resortdevspectrum goldcoast

7/29/2019 Resortdevspectrum Goldcoast

1/34

This article was downloaded by: [ ]On: 16 September 2012, At: 17:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tourism Geographies: An International Journal ofTourism Space, Place and EnvironmentPublicat ion detai l s, incl uding inst ruct ions for aut hors and subscript ion infor mat ion:h t t p : / / www. t a nd f on l i ne . co m/ l o i/ r t x g2 0

The Resort Development Spect rum: The Case of The

Gold Coast, AustraliaBRUCE PRIDEAUXa

School of Tourism and Leisure Management, University of Queensland, AustraliaVersion of record first published: 04 Jun 2010.

To cite t his art icle: BRUCE PRIDEAUX (2004): The Resort Development Spectrum: The Case of The Gold Coast, Australia,

Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 6:1, 26-58

To link t o this art icle: ht t p : / / dx.do i .o rg / 10.1080/ 14616680320001722328

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to

anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680320001722328http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680320001722328http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20


2/34

Tourism Geographies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2658, February 2004

...........................................................................................................................................................14616688 print/1470-1340 Online /04/01002633 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/14616680320001722328

The Resort Development Spectrum:

The Case of The Gold Coast, Australia

BRUCE PRIDEAUX

School of Tourism and Leisure Management, University of Queensland,

...........................................................................................................................................................

Australia

ABSTRACT The growth paths of resorts has been an enduring topic of tourism research forover sixty years yet the ability to operationalize models currently put forward to explain the

process has not been satisfactorily demonstrated. The Resort Development Spectrum dis-cussed in this paper is a candidate for providing a model that does possesses an ability to beused as a planning tool in the forecasting of the likely pattern of resort development into thefuture. The model is multidimensional and based on an understanding of the demand-sideresponse to the market that operates in resorts and incorporates elements of Fordist, post-Fordist interpretation of production and demand. The model is tested by using it to explainthe last 130 years of development on the Gold Coast, Queensland. The model is found to sat-isfactorily explain the growth path of tourism development on the Gold Coast.

KEYWORDS: Resort Development Spectrum, Gold Coast, resort, destination, growth,post-Fordism

Introduction

The factors and processes influencing the development of resorts have beenan enduring topic of research, debate and discussion in the tourism litera-ture and the issue continues to be one of the more popular topics for

research. A number of typologies (Plog 1973; Peck and Lepie 1977; Soanne1993) and models (Gilbert 1939; Lavery 1974; Miossec 1976; Young 1983;Keller 1987; Smith 1992; Kermath and Thomas 1992; Burton 1994; Russelland Faulkner 1998; Weaver 2000) have been proposed to explain theprocesses of growth, but only the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) proposedby Butler (1980) has been extensively tested in the literature. The paradox

Correspondence Address: Bruce Prideaux, School of Business, James Cook University,Queensland, Australia. Fax: +61 900 74044080; Tel.: +61 (0)740421039; Email:[email protected]

Downloadedby[]at17:5016September2012


3/34

P l a c e : T h e R e s o r t D e v e l o p m e n t S p e c t r u m 27

for researchers in this field of research is that while Butlers model has beenextensively tested (for example, see Oglethorpe 1984; Wilkerson 1987;Strapp 1988; Cooper and Jackson 1989; Morgan 1991; Choy 1992; Getz1992; Weaver 1993; Williams 1993; Bianchi 1994; Harrison 1995; Digance

1997; Tooman 1997; Johnson 2001a; 2001b) refined, modified, extendedand updated, its ability to be successfully employed as a predictive toolcontinues to elude researchers.

Essentially a one-dimensional model, the Tourism Area Cycle of Evolu-tion relies on post ante observation to measure resort development. Further,the model describes resort/destination development that is essentiallyFordist in nature and characterized by mass consumption, particularlyduring the consolidation stage. Post-Fordist consumption, where tourism ischaracterized by non-mass forms of consumption (Urry 1990; 1995), is

only hinted at in the type of developments that may take place in the finalstagnation, rejuvenation or decline stage. If society is moving into a post-Fordist tourism system, the capability of the TALC to describe futuregrowth must become increasingly doubtful.

As recently as 2000, Weaver (p. 217) observed that few if any investiga-tions either categorically accept or reject Butlers model. One year later,Johnson (2001a: 3) noted that Within the contemporary research com-munity, however, there is little consensus about the models usefulness.Cooper (1992: 156) observed that the life cycle has much to offer researchersbut rather less to offer to tourism practitioners, echoing an earlier commentby Haywood (1986) who stated that while the model explains the process ofgrowth it cannot be operationalized. Given the intensity of research intoresort and destination development, it is surprising that so little attention hasbeen given to testing the many other models and typologies that have beenoffered as explanations for resort and destination development.

Over sixty years has passed since Gilberts (1939) model commenced thedebate on the causes of resort development; however, the debate continuesto attract considerable attention, with two research tends becomingapparent. While considerable attention continues to be given to modifica-

tion and adaptation of Butlers TALC model, a few researchers havesuggested new models. This is a healthy trend for the tourism literature andechoes the patterns of research that are common in the physical sciences,where the old paradigms are continually tested, modified and, if necessary,discarded as new knowledge becomes available. To cite just one recentexample from cosmology (the study of the theory of the universe), thewidely accepted theory of cosmic inflation used to explain the rapid expan-sion of the universe after the initial Big Bang has been challenged recently bya group of theorists based on a reinterpretation of string theory. Even

Stephen Hawking, the most acclaimed contemporary theorist in this fieldhas stated Even if inflation works, it wont tell us why the Universe is as itis (cited in Davis 2003: 23). Clearly, if science is open to new ideas about



4/34

28 P r i d e a u x

fundamental theories, it is essential for disciplines such as tourism to followthis lead.

Ideally, new models should examine a range of variables that include, butare not limited to, the operation of the resort micro-economy, promotional

activities, competition, distribution strategies, issues of sustainability andcapacity, government policy, changing patterns of consumer demand,changing systems of production (including those characterized by post-Fordist and post-modernist interpretations of industrial society andconsumption), new technologies and the contributions made by entrepre-neurs. Approaches of this type require a multi-dimensional interpretation ofdata and trends. Many of the existing models employ a single dimensionalapproach that has inhibited inquiry; however, refocusing these models toinclude new perspectives may strengthen them, generating new applications

and insights.One significant aspect of resort development that has been largely ignoredis the role of the market as the arbiter of economic activity within the resortmicro-economy. In an attempt to incorporate this element into the discus-sion of the factors that underlie resort and destination growth, the ResortDevelopment Spectrum (RDS), first published as a referred conference paperin 1998 (Prideaux 1998; 2000a), was developed to illustrate the relationshipbetween growth and the operation of the economic market in the context ofdemand, supply and equilibrium within the context of the resorts micro-economy and market sectors. This paper will employ a refined version of theRDS to analyse development of the Gold Coast, Australia from a smallcoastal resort into a large international resort destination.

At this point in the discussion it should be noted that the RDS wasdeveloped from observation, deduction, analysis and testing using economicand marketing theory. It was not developed as a derivative of or alternativeto other models, although the shape of the curve and the growth phasesidentified show similarities to other models. This latter characteristic is to beexpected as the curve shown in Figure 1 is based on historical patterns ofvisitor growth by visitor segment based on the historic growth of domestic

tourism in developed counties. Figure 2 illustrates the economic forces atwork, while Table 1 illustrates changes in infrastructure as growth occurs.Together, Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1 show many of the elements thatsimultaneously occur during growth and illustrate the multi-dimensionalnature of that growth.

Before proceeding with this discussion it is prudent to consider briefly theissue of definition of resorts and destinations. No common agreement has oris likely to emerge on a definition of resorts because of the diverse use of theterm. In one sense the term resort may denote any visitor centre to which

people resort to in large numbers. Thus, in a macro sense resort refers toa specific holiday locality, such as Bournemouth in the UK, whereas in anarrower micro sense the term may be used to describe a specific hotelproperty. However, there is more agreement on the functions of resorts: they



5/34


provide leisure services for short-term visitors; they are designated areas setaside for human consumption; and offer a variety of touristic attractionsand commercial accommodation. To undertake these functions resorts offera range of accommodation, leisure, recreation, shopping, entertainment andtransport facilities specially designed to attract tourists. As a consequence,the resort economy is heavily dependent on transactions where tourists areone of the parties. The RDS uses the term resort but this can also apply tonon-national-scale destinations.

