The social impacts of tourism in coastal areas
Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in the world, and coastal areas are particular magnets for this industry. Coastal tourism and recreation includes a wide range of tourism, leisure, and recreational activities that take place both in the coastal zone and in coastal waters off-shore. Coastal recreation and tourism activities include swimming, beach activities, recreational fishing, recreational boating, cruises, ecotourism, snorkeling and diving.

These activities are often supported by extensive tourism development such as accommodation, food services, entertainment venues, and other supporting infrastructure such as fishing piers and other fishing areas, recreational boating harbours and marinas, retail businesses, recreation and tourism businesses, landscaped beaches, etc.

It is a paradox of tourism visitation in coastal areas that it can result in damaging the natural attraction people came to see. It can also result in far-reaching and often unexpected social impacts. The environmental and social impacts of coastal tourism need to be a clear priority of governments at all levels. “Clean water, healthy coastal habitats, and a safe, secure, and enjoyable environment are clearly fundamental to successful coastal tourism. Similarly, bountiful living marine resources (fish, shellfish, wetlands, coral reefs, etc.) are of critical importance to most recreational experiences.” (NOAA 1998, p. 1).

Planning plays a key role in the tourism management process, however social impacts are rarely considered in a structured way. Key social issues that have been raised in relation to tourism development include:
· Sustainability: The need to limit tourism development to a level compatible with ecological and social carrying capacity
· Preservation of landscapes: Coastal construction should be controlled to prevent environmental damage and loss of social values. Unsustainable and inappropriate tourism developments should be discouraged
· Community development: Tourism should support activities that benefit local communities and contribute to development of sustainable communities
· Preservation of cultural identity: Tourism development should complement the character of the community and not lead to a fundamental change in the townscape or rural landscape character
· Economic development: Tourism developments should support diversified job creation by supporting local businesses in construction and operation as much as possible, as well as by networking with other local tourism businesses.

Sustainability
Increased tourism demands create pressure on carrying capacity. Greater visitor numbers may place habitats at risk and can jeopardise cultural heritage. Two important principles of developing sustainable tourism are to encourage conservation and provide benefits to the local community.

In the worst cases, tourism “consumes resources, creates waste and requires certain kinds of infrastructure; it creates conditions for possible over-consumption of resources; it is dominated by private investment with priority on maximizing profits … The challenge of sustainable tourism development, therefore, is to balance the principles with these truths, and this can be done only through integrated, cooperative approaches involving all stakeholders and related economic activities in the area. (ESCAP 2001, p. 5) The recent Coastal Spaces report (DSE) also notes that ‘lifestyle’ residential estates outside of existing settlements can commit coastal areas to urbanisation (p. ii).

Preservation of Landscapes
The coastal landscape is one of the key tourism attractors, however hinterland areas are also important in creating the unique sense of place of each coastal area. Planners need to work to preserve the social landscape by preventing inappropriate development and protecting valuable landscapes.

A key issue in Victorian coastal regions in recent years has been the development of wind farms. Coastal areas with strong wind resources are prime sites for wind farm development, however many areas have strong landscape values that are attractive to residents and tourists alike. This has effectively led to tourism and the alternative energy industry coming into conflict over which sector provides the greatest economic return and social benefit for the given coastal region.

Community Development
The local community should be a direct beneficiary of any tourism development. There is no reason why tourism development, at an appropriate level, cannot provide significant social benefits. This includes through provision of social infrastructure, access to a wider range of services than may otherwise exist, and economic opportunities.

Preservation of cultural identity
Tourism can lead to significant changes to the social fabric of coastal communities. There can be major increases in population and significant population fluctuations depending on the season. This may cause major amenity and dislocative impacts for full-time residents. They may find it harder to reach local facilities or services, or may feel that the amenity of the area has been adversely impacted by excessive tourism visitation. Planners need to balance the needs of tourists with the needs of local residents.

Many coastal towns in Victoria began as fishing villages or small-scale seaside resorts. Some are at risk of losing their cultural identity due to the scale of new development attracted by visions of a ‘sea change’ lifestyle. However extensive change to the built form can change a town’s identity. The challenge for planners is to develop planning policies that protect the features that make coastal towns so attractive while still allowing further development. ‘Lifestyle’ developments outside of the urban area can also change the way an area is perceived, from rural coastal to urban coastal or, depending on the locality, to urban fringe.

