Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism

Research report series

Delivering strategic knowledge to

enhance the environmental, economic
and social sustainability of tourism.

Research report 1

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

David Weaver and Laura Lawton

c
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

CRC for Sustainable Tourism

Research report series
The primary aim of CRC Tourism’s research report series is technology transfer. The reports are targeted toward both
industry and government users and tourism researchers. The content of this technical report series primarily focuses
on applications, but may also advance research methodology and tourism theory. The report series titles relate to
CRC Tourism’s research program areas. All research reports are peer reviewed by at least two external reviewers.
For further information on the report series, contact the production editor.

Editors
Terry De Lacy, CRC Tourism
Ralf Buckley, Griffith University
Ray Volker, University of Queensland
Bill Faulkner, Griffith University
Phillip Pearce, James Cook University
Peter O’Clery, CRC Tourism

Production editor • Sharon Solyma

Copy editor • Sandra Brunet

Design & layout • Debbie Lau

Printer • Rolf Bernklev, Document on Demand

© 1999 Copyright CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd

All rights reserved. No parts of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by means
of electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Any inquiries
should be directed to CRC for Sustainable Tourism.

National Library of Australia Cataloging in Publication data

Weaver, David B. (David Bruce).

Sustainable tourism: a critical analysis.

Bibliography.
ISBN 0 646 37647 0.

1. Ecotourism – Australia. 2. Tourist trade – Environmental aspects – Australia. 3. Sustainable development –

Australia. 4. Ecotourism – Queensland – Gold Coast. I. Lawton, Laura. II. Cooperative Research Centre for
Sustainable Tourism. III. Title. (Series: Tourism report series (Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism);
no.1).

338.479194

1
 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

contents
6 Executive summary
8 Introduction
9 1 ~ Sustainable development
Graduations of sustainability
Sustainable development interpretations

13 2 ~ Evolution of sustainable tourism

Advocacy platform
Cautionary platform
Adaptancy platform
Knowledge-based platform
Emergency of sustainability as a dominant tourism paradigm
A broad context model of sustainability-related tourism scenarios

20 3 ~ Sustainability indicators
Sustainable tourism indicator categories
Candidate sustainable tourism indicators
Sample procedure for implementing ST

25 4 ~ Problems and issues in sustainable tourism

Defining the goals of ST
Establishing an appropriate planning and management framework
Selecting, measuring and monitoring appropriate indicators
Assessing indicator performance and determining achievement of goals
Implementing remedial action

32 5 ~ Indications of sustainability
Protected areas
Small islands
Rural and indigenous areas
Mass tourism
A synopsis of mass tourism and alternative tourism sustainability

37 Conclusions

38 References

43 Authors

1
 f
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

figures
10 Figure 1.1
Gradations of sustainability

11 Figure 1.2
An ideological continuum of SD perspectives

12 Figure 1.3
Operating principles of ‘mainstream’ sustainable development

15 Figure 2.1
Butler’s report cycle model

16 Figure 2.2
Selected critique of alternative tourism

17 Figure 2.3
A broad context model of destination ideal types

18 Figure 2.4
Broad context destination development scenarios

19 Figure 2.5
Application of the broad context model to the Gold Coast of Australia

21 Figure 3.1
Sustainable tourism indicator categories

24 Figure 3.2
Sample framework for implementing sustainable tourism

27 Figure 4.1
Spartial parameters for ST

30 Figure 4.2
Spatial and temporal planning frameworks and discontinuities between cause and effect

33 Figure 5.1
Hypothetical zonation in a protected area

35 Figure 5.2
Pacific Asia Tourism Association (PATA) code for environmentally responsible tourism

36 Figure 5.3
Mass tourism, alternative tourism and sustainability
3
 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

tables
12 Table 1.1
Resource conservation and resource tourism

14 Table 2.1
Tourism platforms and associated ideal types

15 Table 2.2
Unsustainable mass tourism and deliberate alternative tourism as ideal types

22 Table 3.1
Candidate sustainable tourism indicators

24 Table 3.2
Core WTO indicators of sustainable tourism

5
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

executive summary

T
he concept of sustainable tourism is fundamentally linked to the idea of sustainable development as it has been
interpreted in the Brundtland Report of 1988. A major problem with sustainable development is its ambiguity and
subsequent vulnerability to interpretation and employment on ideological grounds. Hence, anthropocentric
perspectives tend to emphasise the status quo of resource exploitation for the good of human populations, while the
biocentric perspectives place the primary emphasis on the natural environment itself. However, there is room for
compromise between the more moderate schools on either side; that is, the resource conservationists on the
anthropocentric side, and the resource preservationists on the biocentric side.

It is this moderate interpretation of sustainable development that should inform a workable version of sustainable
tourism. Surprisingly, the sustainable development literature makes almost no mention of tourism despite the importance
of the latter sector. However, this has become a major explicit focus of the tourism literature since the late 1980s. Prior
to this time, the pro-development advocacy platform within tourism studies (dominant in the 1960s) supported a policy of
sustained mass tourism growth, while the cautionary platform (dominant in the 1970s) basically viewed conventional mass
tourism as unsustainable. Butler’s S-shaped resort cycle model is perhaps the most vivid demonstration of the negative
impacts inherent within inappropriately managed mass tourism. In the early 1980s, the adaptancy platform supported
deliberate alternative tourism as a desirable and sustainable alternative to mass tourism.

Since the late 1980s, a purportedly more objective and scientific ‘knowledge-based platform’ has come into being
within the field of tourism study. This acknowledges the possibility that mass tourism can be sustainable if planned and
managed appropriately, and that alternative (small-scale) tourism may induce negative impacts on a destination under
certain circumstances.

A broad context model of four destination ideal types can be identified as a result of the above four platforms;
circumstantial alternative tourism, deliberate alternative tourism, unsustainable mass tourism and sustainable mass
tourism. Eight probable scenarios of change can be situated within this model, wherein the Butler curve is comparable to
the circumstantial alternative tourism to unsustainable mass tourism transformation. In any destination, the desirable
outcome is any shift from either circumstantial alternative tourism or unsustainable mass tourism to deliberate alternative
tourism or sustainable mass tourism, implying a shift from unsustainable to sustainable outcomes. In the case of the Gold
Coast, the coastal beach strip should be shifted from unsustainable mass tourism to sustainable mass tourism, while the
hinterland should be transformed from circumstantial deliberate tourism to deliberate alternative tourism.

6
 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

To operationalise any conception of sustainable tourism, a destination must define the goals of sustainable tourism,
establish an appropriate planning and management framework, select relevant indicators from a candidate list of economic,
environmental, social and cultural criteria, measure and monitor these indicators, periodically analyse and assess indicator
performance, determine whether the original goals are being achieved, and implement remedial action if necessary.

In all of these steps, many problems will be encountered. As in sustainable development, sustainable tourism goals are
influenced by ideological considerations, and range from an emphasis on sustainable mass tourism to support for small-
scale tourism. Assuming that a consensus can be attained on these goals, it is then necessary to define the temporal, spatial,
political and inter-sectoral parameters within which to assess the sustainability of tourism. These are all problematic, in
that long-term planning is discouraged by the contingencies of short-term budget allocations, while a narrow, politically-
defined spatial planning unit cannot take into account all of the influences and effects that affect the sustainability of the
sector. Similarly, tourism cannot be isolated from other resource users such as agriculture and forestry.

As for sustainability indicators, there are no definitive guidelines available to inform destinations as to which ones are
most important. Furthermore, little is known about the critical thresholds of sustainability that apply to each criterion, how
they can best be measured, and how often they should be monitored. The process is also likely to be impeded by the spatial
and temporal discontinuities between cause and effect; that is, many of the impacts identified within a destination and/or
within a specific time period actually have their causes in other areas or times, while events within the destination may
have consequences in other destinations and time periods.

Given all of these problems, it is more appropriate to describe destinations as being indicative of sustainable tourism
than to state that they are definitely sustainable, since such a judgement is still too difficult to make. The former situation
often pertains to protected areas such as national parks, small islands such as Dominica and Samoa, and some rural and
indigenous areas. Increasingly, evidence is also available for sustainable mass tourism practices at an individual and
collective level. Industry organisations promote voluntary accreditation programs such as Green Globe to encourage
individual enterprises to implement energy reduction, waste minimisation, recycling and other initiatives. While the mass
tourism industry can still generally be characterised as unsustainable, substantial progress is being made toward attaining
a more sustainable framework upon which such initiatives are based.■

7
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

introduction
“In considering the impact of the tourism development
plan in Languedoc-Rousillon, it is necessary to steer
a course between the excessive optimism of the regional
tourism promotion bodies and the scepticism of some
academic commentators (Klemm 1992: 179)”.

have arisen, and moves toward a concept that can form an

T
he purpose of this report is to critique the concept of
sustainable tourism, which now forms the dominant
organisational paradigm of the global tourism sector.
Tourism managers and planners within virtually all
destinations, as well as entrepreneurs and communities, now
enthusiastically embrace sustainable tourism as a desirable
objective. However, there appears to be little general
understanding of its origins, nature and indicators, or of the
problems that are likely to be encountered in the
implementation process. By drawing upon an extensive
array of relevant secondary sources, this report intends to
provide basic knowledge to a broad audience of tourism
stakeholders, so that the concept and practice of sustainable
tourism can be engaged with ‘open eyes’.
The first section examines the broader context of
sustainable development and the various interpretations that
operational basis for sustainable tourism. This is followed
by a discussion on the growing awareness of sustainability
as it applies to tourism, and the various tourism
configurations and development scenarios that have
emerged as a result of this evolution. Section 4.0 considers
the nature of sustainable tourism indicators and proposes a
preliminary candidate list that can be accessed by
destinations to select an appropriate array for planning and
management purposes. Atheoretical sample framework for
sustainable tourism implementation is also presented to
support section 5.0, which examines the major issues and
problems likely to be encountered in the effort to attain this
ideal. With appropriate qualifications, the final section
discusses the extent to which various destinations and
components of the tourism industry are actually progressing
in their attempts to achieve sustainability.■

8

Sustainable development
N
o analysis of sustainable tourism (ST) can be
undertaken without first considering the mother
concept of ‘sustainable development’ (SD),
which emerged in the 1990s as the guiding principle
behind the contemporary development debate. As an
explicit idea, SD first appeared in the late 1970s and early
1980s, although many people mistakenly attribute the
term to the Brundtland Report of 1987 (WCED 1987).
The importance of the Brundtland Report was to propel
SD into the public arena as an attractive, if elusive,
organisational paradigm that was subsequently extended
to an array of broad thematic areas, including tourism.
The precursors of SD are found in the modern
environmental movement. Marginalised before the
mid-twentieth century to the conservation movement
and related initiatives, environmentalism gained
momentum following World War II through a sequence
of high profile publications that challenged the
dominant ‘western’ approach to the development
question. Prominent among these popular works were
the following:
• Sand County Almanac (Leopold, 1949)
• Silent Spring (Carson, 1963)
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
chapter one
• The Population Bomb (Ehrlich, 1972)
• The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al, 1972)
• Small is Beautiful (Schumacher, 1973)
• Gaia: A New Look At Life On Earth
(Lovelock, 1979)
• The Global 2000 Report to the President
(Barney, 1982).
Early references to the notion of sustainability were
closely affiliated with the environmental movement,
hence the tendency of countries such as Australia to
routinely refer to ‘ecologically sustainable
development’. Coomer (1979), for example, described
the ‘sustainable society’ as one ‘that lives within the
self-perpetuating limits of its environment...It is a
society that recognizes the limits of growth...and looks
for alternative ways of growing.’ Allen (1980), among
the earliest sources to actually use the SD term, defined
it as a form of development ‘that is likely to achieve
lasting satisfaction of human needs and improvement of
the quality of human life’. The term achieved a higher
profile through its use in The World Conservation
Strategy, which, among other suggestions, supported a
minimum threshold allocation of protected lands
(IUCN, UNEP & WWF 1980).
9
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

The 1987 Brundtland Report provided the real catalyst
for the broad dissemination of SD. In part, this was due to
the high profile authorship and sponsorship of the report.
An equally important factor, however, was that the
proffered definition of SD (ie ‘development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs’ - WCED
1987:43) is elegantly simple, and acceptable in principle
to almost everyone. The response of all levels of
government to embrace SD and the related concept of
sustainability resulted in its being employed as the central
theme of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. As well, it provided
the underlying basis of the subsequent Agenda 21
manifesto (Miller & Kaae 1993). Endorsed by the
signatures of 179 Heads of State, Agenda 21 purports to
provide a blueprint for sustainable development into the
twenty-first century. Its 40 chapters deal comprehensively
with matters of social and economic development, the
conservation and management of natural resources,
stakeholder groups, and means of implementation. In the
wake of the Earth Summit, the Agenda 21 initiative has
encouraged communities to formulate and implement the
principles of Agenda 21 at the local level.
Today most policy documents recognise and claim
adherence to the principle of sustainable development,
usually but not necessarily by following the principles
outlined in the Agenda 21 framework. This indicates the
evolution of SD into full-scale institutionalisation (Frazier
1997) at a time when the general public within the more
developed countries have identified environmental issues
as a major public policy priority (Burns & Holden 1995).

