The purpose of this book has been twofold. Firstly, it set out to challenge what was referred to in the introduction as the ‘status quo’ of sustainable tourism development. In other words, it set out to argue that, despite maintaining its position in both academic and tourism policy circles as the dominant tour- ism development paradigm, sustainable tourism development has failed to deliver. Not only is there little, if any, evidence of ‘true’ sustainable tourism development in practice – there are, of course, numerous examples of small- scale, local projects that conform to the principles of sustainability yet these are, to paraphrase a well-used argument, micro responses to macro issues – but also the significant attention paid to the concept in the academic literature has resulted in neither a consensus with regards to definitions and theoretical underpinnings, nor a translation of its principles into a viable set of practices for developing tourism ‘on the ground’. In short, it is time to recognize that the concept of sustainable tourism development, both as a subject of academic debate and as an approach to tourism development, has reached an impasse; it is time to move on and consider tourism development ‘beyond sustainability’.
Indeed, there is some evidence that this is beginning to occur (Lim and Cooper, 2009).
Consequently, the second purpose of the book has been to propose an alternative approach to tourism development which addresses the tourism–
development–environment nexus unencumbered by the idealism of sustain- able tourism development and its typically prescriptive, managerialist and, arguably, western-centric principles. More specifically, it has argued that tourism is, fundamentally, an economic activity, a significant and valuable sector of the global capitalist economy that has the potential to bring a variety of economic benefits to destination areas, as well as to those countries that are generators of international tourism. Therefore, recognizing that tourism is, in essence, a form of capitalistic endeavour manifested in the market-led
production and consumption of tourism products, services and experiences, it has been suggested that a ‘destination capitals’ perspective provides the most appropriate framework for optimizing the economic benefits of tourism to the destination. That is, like any business operating within a capitalist system, destinations seek to exploit their resources or assets in order to make a ‘profit’.
Thus, tourism development should be based on the exploitation of those assets in a manner which reflects and respects local needs and meets the demands of potential tourists.
The previous chapter related tourism to the defining characteristics of capitalism before going on to propose a number of different capitals that, individually and collectively, are exploited to produce the outputs of the tourism production system. In other words, it identified the productive assets possessed by destinations that contribute to the production of goods and services consumed by tourists and, hence, to a flow of economic benefits that, generated by tourism spending, accrue to the destination. In this final chapter, these destination capitals form the basis of an alternative framework for the development of tourism, a framework that focuses upon the needs and productive assets of destinations and their interaction with opportunities and challenges external to the destination. Drawing on a number of case studies, it then suggests how such an approach may prove to be more effective in optimizing tourism’s benefits – within environmental parameters as defined by the destination – than overarching sets of principles such as those that characterize the concept of sustainable tourism development.
As noted previously, it is not the purpose here to propose a set of principles or guidelines for the development of tourism; to do so would be simply to re- place one universal approach (sustainable tourism development) with another.
Nor is it to detail the tourism destination planning process, which is con- sidered extensively in the literature (for example, Dredge and Jenkins, 2006;
Hall, 2007b). Rather, it is to propose a more pragmatic approach to tourism development that, in offering an alternative to the comfortable or, as described in Chapter 3, the hypocritical and delusional idealism of sustainable tourism development, provides a platform for more vigorous debate and further research into some of the issues identified in this book. At the same time, it may go some way to building a bridge between academic discourse of tourism development and the practical challenges facing destinations. Firstly, however, it is useful to review briefly some of the key points raised in this book that justify a ‘destination capitals’ model of tourism development.
The story so far
As its title suggests, the principal focus of this book is on the relationship be- tween tourism, its developmental role and the environment within which it occurs. More specifically, it focuses primarily on how to optimize the benefits of tourism within environmental parameters, the fundamental argument being that, in order to do so, it is necessary to progress beyond the restrictive concept of sustainable tourism development. Immediately, then, three broad questions
DESTINATION CAPITALS: AN ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORK 177 emerge: What is tourism? What are the benefits that flow from tourism development? And what is the tourism environment? These have all been considered in the preceding chapters and they now provide useful headings for summarizing the main themes and issues that have been discussed in the book so far.
What is tourism?
In Chapter 1, it was suggested that the term ‘tourism’ may be defined in three ways, namely: as the movement of people or, more generally, a social phen- omenon; as an economic sector; and as an interacting system of people, places and processes. Tourism is, of course, all of these; each definition simply reflects either a different way of looking at tourism or a different disciplinary frame- work for its analysis. Nevertheless, each definition also points to key issues that underpin the argument for a ‘destination capitals’ approach to tourism development.