Economic development
Tourism is seen by many communities as a way to achieve significant economic growth. There is a risk that it can be over promoted as a community’s economic saviour without giving due benefit to the potential disbenefits of unrestrained growth.

The challenge for planners is to develop planning schemes that protect social values without unduly restricting appropriate development. Sustainable tourism development ensures that communities develop at a pace that maximises the full social and economic benefits of tourism while addressing development problems. In coastal areas, where the environment is particularly fragile, it is particularly important to balance the environmental impacts and economic gains carefully. In areas of particularly high environmental or cultural value, there may be an argument for accepting lower economic outcomes to preserve the social and environmental benefits.

Conclusion
The social and economic impacts of tourism in coastal areas should be a key consideration when planning the development of coastal communities. Consideration should be given to the existing values of these communities, and whether tourism has the potential to enhance or degrade these. Tourism can be planned in a way that provides considerable community benefit if social considerations are incorporated into the planning process.

References
Deery, Dr M undated Social Indicators for GREEN GLOBE Communities Sustainable Tourism CRC (unpublished presentation)
Department of Sustainability and Environment 2005 Coastal Spaces Inception Report May 2005, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne
Enterprise Directorate-General Tourism Unit 2000 Towards Quality Coastal Tourism European Commission, Brussels
International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives 1999 Sustainable Tourism: A Local Authority Perspective Commission on Sustainable Development, New York
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adinistration 1998 1998 Year of the Ocean: Coastal Tourism And Recreation http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/tour_rec_316.html [Accessed 20OCT05]
Potter, Bruce 1996 Tourism and Coastal Resources Degradation in the Wider Caribbean Island Resources Foundation, St Thomas Virgin Islands http://www.irf.org/irtourdg.html
Spenceley, A 2001 Responsible Tourism Guidelines For The South African Tourism Industry (draft) Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa

Use of public spaces

I'm sitting in my 'office' watching the birds at the feeder in back yard. It fascinates me to see how they share the public space and resource of the bird feeder. Each bird species seems to have their own specified time to visit the feeder. When the native parrots arive (lorikeets and rosellas), all the introduced birds fly off, so they must recognise a hierarchy. One way or another, they all get their share of the bird seed.

It makes me think of the way we share public spaces in the urban environment. One of the key issues we have is that many people do not actually like to share public spaces with 'conflicting' groups. Young adults get the worst rap for this, in that they are unwanted in shared spaces by many. It's a real shame the way young people are treated as a 'problem' in Australian urban life, a group that needs to be controlled or moved on.

Frankston City Council has had a successful program of playing dodgy music at the Frankston Railway Station precinct to discourage young people from hanging around. I believe they started with classical music and then moved on to easy listening and country. Some retailers have started using loudspeakers that actually emit a high-pitched whine which is generally inaudible to adults but really irritating to younger people, with the aim of stopping them hanging around the public areas near their shops. I find this type of behaviour unbelievably offensive.

I wonder if any of these public space maangers have ever asked the question, "Why are they hanging around the station, and where will they go if they can't hang out there?". Truth is, train station precincts are a safe place for young people to be, with informal adult supervision and good lighting. If young people (mostly teenage boys) are forced out of this kind of precinct, they are going to end up in places which are much less safe. It's worth noting that young people are far more likely to be victims of crime in public spaces than older people. So shouldn't a key aim of managing public spaces be to provide youths with safe places to socialise?

In an ideal world we would be developing civic spaces where people from all age groups felt safe to socialise together. Many of the European piazzas are like that. Older people hang around all the time, at cafes and in park areas, and younger people are able to meet and socialise in safety.

It's a real shame that older people in Australia seem to insist on treating youths as a problem, rather than as a social group with a problem. All you hear about this group in the media is the drunken binging and wild parties, yet I have met some truly amazing young people who will contribute wonderful things to society as they mature, if only they are encouraged to believe that society wants their contribution.

Ingredients for successful community development

The VPELA Conference is on again soon. The theme is "People transforming Places"
http://vpela.org.au/events_upcoming.html. I'm going to be on a Panel on the 3rd September. The panel title is "Masterplanner or Masterchef? Recipes for successful communities."

