This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]

On: 09 October 2014, At: 12:15

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Indigenous tourism stages and their

implications for sustainability
a
David Weaver
a
Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management ,
Griffith University , Southport , Australia
Published online: 23 Jul 2009.

To cite this article: David Weaver (2010) Indigenous tourism stages and their implications for
sustainability, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18:1, 43-60, DOI: 10.1080/09669580903072001

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580903072001

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Vol. 18, No. 1, January 2010, 43–60

Indigenous tourism stages and their implications for sustainability

David Weaver∗

Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management, Griffith University, Southport,
Australia
(Received 13 October 2008; final version received 6 May 2009)

This paper assesses the evolution of the relationship between tourism and indigenous
peoples. Based on published work on indigenous tourism in Australia, Canada, New
Zealand and the United States, a six-stage model of evolution has been proposed. The
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

model begins with (1) pre-European in situ control, characterised by high local control
and indigenous theme; (2) in situ exposure occurs in the early stages of colonialism and
is followed by (3) ex situ exhibitionism and exploitation as native artefacts are displayed
in museums and exhibitions. The opening of remnant indigenous space to tourist visits
marks (4) in situ exhibitionism and exploitation, which represents the nadir of indigenous
control but fosters strategies of resistance. Reassertions of indigenous control give rise
to (5) in situ quasi-empowerment, while the extension of this control to previously
occupied territory characterises (6) ex situ quasi-empowerment and the presence of
“shadow indigenous tourism”. The empowerment and sustainability implications of the
model have also been discussed.
Keywords: indigenous tourism; empowerment; sustainability; Australia; Canada; New
Zealand; United States

Introduction
The relationship between tourism and indigenous peoples is longstanding, complex and
ambiguous. There is no official definition of “indigenous”, but the term is applied by the
United Nations to people on the collective basis of self-identification, historical continuity
with pre-settler societies, close links with particular territories and their natural resources,
distinct socio-economic systems and cultures, non-dominant status within a society and
resolution to maintain and perpetuate aspects of ancestral culture and lifestyle as distinc-
tive communities (United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues or UNPFII,
2009). Based on these criteria, the United Nations identifies about 370 million people, or
about 5% of the world’s population, as “indigenous” (United Nations Population Fund or
UNFPA, 2008). More notable though is their contemporary territorial presence in at least
70 countries, and their status as the majority group in about one-half of the world’s land
area, including large parts of the Canadian and Russian north, Alaska, the Sahara Desert,
South and Central America, Australia and Oceania, Sub-Saharan Africa and southern and
southeastern Asia.
Almost all indigenous peoples and territories have now been impacted to a greater or
lesser extent by the diffusion of contemporary mass tourism. Higher intensity examples
include the Hopi and Acoma Reservations of the southwestern United States, which received

∗
Email: d.weaver@griffith.edu.au
ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online
C 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09669580903072001
http://www.informaworld.com
 44 D. Weaver

75,000–100,000 and 300,000–400,000 non-Indian tourists, respectively, a year in the late

1990s apart from many indigenous tourists (Lew, 1999). In British Columbia and Canada,
there were 182 indigenous-owned tourism businesses in 1994 – double the number of 1983
(Zeppel, 1998) – and 200 such businesses in Australia in the mid-1990s (Zeppel, 2003).
Substantial latent demand is indicated by Getz and Jamieson (1997) and Richter (2002),
who cite an early 1990s survey in which two-thirds of North American tourists revealed
some level of interest in indigenous tourism products, with one-quarter of these listing the
latter as the main reason for taking a recreational trip.
Given such figures, it is not surprising that the output of academic publications on
indigenous tourism has increased exponentially since the early 1970s. Indigenous tourism,
according to Hinch and Butler (1996a), emerged as a legitimate field of academic inquiry
with the 1977 publication of Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism by Valene
Smith (Smith, 1977), which heralded a period of mainly anthropological investigation of
the subject. This was allegedly followed by a “critical advocacy” phase of engagement,
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

represented, for example, by a series of issues of the journal Cultural Survival Quarterly
in the early 1990s, and then by a policy and strategic economic development phase, which
further refined and analysed the contentious tri-lateral relationship between indigenous
communities, protected areas and ecotourism. It was during these two stages that relevant
issues began to be framed more explicitly within a sustainability context. Also evident has
been an increasingly multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach in the sub-field’s
evolution, arising from the growing participation of geographers, economists, sociologists,
political ecologists and other social scientists. A growing number of specialised texts and
collections attest to growing interest in the topic (e.g. Butler & Hinch, 2007; Buultjens &
Fuller, 2007; Hinch & Butler, 1996b; Notzke, 2006; Ryan & Aicken, 2005; Zeppel, 2007).
For its anthropological roots, indigenous tourism has sometimes been regarded simply
as a subset of “cultural tourism” (Blundell, 1995) or “ethnic tourism” (Pitchford, 2006). Sin-
clair (2003) situates the sub-field more clearly as an inter-disciplinary phenomenon within
tourism studies by considering it as a subset of “alternative tourism” and ecotourism. An
attempt to demarcate indigenous tourism as a broader and more autonomous entity is ap-
parent in Hinch and Butler (1996a, p. 9), who define it as “. . . tourism activity in which
indigenous people are directly involved either through control and/or by having their culture
serve as the essence of the attraction”. These dimensions of control and attraction (or theme)
are combined by Hinch and Butler into an accompanying 2 × 2 matrix that yields three
types of indigenous tourism beyond the scenario of “non-indigenous tourism” (low indige-
nous control, absent indigenous theme), that is (1) “culture dispossessed” (low indigenous
control, indigenous theme present), (2) “diversified indigenous” (high indigenous control,
indigenous theme absent) and (3) “culture controlled” (high indigenous control, indigenous
theme present). McIntosh, Zygadlo, and Matunga (2004) also include control and product
as two major dimensions in their determination of what constitutes “Maori tourism” but add
the element of underlying values. Interaction is regarded as an additional differentiating
variable by Ryan (1999), who situates contemporary Maori tourism within the tourism
cultural opportunity spectrum of Sofield and Birtles (1996) through the possibility of “no
contact” with indigenous culture at one end of the continuum and “total immersion” at the
other.
Beyond the identification of academic engagement phases and indigenous tourism
definitions, contexts and sub-types, few attempts have been made to structure the actual
evolution of indigenous tourism itself despite an ample literature dominated by case study-
based evidence. The few evolutionary studies that do exist are idiosyncratic. Smith (1989),
for example, with reference to the “Eskimo” of Alaska, differentiates an “early tourism”
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 45

stage of development (before 1971) from the “post-Land Claims” era (1971–1987) and
the “future” (after 1987), but adds the qualifier that each relevant village constitutes its
own “micro-model”. Keller and Turek (1998) propose a macro-model of the evolving
relationship between indigenous peoples and primarily the US-based national parks which
is highly relevant to tourism due to the longstanding and increasing importance of the
latter as a revenue-generating protected area activity. The first stage (1864–1916) involved
the unilateral and aggressive appropriation of land from indigenous peoples for parks,
while the second stage (1916–1965) is characterised by one of benign neglect. Activism
by indigenous people for their rights is the theme of third stage (1965–1987), while the
fourth stage (1987 to present) has emphasised cooperation between indigenous and non-
indigenous stakeholders, and the sensitivity of the latter towards the culture and aspirations
of the former. The need for a more universal and less time-specific evolutionary model
of indigenous tourism development derives from its utility as an undistorted “ideal type”
in the mode of the well-known tourism area life cycle (TALC) model of Butler (1980,
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

