Master of Science / Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional Community Planning / Stephanie A. Rolley / As bicycle tourists seek interesting experiences along low traffic roads, rural communities are poised to embrace bicycle tourism as a community development strategy. Asset based community development provides a methodology for communities to utilize assets that already exist within their communities to meet the needs of these tourists. The community capitals framework then provides a platform for analyzing and discussing the existing assets, as well as helping hone in on ways communities can develop further. The Sunken Lands region of Northeast Arkansas is one such rural region seeking to embrace bicycle tourism. Two case studies of communities that have capitalized on their existing assets to accommodate bicyclists were completed to explore potential for using the community capitals framework to guide pursuit of bicycle tourism. A snowball approach to interviewing community members in Collinwood, Tennessee and Farmington, Missouri was used to discover the details of bicycle accommodations, the processes of pursuing bicycle tourism, the people and groups involved, the types of assets used, and any challenges faced in implementation. Additionally, existing literature was used to substantiate each case and provide a more robust community picture. Emerging from the case studies were commonalities that aligned with the community capitals framework and Emery and Flora’s (2006) theory that community change is driven by social capital. The result is a tool that aligns community assets with the needs of bicycle tourists with the community capitals framework.

Evidence exists to suggest increasing political interest in cycling-related tourism, particularly as a contributor to economic and social development in rural communities. The former Australian Government’s long-term strategy document for tourism, the Tourism White Paper, has also identified cycling-related tourism as a potential contributor to strengthening competitive advantage for Australia with respect to tourism. However, little theory-driven research exists hitherto to guide decision-making regarding prudent provision of infrastructure and services to facilitate the development of cycling-related tourism, while little research exists that aids in our understanding of the travel behaviours and characteristics of bicycle tourists.The present study examined independent bicycle tourists in Australia using a generic model of whole tourism systems as a framework for analysis. The study employed a mixture of quantitative and qualitative techniques to explore the needs, preferences and behaviours of independent bicycle tourists. In addition, several conditions previously identified in applied literature as possible impediments to the development of independent bicycle tourism in Australia were examined.The results indicated that independent bicycle tourists’ behaviours and thought processes regarding destination selection reflected those put forward in the broader literature addressing special interest tourism, in that the activity to be pursued is more prevalent in driving decision-making than the actual destination(s) to be visited. This was illustrated by the importance attached by the respondents to aspects that directly relate to a destination area’s capacity to support cycling, particularly the presence and quality of cycling infrastructure (specifically roads, paths, trails and signage), endowed resources (appealing natural scenery), supporting industries, and accessibility.Three conditions were confirmed as impediments to the development of independent bicycle tourism in Australia. These impediments included perceptions of cycling on Australian roads as a dangerous practice; perceptions that infrastructure to support independent bicycle touring in Australia is generally inadequate; and perceived difficulties associated with the carriage of bicycles on air, coach and rail services in Australia. This research also identified several limitations regarding the capacity of Leiper’s model of whole tourism systems to articulate tourist flows associated with independent bicycle tourism. These limitations specifically related to the way the tourist destination regions and transit routes elements are conceptually defined in the generic model. An adapted descriptive, theoretical model of whole tourism systems involving independent bicycle tourism was proposed. The adapted model incorporated a geographic ‘hierarchy of destinations’ sub-system and also acknowledged two distinct forms of transit routes: those traversed between the traveller-generating region and the destination area; and those traversed within the destination area by bicycle.

Evidence exists to suggest increasing political interest in cycling-related tourism, particularly as a contributor to economic and social development in rural communities. The former Australian Government’s long-term strategy document for tourism, the Tourism White Paper, has also identified cycling-related tourism as a potential contributor to strengthening competitive advantage for Australia with respect to tourism. However, little theory-driven research exists hitherto to guide decision-making regarding prudent provision of infrastructure and services to facilitate the development of cycling-related tourism, while little research exists that aids in our understanding of the travel behaviours and characteristics of bicycle tourists.The present study examined independent bicycle tourists in Australia using a generic model of whole tourism systems as a framework for analysis. The study employed a mixture of quantitative and qualitative techniques to explore the needs, preferences and behaviours of independent bicycle tourists. In addition, several conditions previously identified in applied literature as possible impediments to the development of independent bicycle tourism in Australia were examined.The results indicated that independent bicycle tourists’ behaviours and thought processes regarding destination selection reflected those put forward in the broader literature addressing special interest tourism, in that the activity to be pursued is more prevalent in driving decision-making than the actual destination(s) to be visited. This was illustrated by the importance attached by the respondents to aspects that directly relate to a destination area’s capacity to support cycling, particularly the presence and quality of cycling infrastructure (specifically roads, paths, trails and signage), endowed resources (appealing natural scenery), supporting industries, and accessibility.Three conditions were confirmed as impediments to the development of independent bicycle tourism in Australia. These impediments included perceptions of cycling on Australian roads as a dangerous practice; perceptions that infrastructure to support independent bicycle touring in Australia is generally inadequate; and perceived difficulties associated with the carriage of bicycles on air, coach and rail services in Australia. This research also identified several limitations regarding the capacity of Leiper’s model of whole tourism systems to articulate tourist flows associated with independent bicycle tourism. These limitations specifically related to the way the tourist destination regions and transit routes elements are conceptually defined in the generic model. An adapted descriptive, theoretical model of whole tourism systems involving independent bicycle tourism was proposed. The adapted model incorporated a geographic ‘hierarchy of destinations’ sub-system and also acknowledged two distinct forms of transit routes: those traversed between the traveller-generating region and the destination area; and those traversed within the destination area by bicycle.

