This guest lecture was presented as part of the Subject The Economies of Cities and Regions of the Master of Urban Planning programme of the University of Melbourne. It introduces students to key concepts in tourism, tourism development and sustainability that allow the debate of the sustainability of tourism development in selected case studies from an economic perspective.

1. Fernando
de
Noronha
Wet
Season
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

2. Fernando
de
Noronha
Dry
Season
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

3. Fernando
de
Noronha
Water
and
Agriculture
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

4. Fernando
de
Noronha
Energy
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

5. Fernando
de
Noronha
Marine
Park
Tourist
AcBviBes
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

6. Fernando
de
Noronha
Cultural
Heritage
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

7. Three
Sources
of
Evidence/Data
(adapted
from
Yin,
2009,
p.
102)
“…
a
major
strength
of
case
study
data
1. Secondary
Data
collecBon
is
the
opportunity
to
use
many
(context)
different
sources
of
evidence.
2. In-­‐Depth
QualitaKve
Furthermore,
the
need
to
use
mulBple
Interviews
sources
of
evidence
far
exceeds
that
in
(relaKonships)
other
research
methods
such
as
3. Direct
ObservaKon
experiments
surveys
or
histories”
(Yin,
(outcomes)
2009,
p.
114-­‐5).
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

8. Two
Stages
of
Field
Data
CollecBon
• Stage
0:
– Secondary
Data
(Off-­‐Site)
• Stage
1:
– Contextual
Interviews
(Core)
– Focused
Interviews
(Pilot)
– Secondary
Data
(Core)
– Direct
ObservaBon
(Core)
• Stage
2:
– Focused
Interviews
(Core)
– Secondary
Data
(Complementary)
– Direct
ObservaKon
(Complementary)
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

9. Secondary
Data
(Context)
Seeking
to
understand:
• Formal
Vision
of
Sustainability
and
of
(Tourism)
Development
To
be
carried
out
throughout
the
research
• Formally
implemented
or
aYempted
process,
it
includes:
strategies
• Legal
and
Public
Policy
• Formal
awareness
of
the
role
of
Documents
compeBBon
and
cooperaBon
as
• StaKsKcs
drivers
and
inhibitors
of
higher
levels
• Master
Plans
of
sustainability
within
tourism
• Management
Plans
development
• Reports
and
others
• History,
trends
and
paXerns
of
development
in
general
• SituaBonal
context
in
which
tourism
development
occurs
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

10. Direct
ObservaBon
(Outcomes)
With
its
core
focus
on
outcomes,
it
includes:
• Landscape
It
was
carried
out
• Landmarks
(mainly
in
the
1st
stage)
through
a
qualitaBve
• Infra-­‐structure
approach,
by
the
• PopulaKon
Behaviour
adaptaBon
of
the
• Tourist
Behaviour
UNWTO’s
sustainable
tourism
indicators
and
• Trade
Behaviour
the
use
of
observaBon
• Others
scripts
and
forms
With
regard
to
relaKonships
it
includes:
• Public
MeeKngs
and
• Private
MeeKngs
(when
authorised)
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

11. In-­‐Depth
QualitaBve
Interviews
• 1st
stage
(2-­‐3
per
site)
– Contextual
Interviews
(core)
– Focused
Interviews
(pilot)
• 2nd
stage
(17-­‐23
per
site)
– Focused
Interviews
(core)
Total:
40-­‐50
interviews
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

12. Contextual
Interviews
(1st
stage)
Two
or
three
key
informants
in
each
site
that
could
help
with
an
overview
of
the
place,
of
further
sources
of
secondary
data
and
with
the
start
of
the
snowball
approach
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

13. Focused
Interviews
(1st
and
2nd
stages)
• Regulatory
and
Law
Enforcement
Bodies
(≈
3)
• Planning
and
Management
Bodies
(≈
2)
• 2
or
3
Key
Informants
per
site
(pilot:
1st
stage)
• Tourism
Industry
(≈
5)
• 17
to
23
RepresentaBves
• Complementary
Industries
(≈
2)
of
each
group
that
is
• CompeKng
Industries
(≈
1)
involved
or
affected
by
the
development
of
• Local
Community
(≈
3)
tourism
per
site
(2nd
• NGOs
(≈
2)
stage)
• Researchers
(≈
1)
• Others
(e.g.
Military,
if
applicable)
(≈
1)
• Total
≈
20
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