The need to identify the underlying mechanisms of resort growth is obviousand will become even more significant as the volume of international touristscontinues to increase into the future. Understanding these mechanisms willachieve a number of objectives including: early identification of the resources

Figure 1. The Resort Development Spectrum. Source: Prideaux (2000a).

Figure 2. Growth path caused by shifts in equilibrium points. Source: Prideaux(1998).



6/34

Table 1. Changes in resort infrastructure over time

Major characteristics Phase One

Local tourism

Phase Two

Regional tourism

Ph

Na

Tourist types Locals As Phase One plus: As

People from nearby towns Tourists travelling fromareas within the state orregion

Todisth

Possibly limited interstatetourist traffic passingthrough en route to a largerresort

Stapr

Accommodation Beach houses Unit and apartmentdevelopment occurs

Th

Caravan parks Two- and three-star resortmotels appear

In

Licensed hotels (notresorts)

Caravan parks stillimportant

InhohoHi

Inexpensive motels Outside investment begins inhotels

Backpackers hostels

Marketing Local area and surroundingtowns

State wide Essta

Undertaken by localprogress and/or touristassociations

May attract governmentfunds

Joanloc



7/34

Table 1. Continued

Major characteristics Phase OneLocal tourism

Phase TwoRegional tourism

PhNa

Limited funds Businesses operating in the

resort advertise on anindividual basis

Ho

attcame

Limited professionalism Increasing professionalismof advertising campaigns

Emphasis on selling notmarketing

Attractions (majorattractions are either naturalor built)

Limited to beach andnearby areas of scenicbeauty, such as NationalParks

First man-made attractionsbuilt, generally on a smallscale

Lasimcoattacpa

Animal parks may beconstructed

At phase end, larger themepark-type attractions will beplanned

Transport Very limited in scope Road access is significantlyenhanced

Scsernaaffi

Main mode is road Other modes may beassisted by infrastructuredevelopment

Robemo



8/34

Table 1. Continued

Major characteristics Phase OneLocal tourism

Phase TwoRegional tourism

PhNa

Possibly some traffic fromrail if the resort is locatedclose to rail services

Limited (if any) scheduledair services operated bylocal airlines

Otsigi.e

serNo scheduled air services

Policy Generally ignored by localgovernment

Tourism maybeincorporated in localgovernment policydocuments

Thlocbe

Retailing Little specific tourismshopping

Emergence of specifictourism shopping

Shto

Source: Prideaux (2000a).Downloadedby[]at17:5016September2012


9/34


required by specific resorts to achieve desired growth; identification of socialand environmental pressures that may be generated through growth; identi-fying and addressing community and stakeholder concerns; ability to matchfuture growth with desired markets; identification of potential undesirable

results such as land degradation or pressure on water supplies; identificationof the limits of sustainable growth; and identification of infrastructurerequired to service current and projected needs. Existing resort modelsprovide researchers with some indication of the possibilities of growth andsome sense of the physical aspects that may change but do not clearly identifyhow the agents of change will influence, stimulate or even retard furtherdevelopment. For example, the models developed by Lavery (1974) andYoung (1983) illustrate spatial aspects of change but do not examine theeconomic issues that underlie the observable forces of change. Similarly,

Kellers (1987) model identifies scales of development and changes in thecontrol of capital but does not further analyse economic elements of growth.Although not published as a model, Torres (2002) discussed the role ofproduction theories in destination development, analysing the growth ofCancun, Mexico from a Fordist perspective. This latter approach offersconsiderable scope for reinterpreting recent changes to the pattern of demandfor mass tourism and is discussed briefly in the Gold Coast context.

This paper will briefly outline the mechanism of the RDS, followed by anillustration of the application of the model using the Gold Coast as a casestudy. A more detailed discussion of the model is found in Prideaux (2000a)and readers are referred there for a full discussion of the economic aspectsof the model. In this paper the Gold Coast is described as a resort. Thiscontrasts with the common Australian practice of referring to individualaccommodation properties as resorts, leaving the term destination todescribe large tourism-focused areas such as the Gold Coast.

The Gold Coast is a major Australian resort destination (in this case theterm resort describes a small destination) that attracted four million visitors,generating 21.8 million visitor nights and $A2.95 billion expenditure in2002 (Tourism Queensland 2002). In 2002, international visitors accounted

for 20 percent of all visitors and 21 percent of total expenditure. Located inthe State of Queensland, the Gold Coast has long been regarded as adomestic tourism Mecca and, in the period from 1985, has grown into amajor international resort. Given its importance to Australias tourismindustry, the growth of the Gold Coast has been the subject of intenseacademic scrutiny. Russell and Faulkner (1998) used the Tourism AreaCycle of Evolution to account for the development of Coolangatta, one ofthe tourism nodes that collectively constitute the Gold Coast, Russell andFaulkner (1999) used Chaos theory as the basis for explaining aspects of the

development of tourism on the Gold Coast, Weaver (2000) used the resortas a case study to illustrate the Broad Context Model of TourismDestination Development and Faulkner (2002) described the possible



10/34

34 P r i d e a u x

decline of the Gold Coast. Earlier, Smith (1992) used the Gold Coast toillustrate the operation of the Tentative Beach Resort Model.

The Resort Development Spectrum (RDS)

The economic theory underlying the RDS is described in detail in Prideaux(1998; 2000a). Briefly, the model focuses on the operation of the resortmicro-economy, observing changes in the patterns of interaction betweenbuyers (the demand side) and sellers (the supply side) and how this effectsa range of market sectors based on origins, giving a two-dimensional view(price and markets) of development. The effects of changing relationshipsbetween buyers and sellers, and the economic production systems that

underlie these relationships, become apparent in the patterns of develop-ment that occur.Over time, mass tourism has replaced earlier forms of tourism, as

numerous sand and sun and ski resorts were built in the post-World War IIera of affluence, perhaps to be replaced by new forms of differentiated,niche and de-standardized resorts in the future. Urrys (1990) definition ofpost-modernism based on de-differentiation offers another perspective ofthis future.

As resorts grow, observable spatial changes appear in the built environ-ment as new accommodation complexes, shopping facilities and otherresort infrastructure are constructed. Underneath the outward manifesta-tions of growth lies the resort micro-economy that reflects changing patternsof demand, supply and the underlying system of economic production. Therole of the resort micro-economy has been largely ignored in existingresearch and may be one of the reasons why existing models have failed todemonstrate a predictive capability. The RDS model argues that the micro-economy exercises a significant influence on the investment decisions madeby suppliers and, through their decisions, the path and format that growthmay take over time. One criticism that may be levelled at the RDS is that it

fails to explain the development of instant mass tourism resorts, such asCancun in Mexico and Phuket in Thailand. This apparent problem will beaddressed briefly later in the paper.

The shifting patterns of supply and demand for resorts over time can alsobe described from the perspective of shifts in the mode of production andconsumption described by the Fordist and modernists schools. While notpursued in detail in this paper, the interpretation of shifting patterns ofdemand from Fordist and modernist perspectives offer a number of insightsinto the development patterns of resorts. For example, the development of

modern mass tourism is described from a Fordist perspective as theoutcome of new patterns of production and consumption that experiencedenormous growth after World War II (Torres 2002). Prior to the Fordist



11/34


period, large-scale tourism was confined to the wealthy middle and upperclasses who had both the time and money to engage in resort vacations inbeach localities, such as Brighton in the UK.

In recent decades the shift in contemporary industry production systems

from Fordist to post-Fordist or neo-Fordist has been reflected in anincreasing demand for new forms of individualized, small-scale, specializedniche tourism (Smeral 1998; Torres 2002). These forces, alternativelydescribed by Urry (1990) from a post-modernism perspective as de-differen-tiation, will impact on the demand for resort tourism and, perhaps, influ-ence the physical structure of resorts in the future.

In an economic sense the RDS illustrates the growth path of resorts, basedboth on partial equilibrium occurring at specific points in the developmentprocess, on a continuum that starts with a small undeveloped coastal

locality and concludes with a large international mass tourist resort. A four-phased growth process is identified and a possible fifth phase of decline,stagnation or rejuvenation is postulated. Each growth phase exhibits anumber of demand- and supply-side characteristics that determine thecomposition of the resorts tourism market at a particular point in time.Aside from the impact of demand and supply forces that are expressedthrough partial equilibrium points, where growth pauses as demand andsupply are in temporary balance, capacity is also identified as an importantand interrelated factor. Resort capacity is a locality-specific factor deter-mined by a combination of forces, including the environment, land supply,community aspirations, perceptual (psychological) components (Wall1983), government policy, levels of sustainability, availability of infrastruc-ture services and transport access (Prideaux 2000b). While the factors ofcapacity, sustainability demand, elasticity and equilibrium were consideredby the model in a collective sense, their individual contributions were notexplored in depth. Failure to include a fuller discussion of demand and theeconomic systems that generate and supply that demand is an omission thatshould be rectified in the future because of the significance of this factor ingenerating tourist visits (see Urry (1995) for a discussion on aspects of

demand for places). Demand is, to a large extent, reflective of the perceiveduniqueness of the destination and will depend on three factors:

1. the level of interest that an individual tourist has towards the resort,including its natural and built attractions;

2. the reputation of the resort in local, national and international markets;3. the uniqueness of the resort in terms of its natural and built attractions

in local, national and international markets.

