of use, or dispensing or concentrating use).
Limit of acceptable change
Limit of acceptable change is a framework that encourages identifi cation of the level of acceptable resource use; emphasis is always placed on the conditions desired in the area rather than on how much change the area can tolerate. It requires a political decision about what is acceptable, hence it has the advantage of empowering and involving members of the host community in deciding how much tourism should be developed. In other words they can, to
some extent, give permission as to the degree engagement in tourism will aff ect them. ‘The value judgements made about acceptable levels of change refl ect philosophical, emotional, spiritual, experience-based and economic response’ (Newsome et al., 2002). However, destination managers are confronted with resolving confl icts or diff erences that may result from diverse opinions as diff erent individual stakeholders or groups come with varying aspirations and expectations, which of course have to be eff ectively managed.
Recreation opportunity spectrum In this approach, the emphasis is on identifying areas of distinct characteristics and sub- sequently assigning diff ering levels and types of recreational activities to them in order to minimize strain on only one area. The idea is to provide a wide range of opportunities in terms of experiences that visitors to a given area are seeking. To this end, the recreation opportunity spectrum helps to achieve two principal objectives: (i) mitigation of adverse eff ects on the physical environment; and (ii) enhancement of the tourist experience. The distinct areas that are identifi ed are referred to as ‘opportunity class’; Newsome et al. (2002) have submitted that nowadays, the word ‘zone’ is used.
Management tools such as zoning may be used eff ectively in protected areas, since their special status allows the defi nition and delimitation of zones where protection, con- servation and limitations in the various uses are imposed. Visitor management strategies adopted by the aforementioned researchers may be applied to tourism carrying capacity measure- ment and implementation.
Collaboration
The nature of the tourist destination is another vital factor in sustainable tourism development and management. A destination as a geographic location can be defi ned at various levels of aggregation, taking into account the mixture of diff ering types of organizations and groups of people. Often the organizations and people in
question include more than those who primarily off er tourism products and services. To this end, value is created and delivered to visitors by a myriad of interacting and interdependent diff ering units. For instance, a tourist on holiday will have to stay in some sort of accommodation, serviced or unserviced; eat in restaurants and cafe; engage in leisure activities, which may be indoor or outdoor; and visit places of interest using one form of transport or another at the destination. Usually, these services and products are provided by several organizations. In the case of this hypothetical tourist, provision of unsatisfactory service by one provider may detract from the overall holiday experience.
Around the world, participants in search for sustainable tourism include government at all levels (national, regional and local); non- governmental organizations such as Tourism Concern, Friends of the Earth, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) and the World Leisure Organization; small- to large-sized tour operators; independent and international chains of hotels; and other stakeholders involved in tourism. Each of these groups makes decisions aff ecting part of the entire tourism system; however, the breadth of control needed to achieve sustainability is generally beyond the individual stakeholder acting in isolation.
The essence of sustainable development is to ensure a good quality of life through the provision of the basic needs of society. The WTO (2001), however, defi nes sustainability in tourism literature as ‘Development that meets the needs of the today’s tourists and the host region while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future.’ It is envisaged as leading to the management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfi lled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecology processes, biological diversity and life support systems.
These two defi nitions have identifi ed four diff erent stakeholder groups in sustainable tourism: the present tourists, the present host community, the future tourist and the future host community. Therefore, all of these groups have a legitimate interest in tourism develop- ment in their community because they can aff ect or be aff ected by the tourism business as a whole. Other major stakeholders are central and
local government, the private sector, inter- national organizations, public/private initiatives and traditional chiefs/community heads.
Mayers and Vermeulen (2005) developed stakeholder infl uence mapping (Fig. 6.2), a tool recommended for the examination and pictorial representation of the relative power and infl uence exhibited by stakeholders in decision making. In testing the tool, they examined the UK international development policy for a period of 8 years (1997–2005) and a further predictive 5 years of policy implemen tation. It was found that the position of some stakeholders changed on the map for various reasons such as war and confl ict, trade agreements, globalization and a host of other factors. Mainly the central government remained most infl uential, while the common man on the street remained uninfl uential, partly as a result of non-consultation.
