Section 2: Disciplines and Areas of Study
5. Interpretation should aim to present informa- tion as a whole instead of as an isolated part, and
should be presented to the person as a whole, rather than as two facets.
Returning to the dimensions of sustainability expressed by Sachs (2004) above, it is necessary to address one of the most controversial dimensions:
economics. The focal point of this dimension con- cerns an equitable distribution between external business owners and host communities. This is a challenge because in the ‘non-sustainable’ model, the external business owner wants the return on their investment to be as high as possible in the shortest amount of time. As indicated, the costs of nature and of local society are not incorporated into this model. To eliminate, or at least minimize, these distortions, the primary strategies and tools of the sustainability of tourism’s economic dimen- sion are the following: businesses designed with, and investors and communities made aware of, the principles of ecological economics or solidar- ity economics; community-based tourism; and participatory planning and management, the lat- ter of which has already been discussed.
Ecological economics, according to Costanza (1989) and Proops and Safonov (2004), under- stands the economic system as a subsystem of a larger whole: the environment. In addition to the impacts on nature, the impacts on the local culture should be considered. Thus, capital (the external investor), natural resources and the local commu- nity’s interests and aspirations must be understood as essentially complementary. The risk of irreversi- ble losses is considered relevant (and can be cata- strophic). In the long term, it is impossible for the economic system to be sustainable without stabiliz- ing the levels of per capita consumption based on the planet’s carrying capacity.
It is important to emphasize that tourism can never be understood as an isolated activity centred in the community itself. There will always be some degree of dependence on or relationship with external actors. Tourists are external elements, and agencies, which form groups in the tourists’ places of origin, are also obviously external. Other inves- tors linked to the hotel or food and beverage sec- tors can also be (and frequently are) external.
Thus, the challenge lies in finding a more equitable relationship between the external actors and the local community. In this sense, locally based tour- ism actions represent one approach to the sustain- ability of tourism because they seek to reduce the discrepancies between external and internal interests.
The economic dimension of sustainability focuses on the relationship between local communities and external investors, based on solidarity economics.
This is one of the hallmarks of community-based tourism (Mielke, 2012; Pookaiyaudom, 2013).
According to Silva et al. (2009, pp. 363–364), community-based tourism should consider the fol- lowing actions:
● Contributing to creating local jobs and income.
● Strengthening local governance in conjunction with the other actors involved in tourism.
● Decreasing income leakages and promoting the densification of the local market.
● Structuring the touristic segment in light of the increasing touristic demand at national and international levels.
● Adding value to tourism destinations by diversi- fying the segments to be offered.
● Promoting quality and safety standards for the tourist experience both for the host community and for visitors.
According to this logic, solidarity economics, an important element of community-based tourism, is a form of production based on associations and cooperatives, with the production, consumption and trade of goods and services carried out in a self-managed mode that is not exclusive to the community but, instead, is under its control.
Solidarity economics focuses on those excluded from capital and develops solidarity in them instead of in competition. Therefore, its base is in associations or cooperatives, because this form of organization replaces the lack of capital with solidarity.
Sustainability in Tourism 137
Operationalizing
Sustainability in tourism is composed of various dimensions and thus presents great complexity. A multidisciplinary team is critical, with the tourism professional working together with others from the natural, social and economic sciences. The objec- tive of these teams should consider the techniques and strategies described here. The external business owner must consider the limits of nature in terms of supporting interferences. Experts from the natu- ral sciences can make substantial contributions to the establishment of these limits and the use of indicators. The local community’s desires, needs and cultural values should also be considered. To this end, considering community-based tourism and the principles of solidarity economics, involve- ment with the techniques of participatory planning and strengthening the local production arrange- ments is of paramount importance for guiding the actions of either local or external investors in terms of touristic activities and facilities.
With respect to practical and early actions, it is important to note that it is very difficult to work with all eight of the dimensions proposed by Sachs (2004) simultaneously: environmental, natural, social, cultural, territorial, economic, and national and international politics. It is most important to choose one of these dimensions to begin the work, without losing sight of the fact that, in the future, with the project’s maturity, the chosen dimension must relate to the other dimensions that have not yet been considered.
Exercise
Read the passage from the book by Florian Steinberg (2008, p. 1) below and prepare a com- mentary on the possibilities and limitations of implementing similar projects in your city. In your text, discuss some of the dimensions, such as eco- nomic, social, environmental, cultural and political sustainability, involved in projects of this nature.
Many of Asia’s large cities served as centers of trade for centuries. As a result, they possess historic urban cores that initially functioned as these cities’ centers of commerce. While most of these cores still stand replete with buildings, artifacts, and other features of historical and cultural value, these living museums fell into neglect during the 20th century, often as an unintended by-product of rapid urbanization. Rapid urban growth often leads to the collapse of large cities’ historic urban cores, since urbanization generally
occurs at a more rapid pace at cities’ peripheries than centers. Examples of this phenomenon abound in Southeast Asia, such as in Jakarta, Malacca, Manila, Penang, Saigon, Semarang, and the historic centers of cities of similar size in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), India, Nepal, and Pakistan. From the point of view of economic efficiency, neglect of these historic urban centers represents a foregone opportunity for growth in national income. Their revitalization, which without exception includes upgrading of their infrastructure, increases not only the value of the real estate on which they stand, but likewise their attractiveness to commerce, tourism, and trade. Further, these historic urban centers represent compelling opportunities for public–private partnership investment projects that often multiply many times over the development impact of each unit of government expenditure. Revitalizing Asia’s historic urban centers thus makes sense from numerous perspectives, including economic efficiency; promotion of commerce, trade, and tourism; employment creation; poverty reduction; and the strengthening of civic and national pride.
