Regional development rhrough domestic and tourist event policies: Gold Coast and Brisbane 1974-2003

Governments, as key stakeholders in the development of events, produce policies to facilitate the growth and potential of events as a platform for industry and economic development. To date, however, there has been a paucity of research undertaken to determine the appropriateness and the consequences of government policies pertaining to events. This paper studies the event policies of two Australian local government authorities, the Gold Coast City Council and Brisbane City Council, from 1974-2003, as measured by four development paradigms: Modernisation, Dependency, Economic Neoliberalism, and Alternative. The analysis revealed that these policies were predominantly underpinned by the Alternative which has a strong socio-cultural focus. Increased awareness and utilisation of the various development paradigms will assist local governments in producing future event policies to promote growth of the event industry and concomitantly, appropriate development within their region.

Effects of tourism development on the local poor people - Case study in Taibai Region China

In China, protected areas are one of the main destinations attracting tourists and homeland for many poor people living in and around them. Based on a case study, the paper focuses on correlation between tourism and poverty alleviation by tracing the cash flows to the local poor. It also reviews the social and environmental effects of tourism on local area. The case study is conducted in a group of protected areas in Qinling Mountain Region in Shaanxi, a western province in China. Qinling Mountain is one of the most important distribution zones for Giant Panda and some other endangered wildlife such as Golden Takin and Golden Monkey. The tourism development in the region is happening. Research indicates that there is 29.33%, of tourist expenditure is going to local households, directly or indirectly. Tourist spends US$7.11 (13.67%) in food and beverage, and US$6.39 (12.23%) in accommodation service, which are the greatest contributors to local households in terms of tourism benefits. Local households can get US$8.15 from food/beverage and accommodation sectors, taking 56.64% of total income from tourism. Generally, tourism development benefits all stakeholders. However, poor people get less benefit. The paper analyses the barriers for the poor to be involved in tourism development, and discusses the government roles, major issues in implementation of Sustainable Tourism-Eliminating Poverty (ST-EP) model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]