Athens Journal of Tourism - Volume 1, Issue 4 – Pages 239-252

‘Walkabout Tourism’:
Is there an Indigenous Tourism Market
in Outback Australia?

By Andrew Taylor
Dean Carson†
Doris Carson‡

Outback areas of Australia account for much of the landmass with

just 5% of the population, many of whom are Indigenous
Australians. Despite tourism being an important industry for
Outback economies, it has declined in recent decades prompting a
search for new and expanding tourism markets. While Indigenous
tourism in the form of visits to Indigenous communities, attractions
and sites to obtain the Indigenous ‘experience’ has been pursued it
has, along with other niche markets, delivered at best limited and
isolated successes. But Indigenous people are themselves highly
mobile, making frequent and regular trips away from home. In the
past these trips were labelled in a derogatory way as ‘walkabout’.
The characteristics of these trips posit them firmly within accepted
definitions of tourism but, excepting one study on homelessness,
there is a vacuum in research on the potential of people ‘on the
move’ as a tourist market. Consequently, we do not know the
potential size or characteristics of the market, an awkward
contradiction given the historical focus on generating tourism at
places where Indigenous people live. This study is the first to analyse
data for Outback areas from the perspective of providing baseline
information about that market. While results are mixed in terms of
the potential to support a flailing tourism industry, this study finds
that Indigenous people on the move should not be ignored.

Background and Introduction

The Australian landmass is the size of continental United States (excluding

Alaska) but has a population of just 23 million. These are concentrated in and
around large cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane along the eastern
coastline, their hinterlands and in the rapidly growing city of Perth in the far
west of the country. By 2012 some 80% and growing of the nation’s
population resided in these urban and peri-urban areas (ABS, 2012a). Away

Senior Research Fellow, Charles Darwin University, Australia.
†
Professor, Charles Darwin University, Australia.
‡
Independent Scholar, Charles Darwin University, Australia.

https://doi.org/10.30958/ajt.1-4-1 doi=10.30958/ajt.1-4-1
 Vol. 1, No. 4 Taylor et al.: ‘Walkabout Tourism’…

from the eastern coastal strip the population density falls dramatically to
around 1 person per square kilometre. These ‘Outback’ areas constitute more
than three quarters of the Australian landmass but are home to less than 5% of
its residents. There are high proportions of Indigenous Australians (Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people) resident, contributing up to 90% of the
population in some areas (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Distribution Of Australia’s Indigenous People

Tourism activity, a major contributor to the national economy, is urban

and likewise peri-urban centric and its economic contributions likewise (Taylor
and Carson DB, 2010). Despite tourism also being an important industry for
many Outback regions, visitation and economic attribution have progressively
declined since 1990 (Schmallegger et al., 2011). A number of studies and
indicators support this claim (for example, Carson DB et al., 2009;
Schmallegger & Carson DB, 2010; TRA, 2010) and, importantly, the extent of
decline for individual regions appears to have been positively related to the
degree of remoteness. Particularly gloomy observations have been made about
regions which market themselves as part of the Australian ‘Outback’ (Carson
DB & Taylor, 2009).
Despite recent growth experienced in Outback areas from extractive
industry projects (such as mining and LNG gas developments), net benefits for
local communities, such as rent transfer have been underwhelming. This is
often in contradiction to what is touted by political and industry sources at the
beginning of projects (Rolfe & Kinnear, 2013; Taylor and Carson DB, 2014).
This contemporary economic landscape has triggered structural adjustments
towards higher concentrations of jobs in services (especially health, education
and justice services) and associated reductions in private sector and small
business employment. In parallel, the entrepreneurial and innovative capacity

