Full text of DOI:10.1080/09669580008667359

This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]
On: 20 December 2014, At: 11:18
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable
Tourism
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
Influences on Tourism
Development Decision
Making: Coastal Local
Government Areas in
Eastern Australia
Harold Richins
Published online: 29 Mar 2010.
To cite this article: Harold Richins (2000) Influences on Tourism Development
Decision Making: Coastal Local Government Areas in Eastern Australia, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 8:3, 207-231, DOI: 10.1080/09669580008667359
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667359
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions

Influences on Tourism Development
Decision Making: Coastal Local
Government Areas in Eastern Australia
Harold Richins
Waikato School of Management, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Philip Pearce
Tourism Program, School of Buisiness, James Cook University, Townsville,
Queensland, Australia 4811
With sustainable development and specifically sustainable tourism, decision making
is perhaps the area where the impact on the future of communities is most crucial.
Understanding betterthe decision-making process, provides possibly the most impor-
tant potential tool in the sustainable management of tourism development. This paper
examines the influence factors on tourism decision making and sheds some light on
how important various influences are in the tourism development decision process. A
typology of community decision-making influence factors was examined through
research on local government councillors in Australian coastal regions. Three major
categoriesof this typology were identifiedin the literatureand further explored in this
study: inter-personal, intra-personal and circumstantial influence. Results from this
study show that a number of influence factors which relate to sustainable tourism are
consideredby councillors to have amore profound effecton theirdecisionmaking than
only the components of social influence theory which has been discussed in much of
the literature.Utilising this typology of community decision-making influence factors
may form the foundation for further studies of decision making. The results suggest
that influence factors on decision makers need to be both understood and taken into
consideration for sustainable tourism approaches to be effectively implemented.
Introduction
Over the last few decades, pressures regarding sustainable tourism develop-
ment in coastalregions have become of great interest and concern to researchers
as well as communities. This has placed great demands on relatively small
communities in coastal regions. The divergent priorities of tourists, residents,
investors,providers of tourist and leisure experiences, and non-government and
government organisations, as well as the complex relationships between these
groups, however, have created enormous challenges in meeting the needs of all
concerned. With increased utilisation has come exploitation, over usage,
increased development near sensitive sites, polarisation of community needs
and interests, and numerous other pressures in maintaining the assets which
attracted people to these regions in the first place. These diverse pressures make
decisions about future developments in coastal communities arduous and
potentially formidable(Galvani, 1993;Owens, 1985;Stanton, 1992). Dealing with
these concerns at a community level has become one of the great challenges
facing decision makers.
Within Australia, specifically Eastern Australia, much development has
occurred near growing tourism centres along its coastal zone. With the added
0966-9582/00/03 0207-25 $10.00/0
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
© 2000 H. Richins & P. Pearce
Vol. 8, No. 3, 2000
207

208
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
pressures of urban residential and industrial growth areas, especially near the
coasts in New South Wales and Queensland (Faulkner & Walmsley, 1998), this
has created additional challenges in determining effective approaches for
achieving a sustainable future.
Though policy and long-range planning on coastal development have been
primarily the responsibility of the states within Australia, decisions regarding
the management of the coastal developments have been traditionally within
local communities and the responsibility of the local government (Haward &
Bergin, 1991). To reach each judgement or determination on development issues
involves a decision-making process which may entail substantial analysis,
understanding, and influence, often involving the diversity of interests and the
incorporation of both an individual’s and a community’s value system.
A number of authors have more recently looked at tourism politics and policy
development on a national, state or regional level (Elliot, 1997; Hall, 1994, Hall &
Jenkins, 1995). An important aspect of the political process in tourism is decision
making and the decision-making process. In order to develop effective methods
for sustainable tourism development, the decision process and the influences on
decision makers needs to be understood. This has been explored at the local
community and local government level (Butler & Waldbrook 1991; Davis, 1980;
Ewen, 1983;Friend & Jessop, 1971;Jackson& O’Donnell, 1993;Joppe, 1996;Jones,
1989; Vroom & Yetton, 1973).
Aspects of decision making receiving attention have included the informal
versus formal nature of decision making (Resource Assessment Commission,
1993b), influence and behaviour in decision making (Wild, 1983), the partici-
pants in decision making (Davis & Weinbaum, 1969), the variability and
dynamic nature in local government decision making (Healy & Zinn, 1985), the
openness in the decision-making process (Shroff, 1993), the social representa-
tions of communities which may guide decision makers (Pearce
., 1991), and
et al
the major factorsin understanding how individuals interactand relate regarding
decision making (Davis, 1980).
One of the key strategic roles in local government councillor decision making
is with new development proposals. The Resource Assessment Commission’s
(1993a) inquiry into the Yorke Peninsula, Australia, discussed numerous coastal
developments and the approval process, primarily with regard to the State
government input. Marinas, residential development, holiday houses in beach
settings, tourism,aquaculture, and other developments have allbeen found to be
part of the decision-making process of various councils and the State govern-
ment. In each case, local councils were the primary decision makers, except
where large-scale or significant impact may take place.
Local governments have been responsible for decision making and referral
roles on tourism development proposals which may be in terms of building
licences, reviewing building applications, refuse disposal, relevant infrastruc-
ture development, and local health protection. Butler
. (1980) discussed
et al
appropriate initiatives for local governments. These include comprehensive
landuse planning, zoning,monitoringofnew developments, and localeconomic
development planning: ‘Local governments can review development proposals
to determine whether they are consistent with local needs and with balanced
land use for the area’ (p. 2046).

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
209
There are a number of additional decisions which may directly affect local
communities. Decisions on town planning schemes normally result in zoning or
development policy for decision making at the localgovernment level (Resource
Assessment Commission, 1993b). In a Tasmanian case study on local govern-
ment decision making in coastal zones (Resource Assessment Commission,
1993b), major decisions that local governments were involved with included
subdivision approval and development approval. Subdivision approvalencom-
passes both planning and health, while development approval also includes
planning and building approval. Responsibilities at the State level include envi-
ronmental assessment as well as evaluating projects of State or National impor-
tance. Federal decision making on developments occurs primarily in terms of
broader policy and impact.
In looking at local government decision making, three processes of local
government planning and decision making have been distinguished (Friend &
Jessop, 1971); namely, administrative departmental processes, council
committee processes, and council formal meeting processes. In discussing these
processes, the researchers acknowledged the difference between routine, more
simplistic decisions (made at the administrative level), those of medium level
which may utilise a committee of council for endorsement, and those more
complex and strategic decisions that require the endorsement (decision) of
council (e.g. in formal council meetings). In this paper, the third level is explored
(i.e. complex, financially significant, resource oriented decisions – primarily
tourism developments – which may influence different aspectsofa community’s
future, potentially from an economic, environmental and/or social-community
welfare point of view). It is expected that, at this level, difficult challenges,
stresses, and uncertainties are likely to arise through the complex decision
process.
Decision making in local government may occur at a number of different
phases in the development process as revealed by the Resource Assessment
Commission (1993c) in their analysis of Geographic Bay in Western Australia.
From the time the developer prepares the original plan, there are consultations
with local government and other authorities, ongoing feedback from the envi-
ronmental protection agency, amendments and consents which may be catered
for, and final decisions on accepting the final proposal.
The study of decision making in communities is a complex, multi-faceted and
possibly perplexing area. Understanding better thedecision-making process, the
background, historyand influences regarding decisions that are made, however,
provides perhaps the most important potential tool in the management of
possible developments, the coastalregions affected and the communities within
these regions. In addressing a relatively new area in tourism research, this paper
examines one major aspect of the elements leading to these complex decisions by
exploring factors influencing tourism development decision making in local
governments. By understanding the broad range of potential influencing factors,
as well as what principal local decision makers perceive as important in influ-
encing their decisions, communities which have pressures for development can
become better equipped to addressthefuture changes occurringin their regions.
The following section characterisesa recently developed typology of commu-
nity influence factors on community decision makers (Richins, 1999). The influ-