G Gradations of sustainability

Sustainable development interpretations

T
he essence of SD, then, follows the principle that
the expenditure of capital, however conceived (see
section 2.1), should not exceed its formation.
Where expenditure exceeds formation, the situation is
essentially unsustainable. Where the two are in
Despite the broad consensus on the basic definition of SD,
divergent perspectives have emerged in regard to its
interpretation and implementation. This is perhaps not
equilibrium, this may be referred to as ‘steady state surprising given the contradictory semantics of the term
sustainability’. However, the ideal situation is one where itself, with sustainable implying the steady state dynamics
formation actually exceeds expenditure, leading to an and limitations favoured by the environmental movement,
expanding capital base. This situation can be described as and development deriving from the vocabulary of the pro-
restorative or enhancive sustainability, depending on growth lobby and their allies, the ‘technological utopians’ (ie
whether a situation of sustainability is being restored, orthose who believe that technology can solve all problems). A
whether an already steady-state situation is being broad audience seems on the surface to accept SD’s attractive
improved even further. These three scenarios are depicted implication that environmental integrity and economic
in Figure 1.1. growth can somehow be accommodated and attained
simultaneously. This is apparent, for example, in Harris and
Figure 1.1 Leiper (1995), who describe SD as a managed form of
Gradations of sustainability economic growth that takes place in the context
of sound environmental stewardship.
However, for other commentators (eg Illich
1989 in Burr 1995), the contradiction
Capital formation < Capital expenditure
cannot be resolved, and SD is dismissed as
= UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT an unworkable oxymoron. This argument
extends to the contention that the advocates
Capital formation = Capital expenditure of SD are either extremely naive, or they
= STEADY STATE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT remain supporters of environmentalism or
growth who have appropriated the concept
Capital formation > Capital expenditure to reinforce their own existing dogma,
environmentalists stressing the ‘sustainable’
= RESTORATIVE or ENHANCIVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
component, and the pro-growth lobby
emphasising the ‘development’ component.
According to McKercher:
Rather than acting as a catalyst for

10

change, sustainability may serve to entrench and
legitimize extant policies and actions, thus exacerbating
rather than resolving conservation/development conflicts.
(McKercher 1993b:131)
It is for this reason that Willers (1994) condemns SD as
‘one of the most insidious and manipulative ideas to appear
in decades.’ A related indication of the perceptual gap
between the pro-development and the environmentalist
camps is broad adherence to a ‘constant wealth’model by
the former, which holds that wealth is based on the
aggregate value of natural and man-made capital. As long
as the cumulative assets remain stable, their distribution
between the natural and man-made spheres is not
important. In other words, the natural capital can decline
as long as it is converted into equivalent or greater man-
made capital (McKercher 1993b). This approach favours
activities that generate the most cumulative wealth, even if
they are detrimental to the natural environment (Burns &
Holden 1995). Environmentalists, in contrast, emphasise
the need to maintain a stable core of natural assets, which
cannot be replaced by an equivalent pool of man-made
assets. This is reflected in Lele (1991), who suggests that
SD is fundamentally concerned with the maintenance of
those ecological conditions that are necessary to support
human life at a specified level of well-being throughout
future generations.
Ideology remains problematic even if the issue of
objectives can be resolved. Capitalism, for example,
assumes that SD can best be facilitated through a
philosophy of free markets and personal empowerment,
while neo-Marxists advocate state intervention and
emphasis on the ‘common property’. Such divergences,
however, inevitably return the debate to fundamental
objectives. Neo-Marxists, and most neo-Malthusians,
Figure 1.2
An ideological continuum of SD perspectives
Number
of adherents
REALM OF COMPROMISE
Laissez-faire Resource
capitalism conservation
Anthropocentric
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
identify the need for intra-generational sustainability, or
the equitable distribution of wealth among regions and
classes at the present time (present-day equity), as the
critical pre-requisite for inter-generational sustainability,
or the maintenance of living standards from one
generation to the next (future equity) which is at the core
of the Brundtland definition (Frazier 1997). This
argument holds that most environmental problems in the
less developed world, such as predatory cultivation and
large-scale deforestation, result from the desperate acts of
desperate people who are jeopardising their own future
(and by extension, the future of the world in general) in
the interests of their own immediate survival (Elliott
1994). If capitalism acknowledges intra-generational
equity at all, it is usually to espouse the substitution of free
markets for traditional or socialist lifestyles in order to
foster the increases in personal wealth that will remove the
need to damage the environment in order to survive in the
short term. Some critics of SD maintain, in line with
McKercher’s comments, that the real agenda of capitalism
is to maintain the status quo by assuring that the wealthy
are able to retain their dominance from one generation to
the next. The ideological dimensions of sustainable
development are only briefly outlined in this paragraph, as
the actual literature that has been published in this regard
is enormous (eg Goodland et al 1992, Daly 1996).
Given the malleability and ambiguity of SD, it is
legitimate to ask whether this ‘contestable concept’
(Mowforth & Munt 1998) can or should form the underlying
basis for the radical re-conceptualisation of various
economic sectors, including tourism. Hunter (1997) points
to a possible solution in arguing that the pro- and anti-
development SD perspectives are not dichotomous, but
rather continuous. In this view, laissez-faire
developmentalism and spiritual ecology/environmentalism
Resource Deep Ecology
preservation
Biocentric
11
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Resource conservationism Resource preservationism

conservation, while less altered
spaces dominated by natural
• Supports managed and modified • Supports zero population growth capital (eg protected areas,
growth, within reason and steady state economy, but
forests, wetlands) are managed
ot decline
• Supports intra- and inter- more in adherence to the
• Supports intra- and inter- principles of preservation. It
generational equity generational equity would also be possible, in the
• Rejects infinite substitution • Allows for very limited interests of a more holistic
(constant wealth) argument substitution of man-made for approach, to extend the realm of
natural capital sustainability beyond the natural
• Recognises existence of critical
• Recognises primary importance environment to include the
natural capital (eg ozone layer) selective conservation and
of maintaining natural systems
• Supports individualism, with preservation of cultural and social
• Recognises primacy of the capital (Barbier 1987). The
checks and balances provided collective will over the individual,
by government importance of social and cultural
but does not reject a limited role
sustainability, inherently and as a
for free markets
Table 1.1 way of facilitating ecological
Resource conservationism and resource preservation sustainability is a key focus of
Agenda 21. Other interpretations
(eg Deep Ecology - Devall & Sessions 1985), the positions of SD, however, are more ecologically oriented.
least open to compromise, are situated at the extremes of an
ideological continuum divided roughly into anthropocentric Whatever the conception of SD that is adopted, there
(emphasis on human viability) and biocentric/ecocentric remains the issue of implementation. Political realities, as
(emphasis on ecological interdependence) camps (Figure 2.2). well as the selection, measurement and monitoring of
As with any bell curve distribution, the advocates of these appropriate variables within suitable parameters of space
extreme views are in the minority, but their influence is and time, are associated complexities that would require
demonstrated by their level of commitment and ability to their own monograph to address properly if extended to
mobilise effectively for lobbying purposes. Closer to the the entire SD arena. This report, however, is focused upon
centre, however, are positions more open to compromise and a particular sector, and the discussion of issues relevant to
synthesis. Resource conservationists on the anthropocentric implementation will therefore be confined to the field of
side are supportive of economic growth, but only under sustainable tourism (see Section 5). Prior to this, it is
conditions which do not threaten the natural resource base. On necessary to consider the evolution of sustainable tourism
the biocentric side, resource preservationists are supportive of and its associated parameters.■
ecosystems integrity, but do not
advocate a drastic de-population of the Figure 1.3
earth, or a radical reduction in material Operating principles of ‘mainstream’ sustainable development
lifestyles (Table 1.1).
• Establishing ecological limits and more equitable standards of
Clearly, these two ‘mainstream’ consumption
approaches near the centre share • Redistribution of economic activity and re-allocation of resources to fulfil
considerable common ground, and it principles of equity
is not inconceivable that a • Control of human population levels
combination of their philosophies • Preservation of basic resources that support the earth’s essential
could form the basis of a majority- support systems
support, moderate interpretation of • More equitable access to resources and increased technological effort
to use them more effectively
SD that would entail a combination
of characteristics similar to those • Attention to carrying capacity and sustainable yield
outlined in Figure 1.3. This • Retention of non-renewable resources
approach would perhaps function • Maintenance of biodiversity and cultural diversity
best not on the basis of synthesis, but • Minimisation of adverse impacts on air, water and other natural elements
rather, on the principles of • Local community control
geographical compatibility and co- • Planning and policy at a broad national and international level
existence, wherein some already • Economic viability
heavily altered areas dominated by • Maintenance of environmental quality
man-made capital (such as cities and • Environmental auditing as a dominant monitoring procedure
farmlands) are more suited to Modified from Murphy 1994.
management along the lines of