The model demonstrates that, as resorts grow, infrastructure develops alongpredictable lines (Table 1). Based on this observation it may be possible topredict in broad terms the changes that will occur over time as resorts move



12/34

36 P r i d e a u x

from one phase of development to another. For example, Table 1 identifiesthe types of changes that will occur to accommodation types and transportsystems as new visitor sectors are attracted to the resort. However, thecomplexity of resort growth cannot be adequately described in a single table

or diagram, although many researchers have attempted this method. Forthis reason the processes described by the RDS are illustrated in threecomplementary figures: Figure 2 outlines the operation of the resort micro-economy based on price factors; Figure 1 illustrates growth in the resortaccording to the market sectors based on distance from the generatingregion; while Table 1 outlines the sequential development of resort infra-structure over time and by market sectors, thus, giving the model a multidimensional perspective. The growth path outlined in Figures 1 and 2illustrates the growth process from two perspectives but with the same

overall outcomes. For this reason, Figure 2 includes a discussion on priceto illustrate the process of development based on expansion in the quantityand quality of resort infrastructure. In Figure 1, the development perspec-tive switches to the growth process based on market segments withoutindicating a price element.

In the form in which it was first published, the RDS did not tie togetherclearly the economic focus illustrated in Figure 2 with market forces illus-trated in Figure 1 to demonstrate how each element was a component of thesame process, which is illustrated as an infrastructure development matrixin Table 1. To demonstrate the operation of the RDS this paper will examinethe growth of the Gold Coast from a small coastal recreational resortserving the nearby Brisbane market into a large international resort destina-tion over a 100-year time span.

The model argues that the pattern of growth can be traced through aseries of equilibrium or partial equilibrium points which occur during thelife of a resort. In Figure 2 the line OO1 represents the long-run supply lineof the resort, in addition to representing the long-run growth path. Thegrowth path follows the shifts in equilibrium points that occur over time.This is illustrated in Figure 2, where growth is assumed to commence at

point O and continue until the average price level within the resort reachesP1. At this point, growth levels out because equilibrium (E1) is reachedbetween the demand (DD1) for holidays at P1 and the supply of facilities atP1. The actual number of tourist arrivals may continue to increase, attractedby the relatively low price level of the resort. This is reflected by the newdemand curve, D2D3, which creates a new equilibrium point at E1a.Equilibrium point E1a indicates that growth between Q1 and Q2 is based onexpansion of facilities that remain roughly within the budget line imposedby P1. Between OQ2 and OQ3 the model illustrates the impact of a shift

in the overall level price level from P1 to P2 to create a new equilibrium pointat E2. The increase in price reflects the arrival of a new market sectorprepared to pay a higher price or changes within the resort that make itmore attractive to a larger number of tourists. Part of the increased price



13/34


between P1 and P2 will include the cost of transport, as the new touristsector may have to travel a greater distance than the original tourist sector.The RDS identifies transport access as a major factor in resort growth.Another component of the increase in resort price levels may represent an

upgrading of the quality of the resorts tourism product, including moreexpensive accommodation and restaurants. Growth between OQ andOQ4 will occur at price level P2, while growth beyond point OQ4 willonly occur if additional infrastructure including hotels, transport access andnew attractions are constructed and the resort is able to attract new groupsof tourists prepared to pay the higher price, P3. Following a further periodof expansion, a new equilibrium point, E3, will be reached. Figure 2 alsorecognizes the emergence of a multi-sector resort product based on anumber of price segments each with its own unique price elasticity profile.

The rate of growth between equilibrium points E1, E2 and E3 will varydepending on the ability of the resort to satisfy 12 key criteria of develop-ment outlined in Table 2.

Together, these factors comprise a checklist that identifies constraints togrowth, as well as collectively determining the shape of the growth path andthe ideal capacity of a given resort and the ability to achieve long-term

Table 2. Key resort development criteria

1 The main tourist attractions of the resort (these usually, but not always,include both natural and built attractions)

2 Ability to develop an effective and representative resort marketing authoritywith appropriate distribution channels

3 Success in developing new tourism-generating regions and new tourismsectors through marketing

4 The support given by local authorities and local residents for tourismdevelopment

5 The time that a particular resort take to expand its supply-side capacity (hotelsfor example)

6 Carrying capacity and sustainability expressed as land available fordevelopment, availability of resources such as water, environmental factorsand political factors

7 Ability to attract new investment and the composition of that investment

8 The level of support given by regional, state and national governments (thismay include support for marketing, building infrastructure and taxconcessions)

9 Effect of competing resorts

10 Changes over time in the national and international economies and theproduction systems that underlie them

11 Investment in new transport infrastructure

12 The distance between the resort and its major generating regions



14/34

38 P r i d e a u x

social, economic and ecological sustainability. Table 2 can also be modifiedto enable comparison and evaluation between resorts. If one criterion ormore criteria are violated, for example criteria 6 which states that theremust be sufficient land available, it is likely that growth will either cease at

that point or require significant policy action by the authorities. Criteria 2,3, 4 and 5 are discussed in greater detail in Prideaux and Cooper (2002).Figure 1, the Resort Development Spectrum, illustrates the changes that

occur in visitor segments over time and are classified on the basis of visitororigin. Visitor segments identified in the model are local, regional, nationaland international tourists and are specifically related to visitor origins.Figure 1 does not illustrate the price effect outlined in Figure 2 becausetourists from any visitor segment may choose to purchase resort experi-ences, including accommodation, anywhere between the lowest price and

the highest price. As growth continues, new visitor segments are added,creating a resort market place that can be divided into multiple visitorsegments based on visitor origin. At each phase of development, the resortis likely to reach a position where its market is well defined and, to somedegree, constrained by capacity, measured in terms of supply. If the resortdesires to increase its overall size, it will have to look for new visitorsegments and more distant generating regions, as well as work towardsenhancing the quality and range of attractions and accommodation and thereputation of the resort. Price will be only one of the factors that determinegrowth measured by total visitor numbers and the addition of new visitorsegments illustrated as phases. As illustrated in Figure 1, members of everyvisitor segment may purchase resort services including accommodation,leisure activities and shopping at any price level between the cheapest andmost expensive price levels, irrespective of generating region. In Prideaux(2000a), price was incorrectly included in the vertical axis of the ResortDevelopment Spectrum model. This problem is corrected in Figure 1.

Figure 1 illustrates the case where a resort commences as a small localizedtourism resort and, over time, develops into an international resort. However,this is not the path that every resort will follow. Growth is not automatic and

can cease or even decline at any time as resorts respond to changes in internalor external factors. Internal factors may range from changed local govern-ment priorities, residence resistance to increasing tourism or amendments toland zoning statutes, or constraints imposed by land and water availability.External factors may include competition and amendments to national prior-ities. If disequilibrium occurs, growth may cease or even decline. Whiledecline and stagnation in Figure 1 is shown to occur after a resort hasachieved international status, this process may have begun much earlier. Theresponse by investors to these changes will determine the future shape of the

growth path. If remedial action, including new product offerings, refurbish-ment and advertising, is undertaken, growth may be rekindled. If the fall indemand is permanent, growth may cease and prices will fall until a newpermanent equilibrium point is reached at a lower price level.



15/34


The model also demonstrates that there are a number of market segmentswithin a resort. While shown as a smoothed trend line in Figure 1, marketsectors will often exhibit different rates of growth and levels of demand, asillustrated in Figure 3, where the Gold Coasts international market isgrowing concurrently with a slight decline in the intrastate market. Theheterogenic nature of resort sectors adds to the level of complexity in theoperation of resort markets. The model also illustrates a transition zone,where the first groups of visitors from more distant generating regions beginarriving in advance of the resort moving from one phase to the next phaseof development.

Table 1 illustrates the changes that occur in the resort infrastructure as thisprocess occurs on a phase-by-phase basis that correlates with Figure 1. Table1 traces development in a number of key areas, including accommodation,transport and marketing, as resorts move from one phase of growth to thenext. The framework depicted is not exhaustive and many other elementsmay be added, including retailing, service sectors, government policy, sustain-ability, distribution, investment, social policy and other infrastructure.Together, Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1 give a multi-dimensional perspective(price, markets and infrastructure) that is lacking in earlier models.