After my first meeting with the other panellists it's clear that we all have widely divergent views on what the topic means, let alone how to run the Panel! So I wanted to put into words some of what I think are the key ingredients for a successful community.

To start with, I don't think pretty pictures or structure plans have any role in creating sucessful communities. Attractive, efficient suburbs, yes. Communities, no. Communities happen in spite of urban designers, not because of them.

The most vibrant, inclusive and tolerant communities are also the messiest. And that's four of my key ingredients right there.

Tolerance - one thing you lose when you're in a carefully segregated suburb designed by a corporate urban designer is any interaction with people who are different. By different, I mean the scary people - the weird little old lady, the young bloke with a disability who can't talk normally, the strange fat guy at the video store - all the people on the margins of society. If you never see these people, and never get used to the fact that they're just different, not wrong, you never learn to tolerate difference. It's actually scary to see the lack of tolerance for difference that has grown in our society in recent years. People who are afraid of difference, and who cannot tolerate it, further marginalise people who are already on the edge. And that is sad.

Accessibility - it's rare to see urban designers who design their suburbs specifically to suit people in wheelchairs. In fact, have you ever seen such a suburb? One of my best friends is in a wheelchair, and it's a real life lesson to travel around with her, to see how marginalised people with access difficulties are. The scary thing is that, as the baby boomers age, the number of people with access difficulties will increase exponentially. Designing for access really isn't that hard, and it makes a difference not just to people in wheelchairs but to everyone. Designing without thinking about access is just reinforcing existing barriers to participation in society.

Vibrancy and creativity - the happiest and strongest communities are those where art and culture are highly valued. They did it so right at Docklands when they required a proportion of all money spent in the district to be spent on public art. And the artworks on Eastlink are fantastic (except for the hotel). I will blog more on this topic later, because I firmly believe that art plays a key role in defining communities, both in terms of their sense of place and in terms of how people perceive the community.

Messiness - perfectly planned suburbs where people are effectively segregated by income level may work well in raising property values, but they are boring and have the effect of reinforcing negative cultural values. Communities should mix everyone in together. In any one street there should be flats and big houses and little houses and shops and so on. In any small neighbourhood there should be people of all ages and abilities and social profiles living close to one another. It's that kind of messiness that encourages tolerance and teaches the ability to get along with other people. Messy communities are much better able to deal with social issues and are much more likely to develop interesting and creative communities. Carlton and Brunswick, for example, have always been more interesting places than Carrum Downs or Werribee, and that has always been because they are messy places where the community comprises people from all walks of life. We should value that.

A lot of the commentary in the media today, and community reactions to local and world events, really seems to come from a fear of the other that has become entrenched since we all started 'nesting' in our beautifully planned subdivisions in the outer suburbs. I sometimes wonder if planners realise how these forms of urban design are having such a negative impact on our society. We really seem to be losing the resilience that naturally comes when you have to learn the social skills associated with dealing with a wide variety of people in everyday life. I particularly wonder where our loss of tolerance for people who are 'different' will end up.

The Role of the Planner

This is an interesting discussion on the role of the Planner in development:
http://urbandirection.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-planners-job.html

But it also says something about consultation fatigue and the cynicism that comes from too many plans and not enough action.

The social impact of climate change

I'm teaching Social Impact Assessmentat RMIT again this semester. I decided to offer a choice for the group work assignment. The two most popular ideas were an international development project and the social impact of climate change. In order to 'make it personal', I decided to use a case study of looking at the potential social impact of climate change in a specific community which may be vulnerable. I chose Barwon Heads/Ocean Grove because I did some work there a couple of years ago and know the area reasonably well. The students doing this assignment were very enthusiastic and it will be interesting to see how they scope out the impacts. The international project the rest of the class is doing is the Three Gorges Dam in China. Mostly because there was lots of information available, but also because the sheer scale of impact is almost unimaginable - over a million people displaced, just to start with.

