sustainable tourism: a critical analysis · tourism or sustainable mass tourism, implying a shift...

Research report 1

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

David Weaver and Laura Lawton

Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable TourismResearch report series

Delivering strategic knowledge toenhance the environmental, economicand social sustainability of tourism.

The primary aim of CRC Tourism’s research report series is technology transfer. The reports are targeted toward bothindustry and government users and tourism researchers. The content of this technical report series primarily focuseson applications, but may also advance research methodology and tourism theory. The report series titles relate toCRC Tourism’s research program areas. All research reports are peer reviewed by at least two external reviewers.For further information on the report series, contact the production editor.

Terry De Lacy, CRC Tourism Ralf Buckley, Griffith UniversityRay Volker, University of QueenslandBill Faulkner, Griffith UniversityPhillip Pearce, James Cook UniversityPeter O’Clery, CRC Tourism

© 1999 Copyright CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty LtdAll rights reserved. No parts of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by meansof electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Any inquiriesshould be directed to CRC for Sustainable Tourism.

National Library of Australia Cataloging in Publication data

Weaver, David B. (David Bruce).Sustainable tourism: a critical analysis.

Bibliography.ISBN 0 646 37647 0.

1. Ecotourism – Australia. 2. Tourist trade – Environmental aspects – Australia. 3. Sustainable development –Australia. 4. Ecotourism – Queensland – Gold Coast. I. Lawton, Laura. II. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism. III. Title. (Series: Tourism re p o rt series (Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable To u r i s m ) ;no.1).

338.479194

1

CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISMcCRC for Sustainable Tourism

Research report series

Editors

Production editor • Sharon Solyma

Copy editor • Sandra Brunet

Design & layout • Debbie Lau

Printer • Rolf Bernklev, Document on Demand


1

contents

6 Executive summary

8 Introduction

9 1 ~ Sustainable development

13 2 ~ Evolution of sustainable tourism

Graduations of sustainabilitySustainable development interpretations

Advocacy platformCautionary platformAdaptancy platformKnowledge-based platformEmergency of sustainability as a dominant tourism paradigmA broad context model of sustainability-related tourism scenarios

20 3 ~ Sustainability indicatorsSustainable tourism indicator categoriesCandidate sustainable tourism indicatorsSample procedure for implementing ST

25 4 ~ Problems and issues in sustainable tourismDefining the goals of STEstablishing an appropriate planning and management frameworkSelecting, measuring and monitoring appropriate indicatorsAssessing indicator performance and determining achievement of goalsImplementing remedial action

32 5 ~ Indications of sustainability

37 Conclusions

38 References

43 Authors

Protected areasSmall islandsRural and indigenous areasMass tourismA synopsis of mass tourism and alternative tourism sustainability

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSISSUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

3

Gradations of sustainability

ffigures10 Figure 1.1

An ideological continuum of SD perspectives11 Figure 1.2

Operating principles of ‘mainstream’ sustainable development12 Figure 1.3

Butler’s report cycle model15 Figure 2.1

Selected critique of alternative tourism16 Figure 2.2

A broad context model of destination ideal types17 Figure 2.3

Broad context destination development scenarios18 Figure 2.4

Application of the broad context model to the Gold Coast of Australia19 Figure 2.5

Sustainable tourism indicator categories21 Figure 3.1

Sample framework for implementing sustainable tourism24 Figure 3.2

Spatial and temporal planning frameworks and discontinuities between cause and effect30 Figure 4.2

Hypothetical zonation in a protected area33 Figure 5.1

Pacific Asia Tourism Association (PATA) code for environmentally responsible tourism35 Figure 5.2

Mass tourism, alternative tourism and sustainability36 Figure 5.3

Spartial parameters for ST27 Figure 4.1


5

tables

Tourism platforms and associated ideal types14 Table 2.1

Resource conservation and resource tourism12 Table 1.1

Unsustainable mass tourism and deliberate alternative tourism as ideal types15 Table 2.2

Candidate sustainable tourism indicators22 Table 3.1

Core WTO indicators of sustainable tourism24 Table 3.2

The concept of sustainable tourism is fundamentally linked to the idea of sustainable development as it has beeninterpreted in the Brundtland Report of 1988. A major problem with sustainable development is its ambiguity andsubsequent vulnerability to interpretation and employment on ideological grounds. Hence, anthropocentric

perspectives tend to emphasise the status quo of resource exploitation for the good of human populations, while thebiocentric perspectives place the primary emphasis on the natural environment itself. However, there is room forcompromise between the more moderate schools on either side; that is, the resource conservationists on theanthropocentric side, and the resource preservationists on the biocentric side.

It is this moderate interpretation of sustainable development that should inform a workable version of sustainabletourism. Surprisingly, the sustainable development literature makes almost no mention of tourism despite the importanceof the latter sector. However, this has become a major explicit focus of the tourism literature since the late 1980s. Priorto this time, the pro-development advocacy platform within tourism studies (dominant in the 1960s) supported a policy ofsustained mass tourism growth, while the cautionary platform (dominant in the 1970s) basically viewed conventional masstourism as unsustainable. Butler’s S-shaped resort cycle model is perhaps the most vivid demonstration of the negativeimpacts inherent within inappropriately managed mass tourism. In the early 1980s, the adaptancy platform supporteddeliberate alternative tourism as a desirable and sustainable alternative to mass tourism.

Since the late 1980s, a purportedly more objective and scientific ‘knowledge-based platform’ has come into beingwithin the field of tourism study. This acknowledges the possibility that mass tourism can be sustainable if planned andmanaged appropriately, and that alternative (small-scale) tourism may induce negative impacts on a destination undercertain circumstances.

A broad context model of four destination ideal types can be identified as a result of the above four platforms;circumstantial alternative tourism, deliberate alternative tourism, unsustainable mass tourism and sustainable masstourism. Eight probable scenarios of change can be situated within this model, wherein the Butler curve is comparable tothe circumstantial alternative tourism to unsustainable mass tourism transformation. In any destination, the desirableoutcome is any shift from either circumstantial alternative tourism or unsustainable mass tourism to deliberate alternativetourism or sustainable mass tourism, implying a shift from unsustainable to sustainable outcomes. In the case of the GoldCoast, the coastal beach strip should be shifted from unsustainable mass tourism to sustainable mass tourism, while thehinterland should be transformed from circumstantial deliberate tourism to deliberate alternative tourism.

6

CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

executive summary

To operationalise any conception of sustainable tourism, a destination must define the goals of sustainable tourism,establish an appropriate planning and management framework, select relevant indicators from a candidate list of economic,environmental, social and cultural criteria, measure and monitor these indicators, periodically analyse and assess indicatorperformance, determine whether the original goals are being achieved, and implement remedial action if necessary.

In all of these steps, many problems will be encountered. As in sustainable development, sustainable tourism goals areinfluenced by ideological considerations, and range from an emphasis on sustainable mass tourism to support for small-scale tourism. Assuming that a consensus can be attained on these goals, it is then necessary to define the temporal, spatial,political and inter-sectoral parameters within which to assess the sustainability of tourism. These are all problematic, inthat long-term planning is discouraged by the contingencies of short-term budget allocations, while a narrow, politically-defined spatial planning unit cannot take into account all of the influences and effects that affect the sustainability of thesector. Similarly, tourism cannot be isolated from other resource users such as agriculture and forestry.

As for sustainability indicators, there are no definitive guidelines available to inform destinations as to which ones aremost important. Furthermore, little is known about the critical thresholds of sustainability that apply to each criterion, howthey can best be measured, and how often they should be monitored. The process is also likely to be impeded by the spatialand temporal discontinuities between cause and effect; that is, many of the impacts identified within a destination and/orwithin a specific time period actually have their causes in other areas or times, while events within the destination mayhave consequences in other destinations and time periods.

Given all of these problems, it is more appropriate to describe destinations as being indicative of sustainable tourismthan to state that they are definitely sustainable, since such a judgement is still too difficult to make. The former situationoften pertains to protected areas such as national parks, small islands such as Dominica and Samoa, and some rural andindigenous areas. Increasingly, evidence is also available for sustainable mass tourism practices at an individual andcollective level. Industry organisations promote voluntary accreditation programs such as Green Globe to encourageindividual enterprises to implement energy reduction, waste minimisation, recycling and other initiatives. While the masstourism industry can still generally be characterised as unsustainable, substantial progress is being made toward attaininga more sustainable framework upon which such initiatives are based.■


7

The purpose of this report is to critique the concept ofsustainable tourism, which now forms the dominanto rganisational paradigm of the global tourism sector.

Tourism managers and planners within virtually alldestinations, as well as entrepreneurs and communities, nowenthusiastically embrace sustainable tourism as a desirableobjective. However, there appears to be little generalunderstanding of its origins, nature and indicators, or of theproblems that are likely to be encountered in theimplementation process. By drawing upon an extensivearray of relevant secondary sources, this report intends toprovide basic knowledge to a broad audience of tourismstakeholders, so that the concept and practice of sustainabletourism can be engaged with ‘open eyes’.

The first section examines the broader context ofsustainable development and the various interpretations that

have arisen, and moves toward a concept that can form anoperational basis for sustainable tourism. This is followedby a discussion on the growing awareness of sustainabilityas it applies to tourism, and the various tourismconfigurations and development scenarios that havee m e rged as a result of this evolution. Section 4.0 considersthe nature of sustainable tourism indicators and proposes apreliminary candidate list that can be accessed bydestinations to select an appropriate array for planning andmanagement purposes. Atheoretical sample framework forsustainable tourism implementation is also presented tosupport section 5.0, which examines the major issues andproblems likely to be encountered in the effort to attain thisideal. With appropriate qualifications, the final sectiondiscusses the extent to which various destinations andcomponents of the tourism industry are actually progressingin their attempts to achieve sustainability.■

8


introduction

“In considering the impact of the tourism developmentplan in Languedoc-Rousillon, it is necessary to steer

a course between the excessive optimism of the regionaltourism promotion bodies and the scepticism of some

academic commentators (Klemm 1992: 179)”.

No analysis of sustainable tourism (ST) can beundertaken without first considering the motherconcept of ‘sustainable development’ ( S D ) ,

which emerged in the 1990s as the guiding principlebehind the contemporary development debate. As anexplicit idea, SD first appeared in the late 1970s and early1980s, although many people mistakenly attribute theterm to the Brundtland Report of 1987 (WCED 1987).The importance of the Brundtland Report was to propelSD into the public arena as an attractive, if elusive,o rganisational paradigm that was subsequently extendedto an array of broad thematic areas, including tourism.

The precursors of SD are found in the modernenvironmental movement. Marginalised before themid-twentieth century to the conservation movementand related initiatives, environmentalism gainedmomentum following World War II through a sequenceof high profile publications that challenged thedominant ‘western’ approach to the developmentquestion. Prominent among these popular works werethe following:

• Sand County Almanac (Leopold, 1949)• Silent Spring (Carson, 1963)

• The Population Bomb (Ehrlich, 1972)• The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al, 1972)• Small is Beautiful (Schumacher, 1973)• Gaia: A New Look At Life On Earth

(Lovelock, 1979)• The Global 2000 Report to the President

(Barney, 1982).

Early references to the notion of sustainability wereclosely affiliated with the environmental movement,hence the tendency of countries such as Australia toroutinely refer to ‘ecologically sustainabledevelopment’. Coomer (1979), for example, describedthe ‘sustainable society’ as one ‘that lives within theself-perpetuating limits of its environment...It is asociety that recognizes the limits of growth...and looksfor alternative ways of growing.’ Allen (1980), amongthe earliest sources to actually use the SD term, definedit as a form of development ‘that is likely to achievelasting satisfaction of human needs and improvement ofthe quality of human life’. The term achieved a higherprofile through its use in The World ConservationStrategy, which, among other suggestions, supported aminimum threshold allocation of protected lands(IUCN, UNEP & WWF 1980).


9

chapter one

Sustainable development

Sustainable development interpretations

Despite the broad consensus on the basic definition of SD,d i v e rgent perspectives have emerged in regard to its

interpretation and implementation. This is perhaps notsurprising given the contradictory semantics of the termitself, with sustainable implying the steady state dynamicsand limitations favoured by the environmental movement,and development deriving from the vocabulary of the pro-growth lobby and their allies, the ‘technological utopians’ ( i ethose who believe that technology can solve all problems). Abroad audience seems on the surface to accept SD’s attractiveimplication that environmental integrity and economicgrowth can somehow be accommodated and attaineds i m u l t a n e o u s l y. This is apparent, for example, in Harris andLeiper (1995), who describe SD as a managed form ofeconomic growth that takes place in the context

of sound environmental stewardship.H o w e v e r, for other commentators (eg Illich1989 in Burr 1995), the contradictioncannot be resolved, and SD is dismissed asan unworkable oxymoron. This arg u m e n textends to the contention that the advocatesof SD are either extremely naive, or theyremain supporters of environmentalism orgrowth who have appropriated the conceptto reinforce their own existing dogma,environmentalists stressing the ‘sustainable’component, and the pro-growth lobbyemphasising the ‘development’ c o m p o n e n t .According to M c K e r c h e r :

Rather than acting as a catalyst for

The 1987 Brundtland Report provided the real catalystfor the broad dissemination of SD. In part, this was due tothe high profile authorship and sponsorship of the report.An equally important factor, however, was that theproffered definition of SD (ie ‘development that meets theneeds of the present without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their own needs’ - WCED1987:43) is elegantly simple, and acceptable in principleto almost everyone. The response of all levels ofgovernment to embrace SD and the related concept ofsustainability resulted in its being employed as the centraltheme of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. As well, it providedthe underlying basis of the subsequent Agenda 21manifesto (Miller & Kaae 1993). Endorsed by thesignatures of 179 Heads of State, Agenda 21 purports toprovide a blueprint for sustainable development into the

The essence of SD, then, follows the principle thatthe expenditure of capital, however conceived (seesection 2.1), should not exceed its formation.

Where expenditure exceeds formation, the situation isessentially unsustainable. Where the two are inequilibrium, this may be referred to as ‘steady statesustainability’. However, the ideal situation is one whereformation actually exceeds expenditure, leading to anexpanding capital base. This situation can be described asrestorative or enhancive sustainability, depending onwhether a situation of sustainability is being restored, orwhether an already steady-state situation is beingimproved even further. These three scenarios are depictedin Figure 1.1.

twenty-first century. Its 40 chapters deal comprehensivelywith matters of social and economic development, theconservation and management of natural resources,stakeholder groups, and means of implementation. In thewake of the Earth Summit, the Agenda 21 initiative hasencouraged communities to formulate and implement theprinciples of Agenda 21 at the local level.

Today most policy documents recognise and claimadherence to the principle of sustainable development,usually but not necessarily by following the principlesoutlined in the Agenda 21 framework. This indicates theevolution of SD into full-scale institutionalisation (Frazier1997) at a time when the general public within the moredeveloped countries have identified environmental issuesas a major public policy priority (Burns & Holden 1995).