The operation of the RDS is demonstrated by applying it to the GoldCoast using case study methodology. Traditionally, research in the socialsciences has used both qualitative and quantitative approaches, or in somecases a mix of the two methods. Both methods have been extensivelydocumented, although scientific (or quantitative) methods have dominated(Walle 1997: 524). However, not all investigations lend themselves to theemployment of quantitative and/or qualitative methods, particularly wherethe subject of the investigation involves a phenomenon that exhibitscomplex and often unquantifiable characteristics. In such circumstance case

study analysis, defined by Robson (1993: 52) as a research strategy whichinvolves an empirical investigation of a particular phenomenon within itsreal life context using multiple evidences is a more appropriate methodo-logical approach. As a method of research, case study analysis enables an

Figure 3. Gold Coast tourism growth 19823 to 19967 based on market share.Source: Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (1998a; 1998b; 1998c).



16/34

40 P r i d e a u x

evaluation to be made of the phenomena and the context in which it isoccurring. Case studies can be as rigorous as mainstream research,providing attention is given to the logic and practice of case study research(Bailey 1982). An additional advantage of case study research is its ability

to use both qualitative and quantitative research (Yin 1989; 1993).

Gold Coast

Tourism is largely responsible for the development of the Gold Coast in itspresent form and the industry has exerted a unique influence on the resortseconomic and social profile. During the course of its development a numberof shires have been amalgamated to create a single local governmentauthority, the Gold Coast City Council, which is now responsible for

administering the entire resort destination. Prior to being officially renamedthe Gold Coast in 1959 the region was generally referred to as South Coast,a reference to its function as a holiday resort servicing Brisbane, the nearbycapital city of the state of Queensland, located 70 km to the north. TheGold Coasts major domestic resort competitor in South East Queenslandis the Sunshine Coast, located about 70 km north of Brisbane.

The region is approximately 42 km in length and contains a number ofdistinct urban foci that have combined to form one continuous urbanizedstrip paralleling the beach. The Gold Coast is sited on a narrow coastal

plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the east and the Great DividingRange to the west. Rivers traversing the area tend to be short and dependenton rainfall in the mountainous areas to the west. In the past, the regionsrivers acted to divide the region into separate and distinct entities; however,this is no longer the case. A series of mountain ranges, including theMcPherson, Beechmont and Wunburra Ranges, flank the western side of theregion. These mountains contain a diverse range of flora and fauna,including a number of species classed as rare and/or endangered, includeWorld Heritage-listed parks and have significant potential for future eco-

tourism development.

Data Limitations

Ideally, the operation of the growth patterns described in the RDS shouldencompass three perspectives: an economic perspective based on a range ofeconomic data, including price indices; visitor data, including spendingpatterns and origin analysis; and infrastructure development patterns. In thecase of the Gold Coast this was impossible, given the lack of collected data

of the type described until recent decades. As a consequence, the followingdiscussion will focus on the market and infrastructure dimensions previ-ously illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 1.

Two visitor datasets were available for the study: the Queensland Visitors



17/34


Survey (QVS), which was an annual survey of visitors to Queensland fundedby the Queensland Tourism and Travel Corporation (QTTC) between theyears 19823 and 19967; and the Domestic Tourism Monitor (DTM)produced by the Bureau of Tourism Research (BTR) between 1979 and

1998. The DTM generally estimated higher numbers of visitors than theQVS because of different methods of estimation and because the QVS didnot include the category of visiting friends and relatives (VFR). Both theDTM and QVS were discontinued in 1998 and replaced by the NationalVisitors Survey (NVS) that used different sets of assumptions and defini-tions. Despite possible underestimation, the QVS was adopted as theprimary dataset based on the length of time the series has been collected andthe scope of the data available. Because data from the NVS are incompatiblewith the QVS, growth trends after 19967 are not used.

The Gold Coasts Development Phases

The following sections outline the growth of the Gold Coast in the periodfrom 1870 to 1997, based on the development phases outlined in the RDS.The time periods indicated by the phases are aligned to the development ofnew visitor segments and the resort infrastructure that supports these visitorsegments. As these trends usually occur over a period of several years oreven decades, precise dates cannot always be pinpointed and there is usually

a transition zone between phases where the first visitors from the ensuingvisitor segments begin to arrive in increasingly larger numbers. One suchtransition zone is identified between Phases Two and Three in the period1947 and 1956 when roads were improved and interstate air servicescommenced.

Phase One: Local Tourism First Settlement in the Region

The Gold Coasts proximity to Brisbane and, through Brisbane, to the

states main northern settlements resulted in a shortened Phase One that, ineffect, telescoped into Phase Two. The RDS postulates that during PhaseOne most visitors will be residents of nearby towns who travel to the resortas either day-trippers or for overnight stays. Unlike resort towns collec-tively branded as the Sunshine Coast located to the north of Brisbane, theoriginal settlements in the area now occupied by the Gold Coast had verylimited population centres from which to draw Phase One tourism. Bris-bane, being the closest population centre, became the major source ofvisitors within several years of the first settlements in the area. For this

reason, the Gold Coasts tourism industry experienced a very truncated firstphase of development. The same pattern did not occur in the towns in theSunshine Coast region that provided beach recreation for a number of largenearby non-coastal population centres and, as a consequence, these



18/34

42 P r i d e a u x

experienced a more pronounced Phase One development. A more detaileddiscussion of Phase One growth of Sunshine Coast resorts is contained inPrideaux (2000a).

Phase Two: Regional Tourism 1870 to mid-1950s

During the period 1870 to the mid-1950s the Gold Coast experiencedconsiderable growth largely because of its role as the main resort town forQueensland residents, particularly those who resided in South East Queen-sland. During this period, growth of interstate tourism was impeded bypoor transports links. Increased settlement in the region forced the govern-ment to institute a town-planning scheme and town subdivisions were laid

out for Southport in 1874 and Coolangatta in 1883 (Gold Coast CityCouncil 1991: 18). By the late 1870s, Southport had become known as aseaside resort and business people from Brisbane and other nearby townsbegan building seaside cottages in the area (Holthouse 1982: 21). Aftervisiting Southport in 1884, the Governor of Queensland directed that a vice-regal summer home be built at Southport, further enhancing the settlementsreputation as a seaside resort.

Development of transport links between the Gold Coast and Brisbaneunderpinned rapid tourism development during this period. The completionof the Brisbane to Southport railway line in 1889 opened the northern partof the region to large-scale visitation from Brisbane. Previously, visitors hadrelied on coastal steamers and stagecoach services. McRobbie (1982: 22)reported the opening of the railway caused a boom in holiday visitors toSouthport with some spill-over to the Main Beach (Surfers Paradise)area. . . .. In its first year of operation, the railway carried 10,000 people(Grummitt 1984). At that time, Southport boosted a wide sandy beachsheltered from ocean swells by a spit. Surfers Paradise, on the other hand,had a wide sandy beach exposed to ocean swells. Open water swimming didnot become popular until well into the twentieth century and the sheltered

and relatively calm waters of Southport attracted most of the regionsearliest visitors.

The depression of 1891, combined with a severe and prolonged droughtfrom 1896 to 1902, temporally slowed tourism development. Recoveryfrom the drought in the latter years of the first decade of the twentiethcentury provided a new stimulus for the tourist industry. In 1903, theextension of the railway line to Tweed Heads on the Queensland/New SouthWales boarder provided further opportunities for tourism development. Thesignificance of tourism to the local economy had become apparent as early

as 1910, when census figures (Varder and Lang 1980) indicate that almost80 percent of employment in Southport was tourism generated. This figureincludes persons employed in the building industry as well as those engagedin supporting the tourism industry and its employees.



19/34


From the mid-1930s, automobiles become a popular mode of travel to theGold Coast and, in the following decades, the highway to Brisbane wasreconstructed to an all-weather standard. During the 1950s the PacificHighway was subject to frequent traffic jams on weekends as Brisbane day-

trippers headed to the Coast (Longhurst 1994: 67). The congestion led to afurther rebuilding and expansion programme that was repeated at regularintervals over the ensuing four decades.

