Since it first emerged some 20 years ago, the concept of sustainable tourism development has achieved and maintained, at least in policy circles, ‘virtual global endorsement as the new [tourism] industry paradigm’ (Godfrey, 1996, p60). Although academic interest in the subject as a general perspective on tourism development has in more recent times begun to wane, with the attention of researchers turning to more specific and, arguably, more practical themes, such as poverty reduction through so-called pro-poor tourism (Harrison, 2008) or the relationship between tourism and climate change, sustainable tourism development has remained a guiding principle of tourism policy and planning at global and national levels. In fact, in contrast to typically idealistic, politically attractive yet vague policy statements during the 1990s, global tourism development policy has not only become more explicitly aligned with the principles of sustainable development, but it has also embraced a more pragmatic perspective in addressing contemporary developmental challenges.
For example, the United Nations World Tourism Organization’s (UNWTO’s) Sustainable Tourism-Eliminating Poverty (ST-EP) programme highlights tourism’s potential contribution to achieving the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving the incidence of global poverty by 2015, whilst the Davos Declaration on climate change and tourism (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2007, p2) states that:
Given tourism’s importance in the global challenges of climate change and poverty reduction, there is a need to urgently adopt a range of policies which encourages truly sustainable tourism that reflects a ‘quadruple bottom line’ of environmental, social, economic and climate responsiveness.
Whilst there is no indication of what ‘truly’ sustainable tourism might comprise, the addition of climate to the traditional ‘triple bottom line’ of sustainability objectives represents a significant globally-focused departure from previous, destination-oriented sustainable tourism development policies. It is also
interesting to note that the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg in 2002 (also known as ‘Rio +10’, following on from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992), explicitly refers to sustainable tourism development in its Plan of Implementation:
Promote sustainable tourism development, including non- consumptive and eco-tourism . . . in order to increase the benefits from tourism resources for the population in host communities while maintaining the cultural and environmental integrity of the host communities and enhancing the protection of ecologically sensitive areas and natural heritages. Promote sustainable tourism development and capacity-building in order to contribute to the strengthening of rural and local communities. (WSSD, 2002, IV, Para 43)
The issues of poverty reduction and climate change are returned to later in this chapter. The point here, however, is that from the outset sustainable tourism development has also been subjected to constant and, in some quarters, vociferous criticism. In the introduction to this book, for example, reference is made to what was probably the first conference (held in Edinburgh in 1990) dedicated specifically to sustainable tourism development. Here, sustainable tourism was described as ‘an idea whose time has come’ (Howie, 1990, p3) yet, at the same conference, a dissenting voice attempted to ‘introduce a measure of realism into the . . . proceedings’, raising the now familiar issue of scale: ‘we have, on the one hand, a problem of mass tourism growing globally, out of control, at an alarming rate. And what is our answer? Small scale, slow, steady controlled development’ (Wheeller, 1990, pp61–2). Since then, the criticisms levelled against the concept of sustainable tourism development have become more theoretically informed, sophisticated and compelling, yet many of the initial concerns remain both valid and unresolved.
The purpose of this chapter is to critique sustainable tourism development, both reviewing the principal arguments against the concept and exploring its relevance within the broader understanding of tourism as a socio-economic phenomenon as outlined in Chapter 1. In so doing, it suggests that the time has come to ‘close the book’ on sustainable tourism development in favour of an alternative perspective on tourism, development and the environment. This is not to say, of course, that the notion of (environmental) sustainability should be rejected; as discussed in the last chapter, the sustainability of all human activity, including tourism, requires the support and maintenance of the services provided by the natural world – in short, the global ecosystem’s source, sink and service functions. Thus, sustainability remains a prerequisite of tourism development. However, beyond this principle of sustainability, the relationship between tourism, development and the environment may be enhanced by an alternative perspective on the development of tourism that, unhindered by the prescriptive principles of sustainable tourism development, seeks to optimize tourism’s socio-economic contribution within environmental parameters.
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 59
But what is sustainable tourism development?
