier, C., & Lew, A. (2005). Touristed landscapes: Geographical perspectives onglobalisation and touristed landscapes. Oxon: Routledge.

Church, A. (2004). Local and regional tourism policy and power. In A. Lew,C. M. Hall, & A. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 555–567). Malden:Blackwell Publishing.

Considine, M. (2005). Making public policy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Crouch, D. (2000). Places around us: embodied lay geographies in leisure and

tourism. Leisure Studies, 19, 63–76.Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Athens: Swallow Press.Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2003). Destination place identity and regional tourism

policy. Tourism Geographies, 3(3), 425–443.Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley & Sons.Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it

can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Oxford: Polity.Gillen, M. (2004). Promoting place: elevating place-based discourse and new

approaches in local governance in New South Wales. Urban Policy and Research,22(2), 207–220.

Goodson, L., & Phillimore, J. (2004). The inquiry paradigm. Qualitative research intourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. London & New York:Routledge. pp. 30–45.

Greene, R. W. (2003). John Dewey’s Eloquent citizen: communication, judgementand postcapitalism. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39(3), 189–200.

Haajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understandinggovernance in a Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power and place. West Sussex: JohnWiley & Sons.

Hall, C. M. (2004). Reflexivity and tourism research. In J. Phillimore, & L. Goodson(Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies and methodol-ogies (pp. 137–155). London & New York: Routledge.

Hannigan, J. (1998). Fantasy city: Pleasure and profit in the postmodern metropolis.London & New York: Routledge.

Harvey, D. W. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.Healey, P. (2005). Place, identity and governance: transforming discourses and

practices. In J. Hillier, & E. Rooksby (Eds.), Habitas: A sense of place (2nd ed.). (pp.189–218) Aldershot: Ashgate.

Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptationand a new politics of space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299–320.

Healey, P., de Magalhaes, C., Madanipour, A., & Pendlebury, J. (2003). Place, identityand local politics, analysing initiatives in deliberative governance. In M. Hajer, &H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis (pp. 60–87). Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Held, D. (1989). Political theory and the modern state: Essays on state, power anddemocracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Huntington, S. (1991). The third wave. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.Jamal, T., & Hollinshead, K. (2001). Tourism and the forbidden zone: the under-

served power of qualitative inquiry. Tourism Management, 22, 66–82.Judd, D. R., & Fainstein, S. S. (1999). The tourist city. New Haven: Yale University

Press.King, R., & Kendall, G. (2004). The state, democracy and globalization. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.Madanipour, A., Hull, A., & Healey, P. (2001). The governance of place: Space and

planning processes. Aldershot: Ashgate.McAllister, I., & Wanna, J. (2001). Citizens’ expectations and perceptions of gover-

nance. In G. Davis, & P. Weller (Eds.), Are you being served? State, citizens andgovernance. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Mordue, T. (2007). Tourism, urban governance and public space. Leisure Studies,26(4), 447–462.

Norris, D. (2003). If we build it, they will come? Tourism-based economic devel-opment in Baltimore. In D. Judd (Ed.), The infrastructure of play: Building thetourism city (pp. 125–167). New York: Armonk.

Pal, L., & Maxwell, J. (2004). Assessing the public interest in the 21st century: Aframework. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network. (A paper prepared forthe External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation).

Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalising space. Antipode, 34, 208–216.Queensland Tourism. (2005). Queensland Cruise Shipping Plan. Brisbane: Queens-

land Tourism.Rojek, C., & Urry, J. (1997). Touring cultures: Transformations of travel and theory.

Oxon: Routledge.Ross, S. (1991). Planning and the public interest. The Planner, 77(40), 55–57.Sandercock, L. (2003). Out of the closet: the importance of stories and story-telling

in planning practice. Planning Theory and Practice, 4(1), 11–28.Shaw, S., & Williams, A. (2004). Tourism and tourism spaces. London: Sage.Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London:

SAGE Publication.Smith, A. (2006). Assessing the contribution of flagship projects to city image

change: a quasi-experimental technique. International Journal of TourismResearch, 8, 391–404.

Stokowski, P. A. (2002). Language of place and discourses of power: constructingnew senses of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4), 368.

Stone, D. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political ScienceQuarterly, 104(2), 281–300.

Thomas, H. (1994). Values and planning. Aldershot: Avebury publishing.Tribe, J. (2004). Knowing about: epistemological issues. In J. Phillimore, &

L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative research in tourism: Ontologies, epistemologies andmethodologies (pp. 46–62). London & New York: Routledge.

Uhr, J. (2005). The terms of trust: Arguments over ethics in Australia Government.Sydney: UNSW Press.

Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze. London: Sage.Wells, C. (2007). A public interest framework for public policy development: a property

and urban planning perspective. Paper presented at the Australasian PoliticalStudies Association Annual Conference.

Williams, D. R. (2002). Leisure identities, globalisation and the politics of place.Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4), 351–367.

Zukin, S. (1995). Landscapes of power: From Detroit to Disney World. Los Angeles:University of California Press.