the definition to include consideration of the needs of future generations and of current social equity has produced a continuum of sustainability positions, a summary of which is shown in Figure 9.2.
The growing interest and support for sustainable development is not without its critics and skeptics. Some maintain that it is such a fuzzy concept that it may prove to be of little practical use in tackling the envi-ronmental issues that are emerging. However, as Figure 9.1 illustrates, the short definition of sustainable development should be viewed only as a summary goal, and that from this has evolved a series of more specific objectives and methodologies. Others consider that it is a passing fad, akin to the energy crises of the past. But this perception fails to acknowledge that evidence of environmental stress started more than 30 years ago, and instead of disappearing it has gradually increased to the point where admitted nonenvironmentalists are beginning to take notice. One author who has addressed such skepticism and doubts is George Winter (1988) who developed a listing of pros and cons for 40 issues regarding the intro-duction of an integrated system of environmental business management.
Some authors have criticised the fundamentals of the concept of sus-tainable development itself, discussing the oxymoronic nature of the term (see, for example, Huckle, 1996) and claiming that ‘sustainable’ (with its steady-state implications) and ‘development’ (with its growth implica-tions) are mutually exclusive (Page and Dowling, 2002). According to Barkin (1996), the concept of sustainable development has created seem-ingly impossible goals for policy makers and development practitioners
‘. . . [since] present levels of per capita resource consumption in the richer countries cannot possibly be maintained much less generalized to people living in the rest of the world.’
This theme has permeated much of the recent debate on sustainable development and has contributed to the advent of terms such as ‘sustain-ability’ and ‘sustainable future,’ possibly in attempts to avoid emphasis-ing the oxymoronic nature of the terms ‘sustainable’ and ‘development.’
Tourism and sustainable development 173
Sustainability Position Defining Characteristics
Very weak Anthropocentric and utilitarian; growth orientated and resource exploitative; natural resources utilized at economically optimal rates through unfettered free markets operating to satisfy individual consumer choice; infinite substitution possible between natural and human-made capital;
continued well-being assured through economic th and technical innovation.
Weak Anthropocentric and utilitarian; resource
conservationist; growth is managed and modified;
concern for distribution of development costs and benefits through intra- and intergenerational equity;
rejection of infinite substitution between natural and human-made capital with recognition of some aspects of natural world as critical capital (e.g., ozone layer, some natural ecosystems); human-made plus natural capital constant or rising through time; decoupling of negative environmental impacts from economic growth.
Strong (Eco)systems perspective; resource preservationist;
recognizes primary value of maintaining the functional integrity of ecosystems over and above secondary value through resource utilization;
interests of the collective given more weight than those of the individual consumer; adherence to intra- and intergenerational equity; decoupling important but alongside a belief in a steady state economy as a consequence of following the constant natural assets rule; zero economic and human population growth.
Very strong Bioethical and eco-centric; resource preservationist to the point where utilization of natural resources is minimized; nature's rights or intrinsic value in nature encompassing non-human living organisms and even abiotic elements under a literal
interpretation of Gaianism; anti-economic growth and for reduced human population.
grow
Figure 9.2: A simplified description of the sustainable development spectrum.
Source: Adapted from Hunter, 2002.
Although the tourism industry is regarded as being kinder to the envi-ronment in general than most other industries, its very size and wide-spread presence has created negative environmental impacts, both of a physical and social nature, in certain locations that have led to demands for a more sustainable approach to tourism. An examination of this approach is appropriate.
Sustainable Tourism Development
Over the past 20 years or so tourism has become a major part of the dis-course of sustainable development, which is not surprising given the magnitude and rate of expansion of the industry; the ecological, eco-nomic, social, and cultural impacts of tourism; and, as identified by the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the potential for tourism to help the transition to sustainable development. It can be argued that the concept of sustainable tourism emerged from the recognition of the negative impacts of mass tourism and the subsequent birth of ‘green tourism’ (Swarbrooke, 1999).
According to Wight (1997),
Tourism, as it relates to sustainable development, is tourism which is devel-oped so that the nature, scale, location, and manner of development is [sic]
appropriate and sustainable over time, and where the environment’s ability to support other activities and processes is not impaired, since tourism cannot be isolated from other resource activities. . . . At the heart of sustainable tourism is a set of implicit values related to striving to integrate economic, social and cultural goals.