210
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
ence factorsdescribed in this typology arethen further explored through a recent
study of local government decision makers regarding tourism developments.
The Typology of Community Decision-making Influences
A number of authors have attempted to develop theories or define concepts of
decision influence (Bailey, 1991; Banfield, 1982; Bernard, 1990; Flinn & Stokes,
1970; Howard, 1990; Iso-Ahola, 1980; Kabanoff, 1985; McLeod & Chaffee, 1972,
1987; Tedeschi & Bonoma, 1972; Tosi
Abrahams, 1972; Weiner
., 1994; Turner, 1991; Walster &
., 1977) primarily from a social-psychological study
et al
et al
of influence. These theories, however, have been limited in their ability to
provide more comprehensive views and sufficient debate regarding additional
components of decision-making influence. Few theorists or researchers have
utilised a more inclusive set of determinants to explore decision influence. They
have instead focused primarily on specific areas of potential influence such as
social influence (Kelman, 1964; Turner, 1991), values (McLeod & Chaffee, 1972)
and to some degree on policy and planning (Hall & Jenkins, 1995; Marien, 1992)
and impacts (Perdue
., 1990).
et al
A recent typology was developed to explore influences on decision making in
local communities, generally and at local government councillors in coastal
tourism regions of Australia specifically. This broader perspective on decision
influence is perhaps morewarrantedthan theprevious focus on onlysocialinflu-
ence (Richins, 1997).For the present work it was found useful to have a definition
or overall set of factors (referred to as the Typology of Community Deci-
sion-making Influence) which may affect decision influence. This concept
attempts to be more inclusive in categorising potential influences on decision
making. These encompassinfluences whicharesocially, personally, structurally,
or community needs focused.
The three major categories of the typology as identified in the literature and
further explored in this study include: (1) inter-personal influence, which is
based on social influence theory and involves interactions of persons, and/or
groups which affect an individual’s psychological nature and resulting behav-
iour; (2) intra-personal influence which involves internal, non-social determi-
nants (i.e. individual aspects, factors, background, values and/or interests); and
(3) circumstantialinfluence, which involves external, non-socialdeterminants or
circumstances (i.e. objects, agents, forces, factors, and/or settings) which affect
an individual’s decision-making behaviour. These circumstantial influence
factors can be either community needs based or structural in focus. Literature
relating to the typology is discussed below.
Inter-personal influences
Social influence, the major area of influence research, has been studied
directly or indirectly in areas of social psychology such as social conformity,
persuasion and attitude change, power and authority, group polarisation,
formation of social norms and minority influence (Turner, 1991). The main body
of literature in social influence includes the study of judgments, of small-group
interaction and of persuasive communications (Kelman, 1964). This has devel-
oped into an analysis of principles of social influence and induced behaviour

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
211
change. Much of the literature on influence in communities has also focused on
social influence, specifically on politics, power and influence in the community
(Stone
., 1979).
et al
Various aspects of community inter-personal influence can be seen by prior
literature indicating that various spheres of government influence and take part
in the decision process (Hambleton, 1978; Thom, 1994), that political parties are
important in local government (Friend & Jessop, 1971; Goldsmith, 1980), that
developers are forcing decisions upon councillors (Ditton
., 1977), and that
et al
the media play a large role in impacting local government decisions (Goldsmith,
1980).
Though most researchers have concentrated on the social-psychological
study of influence, a few have discussed broader influence concepts which relate
directly or indirectly to the other two categories of the Typology of Community
Decision-making Influence, namely intra-personal and circumstantial influence
factors (Baron
., 1992; Fridgen, 1991; Howard, 1990; Kabanoff, 1985; Lewin,
et al
1935; Mayo & Jarvis, 1981; Schneider, 1988; Tedeschi & Bonoma, 1972; Turner,
1991).
Intra-personal influences
The concept of intra-personal influence is well described by McLeod and
Chaffee (1972: 51):
It is widely held that the influence process is greatly affected by the beliefs,
attitudes and values brought to an influence situation by its participants.
These intra-personal factors help determine the amount of influence
attempted and received, as well as the patterns of interaction that occur in
aninterpersonalencounter. One’s prior beliefs, attitudes,and values form a
frame of reference – a kind of cognitive map for interpreting reality that
precedes and controls the exchange of information and influence.
Iso-Ahola (1980) also acknowledged the process of explaining individual
behaviour (of which influence on behaviour is a part) based on both the charac-
teristicsoftheindividual (e.g. abilities, motives,feelings) and theenvironment or
situationsurroundingthe individual(e.g. the presence of others, group composi-
tion, noise). Tedeschi and Bonoma (1972) suggested that a whole range of
personal characteristicsmay be of relevance in influencing outcomes, even when
obvious group or social influences are present. Intra-personal influence factors
are related to a person’s background, that is their formal education, background,
experiences and knowledge (Harrington & Miller, 1993; Elbing, 1978; Simon,
1957), a person’s value system (Bailey, 1991; Inlow, 1972; Rokeach, 1973), and
personal interest, gain or preference (Jabes, 1982; Moorhead & Griffin, 1995).
Much of the literature on travel-tourist decision making has also been directly
related to various aspects of intra-personal influence. The major focus has been
on tourist motivation, satisfaction and consumer behaviour (Dann, 1981;
Iso-Ahola, 1980; Pearce, 1982; Pearce & Stringer, 1991).
Circumstantial influences
Circumstantialinfluences include community needs and structuralaspects as
described above. These are based on external, non-social determinants or

212
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
circumstances which affect an individual’s decision-making behaviour. These
influence factors have been shown in the literature through the focus on a
priority for community oriented concerns or needs as well as the concern for the
long-term impactsdecisions may haveon communities. This has been reinforced
by numerous authors who have studied aspects of sense of community such as
quality of life (Roehl, 1993), sense of place (Lynch, 1972), social responsibility
(Carroll, 1993), sense of harmony (Reime & Hawkins, 1981), community vision
(Ritchie, 1993), community commitment (Burke, 1968), and empowerment (Din,
1992). Other literature has suggested the importance of community needs influ-
ence through research concerning community residents and tourism develop-
ment (Prosser, 1993), community tourism (Murphy, 1985), and sustainable
development (Marien, 1992). Healy and Zinn’s (1985) extensive review of
research conducted on conflicts in coastal areas found some communities were
concerned with potential positive impacts (Murphy, 1985; Perdue
., 1990),
et al
while other communities were found to have more negative impact views
(Madrigal, 1995; McNamara, 1987).
A second major category ofcircumstantialinfluences are thoserelated to more
regulatory or procedurally based approaches to dealing with decisions. The
influence related to this more structural-circumstantial type influence (referred
to in this paper as ‘structural’) can be seen by the growing body of literature and
great deal of effort put into planning (Bates, 1989; Blank, 1989; Dredge & Moore,
1992), policy (Ditton
., 1977; Haward & Bergin, 1991; Marien, 1992), land use
et al
regulations (Inskeep & Kallenberger, 1992; Resource Assessment Commission,
1993a), and statutory procedures in communities (Pearson, 1994). Aspects of
these factors include access and quality of information (Janis & Mann, 1977;
Jones, 1993; Marien, 1994; Metz & Zedler, 1983), degree of direction provided
throughformal policy andprocedural documents (Halsey &Abel, 1990;Pearson,
1994) and the degree of legal and regulatory mechanisms (Gardiner & Edwards,
1976; Stanton & Aislabie, 1992).
It is important to note that this typology is not intended to suggest that deci-
sion influence factors are mutually exclusive. Particular influence factors may
indeed combine in various ways to provide an amalgamation of influence on
decision making. On the other hand, specific influence factors may individually
be of similar importance in influencing decision makers regarding the complex
decisions that they make.
The typology
The Typology of Community Decision-making Influence was recently exam-
ined through research on local government councillors in Australian coastal
regions. The typology attempts to provide a more extensive grouping of influ-
ence factors which may affect decision making of representative community
members. The typology has been defined as comprehensive determinantswhich
affect an individual’s psychological nature (i.e. attitudes, opinions, emotions,
beliefs, perception, feelings, and/or thoughts) and resulting behaviour. These
determinants may include objects, agents, background, settings, values, inter-
ests, forces, factors, persons, and/or groups. A person’s psychological nature
may include individual attitudes, opinions, emotions, beliefs, perception, feel-
ings and/or thoughts (Pearce
., 1998). As discussed above, these influence
et al