10


GGradations of sustainability

Capital formation < Capital expenditure= UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Capital formation = Capital expenditure= STEADY STATE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Capital formation > Capital expenditure= RESTORATIVE or ENHANCIVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Figure 1.1Gradations of sustainability

change, sustainability may serve to entrench andlegitimize extant policies and actions, thus exacerbatingrather than resolving conservation/development conflicts.

(McKercher 1993b:131)

It is for this reason that Willers (1994) condemns SD as‘one of the most insidious and manipulative ideas to appearin decades.’ A related indication of the perceptual gapbetween the pro-development and the environmentalistcamps is broad adherence to a ‘constant wealth’model bythe former, which holds that wealth is based on theaggregate value of natural and man-made capital. As longas the cumulative assets remain stable, their distributionbetween the natural and man-made spheres is notimportant. In other words, the natural capital can declineas long as it is converted into equivalent or greater man-made capital (McKercher 1993b). This approach favoursactivities that generate the most cumulative wealth, even ifthey are detrimental to the natural environment (Burns &Holden 1995). Environmentalists, in contrast, emphasisethe need to maintain a stable core of natural assets, whichcannot be replaced by an equivalent pool of man-madeassets. This is reflected in Lele (1991), who suggests thatSD is fundamentally concerned with the maintenance ofthose ecological conditions that are necessary to supporthuman life at a specified level of well-being throughoutfuture generations.

Ideology remains problematic even if the issue ofobjectives can be resolved. Capitalism, for example,assumes that SD can best be facilitated through aphilosophy of free markets and personal empowerment,while neo-Marxists advocate state intervention andemphasis on the ‘common property’. Such divergences,however, inevitably return the debate to fundamentalobjectives. Neo-Marxists, and most neo-Malthusians,

identify the need for intra-generational sustainability, orthe equitable distribution of wealth among regions andclasses at the present time (present-day equity), as thecritical pre-requisite for inter-generational sustainability,or the maintenance of living standards from onegeneration to the next (future equity) which is at the coreof the Brundtland definition (Frazier 1997). T h i sargument holds that most environmental problems in theless developed world, such as predatory cultivation andlarge-scale deforestation, result from the desperate acts ofdesperate people who are jeopardising their own future(and by extension, the future of the world in general) inthe interests of their own immediate survival (Elliott1994). If capitalism acknowledges intra-generationalequity at all, it is usually to espouse the substitution of freemarkets for traditional or socialist lifestyles in order tofoster the increases in personal wealth that will remove theneed to damage the environment in order to survive in theshort term. Some critics of SD maintain, in line withMcKercher’s comments, that the real agenda of capitalismis to maintain the status quo by assuring that the wealthyare able to retain their dominance from one generation tothe next. The ideological dimensions of sustainabledevelopment are only briefly outlined in this paragraph, asthe actual literature that has been published in this regardis enormous (eg Goodland et al 1992, Daly 1996).

Given the malleability and ambiguity of SD, it islegitimate to ask whether this ‘contestable concept’(Mowforth & Munt 1998) can or should form the underlyingbasis for the radical re-conceptualisation of variouseconomic sectors, including tourism. Hunter (1997) pointsto a possible solution in arguing that the pro- and anti-development SD perspectives are not dichotomous, butrather continuous. In this view, laissez-fairedevelopmentalism and spiritual ecology/environmentalism


11

Figure 1.2An ideological continuum of SD perspectives

Numberof adherents

REALM OF COMPROMISE

Laissez-fairecapitalism

Resourceconservation

Resourcepreservation

Deep Ecology

BiocentricAnthropocentric

(eg Deep Ecology - Devall & Sessions 1985), the positionsleast open to compromise, are situated at the extremes of anideological continuum divided roughly into anthropocentric(emphasis on human viability) and biocentric/ecocentric(emphasis on ecological interdependence) camps (Figure 2.2).As with any bell curve distribution, the advocates of theseextreme views are in the minority, but their influence isdemonstrated by their level of commitment and ability tomobilise effectively for lobbying purposes. Closer to thecentre, however, are positions more open to compromise andsynthesis. Resource conservationists on the anthropocentricside are supportive of economic growth, but only underconditions which do not threaten the natural resource base. Onthe biocentric side, resource preservationists are supportive ofecosystems integrity, but do notadvocate a drastic de-population of theearth, or a radical reduction in materiallifestyles (Table 1.1).

C l e a r l y, these two ‘mainstream’approaches near the centre shareconsiderable common ground, and itis not inconceivable that acombination of their philosophiescould form the basis of a majority-support, moderate interpretation ofSD that would entail a combinationof characteristics similar to thoseoutlined in Figure 1.3. T h i sapproach would perhaps functionbest not on the basis of synthesis, butr a t h e r, on the principles ofgeographical compatibility and co-existence, wherein some alreadyheavily altered areas dominated byman-made capital (such as cities andfarmlands) are more suited tomanagement along the lines of

conservation, while less alteredspaces dominated by naturalcapital (eg protected areas,forests, wetlands) are managedmore in adherence to theprinciples of preservation. Itwould also be possible, in theinterests of a more holisticapproach, to extend the realm ofsustainability beyond the naturalenvironment to include theselective conservation andpreservation of cultural and socialcapital (Barbier 1987). T h eimportance of social and culturals u s t a i n a b i l i t y, inherently and as away of facilitating ecologicalsustainability is a key focus ofAgenda 21. Other interpretations

of SD, however, are more ecologically oriented.

Whatever the conception of SD that is adopted, thereremains the issue of implementation. Political realities, aswell as the selection, measurement and monitoring ofappropriate variables within suitable parameters of spaceand time, are associated complexities that would requiretheir own monograph to address properly if extended tothe entire SD arena. This report, however, is focused upona particular sector, and the discussion of issues relevant toimplementation will therefore be confined to the field ofsustainable tourism (see Section 5). Prior to this, it isnecessary to consider the evolution of sustainable tourismand its associated parameters.■

12


• Supports managed and modified growth, within reason

• Supports intra- and inter-generational equity

• Rejects infinite substitution (constant wealth) argument

• Recognises existence of critical natural capital (eg ozone layer)

• Supports individualism, with checks and balances provided by government

• Supports zero population growthand steady state economy, but ot decline

• Supports intra- and inter-generational equity

• Allows for very limited substitution of man-made for natural capital

• Recognises primary importance of maintaining natural systems

• Recognises primacy of the collective will over the individual, but does not reject a limited role for free markets

Resource conservationism Resource preservationism

Table 1.1Resource conservationism and resource preservation

• Establishing ecological limits and more equitable standards of consumption

• Redistribution of economic activity and re-allocation of resources to fulfil principles of equity

• Control of human population levels• Preservation of basic resources that support the earth’s essential

support systems• More equitable access to resources and increased technological effort

to use them more effectively• Attention to carrying capacity and sustainable yield• Retention of non-renewable resources• Maintenance of biodiversity and cultural diversity• Minimisation of adverse impacts on air, water and other natural elements• Local community control• Planning and policy at a broad national and international level• Economic viability• Maintenance of environmental quality• Environmental auditing as a dominant monitoring procedure

Modified from Murphy 1994.

Figure 1.3Operating principles of ‘mainstream’ sustainable development

The tourism sector is virtually invisible within the broadcontext SD literature (Butler 1993), which tends toconcentrate on the more conventional primary and

secondary economic activities such as agriculture, mining,f o r e s t r y, fisheries and manufacturing (Eber 1992). To u r i s m ,for example, merits not a single citation within the BrundtlandReport, and is only alluded to briefly in Agenda 21. Severalfactors may account for this neglect:

• First, there is a widespread (and erroneous) perception that tourism does not involve the consumption of natural resources in the same literal sense as the sectors mentioned above.

• Second, the belief that tourism is a marginal, somewhat facetious and not particularly important activity is still widespread among those who are not knowledgable about the sector (Butler 1993).

• Third, tourism stakeholders have not until recently been particularly pro-active about ensuring that their sector is visible within the overall SD debate.

While the latter factor is at least partially due to theexistence of a vigorous sustainability debate within thetourism sector itself, this still does not justify the broaderpattern of neglect, given the character of the contemporarytourism industry. We are constantly and correctly remindedin the literature that tourism is one of the world’s larg e s tindustries. In 1997, almost 613 million international

stayovers were reported (WTO 1998), from which anestimate of six billion domestic tourists can be imputed. Farfrom being an economically marginal activity, tourismaccounts for about 6% of the world’s cumulative grossnational product (McIntosh, Goeldner & Ritchie 1995). Evenat the time of the Brundtland Report, there were 363 millioninternational stayovers generating US$176 billion in receipts( W TO 1998). Furthermore, global tourism has demonstrateda remarkable resilience, with positive growth in visitationnumbers being recorded for every year since 1960, and at anaverage rate considerably in excess of other major industries( W TO 1998).

S p a t i a l l y, tourism is both ubiquitous and concentrated; thatis, almost all parts of the world experience at least sometourism activity, while certain sensitive environments such ascoastlines, lakeshores and alpine valleys have proven highlysusceptible to the development of intensive tourism sectors.Such patterns of diffusion and development are exemplifiedby the emergence over the past four decades of a leisure-tourism dominated ‘pleasure periphery’ enveloping larg eparts of the Caribbean and Mediterranean basins, the SouthPacific and coastal areas of Australia, Asia and Africa(Turner & Ash 1975). Qualifying all of these facts is theassertion that tourism is indeed a major consumer ofnatural resources, and a multi-sector activity that affects,and is affected by, almost all other forms of economicactivity (McKercher 1993a). Furthermore, local cultures


13

chapter two

Evolution of sustainable tourism

and social structures are also especially vulnerable todisruption due to the in situ (or on-site) pattern of productconsumption that is inherent to tourism.

If these characteristics have not yet prompted theinsertion of tourism into the broader SD debate, they havecertainly stimulated a high level of internal interest in theconcept of sustainable tourism (ST), as suggested earlier.The term itself first appeared in literature during the late1980s, and a perusal of the references in these andsubsequent publications clearly shows the primaryinfluence and inspiration of the Brundtland Report.However, as indicated in the following discussion, theimplicit ST debate pre-dates Brundtland by at least twodecades. It is also fair to say that the debate has movedsince the late 1980s into a distinctive ‘post-Brundtland’phase. The following sub-sections employ the ‘platform’model of Jafari (1989) to trace the evolution of the STconcept. This schemata proposes that the post-World WarII tourism literature has been dominated in a roughlysequential manner by four platforms or paradigms:

• Advocacy• Cautionary• Adaptancy• Knowledge-based

Each platform, in turn, has given rise to associatedtourism ‘ideal types’ that reflect its philosophicalperspective on the matter of sustainability (Table 2.1). An‘ideal type’, as explained by Harrison (1995), is notintended to imitate reality, but rather to function as anidealised, non-distorted standard against which real lifesituations can be measured, affiliated, and compared.

Advocacy platfor m

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, tourism was widelyperceived as something of a panacea capable of

generating significant economic growth across a broadrange of destinations, many of which were not consideredamenable to more conventional forms of economicactivity. In close alignment with the laissez-faire extremeof the anthropocentric perspective, an unambiguous pro-growth stance was advocated for tourism, and large-scaleor ‘mass’ tourism models were espoused. References tosustainability alluded only to the desirability that thesemass tourism configurations should be maintained, or‘sustained’.

Cautionary platfor m

The cautionary platform emerged in the late 1960s asone component of a broader dialectic involving the

political left’s challenge to the economic dominance of theright wing. Although many critics were more ‘liberal’than neo-Marxist in outlook, the common view of thecautionary platform was that the costs of laissez-fairetourism development would far outweigh the benefits,especially within destinations in developing countries.Prevailing through the 1970s and into the early 1980s(though more in the halls of academia than in the field),the cautionary platform may be described as the ‘era of thegreat critique’. On the socio-cultural side, Doxey (1975)introduced his ‘Irridex’, whereby resident reactionstoward tourism were posited to progress from ‘euphoria’to eventual ‘antagonism’ and ‘resignation’, while Plog(1974) related visitor irritations to a change in clientelefrom ‘allocentric’ to ‘psychocentric’ as a particulardestination became more intensively developed. Othernotable sociological and anthropological insights were

provided by Cohen (1972), Erisman (1983),MacCannell (1976) and Smith (1977).

From an economic perspective, Bryden(1973), Finney and Watson (1975), Perez(1973) and Shivji (1973) provided eloquentcritiques, while Budowski (1976) andCohen (1978) focused upon the negativeeffects of mass tourism upon the naturalenvironment. Although the term was neverexplicitly employed, these commentatorsall alluded to unsustainable mass tourism asthe undesirable but logical culmination ofthe tourism development process. Butler(1980) best summarised and synthesised theviews of the cautionary platform in hisdeceptively simple S-curve model, whichpostulated that destinations developingunder laissez-faire conditions progress from

14


Table 2.1Tourism platforms and associated ideal types

Advocacy Sustainable mass tourism

Cautionary Unsustainable mass tourism (UMT)

Adaptancy Deliberate alternative tourism (DAT)

Knowledge- Sustainable mass tourism based (SMT), circumstantial

alternative tourism (CAT)

Platform Ideal types

a state of exploration through involvement, development,consolidation, and stagnation, as local carrying capacities

are approached and thenbreached. Most indicativeof unsustainability is thesubsequent tendency ofdestinations to experiencedecline if no remedialmeasures are adopted(Figure 2.1).

Criticism of unregulatedtourism was not confinedto university researchersduring the cautionaryperiod, as ‘mainstream’o rganisations alsoincreasingly recognisedthe potential dangers of

large-scale tourism. Such concerns, for example, wereevident in the 1980 Manila Declaration of the World

Tourism Organisation, which stated that‘...the satisfaction of tourism requirements


15

Figure 2.1Butler’s resort cycle model

Characteristic Unsustainable mass tourism Deliberate alternative tourism

M A R K E T SS e g m e n tVolume & ModeS e a s o n a l i t yO r i g i n s

AT T R A C T I O N SE m p h a s i sC h a r a c t e rO r i e n t a t i o n

A C C O M M O D AT I O NS i z eSpatial PatternD e n s i t yA rc h i t e c t u re

O w n e r s h i p

ECONOMIC STAT U SRole of To u r i s mL i n k a g e sL e a k a g e sMultiplier Eff e c t

R E G U L AT I O NC o n t ro lA m o u n tIdeology Emphasis

Ti m e f r a m e

Allocentric - midcentricLow; individual arr a n g e m e n t sNo distinct seasonalityNo dominant markets

Moderately commerc i a l i s e dA rea specific, ‘authentic’Tourists & locals

S m a l l - s c a l eDispersed throughout are aLow densityVe rnacular style, un-obtru s i v e ,C o m p l e m e n t a ryLocal, small businesses

Complements existing activityMainly intern a lM i n i m a lH i g h

Local ‘community’Extensive; to minimise local negative impactsPublic interv e n t i o nCommunity stability & well-being; integrated,h o l i s t i cL o n g - t e rm

Psychocentric - midcentricHigh; package toursDistinct high & low seasonsA few dominant markets

Highly commerc i a l i s e dGeneric, ‘contrived’Tourists only or mainly

L a rg e - s c a l eConcentrated in ‘tourist are a s ’High density‘ I n t e rnational’ style; obtrusive, non-s y m p a t h e t i cNon-local, large corporations

Dominates local economyMainly extern a lE x t e n s i v eL o w

Non-local private sectorMinimal; to facilitate private sectorF ree market forc e sEconomic growth, profits; sector- s p e c i f i c

S h o rt - t e rm

Table 2.2Unsustainable mass tourism and deliberate alternative tourism as ideal types

Source: Adapted from Butler 1992 and Weaver 1993.