When you're talking about abstract issues like pollution and so on, it's difficult for people to get enthusiastic. There's a tendency to not want to be out there doing more than anyone else - in other words no one wants to sacrifice more than their neighbour, or shoulder an unfair share of the burden. It's human nature. But in some ways it becomes even harder when you get down to specifics. For example, many coastal towns in Australia are in low-lying areas. Even with sea-level rise projections at the lower end of the scale, parts of these towns are at risk of inundation.

So who is responsible for managing these impacts? A specific case is impacts on houses built in areas at risk of inundation. What happens if government modelling shows these properties to be unsafe and at risk of inundation? Does the government then become liable to help these people relocate, or do they have to pay for adaptation strategies, such as sea walls? I can see a time coming when it may be necessary to compulsorily acquire some properties for public safety reasons, and becuase the owners wouldn't be able to sell them any other way.

This issue has already arisen in Victoria, where a couple of coastal Councils have had kand rezoned to prevent construction on the basis of unacceptable risk of sea level rise. The land immediately became worthless and the owners were justifiably angry at their financial loss. The mechanisms for retreating from low-lying coastal areas need considerable thought in the very near future, to ensure that appropriate and equitable systems are in place.

Conferences and Forums

The PIA Social Planning Chapter Forum on the 23rd July was very sucessful, and we are now planning follow-up activities. It is a credit to the speakers, who shared their stories about undertaking social planning in disastery recovery contexts.

I also recently attended the IAP2 "Changing Climate, Changing Communities" Conference. This was another successful event, where a wide range of speakers talked about the issues around engaging with communities about climate change. One key thing I took away from the Conference was the need to make it real and personal. It's no good talking about scientific concepts which most people find quite abstract , like atmospheric carbon dioxide. Even talking about things like coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef doesn't necessarily bring it home. People need to hear the story about how climate change may affect them individually before they will really engage on the issue.

The key issue with the way cultural heritage is managed in the planning process is that it is too narrowly defined and managed. Cultural heritage has been assumed to be the purview of cultural heritage experts only, and is assessed only in limited terms of architectural or historical interest. In most cultural heritage assessments there is limited analysis of the living cultural value of the heritage asset. In particular, there is limited or no analysis of how the extant local community interacts with the heritage asset. I consider that heritage protection would be strengthened by considering the current social value of a heritage asset in these terms in planning assessments. A particular example of this is in the case Minawood Pty Ltd v Bayside CC [2009] VCAT 440, which notes the value that a particular hotel plays in defining a sense of place, regardless of its objective heritage value. Living culture needs to be given greater weight in planning assessment, and the definition of heritage should be expanded to encompass the elements of the built environment that contribute to the sense of place of an area, regardless of their age or architectural value. At present it is generally classified as ‘neighbourhood character’, which is generally narrowly assessed in terms of landscape and architecture rather than social value. A large part of what actually gives a neighbourhood its character gets ignored in this type of assessment.

Social Planning Responses to Disaster Management - PIA Social Planning Chapter Seminar

23 July

The aim of this seminar is to understand both the immediate and long term social development needs in communities affected by natural or human induced disasters. Rebuilding towns involves not only planning for better physical infrastructure; it also requires rebuilding the social fabric of communities.

Lessons learnt from social recovery planning processes and their applicability to disaster social recovery is a core theme. There has been extensive work previously done in drought social recovery, community strengthening and place making that is directly applicable to rebuilding communities affected by bushfires or other disasters. Lessons from these types of social planning activities could also feed into climate change adaptation strategies for minimising risk.

The seminar features a facilitated conversation amongst a panel of eminent practitioners followed by light refreshments.

Presenters:
Damien Mate, Cardno ACIL Senior Consultant – Indonesia
Heidi Dixon, Director, Community and Affordable Housing, VicUrban
Craig Lapsley, Director, Emergency Management Branch, Department of Human Services
Facilitator:
Dr Kate Kerkin, Director, K2 Planning


Date: Thursday 23 July 2009
Time: 5:30pm – 7:30pm
Venue: Graduate House, 224 Leicester Street, Carlton, 3053
Cost: $35 PIA Members or $50 Non Members (prices are GST inclusive) and includes light refreshments

To register and for more information:
http://www.planning.org.au/vic/images/stories/events/disaster_230709.pdf

Is a fall in Property Values a Social Impact?
One of the key issues that upsets people when development proposals are made is the potential impact on property values. Regardless of the general rising trend in property values (in the long term of course, not recently), many people are convinced that a development proposal will ruin their property values and hence destroy their financial security. Why is this? And if it is a serious issue, why is it not a consideration in urban planning?