2006). Well-conceived ideal types, such as the TALC, facilitate the systematic comparative
analysis of case studies (towards the identification of a constellation of sub-types, and
refinements to the primary ideal type, if warranted), the prediction of underlying tourism-
related impacts and the circumstances under which these are anticipated to occur, and the
subsequent implementation of appropriate planning and management strategies.
Such ideal types are especially important to the extent that they enable the evaluation
and monitoring of relevant dimensions such as control and product (e.g. with respect to its
“authenticity”) from a sustainability perspective. A facilitating framework is provided by
Scheyvens (1999), who identifies four levels of empowerment that can be assessed when
examining the impact of tourism on indigenous and other local communities. Economic
empowerment focuses on lasting and equitably distributed gains that are manifested in
visible physical improvements, while psychological empowerment incorporates enhanced
self-esteem and confidence as well as increased status for women and other tradition-
ally low-status segments, including indigenous peoples. Social empowerment entails the
maintenance or enhancement of community equilibrium and cohesion, while political em-
powerment involves representative, responsive and effective local governing structures. As
in all sustainable tourism applications, the decision to designate a particular community as
“empowered” in one or more of these respects is subjective, given the problem of identifying
thresholds of attainment that would warrant such a decision (Sofield, 2003).
The purpose of this paper is to address a significant limitation in the indigenous tourism
literature by proposing an ideal type that models the evolution of tourism as it pertains
to indigenous communities, and does so in a manner that facilitates the consideration of
sustainable tourism implications and perhaps also invites reconsideration of the nature of
“indigenous tourism”. Following a presentation of the methods, each of the proposed stages
of the model is presented. Subsequent discussion focuses on the sustainability implications
of the model and its attendant stages, with particular attention to the issue of empowerment.

Methods
This paper adopts an inductive approach, wherein “the repeated observation and analysis of
data lead to the formulation of theories or models that link these observations in a meaningful
way” (Weaver & Lawton, 2006, p. 380). In practice, these data were obtained through a
comprehensive analysis of the indigenous tourism case study literature as documented
in more than 200 journal articles, book chapters and textbooks. Selected examples of
this literature are being cited. Relevant non-tourism and non-academic sources, such as
 46 D. Weaver

government documents, augment this core material. A limitation of the research is the
non-indigenous nature of the sources and its confinement to those written in English; a
strong indigenous “voice” is thereby absent. The 2 × 2 matrix of Hinch and Butler (1996a)
is used as a framework for contextualising and visualising the stages due to its emphasis on
two continuous variables (control and product) that are relevant to both indigenous tourism
and sustainability. As both of these dimensions are assumed to be potentially mobile (i.e.
products can be relocated and control can be manifested outside the destination), the ideal
type proposed here differs fundamentally from the TALC (Butler, 1980) by focusing on the
sociocultural group or community rather than the geographic “tourism area” or destination.
Geographically, the analysis is focused on Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the
United States, which share a broadly similar history of interaction with their indigenous
peoples, which contrasts with the experience of less developed countries in particular.
Following are the common elements.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

r Ubiquity and dominance of indigenous people in a relatively recent pre-European

past.
r Coerced acquisition and settlement of this indigenous territory by colonisers of
primarily European origin who quickly gained majority status.
r Relegation of surviving unassimilated indigenous peoples to designated remnant
territories, primarily in remote and peripheral regions.
r Emergence of a generally clear formal distinction between “indigenous” and “non-
indigenous” residents.
r Attainment of “economically developed” status for the resultant countries as a
whole.
r Economic and social deprivation of the indigenous minority.
r Development of and participation within well-articulated and sophisticated domestic
and international tourism systems.
r Relatively long participation and the increasing visibility of indigenous culture and
peoples within these tourism systems.

In sum, it is assumed that the evolution of indigenous tourism to date is best articulated
within these four countries.

Proposed stages
Stage one
Tourism as perceived in the modern era is a non-indigenous construct, and especially so
with respect to the spatial, temporal and purposive criteria that constitute its formal United
Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) definition. Nevertheless, it is possible
to identify activities among indigenous people in the era prior to European colonisation
that qualify as “tourism” under this definition, even though these activities have not yet
been investigated as such by tourism academics. One example is the potlatch ceremony
traditionally practised by indigenous peoples in the Pacific Northwest of North America,
a socially complex activity, which included the giving and receiving of gifts for purposes
such as status validation and alliance maintenance. Guests from non-local venues were
often invited to these ceremonies (Barnett, 1938; Roth, 2002; Wolf, 1999).
Similar tourism-like dynamics are evident in the Maori gift-giving custom of koha,
while traditional Aboriginal ceremonial meetings and performances (often referred to
generically under the term “corroboree”) and North American powwows, also have travel
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 47

and tourism implications. The gradual encroachment of European influences, however,

poses a challenge towards gaining a better understanding of this incipient stage due to their
acculturative effects. Potlatch ceremonies, for example, became increasingly elaborate with
the introduction of sophisticated European goods through trade. Written descriptions of such
events, in addition, are almost always provided through the lens of non-indigenous rather
than indigenous commentators.

Stage two
As European dominance and colonisation became more established, explorers, scientists
and anthropologists gradually exposed and described indigenous lifestyles and cultures
through their visits to the settlements or territories of these native people. In sharp contrast
to the first stage, the number of such tourists is small enough, their status eminent enough
and their experiences chronicled enough so that a detailed picture of this stage can be
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

constructed. Examples include the visit of the naturalist John Bidwill to New Zealand in
1839 (Ryan, 1997) and the 1835 travels of the English writer Charles Augustus Murray
amongst the Pawnee Indians in the United States (Murray, 1839). Motivations for such
visits were varied, ranging from curiosity and interest in indigenous culture, to military
and/or economic reconnaissance. Tourists such as George Catlin, who made sketches and
paintings of American Indians between 1830 and 1840, were compelled in part by a desire
to portray these “vanishing races” before they disappeared in the face of “progress” (Hall,
2000). Underlying all these motivations is an apparent recognition and acceptance, if not
facilitation, of an “inevitable” cultural displacement. It is difficult to place a specific histor-
ical timeframe on this stage, since such visits persisted well beyond the “classical” period
of exploration and may be manifested even today in the continuing visits of contemporary
anthropologists and other social scientists.