Evidence exists to suggest increasing political interest in cycling-related tourism, particularly as a contributor to economic and social development in rural communities. The former Australian Government’s long-term strategy document for tourism, the Tourism White Paper, has also identified cycling-related tourism as a potential contributor to strengthening competitive advantage for Australia with respect to tourism. However, little theory-driven research exists hitherto to guide decision-making regarding prudent provision of infrastructure and services to facilitate the development of cycling-related tourism, while little research exists that aids in our understanding of the travel behaviours and characteristics of bicycle tourists.The present study examined independent bicycle tourists in Australia using a generic model of whole tourism systems as a framework for analysis. The study employed a mixture of quantitative and qualitative techniques to explore the needs, preferences and behaviours of independent bicycle tourists. In addition, several conditions previously identified in applied literature as possible impediments to the development of independent bicycle tourism in Australia were examined.The results indicated that independent bicycle tourists’ behaviours and thought processes regarding destination selection reflected those put forward in the broader literature addressing special interest tourism, in that the activity to be pursued is more prevalent in driving decision-making than the actual destination(s) to be visited. This was illustrated by the importance attached by the respondents to aspects that directly relate to a destination area’s capacity to support cycling, particularly the presence and quality of cycling infrastructure (specifically roads, paths, trails and signage), endowed resources (appealing natural scenery), supporting industries, and accessibility.Three conditions were confirmed as impediments to the development of independent bicycle tourism in Australia. These impediments included perceptions of cycling on Australian roads as a dangerous practice; perceptions that infrastructure to support independent bicycle touring in Australia is generally inadequate; and perceived difficulties associated with the carriage of bicycles on air, coach and rail services in Australia. This research also identified several limitations regarding the capacity of Leiper’s model of whole tourism systems to articulate tourist flows associated with independent bicycle tourism. These limitations specifically related to the way the tourist destination regions and transit routes elements are conceptually defined in the generic model. An adapted descriptive, theoretical model of whole tourism systems involving independent bicycle tourism was proposed. The adapted model incorporated a geographic ‘hierarchy of destinations’ sub-system and also acknowledged two distinct forms of transit routes: those traversed between the traveller-generating region and the destination area; and those traversed within the destination area by bicycle.

Bicycling is a method of tourism transportation that is healthy, non-invasive, environmentally responsible, and economically sustainable. It allows freedom, mobility, and sightseeing potential that is not made possible by other modes of transit. Thousands of bicycle tourists travel from all over the globe annually to explore California on touring bikes via established cycling routes and robust determination. Thousands of additional domestic and international visitors take weekend trips, plan family vacations, travel for business, or tour California from abroad, many of whom are excellent candidates for local and regional bicycle touring at a more gentle intensity level. The increasing popularity and prominence of bicycle tourism, among both domestic and international travelers, carries great potential for economic benefit to local communities. Rural and agricultural communities can particularly benefit from bicycle tourism, as these communities do not normally experience the benefits of tourism as significantly as their urban, coastal or mountainous neighbors. Tourism that is developed in accordance with the size, scale, constraints and character of a particular community can have a beneficial effect on the economics and industry of the area. Infrastructure projects to this effect, such as development of a town or regional trail system, wayfinding features, or other resources come with benefits for visitors and locals in the form of recreation, public health, mobility, and access to food, drink, amenities, scenic areas, jobs and commerce. Trails may further improve the economy of the local housing market, as proximity to trails has a positive effect on housing values. Incorporation of agricultural destinations into local tourism planning creates a draw for visitors and can become a mutually beneficial relationship – contributing to the economic stability of the agriculture industry, preserving local farm lands, increasing tourism revenue and educating the public on the importance of local farming. Through careful planning of the touristic components of the destination, rural communities can achieve multifaceted economic benefits of diverse and versatile tourism amenities.