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
213
factors are made up of inter-personal, intra-personal and circumstantial influ-
ences which can be either community needs based or structural in focus. Table 1
further represents aspects of the typology. This typology was utilised in a recent
study of local government organisations.
The influence factors for the study were developed using open-ended ques-
tions from a previous study of Authoritative Opinion (Richins, 1995) as well as
through an extensive review of literature. The results of the study involving
tourism development decision making are presented in the following sections of
this paper.
Table 1 Decision-making factorsofinfluence on elected communitydecision makers
Decision-making influence factors
Comprehensive determinants or circum-
stances which affect an individual’s psy-
chological nature and resulting behaviour
(1) Inter-personal factors
External social influence determinants
(i.e. interactions of persons, and/or
groups).
These may be either internal (in terms of
leaders or other administration) or exter-
nal to (in terms of media, residents’ and
electorate’s views, community pressure
groups, tourism developers, expert opin-
ion, state/Federal government’s and po-
litical party’s views) the organisation.
(2) Intra-personal factors
Internal, non-social influence deteminants
(i.e. individual aspects, factors, back-
ground, values, and/or interests).
These may be based on personal back-
ground (in terms of formal educational
qualifications, general experience and
skills and knowledge of tourism) or val-
ues/ interests of the individual (in terms
of personal values and the potential for
personal benefit to a decision maker).
(3) Circumstantial factors
External non-social influence determi-
nants or circumstances (i.e. objects,
agents, forces, factors, and/or settings).
These may be structural (in terms of infor-
mation, direction or mandates) or com-
munity needs focused (in terms of
outcomes, positive or negative impacts or
a sense of community).
Methodology in the study of community decision-making
influence factors on local government councillors
The previous section described a typology of influence factors on community
decision makers. The influence factors illustrated in this typology are further
examined below through a recent study of local government decision makers.

214
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
This research, which focused on councillor decision-making influence, was
developed to explore local government tourism decisions made by councillors
and the primary influences that have the greatest effect on these decisions. The
primary aims of this study were:
(1) to determine the importance placed on influences as perceived by present
elected councillors making tourism development oriented local govern-
ment decisions, and
(2) To determine the degree to which specific profile characteristics (councillor
and community) have an influencing effect on councillor decision making
of tourism oriented local government decisions.
The method used for the Councillor Influence Study was a mail survey of all
councillors in Local Government Areas (LGAs) along the coastalregions of New
South Wales and Queensland, the most prominent regions where tourism devel-
opments exist or have been proposed within Australia. The study involved
profiling councillors’ characteristics and preferences so that appropriate rela-
tionships and correlations might be understood.
The study was conducted in 1996 and consisted of a total population of 795
which included 388councillorsfrom Queensland LGAs (an averageof10.2 coun-
cillors per LGA) and 407 councillors from New South Wales (an average of 11.0
councillors per LGA). Every council administration in coastal Eastern Australia
(NSW and Queensland) was contacted to acquire an up-to-date listing of each
councillor and their contact address. The Total Design Method developed by
Dillman (1977) was utilised to maximise mail survey response rates and ensure
data quality. Initial surveys and cover letters were posted and followed by a
series of three reminder cards sent to the sample at intervals of 7, 14 and 21 days,
with additional surveys sent upon request.
Of the 795 surveys, six were returned with incorrect addresses, and 23 were
returned with respondents unable or declining to participate primarily due to
time constraints. Most of the declining respondents indicated that they did not
have time due to either full time or part time employment in addition to their
council responsibilities. A few others who declined to participatementioned that
the survey would be inappropriate for them to complete since few decisions
were made regarding tourism in their area.
Characteristics and Representative Nature of the Survey Returns
Two hundred and forty-six surveys were returned for a response rate of31.2%
(246/789). The intention of this study was to sample a representative group of
councillors in North EasternAustralia’s coastalregions regarding decision influ-
ences. Though the return rate of 31% may be considered as modest, results
obtained include councillor responses from all but three of the 75 councils
surveyed with further representation from each type of council and community
included, and from widely spread regions. Table 2 shows in detail the positive
representative nature of the returns.
Ofthe 246 surveys returned, 144 (58.5%)were from New South Wales, and 102
(41.5%)from Queensland. Ninety-six per cent ofall coastalQueensland and New
South Wales councils returned at least one survey (average of 3.28 per council).

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
215
Table 2 Representative characteristics of surveys
Characteristic
Total
New South Queensland
Wales
405
Study population
Surveys returned
789
246
384
102
144
Response rate
Total coastal councils
Councils returning at least one survey
31.2%
75
72
35.6%
37
37
26.6%
38
35
Percent of councils returning at least one
survey
96.0%
100.0%
92.1%
Average number of returned surveys per
council
Average number of councillors per
council
3.3
10.5
198
3.9
10.9
115
2.7
10.1
83
Towns represented by returned surveys
Seventy-two councils returned surveys, but there were almost three times that
number (198) of towns or communities (place of residence) represented by the
study. Mayors, deputy mayors and councillors were all represented by the
study. The number of returned surveys included 20 mayors (also called shire or
local government area president or chairperson), 11 deputy mayors, and 215
listed as councillors. Not all mayors or deputy mayorswere identified by council
administrations,therefore there may have been respondents listed ascouncillors
who were actually mayors or deputy mayors.
Types of communities represented
Table 3 allows for comparison of the 789 councillor study population to the
actual returned surveys. Population statistics of councillors from the Australian
Classification of Local Governments (1994) were utilised for this comparison.
There was a fairly representative mix of urban and rural responses as compared
to the council population, though a larger percentage of responses came from
regional towns and fringe councils (61%). It is of note that the regional towns’
classification is the major coastal area where tourism exists and high growth
occurs in New South Wales and Queensland.
Utilising the Australian Classification of Local Governments (1994), councils
may be categorisedbased on population. ‘Large’ denotes LGA’s with over 70,000
in population, ‘Medium’ identifies population between 30,000 and 70,000 and
‘Small’ is used to identify LGAs with less than 30,000. As can be seen in Table 34,
there was a fairly representative response with regard to community sizes in the
surveys returned.
From a regional point of view, eight broader regions were included in the
study (see Figure 1). All these regions were quite evenly represented by the
respondents. These included four in New South Wales (i.e. South Coast, Sydney
region, Central Coast-Hunter,and North Coast),and four regions in Queensland
(i.e. Gold Coast/Brisbane, Sunshine Coast/Bundaberg, Rockhampton/Mackay,
and Townsville/Far North).
Figure 2 shows the percentage of respondents from each of the eight regional
areas in New South Wales and Queensland.