Stage three
The early European contacts as described above stimulated interest in indigenous peoples
among the broader societies that are represented by these contacts. This eventually led to
the exhibition of indigenous culture and artefacts, as well as indigenous people themselves,
at venues within areas where most members of those dominant societies resided or visited
rather than in the isolated areas where the initial contacts during the previous stage were
made. This is especially evident in North America. Museums and galleries constitute one
important venue, a notable example being the Museum of the American Indian, Heye
Foundation, which was opened in New York in 1922. The motives of the organisers of such
permanent indigenous collections were similar to those evident during the previous stage.
For example, an American museum official in 1889 stated that “American . . . museums are
preserving with care the memorials of the vanishing race of red men” (Nason, 2000, p. 37).
Lew and Kennedy (2002) discern in such musings an element of Noble Savage imagery
and idealisation associated with the era of romanticism. More damning is Pitchford (2006),
who contends that museum curators methodically and deliberately exhibited and interpreted
indigenous culture as “uncivilised” in order to emphasise the “civilised” character of
their own culture and, at least implicitly, its subsequent “right” to displace those original
indigenous cultures.
A second relevant venue which similarly perpetuates this Eurocentric approach is the
one-time exhibition or world fair. An early Australian example was the 1845 display of
Aborigine-themed watercolours by the artist George French Angas in Adelaide (Appleyard,
 48 D. Weaver

Fargher, & Radford, 1986). The Canadian display at the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London
prominently featured indigenous people and their culture but juxtaposed them with a display
of modern manufactured goods to emphasise to the visiting masses the assumed superiority
of the latter (“civilisation”) over the former (“savagery”) (Maurer, 2000). Featured at the
San Diego Panama–California Exposition of 1915 was the “Painted Desert”, a composite of
southwestern indigenous cultures populated by about 300 natives of the region. According
to Kropp (1996, p. 41)
. . . the Painted Desert was not only seen as an authentic representation of Indian life; it froze
Indians in a primitive time, tying their authenticity to the age and crudeness of their traditions.
This fantasization of pre-modern, simple Indians consigned all their activities to the murky
depths of mytho-history and worked to deny them a contemporary social presence . . .

The Painted Desert, too, was located next to an exhibition highlighting modern practices,
in this case irrigation agriculture. Notably, many of the objects displayed at fairs, such as
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

the Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago (where North American indigenous people
were the most featured cultural group), subsequently formed the nuclei of major public
ethnographic museums (Maurer, 2000). This close relationship between exhibitions and
museums is further illustrated by the 1931 Exposition of Indian Tribal Arts, held in New
York’s Grand Central Art Galleries (Evans, 1995).
The third venue consists of theme parks and other commercial attractions geared to the
mass leisure market. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West travelling show in the late 1800s through
North America and Europe is one of the best examples of the portrayal of a stereotyped
indigenous culture for purposes of mass entertainment (Warren, 2005). Approaching bur-
lesque proportions were Coppinger’s and Musa Isle Village, two rival attractions near Miami
in the early 1900s that featured Seminole Indians displaying allegedly traditional activities
such as alligator wrestling (Keller & Turek, 1998). A fourth venue involves tourist attrac-
tions and transit stops in peripheral regions recently opened up to incipient mass tourism.
This is illustrated by the Santa Fe Railroad Company in New Mexico, which in the early
1900s encouraged local Indians to set up stalls outside railway stations to sell native crafts.
They were also allowed to travel for free on their trains as an exotic attraction for other
passengers (Evans, 1995; Weigle, 1996).
National parks and associated tourism facilities are also notable as a fifth venue. In
1894, residents of the Stoney reserve in Alberta were convinced to travel to Banff in order
to provide races and dancing for the benefit of hotel patrons (Hart, 1983). At Glacier
National Park in Montana, local Blackfeet Indians were allowed to sell trinkets and were
employed as guides, photographic props in display tepees and greeters. Preferred according
to a contemporary promoter were “some good type Indians . . . who do not have too large of
families . . . have good costumes, put on a good show, and live in peace and harmony” (Keller
& Turek, 1998, p. 57). In the 1930s, however, one promoter complained that the practice
was dying out because younger Indians not exposed to the tourism culture “. . . would not
be suitable for entertainment purposes” (1998, p. 57).
Ex situ displays of indigenous cultures are also evident in Australia during the 1800s
and early 1900s among remnant indigenous communities near large cities or in nearby
recreational hinterlands such as Gippsland, Victoria. Affiliated motives, such as fascination
with the “primitive” and a desire to see the “blacks” before they became extinct, are
apparent, though also evident is the surprise among some non-indigenous observers that
Aborigines could be persevering and confident in their transactions with whites, using
tourism opportunistically as just one of the several modes of livelihood (Dow, 1999).
Parsons (1997) similarly notes a high level of Aboriginal empowerment and “emergent
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 49

authenticity” in the “tourist corroboree” of South Australia. Finally, an important adjunct to

this stage is the appropriation and exploitation of indigenous culture to market the broader
tourism industry, as seen in the prominence of stereotyped postcard images of Maori in
the late 1800s (Ryan, 1997), and North American Indians in the early twentieth century
(Albers & James, 1983; Keller & Turek, 1998).

Stage four
With the diffusion of mass transportation networks into peripheral areas and the mass
exposure of dominant society to versions of indigenous “culture”, a more articulated tourism
system got evolved that allowed members of the dominant society to access attractions
within surviving indigenous communities. Increasingly driving this expansion in the system
has been the added motivation of seeking escape from highly industrialised home settings
(Hinch, 2004; Lew & Kennedy, 2002). An early illustration is the Fred Harvey Corporation,
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

which, beginning in 1926, offered “Indian Detours” that allowed train passengers to spend
a few days in native villages (Evans, 1995). According to Sweet (1991), Anglo tourists
“discovered” the Pueblo Indians of the Southwestern United States in the 1890s, leading to
a flourishing on-site tourism industry by the 1920s characterised by tour bus groups led by
non-indigenous guides. During a later phase of diffusion in the 1930s, the Alaska Steamship
Company offered Arctic cruises to Alaska that included a stop at Nome with staged Eskimo
dances and craft demonstrations, and with passengers doing little more than snapping a
few photos and buying a few cheap souvenirs (Smith, 1989). Until the early 1980s, almost
all tourism activities in the Baffin region of the Canadian Arctic (Addison, 1996) and
the Alaskan Arctic (Smith, 1989) were similarly controlled by non-indigenous facilitators
and mediators. This stage is further characterised by the emergence of “ethnic art” and
“Pan-Indian art” for sale to tourists as a response to their expectations (Evans, 1995).