This integration is illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 9.3, where Wight’s three goals are seen to start to coalesce around community-based economics, conservation with equity, and integration of the environment with the economy. These, in turn, come together in the central goal of sus-tainable tourism.
Within any discussion of sustainable tourism development, considera-tion should be given to the beneficiaries of sustainable development because of the diversity of interests involved (Cater, 1994). Platteau and Gaspart (2003) continued this theme, asserting that ‘communities need to evolve and be institutionally strengthened if they are to achieve the objectives of the participatory approach [to sustainable development]:
economic growth, democratic governance, sustainability, equity and protection of the poor. . . . [A]s long as the grassroots are not sufficiently empowered through suitable training programs and processes aimed at making them aware of their rights and confident enough to assert them, benefits are likely to be largely preempted by local elites.’
Identification of the various perspectives of sustainable development also needs to be included in the discourse of sustainable tourism devel-174 Global Tourism
opment. As was asserted by Cater (1994) ‘[w]hat may appear to be sus-tainable from one point of view is unlikely to be so from another.’ She further expressed the opinion that ecotourism and sustainable develop-ment ‘tend to be overworked terms, neatly co-opted by political and busi-ness interests to confer an aura of respectability to [sic] their activities,’
agreeing with Rees (1990) that both might be ‘a laboured excuse for not departing from continued economic growth.’
Sisman (1994) also expressed a similar view, justifiably stating that ‘it is surprising, post-Brundtland and post-Rio, just how many organisations have suddenly “discovered” that their policies can be made to “fit” the concept of sustainability simply by deciding their own benchmark.’ He advocated ‘a working partnership that blends good environmental prac-Tourism and sustainable development 175
Figure 9.3: A Model of sustainable tourism values and principles.
Source: Hall, Jenkins, and Kearsley, 1997.
tice and profitable business for mutual long-term advantages’ in the movement toward sustainability.
Faulkner (2001) succinctly synthesised the various components of sus-tainable tourism, indicating that sussus-tainable tourism development is a form of tourism that:
• Safeguards and enhances to [sic] natural and cultural assets of the destination;
• Safeguard [sic] and enhances the resident population’s quality of life and life opportunities;
• Satisfies the needs and expectations of the tourist market;
• Is economically viable and achieves a return on investment for tourism oper-ators; and
• Achieves equity in the distribution of costs and benefits of tourism between different segments of the community and between the current and future gen-erations. That is, outcomes are considered beyond the relatively short term horizon . . . and ensure that both inter and intra generational equity is taken into account.
Currently global sustainable development and its sustainable tourism subset remain telic concepts, although effective sustainable practices might exist at a local level. Genuine sustainable development will not be reached with current global resource allocation and use. This assertion should not be seen as a refutation of the desirability of sustainable devel-opment, but rather that current practices such as the use of fossil fuels for transportation cannot be seen as sustainable. The mismatch between the theory and practice of sustainable development has produced a con-tinuum of variants of sustainability and has elicited debate within the tourism industry and within academe on the extent to which the compo-nents of sustainable development should be applied to tourism.
Figure 9.4, illustrates the resultant continuum of views from light green variants to dark green variants. Hunter (2002) demonstrates the range of sustainable tourism options that can and have been used, thus exposing the variety of interpretations used with this concept.
Although there has been considerable debate on the concept of sus-tainable development, and on sussus-tainable tourism as a consequence, rel-atively little attention appears to have been given to assessing sustainable practices. This is understandable given the difficulty of finding precise definitions of each, but the degree of successful implementation of prin-ciples needs to be ascertained if sound policy analysis is to occur. Accord-ing to Pigram (1990),
Sustainable tourism has the potential to become a tangible expression of sus-tainable . . . development. Yet it runs the risk of remaining irrelevant and inert as a feasible policy option for the real world of tourism development, without the development of effective means of translating the idea into action.