Just as its parental paradigm, sustainable development, is widely and variously defined (Rogers et al, 2008), so too has sustainable tourism development been subject to diverse interpretation and multiple definitions. Indeed, despite the degree of academic attention paid to the subject over the last 20 years, the failure to achieve definitional consensus, or even an agreement over terminology, is seen by some as evidence of the inherent fallibility of the concept (Twining-Ward and Butler, 2002; Liu, 2003). Nevertheless, it is both possible and necessary to consider what is meant (or should be meant) by the term as a basis for critically appraising its viability as a practical and widely applicable approach to the development of tourism.
As with development more generally (see Chapter 2), there are three senses in which sustainable tourism development can be thought about: as a goal or vision; as a process of achieving or moving towards that vision; and as the policies, plans and activities of those organizations, whether private, public or third sector, that are involved in sustainable tourism development. In principle, distinguishing between these three senses should be a relatively simple task; in practice, however, this is not the case, the distinctions between them frequently being unclear or confused. In particular, the objective or purpose of sustainable tourism development (the vision) is often blurred with the principles, policies and processes for its achievement, to the extent that the concept of sustainable tourism development is most commonly associated with a prescriptive set of principles and practices rather than a broader objective. Moreover, those principles and practices inevitably focus upon the development of tourism itself, particularly in destinational contexts, with two related consequences. Firstly, rather than the vision defining the plans, policies and processes necessary for its achievement, the vision is defined by those plans, policies and processes.
Secondly, that vision or objective is, typically, sustainable tourism, or sustaining the resources upon which tourism as a specific socio-economic activity depends, rather than sustainable tourism development, or broader sustainable development through tourism. In other words, and as noted in the previous chapter, sustainable tourism development is most frequently conceptualized from a parochial, ‘tourism-centric’ (Hunter, 1995) perspective that emphasizes the sustainability of tourism itself rather than tourism’s potential contribution to sustainable development more generally.
The extent to which this implicitly reflects, or is an inherent weakness of, the concept of sustainable tourism development is considered shortly. However, although its roots lie in the concerns over the environmental consequences of rapid and unplanned mass tourism development and the subsequent emergence of alternative (to mass) tourism, early conceptualizations of sustainable tourism development explicitly linked tourism to sustainable development.
Reference has already been made to the Globe ‘90 Conference which proposed that tourism should be viewed as a ‘sustainable economic development option’
and that tourism development should be ‘compatible with the principles of sustainable development’ (Cronin, 1990). Though not referring to sustainable development specifically, Müller (1994) similarly suggested that:
. . . the objective of environmentally and socially compatible tour- ism has a lot to do with the frequently quoted . . . strategy of
‘qualitative growth’. ‘Qualitative growth’ can be described as any increase in quality of life (i.e. economic growth and subjective well-being) which can be achieved with less use of non-renewable resources and less stress on the environment and people.
In effect, Müller linked tourism development with what has come to be referred to as sustainability, firmly establishing sustainable tourism development, in principle, as a vehicle of or contributor to sustainable development more generally. That is, sustaining tourism is a prerequisite for, but is subordinate to, sustainable development within the overall objective of sustainable tourism development. He also proposed that sustainable tourism development could be conceptualized as a ‘magic pentagon’ (Figure 3.1) within which a balance is achieved between the five objectives so that no single one predominates.
Figure 3.1 Müller’s ‘magic pentagon’
Since these early attempts to establish the meaning, scope and purpose of sustainable tourism development, numerous definitions have been proposed.
These, according to Lim and Cooper (2009), have been criticized for being
‘ambiguous, vague, sectoral, too conceptual and confused with environmental issues’. However, such a volume and diversity of definitions is not surprising given the vagueness and adaptability of multiple contexts of the concept. As a recent United States Agency for International Development (USAID) report notes, the term ‘sustainable tourism’ means different things to different stakeholders:
The private tourism industry views it largely in economic and marketing terms. How can the tourism market be sustained and grow in the long term? The local community may see it in terms of socio-economic benefits and cultural preservation . . .