Stage five
The fifth stage of the proposed indigenous tourism model is characterised by reassertions of
formal control over tourism within indigenous areas. Commonly branded or described under
rubrics such as “ecotourism” or “community-based tourism” since the early 1980s, related
initiatives may include the restriction on visits of indigenous-led tour groups and prohibi-
tions on entering at least some residential areas, as both being practised in Manyallaluk
homestead in the Northern Territory of Australia. Additional requirements implemented
by the illustrative Umorrkuk Safaris of Australia’s Arnheim Land include stringent en-
try criteria to other traditional lands, guide approval for photo-taking, periodic closure of
some areas to accommodate traditional ceremonies, and consultation with clan elders in all
tourism-related decisions (Zeppel, 1998). Whilst such measures are in part intended to as-
sure an “authentic” voice in indigenous product development and interpretation, increased
control has also sometimes been exercised to introduce selected non-indigenous attractions,
as best illustrated by the establishment of casinos on many US Indian reservations since the
early 1980s (Davis & Otterstrom, 1998).
Such reassertions of power and control by the underprivileged are remarkable develop-
ments that defy simple explanation. However, wider trends in indigenous re-empowerment
within a larger Human Rights agenda, which also includes females, children, persons with
disabilities and racial/ethnic minorities (Johnston, 2003), are certainly a major factor, along
with the concomitant recognition of land claims and other rights. A pioneering example is
Article 11 of the 1957 International Labour Organization Convention 107, which recognises
 50 D. Weaver

the land rights of traditional occupants (Hinch, 2004). More recently, the 1975 Treaty of
Waitangi Act provided legal recognition of Maori tribal sovereignty in New Zealand as well
as indigenous control over land ownership and use of natural resources (Zeppel, 1998).
Within the United Nations, the Constitution of the Working Group on Indigenous Peoples
was formed in 1982, while 1993 was designated as the International Year of Indigenous Peo-
ples, during which the Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights was proclaimed (Sinclair,
2003).
While most of these initiatives have indirect tourism implications, others are more
explicit. Already in the mid-1930s, the federal administrative body responsible for all
issues associated with the Pueblo Indians of the Southwest United States acknowledged
their “exclusive jurisdiction” over matters of “purely internal nature”, which included
the right to exclude tourists and establish rules of behaviour for those who would be
accorded access (Sweet, 1991). The Baffin Regional Tourism Planning Project (BRTPP) of
1981 in northern Canada encouraged cross-cultural understanding and local control. The
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

subsequent Baffin Regional Tourism Strategy in 1982 was predicated on principles of local
peoples’ aspirations, equity and local participation (Grekin & Milne, 1996). In the southern
hemisphere, the 1987 report of the Maori Tourism Task Force represented the formal start
to a more empowering indigenous tourism sector in New Zealand (Young, 1989), while the
1991 Report of the Inquiry into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (Australia) emphasised the
role that tourism could potentially play in enhancing indigenous self-esteem and economic
prospects. This role was subsequently embodied in the 1997 National Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Tourism Industry Strategy (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2003).
In addition to the general and tourism-specific legislation and policies that enhance in-
digenous control, stage five dynamics are facilitated by and manifested in ongoing financial
and other support from appropriate national/state agencies, umbrella indigenous tourism
organisations such as the Aotearoa Maori Tourism Federation and the Canadian National
Aboriginal Tourism Association, community-based entities such as the Manyallaluk Abo-
riginal Corporation in Australia and specialised indigenous tourism strategies such as the
Maori Tourism Task Force Report of 1987 and Australia’s Aboriginal Tourism Strategy of
1996 (Zeppel, 1998).

Stage six
The current stage has seen indigenous peoples extend their arenas of spatial influence by
asserting their perceived and recognised rights to traditional lands from which they were
historically displaced. Abetting this reassertion has been a series of facilitating measures
in national and international bodies, including the 1993 UN Convention on Biological
Diversity, Article 8(j) of which “obliges governments to protect and promote indigenous
knowledge systems for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, while ensuring
the equitable sharing of related benefits” (Johnston, 2003, p. 125). In Canada, the Constitu-
tion Act 1982 confirmed the special status of Aboriginal Canadians, including their right to
have a say in areas not covered by treaty (East, 1991). More dramatically, Article 26 of the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the General
Assembly on September 13, 2007, declares the following:

(1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they
have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 51

(2) Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, ter-
ritories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other
traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

Notably, the four countries featured in this research were the only ones to vote against
the Declaration, which appears to dramatically enhance the ability of indigenous people to
project their influence into their traditionally held territories.
These projections have two distinct manifestations. Thus far, they have appeared most
commonly in national parks and other protected areas, in part because of the proximity of
indigenous communities and in part because of the modest built capital of the dominant
culture (e.g. buildings, infrastructure, farmland) that is being “threatened” as a result. The
evolving indigenous influence in such situations is usually embodied under the rhetoric
of “joint management”, “co-management” or similar terms. An example is the Inuvialuit
and Gwich’in in Canada’s western Arctic, whose power-sharing goals aim to preserve local
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

indigenous culture and values (identity), provide for meaningful and equitable participation
for native people in the local and national economy (integration) and protect the local
environment (conservation). For tourism, any proposed development in the affected region
must be vetted for environmental impact, and public hearings must be held. Access of
tourists to hunting camps is extremely constrained (and no photos allowed without written
consent) while native committees determine where whale-watching can occur (Notzke,
1999). In Canada, the establishment of National Park Reserves as “proto” – national parks
in which issues such as indigenous land claims are in process – indicates formal recognition
of indigenous prerogatives within traditionally occupied spaces.
An illustrative Australian example of joint management is Mutawintji National Park
in western New South Wales, which in 1998 was returned to its traditional owners and
then leased back to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Earlier adaptations
were made to accommodate the concerns of traditional residents, such as educating and
training guides appropriately, using Aboriginal guides and closing sacred sites (Sutton,
1999). Zeppel (2003) describes how Australian ecotourism is increasingly dependent upon
the goodwill and cooperation of Aboriginal people, notwithstanding resultant challenges
such as those symbolised by conflicts between tourists wishing to climb the Uluru monolith
in central Australia and indigenous residents preferring tourists not to do so (James, 2007).
Distrust and similarly conflicting values and objectives have resulted from the moves in the
United States to give the Havasuapai people privileged access to parts of Grand Canyon
National Park (Hough, 1991), while at best tenuous compromise was reached in the late
1990s between commercial climbing groups wanting to access Devils Tower National
Monument in Wyoming and local indigenous people who wanted to ban this practice
during periods of spiritual practice at the site (McAvoy, 2002). McAvoy (2002) also points
out tensions arising from the indigenous interpretation of the Mount Rushmore personalities
(Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt) as purveyors of genocide rather
than “founding fathers” or conservationists.
The second manifestation of stage six is the projection of substantive indigenous in-
fluence into the economically developed and heavily capitalised heartland of the dominant
society. In the United States, the “wild card provision” of the Indian Gaming Regulation Act
has permitted Indians to conduct gaming on “newly acquired lands”, thus allowing a Min-
nesota tribe to operate a casino on land purchased in the city of Duluth (Stansfield, 1996).
About 20 states by the late 1990s had entered contracts with tribes, wherein the latter receive
exclusive rights to operate casinos within state boundaries, usually in exchange for finan-
cial and other obligations (Davis & Otterstrom, 1998). Casino revenues have subsequently
 52 D. Weaver