240
Athens Journal of Tourism December 2014

of Outback areas has seemingly been diminished (Carson DB, 2011; Carson
DB & Carson DA, 2013).
Although a diverse set of transitions have occurred across regions,
reductions in the key markets of backpackers, organised coach tours and self-
drive markets have resulted throughout the Outback (Schmallegger et al.,
2010). In tandem with 20% declines in total visitor numbers between 1999 and
2009 (Schmallegger & Carson DB, 2010), record numbers of Australians have
travelled overseas each year. With domestic visitors accounting for two-thirds
of Outback itineraries, the latter has been a critical issue. Only one or two
regions within the Outback have avoided these sorts of declines and, ironically,
one of these is Australia’s North West which is focused on coastal tourism
activities like whale watching. It is also the only region not to have the word
‘Outback’ in its title (Carson DB & Taylor, 2009).
Flailing Outback tourism has prompted national, State and Territory
organisations responsible for its development, as well as organisations with a
specific Outback remit (regional and local tourism organisations and regional
development networks), to proffer and advance alternative markets and
activities, such as heritage (Carson et al. 2009), four wheel drive (Taylor &
Prideaux, 2008), wildlife (Carson DB & Schmallegger, 2009), fossicking and
farm or station tourism (Taylor & Carson DB, 2007). However, stark
assessments about levels of success towards diversification can be found.
Schmallegger and Carson’s (2010) study, for example, points to institutional
and developmental ‘lock in’ as a key stumbling block for diversification and
growth. Consequently, periods of improvements for tourism at the national
level subsequent to the Global Financial Crisis have not been replicated for
individual Outback regions (Carson DB & Carson DA, 2014).
One market which has been pursued strongly in recent decades for its
potential to redress declines in Outback tourism is the Indigenous tourism
market (Whitford & Ruhanen, 2009). Indigenous tourism in this context refers
to non-Indigenous visits to Indigenous communities, to sites of cultural
significance, and also to engagement with Indigenous people in tours or to
view and purchase arts or crafts. The belief that Indigenous tourism is and can
be an important market has been evident in the nomenclature of marketing and
product campaigns from the national, state and regional tourism bodies (see
Carson DB & Taylor, 2009). A unique point of difference is the rich and
unique stock of cultural attractions and assets, albeit spread over vast distances
and accompanied by limited or no tourism infrastructure. Indigenous tourism
has also been promoted in planning and governance strategies associated with
the organisations charged with tourism product and marketing development
including the national body, Tourism Australia. That organisation in particular
has long embedded images of Indigenous people and attractions into its
international campaigns as evidence of opportunities for Outback visitors to
access a spiritual or cultural experience there (Carson DB & Taylor, 2009;
Schmallegger et al., 2011; Pomering, 2013).
Nonetheless, a swathe of complex and interrelated issues for the supply of
Indigenous tourism products, infrastructure and services in Outback areas are

241
 Vol. 1, No. 4 Taylor et al.: ‘Walkabout Tourism’…

documented (Buultjens & Fuller, 2007; Tremblay, 2009 & 20010). Similarly,
there are demand side constraints with expenditure on Indigenous tours, shows,
arts or crafts constituting a very small part of the overall Outback expenditure
by visitors and with Indigenous experiences receiving low priority on Outback
itineraries (Schmallegger, & Carson, DB, 2007; Taylor & Carson DB, 2010).
With visitor numbers, expenditure, nights and activities in Outback areas at
historical low points, and repeat visits uncommon, such difficulties have
proven indomitable with only isolated pockets of long-term success in the
establishment and sustainment of Indigenous tourism businesses in the
Outback documented (Buultjens & Fuller, 2007; Carson DB & Taylor, 2009).
Given the deflated environment for tourism in Outback areas, it is
anachronistic that Outback Indigenous residents, estimated at 120,000 (Van
Caenegem et al., 2014) and known to undertake regular and frequent short-
term trips away from home, have not been considered or discussed for their
potential as a tourist market. The mobility of Indigenous people in the Outback
is well documented (Taylor and Carson, 2009). Historically, such movements
were met with derision from officious bodies and those charged with the
assimilation of First Australians. A lack of understanding on the directions,
purpose, length and activities undertaken on trips has permeated through
history in Australia and to this day creates friction between residents and those
‘on the move’. This lack of understanding and empathy led to the term
‘walkabout’ being adopted colloquially to denote the seemingly unexplainable
and unplanned nature of trips (Petersen, 2004).
In recent times, knowledge about Indigenous mobility (as it is known in
academic literature) in Outback areas has been greatly improved thanks to
studies in anthropology, migration studies and the analysis of the demand and
supply of services like housing, health and education. Despite this, visitors
from Outback areas have commonly been labelled ‘transients’ or ‘itinerants’,
and their travel patterns have been described as falling within one of three
categories: ‘sacred’ travel (people travelling to fulfil obligations to kin, culture
and traditional land), service-related travel (people travelling to access health
and social services), or travel perceived as a social problem (people travelling
to access non-sacred entertainment including access to alcohol and gambling)
(Carson et al., 2013).
Substantial gaps remain in relation to understanding about the numbers of
people on the move, their sources and destinations, and their characteristics.
This is largely because official data collections have limited capacity to
accurately and comprehensively account for people on the move (Taylor,
2011). A further reason has been the inability for the research community to
move away from problematizing Indigenous people on the move and equally in
distinguishing trips as invariably being culturally motivated (to attend cultural
ceremonies and so on) (Taylor & Carson DB, 2009). Trips from Outback
Indigenous communities have long been seen by residents and officials
elsewhere as problematic (like anti-social behaviour) and creative of friction
(Carson et al., 2013). The underlying, generalised and subtly discriminatory