Number of visitors

Stagnation

Consolidation

Development

Exploration

Involvement

Critical carrying capacity threshold

Time

(Rejuvenation)

(Continued Stagnation)

(Decline)

must not be prejudicial to the social and economicinterests of the population in tourist areas...’ (WTO inRomeril 1989: 104).

Adaptancy platfor m

Although the cautionary platform eloquently identifiedthe economic, socio-cultural and environmental costs

of large-scale tourism development, it was not until theappearance of the adaptancy platform in the early 1980sthat any serious effort was made to identify actualsolutions to this purportedly unsustainable status quo. Theterm alternative tourism soon gained currency as thepreferred term for these options. Clearly, the term wasemployed in the specific sense that these constitutedalternatives to the sort of mass tourism vilified by thecautionary platform (Cohen 1989; Dernoi 1981;Gonsalves 1991; Holden 1984). Not all possibilities,however, were embraced under the rubric, with ‘hippie’tourism, sex tourism and ultra-exclusive tourism beingamong the alternatives to mass tourism that weregenerally considered to be undesirable for a destination.Rather, alternative tourism came to be associated with aspecific set of parameters that contrasted with thecharacteristics of unsustainable mass tourism (Table 3.2).The use of the adjective ‘deliberate’ in this table todescribe alternative tourism reflects the consensus that aspecific regulatory environment (ie the last category in thetable) was required to ensure long-term adherence to thenorms of the ideal type. Without this environment, thereis little to distinguish an ‘alternative tourism’ destinationfrom a destination that is merely situated within theexploration or involvement stage of the Butler model, andtherefore vulnerable to increased development (Weaver1991).

While originally intended to describe deliberatelyexaggerated ‘ideal types’ (see Section 3.0), thepresentation of these two forms of tourism in thispolarised fashion seemed to encourage the highlyjudgemental perception that one (ie mass tourism) wasinherently bad, while the other (ie alternative tourism) wasinherently good, and that little room for middle groundexisted between the two (Burns & Holden 1995; Lanfant& Graburn 1992). Accordingly, alternative tourism wasconsidered by the adaptancy platform to be the onlylegitimate form of tourism, and the only one that could beconsidered sustainable (though the term ST itself had notyet been introduced).

Special mention should be made of ecotourism, whichis widely defined as a variant of alternative tourism, that:

• puts primary emphasis on the natural environment (or some element thereof) as the basis for product attraction

• posits that the basis of interaction with the natural environment is one of inherent appreciation and/or educational interest, and not merely as a suitable setting for a hedonistic or thrill seeking experience (as in sunbathing and white-water rafting, respectively) (Cater 1993; Place 1995; Weaver 1998).

First introduced as a term by Ceballos-Lascur·in in1983 (Boo 1990), ecotourism has attained an equal (if notgreater) profile than ST itself, with many researcherscontinuing to equate the two terms (eg Matthews 1993;Tisdell & Wen 1997).

Knowledge-based platfor m

Jafari’s knowledge-based platform, dominant since theearly 1990s, is characterised by a preference for

objective, scientific methods to obtain knowledge aboutthe tourism sector, and by the concomitant rejection ofsimplistic judgements regarding the nature of mass andalternative tourism. If tourism could be scrutinisedwithout any ideological filters, the argument went, thenmass tourism would emerge in some instances as alegitimate and even preferable development option,suggesting a growing convergence between mass tourismand the concept of sustainability (Clarke 1997).Conversely, alternative tourism would not always prove tobe benign for destinations. Butler (1990), Place (1995)

16


• Many advocates motivated by bandwagon effect rather than rational analysis of costs and benefits

• Tendency of advocates to be naive as per their assumption of positive outcomes

• AT reflects values and priorities of alien elites, not necessarily local communities

• AT may re i n f o rce the power of the local elite rather than the broader community

• Locals may actually prefer mass tourism

• Returns from AT may be too small to facilitate economic development

• AT may engender overly intrusive contact between tourists and locals

• Inadvertent role of alternative tourists as pioneers facilitating the introduction of less benign forms of tourism, notwithstanding presence of re g u l a t o ry c o n t ro l s

S o u rce: Weaver 1998.

Figure 2.2Selected critique of alternative tourism

and Wight (1995), among others, have taken alternativetourism to task on a number of grounds, as summarised inFigure 2.2.

To these criticisms should be added the view, alluded toin Section 3.3, that most alternative tourism destinationswere actually unregulated exploration or involvement-stage situations vulnerable to intensification. We a v e r(1991) has described these destinations as havingcircumstantial alternative tourism, implying thatunregulated ST is merely circumstantial to the incipientphases (eg ‘exploration’ and ‘involvement’) of Butler’sresort cycle. Circumstantial alternative tourism, with itsimplications of unsustainability, can be juxtaposed withsustainable mass tourism to demonstrate the capacity ofthe knowledge-based platform to accommodate a morecomplex and ambiguous array of sustainability optionswithin the tourism sector. Butler (1990), in particular,was careful to emphasise the relevance of geographicalappropriateness, with sustainable mass tourism probablybeing the most feasible and appropriate option fordestinations already experiencing high levels of tourismdevelopment, and deliberate alternative tourism beingmore appropriate for ecologically or culturally vulnerableincipient destinations.

E m e rgence of sustainability as a dominant tourism paradigm

The emergence of the knowledge-based platformcoincided with the explicit appearance in the

literature of ST, which, in turn, was directly attributableto the popularisation of the SD concept in the late 1980sby the Brundtland Report (see Section 2.0). SD and STare now a prominent feature of all major introductorytourism texts (eg Hall 1995; Inskeep1991; McIntosh, Goeldner & Ritchie1995; Pearce, Morrison & Rutledge1998) and the subject of several recentspecialised readings (Middleton 1998;Mowforth & Munt 1998; Stabler 1997;Wahab & Pigram 1997). As with SD,S T has not been without controversy.To some (eg Hawkes & Wi l l i a m s1993), the two concepts aresynonymous, with the proviso that STrefers specifically to tourism thatmeets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs.Hunter (1995), however, added thecaveat that ST can only achieve thisobjective by also satisfying thedemands of the tourism industry andtourists, a view that is broadly

consistent with the contemporary conceptualisation oftourism as a system of mutually interdependentcomponents (Hall 1995). Butler (1993) reflects thisbroader interpretation in a widely cited quote that definestourism in the context of SD as:

Tourism which is developed and maintained in an areain such a manner and at such a scale that it remains viableover an indefinite period and does not degrade or alter theenvironment (human and physical) in which it exists tosuch a degree that it prohibits the successful developmentand wellbeing of other activities and processes. (Butler1 9 9 3 : 2 9 )

In a manner redolent of the broader SD debate, suchconceptions raise the question of priorities, and whether itis possible to simultaneously meet the demands of allstakeholders - local communities, the tourism industry,and tourists - while concurrently maintaining thedestination’s environmental and cultural integrity. Suchissues are considered more thoroughly in Section 5.0.

A broad context model of sustainability-related tourism scenarios

In concert with the approach of the knowledge-basedplatform, it is now possible in the late 1990s to consider

four ideal types of basic tourism, as discussed above,which account for all destinations. These ideal types maybe depicted within a matrix that takes into considerationtwo factors; the scale of tourism activity (ie small to larg escale), and the amount of sustainability-conduciveregulation that is present (ie low to high) (Figure 2.3). Toreiterate, circumstantial alternative tourism destinationshave the superficial appearance of ST, but are really in the


17

Figure 2.3A broad context model of destination ideal types

Deliberatealternative tourism

(DAT)

Circumstantialalternative tourism

(CAT)

Sustainable masstourism (SMT)

Unsustainable masstourism (UMT)

High

Regulation

LowLow Intensity High

Source: Weaver 1999

incipient stages of a Butler-type sequence (= small scale,low regulation). If that appearance can be qualified bythe presence of a regulatory environment that promotessustainable AT, then a deliberate alternative tourismdestination is evident (= small scale, high regulation).Unsustainable mass tourism destinations are theoutcomes of the classic Butler sequence (= large scale,low regulation), while sustainable mass tourismdestinations are those urban resorts and other higherintensity locations that have managed to implement a setof regulations and policies conducive to sustainability( l a rge-scale, high regulation). It is useful to repeat thatthese are all conceived as ideal types; real life situations,therefore, grade along continua of scale and regulation,and will align with or tend toward a particular ideal type,rather than conform in an identical way.

Figure 2.3 has obvious utility as an inclusiveconceptual device for identifying the state of a destinationat any particular point in time. Destinations, however, arenot static, and a dynamic component can easily beintroduced into the model through the addition of arrowsto indicate possible vectors of destination evolution(Figure 3.4).

After determining the actual positioning of adestination, managers could use the model to identify andassess the likelihood and desirability of possible tourismdevelopment scenarios. Although movement istheoretically possible from any ideal type to any otherideal type, certain options are highly unlikely. A n yscenario involving movement from a high intensity to alow intensity mode, for example, is excluded from themodel, since such transformations have seldom if everbeen reported. Eight bilateral scenarios remain afterthese exclusions, as follows:• Circumstantial alternative tourism to unsustainable

mass tourism: considered undesirable by all but the most intransigent apostles of laissez-faire capitalism, this is the classic Butler sequence, most likely to occur in environments susceptible to tourism intensification, such as coastlines, shorelines, and alpine valleys

• Circumstantial alternative tourism to deliberate alternative tourism: a deliberate strategy where incipient destinations impose a regulatory environment to maintain adherence to certain AT ideals; increasingly common in areas adjacent to protected areas, as well as indigenous communities and ecotourism venues

• Circumstantial alternative tourism to sustainable mass tourism: the ‘instant resort’ phenomenon where the stereotypical fishing village is transformed into a major tourist destination through a highly regulated growth pole strategy; Canc˙n and the five other Mexican tourism growth poles, in their early stages of development, are illustrative (Collins 1979)

• Deliberate alternative tourism to circumstantial alternative tourism: an AT situation where regulations are removed, resulting in a return to circumstantial AT

• Deliberate alternative tourism to sustainable mass tourism: in some situations, a destination may wish to foster a larg e r-scale, but still sustainable tourism s e c t o r, if demand remains strong, and if local carrying capacities can be extended; the growth of tourism in Costa Rica’s Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve is one possible example (Weaver 1998)

• Deliberate alternative tourism to unsustainable mass tourism: as the level of tourism development becomes more intensive, the level of regulation may decline if control shifts deliberately or inadvertently from government to the private sector; this can possibly lead to unsustainable outcomes, as demonstrated by developments in Kenya’s Amboseli National Park

during the late 1970s and early 1980s(Henry 1980; Western 1982)• Unsustainable mass tourism to

sustainable mass tourism: implicit in the knowledge-based platform is the contention that most unsustainable situations can be reversed; the transformation of the British Channel Island of Jersey into a Green Globe destination may offer one example

• Sustainable mass tourism to unsustainablemass tourism: a scenario where a sustainable large-scale destination becomes unsustainable; this may be applicable to Canc˙n, where the government has been conceding a greater degree of control to the private sector, and where development is therefore proceeding in a more haphazard manner (Padgett 1 9 9 6 ) .

18


Figure 2.4Broad context destination development scenarios

DAT

CAT

SMT

UMT

High

Regulation

LowLow Intensity High

Source: Weaver 1999

The Gold Coast demonstrates how thebroad context model can be used as aframework for tourism planning and

management. Situated in the southeasternextremity of Queensland, the Gold Coastcurrently consists of two distinct tourismcomponents. The coastal area has spawnedthe classic high-density 3S resort model,while the interior accommodates a small AT-like sector that is only informally andhaphazardly integrated with the coastalcomponent. Recent trends and indicatorssuggest that the coast itself is reaching astage of product maturity, with a possibletendency toward unsustainability. Similarly,the AT of the hinterland is a superficialcircumstantial alternative tourism varietyhighly vulnerable to unsustainableacceleration because of its proximity to thecoast (Figure 2.5). On the assumption thatthis status quo can be improved, a more preferableoutcome would involve an emphasis on deliberatealternative tourism in the interior, and on sustainablemass tourism along the coast. Furthermore, the emphasisshould be placed on restorative and enhancive sustainabledevelopment, rather than just steady state sustainability(see Figure 2.1). This reformulation would maintain thehigh to low scale diversity of the product, but wouldemphasise the creation of integrative synergies (indicatedby the two-headed arrow) between the coast and theinterior (see Figure 2.5).

Such a reformulation synthesises Clarke’s view that allscales of tourism development are legitimate, and can besustainable (Clarke 1997), with Butler’s suggestion(Butler 1990) of geographical appropriateness (ie theinterior best suited for AT, and the already developed

coastal component appropriate for sustainable masstourism). Furthermore, the preferred outcome of Figure2.5 is compatible with the SD ‘realm of compromise’depicted in Figure 2.2, in so far as sustainable masstourism is sympathetic to the resource conservationperspective, and deliberate alternative tourism issympathetic with the resource preservation perspective.In arguing that ST must be an adaptive paradigm capableof responding to a wide array of circumstances andsituations, Hunter (1997) characterises these two types ofapproach, respectively, as ‘product-led’ a n d‘ e n v i r o n m e n t - l e d ’ tourism. The Gold Coast, intriguingly,suggests a geographical setting where these two moderateperspectives could be integrated into a sustainabletourism symbiosis, with the beaches and high-rise resortsof the coast being complemented by the sub-tropicalrainforests and rural environment of the interior.■


19

Figure 2.5Application of the broad context model to the Gold Coast of Australia

CAT

UMT

DAT

SMT

Source: Weaver 1999

AApplication of the broad context model to the Gold Coast, Australia

Hinterland

Status quo Preferred outcome

Coral Sea

Coast

Appropriatepoliy directions

An ST-oriented strategy, such as that outlined forthe Gold Coast in the previous section, isultimately worthwhile only if it can be made

operational by tourism planners and managers. A c r i t i c a lstep in this process is the identification of sustainabilityindicators that can be objectively measured and monitoredwithin identifiable parameters of space and time. T h eOECD as defines indicators:

Aparameter or a value derived from parameters, whichprovides information about a phenomenon. The indicatorhas significance that extends beyond the propertiesdirectly associated with the parameter value.(Environmental indicators can) reduce a large quantity ofdata to a more accessible and easily understood form...provide an effective early warning system for potentialenvironmental problems (and can be used) to predictfuture impacts. (OECD quoted in Hamilton & A t t w a t e r1997: 75)

Indicators which allow planners and managers toi d e n t i f y, measure, track, anticipate and hopefully,prevent or rectify problems, are thus a crucial support tothe planning and management process of SD and ST(Consulting and Audit Canada 1995).