12

Evolution of sustainable tourism
T
he tourism sector is virtually invisible within the broad
context SD literature (Butler 1993), which tends to
concentrate on the more conventional primary and
secondary economic activities such as agriculture, mining,
forestry, fisheries and manufacturing (Eber 1992). Tourism,
for example, merits not a single citation within the Brundtland
Report, and is only alluded to briefly in Agenda 21. Several
factors may account for this neglect:
• First, there is a widespread (and erroneous) perception
that tourism does not involve the consumption of
natural resources in the same literal sense as the sectors
mentioned above.
• Second, the belief that tourism is a marginal,
somewhat facetious and not particularly important
activity is still widespread among those who are not
knowledgable about the sector (Butler 1993).
• Third, tourism stakeholders have not until recently
been particularly pro-active about ensuring that their
sector is visible within the overall SD debate.
While the latter factor is at least partially due to the
existence of a vigorous sustainability debate within the
tourism sector itself, this still does not justify the broader
pattern of neglect, given the character of the contemporary
tourism industry. We are constantly and correctly reminded
in the literature that tourism is one of the world’s largest
industries. In 1997, almost 613 million international
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
chapter two
stayovers were reported (WTO 1998), from which an
estimate of six billion domestic tourists can be imputed. Far
from being an economically marginal activity, tourism
accounts for about 6% of the world’s cumulative gross
national product (McIntosh, Goeldner & Ritchie 1995). Even
at the time of the Brundtland Report, there were 363 million
international stayovers generating US$176 billion in receipts
(WTO 1998). Furthermore, global tourism has demonstrated
a remarkable resilience, with positive growth in visitation
numbers being recorded for every year since 1960, and at an
average rate considerably in excess of other major industries
(WTO 1998).
Spatially, tourism is both ubiquitous and concentrated; that
is, almost all parts of the world experience at least some
tourism activity, while certain sensitive environments such as
coastlines, lakeshores and alpine valleys have proven highly
susceptible to the development of intensive tourism sectors.
Such patterns of diffusion and development are exemplified
by the emergence over the past four decades of a leisure-
tourism dominated ‘pleasure periphery’ enveloping large
parts of the Caribbean and Mediterranean basins, the South
Pacific and coastal areas of Australia, Asia and Africa
(Turner & Ash 1975). Qualifying all of these facts is the
assertion that tourism is indeed a major consumer of
natural resources, and a multi-sector activity that affects,
and is affected by, almost all other forms of economic
activity (McKercher 1993a). Furthermore, local cultures
13
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
and social structures are also especially vulnerable to
disruption due to the in situ (or on-site) pattern of product
consumption that is inherent to tourism.
If these characteristics have not yet prompted the
insertion of tourism into the broader SD debate, they have
certainly stimulated a high level of internal interest in the
concept of sustainable tourism (ST), as suggested earlier.
The term itself first appeared in literature during the late
1980s, and a perusal of the references in these and
subsequent publications clearly shows the primary
influence and inspiration of the Brundtland Report.
However, as indicated in the following discussion, the
implicit ST debate pre-dates Brundtland by at least two
decades. It is also fair to say that the debate has moved
since the late 1980s into a distinctive ‘post-Brundtland’
phase. The following sub-sections employ the ‘platform’
model of Jafari (1989) to trace the evolution of the ST
concept. This schemata proposes that the post-World War
II tourism literature has been dominated in a roughly
sequential manner by four platforms or paradigms:
• Advocacy
• Cautionary
• Adaptancy
• Knowledge-based
Each platform, in turn, has given rise to associated
tourism ‘ideal types’ that reflect its philosophical
perspective on the matter of sustainability (Table 2.1). An
‘ideal type’, as explained by Harrison (1995), is not
intended to imitate reality, but rather to function as an
idealised, non-distorted standard against which real life
situations can be measured, affiliated, and compared.
Table 2.1
Tourism platforms and associated ideal types
Platfor m Ideal types
Advocacy Sustainable mass tourism
Cautionar y Unsustainable mass
tourism (UMT)
Adaptancy Deliberate alternative
tourism (DAT)
Knowledge- Sustainable mass tourism
based (SMT), circumstantial
alternative tourism (CAT)
14
Advocacy platfor m
T hroughout the 1950s and 1960s, tourism was widely
perceived as something of a panacea capable of
generating significant economic growth across a broad
range of destinations, many of which were not considered
amenable to more conventional forms of economic
activity. In close alignment with the laissez-faire extreme
of the anthropocentric perspective, an unambiguous pro-
growth stance was advocated for tourism, and large-scale
or ‘mass’ tourism models were espoused. References to
sustainability alluded only to the desirability that these
mass tourism configurations should be maintained, or
‘sustained’.
Cautionary platfor m
T he cautionary platform emerged in the late 1960s as
one component of a broader dialectic involving the
political left’s challenge to the economic dominance of the
right wing. Although many critics were more ‘liberal’
than neo-Marxist in outlook, the common view of the
cautionary platform was that the costs of laissez-faire
tourism development would far outweigh the benefits,
especially within destinations in developing countries.
Prevailing through the 1970s and into the early 1980s
(though more in the halls of academia than in the field),
the cautionary platform may be described as the ‘era of the
great critique’. On the socio-cultural side, Doxey (1975)
introduced his ‘Irridex’, whereby resident reactions
toward tourism were posited to progress from ‘euphoria’
to eventual ‘antagonism’ and ‘resignation’, while Plog
(1974) related visitor irritations to a change in clientele
from ‘allocentric’ to ‘psychocentric’ as a particular
destination became more intensively developed. Other
notable sociological and anthropological insights were
provided by Cohen (1972), Erisman (1983),
MacCannell (1976) and Smith (1977).
From an economic perspective, Bryden
(1973), Finney and Watson (1975), Perez
(1973) and Shivji (1973) provided eloquent
critiques, while Budowski (1976) and
Cohen (1978) focused upon the negative
effects of mass tourism upon the natural
environment. Although the term was never
explicitly employed, these commentators
all alluded to unsustainable mass tourism as
the undesirable but logical culmination of
the tourism development process. Butler
(1980) best summarised and synthesised the
views of the cautionary platform in his
deceptively simple S-curve model, which
postulated that destinations developing
under laissez-faire conditions progress from
 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 2.1
Butler’s resort cycle model are approached and then
Number of visitors
breached. Most indicative
(Rejuvenation) of unsustainability is the
subsequent tendency of
(Continued Stagnation) destinations to experience
Stagnation decline if no remedial
Consolidation measures are adopted
(Decline)
(Figure 2.1).
Development
Criticism of unregulated
Critical carrying capacity threshold
tourism was not confined
to university researchers
Involvement during the cautionary
Exploration period, as ‘mainstream’
Time organisations also
increasingly recognised
the potential dangers of
a state of exploration through involvement, development, large-scale tourism. Such concerns, for example, were
consolidation, and stagnation, as local carrying capacities evident in the 1980 Manila Declaration of the World
Table 2.2
Tourism Organisation, which stated that
Unsustainable mass tourism and deliberate alternative tourism as ideal types ‘...the satisfaction of tourism requirements

Characteristic Unsustainable mass tourism Deliberate alternative tourism

MARKETS
Segment Psychocentric - midcentric Allocentric - midcentric
Volume & Mode High; package tours Low; individual arrangements
Seasonality Distinct high & low seasons No distinct seasonality
Origins A few dominant markets No dominant markets

ATTRACTIONS
Emphasis Highly commercialised Moderately commercialised
Character Generic, ‘contrived’ Area specific, ‘authentic’
Orientation Tourists only or mainly Tourists & locals

ACCOMMODATION
Size Large-scale Small-scale
Spatial Pattern Concentrated in ‘tourist areas’ Dispersed throughout area
Density High density Low density
Architecture ‘International’ style; obtrusive, non- Vernacular style, un-obtrusive,
sympathetic Complementary
Ownership Non-local, large corporations Local, small businesses

ECONOMIC STATUS
Role of Tourism Dominates local economy Complements existing activity
Linkages Mainly external Mainly internal
Leakages Extensive Minimal
Multiplier Effect Low High

REGULATION
Control Non-local private sector Local ‘community’
Amount Minimal; to facilitate private sector Extensive; to minimise local negative impacts
Ideology Emphasis Free market forces Public intervention
Economic growth, profits; sector-specific Community stability & well-being; integrated,
holistic
Timeframe Short-term Long-term

Source: Adapted from Butler 1992 and Weaver 1993.

15
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
must not be prejudicial to the social and economic
interests of the population in tourist areas...’ (WTO in
Romeril 1989: 104).
Adaptancy platfor m
A lthough the cautionary platform eloquently identified
the economic, socio-cultural and environmental costs
of large-scale tourism development, it was not until the
appearance of the adaptancy platform in the early 1980s
that any serious effort was made to identify actual
solutions to this purportedly unsustainable status quo. The
term alternative tourism soon gained currency as the
preferred term for these options. Clearly, the term was
employed in the specific sense that these constituted
alternatives to the sort of mass tourism vilified by the
cautionary platform (Cohen 1989; Dernoi 1981;
Gonsalves 1991; Holden 1984). Not all possibilities,
however, were embraced under the rubric, with ‘hippie’
tourism, sex tourism and ultra-exclusive tourism being
among the alternatives to mass tourism that were
generally considered to be undesirable for a destination.
Rather, alternative tourism came to be associated with a
specific set of parameters that contrasted with the
characteristics of unsustainable mass tourism (Table 3.2).
The use of the adjective ‘deliberate’ in this table to
describe alternative tourism reflects the consensus that a
specific regulatory environment (ie the last category in the
table) was required to ensure long-term adherence to the
norms of the ideal type. Without this environment, there
is little to distinguish an ‘alternative tourism’ destination
from a destination that is merely situated within the
exploration or involvement stage of the Butler model, and
therefore vulnerable to increased development (Weaver
1991).
While originally intended to describe deliberately
exaggerated ‘ideal types’ (see Section 3.0), the
presentation of these two forms of tourism in this
polarised fashion seemed to encourage the highly
judgemental perception that one (ie mass tourism) was
inherently bad, while the other (ie alternative tourism) was
inherently good, and that little room for middle ground
existed between the two (Burns & Holden 1995; Lanfant
& Graburn 1992). Accordingly, alternative tourism was
considered by the adaptancy platform to be the only
legitimate form of tourism, and the only one that could be
considered sustainable (though the term ST itself had not
yet been introduced).
Special mention should be made of ecotourism, which
is widely defined as a variant of alternative tourism, that:
• puts primary emphasis on the natural environment (or
some element thereof) as the basis for product
attraction
16
• posits that the basis of interaction with the natural
environment is one of inherent appreciation and/or
educational interest, and not merely as a suitable
setting for a hedonistic or thrill seeking experience
(as in sunbathing and white-water rafting,
respectively) (Cater 1993; Place 1995; Weaver 1998).
First introduced as a term by Ceballos-Lascur·in in
1983 (Boo 1990), ecotourism has attained an equal (if not
greater) profile than ST itself, with many researchers
continuing to equate the two terms (eg Matthews 1993;
Tisdell & Wen 1997).
Knowledge-based platfor m
J afari’s knowledge-based platform, dominant since the
early 1990s, is characterised by a preference for
objective, scientific methods to obtain knowledge about
the tourism sector, and by the concomitant rejection of
simplistic judgements regarding the nature of mass and
alternative tourism. If tourism could be scrutinised
without any ideological filters, the argument went, then
mass tourism would emerge in some instances as a
legitimate and even preferable development option,
suggesting a growing convergence between mass tourism
and the concept of sustainability (Clarke 1997).
Conversely, alternative tourism would not always prove to
be benign for destinations. Butler (1990), Place (1995)
Figure 2.2
Selected critique of alternative tourism
• Many advocates motivated by bandwagon effect
rather than rational analysis of costs and benefits
• Tendency of advocates to be naive as per their
assumption of positive outcomes
• AT reflects values and priorities of alien elites, not
necessarily local communities
• AT may reinforce the power of the local elite rather
than the broader community
• Locals may actually prefer mass tourism
• Returns from AT may be too small to facilitate
economic development
• AT may engender overly intrusive contact between
tourists and locals
• Inadvertent role of alternative tourists as pioneers
facilitating the introduction of less benign forms of
tourism, notwithstanding presence of regulatory
controls
Source: Weaver 1998.