14. Choice
of
CommunicaBon
Strategy
• Is
the
researcher
looking
for
a
more
subjecKve
or
objecKve
view
from
the
interviewee?
• SubjecKve
X
• Is
the
researcher
ader
a
more
descripKve
ObjecKve
or
analyKcal
response
from
the
• ReporKve
X
interviewee?
ConstrucKve
• What
is
the
role
of
the
interviewer
when
conducKng
the
interview?
What
is
the
• Individual
X
overall
objecKve
of
the
interview?
Is
the
CollaboraKve
interviewer
supposed
to
have
a
more
• DeducKve
X
recepKve
or
interacKve
role
in
the
InducKve
interview?
• Is
the
data
being
gathered
supposed
to
provide
input
for
the
way
the
rest
of
the
interview
is
being
conducted?
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

15. Choice
of
Recording
Equipment
• What
kind
of
data
is
being
collected?
• How
comfortable
are
the
interviewers
Video
Cameras
with
disclosing
such
data?
X
• Can
the
researcher
collect
the
data
in
Audio
Recorders
and
a
way
in
which
the
interviewer
is
comfortable
enough
to
disclose
Photo
Cameras
sensiKve
informaKon
when
this
is
required?
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

16. Interview
Room
Layout
3600mm.
900mm.
• Chair
posiKoning
’EE
• Camera
posiKoning
C
• Voice
recorder
posiKoning
5750mm.
‘ER
• Board
posiKoning
• Table
posiKoning
• Windows
1500mm.
1500mm.
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

17. Board
as
Medium
• ConstrucBve
rather
than
ReporKve
• CollaboraBve
rather
than
Individual
• Provides
a
more
suitable
plaiorm
for
inducBve
research
• What
is
registered
can
be
more
easily
referred
back
to
• Caters
for
a
more
objecBve
interview,
as
it
sets
the
boundaries
to
what
is
being
discussed
• Most
importantly,
provides
a
medium
throughwhich
interviewees
can
comunicate
sensiBve
data
without
feeling
exposed
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

18. Sefng
Boundaries
and
Data
CollecBon
• Pre-­‐selected
interdependent
groups
of
elements
to
be
idenKfied
People
• IniKal
set
is
created
with
research
on
OrganisaBons
secondary
sources
and
with
the
Groups
contextual
interviews
Drivers
and
Inhibitors
• New
elements
are
added
by
Indicators
interviewees
during
the
focused
interviews
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

19. Samples
• RelaKonships
within
the
same
categories
of
elements
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

20. Samples
• RelaKonships
between
different
categories
of
elements
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

21. Approvals
and
Support
• UNESCO
Observatory
for
MulK-­‐Disciplinary
Research
in
the
Arts
(University
of
Melbourne)
• Architecture,
Building
and
Planning
Human
Ethics
Advisory
Group
(University
of
Melbourne)
• LHIB
-­‐
Lord
Howe
Island
Board
• ICMBio
-­‐
InsKtuto
Chico
Mendes
de
Conservação
da
Biodiversidade
• ADEFN
–
Administração
do
Distrito
Estadual
de
Fernando
de
Noronha
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

22. 22
PART
6
–
DISCUSSION
OF
PRELIMINARY
RESULTS
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

23. Land
Tenure
• Different
schemes
of
land
tenure
will
bring
different
consequences
to
the
sustainability
of
local
communiKes
embedded
in
different
cultural
contexts
and
under
different
types
of
pressure.
• Building
codes
and
restricKons
on
the
importaKon
of
building
materials
are
complementary
to
land
tenure
as
means
of
development
control,
but
these
must
be
carefully
orchestrated
so
as
not
to
result
in
controversial
outcomes.
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