Sustainable tourism indicator categories

Because sustainability is such a broad-basedphenomenon, the array of related potential indicators

is extremely large, prompting the need for a suitablesystem of classification. As discussed below, it issuggested that all indicators need to be classifiedaccording to their status within five inter- r e l a t e dcategories (Figure 3.1).

S c a l e

Allocation by scale depends mainly upon the sizeand nature of the destination, or on some internal

component that is the object of particular attention.International indicators (eg global, continental, bloc)are appropriate where national units are small and/orhighly integrated (eg EU), where stronginterrelationships are apparent, or where the use ofstandard indicators facilitates comparison. Nationalindicators entail individual states or dependencies.These include aggregated sub-national indicators aswell as variables collected only for the nation as awhole (eg number of inbound international visitors).Sub-national indicators (eg state, provincial, regional)are especially appropriate in very large countries (egCanada, Russia, US, Australia, China) and in federalsystems where the sub-national units possessconsiderable autonomy. Local indicators (eg City,metropolitan area - eg Gold Coast) are collected for anindividual resort destination or other spatial unitapproximating a municipal unit or functionalaggregation of adjacent municipalities. Site-specificindicators apply to the smallest spatial unit ofmeasurement, and in particular hot spots, or micro-levelareas of:

20


chapter three

Sustainable indicators

a) concentrated activityb ) known problems or degradationsc ) rapid change and/or d) extreme natural or cultural sensitivity (International

Working Group on Indicators 1993).

Association with tourism

ST indicators that measure the effects of tourism uponthe environment, society, culture and economy of the

destination may be described as product-related. Incontrast, market-related indicators measure characteristicsassociated with visitors and potential visitors (egconsumer image of destination, customer satisfaction).This latter sub-category, of course, must be included if theview is held that sustainable tourism involves thesustainability of tourism itself (see section 3.5).

Level of aggre g a t i o n

Specific criteria are measured by individual indicators,and, potentially, sub-indicators. In contrast, composite

indicators take into account and combine a selected group ofindividual indicators in order to provide a simpler method ofdetermining sustainability.

S e c t o r

It is conventional in impact studies within tourism, andg e n e r a l l y, to classify effects into environmental,

economic, social and cultural (or socio-cultural) spheres, anda similar categorisation is often used with indicators. Inaddition, a management category is included to encompassmanagement, planning and politically related indicators.

F u n c t i o n

Indicators can assume various functions, according to theextent that they are required to support different types of

management decisions. Depending on the context, aparticular indicator can therefore fall within severalcategories, unlike the categories discussed so far. Manning(1993) identifies six functional indicator categories in thecontext of ST. Warning indicators (rising levels of residentdiscontent due to tourism) suggest potential problem areas,thus allowing remedial measures to be taken before theproblem accelerates and becomes even more difficult toreverse. Measures of pressure or stress, according toManning (1993), include external factors of concern, such aspopulation growth, climate change, etc that will aff e c ttourism. Status indicators reflect the current state and usagelevels of key resources, preferably assessed in terms of somemeaningful baseline criteria (eg annual growth rates ininbound visitation as compared with a pre-determined ‘safe’annual growth rate). Impact indicators take into account‘ c a u s e - a n d - e ff e c t ’ relationships, such as the number ofbeach-closure days owing to hotel effluents, or the amountof trail erosion resulting from hiking. Measurements ofmanagement action provide information on the level offormal response to particular situations raised by theaforementioned functions. Examples include height andwaste restrictions on hotels, and increased police patrols in

tourist areas. Finally, management impact indicatorsmeasure the extent to which management actions bringabout desired or other results.

Candidate sustainable tourism indicators

The potential number of indicators within any particulardestination is enormous, and it would be strategicallyd i fficult to monitor more than a few. Derived from a reviewof the SD and STliterature, Table 4.1 lists ST indicators, byrelevant sector, that are possible contenders for inclusion ina destination’s sustainable tourism management strategy.Whether any particular indicator or composite index isuseful or not depends, among other factors (see discussion inSection 5.0), upon the individual circumstances of eachdestination, although candidates such as habitat loss andresource consumption are widely recognised as having asignificant influence upon sustainability in most contexts.Therefore, the list is not definitive, but rather is intended toserve as an inventory which can be expanded or contractedas the knowledge base on sustainability and relevantindicators continues to evolve (Maclaren 1996).

Several ‘short lists’ of ST indicators have already beenattempted, although attention to the indicators issue in thetourism literature has not been as great as one might expect,considering its pivotal role in the sustainability monitoringprocess. Marsh (1993), for one, proposes a tentative To u r i s mSustainability Index that divides indicators into ecological,economic (community and tourism industry), social(community and tourists) and institutional categories. Am o r edefinitive list of core indicators was put forward by theEnvironmental Committee of the World Tourism Org a n i s a t i o nin 1995 (Table 3.2). The three composite indicators proposedin this list are site-specific, and are being applied in anexperimental way to two case studies in A rgentina. The W TOlist as a whole is tentative, reflecting continuing progress inindicator development, and the fact that the decision to includeor exclude particular variables is ultimately a subjectiveexercise, which is highly sensitive to context.


21

Figure 3.1Sustainable tourism indicator categories

Scale• International• National• Sub-national• Local• Site-specific (eg hot spots)

Association with tourism• Product-related• Market-related

Level of aggregation• Individual• Composite

Sector• Environmental• Economic• Social• Cultural

Function• Warning• Pressure or stress• Status• Impacts/consequences• Management action• Management impact

22


AFFILLIATED INDICATORSSECTORS

• Number of accommodation units and facilities• Amount of land occupied by tourism-related superstru c t u re and infrastru c t u re• D e s t ruction or alteration of natural habitat by tourism constru c t i o n• Amount of erosion, and number of floods and landslides associated with tourism• E ffect of tourism on biodiversity• E ffect of tourism on species distributions and populations• E ffect of tourism on introduction of exotic species• Density of tourism facilities and tourist activities• Concentration of tourism facilities and tourist activities• Number of stayovers and excursionists• Number of ‘visitor- n i g h t s ’• Seasonality (eg Gini coeff i c i e n t )• Wa t e r, air, noise and solid waste emissions associated with tourism (eg expressed per

accommodation unit and visitor- n i g h t )• H a z a rdous waste production associated with tourism• Amount of litter associated with tourist activities• Wildlife or habitat deterioration associated with tourist activities• R e s o u rce consumption associated with tourism (eg water, fossil fuels, metals,

agglomerate, forest products, food)• Levels of traffic congestion associated with tourism• E n v i ronmental carrying capacity• Position of destination in Butler re s o rt sequence (Butler 1980)

• Revenues earned directly from tourism• Income multiplier effect from tourism (ie indirect re v e n u e s )• P ro p o rtion of destination revenue directly and indirectly obtained from tourism

(eg tourism as % of GDP, GPP or GNP)• P ro p o rtion of destination employment associated with tourism• Average tourism wage as % of overall average wage• Distribution of jobs by wage level, and measurement of equity• % of tourism jobs occupied by non-local or foreign personnel• Extent of backward linkages with agriculture and other destination sectors• I m p o rt content in tourism consumption• % of all imports related to tourism• % of accommodations and attractions that are extern a l l y / f o reign owned or contro l l e d• P rofitability of individual operations• Amount and % of profits and wages that are repatriated or leave local are a• M a r k e t i n g / p romotion costs• Tourism investment by residents and non-re s i d e n t s• Overall economic impact (eg Local Impact Model -Smith 1989)

EC, SOEC, SO

S OC o m p o s i t e

EC, SO, CU

S O

C o m p o s i t e

E C

Table 31Candidate sustainable tourism indicators

Environmental

Economic

• Resident reactions toward tourism and tourists (eg Irr i d e x )• No. of resident complaints against tourism• Amount of crime directed against tourists and tourism industry by residents and non-re s i d e n t s• Amount of tourism-related pro s t i t u t i o n• Local patronage of tourist attractions and facilities

Social

Sample pro c e d u re for implementing ST

Figure 3.2 presents a simplified example of the generalprocedure that is commonly recommended for

implementing sustainable tourism or sustainabledevelopment within a destination. The third, fourth and fifth

stages within this model are directly relevant to the issue ofindicators, although the subsequent phases are obviouslyalso dependent on the outcome of those stages. The mainpurpose for presenting this framework is to provide a basisfor the following discussion of problems and issuesassociated with the operationalisation of ST.■


23

AFFILLIATED INDICATORSSECTORS

• In-migration associated with tourism industry• Ratio of residents to tourists• Amount of tourist-instigated crime• Psychographic profile eg allocentrics, midcentrics and psychocentrics• Tourist satisfaction with destination• Destination image held by visitors and potential visitors• Tourist Attractiveness Index (Smith 1989)• % of tourists who are repeat visitors• Average length of stay• Social carrying capacity

• C o n f o rmity of tourism arc h i t e c t u re to local vern a c u l a r• Number and condition of heritage stru c t u res and sites• Integrity of local culture• % of visitors who are intern a t i o n a l• Market dominance (eg concentration ratio)• Extent of cultural commoditisation

C o m p o s i t e

C o m p o s i t e

Social

Cultural

• Recycling and fuel efficiency perf o rmance of tourism accommodations, attractions and transport a t i o n

• Habitat enhancement and/or protection associated with presence of tourists• Amount of tourism-related laws and re g u l a t i o n s• P resence of EIA pro c e d u re for tourism-related businesses• No. of cultural heritage sites that are protected due to tourism• Existence of a tourism-related master plan• Existence and actions of tourism-related interest gro u p s• Number of codes of ethics and good practice in place• Extent of industry and tourist adherence to codes• P a rticipation of tourism industry in community improvement projects and pro g r a m s• Existence of tourism education and awareness pro g r a m s• Existence of resident education and awareness pro g r a m s

Management

Indicators with attached sector abbreviations EN = Environmental, EC = Economic, SO = Social, CU = Cultural, MN = Managementalso fall into these categories as an associated classification.

Sources: Hodge et al 1995; International working group on indicators of sustainable tourism 1993; Maclaren 1996; Murphy1985; Nelson, Butler & Wall 1993; Weaver 1998; Williams 1994.

24


CORE INDIVIDUALINDICATORS

Composite indicies

SPECIFIC MEASURESGENERIC

INDICATORGROUPING

Site pro t e c t i o n

S t re s s

Use intensity

Social impact

Development contro l

Waste management

Planning pro c e s s

Critical ecosystems

Consumer satisfaction

Local satisfaction

Tourism contribution to local economy

C a rrying capacity

Site stre s s

A t t r a c t i v i t y

E c o l o g i c a l

E c o l o g i c a l

E c o l o g i c a l

S o c i a l

P l a n n i n g

E c o l o g i c a l

P l a n n i n g

E c o l o g i c a l

E c o n o m i c

S o c i a l

E c o n o m i c

C a t e g o ry of site protection according to the IUCN index

Tourist numbers visiting site (per annum/peak month)

Intensity of use in peak period (persons/hectare )

Ratio of tourists to locals (peak period and over time)

Existence of environmental review pro c e d u re or formal controls overdevelopment of site and use densities

P e rcentage of sewage from site receiving treatment, quality of water supply

Existence of organised regional plan for tourist destination re g i o n

Number of rare & endangered species

Level of satisfaction expressed by visitors (through questionnaire s )

Level of satisfaction by local (through questionnaire s )

P ro p o rtion of total economic activity generated by tourism only

Composite early warning measure of key factors affecting the ability ofthe site to support diff e rent levels of tourism

Composite measure of levels of impact on the site (its natural and culturalattributes due to tourism and other sector cumulative stre s s e s

Qualitative measure of those site attributes that make it attractive totourism and can change over time

Table 3.2Core WTO Indicators of sustainable tourism

Figure 3.2Sample framework for implementing sustainable tourism

Define ST goals • socio-cultural, economic, environmental objectives

Establish appropriate planning & management framework • include spatial, temporal & political parameterstake into account broader inter-sectoral context • identify appropriate tourism context: eg SMT or DAT

Select appropriate & feasible indicators from a candidate list • add idiosyncratic indicators if warr a n t e destablish measurement criteria • identify appropriate benchmarks & thre s h o l d s

M e a s u re & monitor the indicators at pre - d e t e rmined intervals or on a continuous basis p rocess of environmental auditing - Goodall 1992

Periodically analyse & assess indicator perf o rm a n c e

D e t e rmine whether goals are being achieved

Implement remedial actions where necessary • May re q u i re re-assessment of ST goals

In theory, Figure 4.2 provides a logical and effectiveprocess for implementing ST. From a practicalperspective, however, serious obstacles are likely to

be encountered at each stage, as discussed below.(Some of the discussion in each of these stages may beapplicable as well to other stages, as some of the stagescan overlap). The scale of a destination is a majorfactor, among others, that will qualify this discussion,since small destinations (ie small towns) are subject toa very different set of constraints and opportunities thancountry-level destinations.

Defining the goals of ST

The knowledge-based platform claims that tourism isnow being approached with a greater sense of

objectivity (which, among other things, recognises thatlarge-scale tourism can be appropriate, and small-scaletourism can be inappropriate). However, proponents ofthe cautionary and advocacy platforms continue inpractice to exercise a great deal of influence in definingthe basic goals of ST-oriented tourism policies.Tourism stakeholders influenced by the greenmovement, for example, advocate an interpretation ofST that adheres to the biocentric norms of the resource

preservationists, and, less commonly, the eco-spirituality platform of the deep ecologists. Conversely,a ‘business as usual’ approach characterises manybusinesses that adhere to the anthropocentricperspective of the laissez-faire capitalists and moreconservative resource conservationists (see Figure 2.2).The clarification of goals, therefore, continues to beimpeded due to a lack of common ground, because therespective groups persistently advocate often mutuallyexclusive points of view.

Even where these polarities are not explicit, thereremains the problem of conflicting priorities among adiverse range of stakeholders. Fundamentally, theindustry is still motivated by profit, the tourist by thedesire to obtain a satisfying tourism experience, and thecommunity by its own conflicting desire to achieve bothrevenue maximisation and minimisation of socio-cultural impacts (McKercher 1993a). Clearly,exceptionally skilled management will be required tosimultaneously accommodate all of these goals underthe rubric of sustainability, assuming that suchaccommodation is possible.

In articulating ST-based strategies, these ideological andpriority fault lines are commonly manifested in several


25

chapter four

Problems and issues insustainable tourism

ways. Perhaps most prevalent is the disagreement overthe extent to which sustainability should be primarilyproduct-led or market-led. The former view, as seen insection 3.6, places the priority broadly on the wellbeing ofthe community and environment, while the latter stressesthat tourism itself must be sustainable (arguing that aviable tourism sector facilitates sustainability in the otherspheres). For the product-led advocates, this appears tocondone a laissez-faire approach. Other goal-relatedproblems concern the spatial boundaries that are relevantto sustainability. The industry, commonly, in tandem withits emphasis on individual initiative, tends to emphasisethe economic sustainability of individual businesses as adesirable goal, under the assumption that the cumulativeeconomic sustainability of all such enterprises istantamount to the sustainability of the entire destination.Conversely, advocates of a more holistic ‘ecosystems’approach, who perceive the earth as a singleinterdependent system, argue for the goal of globalsustainability (in an environmental, social and economicsense). This ‘extra-parochial’ perspective (Hunter 1995)recognises the impacts of local tourism development on abroader array of resources. For example, visitors mayconsume an enormous quantity of fossil fuels in theprocess of travelling to the destination - if the destinationdoes not adopt measures to reduce or compensate for thisconsumption, then it cannot claim to be coherent with theprinciples of global sustainability, according to this view.Market-led advocates, however, dismiss this view asidealistic, unrealistic, and a potential impediment to thesustainability of tourism itself.