242
Athens Journal of Tourism December 2014

view is Outback Indigenous residents ‘belong’ in the Outback and not in towns
or cities creating problems.
A recent attempt to conceptualise Indigenous travellers as tourists was
made by Carson et al. (2013) in the Annals of Tourism Research. Their study
was on Indigenous itinerant visitors (or ‘long grassers’) to the city of Darwin in
the Northern Territory. They examined travel patterns and some characteristics
of trips and contested that, under any accepted definition, longrassers were
tourists. As such, they reasoned that attempts to manage friction between these
and Darwin residents would benefit by perceiving long grassers as ‘problem
tourists’ who:

‘...are incompatible with the accepted dominant status of tourism and

emerge from social distance between tourists and hosts, or between
different groups of tourists.’ (p.1)

The longrassers study focused on only a small part of Outback Australia

and did not overtly examine the potential of visitors as a tourism market. The
present study is the first to provide baseline data and information on
Indigenous people in Australia as tourists, with a focus on Outback areas. We
indicate the size and composition of the market by calculating numbers of
Indigenous people who were away from home throughout Australia on the
night of the Census of Population and Housing in August 2011. We outline the
relationships between being on the move and demographic, socio-economic
and other characteristics. We then examine the flows of people (by source and
destination) as representative of itineraries to discuss the possible net
contributions of ‘the market’ for Outback Australia.

Methods

Each five years, the Australian Bureau of Statistics undertakes the national
Census of Population and Housing, which is designed to collect demographic
and socio-economic data from all people in Australia on a specific night (in
early August). Australian residents provide their location on Census night as
well as the address they consider to be their place of usual residence.
Downstream coding processes enable users of the data to construct custom
matrixes to identify people away from home on Census night, their
characteristics and their usual place of residence. The comparison of the two
locations (place on Census night compared to place of usual residence) enabled
us to construct tables on Indigenous people on the move.
The geographical basis for our study was to compare and contrast the size
of the Indigenous cohort on the move in the Outback with the rest of Australia
and with non-Indigenous people. Regions were ‘constructed’ from smaller
statistical regions (called Statistical Area Level 3) to enable the Outback to be
constructed as one region as well as to facilitate comparisons across geographic
levels. In deriving analysis for the size and direction of movements between

243
 Vol. 1, No. 4 Taylor et al.: ‘Walkabout Tourism’…

Outback and other areas, we divided Australia up into three geographic

regions: Outback areas, Capital Cities and Metropolitan Hinterlands. For a
number of reasons, including the tendency for many people to not state or
partially state where they live and where they were on Census night, the data
on flows might be seen as indicative with the value of flows analysis being in
proportional comparisons on the size and directions of flows rather than in
outlining absolute numbers.
There are some limitations with using Census data to assess the size and
characteristics of the Indigenous tourist market in Outback Australia. Not least,
the Census is a snapshot held on one night and conducted in early August
which, in the north of Australia, is the ‘dry’ season and allows for relative ease
of movement since river and creek crossings on roads are not impassable.
Because some people in the Census leave the question on Indigenous status as
‘not stated’ we allocated these according to stated responses (as standard
practice in the use of such data). In addition, the Census cannot report on trip
characteristics like purpose, length and travel parties. Nonetheless, there is
sufficient congruence in the existing literature to extrapolate from the results in
this study on the potential of the market according the known facets of trips in
Outback areas. This study is, therefore, baseline by nature in assessing the size
and composition of the market and on that basis provides a platform on which
future research activities can be based.