Direct rail access to southern states became a reality with the opening ofthe interstate railway in 1930. Paradoxically, the Great Depression of the1930s generated some benefits for the Coasts tourist industry. Manywealthy residents of South East Queensland substituted travel to thesouthern capitals of Sydney and Melbourne with Gold Coast holidays tosave money. In southern states, wealthy citizens trying to conserve money

commenced holidaying on the Coast in preference to more lengthy andexpensive overseas voyages. In spite of the Depression, the Coast experi-enced a building boom with the rates of approval per capita being 800percent higher than the state average (McRobbie 1982).

The introduction of paid annual leave for most workers by the late 1930swas of considerable benefit. Seasonal holiday patterns emerged, with theSouthern Hemisphere summer season coinciding with school holidays inDecember and January and a winter season lasting from June to August.During the winter season, interstate visitors were attracted by the milderQueensland winter weather. The superior spending power of interstatevisitors resulted in the upgrading of standards and enabled Surfers Paradiseto gain a reputation as the most sophisticated beach town in Queensland(McRobbie 1982: 50).

The war years, 193945, interrupted tourism development. For the firstfew years little impact was felt by the Gold Coast, which continued tobenefit from a reputation as being Brisbane and South East Queenslandsresort playground. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 triggeredgeneral mobilization in Australia and led to an influx of US servicepersonnel, many of whom were based in South East Queensland. The well-

paid US service personnel gave Gold Coast residents their first glimpse of thepotential economic benefits to be gained from attracting high-spendingforeign visitors.

In spite of the development of interstate railway services, construction ofseveral hotels and an introduction to the potential of overseas visitors, theGold Coast remained dependent on South East Queensland for the bulk ofits visitors during the latter part of the 1940s and the early 1950s. Travelfrom interstate areas was still time consuming and, until the 1940s, reliedheavily on coastal steamers (via Brisbane) and rail. By the end of the decade

post-war prosperity led to an increasing level of car ownership and, as roadsbetween the Gold Coast and southern capitals improved, increasingnumbers of visitors travelled by car. The post-war introduction of passengerair services greatly reduced travel times and, with continuing improvements



20/34

44 P r i d e a u x

to the national highway system, air and road transport became the principalcatalyst for the next phase of tourism development.

Phase Three: National Tourism mid-1950s to mid-1980s

During the period 194756, the Gold Coast entered the transition zone ofdevelopment leading directly to the national tourism phase of the RDSmodel, as interstate visitors initially drove and then flew to Queenslandwhen direct air connections to southern capitals were introduced. Thisphase of development continued for the next three decades and built a solidfoundation for the emergence of the Gold Coast into an international resortduring the mid-1980s.

The Gold Coasts entry into the national tourism market was madepossible when travel to the Coast became affordable and the period ofannual paid leave was increased. New aviation technology introduced afterWorld War II led to increased passenger comfort, reduced travel times and areduction in the real price of airfares. Similarly, rapid post-war growth incar ownership, combined with the improvement of the nations interstatehighways, made long distance travel by road feasible for the first time.

Coolangatta airport developed as the Gold Coasts main entry point forinterstate visitors. The first regular air services commenced in 1947, whiledirect flights from Sydney to Coolangatta commenced in 1956. Later, direct

flights were established to most of Australias major population centres.Because of the proximity of the Gold Coast to the International Airport atBrisbane there has been little government support for the upgrading of theairport to international status.

As a result of these developments, the focus of the Gold Coasts tourismindustry underwent considerable change during the late 1940s and early1950s, rapidly transforming the Gold Coast into a national tourism resort.The image of Surfers Paradise as a fashionable resort was enhanced bymedia reports that carried much influence in pre-television days. In an

article in the October 1956 issue of the Australian Womens Weekly(McRobbie 1982: 84) entitled Sophistication for Seaside Towns, MaryColes noted that

unless the pattern of life at Surfers Paradise is molested by a rip-roaringQueensland cyclone, Victoria particularly is likely to run out of people.Meanwhile, the fascination of Surfers Paradise deepens, its charm lies in theability to make the old feel young and the not very well-to-do people feel rich.

McRobbie (1982: 107) reported that

From the mid-fifties onward it was possible to see more interstate numberplates in Surfers Paradise than anywhere else in the country includingCanberra and this enhanced the towns cosmopolitan atmosphere. Local



21/34


residents didnt feel isolated any more the world was coming to them bycar and by plane.

Mullins (1984) identified the 1950s as the period when the Gold Coast

changed its character from a seaside resort largely dependent on Brisbane,to a tourist resort with a broad national focus.The Gold Coasts national holiday market was strengthened by a number

of other developments during the 1950s and early 1960s. Introduction ofthree weeks paid annual leave and the construction of motels, high-risehotels and high-rise apartments were major factors in the enhanced appealof the resort in the interstate market. Concurrently, a number of off-beachattractions, including fauna reserves, shopping malls and museums, wereopened. In 1972 the first theme park was opened. During this phase,domestic tourism grew from 160,000 in 1961 to 1.1 million in 19823(QTTC 1984). As predicted by the RDS, a transition zone, leading intointernational tourism, emerged in the late 1970s, growing to 6.3 percent ofall visitors by 1984.

Surprisingly, this phase of development was not based on modern masstourism characterized by standardized, packaged and inflexible tourismproduction typified by Fordist tourism consumption. Large hotel chains didnot begin to show any real interest until it became apparent that the resortwas about to move into the international market place and most domestictourists continued to be characterized as FIT (free independent tourists)

rather than GIT (group inclusive tourists). However, this was to changewhen large numbers of Japanese package tourists began arriving, creating ademand for the mass standardized holiday product.

Phase Four: International Tourism mid-1980s

Although considerable energy was directed towards building the GoldCoasts domestic market in the period 195084, the desire to expand into

the international market was a vision shared by many Gold Coast entrepre-neurs and remained a recurrent theme in promotional efforts (Mc Robbie1982). This section will examine the steps taken to expand into the inter-national market, identify changes that occurred in the Gold Coastsdomestic and international markets and, finally, demonstrate the operationof the RDS.

Efforts to tap into the international market place commenced in the1960s but were hampered by lack of direct air access to overseas marketsand deficiencies in the Gold Coasts tourism infrastructure. Promotional

efforts during the 1960s and 1970s helped establish the Gold Coast asAustralias premier coastal resort, as well as laying the foundation forintense tourism development during the latter part of the 1980s and into the1990s. During the 1960s, considerable attention was given to proposals to



22/34

46 P r i d e a u x

construct a casino and also to encouraging the construction of a Holly-wood-style movie studio. Although neither proposal succeeded in the1960s, the casino was eventually opened in 1985 and Warner BrothersMovie World, a combined movie studio and theme park, opened in 1991.

Until the early 1980s, most investment in accommodation stock wasdirected towards motels, flats, apartments and condominiums. Mullins(1984: 41) reported that in the early 1980s about half of all visitors werefrom Brisbane and only one-fifth of visitors stayed in hotels and motels,reflecting the significance of second homes. During the period 1955 to theopening of the five-star Jupiters Casino Hotel in 1985, no resort hotels wereconstructed, although there had been much local discussion of the need forsuch facilities.

In a study of Gold Coast investment, Mullins (1984: 35) points to four

factors that ultimately stimulated the building of international standardtourist facilities. These were:

1. large, mainly interstate-based investors, commenced developing residen-tial and commercial properties;

2. a pro-growth working class who benefited from employment inconstruction;

3. pro-development local and state governments; and, most significantly,4. a large and very important petty bourgeoisie who lived and worked on

the Gold Coast.

The lets do it attitude of Mullins petty bourgeoisie class of Gold Coastpublic and private sector leaders ultimately created the conditions necessaryto launch the Gold Coast into international tourism in a serious way in themid-1980s. This class, according to Mullins, had entrepreneurial skills,close and important links to major investors and the maverick politicsneeded to create the investment climate necessary to attract the hallmarkprojects normally associated with international tourism. Locally known asthe White Shoe Brigade, this group included a number of innovative

developers (referred to by Russell and Faulkner (1999) as chaos makers),including Mike Gore, Alan Bond, Keith Williams and Christopher Skase.

