Research Paper Collaborative tourism planning and subjective well-being in a small island destination Christine Vogt a,n , Evan Jordan b , Nicole Grewe c , Linda Kruger c a Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave #550, MC4020, Phoenix AZ 85004, United States b University of Hawai'i at Manoa, United States c USDA Forest Service, United States article info Article history: Received 11 May 2015 Received in revised form 7 November 2015 Accepted 24 November 2015 Available online 18 December 2015 Keywords: Resident attitudes Community Case study Qualitative methods abstract This paper employed a case study method to examine how a tourism planning process was utilized to discuss resident and community subjective well-being. Sitka, Alaska, a small island community, em- barked on a collaborative tourism planning effort as an activity to guide and manage tourism develop- ment, particularly development from nonlocal interests that was perceived by some as threatening well- being and quality of life. A general interview guide approach was used and 27 interviews with key informants conducted. The plan document was also consulted as a source of additional insight into the processes, the structure, and their interaction. The research focused on how subjective well-being was defined; how length of residency, livelihood, and role in the community influenced well-being; and how tourism development and concerns over well-being fueled tourism planning. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Small island tourism destinations are uniquely positioned to be both sensitive to and proactive about tourism development in their communities (Carlsen & Butler, 2011; Jordan, Vogt, Kruger, & Grewe, 2013). As distinct locales with well-defined geographic boundaries, separated from the mainstream/mainland, and with small populations, small island destinations create and sustain tight-knit protective communities with distinct cultural identities (Cross & Nutley, 1999). The isolated nature of island destinations makes it difficult for residents to ignore or avoid potential tourism development impacts (Hamzah & Hampton, 2013; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2010). Decisions regarding small island destination tourism development and resulting impacts have the potential to affect the subjective well-being of residents living in island tour- ism destinations (Douglas, 2006). Subjective well-being is the sum of an individual's perception of their life and their ‘living’ environment comprised of social, economic, and environmental factors (Diener, 2000). Psychologists further describe subjective well-being as an individual's cognitive evaluation of their own life as positive, and can include pleasure, the absence of negative emotions, and high satisfaction with life (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2009). Subjective well-being is not a static state, as individuals and groups continually evaluate their interaction with their environment (Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012). Subjective well-being is central to residents’ per- ception and evaluation of their local quality of life and other en- vironmental factors such as their living environment or shared space with tourists. The perception of subjective well-being by tourism destination residents implies that as individuals, and as part of the greater community, they enjoy their life with tourism activities and do not perceive tourism development as a threat to the environment, quality of life, community well-being, or eco- nomic opportunity. One approach individuals take to manage ex- ternal influences on subjective well-being is through participation in community activities designed to shape the social and physical community (Dolan, Peasgood, & White, 2008). Within the context of small island tourism destinations, residents may choose to ad- dress tourism development proactively through tourism planning designed to manage growth and maintain subjective well-being (Jordan, 2015). Collaborative tourism planning has received significant atten- tion as a way to proactively manage growth and development in a variety of destinations (Byrd, 2007). The collaborative tourism planning process allows for the many stakeholders in tourism destinations to consider tourism development and how their well- being will be affected by no, slow, or rapid growth (Jamal & Getz, 1995). Collaborative tourism planning is different than other types of planning in that it allows for the participation of greater num- bers of stakeholders, likely resulting in great variations in per- ception of well-being. Through collaborative planning, perceptions Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm Journal of Destination Marketing & Management http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.11.008 2212-571X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. n Corresponding author. E-mail address: christine.vogt@asu.edu (C. Vogt). Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 5 (2016) 36–43