allowed indigenous people to hire lawyers to successfully pursue land and other com-
pensatory claims (McAvoy, 2002). In New Zealand, the operation of a successful whale-
watching enterprise at Kaikoura by local Maori has come to symbolise indigenous influence
within the larger community as well as attendant resentments and tensions (Orams, 2002).
Less controversial is Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump World Heritage site in southern
Alberta, Canada, which was developed in cooperation with indigenous people from nearby
reserves, who assisted with design and interpretation, and control commercial concessions
(Blundell, 1995).
Museums in the United States and Canada which have been strongly implicated in the
stage three dynamics of off-site exhibitionism and exploitation, are now obliged by the
North American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to return human remains, and are
returning other cultural objects to the custody of relevant indigenous people. According to
Ames (2000, p. 73), “collaboration between curators and First Peoples who are represented
in exhibitions has become a standard for art and anthropology exhibitions in Canadian
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

museums and galleries”, though this is often through advising and consultations rather
than full partnerships. More broadly, the often-promiscuous use of indigenous imagery for
marketing purposes is being curtailed and modified under collective intellectual property
rights agreements (Hinch, 2004). The kinds of obligations and concessions that may become
normative for developers as this stage progresses – even in places where the indigenous
character of the relevant product is not obvious – are evident in the 2007 call for bids for a
major marina development on Australia’s Gold Coast:
In addition to the development approvals required for the Project, a number of tenure approvals
will also be required. These tenure approvals will require resolution of Native Title and Cultural
Heritage issues by Bidders.
The State is committed to protecting the cultural heritage of The Spit [the site of the proposed
development] for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities.

The State is seeking proposals that appropriately recognise the traditional indigenous culture
of the Gold Coast.
The risk of resolving Native Title on this project will remain with the Bidders. In this regard,
Bidders should include a statement of their approach to resolving Native Title and Cultural
Heritage requirements. Bidders should demonstrate that their approach to resolving Native
Title and Cultural heritage requirements demonstrates a willingness to negotiate in good faith
with the Indigenous Parties and adhere to best practice standards in the management of the
social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts of the Project in relation to indigenous
issues.

An Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) may need to be negotiated between the Preferred
Proponent and the Indigenous Parties in order to enable the necessary approvals to be obtained
and permit the required tenure arrangements to be implemented. The ILUA may include the
provision of the Aboriginal Cultural Centre. (Queensland Government, 2007, pp. 21–22)

Discussion
Figure 1 determines the six proposed stages within the product/control matrix of Hinch and
Butler (1996a), thereby assisting with speculation on the sustainability implications of the
model. Stage one, positioned at the highest levels of both dimensions, is termed “in situ
control” to recognise authentically represented “tourism products” within spaces occupied
and controlled by indigenous groups. The term “empowerment” is deliberately avoided
because this situation described as “control” does not necessarily entail the applicable
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 53
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

Figure 1. Stages of indigenous tourism.

signs of empowerment as described by Scheyvens (1999), and especially those that pertain
to the equitable distribution of benefits and decision making, and the improvement of
status to marginalised sectors within the community. Whether this stage can be regarded as
“sustainable” depends, therefore, on additional research to clarify the dynamics associated
with in situ control (e.g. does the potlatch ceremony reinforce the status and power of
existing local elites?), and also on considerations of whether the Eurocentric empowerment
framework is relevant to traditional indigenous cultures. A larger issue is whether this
stage should even be included in the model, since a review of the literature indicates that
pre-European travel by indigenous people within their own cultural and territorial contexts
is not conventionally regarded as a form of “indigenous tourism”. However, to adhere to
this convention is also then to deny the possibility of an “indigenous tourism” that lacks
non-indigenous involvement.
While subsequent stages are more clearly positioned within the broader geopolitical
dynamics of colonisation and displacement, the sustainability implications are not neces-
sarily less ambiguous. Stage two, described as “in situ exposure”, retains a very high level
of indigenous theme but exhibits a transitional level of control commensurate with the
transitional nature of the overall power transfer from indigenous to non-indigenous (see
Figure 1). The dignity of the subjects portrayed by George Catlin (Hall, 2000), projected
amidst processes of wholesale land dispossession and questionable motives for making the
portraits, symbolises this ambiguity. The nature of the trajectory and the motives of the
visitors suggest that this stage can fairly be described as unsustainable from an indigenous
 54 D. Weaver

perspective, although it could also be argued (again, pending further investigations) that
the resultant detailed writings and depictions of these early tourists also provide a basis
for contemporary indigenous people to recreate “lost” aspects of their traditional culture.
Another intriguing possibility is the role of some visitors in introducing Western values and
structures that support various forms of empowerment.
The first two stages are both characterised by a small number of tourists confined to
the geographic area occupied by the target indigenous group. Stage three represents a
major departure from this pattern because of the repositioning of the tourism focus on the
core areas of the dominant society where large numbers of visitors can access indigenous
exhibitions. The designator “ex situ exhibitionism and exploitation” also captures the
element of externalised control, which exhibits modified indigenous themes with overt
intents of commercial entertainment as well as overt or covert intents of affirming the
dominant society and justifying its displacement of indigenous groups. This again can be
regarded as unsustainable from the indigenous perspective, although the ex situ character
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

of product presentation means that attendant impacts (both positive and negative) are also
mainly externalised.
As formerly indigenous-controlled territory is incorporated into the periphery of the
colonising state, tourists whose interests may have been stimulated by stage three exposure
are now able to visit remnant indigenous communities, thereby giving rise to the stage
four dynamics of “in situ exhibitionism and exploitation”. Notably, the impacts are now
internalised. Dynamics of control and motivation carried over from the previous stage
suggest unsustainable outcomes, but possibilities also emerge for at least a limited degree
of indigenous control. Strategies of adaptation and resistance, both overt and covert, are
apparent that, perhaps, arise out of necessity from the immediacy and severity of the impacts
of in situ tourism, and the countermanding opportunities provided by direct contact to better
navigate these effects. A late 1890s commentary on encounters between indigenous people
and tourists on the Canadian Prairie attests to less than complete acquiescence.