The opening of Jupiters Conrad International hotel casino in 1985,followed closely by other five-star standard hotels, increased internationalflights through nearby Brisbane International Airport and promotion by theAustralian Tourist Commission (ATC) signified the point at which the GoldCoast entered the international mass tourism market. This developmentcreated a new demand and supply equilibrium point that reflected thewillingness of tourists (representing demand) to pay higher prices for

enhanced tourism services and products (tourism supply). Figure 3 illus-trates the rapid growth that occurred in international tourism after 19845.The most significant post-1985 development was the growth of inter-national tourism from Asia. Initiated by Japanese tourists travelling on



23/34


escorted tours, the Gold Coast rapidly became a popular destination oftourists from Taiwan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand. Shopping and eatinghabits of Asian visitors have shaped the appearance of Surfers Paradisescommercial precincts and exerted considerable influence on the construc-

tion and character of the Coasts built attractions.The changes that occurred in the decade 19809 are best illustrated byFigure 3, which shows changes in the composition of visitors, and Figure 4,which shows changes in the structure of the Gold Coasts accommodationstock. Figure 4 illustrates the development of the Gold Coasts accommoda-tion stock from 1974 and is based on an annual accommodation surveyconducted by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ, variousyears). The trend that is most apparent is the rapid expansion in the numberof luxury hotel and apartment rooms after 1985. Much of the construction

in the hotel sector was designed to capitalize on the mass Asian inboundmarket, particularly from Japan. By 1997, 38 percent of internationalvisitors originated from Japan, followed by 37 percent from other Asiancountries. There was also a rapid surge in construction of serviced apart-ments and units that have become a popular alternative to higher-pricedhotels, particularly in the domestic market. Figure 4 clearly identifies thecommencement of the fourth phase of tourism development in the mid1980s, based on the construction of accommodation to service internationalmarkets which are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 4. Expansion of accommodation 197497. The figure shows growth in the

number of accommodation units thus, one unit of a caravan park equates to onecaravan site and one unit of a hotel is treated as one room. Compiled from annualsurveys of accommodation conducted by the Royal Queensland Automobile Club;accommodation ratings have changed over time and were adjusted. Source: RACQ

Accommodation Guide (1974 to 1996).



24/34

48 P r i d e a u x

The operation of the RDS is demonstrated through growth in specificdistance-based market sectors (Figure 3) between 19823 and 19967 andthrough the changes in the accommodation sector (Figure 4). After enteringthe third phase of development in the 1950s, tourism numbers continued to

increase until 1979, when growth peaked and a temporary resort equilib-rium point was reached. Data from the DTM indicates that an equilibriumpoint predicted in Figure 2 was reached between 1979 and 1984, when totalvisitor numbers oscillated between 1.5 million (1979, 1980, 1984) and 1.6million visitors (1981, 1982). Commencing in 1985, interstate and inter-national visitor arrivals began to increase rapidly. Enhanced access by air,combined with an expansion of other resort infrastructure, including manynew four- and five-star hotels, underpinned the movement away from the197984 equilibrium point, as predicted by the RDS. Expansion of the

demand for Gold Coast holidays and the supply of tourism infrastructuresuch as hotels have continued since 1985 to the extent that a new stableequilibrium point has yet to emerge.

Phase Five: Post-Mass Tourism

The RDS has postulated a fifth stage of decline, stagnation or rejuvenationbased on the market sectors serviced by the resort rather than the totalnumber of tourists suggested by the TALC model. The RDS also postulatedthat decline, stagnation or rejuvenation may occur in one of the marketsectors but not others. For example, between 19889 and 19967 the GoldCoasts domestic market demonstrated all the features of a stagnant market.Conversely, the international market grew significantly during the sameperiod. However, between 1998 and 2002 the domestic market recoveredand grew by 13 percent or 2.6 percent per annum. An important implicationfor these trends is that within any resort there may be a mix of marketsectors in growth or decline and that the apparent development of stagna-tion may only be short term. This is an important observation for planning

authorities and industry and demonstrates the heterogenic nature of resortsthat has often been ignored in the past.

Based on figures current to 1999, Faulkner (2002) feared that the GoldCoast, which he described as a mature destination of the kind predicted bythe TALC, was showing signs of stagnation and he suggested a number ofsteps towards rejuvenation, including a visioning strategy designed toidentify new markets and products in the long term. A significant com-ponent of this process was community consultation designed to developstrategic scenarios of the future, followed by a conversion process to ignite

rejuvenation. The danger in labelling a destination as in a state of decline isthat visitor numbers at any given point in time are subject to many externalforces and changes may only be short term and initial indications of stagna-tion may only be a temporary pause.



25/34


It is possible to observe in the mountainous hinterland region adjoiningthe Gold Coasts western boundary, a growth in niche tourism productsbased on homestays, farm tourism, bed and breakfast accommodation,ecotourist lodges, craft and art shops, ecotourism and adventure tourism.

Specialist or niche tourism services and products of this kind are similar tothe post-Fordist or neo-Fordist structure of tourism described by Torres(2002). From a post-modernist perspective, future development in thehinterland, as well as in the coastal strip, may follow a mix of pseudo-events of the nature described by Boorstin (1964) and a quest for authenticexperiences described by MacCannell (1973).

Most recent figures indicate that the total visitor numbers for the GoldCoast are continuing to increase, hence a classic decline, stagnation orrejuvenation trend is not yet apparent. What is apparent is that in the future

the Gold Coast has the potential to pursue both mass tourism, of the styledescribed as Fordist or modern, in tandem with the development of post-Fordist, neo-Fordist, post-modern forms of tourism consumption.

Validity of the Model

The preceding discussion demonstrates the operation of the RDS from themarket origin and infrastructure perspectives in circumstances where inter-national tourism is preceded by domestic tourism. The proximity of theGold Coast to Brisbane and the absence of other nearby urban communitiessaw a fusing of the first and second phases. Although the Gold Coast gainedpopularity as a coastal resort with residents of southern states as early asthe 1890s, it remoteness and poor transport access meant that the bulk ofvisitors were sourced from Brisbane until the post-World War II period.Initially, based on rail and, later, on road travel, the Gold Coast hascontinued to function as a coastal resort for Brisbane residents from the1880s to the present.

Expansion of the Gold Coast into the national market (Phase Three of the

model) commenced during the period from the late 1940s to the early 1950swhen direct flights commenced to southern capital cities and interstatetravel by road became feasible. During the period from the early 1950s to1985, the Gold Coast consolidated its position as Queenslands and, later,Australias leading coastal resort. From another perspective, this era ofgrowth coincided with the emergence of modern mass tourism as a world-wide phenomenon, although until the discovery of the Gold Coast byJapanese package tourists in the mid-1980s the typical Fordist characteris-tics of highly standardized, packaged and relatively inflexible tour

production and consumption were not evident. Although some foreigntourists visited the resort during the third phase of development, its expan-sion into the international market had to wait for the nations developmentas a recognized international destination and for the development of



26/34

50 P r i d e a u x

infrastructure capable of meeting the demands of the international market.By 1985, the airports servicing the Gold Coast were capable of handlinglarge volumes of domestic and international traffic and international airlinescommenced direct services between Brisbane and Europe and Asia, thus,avoiding hubbing through Sydney.

The development of the Gold Coast through the phases of the ResortDevelopment Spectrum is illustrated in Figure 5, which outlines a stylizedgrowth path from 1870 to 1997. The evidence suggests that construction ofmajor supply-side facilities, such as roads, airports and accommodation, are

important triggers for resort growth. As predicted in Table 1, the expansionof the resort from Phase Three to Phase Four required expansion into theinternational market with parallel development of new infrastructure,particularly hotels. As capacity expands, resorts are able to attract addi-tional tourists from existing and, importantly, new markets. It is apparentthat growth also has a distance element and is demonstrated by the rapidgrowth in international visitors after 1985.

The expansion of the Gold Coast into the international market did notoccur until a number of criteria, identified in Table 2, were satisfied. These

included development of direct air services from Brisbane Internationalairport to Asia (criterion 11), construction of new tourism icon attractions(criterion 1) and opening of suitable international standard hotels (criteria 5and 7). On the demand side, the success in attracting Japanese group tours

Figure 5. The Resort Development Spectrum on the Gold Coast. Dotted verticallines denote end of one phase and beginning of the next. Note that Phase One has

been telescoped into Phase Two.



27/34

Table 3. Changes in the tourism structure of the Gold Coast resort structure over tim

Infrastructure Phase One Phase Two (1870 toearly 1950s)

Phase Three(mid-1950s to 19

Tourist types N/A Domestic fromBrisbane

As Phase Two, pluinterstate

Accommodation N/A Second houses, beachcamping, guesthouses, pubs

Motels, tourist hounits, rental housecaravan parks

Marketing N/A Informal Emergence of DMassisted by the statourism organizat(STO)

Attractions N/A Beach, recreation Beach centred, plushopping, first sm

scale theme parksnature-based tour

Transport N/A Boat, rail, carriage andlater car

Rail, car and domair

Policy Local authority only Local authority only Local governmentbusiness organizastate government

Shopping Local residents only Basic touristrequirements for food

Emergence ofrecreational shoppand mass souveni

aDMO: Destination Management & Organisation



28/34

52 P r i d e a u x

(criteria 2 and 3) to the coast enabled the Gold Coast to adopt the title ofinternational resort and use the Japanese market as a base for furtherexpansion into other Asian markets, including Taiwan and Korea. Under-lying these developments, were high levels of support by the Gold Coasts

residents (criterion 4) and the support given by Tourism Queensland and theAustralian Tourist Commission (criterion 8). Previous attempts to inducedemand-side growth in the 1960s and early 1970s, by promoting the GoldCoast as a suitable destination for overseas tourists, failed because of theinadequacy of its supply-side infrastructure (criterion 9), including unsuit-able transport infrastructure (criterion 11).