Subjective sell-being
Optimum guest satisfaction
Healthy culture Economic health
Protection of resources
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 61
An environmental NGO would present more of an ecological perspective. How can tourism help to sustain, rather than mar, natural systems? (USAID, 2005, p5)
Thus, it may simply be the case that sustainable tourism development (and, indeed, sustainable development) defies precise definition, though this is not necessarily a problem – a precise definition might disenfranchise those stake- holders whose views are not expressed in or embraced by that definition, whilst definitional vagueness serves to enhance the political acceptability of the concept (Robinson, 2004).
Nevertheless, both initial and contemporary definitions of sustainable tourism development align it closely with the broader principles of sustainable development or sustainability. For example, Making Tourism More Sustainable:
A Guide for Policy Makers (UNEP/WTO, 2005), referred to in the previous chapter, explains that sustainable tourism is a ‘condition’ relevant to all forms of tourism and simply means tourism that is developed in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. In other words, sustainable tourism development can be thought of as one of numerous sectors or processes that contribute to sustainable development, itself a process leading towards sustain- ability or harmony between humankind and the natural world. Thus, a working definition proposed by Butler in 1993 remains relevant, with slight adaptation, to contemporary conceptualizations of sustainable tourism development:
Tourism which is developed and maintained . . . in such a manner and at such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period and does not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which it exists to such a degree that it prohibits the successful development and wellbeing of other activities and processes. (Butler, 1993, p29)
Such an approach is reflected in numerous policy documents. For example, the South Australian Tourism Commission’s report Design Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism Development (SATC, 2007) explicitly links sustainable tourism to the three sustainability pillars (economic, social and environmental) of sustainable development, and proposes 12 principles for sustainable tourism (Table 3.1).
However, despite the recognition of the need to align tourism development with the principles of sustainable development, the extent to which this can be done in practice remains questionable. Many contemporary definitions of sustainable tourism continue to display a local destination, tourism-centric perspective (see, for example, definitions listed on the Sustainable Tourism Gateway: www.gdrc.org/uem/eco-tour/eco-tour.html), reflecting just one of a number of criticisms that have long been levelled at the concept. Therefore, the following section explores the relationship between sustainable development/
sustainability principles and tourism as a specific socio-economic activity as a basis for identifying and reviewing the inherent weaknesses and limitations of sustainable tourism development.
Table 3.1 Principles of sustainable tourism
Minimizing environmental impacts:
Tourism should consider both local and global environmental impacts.
Achieving conservation outcomes:
Tourism should seek to support the conservation of natural areas, habitats and wildlife and minimize damage to them.
Being different:
One of the keys to successful and sustainable tourism is achieving a clear sense of difference from other competing destinations.
Achieving authenticity:
The attractions most likely to be successful and of enduring appeal are those which are genuinely relevant to local history, industry, culture, lifestyle and natural resources.
Reflecting community values:
This means representing the past, present and future aspirations of the local community in a living and dynamic way.
Understanding and targeting the market:
Understanding broad market trends and the needs and expectations of specific segments is critical.
Enhancing the experience:
The ‘bundling’ of attributes enhances the appeal of a place and the likelihood of visitation.
Adding value:
Adding value to existing attributes achieves a richer tourism experience and helps to diversify the local economy.
Having good content:
Telling the story provides a more rewarding experience and ultimately helps conserve the destination.
Enhancing sense of place through design:
Good design respects the resource, achieves conservation, reflects community values and is instrumental in telling the story.
Providing mutual benefits to visitors and hosts:
Tourism is an economic and community development tool and must take into account the benefits that both the host community and the visitor seek.
Building local capacity:
Good tourism businesses get involved with the community and collaborate with other businesses and stakeholders and help to build local capacity.
Source: adapted from SATC, 2007
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 63
Aligning tourism with sustainable development
As discussed in Chapter 2, sustainable development’s emergence and evolution into the dominant development paradigm of the 1980s and 1990s was founded upon two principal influences, summarized by Kemp at al (2005) as:
increasingly worrisome evidence of ecological degradation and other biophysical damage, both despite and because of the greater wherewithal provided by greater economic growth, and the largely disappointing record of post-WWII ‘development’ efforts, particularly the persistence, and in some places worsening, of poverty and desperation in a period of huge overall increases in material wealth.
