Tourism and sustainable development
7 Tourism and sustainable development
7.4 The current state of affairs
7.4.2 Principal issues
In reference to the concept of tourismscapes, three central and related issues (though not the only ones) emerge and prevail as an effect of their performances. These sustainability issues are
• The shortage or a total lack of human resources to plan, implement and manage the tourism industry and its monitoring by public authorities;
• The continued and sometimes growing pressure from hotel and estate developers in coastal areas to allow the building of additional accommodation and infrastructure;
• The absence or insufficiency of data and data sources to allow a continuous application of indicators of sustainability in tourism;
• The proliferation of voluntary initiatives and eco labels, and the lack of stringent procedures and standards for any of them, which creates confusion and affects their credibility among consumers;
• The lack of adequate, ad hoc legislation, regulatory norms and compliance mechanisms and, as a consequence, a shortage of supervisory tools at the disposal of tourism public authorities, local authorities and other administrations.
Source: WTO (2002: 13-14; original emphasis)
Chapter 7 Tourism and sustainable development
‘matters of concern’, disputed states of affairs (Latour, 2004: 24), that result from, question and have a bearing on the way tourismscapes are ordered.
In terms of externalities, tourismscapes flow over in the environment; in particular material and symbolic transformations of space, appreciated as well as contested by particular community fractions; and in unequal distributions of benefits. These three prevailing issues summarize the sustainability agenda of tourism.
Tourism and the environment
Environmental impacts (externalities) on the environment stem from the three main elements of tourism: transport, accommodation and activities (see also Caalders et al., 1999 and Duim and Caalders, 2002).
Most obviously, there are environmental effects related to transport32. As Urry (2000: 58) explains, they derive primarily from the exceptional range and scale of resources used in the manufacture of cars, roads and car-only environments, and in coping with the material, air quality, medical, social, ozone, visual, noise and other consequences of auto mobility. Since the end of the nineteenth century, social life has been locked into the mode of individualized auto mobility, which is, of course, ‘a mode of mobility that is neither socially necessary nor inevitable but one that seems impossible to break from’ (Urry, 2003: 69).
Another, even bigger share of environmental strain, especially in terms of emissions per kilometre and climate change effects, stems from the growth of far-away holidays and the use of aircraft. That is why, according to Peeters and Dings (2003: 5), it is of vital importance to involve the technological possibilities of aviation in the development of sustainable tourism.
Apart from transport, the deployment of hotels, restaurants, campsites and other tourism facilities also impact the environment through wastes and water and energy consumption.
Finally, recreational activities like hiking, biking and water sports might have environmental consequences.
In the last few years, several studies have tried to quantify the environmental impacts of tourism-related activities33. Several conclusions can be drawn from these studies. First, whether using energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions or area equivalents as the basis for calculations, a substantial share of tourism is unsustainable. Second, the use of fossil fuels and the related emissions of greenhouse gases is, from a global point of view, the most serious environmental problem related to tourism. Third, transport contributes over-proportionally to the overall leisure-related impacts of tourism (Ceron et al., 2004; see also Gössling, 2002; Peeters and Dings, 2003;
Peeters et al., 2004).
For example, ecological footprint breakdowns clearly show the importance of environmentally sustainable transport. The WWF-UK (2002) recently published the results of a comparison between an average two-week holiday on Majorca and Cyprus, respectively. The ecological footprint of the Majorca package holiday is 0.03 area units per bed night, while it is 0.07 area units per bed night in Cyprus. The total impact per guest is 0.37 area units for Majorca and 0.93 area units for Cyprus. In the context of available per capita earth share of approximately 2 area units, the Majorca and Cyprus holiday currently account for 20% and 50% of earth share, respectively. In terms of a financial analogy, this is equivalent to someone spending 20 - 50% of an annual income in a two-week period. By far the largest component of the ecological footprint
176
Chapter 7 Tourism and sustainable development
177
of the two holidays is the flight. This has a severe environmental impact and accounts for 56%
of the Majorca and for 46% of the Cyprus holiday, though the relative impact is nearly two times larger for the Cyprus holiday owing to the greater distance travelled. Waste is responsible for 25% of the Majorca holiday’s footprint, and just over 35% of the Cyprus holiday’s footprint. In contrast, excursions are the third largest component of the Cyprus holiday, accounting for 6%
(WWF-UK, 2002: 5; see also Peeters and Dings, 2003).
