Table of Contents
Three Stakeholder Specific to Case Study.
Stakeholders interest of Uluru being open for climbing.
Impact of closure of the climb.
Social Sustainability Challenges.
This report aims to analyze the case study of ‘Climbing Uluru, Banning the climb and (Un) Settling Australia’. The report will identify three stakeholder specific to the case study and will explain what their interests are in terms of Uluru being open for climbing and what is at stake for each stakeholder identified in terms of the impacts of the closure of the climb. It will identify social sustainability challenges from the case study and will explain the concern of people for not climbing Uluru. It will also discuss whether climbing of Uluru was right or not to be banned by the traditional owners using the 3 approaches to making ethical judgement. This report aims to understand the conflict between the business sector and Australia’s Indigenous communities.
From the case study, the three stakeholder that were found are Government, Tourists to Uluru and Anangu community or people. These stakeholder are responsible for all the activities held whether it is climbing of Uluru or banning the climb.
Government: The government was in the favor of opening Uluru for climbing as for them is was the center of attraction and number of tourist from around the world comes there to experience the joy of climbing. For tourist, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park was the most attractive and tempting spot for chilling and having fun in the nature. Uluru being the most attractive tourist spot, the government was able to earn large amount of money from the tourist as in terms of revenue (Huddart and Stott 2020). The main interest of the government of opening Uluru for climbing was that the generated revenue from Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park can be used for developing and building housing as well as public infrastructure so that the people living there have better facilities as well as the tourist also gets the required facilities whenever required. The government can invest this earned revenue for the benefits of the public and for the people living in Uluru. From business point of view, the place was generating foreign exchange reserves as people around the world comes for climbing the Uluru and for having and spending good time there. Another reason for the interest of government of opening Uluru for climbing was that the place created employment for the community people living in Uluru resulting in their better life and increase in their standard of living. Visitors to Uluru were able to experience the uniqueness of the culture of Anangu community resulting in promotion of authentic cultural (Chan 2019).
Tourists to Uluru: Many of the tourists who were fond of climbing, experiences high self-esteem on climbing Uluru. They feel happy and extraordinary if they successfully climb Uluru and they show their happiness by proclaiming the world that they climbed Uluru. Moreover, most of the tourist go there to gain social media mileage and expressing their hospitality to strange value system of aboriginal’s authority on Uluru. Breaking the Anangu community age-old traditional rules was a pride for tourists (O'Hanlon 2018).
Anangu Community or People: The community people of Anangu were against the favor of climb but they accepted it as they didn’t want to go against the decision taken by Uluru board of management. Moreover, they were the member of Uluru board of management and the acceptance of Anangu community was giving honor to the decision taken by the management. Another reason for acceptance was based on the argument that the land does not belong to anyone, which was installed during invasion of British (Sinamai 2017). Yet the hand back of their territory through joint administration approach, with a 99-year rent consent to the province National Parks authority which gave a financial bit of leeway, would have made them to acknowledge the arrangement. They additionally were under the feeling that their solicitations to sightseers to keep away from climbing Uluru would be regarded by vacationers.
Government: The impact was that the government found a loss of revenue due to closure of the climb. There were no more tourist generated revenue coming from visiting to Uluru resulting in reduction of generation of foreign exchange reserves. Moreover, closure also resulted in degrading the standard of living of people living there due to decrease in the employment as well as degradation of health facilities in that area (Chan 2019). The government lost the opportunity of generating revenue from climbing of Uluru witnessing strong loss of opportunity of economy for the people living their which would result in benefits for the community if the climbing was open.
Tourists to Uluru: Tourist were upset and felt that there right has been disturbed by petty religious laws and bureaucracy of visiting such a tremendous place and climbing Uluru. Uluru was a place where the tourist feel free to experience the beauty of nature and experience the joy of climbing. Tourist also felt that their freedom has been disturbed to experience and enjoy the heritage. For them, it was like restricting a place which is full of culture and creativity (Huddart and Stott 2020).
Anangu community or people: The impact of Anangu community was that they have lost the way of generating revenue for the surge of tourists who were willing to climb Uluru. However, they may get their value system and safeguard of land back. Moreover, the closure of climbing the Uluru will also impact them by abandoning the progress work of infrastructure development as a result of lesser revenue generation. In addition, loss of employment also result in degrading their standard of living and health facilities (Chan 2019).
The challenges identified from the case study for social sustainability is the rising health issues in the area. It is because the Anangu community living in Uluru follows indigenous methods. These methods are not appropriate and will be not sufficient to solve the issues that will arise due to tourists’ surges. Geography and climatic of Uluru are the two reason due to which they government is unable to provide them the appropriate health care facilities and treatment. Moreover, due to lack of good infrastructure facilities, safety or tourist and climber during emergency is also a major concern (Huddart and Stott 2020). Government also felt concern in Uluru due to incidences of destruction of long held traditions and heritage along with the chance of loss of lives due to natural calamities at such places. Some of the profound factors that have undoubtedly led to poor health among this population include climate, geography and the Indigenous culture. It is notable that the main health issue that arises due to the identified health concern is that there is a high rate of mortality among infants, young children, youths, adults and aged people. Indeed, all the age groups within this cultural group are at high risk of early death. Consequently, poor health status has reduced the average life expectancy of the population. Moreover, equity is a critical attribute that has to be prioritized in healthcare systems. This has not been fully attained especially among the Aboriginal health (McGrath 2016). This segment of the Australian population cannot reach the optimal or full health potential unless equitability in healthcare is achieved. Diminished future, high maternal and newborn children pace of mortality and bleakness and low birth loads are a portion of the issues influencing the Aboriginal Health. An extreme change ought to be executed to adjust how we assume liability for improving the wellbeing of the Aboriginal individuals. Another National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing Authority ought to be shaped ordered with the administration of assets put in a safe spot for their government assistance, reasonableness of new food, products of the soil to the distant networks ought to be expanded (Hendrickx 2018). Therefor to ensure social sustainability, a detailed plan is needed to be considered for managing the issues at Uluru. In order to adequately address the health disparity among the natives in Australia the limited access to medication especially among remote persons needs to be tackled by the establishment of more community hospitals.