Inevitably, the goals of STwill also relate to the broaderobjectives of SD in general. Possible arenas of debate thatextend the ideological divide could include the relativeweight of the individual over the community as a whole(ie the goal of sustaining the happiness and prosperity ofpersons, as opposed to sustaining the welfare of the entirecommunity as a single entity), and the relative importanceof material versus spiritual or perceptual wellbeing. Also,there may be disagreement as to whether a goal shouldsupport steady-state sustainability, or the sustainability ofa particular rate of growth (eg support for an inflation-adjusted GDP of $10,000 per capita, versus support for asteady 3% inflation-adjusted growth in that per capitaGDP). In essence, these questions address the issue ofwhat should be sustained.

It is highly likely that desired ST goals will beestablished only after a process of prolonged and probablyacrimonious debate among a diverse array of stakeholders,and that in the aftermath some will remain activelyopposed to those objectives, and to the subsequent processof implementation. If a consensus is attained, this willprobably indicate a set of goals so nebulous and/or so all-encompassing as to be essentially meaningless andimpossible to implement. In other words, specific and

attainable goals are more likely to engender opposition,while goals that minimise opposition are likely to bevague and unattainable. The challenge for destinations isto find a viable compromise between specificity andconsensus that at least moves the destination away fromoutcomes that are clearly unsustainable.

Establishing an appropriate planning andmanagement framework

Assuming that the question of initial goal articulationcan be resolved, the next stage involves the

establishment of a planning and management frameworkthat allows these goals to be pursued in an efficient andeffective manner. The definition of appropriate temporal,spatial and political parameters must be considered as afundamental part of this process.

Temporal parameters

ST generally implies a long-term perspective whereinthe needs of future generations are taken into account

in the present day decision-making process. In theory, thisis widely recognised as a laudable outcome, although it isnot clear just how many generations from the presentshould be taken into consideration. One evaluatedapproach holds that each action should be considered inlight of its consequences upon an indeterminate future.An alternative approach posits a more limitedresponsibility of the present generation to ‘pass the baton’to the subsequent generation, which then assumesresponsibility for the process.

Both views, however, are ‘academic’ in the sense thatplanning and management processes are dependent uponfinite funding arrangements that seldom allow for morethan a one year window of accommodation, withrenewability contingent upon favourable politicaloutcomes (Pigram 1990). Furthermore, thesearrangements are highly vulnerable to uncertainty as aresult of political transitions (eg the replacement of a‘ g r e e n ’ government by a right-wing government),changing priorities, and changing financial circumstances.In other words, the temporal parameters that are required toimplement ST in a meaningful way are not often inconformity with political or economic realities, whichdefine a more narrow time frame (see also Section 5.4).Destinations, therefore, must seek a compromise betweenpolitical and financial expediency on one hand, andgenuine attention to the long-term perspective on the other.

Spatial parameters

Similar concerns pertain to the question of spatialboundaries; that is, whether sustainability should be

engaged within very specific spatial parameters, or

26


whether a broad horizon approach is necessary toaccommodate all pertinent influences and effects. A swith time, the ideal situation would involve the latter, butpolitical and financial realities intervene here as well todictate the former as the most practical approach. Yet, thea rgument for Hunter’s ‘extra-parochial’approach with itsemphasis on geographical equity and inter- d e s t i n a t i o nplanning is compelling, and should be accommodated asfar as possible. This is due to the fact that decisionsconducive to sustainability in one location may lead tounsustainability in another location (Christensen 1995;Manning & Dougherty 1995) (see Section 5.4). If thenegatively affected location is beyond the planning

jurisdiction of the former, then those planners may not beconcerned about these extra-jurisdictional consequences,as long as their own management unit meets particularsustainability goals. A hypothetical example of adjacentimpact could involve the decision by a walled city inEurope to prohibit the entry of private vehicles, therebyforcing an adjacent municipality to contend with a larg enumber of visitors in search of parking facilities. A nexample of where the impact has been felt farther afieldis the decision by town managers in the ski resort ofAspen, Colorado, to introduce stringent developmentcontrols, which effectively shifted the focus ofrecreational development to hitherto unaffected down-

valley communities (Gill &Williams 1994). Even greaterdisparities of spatial causeand effect are apparent in theostensibly positive decisionof a destination to adopt‘ c l e a n ’e n e rgy sources such asnatural gas, which couldincrease the environmentalstress at the faraway sitewhere the resource is actuallybeing extracted.

These examples of (usuallyuncompensated) tourism-related stress displacementreveal the interdependence of destinations across an arrayof sca les . Thus , when aparticular political jurisdictionembarks on a tour ismplanning process, the zone of potential influence willinvariably extend far beyondthe des t ina t ion i t se l f . Figure 4.1 illustrates thisphenomenon by depicting ahypothetical minor politicaljurisdiction (eg a shire or city)which is designated as aplanning and managementunit for ST implementation.The argument for an inter-destination approach to thelatter task is supported by thefact that the target destinationis wholly or partly nestedwithin, and influenced by, awide variety of additionalfunctional regions. Politicalregions in figure 5.1 arerepresented by a state and aquasi-governmental regional


27

Figure 4.1Spatial parameters for ST: nested and overlapping functional regions

Political functional regionsMunicipalityRegional tourism authorityState

Ecological functional regionsBiomeWatershed

Concentration of tourism

tourism authority (many others would also likely e x i s t ) .Ecological regions are indicated by a watershed and abiome. Examples of cross-effect include the possibilitythat water contaminated by mining activity in the upperreaches of a watershed, beyond the jurisdiction of thedestination, may cause illness among tourists within thedownstream destination. It may also be the case that theregional tourism authority and/or the state advocate a pro-development approach to tourism that is incompatiblewith the more cautious strategy of the destination; whereone might suggest a unsustainable mass tourism outcome,the other supports deliberate alternative tourism.

One aspect of the problem that is often overlooked inthe literature is the dominance of geometric boundariesamong political units. By definition, these areincongruous with natural system boundaries, which arenon-geometric. Apartial solution to this issue, which alsoaddresses some of the inter-destination incompatibilities,is to utilise biophysical criteria such as watersheds ormountain crests to separate tourism planning units. T h i sis especially convenient when these coincide withexisting political boundaries. There is an extensiveliterature on the concept of regional environmentalplanning that takes into consideration these biophysicalc r i t e r i a .

Political parameters

The issue of temporal and spatial parameters is alreadypolitical to the extent that these determine the level of

planning and management unit, the probable time linesover which the procedure can occur, and the options thatare available for carrying out the decision-makingprocess. More broadly, political parameters involve thepower structures and relationships that dictate the extentto which an ST strategy can actually be implemented,enforced, monitored, and so on. Germane concernsinclude the structure of the tourism authority or otherbody that is empowered to carry out the strategy (eg whois represented on the relevant Board, how long do themembers serve, how are decisions arrived at), and thelevels of funding and enforcement that are accorded tothis authority. As well, the ideology of the overallgovernment authority of the destination, the state, andprobably the country is significant in that pro-businessgovernments tend to favour self-regulation and voluntaryadherence to vague guidelines, while left-of-centreauthorities may support mandatory adherence to strictregulations and third party monitoring.

Other factors include the extent to which the variousstakeholders are mobilised through their respective lobbygroups and NGOs, and the nature of the overall legalsystem. Ty p i c a l l y, such political realities are ignored ormerely alluded to in most academic planning proposals,despite the paramount importance of these parameters inassuring that at least some version of the ST f r a m e w o r k

will be made operational. The political context for everydestination is highly idiosyncratic, thereby makinggeneralisation difficult. Relevant issues in the context ofAustralia and New Zealand, for example, are consideredin Hall, Jenkins and Kearsley (1997).

Inter-sectoral context

Just as one particular jurisdiction cannot be divorced orinsulated from surrounding or overlapping functional

regions, neither can the tourism industry be planned ormanaged in isolation from other economic sectors (Eber1992). The tourism literature, and tourism planning ingeneral, is often approached in an isolated manner, as ifthese other resource stakeholders did not exist. Forexample, the often cited triangular relationship betweenhost communities, the tourist industry, and tourists, byLane (1994), as with most conceptualisations of the‘tourism system’, is entirely inward looking. In reality,tourism must compete for resources with forestry,agriculture, manufacturing, mining and other activitieswhich themselves may, ironically, employ the rhetoric ofsustainability to extend their own utilisation of theseresources (McKercher 1993a).

Tourism, in short, cannot be sustainable unless thesecompeting sectors also engage in sustainable practicesthat are complementary to tourism. However, this is ascenario that does not commonly exist, and that is beyondthe effective control of the tourism sector in any case.Furthermore, in attempting to obtain its ‘fair share’of theresource pie, the tourism lobby is confronted by forestry,agriculture and other lobbies that are far moreestablished, better funded, and viewed moresympathetically by most governments as employmentand revenue generators. A less sympathetic view towardtourism is also engendered by the erroneous but persistentv i e w, mentioned above, that tourism is not a directconsumer of these resources.

A confounding issue is the inter-sectoral and oftenamorphous nature of tourism itself, which is defined invarious and sometimes conflicting ways. On one level,tourism is directly associated with certain products such ashotels, theme parks and resorts (although not all patronageis based upon tourists even in these more obvious cases ofaffiliation). However, the presence and influence oftourism may also be indirect or induced, as recognised bythe framework for tourism-related environmental impactsproposed by the Organisation of Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD 1980). Indirect tourismelements could include infrastructure such as a power lineconstructed to service a resort complex. In this instance,there is no immediate or obvious presence of tourism, butclearly the facility would not exist but for some associatedtourism development. Induced effects are even moredivorced from immediate tourism-related activities,involving, for example, the clear-cutting of a forest to

28


make room for housing to accommodate an influx ofmigrants who have been hired by a new resort. Alsorelevant would be a complex array of primary andsecondary industries to the extent that they function asbackward linkages to tourism.

The issue of inter-sectoral context, clearly, hasimportant implications for the planners and managers ofST, who need to gauge the complexity of this sector, andestablish boundaries, or a hierarchy of boundaries, todistinguish various effects according to their degrees ofaffiliation with tourism. The OECD model is a usefuldevice for organising this process, which is extremelydifficult to complete, and does not ensure that the tourismindustry can effect any changes in those sectors to assuresustainable outcomes.

Selecting, measuring and monitoringappropriate indicators

It is extremely unlikely that destinations of any scale willbe able to effectively utilise all of the indicators

depicted in Table 4.1. In the first instance, funding maynot be available to collect the relevant information for allparts of the destination, or even sample locations. Thismay be especially problematic for complex variables, or inlight of the fact that indicators should attempt to considerindirect and induced impacts. Where indicators arealready present, the relevant data may be prohibitivelyexpensive, suppressed due to confidentialityarrangements, difficult to locate, subject to gaps, and/orinconsistent from one jurisdiction to another. In theAustralian context, Lloyd (1996) refers to the lack ofcoordination between state and federal state-of-the-environment reporting. In the same context, 30% of asample of frequent users of SD indicators complained thattheir needs were poorly or very poorly met by availablesources of such information (Hamilton & Attwater 1997).

Because it is not feasible to use all potential indicators,destinations must attempt to select a smaller group ofvariables that will best represent the entire inventory. T h i sis the logic behind Table 4.2, although even in this case,there is no a priori basis for assuming that this particularcore list is optimal, or that the related data can be obtained.Where attempts are made to simplify the process evenfurther by utilising composite variables (as with the threedepicted in Table 4.2), additional problems areencountered. These include the difficulty of determiningthe variables to be included or the appropriate weightingthat should be assigned to each constituent variable.Atkinson & Hamilton (1996) describe the identification ofa definitive environmental stress index as something of aholy grail, and even more so if economic and socio-cultural criteria are also accommodated within this single

value. The problem of weighting extends to non-composite variables, and raises the fundamental and verycomplex question of indicator priority. For example,should habitat deterioration be assigned greater weightwithin the index than the amount of crime directed towardtourists, and if so, what is the rationale for such adecision? In many cases, the decision may be driven bythe simple fact that the habitat deterioration database ismore accurate and more comprehensive.

Once a set of indicators is selected, measurementcriteria must be decided upon that strike a balancebetween availability, cost, comparability with othercriteria, and most obviously, effectiveness in revealingwhether the value actually measures sustainability. Thesemeasures must also allow for the identification ofbenchmark values against which sustainability can bemonitored. This, however, generates further problems.For example, the most convenient benchmark is usuallythe situation that exists in the destination at the beginningof the ST procedure, yet that value may already exceed thedestination’s carrying capacity - to maintain that situationis thus in essence to sustain the already unsustainable. Atthe other extreme, it is not practical to use some ideal pre-settlement criteria (eg an area being 100% natural habitat),since that situation can never be recreated withoutremoving all of the non-indigenous residents.

A related step in this stage is the establishment of‘threshold values’, which show whether carryingcapacities are being exceeded. Since carrying capacitiesvary from destination to destination, and can potentiallybe modified through the implementation of appropriateadaptive measures, all or at least most of these thresholdvalues will be idiosyncratic and changeable. For example,the tolerable ratio of residents to tourists is likely to behigher in a modern urban setting than in a traditional ruralvillage, so that generic thresholds established for theformer will be irrelevant for the latter, unless certainadjustments are made to the village. Similarly, anunpaved hiking trail may have a demonstrated carryingcapacity of 100 hikers per day, but this may increase to1000 per day if the trail were ‘site hardened’by the use ofa pavement cover (though this in turn could negativelyaffect some other element in the area).

An even more fundamental concern, however, is therudimentary level of understanding about carryingc a p a c i t y, which is a contentious concept in theenvironmental and social literature. For virtually allindicators at any given point in time, these carryingcapacities simply are not known. Until such time ascarrying capacities can be established with confidenceacross an array of relevant indicators, destinationmanagers may have to be content with identifyingmovement toward or away from sustainability, withoutreference to particular thresholds. As examples, a


29

decreasing percentage of natural habitat and an increasein levels of resident complaints against the tourism sectorare both situations indicative of increasingu n s u s t a i n a b i l i t y, and should therefore be addressed, eventhough the specific thresholds that indicateunsustainability in each case, and for particulardestinations, are unknown.