If the RDS model had been available in 1980 it would have shown, basedon the infrastructure matrix of Table 1, that the Gold Coast would onlyenter into a fourth phase when international standard hotels were built,

international standard attractions became available and new internationalair links were established. When these occurred, as they did from 1985onwards, the resort entered Phase Four (Table 3).

During the period 19907, there was no growth in the traditional intra-state market, although sustained growth in international visitors resulted inoverall resort growth. By 1999, the pattern of intrastate visits had reversedand visitor numbers had begun to rise. The pattern of no growth in onemarket parallelling substantial growth in another market signifies thatindividual market sectors can experience different rates of growth ordecline. These changes may be masked by the overall pattern of develop-ment in the resort. These patterns of growth indicate the heterogeneousnature of resorts, the existence of sectors that simultaneously exhibitdifferent elasticity of demand, and point to the need to monitor all marketsectors closely to prevent decline in one sector spreading to other sectors.

In the case study presented in this paper, the growth of a typical coastalresort in an economically developed country is described. Growth is initiallystimulated by increasing domestic demand followed later by the growth ofan international sector described as Phase Four. In developing countries areverse pattern of development occurs, with initial development based on a

Phase Four market followed later by Phase One to Three development asnational economic development transforms society. Examples of thispattern of development are evident in Phuket, Bali and Acapulco and will bereported upon in a later paper.

Conclusions

The Resort Development Spectrum illustrates the role of the market in

resort development but does not invalidate other resort models. Weaver(2000) for example, observed that Butlers resort model has some utility asan ideal type against which the real world may be measured andcompared. Similarly, the spatial models developed by Barrett (1958), Young



29/34


(1983) and Smith (1992) added to the understanding of how the economicaspects of resorts are translated into physical structures measured as zonesof development. Russell and Faulkners (1999) discussion of investors(described as chaos makers) illustrates the critical and generally ignored role

of entrepreneurs in the development process. Torres (2002) analysis of thedevelopment of Cancun, Mexico from a Fordist perspective sheds light onthe factors that have promoted modern mass tourism resort developmentand, importantly, give some sense of the changes that may be expected whentourists begin to demand neo-Fordist and post-Fordist tourist experiences.The RDS adds a new dimension to research into resort growth by identify-ing the economic processes that occur in the resort micro-economy,identifying the heterogeneous nature of market sectors and providing aframework that describes the infrastructure changes that occur in each

developmental phase. Using this framework, Table 1 illustrates that it ispossible to identify the types of infrastructure investment that producegrowth in both the volume of tourists and by market sectors. Table 1, inconjunction with Table 2, can be used as a template to develop scenariosthat indicate the investments required to achieve further growth and to givea broad picture of the types and limitations of growth that are possible.

It is in this area that the RDS holds the greatest promise for use in ex anteinvestigations into the potential of candidate resort areas for future develop-ment, by incorporating scenario analysis of changing patterns of tourismdemand, possibly incorporating post-Fordist, neo-Fordist and post-modernist production theories. By first developing projections of the futurespatial opportunities for development based on the criteria outlined in Table2, a sense of the type of development that may be possible can be estimated.This will include constraints imposed by physical, social, cultural andenvironmental factors, as well as responses to demands for non-masstourism experiences, such as the limited niche tourism products now beingdeveloped in the Gold Coast hinterland area. If a resort is identified as apotential candidate for further development, the broad constraints will beknown prior to initiation of the process. As growth occurs, the actual form

of growth will be significantly shaped by the criteria outlined in Table 2. Assuggested, the identification of scenarios illustrating various options of themagnitude and complexity of development will assist local government andresidents to make informed decisions on the future course of development.

The RDS overcomes many of the problems associated with existingmodels that have concentrated on the effects or impacts of growth from apost ante position. The strength of the RDS is that it illustrates the type ofactions and policies that are required, ex ante, to facilitate growth from onephase to the next and can incorporate changes that occur as a result of

changing demand patterns particularly from modern mass tourism to newexperiences based on specialized niche products or de-differentiatedconsumption. This feature of the model is relevant to planning. Thus, if aparticular locality exhibits potential for development as a resort, it is



30/34

54 P r i d e a u x

possible to predict the type of infrastructure required for growth to proceedand encourage the construction of appropriate facilities and infrastructurethrough local government zoning and town planning policies. For example,in Figure 2, roads constructed to service tourism demand at capacity OQ1

will be unlikely to be capable of handling the traffic generated at capacitylevel Q3Q4 By employing the RDS to measure the type of developmentlikely to occur at Q3Q4, sufficient allowance for road expansion can beincluded when road reserves are zoned at capacity OQ1. Similarly, allow-ances can be made for increased demand for water, sewerage, educationinstitutions and areas required for future retail and commercial develop-ment. Initiatives of this type will be instrumental in averting many of theland acquisition and zoning disputes that emerge when unplanned growthhas reduced both the effectiveness of existing land zoning and the long-term

effectiveness of town planning schemes.It is apparent that many factors together create the resort phenomenon.Future research needs to be directed at investigating the many factorsinvolved, focusing on the contribution of each to the matrix of growth.Areas that could be further investigated to ascertain their contribution tothe growth process include the development of accommodation, distribu-tion, retail facilities, level of sustainability, marketing, policy, changingeconomic systems and transport. Further research is also required into thegrowth of instant mass tourism resorts, such as Cancun and Phuket, thatrely on international tourism rather than domestic tourism as the initialengine of growth.

References

Bailey, K. (1982) Methods of Social Research, 2nd edn (New York: The FreePress).

Barrett, J. A. (1958) The seaside resort towns of England and Wales, PhD thesis,University of London.

Bianchi, R. (1994) Tourism development in resort dynamics: an alternativeapproach, in: C. P. Cooper & A. Lockwood(Eds) Progress in Tourism, Recre-ation and Hospitality Management, vol. 5, pp. 181193 (Chichester: JohnWiley and Sons).

Boorstin, D. (1964) The Image: A guide to pseudo-events in America (New York:Harper).

Burton, R. (1994) Travel Geography, 2nd edn (London: Pitman Publishing).Butler, R. (1980) The concept of a tourist area resort cycle of evolution: implications

for management of resources, Canadian Geographer, 14(1), pp. 512.Choy, D. J. L. (1992) Life cycle models for Pacific Island destinations, Journal of

Travel Research, 30(3), pp. 2631.

Cooper, C. (1992). The life cycle concept and strategic planning for coastal resorts,Built Environment, 18(1), pp. 5766.Cooper, C. P. & Jackson, S. (1989) Destination life cycle: the Isle of Man case study,

Annals of Tourism Research, 16(3), pp. 377398.



31/34


Davis, M. (2003) The results are in . . . and now its time to party, New Scientist,178(2389), pp. 2223.

Digance, J. (1997) Life cycle model, Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2),pp. 452454.

Faulkner, B. (2002, Rejuvenating a maturing tourist destination: the case of the Gold

Coast, Current Issues in Tourism, 5(6), pp. 472520.Getz, D. (1992) Tourism planning and destination life cycle, Annals of TourismResearch, 19(4), pp. 752770.

Gilbert, E. W. (1939) The growth of inland and seaside health resorts in England,The Scottish Geographical Magazine, 55(1), pp. 1635.

Gold Coast City Council (1991) People, Places and Planning 1991 Edition (GoldCoast: Gold Coast City Council).

Grummitt, N. D. (1984) A tourism policy plan for the Gold Coast region, Thesis,Queensland Institute of Technology, Brisbane.

Harrison, D. (1995) Development of tourism in Swaziland, Annals of TourismResearch, 22(1), pp. 135156.

Haywood, M. T. (1986) Can the tourist area life cycle be made operational?,Tourism Management, 7(3), 154167.Holthouse, H. (1982) Illustrated History of the Gold Coast(Frenchs Forest: Reed).

Johnson, C. S. (2001a) Shoring the foundations of the destination Life Cycle Model,Part 1: ontological and epistemological, Tourism Geographies, 3(1), pp. 227.