and Wight (1995), among others, have taken alternative
tourism to task on a number of grounds, as summarised in
Figure 2.2.
To these criticisms should be added the view, alluded to
in Section 3.3, that most alternative tourism destinations
were actually unregulated exploration or involvement-
stage situations vulnerable to intensification. Weaver
(1991) has described these destinations as having
circumstantial alternative tourism, implying that
unregulated ST is merely circumstantial to the incipient
phases (eg ‘exploration’ and ‘involvement’) of Butler’s
resort cycle. Circumstantial alternative tourism, with its
implications of unsustainability, can be juxtaposed with
sustainable mass tourism to demonstrate the capacity of
the knowledge-based platform to accommodate a more
complex and ambiguous array of sustainability options
within the tourism sector. Butler (1990), in particular,
was careful to emphasise the relevance of geographical
appropriateness, with sustainable mass tourism probably
being the most feasible and appropriate option for
destinations already experiencing high levels of tourism
development, and deliberate alternative tourism being
more appropriate for ecologically or culturally vulnerable
incipient destinations.
Emergence of sustainability as a
dominant tourism paradigm
T he emergence of the knowledge-based platform
coincided with the explicit appearance in the
literature of ST, which, in turn, was directly attributable
to the popularisation of the SD concept in the late 1980s
by the Brundtland Report (see Section 2.0). SD and ST
are now a prominent feature of all major introductory
tourism texts (eg Hall 1995; Inskeep
1991; McIntosh, Goeldner & Ritchie Figure 2.3
1995; Pearce, Morrison & Rutledge A broad context model of destination ideal types
1998) and the subject of several recent
specialised readings (Middleton 1998; High
Mowforth & Munt 1998; Stabler 1997;
Wahab & Pigram 1997). As with SD,
ST has not been without controversy.
To some (eg Hawkes & Williams
1993), the two concepts are
synonymous, with the proviso that ST
Regulation
refers specifically to tourism that
meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
Hunter (1995), however, added the
caveat that ST can only achieve this
objective by also satisfying the Low
demands of the tourism industry and
tourists, a view that is broadly
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
consistent with the contemporary conceptualisation of
tourism as a system of mutually interdependent
components (Hall 1995). Butler (1993) reflects this
broader interpretation in a widely cited quote that defines
tourism in the context of SD as:
Tourism which is developed and maintained in an area
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
1993:29)
In a manner redolent of the broader SD debate, such
conceptions raise the question of priorities, and whether it
is possible to simultaneously meet the demands of all
stakeholders - local communities, the tourism industry,
and tourists - while concurrently maintaining the
destination’s environmental and cultural integrity. Such
issues are considered more thoroughly in Section 5.0.
A broad context model of sustainability-
related tourism scenarios
I n concert with the approach of the knowledge-based
platform, it is now possible in the late 1990s to consider
four ideal types of basic tourism, as discussed above,
which account for all destinations. These ideal types may
be depicted within a matrix that takes into consideration
two factors; the scale of tourism activity (ie small to large
scale), and the amount of sustainability-conducive
regulation that is present (ie low to high) (Figure 2.3). To
reiterate, circumstantial alternative tourism destinations
have the superficial appearance of ST, but are really in the
Deliberate
Sustainable mass
alternative tourism
tourism (SMT)
(DAT)
Circumstantial
Unsustainable mass
alternative tourism
tourism (UMT)
(CAT)
Low Intensity High
Source: Weaver 1999
17
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
incipient stages of a Butler-type sequence (= small scale,
low regulation). If that appearance can be qualified by
the presence of a regulatory environment that promotes
sustainable AT, then a deliberate alternative tourism
destination is evident (= small scale, high regulation).
Unsustainable mass tourism destinations are the
outcomes of the classic Butler sequence (= large scale,
low regulation), while sustainable mass tourism
destinations are those urban resorts and other higher
intensity locations that have managed to implement a set
of regulations and policies conducive to sustainability
(large-scale, high regulation). It is useful to repeat that
these are all conceived as ideal types; real life situations,
therefore, grade along continua of scale and regulation,
and will align with or tend toward a particular ideal type,
rather than conform in an identical way.
Figure 2.3 has obvious utility as an inclusive
conceptual device for identifying the state of a destination
at any particular point in time. Destinations, however, are
not static, and a dynamic component can easily be
introduced into the model through the addition of arrows
to indicate possible vectors of destination evolution
(Figure 3.4).
After determining the actual positioning of a
destination, managers could use the model to identify and
assess the likelihood and desirability of possible tourism
development scenarios. Although movement is
theoretically possible from any ideal type to any other
ideal type, certain options are highly unlikely. Any
scenario involving movement from a high intensity to a
low intensity mode, for example, is excluded from the
model, since such transformations have seldom if ever
been reported. Eight bilateral scenarios remain after
these exclusions, as follows:
• Circumstantial alternative tourism to unsustainable
Figure 2.4
Broad context destination development scenarios
High
DA T SMT
Regulation
CAT UMT
Low
Low Intensity
Source: Weaver 1999
18
mass tourism: considered undesirable by all but the
most intransigent apostles of laissez-faire capitalism,
this is the classic Butler sequence, most likely to occur
in environments susceptible to tourism intensification,
such as coastlines, shorelines, and alpine valleys
• Circumstantial alternative tourism to deliberate
alternative tourism: a deliberate strategy where
incipient destinations impose a regulatory environment
to maintain adherence to certain AT ideals;
increasingly common in areas adjacent to protected
areas, as well as indigenous communities and
ecotourism venues
• Circumstantial alternative tourism to sustainable mass
tourism: the ‘instant resort’ phenomenon where the
stereotypical fishing village is transformed into a
major tourist destination through a highly regulated
growth pole strategy; Canc˙n and the five other
Mexican tourism growth poles, in their early stages of
development, are illustrative (Collins 1979)
• Deliberate alternative tourism to circumstantial
alternative tourism: an AT situation where
regulations are removed, resulting in a return to
circumstantial AT
• Deliberate alternative tourism to sustainable mass
tourism: in some situations, a destination may wish to
foster a larger-scale, but still sustainable tourism
sector, if demand remains strong, and if local carrying
capacities can be extended; the growth of tourism in
Costa Rica’s Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve is one
possible example (Weaver 1998)
• Deliberate alternative tourism to unsustainable mass
tourism: as the level of tourism development becomes
more intensive, the level of regulation may decline if
control shifts deliberately or inadvertently from
government to the private sector; this can possibly
lead to unsustainable outcomes, as demonstrated by
developments in Kenya’s Amboseli National Park
during the late 1970s and early 1980s
(Henry 1980; Western 1982)
• Unsustainable mass tourism to
sustainable mass tourism: implicit in
the knowledge-based platform is the
contention that most unsustainable
situations can be reversed; the
transformation of the British Channel
Island of Jersey into a Green Globe
destination may offer one example
• Sustainable mass tourism to unsustainable
mass tourism: a scenario where a
sustainable large-scale destination
becomes unsustainable; this may be
applicable to Canc˙n, where the
government has been conceding a greater
degree of control to the private sector, and
High
where development is therefore
proceeding in a more haphazard manner
(Padgett 1996).

A Application of the broad context
model to the Gold Coast, Australia
T
he Gold Coast demonstrates how the Figure 2.5
broad context model can be used as a Application of the broad context model to the Gold Coast of Australia
framework for tourism planning and
management. Situated in the southeastern
extremity of Queensland, the Gold Coast
currently consists of two distinct tourism
components. The coastal area has spawned Hinterland
the classic high-density 3S resort model,
while the interior accommodates a small AT-
like sector that is only informally and
haphazardly integrated with the coastal
component. Recent trends and indicators
suggest that the coast itself is reaching a Coast
stage of product maturity, with a possible
tendency toward unsustainability. Similarly,
the AT of the hinterland is a superficial
circumstantial alternative tourism variety
highly vulnerable to unsustainable
acceleration because of its proximity to the
coast (Figure 2.5). On the assumption that
this status quo can be improved, a more preferable
outcome would involve an emphasis on deliberate
alternative tourism in the interior, and on sustainable
mass tourism along the coast. Furthermore, the emphasis
should be placed on restorative and enhancive sustainable
development, rather than just steady state sustainability
(see Figure 2.1). This reformulation would maintain the
high to low scale diversity of the product, but would
emphasise the creation of integrative synergies (indicated
by the two-headed arrow) between the coast and the
interior (see Figure 2.5).
Such a reformulation synthesises Clarke’s view that all
scales of tourism development are legitimate, and can be
sustainable (Clarke 1997), with Butler’s suggestion
(Butler 1990) of geographical appropriateness (ie the
interior best suited for AT, and the already developed
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Status quo Preferred outcome
CAT DAT
Appropriate
poliy directions
UMT SMT
Coral Sea
Source: Weaver 1999
coastal component appropriate for sustainable mass
tourism). Furthermore, the preferred outcome of Figure
2.5 is compatible with the SD ‘realm of compromise’
depicted in Figure 2.2, in so far as sustainable mass
tourism is sympathetic to the resource conservation
perspective, and deliberate alternative tourism is
sympathetic with the resource preservation perspective.
In arguing that ST must be an adaptive paradigm capable
of responding to a wide array of circumstances and
situations, Hunter (1997) characterises these two types of
approach, respectively, as ‘product-led’ and
‘environment-led’ tourism. The Gold Coast, intriguingly,
suggests a geographical setting where these two moderate
perspectives could be integrated into a sustainable
tourism symbiosis, with the beaches and high-rise resorts
of the coast being complemented by the sub-tropical
rainforests and rural environment of the interior.■
19
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
chapter three
Sustainable indicators
A
n ST-oriented strategy, such as that outlined for
the Gold Coast in the previous section, is
ultimately worthwhile only if it can be made
operational by tourism planners and managers. A critical
step in this process is the identification of sustainability
indicators that can be objectively measured and monitored
within identifiable parameters of space and time. The
OECD as defines indicators:
Aparameter or a value derived from parameters, which
provides information about a phenomenon. The indicator
has significance that extends beyond the properties
directly associated with the parameter value.
(Environmental indicators can) reduce a large quantity of
data to a more accessible and easily understood form...
provide an effective early warning system for potential
environmental problems (and can be used) to predict
future impacts. (OECD quoted in Hamilton & Attwater
1997: 75)
Indicators which allow planners and managers to
identify, measure, track, anticipate and hopefully,
prevent or rectify problems, are thus a crucial support to
the planning and management process of SD and ST
(Consulting and Audit Canada 1995).
Sustainable tourism indicator categories
B ecause sustainability is such a broad-based
phenomenon, the array of related potential indicators
20
is extremely large, prompting the need for a suitable
system of classification. As discussed below, it is
suggested that all indicators need to be classified
according to their status within five inter-related
categories (Figure 3.1).
Scale
A llocation by scale depends mainly upon the size
and nature of the destination, or on some internal
component that is the object of particular attention.
International indicators (eg global, continental, bloc)
are appropriate where national units are small and/or
highly integrated (eg EU), where strong
interrelationships are apparent, or where the use of
standard indicators facilitates comparison. National
indicators entail individual states or dependencies.
These include aggregated sub-national indicators as
well as variables collected only for the nation as a
whole (eg number of inbound international visitors).
Sub-national indicators (eg state, provincial, regional)
are especially appropriate in very large countries (eg
Canada, Russia, US, Australia, China) and in federal
systems where the sub-national units possess
considerable autonomy. Local indicators (eg City,
metropolitan area - eg Gold Coast) are collected for an
individual resort destination or other spatial unit
approximating a municipal unit or functional
aggregation of adjacent municipalities. Site-specific
indicators apply to the smallest spatial unit of
measurement, and in particular hot spots, or micro-level
areas of:

a) concentrated activity
b) known problems or degradations
c) rapid change and/or
d) extreme natural or cultural sensitivity (International
Working Group on Indicators 1993).
Association with tourism
S T indicators that measure the effects of tourism upon
the environment, society, culture and economy of the
destination may be described as product-related. In
contrast, market-related indicators measure characteristics
associated with visitors and potential visitors (eg
consumer image of destination, customer satisfaction).
This latter sub-category, of course, must be included if the
view is held that sustainable tourism involves the
sustainability of tourism itself (see section 3.5).
Level of aggregation
S pecific criteria are measured by individual indicators,
and, potentially, sub-indicators. In contrast, composite
indicators take into account and combine a selected group of
individual indicators in order to provide a simpler method of
determining sustainability.
Sector
I t is conventional in impact studies within tourism, and
generally, to classify effects into environmental,
economic, social and cultural (or socio-cultural) spheres, and
a similar categorisation is often used with indicators. In
addition, a management category is included to encompass
management, planning and politically related indicators.
Function
I ndicators can assume various functions, according to the
extent that they are required to support different types of
management decisions. Depending on the context, a
particular indicator can therefore fall within several
categories, unlike the categories discussed so far. Manning
(1993) identifies six functional indicator categories in the
context of ST. Warning indicators (rising levels of resident
discontent due to tourism) suggest potential problem areas,
thus allowing remedial measures to be taken before the
problem accelerates and becomes even more difficult to
reverse. Measures of pressure or stress, according to
Manning (1993), include external factors of concern, such as
population growth, climate change, etc that will affect
tourism. Status indicators reflect the current state and usage
levels of key resources, preferably assessed in terms of some
meaningful baseline criteria (eg annual growth rates in
inbound visitation as compared with a pre-determined ‘safe’
annual growth rate). Impact indicators take into account
‘cause-and-effect’ relationships, such as the number of
beach-closure days owing to hotel effluents, or the amount
of trail erosion resulting from hiking. Measurements of
management action provide information on the level of
formal response to particular situations raised by the
aforementioned functions. Examples include height and
waste restrictions on hotels, and increased police patrols in
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Figure 3.1
Sustainable tourism indicator categories
Scale Sector
• International • Environmental
• National • Economic
• Sub-national • Social
• Local • Cultural
• Site-specific (eg hot spots)
Function
Association with tourism
• Product-related • Warning
• Pressure or stress
• Market-related
• Status
Level of aggregation • Impacts/consequences
• Individual • Management action
• Composite • Management impact
tourist areas. Finally, management impact indicators
measure the extent to which management actions bring
about desired or other results.
Candidate sustainable tourism indicators
The potential number of indicators within any particular
destination is enormous, and it would be strategically
difficult to monitor more than a few. Derived from a review
of the SD and STliterature, Table 4.1 lists ST indicators, by
relevant sector, that are possible contenders for inclusion in
a destination’s sustainable tourism management strategy.
Whether any particular indicator or composite index is
useful or not depends, among other factors (see discussion in
Section 5.0), upon the individual circumstances of each
destination, although candidates such as habitat loss and
resource consumption are widely recognised as having a
significant influence upon sustainability in most contexts.
Therefore, the list is not definitive, but rather is intended to
serve as an inventory which can be expanded or contracted
as the knowledge base on sustainability and relevant
indicators continues to evolve (Maclaren 1996).
Several ‘short lists’ of ST indicators have already been
attempted, although attention to the indicators issue in the
tourism literature has not been as great as one might expect,
considering its pivotal role in the sustainability monitoring
process. Marsh (1993), for one, proposes a tentative Tourism
Sustainability Index that divides indicators into ecological,
economic (community and tourism industry), social
(community and tourists) and institutional categories. A more
definitive list of core indicators was put forward by the
Environmental Committee of the World Tourism Organisation
in 1995 (Table 3.2). The three composite indicators proposed
in this list are site-specific, and are being applied in an
experimental way to two case studies in Argentina. The WTO
list as a whole is tentative, reflecting continuing progress in
indicator development, and the fact that the decision to include
or exclude particular variables is ultimately a subjective
exercise, which is highly sensitive to context.
21
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Table 31
Candidate sustainable tourism indicators