In particular, although the term ‘tourism’ is most frequently associated with specific manifestations of travel as categorized, for example, by the World Tourism Organization (now United Nations World Tourism Organization or UNWTO) (WTO, 1994), such is the variety and scope of travel-related activity with respect to purpose and behaviour that it is almost impossible to distinguish between tourism and mobility more generally. However, both tourism and most forms of mobility, or movements of people, by definition involve going from places to places; thus, the only common feature of tourism/mobility, other than that it involves travel, is the destination. Nonetheless, ‘the destination’ itself is almost infinitely variable. Although typically domestic, or within the tourist’s own country (the great majority of tourist trips are domestic, supporting the arguments that tourism, though occurring globally, is not a globalized phenomenon), destinations vary from specific facilities or attractions to urban centres, resorts (landlocked or coastal) and rural or wilderness areas. Thus, each destination is unique with respect to its environmental, socio-cultural, political and economic characteristics and, consequently, its potential to benefit from tourism. This, in turn, suggests that tourism development can only be considered from the perspective of the destination, not within ‘one-size-fits- all’, top-down planning frameworks.
From the economic sector perspective, tourism is revealed as a complex, multi-layered and multi-sectoral production system. In other words, it com- prises innumerable businesses and organizations, the great majority of which are small to medium, private sector and, hence, profit-motivated enterprises.
Universal policies, guidelines, codes of practice, regulations or other forms of intervention in the day-to-day operations are, therefore, impossible to implement and contradict the very basis of market-led capitalistic economic systems of which tourism is a notable example. Certainly, there are several industry-wide initiatives, such as the International Tourism Partnership (www.
tourismpartnership.org) which encourages socially and environmentally responsible business practices amongst travel and tourism businesses, and various accreditation schemes that similarly recognize and promote such
practices, as well as numerous examples of individual businesses engaging in responsible business activity. Many airlines and tour operators, for example, are proactive in seeking ways of minimizing the negative social and environ- mental consequences of their businesses. However, corporate social responsib- ility cannot be imposed upon all sectors and all businesses across the tourism production system. Therefore, the destination again represents the most ap- propriate context for considering tourism development from the perspective of the industry, as local planning restrictions and so on may be imposed to reflect local environmental and social conditions. Equally, when viewing tourism as a complex interacting system, it becomes evident that it is difficult to delineate tourism clearly from other social and economic systems, thus reinforcing the arguments that the destination is the most appropriate ‘unit of analysis’ for tourism development.
What are the benefits that flow from tourism development?
For reasons that are well known and widely discussed in the literature, tourism has long been, and still is, considered an effective vehicle of development.
However, an argument central to this book is that ‘development’ as currently conceptualized does not inevitably or automatically flow from tourism. As dis- cussed in Chapter 2, development is a rather slippery, ambiguous and broad term that defies precise definition, embracing as it does both measurable indicators (wealth, literacy levels, access to education, child mortality rates and so on) and less tangible objectives, such as self-reliance and freedom (Sen, 1999). It is, therefore, unclear how a direct causal relationship can be established between tourism and development, in particular sustainable development. Indeed, although it is suggested by the UNWTO and others that tourism, in all its manifestations, should be developed according to the principles of sustainable development, this book has demonstrated that such a marriage is, in reality, unworkable.
In other words, tourism does not necessarily lead to development. It does, however, possess the potential to generate economic benefits that derive from the expenditure of tourists on products, services and experiences. It also, of course, has the potential to generate costs, either directly in the form of, for example, leakages (the cost of importing goods and services into the local economy to meet the needs of the tourism sector), or indirectly as what economists refer to as ‘externalities’. For destinations, the net benefits of tourism development are, in effect, the ‘profit’, or the value of tourism once the costs have been taken into account (including, perhaps, environmental costs).
Therefore, tourism is, essentially, a catalyst of economic growth. Moreover, the extent to which that economic growth both occurs and also translates into wider development is dependent on a combination of economic, socio- cultural, political and environmental factors particular to each destination.
Thus, different types of tourism development generate different benefits;
high volume-lower yield tourism (that is, ‘mass’ tourism), for example, may provide wider (though perhaps lower quality) employment opportunities