The results of the study PLANNING TO ACHIEVE COMMUNITY CONSENSUS FOR A LOCAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN A WORLD HERITAGE SITE, A CASE STUDY OF SPRINGBROOK, QUEENSLAND by ARED WOSKANIAN, a Griffith University student, dated NOVEMBER 2015, have been released: see below.
The report needs some comments:
what will this do for the biological diversity of World Heritage Springbrook?
# It is somewhat ironic to note that, on the very day that Ared Woskanian arrived at Springbrook to speak to the group at the hall, a few Asian tourists stopped in the car park to ask where they might find Natural Arch. They had to be redirected off the mountain into Numinbah Valley. An interpretive centre at Springbrook will likewise upset visitors who arrive to see Natural Arch, only to be told that it is not here.
Approximately 2,480 hectares, out of the total 6,500 hectares of SNP, are currently listed as a WHS (UNESCO 2015).
Springbrook hosts a small, semi-rural community with a population of approximately 620 residents (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011) within the buffer zone of the WHS.
Springbrook Wildlife Appreciation Group (SWAG); and the,
Springbrook Mountain Community Association (SMCA).
data collected from a recent Visitor Exit Survey in Springbrook.
This concept generated positive comments such as “I think it is wonderful”, “we all agree with this one” and “good idea” in the respective focus groups.
However, there was also a strong view that operators must be well informed about Springbrook and its landscape; and, the program must be well managed.
This concept generated positive comments such as “it would be terrific”, “yes, if located in Nerang” and “yes please” in the respective focus groups.
However, there were conflicting views about location. The SMCA and SCC share the view that it must be built in Springbrook – to ensure visitors come to Springbrook. Alternatively, the SWAG believes that Springbrook does not have the infrastructure capacity to support an interpretive centre.
This concept generated positive comments such as “I like this idea best”, “absolutely delightful” and “great idea – but only on existing tracks” in the respective focus groups.
There was a strong view held by the SWAG that this must only be done on an existing walking track – as they oppose any additional walking tracks.