AFFILLIATED
INDICATORS
SECTORS

Environmental

• Number of accommodation units and facilities

• Amount of land occupied by tourism-related superstructure and infrastructure
• Destruction or alteration of natural habitat by tourism construction
• Amount of erosion, and number of floods and landslides associated with tourism
• Effect of tourism on biodiversity
• Effect of tourism on species distributions and populations
• Effect of tourism on introduction of exotic species
• Density of tourism facilities and tourist activities
• Concentration of tourism facilities and tourist activities
EC, SO • Number of stayovers and excursionists
EC, SO • Number of ‘visitor-nights’
• Seasonality (eg Gini coefficient)
• Water, air, noise and solid waste emissions associated with tourism (eg expressed per
accommodation unit and visitor-night)
• Hazardous waste production associated with tourism
• Amount of litter associated with tourist activities
• Wildlife or habitat deterioration associated with tourist activities
• Resource consumption associated with tourism (eg water, fossil fuels, metals,
agglomerate, forest products, food)
SO • Levels of traffic congestion associated with tourism
Composite • Environmental carrying capacity
EC, SO, CU • Position of destination in Butler resort sequence (Butler 1980)

Economic

• Revenues earned directly from tourism

• Income multiplier effect from tourism (ie indirect revenues)
• Proportion of destination revenue directly and indirectly obtained from tourism
(eg tourism as % of GDP, GPP or GNP)
• Proportion of destination employment associated with tourism
• Average tourism wage as % of overall average wage
SO • Distribution of jobs by wage level, and measurement of equity
• % of tourism jobs occupied by non-local or foreign personnel
• Extent of backward linkages with agriculture and other destination sectors
• Import content in tourism consumption
• % of all imports related to tourism
• % of accommodations and attractions that are externally/foreign owned or controlled
• Profitability of individual operations
• Amount and % of profits and wages that are repatriated or leave local area
• Marketing/promotion costs
• Tourism investment by residents and non-residents
Composite • Overall economic impact (eg Local Impact Model -Smith 1989)

Social

• Resident reactions toward tourism and tourists (eg Irridex)

• No. of resident complaints against tourism
• Amount of crime directed against tourists and tourism industry by residents and non-residents
EC • Amount of tourism-related prostitution
• Local patronage of tourist attractions and facilities

22
 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

AFFILLIATED
INDICATORS
SECTORS

Social
• In-migration associated with tourism industry
• Ratio of residents to tourists
• Amount of tourist-instigated crime
• Psychographic profile eg allocentrics, midcentrics and psychocentrics
• Tourist satisfaction with destination
Composite • Destination image held by visitors and potential visitors
• Tourist Attractiveness Index (Smith 1989)
• % of tourists who are repeat visitors
• Average length of stay
Composite • Social carrying capacity

Cultural

• Conformity of tourism architecture to local vernacular

• Number and condition of heritage structures and sites
• Integrity of local culture
• % of visitors who are international
• Market dominance (eg concentration ratio)
• Extent of cultural commoditisation

Management

• Recycling and fuel efficiency performance of tourism accommodations,

attractions and transportation
• Habitat enhancement and/or protection associated with presence of tourists
• Amount of tourism-related laws and regulations
• Presence of EIA procedure for tourism-related businesses
• No. of cultural heritage sites that are protected due to tourism
• Existence of a tourism-related master plan
• Existence and actions of tourism-related interest groups
• Number of codes of ethics and good practice in place
• Extent of industry and tourist adherence to codes
• Participation of tourism industry in community improvement projects and programs
• Existence of tourism education and awareness programs
• Existence of resident education and awareness programs

Indicators with attached sector abbreviations

EN = Environmental, EC = Economic, SO = Social, CU = Cultural, MN = Management
also fall into these categories as an associated classification.
Sources: Hodge et al 1995; International working group on indicators of sustainable tourism 1993; Maclaren 1996; Murphy
1985; Nelson, Butler & Wall 1993; Weaver 1998; Williams 1994.

Sample procedure for implementing ST stages within this model are directly relevant to the issue of
indicators, although the subsequent phases are obviously

F igure 3.2 presents a simplified example of the general

procedure that is commonly recommended for
implementing sustainable tourism or sustainable
development within a destination. The third, fourth and fifth
also dependent on the outcome of those stages. The main
purpose for presenting this framework is to provide a basis
for the following discussion of problems and issues
associated with the operationalisation of ST.■

23
 CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Table 3.2
Core WTO Indicators of sustainable tourism

CORE INDIVIDUAL GENERIC

INDICATORS SPECIFIC MEASURES INDICATOR
GROUPING
Site protection Category of site protection according to the IUCN index Ecological
Stress Tourist numbers visiting site (per annum/peak month) Ecological
Use intensity Intensity of use in peak period (persons/hectare) Ecological
Social impact Ratio of tourists to locals (peak period and over time) Social
Development control Existence of environmental review procedure or formal controls over Planning
development of site and use densities
Waste management Percentage of sewage from site receiving treatment, quality of water supply Ecological
Planning process Existence of organised regional plan for tourist destination region Planning
Critical ecosystems Number of rare & endangered species Ecological
Consumer satisfaction Level of satisfaction expressed by visitors (through questionnaires) Economic
Local satisfaction Level of satisfaction by local (through questionnaires) Social
Tourism contribution Proportion of total economic activity generated by tourism only Economic
to local economy

Composite indicies

Carrying capacity Composite early warning measure of key factors affecting the ability of
the site to support different levels of tourism
Site stress Composite measure of levels of impact on the site (its natural and cultural
attributes due to tourism and other sector cumulative stresses
Attractivity Qualitative measure of those site attributes that make it attractive to
tourism and can change over time

Figure 3.2
Sample framework for implementing sustainable tourism

Define ST goals • socio-cultural, economic, environmental objectives

Establish appropriate planning & management framework • include spatial, temporal & political parameters
take into account broader inter-sectoral context • identify appropriate tourism context: eg SMT or DAT

Select appropriate & feasible indicators from a candidate list • add idiosyncratic indicators if warranted
establish measurement criteria • identify appropriate benchmarks & thresholds

Measure & monitor the indicators at pre-determined intervals or on a continuous basis

process of environmental auditing - Goodall 1992

Periodically analyse & assess indicator performance

Determine whether goals are being achieved

Implement remedial actions where necessary • May require re-assessment of ST goals

24

Problems and issues in
sustainable tourism
I
n theory, Figure 4.2 provides a logical and effective
process for implementing ST. From a practical
perspective, however, serious obstacles are likely to
be encountered at each stage, as discussed below.
(Some of the discussion in each of these stages may be
applicable as well to other stages, as some of the stages
can overlap). The scale of a destination is a major
factor, among others, that will qualify this discussion,
since small destinations (ie small towns) are subject to
a very different set of constraints and opportunities than
country-level destinations.
Defining the goals of ST
T he knowledge-based platform claims that tourism is
now being approached with a greater sense of
objectivity (which, among other things, recognises that
large-scale tourism can be appropriate, and small-scale
tourism can be inappropriate). However, proponents of
the cautionary and advocacy platforms continue in
practice to exercise a great deal of influence in defining
the basic goals of ST-oriented tourism policies.
Tourism stakeholders influenced by the green
movement, for example, advocate an interpretation of
ST that adheres to the biocentric norms of the resource
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
chapter four
preservationists, and, less commonly, the eco-
spirituality platform of the deep ecologists. Conversely,
a ‘business as usual’ approach characterises many
businesses that adhere to the anthropocentric
perspective of the laissez-faire capitalists and more
conservative resource conservationists (see Figure 2.2).
The clarification of goals, therefore, continues to be
impeded due to a lack of common ground, because the
respective groups persistently advocate often mutually
exclusive points of view.
Even where these polarities are not explicit, there
remains the problem of conflicting priorities among a
diverse range of stakeholders. Fundamentally, the
industry is still motivated by profit, the tourist by the
desire to obtain a satisfying tourism experience, and the
community by its own conflicting desire to achieve both
revenue maximisation and minimisation of socio-
cultural impacts (McKercher 1993a). Clearly,
exceptionally skilled management will be required to
simultaneously accommodate all of these goals under
the rubric of sustainability, assuming that such
accommodation is possible.
In articulating ST-based strategies, these ideological and
priority fault lines are commonly manifested in several
25
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
ways. Perhaps most prevalent is the disagreement over
the extent to which sustainability should be primarily
product-led or market-led. The former view, as seen in
section 3.6, places the priority broadly on the wellbeing of
the community and environment, while the latter stresses
that tourism itself must be sustainable (arguing that a
viable tourism sector facilitates sustainability in the other
spheres). For the product-led advocates, this appears to
condone a laissez-faire approach. Other goal-related
problems concern the spatial boundaries that are relevant
to sustainability. The industry, commonly, in tandem with
its emphasis on individual initiative, tends to emphasise
the economic sustainability of individual businesses as a
desirable goal, under the assumption that the cumulative
economic sustainability of all such enterprises is
tantamount to the sustainability of the entire destination.
Conversely, advocates of a more holistic ‘ecosystems’
approach, who perceive the earth as a single
interdependent system, argue for the goal of global
sustainability (in an environmental, social and economic
sense). This ‘extra-parochial’ perspective (Hunter 1995)
recognises the impacts of local tourism development on a
broader array of resources. For example, visitors may
consume an enormous quantity of fossil fuels in the
process of travelling to the destination - if the destination
does not adopt measures to reduce or compensate for this
consumption, then it cannot claim to be coherent with the
principles of global sustainability, according to this view.
Market-led advocates, however, dismiss this view as
idealistic, unrealistic, and a potential impediment to the
sustainability of tourism itself.
Inevitably, the goals of STwill also relate to the broader
objectives of SD in general. Possible arenas of debate that
extend the ideological divide could include the relative
weight of the individual over the community as a whole
(ie the goal of sustaining the happiness and prosperity of
persons, as opposed to sustaining the welfare of the entire
community as a single entity), and the relative importance
of material versus spiritual or perceptual wellbeing. Also,
there may be disagreement as to whether a goal should
support steady-state sustainability, or the sustainability of
a particular rate of growth (eg support for an inflation-
adjusted GDP of $10,000 per capita, versus support for a
steady 3% inflation-adjusted growth in that per capita
GDP). In essence, these questions address the issue of
what should be sustained.
It is highly likely that desired ST goals will be
established only after a process of prolonged and probably
acrimonious debate among a diverse array of stakeholders,
and that in the aftermath some will remain actively
opposed to those objectives, and to the subsequent process
of implementation. If a consensus is attained, this will
probably indicate a set of goals so nebulous and/or so all-
encompassing as to be essentially meaningless and
impossible to implement. In other words, specific and
26
attainable goals are more likely to engender opposition,
while goals that minimise opposition are likely to be
vague and unattainable. The challenge for destinations is
to find a viable compromise between specificity and
consensus that at least moves the destination away from
outcomes that are clearly unsustainable.
Establishing an appropriate planning and
management framework
A ssuming that the question of initial goal articulation
can be resolved, the next stage involves the
establishment of a planning and management framework
that allows these goals to be pursued in an efficient and
effective manner. The definition of appropriate temporal,
spatial and political parameters must be considered as a
fundamental part of this process.
Temporal parameters
S T generally implies a long-term perspective wherein
the needs of future generations are taken into account
in the present day decision-making process. In theory, this
is widely recognised as a laudable outcome, although it is
not clear just how many generations from the present
should be taken into consideration. One evaluated
approach holds that each action should be considered in
light of its consequences upon an indeterminate future.
An alternative approach posits a more limited
responsibility of the present generation to ‘pass the baton’
to the subsequent generation, which then assumes
responsibility for the process.
Both views, however, are ‘academic’ in the sense that
planning and management processes are dependent upon
finite funding arrangements that seldom allow for more
than a one year window of accommodation, with
renewability contingent upon favourable political
outcomes (Pigram 1990). Furthermore, these
arrangements are highly vulnerable to uncertainty as a
result of political transitions (eg the replacement of a
‘green’ government by a right-wing government),
changing priorities, and changing financial circumstances.
In other words, the temporal parameters that are required to
implement ST in a meaningful way are not often in
conformity with political or economic realities, which
define a more narrow time frame (see also Section 5.4).
Destinations, therefore, must seek a compromise between
political and financial expediency on one hand, and
genuine attention to the long-term perspective on the other.
Spatial parameters
S imilar concerns pertain to the question of spatial
boundaries; that is, whether sustainability should be
engaged within very specific spatial parameters, or
 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