Results

Market Size and Characteristics

Indigenous people made up 2.7% of the Australian population in 2011 but
in Outback areas this was 23% (141,289 people). Nationally, some 42,500
(7.4%) Indigenous people were away from home on Census night, compared to
4.7% (875,000) of the non-Indigenous population (Table 1). In Outback areas,
home to 586,000 people in total, a greater proportion of both Indigenous (8%)
and non-Indigenous (7%) residents were away from home. Consequently,
around 27% (10,700) of all people who were away from home in Outback
areas were Indigenous.

Table 1. Summary of Population and Indicators of People ‘On the Move’

Summary indicator Indigenous Non-Indigenous Total
Proportion of the Australian population 2.7% 97.3% 100.0%
Proportion of the Outback population 24.1% 75.9% 100.0%
Proportion of those living in Outback areas 24.5% 2.1% 2.8%*
Away from home - Outback areas 8.4% 7.4% 7.6%
Away from home - Australia 7.4% 4.7% 4.8%
Proportion of all people away - Outback areas 26.7% 73.3% 100.0%
Proportion of all people away - Australia 4.1% 95.9% 100.0%
*Denotes the proportion of the national population living in outback areas

244
Athens Journal of Tourism December 2014

Despite an over-representation of Indigenous people amongst those on the

move in Outback areas, there was no correlation between the proportion of the
population at the individual region level which was Indigenous and the
proportion on the move (Figure 2). Even in regions with a very high
Indigenous representation in the resident population, people were no more
likely to be on the move. Indeed, three of the top five regions for Indigenous
composition (the Far North of Queensland and East Arnhem and Daly-Tiwi-
West Arnhem regions in the Northern Territory) had below average
proportions of Indigenous people away from home on Census night.

Figure 2. Percent Indigenous Versus Precent away from Home, Outback

Regions, 2011

Age and Gender Profiles

Those aged 10-19 years and 20-29 years comprised more than 40% of
Indigenous people away from home on Census night (23% and 19%
respectively). But the age profile of people on the move differed markedly by
gender with males skewed towards younger age groups and the female
distribution very consistent across all age groups at around 15%. Indeed the
direction of correlations for males and females between age and the probability
of being away are opposite. For males, being away from home was negatively
correlated to age (r2= -0.78) while for females the correlation was positive (r2=
0.73).
Standardising by age and gender revealed additional perspectives with
females on the move over-represented (compared to the proportion in the
population) at ages 20-29 years and in the older age groups (Figure 3). Males
aged 10-19 were particularly over-represented (or highly ‘on the move’).
Meanwhile the very young were substantially under-represented indicating a

245
 Vol. 1, No. 4 Taylor et al.: ‘Walkabout Tourism’…

small share of people less than 9 years of age were away from home on Census
night.

Figure 3. The Extent of Over or Under Representation for People Away from
Home by Age and Gender, 2011

Other Socio Economic Indicators

Of those attending an educational institution, 9% were away from home on
Census night. Profiling by type of institution (Figure 4) shows people attending
post-school institutions (Tertiary and Further Education, University and Other
institutions) were far more likely to be on the move. A third of university
attendees, for example, were away from home. This is largely expected given
that there are almost no secondary institutions (with hard infrastructure), let
alone tertiary institutions located at Outback Indigenous communities.

Figure 4. Type of Educational Institution Attending for Indigenous People

Away from Home, 2011

In terms of partnering status, those never married were most likely to be

away from home and were over represented in that cohort when compared to

246
Athens Journal of Tourism December 2014

the proportion in the overall population (8% for males and 6% for females).
Divorced and separated people were also over-represented, however married
people were less likely to be on the move. For labour force status, those
employed or not in the labour force were highly under-represented in people
away, while the unemployed and those who did not state their labour force
status were slightly over-represented (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Labour Force Status and Being Away From Home, 2011

Comparing the distribution of people away from home to incomes shows

that most Indigenous people residing in Outback areas had quite low incomes
of below $30,000 (Australian Dollars) per annum. However, a larger
proportion of Indigenous people who were away from home were in higher
income brackets of above $30,000 (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Income and Being Away From Home, 2011