The host community can be classifi ed as stakeholders with low power or less infl uence on decision making, but have high interest in the tourism business and its consequential actions.
Nevertheless, they will make their concerns obvious and may be able to infl uence the powerful stakeholders and aff ect their behaviour if their interest is not considered in a suitable manner or if there is a negative impact on their quality of life. It is therefore recommended that the local community is consulted and kept abreast with decisions and the development of tourism activities in that community. Private investors and local and central governments are in the category of stakeholders with high power and high interest, who are involved in managing the tourism products and also have the power to superimpose their own plan or agenda in a tourist destination operation in a given territory or region.
As stated previously in this chapter, the tourism industry is multifaceted and fragmented in nature and with a wide range of stakeholders at both national and local levels, all having a role in the formation and implementation of sustainable tourism policies and strategies. All stakeholders must be encouraged to express their views and concerns freely and their interests should be taken into account; govern- ments must embark on consultative processes in the formulation and implementation of
Sustainable and Alternative Tourism 79
tourism policies. Communication in developing countries may be problematic due to the remoteness of some areas and the lack of telecommunication networks; however, this can be overcome through eff ective communication from the central to the regional and local levels by the use of conventional communication methods (e.g. forums, meetings and workshops).
This approach will limit the top-down com- munication methods, policies and decision- making systems that minimize the opportunity
for local people to participate in decisions concerning sustainable tourism planning and development in developing countries.
Stakeholders’ perspectives and concerns in tourism planning and development (Table 6.3) must be carefully analysed and incorporated at the design stage of any attraction or destination management. Primarily, the perceptions and attitudes of residents towards tourism and tourists must be assessed at the planning stages before successful sustainable tourism can be Fig. 6.2. Stakeholder infl uence map. (Adapted from Mayers and Vermeulen, 2005.) MNCs, multinational companies; Int. Fin Agencies, International Finance Agencies.
Table 6.3. Confl icts of interest among stakeholders.
Stakeholder Primary expectation Secondary expectation
Investors Financial return Added value
Employees Increased wages/salaries Work satisfaction
Service providers Competitiveness Goodwill
Suppliers Payment Long-term relationships
Local residents Safety and security Contribution to community
Tourists Supply of service Quality
Government Compliance Improved competitiveness
Special interest groups Conservation and preservation Equity and fairness Adapted from Lynch, 1997.
Local residents Tourist
MNCs
Local government
Int. Fin.
Agencies Central
government
Local business Special
interest groups Tourist
policy
Increasing in
fl uence of stak eholders
___________________________________
→
________________________________
_→ ←___________________________________
←_________________________________
Increasing in
fl uence of stak
eholders
developed. Successful tourism must engage the host community in a direct and meaningful participation in the planning and decision- making processes at the very early stages. Any tourism development must promote a sense of ownership in the community. Traditionally, the aim of tourism planners is how to attract visitors by increasing visitor numbers and developing the infrastructure that is required for the destination to achieve this. It is generally assumed that the more people visit a destination, the more people from the community will benefi t. However, in some instances this is not the case as major developments may have a huge negative impact on the destination.
Therefore, sustainable tourism requires the support of local residents, eff ective management and use of resources for the proper con- servation, protection and use of land and the environment, as well as for the benefi t of all stakeholders.
It should be noted that collaboration is not a panacea to achieving sustainable tourism, but it has its benefi ts. The potential benefi ts of collaboration and partnerships in tourism are as follows:
• Introduction of changes and improvements as a result of the contributions of a range of stakeholders.
• A likely increase in the social acceptance of policies.
• Working together may improve cooperation, understanding and mutual respect.
• Innovation and eff ectiveness may increase through the sharing of ideas and bench- marking.
• Likely increase in commitment.
• Development of skills.
• Pooling of resources to achieve economies of scale and effi ciency.
• Sensitivity of policy to local values and resi- dents’ expectations.
• Broadening of the local economic and social base.