whether a broad horizon approach is necessary to
accommodate all pertinent influences and effects. As
with time, the ideal situation would involve the latter, but
political and financial realities intervene here as well to
dictate the former as the most practical approach. Yet, the
argument for Hunter’s ‘extra-parochial’approach with its
emphasis on geographical equity and inter-destination
planning is compelling, and should be accommodated as
far as possible. This is due to the fact that decisions
conducive to sustainability in one location may lead to
unsustainability in another location (Christensen 1995;
Manning & Dougherty 1995) (see Section 5.4). If the
negatively affected location is beyond the planning
Figure 4.1
Spatial parameters for ST: nested and overlapping functional regions
jurisdiction of the former, then those planners may not be
concerned about these extra-jurisdictional consequences,
as long as their own management unit meets particular
sustainability goals. A hypothetical example of adjacent
impact could involve the decision by a walled city in
Europe to prohibit the entry of private vehicles, thereby
forcing an adjacent municipality to contend with a large
number of visitors in search of parking facilities. An
example of where the impact has been felt farther afield
is the decision by town managers in the ski resort of
Aspen, Colorado, to introduce stringent development
controls, which effectively shifted the focus of
recreational development to hitherto unaffected down-
valley communities (Gill &
Williams 1994). Even greater
disparities of spatial cause
and effect are apparent in the
ostensibly positive decision
of a destination to adopt
‘clean’energy sources such as
natural gas, which could
increase the environmental
stress at the faraway site
where the resource is actually
being extracted.

These examples of (usually

uncompensated) tourism-
related stress displacement
reveal the interdependence
of destinations across an array
of scales. Thus, when a
particular political jurisdiction
e m b a r k s on a t o u r i s m
planning process, the zone
of potential influence will
invariably extend far beyond
the d e s t i n a t i o n i t s e l f .
Figure 4.1 illustrates this
phenomenon by depicting a
hypothetical minor political
jurisdiction (eg a shire or city)
which is designated as a
planning and management
unit for ST implementation.
The argument for an inter-
destination approach to the
Political functional regions latter task is supported by the
Municipality fact that the target destination
Regional tourism authority is wholly or partly nested
State
within, and influenced by, a
Ecological functional regions wide variety of additional
Biome functional regions. Political
Watershed regions in figure 5.1 are
represented by a state and a
Concentration of tourism quasi-governmental regional

27
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
tourism authority (many others would also likely exist).
Ecological regions are indicated by a watershed and a
biome. Examples of cross-effect include the possibility
that water contaminated by mining activity in the upper
reaches of a watershed, beyond the jurisdiction of the
destination, may cause illness among tourists within the
downstream destination. It may also be the case that the
regional tourism authority and/or the state advocate a pro-
development approach to tourism that is incompatible
with the more cautious strategy of the destination; where
one might suggest a unsustainable mass tourism outcome,
the other supports deliberate alternative tourism.
One aspect of the problem that is often overlooked in
the literature is the dominance of geometric boundaries
among political units. By definition, these are
incongruous with natural system boundaries, which are
non-geometric. Apartial solution to this issue, which also
addresses some of the inter-destination incompatibilities,
is to utilise biophysical criteria such as watersheds or
mountain crests to separate tourism planning units. This
is especially convenient when these coincide with
existing political boundaries. There is an extensive
literature on the concept of regional environmental
planning that takes into consideration these biophysical
criteria.
Political parameters
T he issue of temporal and spatial parameters is already
political to the extent that these determine the level of
planning and management unit, the probable time lines
over which the procedure can occur, and the options that
are available for carrying out the decision-making
process. More broadly, political parameters involve the
power structures and relationships that dictate the extent
to which an ST strategy can actually be implemented,
enforced, monitored, and so on. Germane concerns
include the structure of the tourism authority or other
body that is empowered to carry out the strategy (eg who
is represented on the relevant Board, how long do the
members serve, how are decisions arrived at), and the
levels of funding and enforcement that are accorded to
this authority. As well, the ideology of the overall
government authority of the destination, the state, and
probably the country is significant in that pro-business
governments tend to favour self-regulation and voluntary
adherence to vague guidelines, while left-of-centre
authorities may support mandatory adherence to strict
regulations and third party monitoring.
Other factors include the extent to which the various
stakeholders are mobilised through their respective lobby
groups and NGOs, and the nature of the overall legal
system. Typically, such political realities are ignored or
merely alluded to in most academic planning proposals,
despite the paramount importance of these parameters in
assuring that at least some version of the ST framework
28
will be made operational. The political context for every
destination is highly idiosyncratic, thereby making
generalisation difficult. Relevant issues in the context of
Australia and New Zealand, for example, are considered
in Hall, Jenkins and Kearsley (1997).
Inter-sectoral context
J ust as one particular jurisdiction cannot be divorced or
insulated from surrounding or overlapping functional
regions, neither can the tourism industry be planned or
managed in isolation from other economic sectors (Eber
1992). The tourism literature, and tourism planning in
general, is often approached in an isolated manner, as if
these other resource stakeholders did not exist. For
example, the often cited triangular relationship between
host communities, the tourist industry, and tourists, by
Lane (1994), as with most conceptualisations of the
‘tourism system’, is entirely inward looking. In reality,
tourism must compete for resources with forestry,
agriculture, manufacturing, mining and other activities
which themselves may, ironically, employ the rhetoric of
sustainability to extend their own utilisation of these
resources (McKercher 1993a).
Tourism, in short, cannot be sustainable unless these
competing sectors also engage in sustainable practices
that are complementary to tourism. However, this is a
scenario that does not commonly exist, and that is beyond
the effective control of the tourism sector in any case.
Furthermore, in attempting to obtain its ‘fair share’of the
resource pie, the tourism lobby is confronted by forestry,
agriculture and other lobbies that are far more
established, better funded, and viewed more
sympathetically by most governments as employment
and revenue generators. A less sympathetic view toward
tourism is also engendered by the erroneous but persistent
view, mentioned above, that tourism is not a direct
consumer of these resources.
A confounding issue is the inter-sectoral and often
amorphous nature of tourism itself, which is defined in
various and sometimes conflicting ways. On one level,
tourism is directly associated with certain products such as
hotels, theme parks and resorts (although not all patronage
is based upon tourists even in these more obvious cases of
affiliation). However, the presence and influence of
tourism may also be indirect or induced, as recognised by
the framework for tourism-related environmental impacts
proposed by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD 1980). Indirect tourism
elements could include infrastructure such as a power line
constructed to service a resort complex. In this instance,
there is no immediate or obvious presence of tourism, but
clearly the facility would not exist but for some associated
tourism development. Induced effects are even more
divorced from immediate tourism-related activities,
involving, for example, the clear-cutting of a forest to

make room for housing to accommodate an influx of
migrants who have been hired by a new resort. Also
relevant would be a complex array of primary and
secondary industries to the extent that they function as
backward linkages to tourism.
The issue of inter-sectoral context, clearly, has
important implications for the planners and managers of
ST, who need to gauge the complexity of this sector, and
establish boundaries, or a hierarchy of boundaries, to
distinguish various effects according to their degrees of
affiliation with tourism. The OECD model is a useful
device for organising this process, which is extremely
difficult to complete, and does not ensure that the tourism
industry can effect any changes in those sectors to assure
sustainable outcomes.
Selecting, measuring and monitoring
appropriate indicators
I t is extremely unlikely that destinations of any scale will
be able to effectively utilise all of the indicators
depicted in Table 4.1. In the first instance, funding may
not be available to collect the relevant information for all
parts of the destination, or even sample locations. This
may be especially problematic for complex variables, or in
light of the fact that indicators should attempt to consider
indirect and induced impacts. Where indicators are
already present, the relevant data may be prohibitively
expensive, suppressed due to confidentiality
arrangements, difficult to locate, subject to gaps, and/or
inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another. In the
Australian context, Lloyd (1996) refers to the lack of
coordination between state and federal state-of-the-
environment reporting. In the same context, 30% of a
sample of frequent users of SD indicators complained that
their needs were poorly or very poorly met by available
sources of such information (Hamilton & Attwater 1997).
Because it is not feasible to use all potential indicators,
destinations must attempt to select a smaller group of
variables that will best represent the entire inventory. This
is the logic behind Table 4.2, although even in this case,
there is no a priori basis for assuming that this particular
core list is optimal, or that the related data can be obtained.
Where attempts are made to simplify the process even
further by utilising composite variables (as with the three
depicted in Table 4.2), additional problems are
encountered. These include the difficulty of determining
the variables to be included or the appropriate weighting
that should be assigned to each constituent variable.
Atkinson & Hamilton (1996) describe the identification of
a definitive environmental stress index as something of a
holy grail, and even more so if economic and socio-
cultural criteria are also accommodated within this single
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
value. The problem of weighting extends to non-
composite variables, and raises the fundamental and very
complex question of indicator priority. For example,
should habitat deterioration be assigned greater weight
within the index than the amount of crime directed toward
tourists, and if so, what is the rationale for such a
decision? In many cases, the decision may be driven by
the simple fact that the habitat deterioration database is
more accurate and more comprehensive.
Once a set of indicators is selected, measurement
criteria must be decided upon that strike a balance
between availability, cost, comparability with other
criteria, and most obviously, effectiveness in revealing
whether the value actually measures sustainability. These
measures must also allow for the identification of
benchmark values against which sustainability can be
monitored. This, however, generates further problems.
For example, the most convenient benchmark is usually
the situation that exists in the destination at the beginning
of the ST procedure, yet that value may already exceed the
destination’s carrying capacity - to maintain that situation
is thus in essence to sustain the already unsustainable. At
the other extreme, it is not practical to use some ideal pre-
settlement criteria (eg an area being 100% natural habitat),
since that situation can never be recreated without
removing all of the non-indigenous residents.
A related step in this stage is the establishment of
‘threshold values’, which show whether carrying
capacities are being exceeded. Since carrying capacities
vary from destination to destination, and can potentially
be modified through the implementation of appropriate
adaptive measures, all or at least most of these threshold
values will be idiosyncratic and changeable. For example,
the tolerable ratio of residents to tourists is likely to be
higher in a modern urban setting than in a traditional rural
village, so that generic thresholds established for the
former will be irrelevant for the latter, unless certain
adjustments are made to the village. Similarly, an
unpaved hiking trail may have a demonstrated carrying
capacity of 100 hikers per day, but this may increase to
1000 per day if the trail were ‘site hardened’by the use of
a pavement cover (though this in turn could negatively
affect some other element in the area).
An even more fundamental concern, however, is the
rudimentary level of understanding about carrying
capacity, which is a contentious concept in the
environmental and social literature. For virtually all
indicators at any given point in time, these carrying
capacities simply are not known. Until such time as
carrying capacities can be established with confidence
across an array of relevant indicators, destination
managers may have to be content with identifying
movement toward or away from sustainability, without
reference to particular thresholds. As examples, a
29
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
decreasing percentage of natural habitat and an increase
in levels of resident complaints against the tourism sector
are both situations indicative of increasing
unsustainability, and should therefore be addressed, even
though the specific thresholds that indicate
unsustainability in each case, and for particular
destinations, are unknown.
Following the selection of indicators and the
establishment of measurement criteria, benchmarks and
thresholds (if possible), an effective protocol of
measurement and monitoring must be determined.
Pertinent issues involve the extent to which these latter
processes should be spatially and temporally continuous
or discrete (though again, what should be done, and what
can be done within budgetary limitations is usually
incompatible). ‘Spatially continuous’ data include aerial
photographs and satellite imagery, which encompass an
entire landscape. ‘Spatially discrete’ data include the
monitoring of water quality at specific sites. An example
of ‘temporally continuous’ data is the constant
monitoring of temperature, while ‘temporally discrete’
data includes the monitoring of resident attitudes on an
annual basis. In general, the ideal but unrealistic scenario
is to obtain spatially and temporally continuous data for
all indicators. Since discrete data will therefore be used
in most cases, recording intervals need to be established
that effectively capture processes that relate to
sustainability. If, for instance, visitation levels are
reported only on a monthly basis to gauge seasonality,
Figure 4.2
Spatial and temporal planning Frameworks and
discontinuities between cause and effect
Spatial framework
Cause Effect Cause
ST Planning Unit
Temporal framework
Cause Effect Cause
Planning
time frame
eg 1990
30
significant weekend-weekday or day-night variations
may be missed.
Finally, it is important that the monitoring process is
carried out over a long-term or longitudinal basis, and
that changes in the measurement or criteria are avoided or
at least minimised, so that the recorded trends accurately
represent the actual processes being measured.
According to Lloyd (1996), Australian state-of-the-
environment reporting is currently characterised by an
absence of methods that facilitate the long-term
monitoring of trends, an assertion that probably pertains
even more so to the tourism sector. In addition, Ding and
Pigram (1995) contend that environmental auditing in
tourism is often restricted to individual projects rather
than cumulative, and tends to be applied to new projects
rather than those already in existence. As mentioned
earlier, long-term monitoring is also impeded by political
realities that confine the planning process into a relatively
short-term framework.
Assessing indicator per formance &
deter mining achievement of goals
I deally, as with the monitoring procedure, comprehensive
analysis and assessment should be carried out
continuously. However, given the array and complexity of
variables that must be considered simultaneously, periodic
assessment is far more practical.
Accordingly, an appropriate interval
has to be determined. In state-of-the-
environment reporting, a one or two
year time frame is commonly accepted
as a compromise between the currency
of the knowledge base and budgetary
restrictions.
Effect The assessment procedure itself will
inevitably be impeded by the problems
raised in the previous sub-sections,
such as the ability to differentiate
tourism-related impacts to those that
are related to other sectors, political
factors, the uncertainty and
individuality associated with carrying
capacity thresholds, and the like. More
can also be said in this context about
Effect what Pigram describes as the ‘spatial
and temporal discontinuities between
cause and effect’ (1990:3). The spatial
aspects of this phenomenon have been
eg 2010 raised earlier (see Section 5.2),
wherein, for example, a rural area