24. World
Heritage
• As
any
other
type
of
protected
area
conservaKon
scheme,
World
Heritage
LisKng
can
be
used
not
only
for
conservaKon
purposes
but
also
for
poliKcal
reasons
as
it
infers
change
of
control
over
land
areas.
• The
effects
of
lisKng
are
mulKple
and
must
be
studied
in
more
depth
as
they
can
greatly
vary
from
site
to
site
and
can
be
considerable.
• The
very
concept
of
heritage
must
be
more
deeply
debated
in
light
of
concepts
of
resilience
and
complex
adapKve
systems
in
order
to
make
them
more
of
an
instrument
of
sustainability
rather
than
simply
of
conservaKon.
• World
Heritage
LisKng
must
be
beYer
integrated
with
other
internaKonal
conservaKon
schemes
in
order
to
beYer
make
use
of
its
potenKal
and
avoid
bringing
up
controversial
consequences.
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

25. Tourist
Carrying
Capacity
• Different
ways
of
controlling
tourism
carrying
capacity
can
lead
to
different
economic
outcomes
• By
restricKon
of
the
number
of
beds
(and
accommodaKon
providers)
but
not
the
number
of
local
tour
operators,
different
scenarios
of
compeKKon
arise
in
these
two
sectors
of
the
local
tourism
industry.
• By
controlling
the
number
of
tourists
that
can
enter
the
desKnaKon
on
any
given
day,
the
control
of
tourism
flows
is
more
relaxed
and
can
bring
different
consequences
in
regards
to
tourism
impact
on
the
economy
and
the
environment.
It
can
push
for
innovaKon,
in
the
sense
of
trying
to
sKmulate
longer
stays,
but
it
can
also
sKmulate
overdevelopment
with
most
residents
transforming
their
residences
in
accommodaKon
(more
democraKc),
for
instance.
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

26. Tourism
Vs.
Other
Local
Sectors
Size
of
Local
Economic
• Tourism
can
both
compete
and
cooperate
with
Sectors
other
local
economic
sectors
in
different
ways;
• Increased
connecKons
with
originaKng
regions
Tourism
make
it
easier
for
tourism
to
became
the
major,
if
not
the
only,
economic
sector
for
isolated
Agriculture
small
tourism
desKnaKons;
• By
doing
that,
tourist
actually
decreases
the
Livestock
local
economic
diversity
leading
to
loss
of
resilience.
Others
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

27. 27
PART
7
–
FINAL
REMARKS
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

28. Some
of
my
conclusions
so
far
• Tourism
can
be
a
great
tool
for
economic
development
and
environmental
conservaKon,
but
it
can
also
easily
lead
to
the
development
of
economic
relaKons
of
new-­‐colonialism,
leading
to
loss
of
resilience
of
the
local
communiKes
and
consequently
of
local
environments
in
the
long
run.
• Localised
protected
areas
MUST
try
their
best
to
conciliate
human
development
with
ecological
cycles
rather
than
simply
imposing
restricKons
that
end
up
leading
to
unsustainable
outcomes
at
the
global
level
and
loss
of
social-­‐ecological
resilience
at
the
local
level.
• If
planners
are
to
implement
changes
in
the
model
of
tourism
development
in
place
for
a
certain
desKnaKon,
they
first
need
to
understand
what
are
the
self-­‐moderaKng
and
self-­‐reinforcing
process
that
will
facilitate
or
make
harder
the
planned
transiKon.
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

29. 29
Further
informaBon
Access
www.lndmoraes.id.au
for:
• Current
state
of
research
• Research
project
and
methodology
• Photos
and
videos
of
the
two
sites
• InformaKon
about
the
two
case
study
sites
• Contact
informaKon
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