Following the selection of indicators and theestablishment of measurement criteria, benchmarks andthresholds (if possible), an effective protocol ofmeasurement and monitoring must be determined.Pertinent issues involve the extent to which these latterprocesses should be spatially and temporally continuousor discrete (though again, what should be done, and whatcan be done within budgetary limitations is usuallyincompatible). ‘Spatially continuous’ data include aerialphotographs and satellite imagery, which encompass anentire landscape. ‘Spatially discrete’ data include themonitoring of water quality at specific sites. An exampleof ‘temporally continuous’ data is the constantmonitoring of temperature, while ‘temporally discrete’data includes the monitoring of resident attitudes on anannual basis. In general, the ideal but unrealistic scenariois to obtain spatially and temporally continuous data forall indicators. Since discrete data will therefore be usedin most cases, recording intervals need to be establishedthat effectively capture processes that relate tos u s t a i n a b i l i t y. If, for instance, visitation levels arereported only on a monthly basis to gauge seasonality,

significant weekend-weekday or day-night variationsmay be missed.

F i n a l l y, it is important that the monitoring process iscarried out over a long-term or longitudinal basis, andthat changes in the measurement or criteria are avoided orat least minimised, so that the recorded trends accuratelyrepresent the actual processes being measured.According to Lloyd (1996), Australian state-of-the-environment reporting is currently characterised by anabsence of methods that facilitate the long-termmonitoring of trends, an assertion that probably pertainseven more so to the tourism sector. In addition, Ding andPigram (1995) contend that environmental auditing intourism is often restricted to individual projects ratherthan cumulative, and tends to be applied to new projectsrather than those already in existence. As mentionede a r l i e r, long-term monitoring is also impeded by politicalrealities that confine the planning process into a relativelyshort-term framework.

Assessing indicator per f o rmance &d e t e rmining achievement of goals

Id e a l l y, as with the monitoring procedure, comprehensiveanalysis and assessment should be carried out

c o n t i n u o u s l y. However, given the array and complexity ofvariables that must be considered simultaneously, periodic

assessment is far more practical.A c c o r d i n g l y, an appropriate intervalhas to be determined. In state-of-the-environment reporting, a one or twoyear time frame is commonly acceptedas a compromise between the currencyof the knowledge base and budgetaryr e s t r i c t i o n s .

The assessment procedure itself willinevitably be impeded by the problemsraised in the previous sub-sections,such as the ability to diff e r e n t i a t etourism-related impacts to those thatare related to other sectors, politicalfactors, the uncertainty andindividuality associated with carryingcapacity thresholds, and the like. Morecan also be said in this context aboutwhat Pigram describes as the ‘spatialand temporal discontinuities betweencause and eff e c t ’ (1990:3). The spatialaspects of this phenomenon have beenraised earlier (see Section 5.2),wherein, for example, a rural area

30


Figure 4.2Spatial and temporal planning Frameworks and discontinuities between cause and effect

Cause Effect

Spatial framework

Temporal framework

ST Planning Unit

Cause Effect

Cause Effect

eg 1990 eg 2010

Planning time frame

Cause Effect

experiences increased development because of restrictivelegislation introduced in an up-valley resort. Te m p o r a ldiscontinuities, which will probably accompany the lattersituation, are even more elusive, since the effects of anaction may not be discernible until long after the actionitself has been completed (eg tourist-induced habitatdeterioration leading to reduced biodiversity). T h eproblem with the specific temporal and spatialparameters established by planners and managers forpurposes of indicator monitoring is that these ‘artificialb o x e s ’ do not provide a broad enough context to identifyactual cause-and-effect relationships, many or most ofwhich cross the boundaries of the box (see Figure 5.2).

Even if the planning framework does embrace theserelationships, problems can be encountered in makingthe connection between cause and effect. For example,some levels of stress are almost imperceptible, yeteventually reach a threshold level where catastrophic andcompletely unanticipated consequences are induced(Buckley 1992; Manning & Dougherty 1995).Avalanches, and red tides, which periodically plaguecertain coastal waters, are illustrations of this process, asis a situation where an apparently well adjusted residentreaches their breaking point and attacks a tourist. In suchcases, carrying capacities may be identifiedr e t r o s p e c t i v e l y, but only after the damage has alreadybeen done. At a deeper level, the classic scientificassumptions of the Cartesian-Newtonian model, whichperceive the world as a great machine open to dissectionand prediction, may not adequately account for suchphenomena as the red tide. More appropriate by itself oras an augmentative framework may be an alternativeparadigm such as chaos-complexity, which betteraccommodates uncertainty, complexity, and relatedprocesses (Faulkner & Russell 1997).

While the assessment procedure may allow useful(though always tentative) conclusions to be made aboutthe apparent sustainability of individual indicators, thedetermination of sustainable outcomes at a more generallevel is far more difficult, even when there is agreementas to the definition of SD or ST. This is, in part, due tothe difficulties in deriving a single index of sustainabilitythat spans the environmental, economic, socio-culturalspheres, while incorporating both the product-led andmarket-led perspectives. A l t e r n a t i v e l y, a conditionaldecision may be made that assigns differential weightsand priorities to individual or agglomerate indicators,concluding for example that the destination issustainable on the basis of healthy environmentalindicators, even though the socio-cultural situation maybe unsustainable. If the welfare of the former dependsupon radical changes in the latter, then the issue ofpriorities becomes even more important, as both thencannot be sustainable at the same time.

Implementing remedial action

Even if a reasonable determination could be made as tothe attainment of set ST goals, the actual process of

implementing change in the indicators can be a dauntingtask, due to the fundamentally socio-political nature ofthe process (Berry & Ladkin 1997; Pigram 1990). A sdiscussed above, political factors operate at all levels ofthe process, but probably nowhere so vigorously as whenthe attempt is made to effect the changes that are deemednecessary to achieve sustainability. McKercher (1993b)states that implementation ideally should be based on theideals of perfect knowledge, a desire by all participants tocompromise, the belief that solutions do exist, and theabsence of undue political influence, but in reality isa ffected by the realities of political machination, mutualdistrust and suspicion (eg within and betweendestinations), entrenched and dogmatic attitudes, left-right ideological alignments, a very crude data base, andinfluence that is dictated by access to resources.

In light of the obstacles cited in this section, it is fair toask whether the effort to attain ST is worthwhile. T h ea rgument in favour of the effort is based on severalc o n s i d e r a t i o n s :• First, if no effort at all is made, then unsustainable

outcomes are virtually guaranteed. A serious attempt to pursue ST will at least reduce the probability of such an outcome, and will at very least generate knowledge that will help destinations to understand the dynamics of the sector and hopefully contribute to the sustainability of at least some aspects of the s e c t o r.

• Second, while it is obvious that indicators should be as indicative as possible of sustainability, some researchers (eg Clarke & Wilson 1994; Maclaren 1996) argue that associated expectations must be tempered by a consideration of the term’s literal meaning of being an indication, rather than an absolute confirmation, of this state.

• Third, it must be borne in mind that the explicit sustainability debate in tourism is still incipient, having been engaged only in the past ten years. An enormous amount of tourism-related knowledge has been generated during that period, and each year produces an increasing volume of new information that will help destinations to effectively implement the procedure described in this section. Not least among these achievements is the emergence of prototypes across all elements of the tourism sector (eg destinations, accommodations, tour guides, travel agencies, attractions) that apparently demonstrate the feasibility and applicability of sustainable practices. An overview of such evident progress toward ST is provided in the following section.■


31

Let it be said at the outset that there are noexamples of tourism anywhere in the world thatcan be described as sustainable in any absolutely

definitive way, given the problems cited in the previoussection. However, there are an increasing number ofdestinations that appear to be sustainable. T h efollowing sub-sections consider, in a general way,various sections of the tourism sector that fall into thelatter category. It is not within the mandate of thisreport to provide the sort of comprehensive review thatis possible in light of the research that has actually beenconducted into each of the venues described below. Itshould be noted at the outset that any conception ofsustainability related to restorative or enhancive ST wasvirtually absent in the literature, despite the desirabilityof these forms of ST over the steady state variety interms of outcome.

Protected areas

Protected areas, by definition, are subject toregulations that minimise to a greater or lesser extentactivities that threaten the area’s environmental carryingc a p a c i t y. The IUCN classification scheme, whichranges from strict levels of protection to those thatnominally restrict the level of human intervention that istolerable, is a useful framework for gauging the strengthof these regulations (World Resources Institute 1998).

The relationship between protected areas and tourismhas experienced an interesting evolution over the pasthalf century. Initially, tourism in many cases was anegligible or non-existent factor in their establishment(as, for example, in Costa Rica - Weaver 1998). It isnot surprising therefore that tourism resulted inunsustainable outcomes when visitation levels beganto increase, since the parks were not designed ormanaged to accommodate anything more than anominal intake.

However, as the parks simultaneously experiencedincreased pressure from resource users (eg agriculture,forestry, mining) and increased demand from tourism, itis the latter that has emerged, at least potentially, as oneof the most compatible means of generating incomefrom the parks without destroying their natural resourcebase. The view is now widely, though not universallyaccepted that tourism is essential for providing aneconomic incentive to rationalise the continuedexistence of protected areas in the face of increasedresource scarcity and rampant population growth(Ceballos-Lascurain 1996; Eber 1992). Accordingly, anconsiderable amount of research and commentary hasbeen provided to consider the actual impacts of tourismupon protected areas, and to propose methods foraccommodating visitor intakes in a sustainable way (egBoo 1990, 1992; Duff 1993; Goriup 1991). Much ofthis output, however, cannot be described as scientific.

32


chapter five

Indications of sustainability

A prevalent theme in this literature that should bementioned because of its relevance to the issue ofsustainability is zonation. The principle of zonation holdsthat different environments within and around a protectedarea should be designated to accommodate varyingdegrees of tourism and, possibly, other forms of humanintervention. Common options include the following:

• ‘core zones’ where human activity is prohibited a l t o g e t h e r

• ‘restricted zones’ where only non-mechanised, ‘ h a r d ’ ecotourism is allowed

• ‘high intensity zones’ where services, accommodations and interpretation facilities are clustered to cater primarily for the ‘soft’ ecotourism m a r k e t

• ‘ b u ffer zones’beyond the actual protected area where local communities undertake regulated, sustainable activities (Figure 5.1).

Applied increasingly to protected areas, this principlehas appeal in its ability to accommodate diversesustainability perspectives. In most cases, the highintensity zone is restricted to less than one per cent of thepark, but accommodates perhaps 99% of all visitors.Such a concentration creates a site-based economy ofscale that justifies the construction of sophisticatedsewage treatment facilities and other services inside thepark that allow for the sustainable accommodation ofhigh visitor numbers who desire access to these servicesand to a highly mediated interaction with the naturalenvironment. Concurrently, these visitors generate therevenue that allows the other 99% of the park to bemanaged as an effectively undisturbed area.

Small islands

As with protected areas, in recent yearsthere has been considerable interest

generated in the development of tourism onsmall islands (eg Briguglio et al 1996;Conlin & Baum 1995; Lockhart & Drakakis-Smith 1997). Unlike protected areas,h o w e v e r, this interest is associated with thedegree to which islands have beenimplicated in the diffusion of the globalpleasure periphery and its associated 3Stourism product (see Section 3.0). Giventhat islands are increasing in popularity astourist destinations, and that small islandsare particularly vulnerable to tourism-relatedstress due to their small size, lack ofalternative economic options, high rates ofendemism, and relatively high endowmentof sensitive coastal and marine

environments (eg dunes, mangroves, estuaries, coralreefs) (de Albuquerque & McElroy 1995), the issue ofsustainability has been especially compelling in thisc o n t e x t .

Interest in the application of ST principles has recentlybeen apparent at all levels of tourism developmenti n t e n s i t y. Examples of where deliberate alternativetourism-oriented strategies are apparent in low-intensitysituations include Dominica (Weaver 1991), Montserratbefore the eruption of its dormant volcano (We a v e r1995), and Samoa (Va n ’t Stot 1996). Higher intensitysituations include the Maldives (Manning & Dougherty1995) and Jersey (Cooper, 1995), which, along withDominica, have been designated as the first Green Globedestinations (see Section 6.4). Also notable because of itsextremely high levels of associated development is Bali,where elements of the Bali Sustainable DevelopmentProject results have been incorporated into the off i c i a ldevelopment plan (Mowforth & Munt, 1998).

Rural and indigenous ar e a s

The apparently sustainable nature of much ruraltourism activity is attributable to the more incipient levelsof tourism development in such venues, the small size ofrelated enterprises, and the tendency of these to be ownedby local residents (Lane 1994). Hence, an emerg i n gspecialised field within tourism studies now focuses uponthe relationship between sustainability and rural tourism(eg Butler, Hall & Jenkins, 1998; Lane 1994). T h evacation farm sector, along with ‘bed & breakfasts’, isfrequently touted as an exemplar of sustainability, givenits integration with the local community and theimportance of ecotourism-related activities among their


33

Buffer zone

Restricted zone

Core zone

High intensity zone

Corridor

Figure 5.1Hypothetical zonation in a protected area

clients (Fennell & Weaver 1997; Moscardo, Morrison &Pearce, 1996). Allegedly sustainable examples ofAustralian rural ecotourism-related enterprises aredescribed by Harris and Leiper (1995). Regional STstrategies which focus upon a mainly rural environmentinclude the Sustainable Tourism Strategy for BerwickBorough Council, in northern England (Lane 1994).More comprehensive, and touted as a prototype forsimilar initiatives, is The Tourism Protocol of the A l p sConvention. Still under negotiation as of 1997, theprotocol is the first instances of an internationalgeophysical region being treated as a single entity forsustainable tourism planning purposes (German FederalAgency for Nature Conservation 1997).

A distinctive tourism component that overlaps withprotected areas, wilderness and more settled rural areas is‘indigenous tourism’. The contention that theinvolvement of Aboriginal people in the tourism sector islikely to follow a sustainable path is associated with thecontention that the traditional lifestyle of such people isitself inherently sustainable. The growing interest ofindigenous people in tourism is associated with severalfactors, including:

• the need to attain a higher level of economic self-s u fficiency in these areas

• the trend toward greater assertion of Aboriginal rights and control over their own territory

• the location of such territories in relatively natural locations or close to protected areas

• the popularity of Aboriginal culture in the broader tourist market (Hall & Johnston 1995).

Aboriginal groups who have embarked upon asignificant level of tourism activity include the Maasai ofKenya, the Haida of British Columbia, the Inuit ofnorthern Canada and Alaska, the Saami of northernScandinavia, the Maori of New Zealand, the ‘Hill Tr i b e s ’of northern Thailand, the Navajo of the south-westernUSA, the Aborigines of Australia, and the Mayan peoplesof Central America. All emphasise the need forsustainable outcomes, though the actual impacts are ofcourse variable, given the diversity of the indigenousgroups that are involved with tourism.

Mass tourism

Within the tourism literature, citations ofsustainability are very clearly biased toward rural

areas. The fact that all examples in Harris and Leiper(1995) are located in rural areas, for example, can meaneither that the editors found no sustainable tourismenterprises in urban Australia, or that they did not botherto extend their investigations beyond rural Australia. Thisbias extends into the arena of international aid, wherein

co-operative international development initiatives in STare almost always associated with rural, small-scaleprojects (German Federal Agency for NatureConservation 1997). To some extent, such skewing can beexplained as a residual effect of the cautionary-adaptancyplatform and its preference for alternative tourism.Extending the logic that ‘small is better’, large urban areasmay be dismissed as already being unsustainable and thusinappropriate for the injection of aid monies.