247
 Vol. 1, No. 4 Taylor et al.: ‘Walkabout Tourism’…

Geographic Flows
In 2011, over 95% of people away from home in Outback areas had left
the immediate area in which they resided, although more males (4.8%
Indigenous and 2.6% non-Indigenous) remained within the same area
compared to females (3.5% and 2.1% respectively). Examining movements
involving travel to, from or within Outback areas, 44% of people travelled into
the Outback (i.e. from Capital Cities or Hinterlands), some 40% travelled out
(i.e. to Capital Cities or Hinterlands) and 16% travelled within Outback areas.
Movements into the Outback were primarily from geographically
proximate Hinterland areas (60%) or Capital Cities (40%). Interestingly, it was
the reverse for movements out of Outback areas where most (57%) were to
Capital Cities. Movements into Outback areas from Capital Cities and
Hinterlands were highly male biased at 157 males for every 100 females.
However, more females than males (a ratio of 97 males per 100 females)
travelled out from Outback areas.

Discussion and Conclusions

This research has revealed a number of important features about the size
and potential of the market of Indigenous people on the move in Outback areas.
On the surface, its size appears to be quite small at around 43,000 people in
2011. Clearly, many Indigenous people were not visitors to Outback areas,
instead were visiting cities or hinterlands. Despite this, the numbers in this
study represent a snapshot of just one night, and that the annualised size of the
market is likely to be substantially greater. Furthermore, the Indigenous
population of Australia is growing rapidly and at a pace far greater than the
remainder of the population (see Taylor & Bell, 2013). Growth is particularly
noticeable in Capital Cities, and, under these circumstances; we can expect the
market to grow in line with population growth. Thirdly, in 2011 the Census
was shown to have under-enumerated (through people being ‘missed’ or
avoiding the Census) the number of Indigenous people in Australia by 17%,
compared to 6% for non-Indigenous people (ABS, 2012). It is generally
accepted that rates of under-enumeration are higher in Outback areas (Taylor,
2011) although precise data are not available. These factors mean that the size
of the market is substantially greater than the numbers provided in this study.
Although it might be argued on the basis of the low incomes of Indigenous
people that economic attribution from ‘the market’ in Outback destinations
simply does not exist, there are mitigating factors to this line of argument.
People on the move had relatively higher incomes, with older females (likely to
have higher incomes because they are the most qualified) over-represented,
while the very young (with very low incomes) were under-represented.
Furthermore, while Census data does not capture trip characteristics of
length, expenditure and purpose for trip, studies in Outback areas have
identified commonalities in key trip characteristics by Indigenous people.
Invariably these are for combinations of trip purposes including visiting friends

248
Athens Journal of Tourism December 2014

and relatives, health and leisure related (Carson et al, 2013; Habibis, 2011;
Prout & Yap, 2010). Length of trip is consistently denoted as high, and in
many cases up to several months of duration (Morphy, 2007). Trips to and
around Outback areas are said to be frequent, regular, and high in repeat
visitation (Prout, 2008). The latter is in contrast to Outback trips by non-
Indigenous people. Overall, therefore, trip attributes are positive in terms of
market potential.
The flows data (which measures movement into and out of a location or
area) provides interesting dichotomies regarding aggregated trip directions,
gender compositions and the distribution of trips involving Outback areas.
Firstly, almost all people on the move travelled to areas outside their area of
residence. Given units of statistical geography in Outback areas are generally
large this indicates many people were some considerable distance from home.
Nevertheless, this finding must be tempered since, within larger Outback
population centres, units of measurement are substantially smaller.
Flows data also suggests only a small portion of trips (16%) were within
Outback areas with trips to and from Capital Cities and Hinterlands comprising
the majority. Furthermore, most trips to Outback areas were from Hinterlands
while the majority of trips from the Outback were to Capital Cities. It is
reasonable, therefore, to assume that some travellers are circulating from
Outback areas to Capital Cities, on to Hinterlands and then returning to the
Outback. Finally, the reverse gender bias for trips into and out of the Outback
(with males dominating trips in, by some margin, and females marginally
dominating trips out) indicates Outback areas are ‘sending’ females to capital
cities while ‘importing’ male tourists from the Hinterlands. Both aspects of the
flows data warrant further research at a more fine grained geographic scale.
From a theoretical perspective, the absence of studies on the Indigenous
tourist market to date indicates a popularised tendency to view Indigenous
people away from home as an anthropological phenomenon. In light of this
study, broader conceptual and epistemological narratives are warranted. It is
difficult to argue, for example, that women travelling to capital cities might be
primarily seeking to fulfil cultural obligations. Examining the issue from a
tourism market perspective is one alternative approach, although understanding
Indigenous travel patterns from a tourism perspective would, however, require
more primary data collection as existing tourist data sets (such as the national
visitor survey conducted by Tourism Research Australia) do not include
Indigenous tourists in the sample (or do not identify them as such).
This study has revealed the size and composition of the market suggests
some potential, or at the very least, a need for further investigation into how
potential might be developed. Given the small size of Outback communities,
one or two sustainable jobs from tourism might make a large difference to
people’s lives. On balance, therefore, our study points to the potential for
destinations to engage with and make gains from the market. Gains do not have
to be direct financial transactions secured from travellers since providing
services like an accommodation hub, in places where flows are concentrated,
could attract infrastructure and grants, as well as assist in addressing