The first attempt to reconcile these two challenges within a common approach was manifested in the World Commission on Environment and Develop- ment’s report Our Common Future (WCED, 1987) – widely referred to as the Brundtland Report – which not only sought to link poverty alleviation, environmental improvement and social equity with sustainable economic growth but also established a controversial foundation for the contemporary debate on sustainability and sustainable development (Mebratu, 1998). In particular, Brundtland argued that a five- to tenfold increase in global economic activity was necessary to meet the needs of the world’s poor but, recognizing the environmental costs of overdevelopment, that such an increase should be within the world’s technological and environmental limits. The proposed solution, of course, was sustainable development, famously but vaguely defined as development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987, p48).
Therein, however, lies one of the principal and most enduring criticisms of sustainable development: namely, that it is an oxymoron. In other words, it is argued by many that development based upon economic growth, particularly on a scale proposed by Brundtland, cannot be reconciled with environmental sustainability.
Since the publication of Our Common Future, sustainable development has attracted a variety of criticisms with respect to both its philosophical underpinnings and practical implementation issues. Though significant to the sustainable development debate in general, they are also of relevance to a critique of sustainable tourism development in particular for the simple reason that if tourism is to be developed according to the principles of sustainable development, then by association it is open to the same criticisms as sustainable development. Therefore, in the context of this chapter, it is useful to consider briefly these criticisms.
It is important to note that the constituent elements of sustainable develop- ment – that is, development and environmental sustainability (Lélé 1991) – are themselves variously definable according to philosophical perspectives. The different meanings of development have already been explored in Chapter 2
but, with respect to the environment, competing positions on environmental protection and management existed well before the emergence of sustainable development. Thus, as Robinson (2004) explains, there has long been a distinction between ‘preservationists’, or those who, reflecting a Romantic or spiritual philosophy, sought to preserve natural areas in a pristine, undeveloped state, and ‘conservationists’, who favoured the protection of natural areas and resources for subsequent utilitarian exploitation. A similar debate focused on alternative means of managing environmental resources; a ‘preservationist’
stance favours a transformation in values and lifestyles (for example, the adoption of sustainable consumer behaviour), whilst the ‘conservationist’
stance promotes efficiency gains and technological solutions. Similar to the techno-centric and eco-centric perspectives on the environment (O’Riordan, 1981), these opposing positions were inherited by sustainable development and remain a contested area within the relevant literature. In short, the concept of sustainable development is built on what might be described as unstable foundations.
To further complicate matters, the meaning and objectives of sustainable development have been interpreted according to a variety of different ‘schools’.
On the one hand, there exists ‘mainstream’ sustainable development (Adams, 2001), or what Mebratu (1998) refers to as the ‘institutional’ version of sustainability. Advocating reform rather than rejection of economic-growth based development, mainstream sustainable development is based upon capitalistic free markets, economic growth, technological advance and environmental self-regulation, and closely reflects the institutional agenda for sustainable development. On the other hand, the ‘ideological’ version of sustainability (Mebratu, 1998) offers a variety of more radical countermeasures which seek to replace the dominant mainstream approach to the environment and sustain- able development. These include eco-feminism, eco-socialism, eco-anarchism and eco-theology and are explored in some depth by Adams (2001). Mebratu (1998) also proposes a third school, the ‘academic’ version of sustainability, which introduces environmental economics, deep ecology and social ecology into the sustainable development ‘mix’. A full consideration of these is beyond the scope of this chapter. The main point is, however, that definitions, meanings and interpretations of sustainable development inevitably reflect a diversity of philosophical, ideological, socio-cultural and political-economic positions and, also inevitably, mainstream sustainable development will continue to be criticized by alternative schools. At the same time, there are those who reject the concept of sustainable development outright. Lomborg, for example, is a well-known sceptic who claims that the state of the natural environment is much healthier than suggested by environmentalists, that human activity has little environmental impact and that the solution lies in a combination of economic growth and technological advance (Lomborg, 2001).
Specifically, sustainable development is criticized on a number of grounds.
Reference has already been made to its inherently contradictory nature (Redclift, 1987): semantically, ‘sustainability requires a long term perspective and something that is sustained should be enduring and, ideally, exists in