176 Global Tourism
Tourism and sustainable development 177
Li t Green Tendencies Dark Green Tendencies
advocate and strongly proadaptancy cautionary and knowledge-based benefits of tourism assumed benefits of tourism must be
demonstrated precious view of tourism as a sector
and sectoral self interest dominates gh
tourism need not necessarily be a component of sustainable development in an area and sectoral integration required
maintain tourism activity in existing destinations and expand into new ones
widen economic base if high
dependency on tourism and engage in full proactive assessment of new tourism development
tourism products must be
maintained and evolve according to market need
(nature is a commodity)
natural resources must be maintained and impacts reduced (preferably minimized) where possible with products tailored accordingly (nature has existence value)
environmental action only when
narrow scope and geographical scale of environmental concern
disperse and dilute activity (spread) industry self regulation as dominant management approach
required and beneficial (i.e., legal obligation, to tackle specific problem, marketing benefit and cost saving)
most likely to have a direct involvement in the industry introspective focus on tourism research and management literature
considered as a matter of routine
focus and concentrate activity (confine) wide range of management approaches and instruments required
(more likely to re-invent the wheel) wide range of potential and actual impacts considered beyond immediate geographical setting (e.g., hotel, complex, destination area)
most likely to have training in an environment-type academic discipline
Figure 9.4: Simplified descriptions of light green and dark green variants of sustainable tourism.
Source: Adapted from Hunter, 2002.
If positive movement along the sustainable tourism continuum is to be achieved there is a need for an interdisciplinary focus, a ‘consilience’
of ‘facts, and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork for explanation’ (Wilson, 1997). The need for a comprehen-sive approach also was recognised by Moldan and Billharz (1997) when they sought a common framework for comparative assessment of both problem recognition and progress made toward sustainable development.
By the use of indicators they developed a comprehensive model, incorporating conflicting values, interests, and spatial and time hor-izons in relation to sustainable development assessment. Faulkner (2001) extended this notion to sustainable tourism development, asserting that investigation of sustainable tourism development ‘requires an inter-disciplinary approach, involving a balanced approach to the examination and evaluation of the social, economic and environmental impacts of tourism.’
Tisdell and Wen (1997) argued that caution should be applied to the use of indicators in the assessment of progress toward sustainability.
Although recognising that the attainment of sustainable tourism is a worthy goal, they asserted that:
the concepts involved are often quite complex and are interpreted in a variety of ways. For this reason alone, one needs to be cautious when employing these concepts. . . . They must, at least, be supplemented by deeper analysis to decide whether a tourist development is going to show long-term sustainability.
Dimensions of Sustainable Tourism Development
It is apparent from the previous discussion that sustainable development is a complex and multidimensional concept and that tourism, as a com-ponent of the process, will reflect this diversity. Seven major dimensions that reflect the general multidimensionality and interdisciplinary con-cerns can be discerned within the various considerations of sustainable tourism development.
The first dimension noted is the need for resource management, for in this crowded world with diminishing resources little can be left to chance.
Second, such management needs to reaffirm that tourism is an economic activity, which must be capable of making a profit in order to survive and benefit the community. This is the point Porter (1991) and others have made when they say environmental legislation must leave room for indi-vidual employment and economic well being to operate within the eco-logical parameters. The third dimension points out the need to fulfill social obligations. This means more than intergenerational equity; it 178 Global Tourism
means respect for other livelihoods and customs. Such variety and her-itage is a major resource for tourism in a world that is fast becoming homogenised into a global economy. A major component of environment and culture is their aesthetic appeal. Although the focus has often been on international markers such as world-renowned heritage sites, the aes-thetic qualities of regular townscapes and general landscapes should not be overlooked.
All the earlier mentioned needs should be addressed within ecological parameters to sustain both the physical and human environment. Conser-vation of cultural legacies should not be ignored. The ecological process needs to be understood so that tourism intrusions will have the minimal impact, especially in sensitive areas like shorelines, mountains, and wet-lands. The concern over maintaining our biological diversity is particularly germane to tourism, which thrives on the appeal of different flora and fauna along with a distinctive sense of place. Finally, the need to sustain our basic life support systems is paramount. If these basic needs are not met, then our higher level and discretionary needs like travel will fail to materialize.