216
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Table 3 Comparison of study population (789 councillors) and respondents (246
councillors)
Characteristic
Respondents
(councillors)
Population
(councils)
Urban
22.3%
77.7%
16.5%
61.2%
22.3%
24.0%
76.0%
33.3%
66.7%
18.6%
48.0%
33.3%
23.4%
74.6%
Rural (including regional towns)
Capital city-Metropolitan councils
Regional towns and fringe councils
Rural councils
Large LGAs (over 70,000 population)
Small/medium LGAs (up to 70,000
population)
Large LGAs (over 70,000 population)
Medium LGAs (30–70,000 population)
Small LGAs (under 30,000 population)
24.0%
33.9%
42.1%
25.3%
26.7%
48.0%
Figure 1 Map of Australia with eastern coastal regions within the states of
Queensland and New South Wales
Councillors were asked to rank eight industries of importance in their respec-
tivecouncils, in order to understandbetter the types of communities in the study.
These industries included agriculture, heavy industry, light industry, military,
mining, tourism, other services, and other public sector activities. Means were
produced for each industry based on a scale from 1 to 8 (where 1 = most impor-
tantindustryand 8 = least importantindustry). In the study,
wasrated as
Tourism
the most important perceived present industry (mean of 2.30; most important is
closer to 1, least important is closer to 7), with second (2.97), and
Agriculture
Light

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
217
Figure 2 Regions from which councillor surveys were returned
close behind with a mean of 3.11.
were the lowest
Mining and Military
industry
rating of importance. Councillors rated
as even more important in the
Tourism
being rated second but oflower importancein thefuture.
future, with
Agriculture
Descriptive Results of Councillor Decision-making Influences
Study
Councillors were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale, the perceived
importance they placed on various factors which influenced them regarding
tourism development oriented decision making. As mentioned previously, these
factors, developed using open-ended questions from a previous study as well as
from the literature, were reduced to 33, and displayed on one page of the ques-
tionnaire and sent to all of the 795 councillors in all LGAs in Queensland and
New South Wales. The influence factors were then combined and formed into
influence sub-factors to allow for more efficient analysis (see Table 5). Council-
lors were asked, ‘Please put a tick in the box that best describes how important
you believe each item is in influencing you as a councillor regarding decisions
you may be faced with regarding tourism development issues in your local
government council area’. Items were rated as extremely important, very impor-
tant, moderately important, of little importance, or not at all important.
Descriptive results of specific influencing factors on tourism
development decision making
Results are shown in Table 4, which is sorted by mean. The left-hand column
includes an influencing sub-factor, with the next column being specific influ-
encing factors (each of the 33 in the questionnaire). A lower score, closer to one,
was considered extremely important, and a score closer to five was considered
not at all important. The table was primarily categorised for discussion based on
medians.

218
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Table 4 Councillor’s perceived influences on local government decision making
Decision making
Influence Factor
Order
Specific Influence Factor
Means
Medians
Influences that are perceived to be extremely important
1
2
3
Community Needs
Community Needs
Community Needs
Sense of community
1 .4 8
1 .5 5
1 .6 2
1
1
1
Ecosystem degradation
Deterioration of physical appeal
Influences that are very important
4
Community Needs
Structural
Economic growth
1 .8 0
1 .8 8
1 .8 8
1 .9 0
1 .9 1
1 .9 4
1 .9 8
1 .9 9
2 .0 6
2 .0 7
2 .0 9
2 .1 3
2 .2 0
2 .2 7
2 .3 4
2 .3 5
2 .3 6
2 .4 3
2 .4 9
2 .4 9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
State-Federal coastal policy
Resident views
6
Inter-Personal
Structural
7
Local land use regulations
Statutory-legal procedures
Developing local amenities
Environmental impact uncertainty
Personal values
8
Structural
9
Community Needs
Community Needs
Intra-Personal
Community Needs
Community Needs
Structural
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Increased cost of infrastructure
Attracting negative behavior
Quality of information
Intra-Personal
Structural
Experience and/or skills
Consistency with mission and/or plan
How electorate views issues
Poor access to information
Knowledge of tourism
Inter-Personal
Structural
Intra-Personal
Inter-Personal
Community Needs
Community Needs
Inter-Personal
Views of council administration
Uncertainty of socio-cultural impact
Viability of a tourism development
Views of expert opinion
Influences that are of moderate importance
24
25
26
27
28
Community Needs
Inter-Personal
Intra-Personal
Structural
Potential tax base increase
Community pressure groups
Formal education qualifications
Information overload
2 .7 2
2 .9 0
2 .9 2
3 .4 7
3 .5 5
3
3
3
3
4
Inter-Personal
Extent of media coverage
Influences that are of little importance
29
30
31
Inter-Personal
Inter-Personal
Inter-Personal
Tourism developer’s influence
Fellow councillor’s influence
3 .8 1
3 .8 7
3 .8 9
4
4
4
State-Federal governmental influence
Influences that are perceived to be not at all important
32
33
Inter-Personal
Intra-Personal
Political party’s views
4 .2 6
4 .5 1
5
5
Potential of personal benefit
Note: A lower comparable score for a mean indicates more influence. Number of respondents ranged from 225-240.

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
219
Highlights of the 33 influencing factors will be discussed first, including both
comparisons of means and importance ratings (percentages indicating
extremely important and very important). Then, combined influencing
sub-factors (as developed above in the ‘Typology of Community Deci-
sion-making Influence’) will be compared based on means and percentages indi-
cating high importance.
The top grouping of influence sub-factors, those considered to have an
‘extremely important’ level of influence (with means from 1.4 to 1.7 and a mode
of 1) included three community needs specific factors of
,
Sense of community
(rated the highest with a mean of 1.48),
(1.55)and
Ecosystem degradation
Deteriora-
(1.62). Note: the
factor, in the highest
tion of physical appeal
ranking of importance had a sharp Kurtosis.
Sense of community
The second grouping of influencing factors, referred to here as ‘very impor-
tant’, had mean scores between 1.8 and 2.5 with modes of 2. Twenty specific
factors were included in this, the largest group, and councillors rated 23 of the 33
different specific factors as very important or extremely important.
The lastgrouping ofspecific influencing factorsreferred to as‘not atall impor-
tant’, had a mode of 5 and means from 4.2 to 4.6. The influencing factors in this
lowest group included only two factors:
(inter-personal
Political party’s views
(intra-personal with a mean
with a mean of 4.26), and
of 4.51).
Potential of personal benefit
The top five specific influence factors were rated by over 80% of councillors as
‘very important’ or ‘extremely important’, with five of the top six relating to the
influence factor of community needs. The top five were highly rated and include:
influence (93.2%),
(88.7%),
Sense of community
Ecosystem degradation
Deterioration of physical appeal
(86.7%),
(83.0%), and
Local land use regula-
Economic growth
(80.8%). Of particular interest is that over 61% (61.3%) rated
tions
Sense of commu-
as extremely important.
nity influence
Descriptive results of influencing factors on tourism development
decision making
The 33 specific influencing factors were combined based on the categorisation
table discussedpreviously (see Table 1).The results ofthis are shownin Table 5.
In evaluating the four influencing factors regarding councillor decisions
pertaining to tourism development issues, community needs (mean of 2.01),was
combined from eleven specific influence factors. These include one community
sub-factor (i.e. the need to maintain the sense of place, quality of life, or sense of
community for residents), three factors which represent the potential uncer-
tainty of outcomes, four influencing factors which represent the potential for
negative impact, and three factors which represent the potential for positive
impact. This influence factor (community needs) was rated as having the stron-
gest influence with 72%ofcouncillorsconsidering this group offactors to be very
important or extremely important in terms of influence on decision making, and
37% considering this as extremely important.
The second highest influence factor with a mean rating of just over two (on a
scale where 1 = great influence and 5 = little influence) included structural
factors. These factors were combined from seven specific factors, had a mean of
2.25, and included three factors relating to the degree of influence based on