Aviation is believed to dominate the total impact of leisure and tourism on climate change (Peeters and Dings, 2003). In other words, short travel distances, a long holiday instead of many short ones, and the substitution of transport modes from airplane and car to rail and transport by coach are a precondition for environmental sustainability (Ceron et al., 2004; Peeters et al., 2004). Reality demonstrates the opposite: the general trend in tourism is towards a higher frequency, shorter holidays and larger distances per trip. The result is an increase in the number of kilometres and a shift towards generally less sustainable transport modes (Peeters et al., 2004:
56). These developments clearly represent one of the main challenges for the near future, that is, to create new passages (Peters, 2003).
In terms of ‘positive’ externalities, tourism’s potential to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and nature should also be acknowledged. Measurement tools currently being developed to measure impacts of tourism tend to focus on the negative impacts. The relevance of such measures for policy purposes would increase if the positive and negative impacts could be weighed, as for example in the case of eco-efficiency (Ceron et al., 2004). Tourism is influential, especially in terms of the quantity of land preserved for nature, as the history of the relation between tourism and nature conservation illustrates (see above). This is an important contribution because, worldwide, habitat destruction is the single most important cause of the loss of biodiversity. Tourism might contribute by providing the financial means for conservation and by increasing the understanding of the issue.
Font et al. (2004) recently documented the former by discussing revenue generation via the allocation of government revenues (from general taxation or from tourism-related taxes), fee charging to businesses located outside protected areas for their use of protected areas (via entrance fees, user fees and permits), and allowing businesses to purchase concessions or leases to operate inside protected spaces. As we have seen in Chapter 2 when discussing the case of Costa Rica, for many private and state-owned national parks, tourism is an important or the most important generator of income. Tourism can provide an alternative to agriculture, animal husbandry or other forms of land use, which are the primary causes of deforestation (see Caalders et al., 1999 and Duim and Caalders, 2002). In turn, this particular way of doing is not unproblematic. Nature’ is translated into tourismscapes not only as something to be protected and guided by restrictive notions, but also as an opportunity for investment and growth. As Lemke (2000: 8) warns: ‘Previously untapped areas are being opened in the interests of capitalization and chances for economic exploitation. Nature and life itself are being drawn into the economic discourse of efficient resource management.’
Duim and Philipsen (1995) also discuss the possible contribution of tourism towards increasing the awareness of the need for nature conservation by claiming that material and symbolic claims on nature made by tourists and nature conservationists are often defined by the
Chapter 7 Tourism and sustainable development
same individuals and social groups. Here, the ‘new middle classes’ consisting of individuals and groups drawn from the professional world of the media and fashion, education and art, public relations and marketing, and welfare, are the most influential. They are also the most important consumers and producers of leisure goods and services such as music, fashion, sports and holidays, while they are also the most influential in and supportive of nature conservation (see also Urry, 1990 and 1992; Wilson, 1992; Mowforth and Munt, 2003).
Tourism, space and place
At first sight, many discussions about the externalities of tourism, and especially those that are framed in terms of liveability, seem to address the consequences of particular spatial practices.
For example, tourism facilities are built or are perceived to be built in the wrong places (as in Manuel Antonio), they do not fit into the landscape (as on Texel or in Manuel Antonio) or tourism creates crowded places and tumult (as on Texel and Lanzarote) or disturbs everyday life.
As we have seen in the case studies in Part I, this realm of ‘grumbling and gossiping’
(Boissevain, 1996: 15) reflects more profound struggles over the symbolic production of space and the clashes between the way these practices are represented by politicians, tourism officers or planners and the way the space is lived by its inhabitants and underlies local identities. So it is all about qualities of space and place. All the case studies show the controversies at stake and illustrate the way community fractions either quickly seize the commercial opportunities tourism presents or, alternatively, develop strategies to protect their back regions.34
These controversies can take various shapes, whether in terms of land-use conflicts (as in the case of Lanzarote and Texel), power struggles and the inclusion and exclusion of particular community fractions (as in Kenya and Tanzania), disputed policies and politicians (as in the case of Texel, Manuel Antonio/Quepos and Lanzarote) or perceived infringements of values and norms (as in all cases dealt with in Part I), and evoke local protest, voiced by for example Ten for Texel, Foro Lanzarote or the Comité de Lucha in Manuel Antonio/Quepos.