Crossing the prairie, every operator imagines he is going to kodak [photograph] an Indian;
but the wily Indian sits in the shade, where instantaneous photography availeth not, and, if he
observes himself being “time exposed”, covers himself with a blanket. (from Francis, 1992,
p. 42)

Evans-Pritchard (1989) shows how indigenous people maintained their dignity by car-
icaturing visiting tourists, often with the latter being unaware of the parody. Control in
such situations derives from the experience of tourists possessed by members of the in-
digenous group, in contrast to the concomitant inexperience of natives possessed by most
tourists. Subtleties of resistance are also emphasised by Green (1996), who discusses how
indigenous people in the Southwest United States resisted the “second invasion” of tourists,
photographers, scholars and others by deliberately misrepresenting their “authentic” culture
and by mocking tourists without their knowledge.
The direct community exposure that occurs in stage four presents multiple opportunities
for accelerated negative impacts, but also ironically creates opportunities for (and perhaps
a culture of) control and resistance. A telling question then is to what extent this in
situ adaptation to tourists and tourism contributed to the emergence of stage five, and if
significantly so, whether the sustainability implications of stage four require reassessment.
Abetting legislation, both general and tourism-specific, has already been described, but it
is also important to stress that indigenous peoples have not been passive observers of the
“indigenous renaissance” that has included but extended well beyond the engagement with
tourism:
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 55

[tribal rights of self-determination] were not of course given, but have been fought for, in-
creasingly through the politicisation of Indian communities and the rising profile of lead-
ers in the political and campaigning struggles. Indian consciousness and a modern “move-
ment” had arrived in the southwest States and elsewhere in North America, not just an
assertive and self-determining force, but as a rejection of minority domination and assimi-
lation by majority rulers and of the related social-anthropological processes. (Evans, 1995,
p. 28)

There is support for the view that the tourism experience might have played a significant
role in this process. Lew and Kennedy (2002), for example, suggest a fascinating linkage
between stages four and five in describing how a tourist initially ridiculed as a “fool” can be
transformed through repeated visits into a “friend” participating in a meaningful and mutu-
ally beneficial relationship with indigenous residents. More generally, Smith (1989) argues
that tourism in many cases has elevated indigenous sense of self-worth and created a revenue
stream that has fostered self-reliance and encouraged further reproduction of artefacts. Such
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

outcomes are more clearly associated with stage five, with Weaver (2008) contending that
indigenous people are consciously pursuing geopolitical opportunities through ecotourism
within their remnant territories by using interpretation to debunk Eurocentric notions of
terra nullius, gaining widespread public support through this interpretation, projecting
sovereignty by deciding the sites and time for tourists visits, thereby demonstrating self-
sufficiency and hence the viability of self-determination through the successful operation
of commercial tourism businesses, and pursuing tourism as evidence of ongoing gainful
occupation of extensive land and water areas. For Pitchford (2006), citing the inclusion of
the boarding school experience in the cultural tourism interpretation of indigenous people
in the Northeast United States, pursuit of the political agenda fosters an “identity tourism”
wherein tourism provides a medium for conveying the culture’s own perspective to a poten-
tially receptive audience. The “reconciliation tourism” pursued at the Camp Coorong Race
Relations and Cultural Education Centre, South Australia is an example with overt and
strong political overtones (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2003), while Getz and Jamieson (1997) cite
the efforts of EagleStar Tours, a private indigenous company operating in the Tsuu T’ina
lands adjacent to Calgary, Alberta, to educate tourists and correct misperceptions about
indigenous culture.
The repositioning of indigenous tourism to a relatively high level of indigenous product
and control in dramatic stage five reflects activity that appears to be aligned with sustainable
tourism. However, since such activity is an act in progress and not immune to ongoing prob-
lems of mismanagement, corruption, paternalism, dependency, intra- and inter-group dis-
cord and exploitation (Johnston, 2003), the descriptive term “in situ quasi-empowerment”
is used to describe this stage instead of the more definitive “in situ re-empowerment”, which
makes, in addition, possibly unwarranted assumptions about the state of sustainability in
stage one. Another confounding factor is the exercise of power to introduce controversial
products such as casinos, which Hollinshead (1992) regards as a risky strategy given that
they may be seen as conflicting with the perception of indigenous people as having a sacred
attachment to the land and a privileged status as stewards.
Stage six, “ex situ quasi-empowerment”, is characterised by a shift into the “diversified
indigenous” cell of the matrix, as involvement with inner city casinos, marinas and other
non-indigenous attractions increases. The term “shadow indigenous tourism” is suggested
here to describe attractions and facilities where there is no overt indigenous theme but
a significant underlying component of consultation, ownership or other characteristics of
control. However, because such initiatives are also usually owned or operated by non-
indigenous interests, whose concerns must also be taken into consideration, a weaker level
 56 D. Weaver

of indigenous control is usually evident (as seen in Figure 1). As with the previous stage, the
empowerment of indigenous groups as a result of the externalisation of control cannot be
assumed. The Spirit Sings exhibit of Canadian indigenous art that complemented the 1988
Calgary Winter Olympics, for example, was roundly criticised for cultural insensitivity and
for the sponsorship of a company drilling for oil on traditional indigenous land (Young
Man, 1990). A further cautionary note pertaining to sustainability is the potential for
conflict that can arise as externalisation threatens non-indigenous interests. Hostility among
some elements within affected non-indigenous communities has already been identified in
locations such as Kaikoura (see above) and in the vicinity of the Foxwoods Resort Casino
in Connecticut, United States (D’Hauteserre, 2001; Stansfield, 1996). The demonstrated
ability of some indigenous people to successfully negotiate adverse tourism circumstances
may, therefore, prove useful as stage six gets evolved. One possible strategy, as alluded to
by Hollinshead (1992), is for indigenous people to promote their credentials as stewards
to facilitate the adoption of sustainable tourism principles and practices within the wider
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

society, given the degree to which sustainability outcomes are now universally lauded by
tourism authorities and increasingly supported by the general public (Weaver, 2006).

Conclusion
The proposed model, which includes stages (one and six) that are not conventionally
regarded as part of “indigenous tourism”, is intended to stimulate systematic research
into the nature and evolution of indigenous tourism as well as attendant dynamics of
empowerment and sustainability. Specifically, it is presented as an ideal type against which
real-life situations – with all their subtle and not-so-subtle differences – can be compared and
contrasted and, as per the TALC of Butler (1980), adjustments made and variants recognised
if warranted by the resulting empirical research. Notably, the evidence investigated to
construct this model is based on four major “settlement” countries, and it is unlikely that case
studies from less economically developed regions in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the
South Pacific in particular will reveal the full six-stage progression. Whatever the context,
discussion about the sustainability implications of the model is speculative; the sequence
depicted in Figure 1 may provide some indication as to where each stage is situated in terms
of its sustainability, but ambiguities are evident throughout the model. A larger issue is
whether the model and associated follow-up research indicate a distinctively “indigenous”
model of or engagement with sustainable tourism. Complicating attempts to assess the
implications for sustainability is the possibility of stage coexistence. Engagement in ex situ
tourism in stage six, for example, is entirely compatible with continued involvement with
in situ stage five tourism. Other characteristics of the model that depart radically from the
TALC, both structurally and with regard to its sustainability implications, include the two
periods of externalisation (stages three and six) and the dramatic increase in visitation that
attend each of these stages. Four other aspects of the model deserve to be emphasised. First,
this model may be unique in its recognition of a “pre-European” tourism stage, although
the sustainability of that stage cannot be assumed from either an indigenous or non-
indigenous perspective. Second, the identification of early explorers, scientists, missionaries
and artists as tourists serves to dramatically increase the geographical and historical scope
of tourism as well as its impacts by positioning the colonisation process as a tourism-
related phenomenon. Third, regardless of the attendant ambiguities, the transition from
stage four (in situ exhibitionism and exploitation) to stage five (in situ quasi-empowerment)
seems to indicate a remarkable improvement in status, especially in situations where the
transition occurs within a short timeframe of one or two decades. For indigenous and
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 57