The neglect of large-scale tourism among certainstakeholders is unwarranted, if for no other reason thenthat higher intensity tourism by definition encompasses byfar the largest share of international and domestic tourismactivity. The global tourism sector, therefore, will neverbe sustainable if efforts focus only on the non-urban,small-scale context. Furthermore, as argued by Hunter(1997) and the knowledge-based platform in general, thereis no reason as to why urban or large-scale phenomenashould be dismissed as inherently unsustainable, eventhough the level of development is more intensive than therural context. Finally, many of the most demonstrableexamples of ST implementation are actually found inlarge-scale, urban tourism, and there is a logical basis forarguing that such enterprises are far better equipped tooperationalise certain elements of the ST ideal than theirmore diminutive counterparts (see below).

Because of the complexity of large urban resortagglomerations, there are very few examples of STimplementation efforts at this scale, one notableexception being a comprehensive study of theLanguedoc-Roussillon region of the FrenchMediterranean (Klemm 1992). In stark contrast,h o w e v e r, are the numerous examples of sustainabilityinitiatives at the scale of individual businesses, businesso rganisations, and individual sub-sectors of the tourismi n d u s t r y. Corporations such as British Airways (Goodall1992, 1995; Hawkes & Williams 1993) and CanadianPacific Hotels and Resorts (D’Amore 1992) havedemonstrated leadership by making significant progresstoward sustainability in certain aspects of theiroperations, such as recycling, reduced resourceconsumption, and effective environmental auditingprocedures (Dymond 1997). As a sub-sector, the airlineindustry consumed about 40-50% less fuel per tonnekilometre in the mid-1990s as compared with 1972 (Cater1995). For the industry as a whole, the Green Globeinitiative of the WTTC (World Travel and To u r i s mCouncil) is expanding rapidly and gaining credibilitythrough the introduction of ISO14000 standards and thirdparty monitoring procedures which determine whether am e m b e r’s accreditation is retained. Codes of Conduct arealso becoming normative, although these are oftencriticised because of their vagueness and predicationupon principles of self-regulation and voluntarycompliance. Well-known codes include:

34


• Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Sustainable To u r i s m: Tourism Industry Association of Canada (D’Amore 1992)

• Code of Sustainable Practice: Tourism Council Australia (TCA 1998)

• Environmental Codes of Conduct for Tourism: United Nations Environment Program

• Sustainable Tourism Principles: WWF and Tourism Concern

• Code for Environmentally Responsible To u r i s m: PATA

The PATAcode, which is representative of the tenor andcontent of such manifestos, is provided in Figure 5.2.Forsyth (1995) usefully summarises corporate STpractices by suggesting that these fall into four categories,including:

• cost-cutting measures (eg recycling)• value-adding measures (eg on-flight

educational videos)• long-term investment (staff training)• legislation (lobbying of government)


35

The Pacific Asia Tourism Association code urges association and chapter members and their industry partners to:

• ADOPT the necessary practices to conserve the environment, including the use of renewable re s o u rces in a sustainable manner and the conservation of non-renewable re s o u rc e s ;

• C O N T R I B U T E to the conservation of any habitat of flora and fauna, and of any site whether natural or cultural, which may be affected by tourism;

• ENCOURAGE relevant authorities to identify areas worthy of conservation and to determine the level of development, if any, which would ensure those areas are conserv e d ;

• ENSURE that community attitudes, cultural values and concerns, including local customs and beliefs, are taken into account in the planning of all tourism related pro j e c t s ;

• ENSURE that environmental assessment becomes an integral step in the consideration of any site for a tourism pro j e c t ;

• C O M P LY with all international conventions in relation to the enviro n m e n t ;• C O M P LY with all national, state and local laws in relation to the enviro n m e n t ;• ENCOURAGE those involved in tourism to comply with local, regional and national planning policies and

to participate in the planning pro c e s s ;• PROVIDE the opportunity for the wider community to take part in discussions and consultations on tourism

planning issues insofar as they affect the tourism industry and the community;• ACKNOWLEDGE responsibility for the environmental impacts of all tourism related projects and activities

and undertake all necessary responsible, remedial and corrective actions;

• ENCOURAGE regular environmental audits of practices throughout the tourism industry and to encourage n e c e s s a ry changes to those practices;

• FOSTER e n v i ronmentally responsible practices including waste management, recycling, and energy use;• FOSTER in both management and staff, of all tourism related projects and activities, an awareness of

e n v i ronmental and conservation principles;

• S U P P O RT the inclusion of professional conservation principles in tourism education, training and planning;• ENCOURAGE an understanding by all those involved in tourism of each community’s customs, cultural

values, beliefs and traditions and how they related to the enviro n m e n t ;• ENHANCE the appreciation and understanding by tourists of the environment through the provision of

accurate information and appropriate interpretation; and

• E S TABLISH detailed environmental policies and/or guidelines for the various sectors of the tourism industry.

Figure 5.2Pacific Asia Tourism Association (PATA) code for environmentally responsible tourism

There is, to be sure, noshortage of critics whodismiss such developmentsas strictly profit-motivated,or worse, as a sinister andcosmetic attempt to disguisefundamentally unsustainablepractices in othercomponents of theiroperation. Some businessesprobably are guilty of thelatter, but to accuse the entireindustry is both unfair andirrational.

L a rge corporations insome important respects arebetter positioned than smallenterprises to becomesustainable because of theirinternal economies of scale,which, for example, mightallow for the ‘in-house’allocation of positions andresources to conductenvironmental audits andeducation programmes. Aswell, the volume of resourceconsumption and wastegeneration is more likely tobe large enough to makerecycling profitable.Structures of vertical andhorizontal integration alsoallow a firm to implement and control for sustainabilityacross an array of linked backward and forward processes.Large firms have the marketing and communication skillsto foster consumer interest in sustainability, and to exertpressure on external suppliers to conform to theappropriate norms and standards. Finally, larg e rcorporations are better positioned to stand up against otherresource competitors in the lobbying process, eitherindividually or in an association context such as WTTC(Clarke 1997; Goodall 1992). In contrast, smallbusinesses usually lack the economies of scale, resources,political clout, sector mobilisation, and knowledge tocarry out significant environmental reforms and lobbyingefforts (Leiper 1995).

A synopsis of mass tourism and alternative tourism sustainability

Figure 5.3 is an attempt to generalise the contemporaryadherence of mass tourism and alternative tourism to theprinciples of sustainability, based upon a comprehensive

review and summation of the pertinent literature. T h i smodel suggests that most of the mass tourism industry isstill fundamentally unsustainable, but that rapid progressis being made toward the attainment of ST, which nowapplies to a substantial portion of that sector. T h i sprobably represents the most significant single trend inthe contemporary global tourism industry. In contrast,the inherent characteristics of the much smalleralternative tourism sector account for the tendency ofmost of this sector to conform to STprinciples. However,in concert with the knowledge-based platform, alternativetourism also has an unsustainable component, aspects ofwhich have been depicted above in Figure 3.2. T h edouble-headed arrow connecting the mass tourism andalternative tourism circles represents the apparentc o n v e rgence that is occurring between the two sectors.According to Clarke (1997), small-scale firms areadopting strategies normally associated with larg e - s c a l etourism, such as integrated environmental managementstrategies, while large firms are adopting policies usuallya ffiliated with small firms, such as paying attention tolocal participation and culture, and embarking uponcustomer education programs.■

36


SUSTAINABLE

Mass tourism

Alternative tourism

UNSUSTAINABLE

Figure 5.3Mass tourism, alternative tourism and sustainability

Source: Adopted from Weaver 1998

This report contributes to the knowledge base ofsustainable tourism by reviewing the relevantsecondary literature and providing original

contributions that synthesise and extend this material.An initial review of the sustainable developmentconcept included a consideration of its precedents andits relationship to the Brundtland Report. The idea thatSD can be either steady state or restorative/enhancivewas raised, as was the ideological context of itsinterpretation. While views of the latter tend to fall intoeither an anthropocentric or biocentric paradigm, it isargued that room for compromise (and hence goalconsensus and potential SD attainment) exists in theinterface between the moderate anthropocentrics (ieresource conservationists) and the moderate biocentrics(ie resource preservationists). The emergence of STwas discussed in relation to four platforms or paradigmswhich have successively dominated and framed thedevelopment of the tourism literature, and a broadcontext model is proposed that depicts four idealtourism types that have emerged in association withthese platforms. A critical characteristic of the currentlyprevalent knowledge-based platform is that tourism atany scale can be potentially sustainable orunsustainable. The Gold Coast of Australia is used asan example of the applicability of the broad context

model. This report also examined ST i n d i c a t o r s ,proposing an inventory of candidate indicators and aframework within which these indicators can be utilisedto implement ST. It is apparent, however, thatimplementation is subject to a variety of problems at allstages of the procedure. These include the definition ofgoals, the establishment of temporal and spatialparameters for the planning and management process,political realities, and the existence of competingresource users from other sectors. Additional obstaclesare encountered in the selection, measurement,monitoring, analysis and assessment of the indicators,in the evaluation of goal achievement, and in attemptsto implement policies that will contribute to therealisation of ST. Indications of ST are apparent in anumber of discrete contexts, including protected areas,some small islands, rural areas, and indigenousterritories. The mass tourism industry is also showingincreased indications of sustainability, althoughprimarily at the level of individual corporations. Thereport concluded by suggesting that mass tourismremains largely unsustainable, but that significantprogress is being made toward an ST ideal. Alternativetourism, in contrast, currently tends to be sustainable,although elements of unsustainability are alsoapparent.■


37

conclusions

38


references

Allen, R. (1980). How to save the world. London, UK:Kogan Page.

Atkinson, G., & Hamilton, K. (1996). Accounting forprogress: indicators for sustainable development.Environment, 38 (7), 16-27.

Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainableeconomic development. Environmental Conservation,14(2), 101-110.

Barney, G. O., & U.S. Council on environmental qualityand the Department of State. (1982). The global 2000report to the President: entering the twenty-first century.(Vol. 1). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

B e r r y, S., & Ladkin, A. (1997). Sustainable tourism: aregional perspective. Tourism Management, 18(7), 433-440.

Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls.(Vol. 1). Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.

Boo, E. (1992). The ecotourism boom: Planning fordevelopment and management (WHN Technical Paper2). Washington, D.C.: WWF.

Briguglio, L., Butler, R., Harrison, D., & Filho, W.(Eds.). (1996). Sustainable tourism in small islands &small states. London, UK: Pinter.

Bryden, J. (1973). Tourism and development. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Buckley, R. (1992). Triggers, thresholds & tests for EIA:Policy tools. Environmental Policy & Law, 22(3), 146-149.

Budowski, G. (1976). Tourism and conservation:conflict, coexistence or symbiosis? EnvironmentalConservation, 3(1), 27-31.

Burns, P., & Holden, A. (Eds.). (1995). Tourism: a newperspective. London: Prentice Hall.

Burr, S. W. (1995). Sustainable tourism development and

use: follies, foibles, and practical approaches. In S. F.McCool & A. E. Watson (Eds.), Linking tourism, theenvironment, and sustainability (pp. 8-13). Ogden, UT:US Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceIntermountain Research Station, USDA Technical ReportINT-GTR-323.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycleof evolution: implications for management of resources.Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12.

Butler, R. W. (1990). Alternative tourism: pious hope ortrojan horse? Journal of Travel Research, 28(3), 40-45.

Butler, R. W. (1992). Alternative tourism: the thin edgeof the wedge. In V. L. Smith & W. R. Eadington (Eds.),Tourism alternatives: potentials and problems in thedevelopment of tourism (pp. 31-46). Philadelphia, USA:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Butler, R. W. (1993). Tourism - an evolutionaryperspective. In J. G. Nelson, R. W. Butler, & G. Wall(Eds.), Tourism and sustainable development:monitoring, planning, managing (pp. 27-43). Waterloo,Ontario, Canada: Department of Geography, Universityof Waterloo.

Butler, R. W., Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. (Eds.). (1998).Tourism and recreation in rural areas. Chichester, UK:John Wiley & Sons.

Carson, R. (1963). Silent spring. London: HamishHamilton.

Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the Third World:problems for sustainable tourism development. TourismManagement, 14(2), 85-90.

C a t e r, E. (1995). Environmental contradictions insustainable tourism. Geographical Journal, 161(1), 21-28.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism, andprotected areas: The state of nature-based tourismaround the world and guidelines for its development.Cambridge, UK: IUCN.


39

Christensen, N. A. (1995). Sustainable community-basedtourism and host quality of life. In S. F. McCool & A. E.Watson (Eds.), Linking tourism, the environment, andsustainability (pp. 63-68). Ogden, UT: US Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain ResearchStation, USDA Technical Report INT-GTR-323.

Clarke, G. P., & Wilson, A. G. (1994). Performanceindicators in urban planning: the historical context. In C.Bertuglia, G. P. Clarke, A. G. Wilson (Eds.), Modellingthe city: Performance, policy & planning (pp. 4-19).London: Routledge.

Clarke, J. (1997). A framework of approaches tosustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,5(3), 224-233.

Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of internationaltourism. Sociology of Tourism, 39(1), 164-182.

Cohen, E. (1978). The impact of tourism on the physicalenvironment. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(2), 215-237.

Cohen, E. (1989). Alternative tourism - a critique. In T.V. Singh, H. L. Theuns, & F. M. Go (Eds.), Towardsappropriate tourism: the case of developing countries(pp. 127-142). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

Collins, C. O. (1979). Site and situation strategy intourism planning: a Mexican case study. Annals ofTourism Research, 6(3), 251-366.

Conlin, M. V., & Baum, T. (Eds.). (1995). Islandtourism: management principles and practice.Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Consulting and Audit Canada. (1995). What tourismmanagers need to know: a practical guide to thedevelopment and use of indicators of sustainabletourism. (Project No. 570-0872). Ottawa, Canada:Consulting and Audit Canada.

Coomer, J. (1979). Quest for a sustainable society.Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Cooper, C. (1995). Strategic planning for sustainabletourism: the case of the offshore islands of the U.K.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(4), 191-209.

D’Amore, L. J. (1992). Promoting sustainable tourism -the Canadian approach. Tourism Management, 13(3),258-262.

de Albuquerque, K., & McElroy, J. L. (1995). A l t e r n a t i v etourism and sustainability. In M. V. Conlin & T. Baum(Eds.), Island tourism: management principles andp r a c t i c e (pp. 23-32). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Dernoi, L. A. (1981). Alternative tourism: towards a newstyle in North-South relations. Tourism Management, 2,253-264.

Devall, B., & Sessions, G. (1985). Deep ecology. Layton,UT: Gibbs Smith.

Ding, P., & Pigram, J. J. (1995). Environmental audits:an emerging concept in sustainable tourism development.Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(2), 2-10.

D o x y, G. (1975). Acausation theory of visitor- r e s i d e n tirritants: methodology and research inferences (pp.195-198). In The Impact of Tourism: Sixth Annual Confere n c eP ro c e e d i n g s . San Diego: Travel Research A s s o c i a t i o n .