In the same vein, as much as collaboration may be benefi cial, its implementation may also be very problematic. Barriers to achieving successes in collaboration and partnership initiatives in tourism include the following:
• Limited or no awareness of benefi ts of collaborative initiatives.
• Lack of access to collaborative opportunities.
• Reluctance to trust potential partners, particularly if they are competitors.
• Communication problems.
• Partners are likely to focus on and advance their individual organizational goal/interest.
Mason (2008) also highlighted potential problems of collaboration and partnership in tourism:
• Possibility of paying lip service to an issue.
• Possibility of under-resourcing collaborative eff orts, both in materials and personnel.
• Stakeholders with lesser power may be excluded and alienated.
• Varying vested interest of multiple stake- holders may block innovation.
• Complexity of engaging diverse stakeholders in policy making.
• Eff ects of fragmented decision making on implementation.
• Creation of power blocks.
Sustainable Livelihoods
Sustainable tourism, in many quarters, is considered as the promised cure for alleviating all the problems of negative tourism impacts by ensuring the long-term viability of a destination and improving the quality of life of its local residents. Due to conceptual and practical defi ciencies that have hampered the application of the sustainable tourism ideal, particularly in the area of socioeconomic prosperity of local people in both tourism and tourism-related businesses, a number of authors (see for example Tao and Wall, 2009) have suggested the concept of ‘sustainable livelihood’ as an alternative approach to achieve socioeconomic prosperity.
According to Wilson and Boyle (2006), there is a wide area of interest in the potential of inter-organizational relationships and col- laboration in the management of heritage sites, notwithstanding participation of local com- munities over the last 30 years in the creation of benefi ts that could not be realized otherwise by organizations operating on their own.
Sustainable and Alternative Tourism 81
Complexity in relation to the inter- disciplinary nature of conservation, tourism and visitor access management prompted UNESCO (1998) to suggest that heritage site management must be integrative and proactive by involving key stakeholders; the use of inter- organizational relationships and collaboration could also be helpful in protecting sites from confl icting uses and inappropriate development.
UNESCO (1998) provided for ‘the participation of local people in the nomination process’ with the view of securing shared responsibility for the care of inscribed sites in paragraph 14 of its guidelines on World Heritage Sites manage- ment. UNESCO’s suggestion was backed by Bryson (2004), who stated that the manage- ment of World Heritage Sites is within the remit of ‘inter-organizational domain’, meaning the public and private sectors, non-profi t organ- izations and local communities must collaborate to achieve a common goal.
Wilson and Boyle (2006) referred to the World Heritage Congress in 2002, which identifi ed the need for a formal structure for participation and collaboration between the public and private sectors to provide a solid grounding in planning work that involves or
integrates the voices of the various stakeholders in any situation. The formal structure should include well-established regulatory powers and working partnerships between public and private organizations for any heritage site to be planned and managed eff ectively (Middleton and Hawkins, 1998). The relationship between the diff erent sectors and the environment within which the tourism industry operates is not self-generating; it needs direction, and sus- tainability can only be achieved on a col- laborative basis.
Corporate Social Responsibility With reference to the World Bank’s (2007) defi nition of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which states that ‘[CSR] is the commitment of businesses to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, local community and society at large to improve the quality of life – in ways that are both good for business and good for development’, it can be deduced that the concept of CSR – if embedded at the planning and development stage of sustainable Case Study 6.2. Elmina.
Elmina’s history dates back to 1470, when Portuguese explorers discovered gold along the West African coast. Due to the proximity of the goldfi elds and its strategic location, Elmina became the centre of the West African gold business. The Portuguese founded a castle ‘Sao Jorge’ (St George) to protect the gold- rich lands in 1482. When the castle was completed in 1486 the town was raised to the status of a ‘city’.
However, in 1637, the Dutch took control of Elmina by defeating the Portuguese. They then expanded the castle to its present structure, refl ecting the enormous wealth that gold and slavery had brought to the city. At the height of the slave trade in the 17th century, Elmina became the focal distribution point before slaves were shipped to America.