experiences increased development because of restrictive
legislation introduced in an up-valley resort. Temporal
discontinuities, which will probably accompany the latter
situation, are even more elusive, since the effects of an
action may not be discernible until long after the action
itself has been completed (eg tourist-induced habitat
deterioration leading to reduced biodiversity). The
problem with the specific temporal and spatial
parameters established by planners and managers for
purposes of indicator monitoring is that these ‘artificial
boxes’ do not provide a broad enough context to identify
actual cause-and-effect relationships, many or most of
which cross the boundaries of the box (see Figure 5.2).
Even if the planning framework does embrace these
relationships, problems can be encountered in making
the connection between cause and effect. For example,
some levels of stress are almost imperceptible, yet
eventually reach a threshold level where catastrophic and
completely unanticipated consequences are induced
(Buckley 1992; Manning & Dougherty 1995).
Avalanches, and red tides, which periodically plague
certain coastal waters, are illustrations of this process, as
is a situation where an apparently well adjusted resident
reaches their breaking point and attacks a tourist. In such
cases, carrying capacities may be identified
retrospectively, but only after the damage has already
been done. At a deeper level, the classic scientific
assumptions of the Cartesian-Newtonian model, which
perceive the world as a great machine open to dissection
and prediction, may not adequately account for such
phenomena as the red tide. More appropriate by itself or
as an augmentative framework may be an alternative
paradigm such as chaos-complexity, which better
accommodates uncertainty, complexity, and related
processes (Faulkner & Russell 1997).
While the assessment procedure may allow useful
(though always tentative) conclusions to be made about
the apparent sustainability of individual indicators, the
determination of sustainable outcomes at a more general
level is far more difficult, even when there is agreement
as to the definition of SD or ST. This is, in part, due to
the difficulties in deriving a single index of sustainability
that spans the environmental, economic, socio-cultural
spheres, while incorporating both the product-led and
market-led perspectives. Alternatively, a conditional
decision may be made that assigns differential weights
and priorities to individual or agglomerate indicators,
concluding for example that the destination is
sustainable on the basis of healthy environmental
indicators, even though the socio-cultural situation may
be unsustainable. If the welfare of the former depends
upon radical changes in the latter, then the issue of
priorities becomes even more important, as both then
cannot be sustainable at the same time.
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Implementing remedial action
E ven if a reasonable determination could be made as to
the attainment of set ST goals, the actual process of
implementing change in the indicators can be a daunting
task, due to the fundamentally socio-political nature of
the process (Berry & Ladkin 1997; Pigram 1990). As
discussed above, political factors operate at all levels of
the process, but probably nowhere so vigorously as when
the attempt is made to effect the changes that are deemed
necessary to achieve sustainability. McKercher (1993b)
states that implementation ideally should be based on the
ideals of perfect knowledge, a desire by all participants to
compromise, the belief that solutions do exist, and the
absence of undue political influence, but in reality is
affected by the realities of political machination, mutual
distrust and suspicion (eg within and between
destinations), entrenched and dogmatic attitudes, left-
right ideological alignments, a very crude data base, and
influence that is dictated by access to resources.
In light of the obstacles cited in this section, it is fair to
ask whether the effort to attain ST is worthwhile. The
argument in favour of the effort is based on several
considerations:
• First, if no effort at all is made, then unsustainable
outcomes are virtually guaranteed. A serious attempt
to pursue ST will at least reduce the probability of
such an outcome, and will at very least generate
knowledge that will help destinations to understand
the dynamics of the sector and hopefully contribute to
the sustainability of at least some aspects of the
sector.
• Second, while it is obvious that indicators should be
as indicative as possible of sustainability, some
researchers (eg Clarke & Wilson 1994; Maclaren
1996) argue that associated expectations must be
tempered by a consideration of the term’s literal
meaning of being an indication, rather than an
absolute confirmation, of this state.
• Third, it must be borne in mind that the explicit
sustainability debate in tourism is still incipient,
having been engaged only in the past ten years. An
enormous amount of tourism-related knowledge has
been generated during that period, and each year
produces an increasing volume of new information
that will help destinations to effectively implement
the procedure described in this section. Not least
among these achievements is the emergence of
prototypes across all elements of the tourism sector
(eg destinations, accommodations, tour guides, travel
agencies, attractions) that apparently demonstrate the
feasibility and applicability of sustainable practices.
An overview of such evident progress toward ST is
provided in the following section.■
31
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
chapter five
Indications of sustainability
L
et it be said at the outset that there are no
examples of tourism anywhere in the world that
can be described as sustainable in any absolutely
definitive way, given the problems cited in the previous
section. However, there are an increasing number of
destinations that appear to be sustainable. The
following sub-sections consider, in a general way,
various sections of the tourism sector that fall into the
latter category. It is not within the mandate of this
report to provide the sort of comprehensive review that
is possible in light of the research that has actually been
conducted into each of the venues described below. It
should be noted at the outset that any conception of
sustainability related to restorative or enhancive ST was
virtually absent in the literature, despite the desirability
of these forms of ST over the steady state variety in
terms of outcome.
Protected areas
Protected areas, by definition, are subject to
regulations that minimise to a greater or lesser extent
activities that threaten the area’s environmental carrying
capacity. The IUCN classification scheme, which
ranges from strict levels of protection to those that
nominally restrict the level of human intervention that is
tolerable, is a useful framework for gauging the strength
of these regulations (World Resources Institute 1998).
32
The relationship between protected areas and tourism
has experienced an interesting evolution over the past
half century. Initially, tourism in many cases was a
negligible or non-existent factor in their establishment
(as, for example, in Costa Rica - Weaver 1998). It is
not surprising therefore that tourism resulted in
unsustainable outcomes when visitation levels began
to increase, since the parks were not designed or
managed to accommodate anything more than a
nominal intake.
However, as the parks simultaneously experienced
increased pressure from resource users (eg agriculture,
forestry, mining) and increased demand from tourism, it
is the latter that has emerged, at least potentially, as one
of the most compatible means of generating income
from the parks without destroying their natural resource
base. The view is now widely, though not universally
accepted that tourism is essential for providing an
economic incentive to rationalise the continued
existence of protected areas in the face of increased
resource scarcity and rampant population growth
(Ceballos-Lascurain 1996; Eber 1992). Accordingly, an
considerable amount of research and commentary has
been provided to consider the actual impacts of tourism
upon protected areas, and to propose methods for
accommodating visitor intakes in a sustainable way (eg
Boo 1990, 1992; Duff 1993; Goriup 1991). Much of
this output, however, cannot be described as scientific.