Johnson, C. S. (2001b) Shoring the foundations of the Destination Life Cycle Model,Part 2: A case study of Kona, Hawaii Island, Tourism Geographies, 3(2),pp. 135164

Keller, C. P. (1987) Stages of peripheral tourism development: Canadas North Westterritories, Tourism Management, 8(1), pp. 2032.

Kermath, B. K. & Thomas, R. N. (1992) Spatial dynamics of resorts Sosua, Domin-

ican Republic, Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), pp. 173190.Lavery, P. (1974) The demand for recreation, in: P. Lavery (Ed.) RecreationalGeography, pp. 2148 (Newton Abbot: David and Charles).

Longhurst, R. (1994) Images of the Gold Coast (Gold Coast: Gold Coast CityCouncil).

MacCannell, D. (1973) Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in touristsettings, American Sociological Review, 79, pp. 589603.

McRobbie, A. (1982) The Fabulous Gold Coast(Gold Coast: Pan News).Miossec, J. M. (1976) Elements pour une Theorie de lEspace Touristique, Les

Chasiers du Tourisme, C-36 (Aix-en-Provence: CHET).Morgan, M. (1991) Dressing up to survive marketing Majorca Anew, Tourism

Management, 12(1), pp. 1520.Mullins, P. (1984) Hedonism and real estate: resort tourism and Gold Coast devel-opment, in: P. Williams (Ed.) Conflict and Development, pp. 3150 (Sydney:George Allen and Unwin).

Oglethorpe, M. (1984) Tourism in Malta: A crisis of dependence, Leisure Studies,3, pp. 147162.

Peck, T. G. & Lepie, A. S. (1977) Tourism development in three North Carolinacoastal towns, in: V. Smith (Ed.) Hosts and Guests: an anthropology oftourism, pp. 59172 (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press).

Plog, S. (1973) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity, Cornell Hotel andRestaurant Association Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 5558.

Prideaux, B. (1998) The resort development spectrum: an examination of the roleof the market in resort development, in: C. Tidswell & D. Weaver (Eds)Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Proceedings of the Eighth



32/34

56 P r i d e a u x

Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference, Gold Coast,pp. 670690 (Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research).

Prideaux, B. (2000a) The resort development spectrum, Tourism Management,21(3), pp. 225241.

Prideaux, B. (2000b) The role of the transport system in the growth of coastal

resorts an examination of resort development in South East Queensland, PhDThesis, Department of Tourism and Leisure Management, The University ofQueensland, Brisbane.

Prideaux, B. & Cooper, C. (2002) Marketing and destination growth: a symbioticrelationship,Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), pp. 3551.

Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (QTTC) (1984) Executive SummaryResults of the Queensland Visitors Survey 1983/89 (Brisbane: QTTC).

Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (QTTC) (1998a) Executive SummariesResults of the Queensland Visitors Survey 1983/84 (Brisbane: QTTC).

Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (QTTC) (1998b) Trends 13 (Brisbane:QTTC).

Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (QTTC) (1998c) Executive SummariesResults of the Queensland Visitors Survey 1996/97(Brisbane: QTTC).Robson, C. (1993) The qualitative story, Survey, Spring, pp. 1314.Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (various years from 1973 to 1998) Queens-

land Accommodation Guide (Brisbane: Royal Automobile Club of Queens-land).

Russell, R. & Faulkner, B. (1998) Reliving the destination life cycle in Coolangatta,in: E. Lawes, B. Faulkner & G. Moscardo (Eds) Embracing and ManagingChange in Tourism: international case studies, pp. 6574 (London: Routledge).

Russell, R. & Faulkner, B. (1999) Movers and shakers: chaos makers in tourismdevelopment, Tourism Management, 20(4), pp. 411424.

Smeral, E. (1998) The impact of globalisation on small and medium enterprises: newchallenges for tourism policies in European countries, Tourism Management,19(4), pp. 371380.

Smith, R. A. (1992) Beach resort evolution, Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2),pp. 304322.

Soane, J. V. N. (1993) Fashionable Resort Region: their evolution and trans-formation (Wellingford: AB International).

Strapp, J. (1988) The resort cycle and second homes, Annals of Tourism Research,15(4), pp. 504516.

Tooman, L. A. (1997) Applications of the Life-Cycle model in tourism, Annals ofTourism Research, 24(1), pp. 214234.

Torres, R. (2001) Toward a better understanding of tourism and agriculture linkagesin the Yucatan: tourist food consumption and preferences, Tourism Geogra-phies, 4(3), pp. 282306.

Tourism Queensland (2002) The Gold Coast. Available at http://www.tq.com.au/research (accessed 25 March).

Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze (London: Sage).Urry, J. (1995) Consuming Places (London: Routledge).Varder, J. & Lang, F. (1980) The Gold Coast Book (Brisbane: Jacaranda).Wall, G. (1983) Cycles and capacity: a contradiction in terms?, Annals of Tourism

Research, 10(2), pp. 268270.Walle, A. H. (1997) Quantitative verses qualitative tourism research, Annals of

Tourism Research,24(3), pp. 524536.Weaver, D. B. (1993) Grand Cayman Island and the resort cycle concept, Journalof Travel Research, 29(2), pp. 915.



33/34


Weaver, D. B. (2000) A broad context model of destination development scenarios,Tourism Management, 21(1), pp. 217224.

Wilkerson, P. F. (1987) Tourism in small island nations: a fragile dependence,Leisure Studies,6, pp. 127146.

Williams, M. (1993) An expansion of the tourist site cycle model: the case of

Minorea (Spain),Journal of Tourism Studies 4(2), pp. 2432.Yin, R. K. (1993) Applications of Case Study Research, Applied Social ResearchMethods Series 34 (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).

Yin, R. K. (1989) Case Study Research: design and methods (original edition 1984)(Newbury Park, CA: Sage).

Young, B. (1983) Touristization of traditional Maltese fishing-farm villages, Annalsof Tourism Research, 16(2), pp. 3541.

Note on contributor

Bruce Prideaux holds the position of Professor of Marketing and TourismManagement in the School of Business, James Cook University, Australia.His major research interests are in destination development issues, the roleof transport in tourism development, future studies and, more recently, inresearch diffusion.

Rsum: Analyse de la croissance de lieux de sjour touristique de long de

la Cte dOr de lAustralie

Les modes de croissance de lieux de sjours touristiques demeurent un sujet de recherche entourisme depuis plus de soixante ans et pourtant, la capacit des modles avancs rcemmentpour expliquer le processus na pas t dmontre de faon satisfaisante. Nous proposonsdans cet article un Eventail de Croissance de Lieux de Sjours Touristiques en tant quemodle utiliser comme outil de planification. Cet outil devrait prdire lvolution futureprobable dun lieu de sjour touristique. Le modle est multidimensionnel. Il se base surlapprciation de la faon dont la demande volue par rapport au march, dans ces lieux. Ilincorpore des interprtations fordistes et post-fordistes de la production et de la demande. Ona test le modle en lutilisant pour expliquer les 130 dernires annes dvolution le long de laCte dOr de lAustralie. On a conclu que le modle explique de faon satisfaisante le mode de

croissance du tourisme le long de cette cte.

Mots-cls: Eventail de Croissance de Lieux de Sjours Touristiques, Cte dOr, lieu de sjourtouristique, destination, croissance, post-fordisme

Zusammenfassung: Untersuchung der Ferienanlagenentwicklung an deraustralischen Gold Coast

Die Wachstumspfade von Ferienanlagen sind bestndig Gegenstnde der Tourismusforschungseit mehr als sechzig Jahren. Trotzdem ist es auch in jngerer Zeit vorgestellten Modellen nochnicht gelungen, den Entwicklungsprozess hinreichend befriedigend operationalisierend zuerklren. Dieser Beitrag diskutiert das Resort Development Spectrum als eine Mglichkeit,welche ein Modell darstellt, dass als Planungsinstrument genutzt werden kann in der



34/34

58 P r i d e a u x

Vorhersage wahrscheinlicher Muster in der Entwicklung von Ferienanlagen. Dieses Modell istmultidimensional und grndet auf dem Verstndnis der nachfrageseitigen Antwort auf denMarkt, welcher die Ferienanlagen betreibt. Es beinhaltet zudem Elemente der fordistischenund postfordistischen Interpretation von Produktion und Nachfrage. Das Modell wurde zuTestzwecken zur Erklrung der Entwicklung der Cold Coast von Queensland in den letzten130 Jahren herangezogen. Es erwies sich sich dabei als befriedigend zur Erklrung des Wach-

resortdevspectrum goldcoast

Documents