The castles in Elmina attract approximately 100,000 tourists annually, 70,000 of which are foreign tourists (Arthur and Mensah, 2006). With the steady growth in visitor numbers, private investors have noticed the potential of Elmina as a tourist destination and started investing in the supply side of tourism in the form of hotels with good-quality restaurants. Arthur and Mensah, however, argue that in spite of the economic potential of the heritage monuments and increased visitor numbers, the locals have not benefi ted from tourism-related employment opportunities. Living standards in Elmina are so low that this is refl ected in the community and the environment. The thriving fi shing harbour has become dilapidated with silt and pollution, the beaches are covered with waste, the city’s drainage system is poor and basic road, telecommunication and electricity infrastructures are either broken or inadequate. There are huge constraints on health care and education opportunities, with a subsequent impact on living standards of the residents.
Arthur and Mensah (2006) stated that Elmina is in dire need of an overhaul and that the Elmina District Assembly cannot do the overhaul on its own. Therefore, help is required from potential partners in the private sector, community and educational institutions, in addition to support from the central government and to a larger extent international agencies.
tourism, communicated eff ectively and involv- ing all stakeholders – may play a vital role in contributing to successful tourism management and help avoid any future confl ict among stakeholders. Incorporating the principles and practices in the areas of business ethics, corporate citizenship and sustainability or the stakeholders’ view of both the supply-side and demand-side of the tourism industry through the use of eff ective communication (which must take place at all levels between and amongst the diff erent stakeholders) will create common ground and understanding of some of the sustainability issues and the potential of CSR to enhance business viability and longevity. The tourism industry could use community-based organisations and non-governmental organisa- tions at local levels as intermediaries to promote a local interpretation of the CSR framework.
Creating a clear and univocal understanding of what CSR means might maximize the participation of local communities, in particular small and micro businesses (WTO, World Bank and USAID 2006).
Communication in the CSR concept must be in appropriate language that can be understood by all stakeholders. This is essential to help tourism organizations and tourists understand and adopt relevant environmental and social sustainable standards and systems such as environmental management systems, fair trade and community relations. It can also create better relationships among large tourism operators, local communities and small- to medium-size enterprises, allowing the develop- ment of better and more successful partner- ships.
Current Research and Debates As mentioned earlier, there is lack of consensus regarding the defi nition and meaning of the concept of sustainable tourism. It must be noted that there has never been a shortage of eff orts and attempts to provide better understanding.
However, Gunn and Turgut (2002), in reference to the various attempts made, submitted that most contributions to the explanation and defi nition of sustainable tourism add more confusion than clarity. The debate is wide-
ranging and the direction of any given argument is, obviously, dependent on the values of each stakeholder.
Although sustainable tourism is a valid area of study, going by the number of academic journals and magnitude of research seen over the years, it remains a heavily contested concept. It is generally acknowledged that its focal point is the wise use of resources, but the way in which ‘wise use’ is articulated is dependent upon the values of various stake- holders. This varied value base has no doubt contributed to the myriad of debates and studies witnessed in this fi eld over the years.
The concept of sustainability has become an important fi eld of academic research in tourism planning and development. Areas of research in this fi eld are as varied as its defi nition. One can identify a wide range of research focuses, which include visitors’
experiences and management, conservation and resource management, collaboration and community participation, transport in tourism development and planning and policy develop- ment and assessment. Others include the development of indicators for sustainability, local economic sustainability and livelihood, resident–tourist relationships and tourist behaviour. However, the two major themes that have featured prominently in sustainability discussions are economic and environmental sustainability. The following two sections explore these two areas in detail.
Economic overview
The tourism industry comprises a vast range of economic activities and is considered the only major service sector in which developing countries do record trade surpluses year on year.
It is also an important source of employment, albeit with poor wages paid to employees, creation of unskilled labour and encouragement of migration from poor rural areas. Tourism may be considered as a sector that contributes signifi cantly towards the empowerment of women and provides jobs for the unskilled local labour force, therefore alleviating poverty.
However, McLaren (2003) stated that many researchers are sceptical about the magnitude