249
 Vol. 1, No. 4 Taylor et al.: ‘Walkabout Tourism’…

homelessness or itinerancy issues. Consequently, a major part of the ‘gains’ to

be had for destinations, is to re-envision Indigenous people on the move from
one of problematisation to one of potential, thereby focusing on making all
tourists feel welcome.

References

ABS (2012a) 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2012. Available at http://www.abs.gov.au

[25 March 2014].
ABS (2012b) 2940.0 - Census of Population and Housing - Details of Undercount,
2011. Available at http://www.abs.gov.au [11 April 2014].
Buultjens, J. & Fuller, D. (Eds) (2007). Striving for sustainability: case studies in
Indigenous tourism. Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.
Carson, DB. & Taylor, A. (2009). ‘We’ll all go down together: the marketing response
of Australia’s Outback destinations to recent declines in performance’. In Fyall
A, Kozek M, Andreu L (Eds), Marketing Innovations for Sustainable
Destinations, 189–202, Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.
Carson, DB., Prideaux, B., Coghlan, A. & Taylor, A. (2009). Heritage as a motivation
for four-wheel-drive tourism in desert Australia. Journal of Heritage Tourism,
4(3), 217-225.
Carson, DB. & Schmallegger, D. (2009) ‘Fishing the 'big rivers' in Australia's
Northern Territory: market diversification for the Daly River’. In B. Prideaux &
M. Cooper (Eds), River Tourism, 131-146, Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International.
Carson, DB. (2011). ‘Political economy, demography and development in Australia’s
Northern Territory’ Canadian Geographer, 55(2), 226-242.
Carson, DA., & Carson, DB. (2011). ‘Why tourism may not be everybody’s business:
the challenge of tradition in resource peripheries.’ The Rangeland Journal, 33(4),
373-383.
Carson, DB., Carson, DA. & Taylor, A. (2013). ‘Indigenous Long Grassers: Itinerants
or Problem Tourists?’ Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 1-21.
Carson DB. & Carson DA. (2013). ‘Mobilising labour in remote 'boom' towns for
economic diversification: the case of Tennant Creek, Australia’ Inner Asia
Studies in the Humanities, 2, 31-44.
Carson DB. & Carson, DA. (2014). ‘Local economies of mobility in sparsely
populated areas: Cases from Australia's spine’. Available at http://www.science
direct.com/science/article/pii/S0743016714000369 [12 12 April 2014].
Habibis, D. (2011). ‘A framework for reimagining indigenous mobility and
homelessness’ Urban Policy and Research, 29(4), 401-414.
Morphy, F. (2007). ‘Uncontained subjects: ‘Population’ and ‘household’ in remote
Aboriginal Australia’ Journal of Population Research, 24(2), 163-184.
Petersen, N. (2004). ‘Myth of the Walkabout movement: Movement in the Aboriginal
domain’. In J. Taylor and M. Bell (Eds) Population Mobility and Indigenous
Peoples in Australasia and Northern America, 223-238, London: Routledge.
Pomering, A. (2013). ‘Indigenous Identity in the Nation Brand: Tension and
Inconsistency in a Nation's Tourism Advertising Campaigns’ Corporate
Reputation Review, 16, 66–79.
Prout, S. (2008). ‘On the move? Indigenous Temporary mobility practices in
Australia’ CAEPR working paper No. 48/2008. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal
Economic Policy Research.