In terms of tourismscapes, the controversies over the blights and blessings of tourism focus on the tactics and centres of translation: who or what and the way in which people, technologies and spaces are translated into tourismscapes. Indeed, it is about the way particular modes of ordering dominate, interweave or conflict. The material and symbolic transformations of space (see Ashworth and Dietvorst, 1995; see also Dietvorst, 1992) that emerge from the interaction between people and things and intersecting tourismscapes at particular places, are appreciated or contested, are greeted with open arms as well as rejected.
As Boissevain (1996) asserts, coping with tourists and tourism is therefore a complex process.
Not that communities and fractions thereof are passive victims. To the contrary, as we have seen in the case studies, many of them are in fact generally inventive and resilient. Tourism is just one of the many sources of change impinging upon them, or alternatively one of the opportunities they grasp to improve their livelihood (ibid: 21).
But as sustainability essentially is all about ‘quality of life’, here and now, elsewhere as well as afterwards (RIVM, 2004: 13), the way modes of ordering collide at particular locations, the way ever more locations and spaces are translated into tourismscapes and the subsequent externalities and controversies, are indeed a prevailing sustainability issue.
178
Chapter 7 Tourism and sustainable development
179
Tourism and poverty
A third and final prevailing issue originates from the production of uneven geographical developments (Harvey, 2000). Although tourism is extremely important in terms of income and employment, tourismscapes also generate new social inequalities of access. Some groups are well ‘plugged’ into tourismscapes (such as entrepreneurs with good Internet access), while others will or can be excluded. Some regions are inextricably linked to tourismscapes while others remain marginal, as the uniqueness of this or that geographical circumstance matters more than ever before (Harvey, 1989: 294).
Tourismscapes link up, through networks of people and things, valuable functions, people and localities around the world, while switching off from their actor-networks those areas of cities, regions and parts of entire countries, constituting what Castells (1998: 337) calls the ‘Fourth World’. So a relational effect of the performance of tourismscapes is the creation, sustainment or even deepening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Large parts of sub-Saharan Africa are excluded. In fact, so are large parts of Kenya; only Nairobi, certain sections on the coast (Mombassa, Malindi, Lamu) and four or five of the national parks are incorporated. And despite 40 years of tourism development around the city of Mombassa, 80% of the population still lives below the poverty line (Akama, pers. com.). In the case of Tanzania, some communities or fractions thereof are included, whilst others always have been excluded.
As asserted by the World Banks’ vice-president for Europe, Rischard (2002), global poverty is shockingly deep and widespread. There are still 1.2 billion people living in abject poverty on less than USD 1 a day. Worldwide, close to 3 billion people – half of the world’s population – live on less than USD 2 a day (ibid.: 90-91). And while a part (albeit a relatively small part) of the world’s population continuously worries about where to go to for their next holiday, half of the world’s population still lives in unacceptable circumstances. Indeed, as Mowforth and Munt (2003:
vii and 15) argue, inequality and unevenness are symbolized by the diasporic and increasingly thwarted movements of developing world migrants to the developed world, starkly contrasted to the accelerating movements of relatively wealthy Western tourists to the developing world and the ideology of freedom of movement that supports this.
We have recently seen the start of some pro-poor initiatives35 that include the support of small and micro enterprises, support to rural tourism projects, the development of partnerships between communities and private-sector operators, participatory pro-poor planning and a range of measures that have clear benefits for the poor, such as working condition improvements, training and staff development, and protected area management (see Ashley et al., 2001;
Mowforth and Munt, 2003). In discussing these initiatives, Mowforth and Munt (2003) conclude that from the perspective of the beneficiary, some sections of poorer communities will be ‘better off’. Overall, however:
Change is unlikely to be significant or substantial, and given the enormity of matching the development targets and the scale of global poverty, tourism might be expected to play a relatively minor role, particularly when contextualized by the size and financial power of the sector. For effective change to happen and the ability of small community projects to succeed, national government policy will need to change to reflect the needs of the local sector. (ibid.: 302)
Chapter 7 Tourism and sustainable development
As discussed in Chapter 2, tourism is at crossroads even in Costa Rica, which is internationally admired and praised as a destination for ‘sustainable’ ecotourism. Although contracts are signed with international consortia to build tourism resorts, there is still no comprehensive supportive policy to strengthen the small and medium-size enterprises or community-based tourism projects.