220
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Table 5 Community decision-making influencing factors sorted by means and in-
cluding percentages
D ecision M aking Influence Factor
Percentages ra ted
extremely im portant or
O rder by m ean
M eans
very important
1
Comm uni ty needs
2.01
72.2%
Sen se-of-comm u nity
N egative im pact
Posi tive im p act
1.48
1.83
2.15
2.30
93.2%
1
2
5
6
79.4%
68.7%
59.2%
U n certain ou tcome
2
3
Structural
2.25
63.4%
M and ates
1.91
2.03
2.63
78.3%
72.3%
47.6%
3
4
8
D irection
In form ation
Intra -personal
2.76
3.12
49.7%
34.5%
Person al b ack grou n d
Person al in terest
2.46
3.21
55.5%
40.3%
7
11
4
Inter-personal
In tern al social
Extern al social
3.11
3.12
34.6%
33.2%
9
10
N ote:
A low er comp arab le score for a m ean ind icates more in flu en ce.
T h e n u mb er of resp on d ents ran ged from 235-240.
access to information, two factors representing the direction provided to the
council based on policy or planning, and two factors representing the mandates
of regulation and statutory procedures. The percentage of importance was also
quite high for structural factors (63.4%).
Intra-personal was rated third of the four decision-making influence factors.
Five factors were determined to be representative of intra-personal. Three
specific influencing factors included background (i.e. influence based on the
degree of formal education, knowledge, experience), and two specific influ-
encing factors that included personal values and possible benefits that may be
gained by councillors based on the decisions they make in council.
The factors perceived by councillors as having the least influence were
labelled as inter-personal factors. These included the potential influence from
eight different external factors (i.e. media, residents’ and electorate’s views,
community pressure groups, tourism developers, expert opinion, State/Federal
government’s influence and political party’s views, and two potential internal

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
221
council factors, which included other councillors’ views and council administra-
tion’s potential influence). It is of particular interest that only 7% rated the
sub-factor
sub-factor
as extremely important, and only 13% rated the
as extremely important. As can be seen in Table
Internal inter-personal
External inter-personal
4, the lack of perceived influence regarding political parties (i.e. the second
lowestratingof influence) is consistentwith anthropologicalresearch conducted
in the 1970s in Australia and England (Wild, 1983), which suggested strong
opposition to party politics playing a role in local government decisions. Coun-
cillors in the present research, however, also rated councillor and council admin-
istration of low influence, which is contrary to Wild’s findings.
Comparisons of Significant Groups of Decision-making Influences
– Councillor and Council Characteristics
Variables variance analysis
Influences were analysed based on characteristics of councillors and LGA’s.
Councillor characteristic independent variables included age, educational
interest, educational level achieved, gender, level of councillor (i.e. mayor,
deputy mayoror councillor), occupationallevel and type, length ofterms served,
previous work in tourism, years lived in LGA, and desired community tourism
scenarios. Local government area independent variables included population
size, regions, states, urban versus rural communities, and perceived present and
future community tourism scenarios. Community tourism scenario inde-
pendent variable results are not reported in this paper.
Dependent variables analysed were the four decision making influence
groups (i.e. inter-personal, intra-personal, structural and community needs).
The data was analysed as appropriate using -Test and ANOVA.
t
In reviewing dependent variablesof perceived influencing factors, both coun-
cillor characteristics and LGA characteristics were analysed. With councillor
characteristics, inter-personal and intra-personal factors had variance in only
one independent variable, whereas structural influence factors varied on five
councillor characteristics. Community needs factors varied based on four
factors. For LGA characteristics, there were very few variances. Each influence
factor had variance based on only one independent variable regarding LGA
characteristics.
Discussion of differences: Decision-making factors and sub-factors of
influence
The following section summarises the degree of influence regarding both
councillor and LGA independent variables. The four decision-making influences
and their sub-factors of influence are discussed.
Table 6 summarises the independent variables where significant differences
between groups were found in terms of councillors and LGA characteristics
regarding the four influencing factors of inter-personal, structural,
intra-personaland communityneeds factors.The following describes further the
significant differences between independent variables in the study based on the
four factors of decision-making influence.

222
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Table 6Summaryofanalysis ofvariance ofcouncilorinfluence on decision making
Decision Making
Influence Factor
Importance
More influenced if:
Less influenced if:
Community Needs
High
Female
Male
Semi-skilled employment
Less terms served as Councillor
Previous work in tourism
Small population size of LGA
Semi-professional employment
Many terms served as Councillor
No previous work in tourism
Large population size of LGA
Structural
Moderate
Female
Male
Older Councillor
Semi-skilled employment
Younger Councillor
Semi-professional employment
Work in trades, real estate, armed
forces
Work in business, government,
education
Councillor
Mayor or Deputy Mayor
Not sure if tourism plan is in place
for LGA
Tourism plan in place for LGA
Intra-Personal
Inter-Personal
Low
Low
Regions of Sunshine Coast, Sydney
area & North Queensland Coast
Regions of Brisbane-Gold Coast &
Central Queensland Coast
Semi-skilled employment
Semi-professional employment
Tourism is less important
economically in the LGA
Tourism is more important
economically in the LGA
Inter-personal influence factors
Inter-personal influence factors were found to be more influential with the
,
and less influential regarding
Occupation level of Semi-skilled workers
. This was mostly due to
Semi-professionals
sub-factors. The
External inter-personal
inter-personal influence factor also was found to be of influence in LGA’s where
was one of the least important industries.
were seen to be more
sub-factors.
Tourism
influenced than
Females
by primarily
Males
Structural influence factors
Structuralinfluence factorswere believed to be ofgreater influence with coun-
cillorswho were in theolder agecategory ( ); with theeducation
External inter-personal
More than54 years
interests of
; with
; and with the occu-
Trades/real estate, Armed forces/police
pation level of . Those respondents with a focus on
Females
Semi-skilled workers
Govern-
as their educational interest were perceived to be influenced by the
ment
sub-factor
.
as well as
educa-
Professional
Information Government, Real estate/trades
tional interests were the main groups who were thought to be influenced by the
sub-factor, . Those with educational interests in
Direction
Business, Arts/social