non-indigenous local communities, this inspires as to the possibilities for regaining or

maintaining substantive control in the face of the tourism tsunami. The dynamics involved
in this transition, accordingly, need to be investigated in depth to see how such outcomes
can be realised through policy and management that is adapted accordingly. One clue
perhaps is to better understand the dynamics of resistance and adaptation that emerge in
stage four, such as the avoidance of photo shots, the covert mockery of tourists and incipient
opportunities to earn revenue or other benefits through deliberated culture commodification
and other strategies. Fourth, the increasing ex situ reassertion of indigenous prerogatives
embodied in stage six suggests the possibility that all tourism in Australia, Canada, New
Zealand and the United States will eventually qualify to a greater or lesser extent as shadow
indigenous tourism. The management of this process may prove to be one of the greatest
challenges for the implicated indigenous groups, and one that engages new dimensions
of environmental, economic, social and cultural sustainability. Finally, while some may
see this paper as providing a useful framework for academic research and study, and as
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

valuable for educators in numerous community development curricula across a range of

institutions, it has an important potential role in the continuing professional development
of tourism and local area managers wherever there are indigenous peoples. It provides an
intellectual checklist for long-term reflection and thought as well as practical guidance for
many aspects of tourism management in such areas, notably in heritage and environmental
interpretation practice, marketing policies and community participation development.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the three anonymous referees for their detailed and well-considered
comments.

Notes on contributor
Dr. David Weaver is Professor of Tourism Research at Griffith University on the Gold Coast of
Australia. He has previously held academic positions in Canada, Australia and the USA, and is the
author or co-author of more than 100 journal articles, book chapters and books. He sits on the editorial
boards of eight academic journals.

References
Addison, L. (1996). An approach to community-based tourism planning in the Baffin Region, Canada’s
far north. In L. Harrison & W. Husbands (Eds.), Practicing responsible tourism: International
case studies in tourism planning, policy, and development (pp. 296–312). New York: Wiley.
Albers, P., & James, W. (1983). Tourism and the changing photographic image of the Great Lakes
Indians. Annals of Tourism Research, 10, 123–148.
Ames, M. (2000). Are changing representations of First Peoples in Canadian museums and galleries
challenging the curatorial prerogative? In A. Kawasaki (Ed.), The changing presentation of the
American Indian: Museums and native cultures (pp. 73–88). Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution.
Appleyard, R., Fargher, B., & Radford, R. (1986). S.T. Gill: The South Australian years, 1839–1852.
Adelaide: Art Gallery of South Australia.
Barnett, H. (1938). The nature of the potlatch. American Anthropologist, 40, 349–358.
Blundell, V. (1995). Riding the Polar Bear Express: And other encounters between tourists and First
Peoples in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 30(4), 28–51.
Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of
resources. Canadian Geographer, 24, 5–12.
 58 D. Weaver

Butler, R. (Ed.). (2006). The tourism area life cycle (Vol. 1). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Butler, R., & Hinch, T. (Eds.). (2007). Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Buultjens, J., & Fuller, D. (2007). Striving for sustainability: Case studies in indigenous tourism.
Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.
Davis, J., & Otterstrom, S. (1998). Growth of Indian gaming in the United States. In K. Meyer-Arendt
& R. Hartmann (Eds.), Casino gambling in America: Origins, trends, and impacts (pp. 53–66).
New York: Cognizant.
D’Hauteserre, A. (2001). Representations of rurality: Is Foxwoods Casino Resort threatening the
quality of life in southeastern Connecticut? Tourism Geographies, 3, 405–429.
Dow, C. (1999). “In search of the picturesque”: Aborigines and tourists in 19th century Gippsland.
Tourism, Culture & Communication, 2, 111–122.
East, K. (1991). Joint management of Canada’s northern national parks. In P. West & S. Brechin
(Eds.), Resident peoples and national parks (pp. 333–345). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona
Press.
Evans, G. (1995). Tourism and indigenous cultural heritage in new and old Mexico: A comparison.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

In P. Burns (Ed.), Tourism and minorities’ heritage: Impacts and prospects (pp. 18–40). London:
University of North London Press.
Evans-Pritchard, D. (1989). How “they” see “us”: Native American images of tourists. Annals of
Tourism Research, 16, 89–105.
Francis, D. (1992). The imaginary Indian: The image of the Indian in Canadian culture. Vancouver:
Arsenal Pulp Press.
Getz, D., & Jamieson, W. (1997). Rural tourism in Canada: Issues, opportunities, and entrepreneurship
in Aboriginal tourism in Alberta. In S. Page & D. Getz (Eds.), The business of rural tourism:
International perspectives (pp. 93–107). London: International Thomson Business Press.
Green, R. (1996). We never saw these things before: Southwest Indian laughter and resistance to the
invasion of the Tse va ho. In M. Weigle & B. Babcock (Eds.), The great southwest of the Fred
Harvey Company and the Santa Fe Railway (pp. 201–206). Phoenix, AZ: Heard Museum.
Grekin, J., & Milne, S. (1996). Toward sustainable tourism development: The case of Pond Inlet. In R.
Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 76–106). London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Hall, C. (2000). Tourism, national parks, and Aboriginal people. In R. Butler & S. Boyd (Eds.),
Tourism and national parks: Issues and implications (pp. 57–71). Chichester: Wiley.
Hart, E. (1983). The selling of Canada: The CPR and the beginnings of Canadian tourism. Banff:
Altitude Publishing.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2003). Reconciliation tourism: Tourism healing divided societies! Tourism
Recreation Research, 28(3), 35–44.
Hinch, T. (2004). Indigenous people and tourism. In A. Lew, C. Hall, & A. Williams (Eds.), A
companion to tourism (pp. 246–257). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hinch, T., & Butler, R. (1996a) Indigenous tourism: A common ground for discussion. In R. Butler
& T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 3–19). London: International Thomson
Business Press.
Hinch, T., & Butler, R. (Eds.). (1996b). Tourism and indigenous peoples. London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Hollinshead, K. (1992). “White” gaze, “red” people – shadow visions: The disidentification of
“Indians” in cultural tourism. Leisure Studies, 11, 43–64.
Hough, J. (1991). The Grand Canyon National Park and the Havasupai people: Cooperation and
conflict. In P. West & S. Brechin (Eds.), Resident peoples and national parks (pp. 215–230).
Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
James, S. (2007). Constructing the climb: Visitor decision-making at Uluru. Geographical Research,
45, 398–407.
Johnston, A. (2003). Self-determination: Exercising indigenous rights in tourism. In S. Singh, D.
Timothy, & R. Dowling (Eds.), Tourism in destination communities (pp. 115–134). Wallingford:
CABI.
Keller, R., & Turek, M. (1998). American Indians & national parks. Tucson, AZ: University of
Arizona Press.
Kropp, P. (1996). “There is a little sermon in that”: Constructing the native Southwest at the San
Diego Panama–California Exposition of 1915. In M. Weigle & B. Babcock (Eds.), The great
 Journal of Sustainable Tourism 59