30. 30
References
• AUSTRALIAN
DEPARTMENT
OF
TOURISM
AND
RECREATION
1975.
Development
of
Tourism
in
Australia,
Canberra,
Australian
Government
Publishing
Service.
• BENI,
M.
C.
2001.
Análise
Estrutural
do
Turismo,
São
Paulo,
SENAC.
• BURKART,
A.
J.
&
MEDLIK,
S.
1981.
Tourism:
past,
present
and
future,
London,
Heinemann.
• BUTLER,
R.
W.
1980.
The
Concept
of
a
Tourist
Area
Life
Cycle
of
EvoluKon:
implicaKon
for
management
of
resources.
The
Canadian
Geographer,
24,
5-­‐12.
• COMTUR
DE
BONITO
1995.
Resolução
NormaKva
No
001/95
-­‐
Voucher
Único.
• DFAT.
2010.
Australia's
Top
25
Exports:
Goods
and
Services
[Online].
Canberra:
Australian
Government
Department
of
Foreign
Affairs
and
Trade.
Available:
hYp://www.dfat.gov.au/publicaKons/tgs/exports-­‐top25-­‐2009.pdf
[Accessed
30/08/2010].
• EAGLES,
P.
F.
J.,
MCCOOL,
S.
F.
&
HAYNES,
C.
D.
2002.
Sustainable
tourism
in
protected
areas:
Guidelines
for
planning
and
management,
Gland,
World
Commission
on
Protected
Areas
(WCPA)
InternaKonal
Union
for
ConservaKon
of
Nature
(IUCN).
• FARRELL,
T.
A.
&
MARION,
J.
L.
2002.
The
protected
area
visitor
impact
management
(PAVIM)
framework:
A
simplified
process
for
making
management
decisions.
Journal
of
Sustainable
Tourism,
10,
31-­‐51.
• GEELS,
F.
W.
2011.
The
mulK-­‐level
perspecKve
on
sustainability
transiKons:
Responses
to
seven
criKcisms.
Environmental
InnovaKon
and
Societal
TransiKons,
1,
24-­‐40.
• GILMORE,
J.
H.
&
PINE,
B.
J.
2007.
AuthenKcity:
what
consumers
really
want,
Boston,
Mass.,
Harvard
Business
School
Press.
• GLASER,
B.
G.
&
STRAUSS,
A.
L.
1967.
The
discovery
of
grounded
theory:
strategies
for
qualitaKve
research,
Chicago,
Aldine
Pub.
Co.
• HUNZIKER,
W.
&
KRAPF,
K.
2011.
Grundriß
Der
Allgemeinen
Fremdenverkehrslehre,
Zürich,
Polygr.
Verl.
• IBGE.
2010.
Países@
[Online].
Brasília:
InsKtuto
Brasileiro
de
Geografia
e
Esta•sKca
-­‐
Ministério
do
Planejamento
-­‐
Governo
Federal
da
República
FederaKva
do
Brasil.
Available:
hYp://www.ibge.gov.br/paisesat/
[Accessed
09/09/2010].
• INSTITUTO
ESTRADA
REAL.
2010.
Produção
Associada
ao
Turismo
[Online].
Belo
Horizonte:
InsKtuto
Estrada
Real.
Available:
hYp://www.estradareal.org.br/hotsite/prod_turismo/home/index.asp
[Accessed
07/07/2010].
• INSTITUTO
MARCA
BRASIL.
2010.
Tour
da
Experiência
[Online].
Brasília.
Available:
hYp://
www.tourdaexperiencia.com/
[Accessed
18/06/2010].
• ITCP-­‐COPPE-­‐UFRJ.
2010.
Projeto
CooperaKvas
no
Turismo
[Online].
Rio
de
Janeiro:
UFRJ.
Available:
hYp://
www.itcp.coppe.ufrj.br/projetos_turismo.php
[Accessed
09/06/2010].
• LEIPER,
N.
1979.
The
framework
of
tourism:
Towards
a
definiKon
of
tourism,
tourist,
and
the
tourist
industry.
Annals
of
Tourism
Research,
6,
390-­‐407.
• MCINTOSH,
R.
W.,
GOELDNER,
C.
R.
&
RITCHIE,
J.
R.
B.
1995.
Tourism:
principles,
pracKces,
philosophies,
New
York,
Wiley.
• MICHAEL,
E.
J.
2007.
Micro-­‐clusters
and
networks:
the
growth
of
tourism,
Oxford,
Elsevier.
• MTUR.
2010.
Ministério
do
Turismo
-­‐
Dados
e
Fatos
[Online].
Brasília:
Ministério
do
Turismo
-­‐
Governo
da
República
FederaKva
do
Brasil.
Available:
hYp://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/dadosefatos/home.html
[Accessed
09/09/2010].
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES