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
and
223
believed themselves to
Education/academia
science, Sciences, Government/Legal
be less influenced by structural influence factors.
Intra-personal influence factors
Intra-personal influence factors were perceived as more influential in the
regions of and in Queensland and
Sunshine Coast-Bundaberg
Townsville-Far North
the
region. Less influence from intra-personal factors was seen from the
Sydney
region and the
region. There was no
Brisbane-Gold Coast
Rockhampton-Mackay
significant difference with any other region.
Community needs influence factors
Community needs influence factors were perceived by councillors as more
influential with , councillors who served
Females, Semi-skilled workers
(one to two) and by those who
Few terms
. Councillors who had
Worked previously in tourism
were found to be less influenced by community needs.
Served five terms or more
Councillors in
were found to be more influenced by community
Small LGAs
needs influence factors than those from
.
Larger sized councils
Summary and Discussion of Findings
This study was developed to explore the primary decision-making influences
on local government councillor decision making. All councillors in local govern-
ment areas along the coastal regions of New South Wales and Queensland were
sent a detailed questionnaire asking them to provide information on their
community and themselves (e.g. major industries, community tourism
scenarios, and demographic background). In addition they were asked to rate
the importance of various influence factors on their own decision making
regarding tourism developments.
Differences regarding the influences were also explored and these were based
on council (local government) characteristicsand representative councillor char-
acteristics. Councils were well represented by 96% of the 75 LGAs in the study
area (i.e. coastal councils in New South Wales and Queensland).
Councillors were asked to rate various influence factors concerning their
tourism decisions. They rated the circumstantial influence factors (i.e. commu-
nity needs and structural)as the most important influence on councillor decision
making. Table 7 contains a summary of the results of decision making influence
importance ratings for sub-factors and specific factors. Community needs influ-
ences (i.e. sense of community, negative and positive impacts) were rated as the
most important influences followed by structural influences (i.e. mandates and
direction).
The two decision-making influencing factors of intra-personal and
inter-personal influence were believed to have much less influence on councillor
decision making. A councillor’s background was believed to be only somewhat
important, and personal values and potential personal benefits were considered
of lowest influence.
In contrast to the focus in previous literature (Bailey, 1991; Kelman, 1964;
Stone
., 1979; Turner, 1991; Walster & Abrahams, 1972), this study suggests
et al
that councillors place much less importance or believe themselves to place little

224
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Table 7 Summary of results from the study of influences on councillor decision mak-
ing: sub-factors and specific factors
Influence factors
Am bi ent influence
Im portance
T op sub-factors of decision influence
1
2
3
4
5
Sen se-of-com mu n ity
N egative im p act
M an dates
Com mu n ity n eeds
Com mu n ity n eeds
Stru ctural
H igh
H igh
H igh
D irection
Stru ctural
H igh
Positive imp act
Com mu n ity n eeds
M od erate
T op specific factors of decision influence
1
2
3
4
5
6
Broad comm u nity in fluen ces
Ecosystem d egrad ation
D eterioation of p hyscial app eal
Econ om ic grow th
Com mu n ity n eeds
Com mu n ity n eeds
Com mu n ity n eeds
Com mu n ity n eeds
Stru ctural
H igh
H igh
H igh
H igh
H igh
H igh
State/Fed eral coastal p ol icy
Resid en t view s/in pu t
Inter-person al
importance on both external and internal inter-personal influence and also
intra-personal influences.
This study of councillor influence found community needs influences to be of
importance in tourism development decision making. These include
Sense of
, which are all of importance
, and
Community, Negative
Positive Community Impact
for councillors making decisions. Structural influences were also found to be
perceived as important.
This focus on sense of community is reinforced by numerous authors who
have studied aspects of sense of community such as quality of life, sense of place,
social responsibility, sense of harmony, community vision, community commit-
ment, and empowerment (Burke, 1968; Carroll, 1993; Din, 1992; Lynch, 1972;
Reime & Ritchie, 1993; Roehl, 1993).
As can be seen by the present research, community needs factors were the
overwhelming influence factors, with three to four of the top five specific factors
being community needs influences. The factors of community needs, specifically
the sub-factors of
and
Sense of Community, Positive,
which councillors indicated as important influence factors in their decision
Negative Community Impact

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
225
making, are also consistent with much of the research mentioned previously
concerning community residents and tourism development, community
tourism planning, and sustainable development.
The findings in this research substantiatethe importanceof additional factors,
apart from the generally accepted social or inter-personal influence factors,
playing a significant role in influencing councillor decision making. This may or
may not be found to be the case with research populations other than local
government councillors.
The process in this research of exploring various influences on decision
making has attempted to explain the broad and more specific aspects of what
affects elected officials in their decisions regarding tourism development in
coastal regions of Eastern Australia. The results of this study have shown that a
number of influence factors are considered by councillors to have a greater effect
on their decision making than only social or inter-personal influence theory. As
was mentioned previously, concentrating primarily on inter-personal influence
has limited the ability to provide more comprehensive views and sufficient
debate regarding additional components of decision-making influence.
Community needs and structural influences, both identified as circumstantial
influences, are believed by councillors to be key factors influencing their tourism
decisions.
Contrary to the apparent focus on external organisations attempting to influ-
ence localgovernment decisions (Agger
., 1964;Goldsmith,1980;Hambleton,
et al
1978; Haward & Bergin, 1991), councillors believe themselves to be much less
influenced by such inter-personal social influence groups as political parties,
tourism developers, fellow councillors, media, and community pressure groups.
This finding may have strong implications for the approaches which various
groups (Figgis, 1984) have taken and advocated in attempting to influence local
government councillors. The reluctance to allow pressure groups to have influ-
ence on decision making is consistent with Newton’s (1982) research, which
found that ‘noisier’ (more vocal) pressure groups might actually have a negative
effect on decision makers.
This apparent focus by councillors on impacts in terms of influence on deci-
sion making is also consistent with previous research on conflicts in coastalareas
which found some communities were concerned with potential positive impacts
(Perdue
., 1990), while others were found to be concerned with negative
et al
impact factors (Madrigal, 1995). In this research, both positive and negative
impact factors were rated by councillors as important influences in their tourism
decision making.
The great deal of effort put into planning, policy, land-use regulations, and
statutory procedures in communities, may also be a meaningful explanation for
the high importance ratings by councillors in this research concerning structural
circumstantial influence (i.e. mandates and direction).
Conclusion
This research examined the use of a new typology to explore for the first time
the full arrayof community decision-making influences and the degree to which
councillors believe these influences affect their decision making. It is acknowl-

226
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
edged that decisions are complex, may involve an amalgam of various factors
andthattheseinfluence factorsare not mutually exclusive, andmay indeed be an
oversimplification of the great variety of potential influences. There is, however,
value in beginning to understand first the various factors of influence and,
second, the importance decision makers place on decision influences. Utilising a
more comprehensive grouping of influence factors may form the foundation for
further studies of decision making involving other localities, other types of deci-
sions, decision makers, or decision-making groups.
Further limitations to this study include the use of perceived importance
ratings, which may suggest a biased or exaggerated point of view in some cases.
The results of this study, however, were substantiatedto a large extent by further
studies involving case studies of specific communities as well as a study of
authoritative opinion (Richins, 1999).
Research conducted in this studyhas shown thata number of influence factors
are considered by councillors to have a more profound effect on their decision
making than only the components of social influence theory which has been
discussed in much of the literature. Community needs and structural influences,
both identified as circumstantialinfluences, are believed by councillors to be key
factors influencing their tourism decisions. Key sustainable tourism influence
factors such as ecosystem degradation, environmental impact uncertainty and
other communityneeds type influences were found to be importantin this study.
The common strategies of endeavouring to sway councillors regarding future
decisions through socialinter-personal influence, asshownby this research, may
be misdirected and ineffective. A potentially more appropriate approach might
focus on the positive or negative impacts of councillor decisions providing well
documented proof of expected outcomes in order to minimise impact uncertain-
ties within a sustainable development framework. Dealing with the components
of a sense of community and gaining a better understanding of how each coun-
cillor views each of these components may also be of great benefit in establishing
approaches, networks, and interactions for influence on councillor and other
types of community decision making. Understanding better the social represen-
tations (Moscovici, 1984; Pearce
, 1991) related to tourism development,
et al.
which have been found to be inherent in tourism oriented communities, could
also provide a basis for further research to be conducted on decision influence.
Based on the findings of this research, possibly more attention ought to be
focused on the development of sustainable tourism strategies which address
various circumstantial influence factors identified in this study. These may
specifically be focused on community needs influence factors, in the areas of
and
and
, and also structural factors
Positive
Negative Impact
Sense-of-community
which may have a constraining influence on councillors. Future research may
shed light on these directions.
Developing positive relationships with elected community officials which
show a sense of understanding and compassion for their individual Councillor’s
views on sense of community, impact issues, and uncertainties of potential
outcomes may provide progress in beginning to break down the reluctance local
government councillors appear to have (at least in coastal regions of Eastern
Australia) in being amenable to social inter-personal influences.