southwest of the Fred Harvey Company and the Santa Fe Railway (pp. 36–46). Phoenix, AZ:
Heard Museum.
Lew, A. (1999). Managing tourism-induced acculturation through environmental design on Pueblo
Indian villages in the US. In T. Singh & S. Singh (Eds.), Tourism development in critical
environments (pp. 120–136). New York: Cognizant.
Lew, A., & Kennedy, C. (2002). Tourism and culture clash in Indian country. In S. Krakover
& Y. Gradus (Eds.), Tourism in frontier areas (pp. 259–281). Lanham, MA: Lexington
Books.
Maurer, E. (2000). Presenting the American Indian: From Europe to America. In A. Kawasaki (Ed.),
The changing presentation of the American Indian: Museums and native cultures (pp. 15–28).
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
McAvoy, L. (2002). American Indians, place meanings and the old/new west. Journal of Leisure
Research, 34, 383–396.
McIntosh, A., Zygadlo, F., & Matunga, H. (2004). Rethinking Maori tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 9, 331–351.
Murray, C.A. (1839). Travels in North America (Vol. 2). London: Richard Bentley.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

Nason, J. (2000). “Our” Indians: The unidimensional Indian in the disembodied local past. In A.
Kawasaki (Ed.), The changing presentation of the American Indian: Museums and native cultures
(pp. 29–46). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Notzke, C. (1999). Indigenous tourism development in the Arctic. Annals of Tourism Research, 26,
55–76.
Notzke, C. (2006). The stranger, the native, and the land: Perspectives on indigenous tourism.
Concord, Canada: Captus Press.
Orams, M. (2002). Marine ecotourism as a potential agent for sustainable development in Kaikoura,
New Zealand. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 5, 338–352.
Parsons, M. (1997). The tourist corroboree in South Australia to 1911. Aboriginal History, 21,
46–69.
Pitchford, S. (2006). Identity tourism: A medium for Native American stories. Tourism Culture &
Communication, 6, 85–105.
Queensland Government. (2007). Gold Coast marine development project: Northern development
area. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://www.infrastructure.qld.gov.au/library/pdf/gcoast/
GCMDP Northern Development Area.pdf
Richter, C. (2002). Developing and supporting European tour operator distribution channels for
Canadian Aboriginal tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 404–415.
Roth, C. (2002). Goods, names, and selves: Rethinking the Tsimshian potlatch. American Ethnologist,
29, 123–150.
Ryan, C. (1997). Maori and tourism: A relationship of history, constitutions, and rites. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 5, 257–278.
Ryan, C. (1999). Some dimensions of Maori involvement in tourism. In M. Robinson & P. Boniface
(Eds.), Tourism and cultural conflicts (pp. 229–245). Wallingford: CABI.
Ryan, C., & Aicken, M. (Eds.). (2005). Indigenous tourism: The commodification and management
of culture. London: Elsevier.
Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management,
20, 245–249.
Sinclair, D. (2003). Developing indigenous tourism: Challenges for the Guianas. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15, 140–146.
Smith, V. (Ed.). (1977). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism. Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Smith, V. (1989). Eskimo tourism: Micro-models and marginal men. In V. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and
guests: The anthropology of tourism (2nd ed., pp. 55–82). Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Sofield, T. (2003). Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. London: Pergamon.
Sofield, T., & Birtles, R. (1996). Indigenous peoples’ cultural opportunity spectrum of tourism. In R.
Butler & T. Hinch (Eds.), Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 393–434). London: International
Thomson Business Press.
Stansfield, C. (1996). Reservations and gambling: Native Americans and the diffusion of legalized
gaming. In R. Butler & T. Hinch (Eds). Tourism and indigenous peoples (pp. 129–147). London:
International Thomson Business Press.
 60 D. Weaver

Sutton, M. (1999). Aboriginal ownership of national parks and tourism. Cultural Survival Quarterly,
23(2), 55–56.
Sweet, J. (1991). “Let ‘em loose”: Pueblo Indian management of tourism. American Indian Culture
and Research Journal, 15(4), 59–74.
UNFPA. (2008). Putting rights into practice: Addressing the rights of indigenous peoples. Retrieved
July 24, 2008, from http://www.unfpa.org/rights/people.htm
UNPFII. (2009). Who are indigenous peoples? Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://www.wipce2008.
com.au/enews/pdf/wipce fact sheet 21-10-07.pdf
Warren, L. (2005). Buffalo Bill’s America: William Cody and the Wild West Show. New York: Knopf.
Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism: Theory and practice. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Weaver, D. (2008). Ecotourism (2nd ed.). Brisbane: Wiley.
Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2006). Tourism management (3rd ed.). Milton, Qld.: John Wiley & Sons.
Weigle, M. (1996). “Insisted on authenticity”: Harveycar Indian detours, 1925–1931. In M. Weigle &
B. Babcock (Eds.), The great southwest of the Fred Harvey Company and the Santa Fe Railway
(pp. 47–59). Phoenix, AZ: Heard Museum.
Wolf, E. (1999). Envisioning power: Ideologies of dominance and crisis. Berkeley, CA: University
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 12:15 09 October 2014

of California Press.
Young, B. (1989). New Zealand – Maori tourism on the launch pad. Tourism Management, 10,
153–156.
Young Man, A. (1990). Book review of The Spirit Sings: Artistic traditions of Canada’s First Peoples.
American Indian Quarterly, 14(1), 71–73.
Zeppel, H. (1998). Land and culture: Sustainable tourism and indigenous peoples. In C. Hall & A.
Lew (Eds.), Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective (pp. 60–74). Harlow: Longman.
Zeppel, H. (2003). Sharing the country: Ecotourism policy and indigenous peoples in Australia. In D.
Fennell & R. Dowling (Eds.), Ecotourism policy and planning (pp. 55–76). Wallingford: CABI.
Zeppel, H. (2007). Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management. Wallingford:
CABI.