31. 31
References
(cont.)
• MTUR.
2011.
Ministério
do
Turismo
-­‐
Desembarques
Internacionais
[Online].
Brasília.
Available:
hYp://
www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/dadosefatos/estaKsKcas_indicadores/desembarques_internacionais/.
• NOLD,
C.
2010.
BioMapping
/
EmoKon
Mapping
[Online].
London.
Available:
hYp://www.biomapping.net/
[Accessed
18/06/2010].
• PATTON,
M.
Q.
2002.
QualitaKve
research
and
evaluaKon
methods,
Thousand
Oaks,
California,
Sage
PublicaKons.
• PINE,
B.
J.
&
GILMORE,
J.
H.
1999.
The
experience
economy:
work
is
theatre
&
every
business
a
stage,
Boston,
Harvard
Business
School
Press.
• PLOG,
S.
2001.
Why
DesKnaKon
Areas
Rise
and
Fall
in
Popularity:
An
Update
of
a
Cornell
Quarterly
Classic.
Cornell
Hotel
and
Restaurant
AdministraKon
Quarterly,
42,
13-­‐24.
• PORTER,
M.
E.
1998.
On
compeKKon,
Boston,
MA,
Harvard
Businesss
School
Publishing.
• PORTER,
M.
E.
2004.
CompeKKve
strategy:
techniques
for
analyzing
industries
and
compeKtors,
New
York
;
London,
Free.
• SÃO
PAULO
TURISMO.
2009.
Mapa
das
Sensações
[Online].
São
Paulo:
São
Paulo
Turismo.
Available:
hYp://
www.mapadassensacoes.com.br/
[Accessed
09/06/2010].
• STANKEY,
G.
H.,
COLE,
D.
N.,
LUCAS,
R.
C.,
PETERSEN,
M.
E.
&
FRISSELL,
S.
S.
1985.
The
limits
of
acceptable
change
(LAC)
system
for
wilderness
planning.
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
-­‐
Forest
Service.
Ogden,
UT.
• TOURISM
AUSTRALIA.
2011.
Tourist
Arrivals
Data
[Online].
Sydney:
Tourism
Australia.
Available:
hYp://
www.tourism.australia.com/en-­‐au/research/default_3935.aspx
[Accessed
26/07/2011].
• UNESCO
1972.
ConvenKon
Concerning
the
ProtecKon
of
the
World
Cultural
and
Natural
Heritage.
In:
NATIONS,
U.
(ed.).
Paris:
UNESCO.
• UNESCO
WORLD
HERITAGE
CENTRE.
2008.
World
Heritage
InformaKon
Kit
[Online].
Paris:
UNESCO
World
Heritage
Centre.
Available:
hYp://whc.unesco.org/en/acKviKes/567/acKvity-­‐567-­‐1.pdf.
• UNWTO
2004.
Indicators
of
sustainable
development
for
tourism
desKnaKons:
a
guidebook,
Madrid,
Spain,
United
NaKons
World
Tourism
OrganizaKon.
• US
DEPARTMENT
OF
INTERIOR.
1997.
The
Visitor
Experience
and
Resource
ProtecKon
(VERP)
framework:
a
handbook
for
planners
and
managers
[Online].
Denver:
NaKonal
Park
Service.
Available:
hYp://
catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3849348
[Accessed
30/08/2010].
• VEJLGAARD,
H.
2008.
Anatomy
of
a
trend,
New
York,
McGraw-­‐Hill.
• WALDROP,
M.
M.
1992.
Complexity:
the
emerging
science
at
the
edge
of
order
and
chaos,
New
York,
Simon
&
Schuster.
• WEARING,
S.
&
NEIL,
J.
1999.
Ecotourism:
impacts,
potenKals,
and
possibiliKes,
Oxford
;
Boston,
BuYerworth-­‐
Heinemann.
• WTTC
2011.
Travel
&
Tourism
Economic
Impact
2011:
Australia.
World
Travel
&
Tourism
Council.
London.
• WTTC
2011.
Travel
&
Tourism
Economic
Impact
2011:
Brazil.
World
Travel
&
Tourism
Council.
London.
• WTTC
2011.
Travel
&
Tourism
Economic
Impact
2011:
World.
World
Travel
&
Tourism
Council.
London.
• YIN,
R.
K.
2009.
Case
study
research:
design
and
methods,
Thousand
Oaks,
Calif.,
SAGE.
LEONARDO
NOGUEIRA
DE
MORAES