When planning new developments, particularly of infrastructure, the potential impact on property values is not considered to be a relevant planning consideration (in Australia anyway). There are a number of reasons for this, which include:
- The uncertainty of the exact impact – will the proposed development increase or decrease the other property’s value over time? What happens if it actually adds value to a property – should the landowner pay a betterment tax to the developer?
- If the development is of community infrastructure, then there is an argument that the broader social good is more important than the localised negative impact (more about this in another post sometime).

Property values are highly subjective. One man’s mansion is another man’s doghouse. People consider a wide range of issues when deciding how much they will pay for a particular property. The article below has some classic examples of the trade-offs people are prepared to make in home purpose decisions.

The Unfortunate Location – The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/garden/18houses.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=style

Generally there will always be people who are willing to buy a property in a poor location if there is a financial trade-off. This of course is the crux of the issue for someone who loses believes they have lost value on their home. However, if you were to look at the value of a property over an extended period, you would almost always find that the value had increased. As with almost any asset, it’s the point at which you buy and sell that makes the difference. Once a new infrastructure element is in place, and people have become habituated to it, it becomes part of the background and its negative impacts on property values decreases.

This of course is no consolation for someone who can demonstrate a loss in value. This has happened on a few projects I have worked on. In one case, a couple had their house on the market, and a purchaser had made a firm offer for the property. The following day the purchaser learned of the infrastructure proposal (which was actually going to be several kilometres away and barely visible from the property in question). They withdrew their offer. The following day they made a second offer which was a few tens of thousands less than the original offer. When I spoke with the vendors they were quite distraught over the whole incident. I personally would have told the potential purchasers that they were unethical ratbags and I wouldn’t sell them a lollipop, but the vendors had other reasons for needing to sell the property.

This impact on people’s perception of property values is usually most acutely felt at the planning stages. It comes about from the uncertainty caused by the proposal, when people can’t visualise what it will look like and what impact it will have on their daily lives. The general response is to assume the maximum negative impact. As I mentioned earlier, once the construction period is over and people can clearly see what the actual impact is – and see the benefits of the infrastructure – property values stabilise.

The impact on property values caused by some major development proposals is a significant social impact, even though it is generally short-lived. The emotional stress that some local communities experience is quite considerable. Individuals have reported significant physical and mental health impacts, marriage breakdowns, job losses and their children being affected (usually from being required to move).

For those of us who work in these kinds of planning studies, this means that managing expectations through the planning and construction phases of a project is vital to minimise the negative impacts for local communities.

One of the reasons that local communities object to major development proposals is very rarely addressed in planning systems. This is the issue of what is the limit of acceptable change in a specific locale. In general, when people protest about a proposal it is because they believe that the amount of change being imposed upon them is unacceptable. Gradual, incremental change is generally more acceptable to communities than sudden, major change, hence the opposition to large projects.

The level of change that specific proposals will bring to a community should be assessed, including in terms of surroundings, amenity, traffic and social change. These impacts should be clearly documented in an impact statement which draws together all of the assessment undertaken for the proposed development, and which undertakes further social impact assessment as necessary. Only larger scale developments would need to be assessed in this way, however locailities which are expected to experience significant incremental change should have an initial assessment of the acceptability of that change undertaken.

The affected community could then be consulted on the basis of whether this change is acceptable or not. This should be an iterative process, that is to say, the proposal would be amended based on the outcomes of the impact assessment, if it were determined to have an unacceptable impact in one or more areas.

What is social planning? Well it's not party planning! It's a specialty within urban planning. Social planners are focussed on the social elements of planning, just as transport planners focus on transport and statutory planners focus on the rules and regulations.

I've been a social planner for several years now. To me, understanding how development will affect individuals and society is the most important element of planning. It shouldn't be about maximising land value or economic outcomes, but about achieving our social aspirations.

I'm going to use this blog to express my ideas around social planning, link to useful information and in general work through my original question of what is social planning.