250
Athens Journal of Tourism December 2014

Prout, S. & Yap, M. (2010). ‘Indigenous temporary mobilities and service delivery in
regional service centres: A West Kimberley case study’ CAEPR working paper
no. 66. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research. Available at
http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Publications/P/2010WP66.php [26 January 2014]
Rolfe, J. & Kinnear, S. (2013). ‘Populating regional Australia: What are the impacts of
non-resident labour force practices on demographic growth in resource regions?’
Rural Society, 22(2), 125-137.
Schmallegger, D., & Carson, D. (2007). ‘Reaching the Independent Traveller: Product
Distribution Issues for Aboriginal Tourism Enterprises in Remote Australia’. In
M. Kefalaki & G. T. Papanikos (Eds) Essays on Tourism Research. Proceedings
of the 3rd International Tourism Conference. Athens, Greece: Athens Institute for
Education and Research.
Schmallegger D., Carson DB. (2010). ‘Is tourism just another staple? A new
perspective on tourism in remote regions’ Current Issues in Tourism 13(3), 201-
221.
Schmallegger, D. (2011). ‘Managing the transition from coach‐ to car‐based markets:
the search for commercial value in Australia’s Flinders Ranges’ In B. Prideaux B
& DB. Carson (Eds) Drive tourism – Trends and Emerging Markets, 14-35,
Milton Park: Routledge.
Schmallegger, D., Taylor, A. & Carson, DB. (2011). ‘Rejuvenating Outback Tourism
through Market Diversification: the Case of the Flinders Ranges in South
Australia’ International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(4), 384-399.
Taylor, A. & Carson, DB. (2007). ‘Economic Development for Remote Communities
- Can 4WD Tourism Help?’ In M. Kefalaki and G. Papanikos (Eds). Essays on
Tourism Research,, 133-146, Athens: ATINER.
Taylor, A. & Prideaux, B. (2008). ‘Profiling Four Wheel Drive Tourism Markets for
Desert Australia’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14, 71-86.
Taylor, A. & Carson, DB. (2009). ‘Indigenous mobility and the Northern Territory
Emergency Response’ People and Place, 17(1), 29-38.
Taylor, A. & Carson, DB. (2010). ‘Four wheel drive tourism and economic
development opportunities for remote areas’ Tourismos, 5(2), 69-85.
Taylor, A., Bell, L., Axelsson, P. & Barnes, T. (2011). ‘The challenge of enumeration
and population estimation in remote areas’ In DB. Carson, R. Rasmussen, P.
Ensign, L. Huskey & A. Taylor (Eds), Demography at the Edge: Remote human
populations in developed nations, 21-38, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Taylor, A. & Bell, L. (2013). ‘The Northern Territory’s Declining Share of Australia’s
Indigenous population: A call for a research agenda’ Available at http://www.
cdu.edu.au/the-northern-institute/research-brief-series [12 March 2014).
Taylor, A. & Carson, DB. (2014). ‘It’s raining men in Darwin: Gendered effects from
the construction of major oil and gas projects’ Journal of Rural and Community
Development, 9(1), 24-40.
Tourism Research Australia (2010). ‘National and International Visitor Data’ CD
Mota online. Available at http://traonline.australia.com [22 July 2010].
Tremblay, P. (2009). ‘The contribution of Aboriginal tourism to economic
development: making appropriate distinctions’ In J. Carlsen, M. Hughes, K.
Holmes & R. Jones (Eds), See Change: Tourism and Hospitality in a Dynamic
World, 951-976, Fremantle: Curtin University of Technology.
Tremblay, P. (2010). ‘Assessing the readiness of Aboriginal groups to participate in
regional tourism development: A capabilities-based framework’ Gold Coast:
Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

251
 Vol. 1, No. 4 Taylor et al.: ‘Walkabout Tourism’…

Van Caenegem, W., Cleary, J. & Drahos, P. (2014). ‘Pride and Profit: Geographical
Indications as Regional Development Tools in Australia’ Journal of Economic
and Social Policy, Available at http://epubs.scu.edu.au/jesp [20 April 2014]
Whitford, M. & Ruhanen, L. (2009) ‘Indigenous tourism businesses in Queensland:
Criteria for success. Gold Coast: Sustainable Tourism CRC.

252