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
227
For sustainable tourism approaches to be effective, the implications from this
study are that local government decision-making influence factors need to be
understood and strongly considered. It is these decision makers which may
indeed have the greatest effect on the future sustainability of communities.
Recognising the importance of what influences key decision makers in commu-
nity tourism development decision making may be a first significant component
in achieving successful sustainable tourism outcomes.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Harold Richins, Associate
Professor of Tourism, Faculty of Business, University of the Sunshine Coast,
Maroochydore, 4558, Queeensland, Australia (hrichins@usc.edu.au).
References
Agger, R., Goldrich, D. and Swanson, B. (1964)
The Rulers and the Ruled: PoliticalPower and
. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Impotence in American Communities
Bailey, J. (1991)
Sons.
(2nd edn). New York: John Wiley &
Managing Organisational Behaviour
Banfield, E. (1982)
(2nd edn). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Political Influence
Baron, R.S., Kerr, N.L. and Miller, N. (1992)
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action.
Bates, J. (1989)
(Vol. 1, No. 1). Sydney: New South Wales
Tourism Information Paper No. 1
Tourism Commission.
Bernard, J.R.L. (1990)
. Milton, Australia: JacarandaPress.
ThePocketMacquarieDictionary
Blank, U.
The Community Tourism Industry Imperative: The Necessity, the Opportunities, Its
. State College, PA: Venture.
Potential
Burke, E. (1968) Citizen participations strategies.
Journal of the American Institute of
34 (5), 287-294.
Planners
Butler, K.S., Nichols, K.N. and Quay, R. (1980) Managing barrier islands: Role of local
government. InB.L. Edge (ed.) (pp.2035–2050).
CoastalZone ‘80
Proceedingsofthe Second
. New York: American Society of Civil
Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management
Engineers.
Butler, R.W. and Waldbrook, L.A. (1991) A new planning tool: The tourism opportunity
spectrum.
2 (1), 2–14.
Journal of Tourism Studies
Carroll, A.B. (1993)
(2nd edn).
Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Dann, G.M.S. (1981) Tourism motivation: An appraisal.
187–219.
8 (2),
Annals of Tourism Research
Davis, G.E. (1980) Principles and techniques for special area management: The Grays
Harbor and Coos Bay experience. In B.L. Edge (ed.)
Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management
(pp. 761–775).
. New York:
Coastal Zone ‘80
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Davis, M. and Weinbaum, M.G. (1969)
Metropolitan Decision Processes: An Analysis of Case
(American Politics Research Series). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Dillman, D.A. (1977)
Wiley & Sons.
Studies
. New York: John
Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method
Din, K. (1992) The ‘involvement stage’ in the evolution of a tourist destination.
Tourism
17 (1), 10–19.
Recreation Research
Ditton, R., Seymour, J. and Swanson, G. (1977)
Coastal Resources Management: Beyond
. Lexington, KY: D.C. Heath.
Bureaucracy and the Market
Dredge, D. and Moore, S. (1992) A methodology for the integration of tourism in town
planning. 3 (1), 8–21.
Journal of Tourism Studies

228
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Elbing, A.O. (1978) Perception, motivation and business behavior. In A.O. Elbing (ed.)
(2nd edn) (pp. 186–196). Dallas, TX: Scott,
Behavioral Decisions in Organisations
Foresman.
Elliot, J. (1997)
. London: Routledge.
Tourism: Politics and Public Sector Management
Ewen, L. (1983)Institutional problems in the future management of the California coastal
resource program. In O.T. Magoon and H. Converse (eds)
255–263). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
(pp.
Coastal Zone ‘83
Faulkner, H. and Walmsley, D. (1998)Globalisation and the pattern of inbound tourism in
Australia. 29 (1), 91–106.
Australian Geographer
Figgis, P. (1984) Towards the development of a framework for coastal zone resource
management decisions in Northern Australia. In J.D. Davie, J.R. Hanley and B. Russell
(eds)
(pp. 81–89). Casuarina,
Workshop on Coastal Management in Northern Australia
Australia: North Australian Research Unit.
Flinn, T. and Stokes, C. (1970)
Systems
Fridgen, J.D. (1991)
American Hotel and Motel Association.
Friend, J. and Jessop, W. (1971)
Local Government and Politics: Analyzing Decision-making
. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
. East Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the
Dimensions of Tourism
Local Government and Strategic Choice: An Operational
. London: Tavistock.
Research Approach to the Processes of Public Planning
Galvani, A. (1993) Mountain tourism in Cortina D’Ampezzo: Sustainability and
saturation.
18 (1), 27–32.
Tourism Recreation Research
Gardiner, P.C.and Edwards, W. (1976)Public values: Multiattribute-utility measurement
for social decision making. In M.F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (eds)
Human Judgment and
(pp. 2–36). London: Academic Press.
Politics, Planning and the City
Tourism and Public Policy
Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power, and Place
Decision Processes
Goldsmith, M. (1980)
. London: Hutchinson.
Hall, C. and Jenkins, J. (1995)
. London: Routledge.
Hall, C.M. (1994)
Sons.
. Chichester: John Wiley &
Halsey, S. and Abel, R. (eds) (1990)
International Symposium on Coastal Ocean Space
. New York: Elsevier Science.
Utilization
Hambleton, R. (1978)
. London: Hutchinson.
Policy Planning and Local Government
Harrington, H. and Miller, N. (1993) Do group motives differ from individual motives?
Considerations regarding process distinctiveness. In M. Hogg and D. Abrams (eds)
(pp. 148–172). London: Harvester
Group Motivation: Social Psychological Perspectives
Wheatsheaf.
Haward, M. and Bergin, A. (1991) Australian intergovernmental relations and coastal
zone policy. In O.T. Magoon (ed.)
(pp. 737–750). Proceedings of the
Coastal Zone ‘91
Seventh Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. Long Beach, CA: American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Healy, R. and Zinn, J. (1985) Environment and development conflicts in coastal zone
management.
51 (3), 299–311.
Journal of the American Planning Association
Howard, R.A. (1990) From influence to relevance to knowledge. In R.M. Oliver and J.Q.
Smith (eds) (pp. 6–19). Proceedings
Influence Diagrams,Belief Nets and Decision Analysis
of the conference Influence Diagrams for Decision Analysis, Inference and Prediction,
Engineering Systems Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, May 9–11,
1988. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Inlow, G.M. (1972)
. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Values in Transition
Inskeep, E. and Kallenberger, M. (1992)
An Integrated Approach To Resort Development:Six
Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
Case Studies.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1980)
Brown.
. Dubuque, IA: Wm C.
The Social Psychology of Leisure and Recreation
Jabes, J. (1982) Individual decision making. In A. McGrew and M. Wilson (eds)
Decision
(pp.53–59). Manchester: Manchester University
Making:A Readeratthe Open University
Press.
Jackson, M.E. and O’Donnell, M. (1993) Responsibly government structures: Coastal
management in the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. In O.T. Magoon, W.S.