Moreover, extreme lifestyles of among the Aborigines are a serious barrier in dealing with the identified health issues. For instance, smoking has been reported to be a common habit among the Aboriginal community with a prevalence of 40-80 per cent. The aspect of cultural security is one of the major barriers for the suggested strategies for health in Uluru. This is due to the fact that the Aboriginal people highly value their cultural identity (Bickersteth, West and Wallis 2020). The case study shows that to some extent, seeking medical services is culturally unacceptable in some regions. This is due to the fact that lifestyle patterns are likely to affect both the environment and health of the community. This idea should be implemented in all the communities regardless of their cultural practices. The current supportive environment for Indigenous health will be more efficient if it is modified to have a more intensive recognition of values and cultural beliefs- using strength based approach to work with the people. For example, building a healthy public policy that will ensure that health agenda target all levels and regions in Australia in order to achieve positive results for the entire population. Another enabler is creating a supportive environment within the society. This implies that the government and healthcare providers should create awareness of the public on the need to maintain healthy relationship with each other and the environment (McGrath 2016).
Indeed it was right to resist the climbing of Uluru as it was directly with respect to conventional proprietors to oppose the moving of traditional owners of Uluru, as climbing Uluru had sullied the rich biological system of verdure in the district. The three approaches to make ethical judgement are as follows; firstly, it would be moral if alternative artificial experience can be made for the sightseers. If the government will make an artificial experience, the need of tourist to climb will be fulfilled along with the benefit of earning revenue from the visitors. It will also help in preserving the tradition and culture owned by Anangu community (Bickersteth, West and Wallis 2020). Secondly, it can be made moral by the administration uncovering to travelers that there is a restriction on climbing Uluru before tolerating a booking from vacationers. It will result in making tourist aware about the restriction and the tourist will not be disappointed as they can visit the place and can experience and enjoy the heritage (Ingamells 2017). Moreover, it will be ethical and the tourist coming for climbing purpose will have a chance to cancel their tickets. Lastly, the government needs to make an acknowledgment among sightseers the need to protect the rich convention. It is the obligation of the nation to shield the social legacy and traditions that must be adhered to. By urging the Anangu people group to acknowledge the 99-year rent consent to the district National Parks authority, was like breaking their privileges on their territory. Each country may have comparable legacy areas which must be made sure about from urban intrusion. Aboriginals are to be ensured for the conventional worth frameworks treasured by them. The distinction or struggle of assessment on this opportunity and shielding the legacy of the Anangu people group is the moral issue (Huddart and Stott 2020).
It can be concluded that the case study has been analyzed and the stakeholders interest of climbing Uluru and impact of banning climb on the stakeholders has be explained briefly. The three stakeholder found from the case study are the government, tourist of Uluru and Anangu community or people. All the three were affected in one or the other way due to the closure of Uluru climbing. Moreover the identified social sustainability challenge from the case study was found to be the raise in health issues faced by people living in Uluru. Therefor to ensure social sustainability, a detailed plan is needed to be considered for managing the issues at Uluru. In addition, it was right to resist the Uluru climbing as it is contaminated with rich ecosystem. The main reason for the interest of opening Uluru for climbing was that the place created employment for the community people living in Uluru resulting in their better life and increase in their standard of living along with health benefits.
Bickersteth, J., West, D. and Wallis, D. 2020. Returning Uluru. Studies in Conservation, pp.1-9.
Bowrey, K. and Graham, N. 2017. The placelessness of property, intellectual property and cultural heritage law in the Australian legal landscape*-. Intellectual Property, Cultural Property and Intangible Cultural Heritage.
Chan, E.Y. 2019. Mindfulness promotes sustainable tourism: The case of Uluru. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(13), pp.1526-1530.
Hasham, N. 2016. Turnbull government decides against banning tourists from climbing on Uluru. The Sydney Morning Herald, 12.
Hendrickx, M. 2018. The ban on climbing Ayers Rock is immoral and illegal. Quadrant, 62(4), p.14.
Huddart, D. and Stott, T. 2020. Australia and New Zealand. In Adventure Tourism (pp. 355-402). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Ingamells, P. 2017. Making parks and tourism work. Park Watch, (269), p.18.
McGrath, A. 2016. Conquering Sacred Ground? Climbing Uluru and Devils Tower. In National Parks beyond the Nation: Global Perspectives on" America's Best Idea". University of Oklahoma Press.
O'Hanlon, S. 2018. City Life: The New Urban Australia. New South.
Sinamai, A. 2017. Myths as metaphors: understanding narratives in sustaining sacred landscapes in Zimbabwe and Australia. Archives, Objects, Places and Landscapes: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Decolonised Zimbabwean Pasts, pp.399-419.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Management Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....