Steinberg (2008, p. 1.)
References
Arnstein, S.R.A. (1969) Ladder of citizen participation.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, 216–224.
Bernáldez, F.G. (1991) Ecological consequences of the abandonment of traditional land-use systems in Central Spain. Options Méditerranéennes 15, 23–29.
Bernáldez, F.G. (1992) Turismo y médio ambiente.
Revista Valenciana d’Estudis Autonómics. Generalitat Valenciana 13, 138–165.
Connor, D. (1988) A new ladder of citizen participation.
National Civic Review 77, 249–257.
Costanza, R. (1989) What is ecological economics?
Ecological Economics 1, 1–7.
Note
3 The limits of nature refer here to the concept of ‘basic life support systems’ or the ‘carrying capacity of an eco- system’. Carrying capacity is defined, according to Daily and Ehrlich (1992), as the maximum population size of a species that a given area can support without reducing its ability to maintain that species for an indefinite period of time.
4 The term ‘environmental’ applies not only to natural areas but also to rural and urban ones. Environmental interpretation can thus be used to make visitors aware of the natural, social and cultural characteristics, for exam- ple, of the location visited, whether that area is urban, rural or natural.
138 Chapter 2.19 Daily, G.C. and Ehrlich, P.R. (1992) Population, sustain-
ability, and Earth’s carrying capacity: a framework for estimating population size and lifestyles that could be sustained without undermining future generations.
BioScience 42, 761–771.
Goodwin, H. and Santilli, R. (2009) Community-based Tourism: a Success? ICRT Occasional Paper OP11.
Graefe, A.R., Kuss, F.R. and Vaske, J.J. (1990) Visitor Impact Management: the Planning Framework, Vol. 2.
National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC.
Krippendorf, J. (1984) Die Ferienmenschen Für ein neues Verständnis von Freizeit und Reisen. Orell Füssli Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland.
Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Longman, Harlow, UK.
Mielke, E.J.C. (2012) Community based tourism: sustain- ability as a matter of result management. In Lohmann, G.
and Dredge, D. (eds) Tourism in Brazil. Taylor &
Francis, London, pp. 30–43.
Murphy, P.E. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach.
Methuen, London.
Murphy, P. and Price, G. (2005) Tourism and sustainable development. In: Theobald, W. (ed.) Global Tourism.
Elsevier, Maryland Heights, Missouri.
Pires, P.S. (ed.) (2002) Dimensões do Ecoturismo.
Senac, São Paulo, Brazil.
Pookaiyaudom, G. (2013) The integrated learning of community-based tourism in Thailand. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 106, 2890–2898.
Proops, J. and Safonov, P. (eds) (2004) Modelling in Ecological Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Sachs, I. (2004) Desenvolvimento: Includente, Sustentável, Sustentado. Garamond, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Silva, K.T.P., Ramiro, R.C. and Teixeira, B.S. (2009) Fomento ao turismo de base comunitária a experiên- cia do Ministério do Turismo do Brasil. In: Bartholo, R., Sansolo, D.G. and Bursztyn, I. (eds) Turismo de Base Comunitária: Diversidade de Olhares e Experiências Brasileiras. Letra e Imagem, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 359–496.
Steinberg, F. (2008) Revitalization of historic inner-city areas in Asia: the potential for urban renewal. In Ha Noi, J. (ed.) Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, The Philippines.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management.
CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Tilden, F. (2007) Interpreting Our Heritage, 40th edn.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Wearing, S. and Neil, J. (2009) Ecotourism: Impacts, Potential and Possibilities, 2nd edn. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, and Melbourne, Australia.
Further Reading
Bramwell, B. (2015) Theoretical activity in sustainable tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 54, 204–218.
Cohen, S.A., Higham, J.E.S., Peeters, P. and Gössling, S.
(2014) Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches. Routledge, Oxford and New York.
Jamal, T. and Camargo, B.A. (2014) Sustainable tourism, justice and an ethic of care: toward the just destina- tion. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22, 11–30.
Junk, W.J. (1995) Capacidade suporte de ecossistemas:
Amazônia como estudo de caso. In Tauk-Tornisielo, S.M., Gobbi, N. and Foresti, C. (eds) Análise Ambiental:
Estratégias e Ações. T.A. Queiroz/Fundação Salim Farah Maluf. Rio Claro – Centros de Estudos Ambientais – Unesp, São Paulo, Brazil, pp. 51–62.
Singer, P. (2001) Economia solidária versus economia capitalista. Sociedade e Estado 16, 100–112.
Waligo, V.M., Clarke, J. and Hawkins, R. (2013) Implementing sustainable tourism: a multi-stake- holder involvement management framework, Tourism Management 36, 342–353.
Zonneveld, I.S. (1989) The land unit – a fundamental concept in landscape ecology and its applications.
Landscape Ecology 3, 67–86.