Duff, L. (1993). Ecotourism in national parks: Impactsand benefits. National Parks Journal, 37(3), 18-20.

Dymond, S. J. (1997). Indicators of sustainable tourismin New Zealand: a local government perspective. Journalof Sustainable Tourism, 5(4), 279-293.

Eber, S. (1992). Beyond the green horizon: principles forsustainable tourism. London, UK: World Wildlife Fundand Tourism Concern.

Ehrlich, P. R. (1972). The population bomb. New York:Ballantine Books.

Elliott, J. A. (1994). An introduction to sustainabledevelopment. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Erisman, H. M. (1983). Tourism and cultural dependency inthe West Indies. Annals of Tourism Researc h, 10, 337-361.

Faulkner, B., & Russell, R. (1997). Chaos andcomplexity in tourism: in search of a new perspective.Pacific Tourism Review, 1(2), 93-102.

Fennell, D. A., & Weaver, D. B. (1997). Vacation farmsand ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal ofRural Studies, 13(4), 467-475.

F i n n e y, B., & Watson, K. (1975). A new kind of sugar:tourism in the Pacific. Honolulu: E a s t - West Centre.

Forsyth, T. (1995). Business attitudes to sustainable

rreferences

40


tourism: self-regulation in the UK outgoing tourismindustry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(4), 210-231.

Frazier, J. G. (1997). Sustainable development: modernelixir or sack dress? Environmental Conservation, 24(2),182-193.

German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Ed.).(1997). Biodiversity and tourism. Heidelberg, Germany:Springer.

Gill, A., & Williams, P. (1994). Managing growth inmountain tourism communities. Tourism Management15, 212-220.

Gonsalves, P. S. (1991). Alternative tourism: a ThirdWorld perspective. Lokoyan Bulletin, 9(2), 23-28.

Goodall, B. (1992). Environmental auditing for tourism.In C. P. Cooper & A. Lockwood (Eds.), Progress inTourism, recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 4,pp. 60-74). London: Belhaven Press.

Goriup, P. (1991). Special issue on ecotourism. Parks, 2.

Hall, C. M. (1995). Introduction to tourism in Australia:Impacts, planning and development. (2nd ed.).Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Hall, C. M., Jenkins, J., & Kearsley, G. (Eds.). (1997).Tourism planning and policy in Australia and NewZealand: Cases, issues and practice. Sydney, Australia:Irwin Publishers.

Hamilton, C., & Attwater, R. (1997). Measuring theenvironment: the availability and use of environmentalstatistics in Australia. Australian Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 4(2), 72-87.

Harris, R., & Leiper, N. (Eds.). (1995). Sustainabletourism: an Australian perspective. Chatswood, N.S.W.:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Harrison, D. (1995). Development of tourism inSwaziland. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 135-156.

Hawkes, S., & Williams, P. (Eds.). (1993). The greeningof tourism from principles to practice: a casebook of bestenvironmental practice in tourism. Burnaby, B.C.,Canada: Centre for Tourism Policy and Research, Schoolof Resource and Environmental Management, SimonFraser University.

H e n r y, W. R. (1980). Patterns of tourist use in Kenya’s

Amboseli National Park: implications for planning andmanagement. In D. Hawkins, E. Shafer, & J. Rovelstad(Eds.), Tourism marketing and management issues ( p p .43-57). Washington, D.C.: George Wa s h i n g t o nU n i v e r s i t y.

Hodge, T., Holtz, S., Smith, C., & Baxter, K. H. (Eds.).(1995). Pathways to sustainability: assessing ourprogress. National round table on the environment andeconomy in Ottawa, Canada

Holden, P. (Ed.). (1984). Alternative tourism: re p o rt onthe workshop on alternative tourism with a focus on A s i a .Bangkok: Ecumenical coalition on Third World tourism.

H u n t e r, C. J. (1995). On the need to re-conceptualisesustainable tourism development. Journal of SustainableTo u r i s m, 3(3), 155-165.

H u n t e r, C. J. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptiveparadigm. Annals of Tourism Researc h, 24(4), 850-867.

Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: an integrated andsustainable development appro a c h. New York, NewYork, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

International Working Group on Indicators. (1993).Indicators for the sustainable management of tourism:re p o rt of the International Working Group on indicatorsof sustainable tourism to the environment committee,World Tourism Org a n i z a t i o n . Winnipeg, Manitoba,Canada: International Institute for SustainableD e v e l o p m e n t .

IUCN, UNEP, & W W F. (1980). World conserv a t i o nstrategy: living re s o u rce conservation for sustainabledevelopment. Gland , Switzerland: IUCN, UNEP, W W F.

Jafari, J. (1989). An English language literature review.In J. Bystrzanowski (Ed.), Tourism as a factor ofchange: a sociocultural study (pp. 17-60). Vi e n n a :Centre for Research and Documentation in SocialS c i e n c e s .

Klemm, M. (1992). Sustainable tourism development:Languedoc-Roussillon thirty years on. To u r i s mM a n a g e m e n t , 13(2), 169-180.

Lane, B. (1994). Sustainable rural tourism strategies: atool for development and conservation. Journal ofSustainable To u r i s m, 2(1&2), 102-111 .

Lanfant, M.-F., & Graburn, H. H. H. (1992). International tourism reconsidered: the principle of the

rreferences


41

alternative. In V. L. Smith & W. R. Eadington (Eds.),Tourism alternative: potentials and problems in thedevelopment of tourism (pp. 88-112). Philadelphia, USA:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Leiper, N. (1995). Tourism management. Melbourne,Australia: TAFE Publications.

Lele, S. (1991). Sustainable development: a criticaldevelopment. World Development, 19, 607-621.

Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac. New York:Oxford University Press.

Lloyd, B. (1996). State of the environment reporting inAustralia: A review. Australian Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 3(3), 150-162.

Lockhart, D., & Drakakis-Smith, D. (Eds.). (1997). I s l a n dtourism: trends and pro s p e c t s. London, UK: Pinter.

Lovelock, J. (1979). Gaia: a new look at life on earth.New York: Oxford University Press.

MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: a new theory of theleisure class. New York, USA: Schocken Books Inc.

Maclaren, V. W. (1996). Urban sustainability reporting.Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2),184-206.

Manning, E. W. (1993). Managing sustainable tourism:indicators for better decisions. In S. Hawkes & P.Williams (Eds.), The greening of tourism fro mprinciples to practice: a casebook of beste n v i ronmental practice in tourism (pp. 97-99).B u r n a b y, B.C., Canada: Centre for Tourism Policy andResearch, School of Resource and EnvironmentalManagement, Simon Fraser University.

Manning, E. W., & Dougherty, T. D. (1995). Sustainabletourism: preserving the golden goose. Cornell Hotel andRestaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 29-42.

Marsh, J. (1993). Questions and comments on tourismand sustainable development workshop. In J. G. Nelson,R. W. Butler, & G. Wall (Eds.), Tourism and sustainabledevelopment: monitoring, planning, managing (pp. 255-258). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Department ofGeography, University of Waterloo.

Matthews, A. (1993). Australia works towards sustainabletourism. Tourism & Travel Review, 1(6), 12-13.

McIntosh, R. W., Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R.(1995). Tourism, principles, practices, philosophies. (7thed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McKercher, B. (1993a). Some fundamental truths abouttourism: understanding tourism’s social andenvironmental impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,1(1), 6-16.

McKercher, B. (1993b). The unrecognized threat totourism: can tourism survive ‘sustainability’? TourismManagement, 14(2), 131-136.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., &Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. NewYork, New York: Signet.

Middleton, V. T. C., & Hawkins, R. (1998). Sustainabletourism: a marketing perspective. Oxford, Boston:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Miller, M. L., & Kaae, B. (1993). Coastal and marineecotourism: a formula for sustainable development?Trends, 30(2), 35-41.

Moscardo, G., Morrison, A. M., & Pearce, P. L. (1996).Specialist accommodation and ecologically-sustainabletourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(1), 29-52.

Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism andsustainability: new tourism in the Third World. London,UK: Routledge.

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: a community approach.New York, New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Murphy, P. E. (1994). Tourism and sustainabledevelopment. In W. F. Theobald (Ed.), Global tourism:the next decade (pp. 274-290). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Nelson, J. G., Butler, R. W., & Wall, G. (Eds.). (1993). Tourism and sustainable development:monitoring, planning, managing. Waterloo, Ontario,Canada: Department of Geography, University ofWa t e r l o o .

OECD. (1980). The impact of tourism on development.Paris: Organisation for economic cooperation anddevelopment.

Padgett, T. (1996, July 1). The battle for the beach.Newsweek, 128, 58.

rreferences

42


Pearce, P. L., Morrison, A. M., & Rutledge, J. L. (1998).Tourism bridges across continents. Sydney, Australia: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Perez, L. A. (1973). Aspects of underdevelopment - tourismin the West Indies. Science & Society, 37, 473-480.

Pigram, J. J. (1990). Sustainable tourism: policyconsiderations. Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(2), 2-9.

Place, S. (1995). Ecotourism for sustainabledevelopment: oxymoron or plausible strategy?GeoJournal, 35(2), 161-173.

Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall inpopularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly,14(4), 55-58.

Romeril, M. (1989). Tourism - the environmentaldimension. In C. P. Cooper (Ed.), Progress in tourism,recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 1, pp. 103-113). London: Belhaven Press.

Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful. London,UK: Blond & Briggs Ltd.

Shivji, I. (1973). Tourism and socialist development. Dares Salaam, Tanzania: Tanzania Publishing House

Smith, S. L. J. (1989). Tourism analysis: a handbook.Essex, England: Longman Scientific & Technical.

Smith, V. L. (Ed.). (1977). Hosts and guests: theanthropology of tourism (1st ed.). Philadelphia, USA:University of Pennsylvania Press.

S t a b l e r, M. J. (Ed.). (1997). Tourism & sustainability:principles to practice. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

TCA (Tourism Council Australia), & Commission, A. T.(1998). Code of sustainable practice 1998. Barton, ACT:National Policy Office, TCA.

Tisdell, C., & Wen, J. (1997). Why care is needed inapplying indicators of the sustainability of tourism.Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 4(1), 1-6.

Turner, L., & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes:international tourism and the pleasure periphery.London: Constable.

Va n ’t Stot, J. (1996). Pacific islands seek ecotourism solutions. Ecotourism Society newsletter, second quarter, 1-3.

Wahab, S., & Pigram, J. J. (Eds.). (1997). To u r i s mdevelopment and growth: the challenge of sustainability.London, UK: Routledge.

WCED (World Commission on Environment andDevelopment). (1987). Our common future . O x f o r d ,UK: Oxford University Press.

We a v e r, D. B. (1991). Alternative to mass tourism inDominica. Annals of Tourism Researc h, 18 (3), 4 1 4 - 4 3 2 .

We a v e r, D. B. (1993). Ecotourism in the small islandCaribbean. GeoJournal, 31(4), 457-465.

We a v e r, D. B. (1995). Alternative tourism in Montserrat.Tourism Management, 16(8), 593-604.

We a v e r, D. B. (1998). Ecotourism in the lessdeveloped Wo r l d . Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CABI n t e r n a t i o n a l .

We a v e r, D.B. (1999). A broad context model ofdestination development scenarios. To u r i s mM a n a g e m e n t, in press.

Western, D. (1982). Amboseli National Park: enlistinglandowners to conserve migratory wildlife. Ambio, 11 ,3 0 2 - 3 0 8 .

Wight, P. (1995). Sustainable ecotourism: balancingeconomic, environmental and social goals within anethical framework. Tourism Recreation Researc h , 2 0 ( 1 ) ,5 - 1 3 .

Willers, B. 1994. Sustainable development: a new worlddeception. C o n s e rvation Biology , 8, 11 4 6 - 11 4 8 .

Williams, P. W. (1994). Frameworks for assessingtourism’s environmental impacts. In J. R. Ritchie, & C.Goeldner (Eds.). Travel, tourism, and hospitalityresearch: a handbook for managers and researchers (pp.425-436). (2nd ed.) Chichester, UK: Wiley.

WTO. (1998). Yearbook of tourism statistics (Vol.1).(50th ed.). Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.

rreferences


43

aauthors

David Weaver

Laura Lawton

D r. David Weaver is a Senior Lecturer in the School oTourism and Hotel Management at the Gold Coast

campus of Griffith University, Queensland, and is director ofthe school’s masters programs in tourism and hotelmanagement. He earned his Ph.D. in the geography oftourism at the University of Western Ontario in 1986. After tenyears of teaching in the Canadian university system, he movedto Australia in 1996. Dr. Weaver has authored or co-authore dover forty re f e reed journal articles and book chapters on adiversity of subjects related to the tourism industry.

His areas of focus include sustainable tourism, tourismmanagement, ecotourism, resort cycle dynamics, tourismon small islands and other peripheral regions, resorttimesharing, linkages between war and tourism, and thegeopolitics of tourism. The geographical scope of hisinvestigations has ranged from the Caribbean and Pacificto the Canadian great plains, southern Africa andAustralia. Dr. Weaver has spoken on numerous occasions

as a conference guest speaker and presenter.

David Weaver is the author of the recently published(1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World, whichrepresents a comprehensive analysis of this emergingtopic area. The book employs a case study approachfocusing upon Costa Rica, Kenya, Nepal and Thailand.D r. Weaver is currently Editor-in-Chief of theEncyclopedia of Ecotourism for CAB International. Dr.Weaver is also co-authoring an introductory universitytext on tourism management.

Dr Dave Weaver, Senior LecturerSchool of Tourism & Hospitality ManagementFaculty of Commerce & ManagementGriffith University Gold CoastPMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre QLD 9726Ph: 07 5594 8591 • Fax: 07 5594 8507Email: [email protected]

M s. Laura Lawton is a PhD Candidate within thSchool of Tourism and Hotel Management at the

Gold Coast campus of Griffith University. She holds anHons. Bachelor of Arts degree (urban planning) and aMaster of Arts degree specialising in the geography oftourism from the University of Western Ontario in Canada.After eight years of employment as a senior researchofficer with Saskatchewan Environment and NaturalResources, she moved from Canada to Australia in 1996.

Laura Lawton has authored or co-authored numero u sgovernment re p o rts and academic journal articles in severalof fields, including state of the environment re p o rt i n g ,p rotected areas management and policy, the A u s t r a l i a n

t i m e s h a re industry, and the cruise ship sector. Her Ph.D.re s e a rch considers resident attitudes toward high pro f i l etourist attractions on the Gold Coast of Australia. She is alsoextensively involved in a variety of re s e a rch projects involvingecotourism, tourism in the hinterland of the Gold Coast,tourist activity space systems, and the timeshare industry.

Ms Laura LawtonSchool of Tourism & Hospitality ManagementFaculty of Commerce & ManagementGriffith University Gold CoastPMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre QLD 9726Ph: 07 5594 8591 • Fax: 07 5594 8507Email: [email protected]

sustainable tourism: a critical analysis · tourism or sustainable mass tourism, implying a shift...

Documents