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
229
Wilson, H. Converse and L.T. Tobin (eds)
American Society of Civil Engineers.
(pp. 773–789). New York:
Coastal Zone ‘93
Janis, I. and Mann, L. (1977)
Decision Making: A PsychologicalAnalysisof Conflict, Choice and
. New York: Free Press.
Commitment
Jones, M.A. (1989)
. Melbourne,
Managing Local Government: Leadership for the 21st Century
Australia: Hargreen.
Jones, M.A. (1993)
. St Leonards,
Transforming Australian Local Government: Making it Work
Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Joppe, M. (1996) Sustainable community tourism development revisited.
Tourism
17 (7), 475–479
Management
Kabanoff,B. (1985)Potentialinfluencestructuresassourcesofinterpersonal conflictin groups
and organisations. 36 (1), 113–141.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Kelman, H.C. (1964) Processes of opinion change. In E.E. Sampson (ed.)
Approaches,
(pp. 263–277).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Contexts, and Problems of Social Psychology
Hall.
Lewin, K. (1935)
Lynch, K. (1972)
. New York and London: Mcgraw-Hill.
Dynamic Theory of Personality
Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
What Time is This Place?
Technology Media Department.
Madrigal, R. (1995)Residents’ perceptions and the role of government.
Annals of Tourism
22 (1), 86–102.
Research
Marien, M. (1992)Environmental problems and sustainable futures: Major literature from
WCED to UNCED. 24 (8), 731–757.
Futures
Marien, M. (1994) Visions of sustainability.
26 (2), 115–116.
Futures
The Psychology of Leisure Travel: Effective marketing and
. Boston: CBI.
Mayo, E.J. and Jarvis, L.P. (1981)
Selling of Travel Services
McLeod, J.M. and Chaffee, S.R. (1972) The construction of social reality. In J. T. Tedeschi
(ed.) (pp. 50–99). Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
The Social Influence Processes
McNamara, C. (1987)
Study conducted for
Tourism Research Study Cairns – Mulgrave.
Office of Local Government, LGDP 45Q106. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
Metz, E.D. and Zedler, J.B. (1983) Who says science can’t influence decision making? In
O.T. Magoon and H. Converse (eds)
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Moorhead, G. and Griffin, R.W. (1995)
Houghton Mifflin.
(pp. 583–590). New York:
Coastal Zone ‘83
(4th edn). Boston:
Organizational Behavior
Moscovici, S. (1984) The phenomenon of social representation. In R.M. Farr and S.
Moscovici (eds)
Press.
(pp. 3–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Social Representations
Murphy, P.E. (1985)
. New York: Routledge.
Tourism: A Community Approach
Newton, K. (1982) The theory of pluralist democracy. In A. McGrew and M. Wilson (ed.)
(pp. 233–245).Manchester: Manchester
DecisionMaking: A Readerat the Open University
University Press.
Owens, D. (1985) Coastal management in North Carolina: Building regional consensus.
51 (3), 322–329.
APA Journal
Pearce, P.L., Morrison, A.M. and Rutledge, J.L. (1998)
Sydney: McGraw Hill.
.
Tourism: Bridges Across Continents
Pearce, P.L., Moscardo, G. and Ross, G. (1991) Tourism impact and community
perception: An equity-social representational perspective.
(3), 147–152.
26
Australian Psychologist
Annals of Tourism Research
. Oxford: Pergamon.
Pearce, P.L. and Stringer, P. (1991)Psychology and tourism.
(1), 136–154.
18
Pearce, P.L. (1982)
Pearson, L. (1994)
The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour
Local Government Law in New South Wales
. Leichhardt, Australia:
Federation Press.
Perdue, R., Long, P. and Allen, L. (1990) Resident support for tourism development.
17 (4), 586–599.
Annals of Tourism Research

230
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Post, J. (1990)Coastal zone management: Implementing the World Bank’s environmental
policies. In. S. Prosser G. (1993) (Working paper No. 12).
Maclean Shire Case Study
Prepared for Office of Local Government, Department of Immigration, Local
Government and Ethnic Affairs. Tighes Hill, Australia: Hunter Valley Research
Foundation.
Reime, M. and Hawkins, C. (1981) Tourism development: A model for growth.
Livability
1 (1), 39.
Digest
Resource Assessment Commission (1993a)
Coastal Zone Inquiry: South Australian Case
.
Study, Coastal Management and Decision Making Processes in the Yorke Peninsula Area
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Commonwealth of Australia.
Resource Assessment Commission (1993b)
Coastal Zone Inquiry: Tasmanian Case Study,
. Canberra,
Coastal Management and Decision Making Processes in the Huon/Channel Area
Australian Capital Territory: Commonwealth of Australia.
Resource Assessment Commission (1993c)
Coastal Zone Inquiry: Western Australian Case
. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Commonwealth of
Study Area, Geographe Bay
Australia.
Richins, H. (1995) Decision making and community commitment in a coastal tourism
region. In R.N. Shaw (ed.)
Proceedings of the National Tourism and HospitalityConference
(pp.177–193).Held atthe Novotel Bayside hotel, St. Kilda, Melbourne, 14–17February.
Melbourne, Australia: Council for Australian University Tourism and Hospitality
Education.
Richins, H. (1997)Decision making complexities in localgovernment: Appraising tourism
developments.
1 (2).
Journal of Complexity in Human Systems
Richins, H. (1999)Utilising mixed-method approachesin tourism research.
PacificTourism
3 (1), 95–99.
Review Journal
Ritchie, J.R. (1993) Crafting a destination vision: Putting the concept of
resident-responsive tourism into practice. 14 (5), 379–389.
Tourism Management
Roehl, W. (1993) Tourism and quality of life in developing countries.
Tourism Recreation
18 (2), 55–59.
Research
Rokeach, M. (1973)
. New York: Free Press.
The Nature of Human Values
Schneider, D.J. (1988)
Jovanovich.
. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace
Introduction to Social Psychology
Shroff, M. (1993) The structure and operations of the cabinet in relation to the budget. In
J.R. Nethercote, B. Galligan and C. Walsh (eds)
Decision Making in New Zealand
(pp. 1–9). Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian National
Government
University.
Simon, H.A. (1957)
(2nd edn). New York: Macmillan.
Administrative Behavior
Stanton, J. and Aislabie, C. (1992)Localgovernment regulation and the economics of tourist
resort development: An Australian case study. 3 (2), 20–31.
Journal of Tourism Studies
The Benefits and Costs of Tourism Proceedings of a National Tourism
Stanton, J. (ed.) (1992)
ResearchConference held at Marina Resort, Nelson Bay, New South Wales, October 3–4, 1991
(Conference series No. 19). Newcastle, Australia: University of Newcastle, Institute of
Industrial Economics.
Stone, C., Whelan, R. and Murin, W. (1979)
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
.
Urban Policy and Politics in a Bureaucratic Age
Tedeschi, J.T. and Bonoma, T.V. (1972) Power and influence: An introduction. In J.T.
Tedeschi (ed.)
(pp. 1–49). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
The Social Influence Processes
Thom, B. (1994)
. Sydney: Coastal Committee of
Draft Coastal Policy of New South Wales
New South Wales.
Tosi, H.L, Rizzo, J.R. and Carroll, S.J. (1994)
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
(3rd edn).
Managing Organisational Behavior
Turner, J.C. (1991)
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. (1973)
University of Pittsburgh Press.
. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Social Influence
. Pittsburgh, PA:
Leadership and Decision-making
Walster, E. and Abrahams, D. (1972) Interpersonal attraction and social influence. In J.T.
Tedeschi (ed.) (pp. 197–238). Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
The Social Influence Processes

Influences on Tourism Development Decision Making
231
Weiner, B., Runquist, W., Runquist, P.A., Raven, B.H., Meyer, W.J., Leiman, A., Kutscher,
C.L., Kleinmuntz, B. and Haber, R.N. (1977)
Science Research Associates.
. Chicago, IL:
Discovering Psychology
Wild, R. (1983) Consensus, conflict and conciliation in councils: A case study.
La Trobe
1–19.
University Sociology Papers