A prevalent theme in this literature that should be
mentioned because of its relevance to the issue of
sustainability is zonation. The principle of zonation holds
that different environments within and around a protected
area should be designated to accommodate varying
degrees of tourism and, possibly, other forms of human
intervention. Common options include the following:
• ‘core zones’ where human activity is prohibited
altogether
• ‘restricted zones’ where only non-mechanised,
‘hard’ ecotourism is allowed
• ‘high intensity zones’ where services,
accommodations and interpretation facilities are
clustered to cater primarily for the ‘soft’ ecotourism
market
• ‘buffer zones’beyond the actual protected area where
local communities undertake regulated, sustainable
activities (Figure 5.1).
Applied increasingly to protected areas, this principle
has appeal in its ability to accommodate diverse
sustainability perspectives. In most cases, the high
intensity zone is restricted to less than one per cent of the
park, but accommodates perhaps 99% of all visitors.
Such a concentration creates a site-based economy of
scale that justifies the construction of sophisticated
sewage treatment facilities and other services inside the
park that allow for the sustainable accommodation of
high visitor numbers who desire access to these services
and to a highly mediated interaction with the natural
environment. Concurrently, these visitors generate the
revenue that allows the other 99% of the park to be
managed as an effectively undisturbed area.
Small islands
A s with protected areas, in recent years
there has been considerable interest
generated in the development of tourism on
small islands (eg Briguglio et al 1996; Buffer zone
Conlin & Baum 1995; Lockhart & Drakakis-
Smith 1997). Unlike protected areas,
however, this interest is associated with the
degree to which islands have been
implicated in the diffusion of the global
pleasure periphery and its associated 3S
tourism product (see Section 3.0). Given
that islands are increasing in popularity as
tourist destinations, and that small islands
are particularly vulnerable to tourism-related
stress due to their small size, lack of
alternative economic options, high rates of
endemism, and relatively high endowment
of sensitive coastal and marine
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
environments (eg dunes, mangroves, estuaries, coral
reefs) (de Albuquerque & McElroy 1995), the issue of
sustainability has been especially compelling in this
context.
Interest in the application of ST principles has recently
been apparent at all levels of tourism development
intensity. Examples of where deliberate alternative
tourism-oriented strategies are apparent in low-intensity
situations include Dominica (Weaver 1991), Montserrat
before the eruption of its dormant volcano (Weaver
1995), and Samoa (Van’t Stot 1996). Higher intensity
situations include the Maldives (Manning & Dougherty
1995) and Jersey (Cooper, 1995), which, along with
Dominica, have been designated as the first Green Globe
destinations (see Section 6.4). Also notable because of its
extremely high levels of associated development is Bali,
where elements of the Bali Sustainable Development
Project results have been incorporated into the official
development plan (Mowforth & Munt, 1998).
Rural and indigenous ar eas
The apparently sustainable nature of much rural
tourism activity is attributable to the more incipient levels
of tourism development in such venues, the small size of
related enterprises, and the tendency of these to be owned
by local residents (Lane 1994). Hence, an emerging
specialised field within tourism studies now focuses upon
the relationship between sustainability and rural tourism
(eg Butler, Hall & Jenkins, 1998; Lane 1994). The
vacation farm sector, along with ‘bed & breakfasts’, is
frequently touted as an exemplar of sustainability, given
its integration with the local community and the
importance of ecotourism-related activities among their
Figure 5.1
Hypothetical zonation in a protected area
Restricted zone
Core zone
Corridor
High intensity zone
33
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
clients (Fennell & Weaver 1997; Moscardo, Morrison &
Pearce, 1996). Allegedly sustainable examples of
Australian rural ecotourism-related enterprises are
described by Harris and Leiper (1995). Regional ST
strategies which focus upon a mainly rural environment
include the Sustainable Tourism Strategy for Berwick
Borough Council, in northern England (Lane 1994).
More comprehensive, and touted as a prototype for
similar initiatives, is The Tourism Protocol of the Alps
Convention. Still under negotiation as of 1997, the
protocol is the first instances of an international
geophysical region being treated as a single entity for
sustainable tourism planning purposes (German Federal
Agency for Nature Conservation 1997).
A distinctive tourism component that overlaps with
protected areas, wilderness and more settled rural areas is
‘indigenous tourism’. The contention that the
involvement of Aboriginal people in the tourism sector is
likely to follow a sustainable path is associated with the
contention that the traditional lifestyle of such people is
itself inherently sustainable. The growing interest of
indigenous people in tourism is associated with several
factors, including:
• the need to attain a higher level of economic self-
sufficiency in these areas
• the trend toward greater assertion of Aboriginal rights
and control over their own territory
• the location of such territories in relatively natural
locations or close to protected areas
• the popularity of Aboriginal culture in the broader
tourist market (Hall & Johnston 1995).
Aboriginal groups who have embarked upon a
significant level of tourism activity include the Maasai of
Kenya, the Haida of British Columbia, the Inuit of
northern Canada and Alaska, the Saami of northern
Scandinavia, the Maori of New Zealand, the ‘Hill Tribes’
of northern Thailand, the Navajo of the south-western
USA, the Aborigines of Australia, and the Mayan peoples
of Central America. All emphasise the need for
sustainable outcomes, though the actual impacts are of
course variable, given the diversity of the indigenous
groups that are involved with tourism.
Mass tourism
W ithin the tourism literature, citations of
sustainability are very clearly biased toward rural
areas. The fact that all examples in Harris and Leiper
(1995) are located in rural areas, for example, can mean
either that the editors found no sustainable tourism
enterprises in urban Australia, or that they did not bother
to extend their investigations beyond rural Australia. This
bias extends into the arena of international aid, wherein
34
co-operative international development initiatives in ST
are almost always associated with rural, small-scale
projects (German Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation 1997). To some extent, such skewing can be
explained as a residual effect of the cautionary-adaptancy
platform and its preference for alternative tourism.
Extending the logic that ‘small is better’, large urban areas
may be dismissed as already being unsustainable and thus
inappropriate for the injection of aid monies.
The neglect of large-scale tourism among certain
stakeholders is unwarranted, if for no other reason then
that higher intensity tourism by definition encompasses by
far the largest share of international and domestic tourism
activity. The global tourism sector, therefore, will never
be sustainable if efforts focus only on the non-urban,
small-scale context. Furthermore, as argued by Hunter
(1997) and the knowledge-based platform in general, there
is no reason as to why urban or large-scale phenomena
should be dismissed as inherently unsustainable, even
though the level of development is more intensive than the
rural context. Finally, many of the most demonstrable
examples of ST implementation are actually found in
large-scale, urban tourism, and there is a logical basis for
arguing that such enterprises are far better equipped to
operationalise certain elements of the ST ideal than their
more diminutive counterparts (see below).
Because of the complexity of large urban resort
agglomerations, there are very few examples of ST
implementation efforts at this scale, one notable
exception being a comprehensive study of the
Languedoc-Roussillon region of the French
Mediterranean (Klemm 1992). In stark contrast,
however, are the numerous examples of sustainability
initiatives at the scale of individual businesses, business
organisations, and individual sub-sectors of the tourism
industry. Corporations such as British Airways (Goodall
1992, 1995; Hawkes & Williams 1993) and Canadian
Pacific Hotels and Resorts (D’Amore 1992) have
demonstrated leadership by making significant progress
toward sustainability in certain aspects of their
operations, such as recycling, reduced resource
consumption, and effective environmental auditing
procedures (Dymond 1997). As a sub-sector, the airline
industry consumed about 40-50% less fuel per tonne
kilometre in the mid-1990s as compared with 1972 (Cater
1995). For the industry as a whole, the Green Globe
initiative of the WTTC (World Travel and Tourism
Council) is expanding rapidly and gaining credibility
through the introduction of ISO14000 standards and third
party monitoring procedures which determine whether a
member’s accreditation is retained. Codes of Conduct are
also becoming normative, although these are often
criticised because of their vagueness and predication
upon principles of self-regulation and voluntary
compliance. Well-known codes include:
 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

• Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Sustainable
Tourism: Tourism Industry Association of Canada
(D’Amore 1992)
• Code of Sustainable Practice: Tourism Council
Australia (TCA 1998)
• Environmental Codes of Conduct for Tourism: United
Nations Environment Program
• Sustainable Tourism Principles: WWF and Tourism
Concern
• Code for Environmentally Responsible Tourism:
PATA
The PATA code, which is representative of the tenor and
content of such manifestos, is provided in Figure 5.2.
Forsyth (1995) usefully summarises corporate ST
practices by suggesting that these fall into four categories,
including:
• cost-cutting measures (eg recycling)
• value-adding measures (eg on-flight
educational videos)
• long-term investment (staff training)
• legislation (lobbying of government)

Figure 5.2
Pacific Asia Tourism Association (PATA) code for environmentally responsible tourism

The Pacific Asia Tourism Association code urges association

and chapter members and their industry partners to:

• ADOPT the necessary practices to conserve the environment, including the use of renewable resources in a
sustainable manner and the conservation of non-renewable resources;
• CONTRIBUTE to the conservation of any habitat of flora and fauna, and of any site whether natural or
cultural, which may be affected by tourism;
• ENCOURAGE relevant authorities to identify areas worthy of conservation and to determine the level of
development, if any, which would ensure those areas are conserved;
• ENSURE that community attitudes, cultural values and concerns, including local customs and beliefs, are
taken into account in the planning of all tourism related projects;
• ENSURE that environmental assessment becomes an integral step in the consideration of any site for a
tourism project;
• COMPLY with all international conventions in relation to the environment;
• COMPLY with all national, state and local laws in relation to the environment;
• ENCOURAGE those involved in tourism to comply with local, regional and national planning policies and
to participate in the planning process;
• PROVIDE the opportunity for the wider community to take part in discussions and consultations on tourism
planning issues insofar as they affect the tourism industry and the community;
• ACKNOWLEDGE responsibility for the environmental impacts of all tourism related projects and activities
and undertake all necessary responsible, remedial and corrective actions;
• ENCOURAGE regular environmental audits of practices throughout the tourism industry and to encourage
necessary changes to those practices;
• FOSTER environmentally responsible practices including waste management, recycling, and energy use;
• FOSTER in both management and staff, of all tourism related projects and activities, an awareness of
environmental and conservation principles;
• SUPPORT the inclusion of professional conservation principles in tourism education, training and planning;
• ENCOURAGE an understanding by all those involved in tourism of each community’s customs, cultural
values, beliefs and traditions and how they related to the environment;
• ENHANCE the appreciation and understanding by tourists of the environment through the provision of
accurate information and appropriate interpretation; and
• ESTABLISH detailed environmental policies and/or guidelines for the various sectors of the tourism industry.

35
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

There is, to be sure, no

shortage of critics who Figure 5.3
dismiss such developments Mass tourism, alternative tourism and sustainability
as strictly profit-motivated,
or worse, as a sinister and
cosmetic attempt to disguise
fundamentally unsustainable SUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE
practices in other
components of their
operation. Some businesses
probably are guilty of the
latter, but to accuse the entire
industry is both unfair and Mass tourism
irrational.

Large corporations in
some important respects are
better positioned than small
enterprises to become
sustainable because of their
internal economies of scale,
which, for example, might
allow for the ‘in-house’
allocation of positions and
resources to conduct
Alternative tourism
environmental audits and
education programmes. As
well, the volume of resource
consumption and waste
generation is more likely to
be large enough to make
recycling profitable.
Source: Adopted from Weaver 1998
Structures of vertical and
horizontal integration also
allow a firm to implement and control for sustainability review and summation of the pertinent literature. This
across an array of linked backward and forward processes. model suggests that most of the mass tourism industry is
Large firms have the marketing and communication skills still fundamentally unsustainable, but that rapid progress
to foster consumer interest in sustainability, and to exert is being made toward the attainment of ST, which now
pressure on external suppliers to conform to the applies to a substantial portion of that sector. This
appropriate norms and standards. Finally, larger probably represents the most significant single trend in
corporations are better positioned to stand up against other the contemporary global tourism industry. In contrast,
resource competitors in the lobbying process, either the inherent characteristics of the much smaller
individually or in an association context such as WTTC alternative tourism sector account for the tendency of
(Clarke 1997; Goodall 1992). In contrast, small most of this sector to conform to STprinciples. However,
businesses usually lack the economies of scale, resources, in concert with the knowledge-based platform, alternative
political clout, sector mobilisation, and knowledge to tourism also has an unsustainable component, aspects of
carry out significant environmental reforms and lobbying which have been depicted above in Figure 3.2. The
efforts (Leiper 1995). double-headed arrow connecting the mass tourism and
alternative tourism circles represents the apparent
convergence that is occurring between the two sectors.
According to Clarke (1997), small-scale firms are
A synopsis of mass tourism and adopting strategies normally associated with large-scale
alternative tourism sustainability tourism, such as integrated environmental management
strategies, while large firms are adopting policies usually
Figure 5.3 is an attempt to generalise the contemporary affiliated with small firms, such as paying attention to
adherence of mass tourism and alternative tourism to the local participation and culture, and embarking upon
principles of sustainability, based upon a comprehensive customer education programs.■

36

T
his report contributes to the knowledge base of
sustainable tourism by reviewing the relevant
secondary literature and providing original
contributions that synthesise and extend this material.
An initial review of the sustainable development
concept included a consideration of its precedents and
its relationship to the Brundtland Report. The idea that
SD can be either steady state or restorative/enhancive
was raised, as was the ideological context of its
interpretation. While views of the latter tend to fall into
either an anthropocentric or biocentric paradigm, it is
argued that room for compromise (and hence goal
consensus and potential SD attainment) exists in the
interface between the moderate anthropocentrics (ie
resource conservationists) and the moderate biocentrics
(ie resource preservationists). The emergence of ST
was discussed in relation to four platforms or paradigms
which have successively dominated and framed the
development of the tourism literature, and a broad
context model is proposed that depicts four ideal
tourism types that have emerged in association with
these platforms. A critical characteristic of the currently
prevalent knowledge-based platform is that tourism at
any scale can be potentially sustainable or
unsustainable. The Gold Coast of Australia is used as
an example of the applicability of the broad context
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
conclusions
model. This report also examined ST indicators,
proposing an inventory of candidate indicators and a
framework within which these indicators can be utilised
to implement ST. It is apparent, however, that
implementation is subject to a variety of problems at all
stages of the procedure. These include the definition of
goals, the establishment of temporal and spatial
parameters for the planning and management process,
political realities, and the existence of competing
resource users from other sectors. Additional obstacles
are encountered in the selection, measurement,
monitoring, analysis and assessment of the indicators,
in the evaluation of goal achievement, and in attempts
to implement policies that will contribute to the
realisation of ST. Indications of ST are apparent in a
number of discrete contexts, including protected areas,
some small islands, rural areas, and indigenous
territories. The mass tourism industry is also showing
increased indications of sustainability, although
primarily at the level of individual corporations. The
report concluded by suggesting that mass tourism
remains largely unsustainable, but that significant
progress is being made toward an ST ideal. Alternative
tourism, in contrast, currently tends to be sustainable,
although elements of unsustainability are also
apparent.■
37
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
references
Allen, R. (1980). How to save the world. London, UK:
Kogan Page.
Atkinson, G., & Hamilton, K. (1996). Accounting for
progress: indicators for sustainable development.
Environment, 38 (7), 16-27.
Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable
economic development. Environmental Conservation,
14(2), 101-110.
Barney, G. O., & U.S. Council on environmental quality
and the Department of State. (1982). The global 2000
report to the President: entering the twenty-first century.
(Vol. 1). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Berry, S., & Ladkin, A. (1997). Sustainable tourism: a
regional perspective. Tourism Management, 18(7), 433-440.
Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls.
(Vol. 1). Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.
Boo, E. (1992). The ecotourism boom: Planning for
development and management (WHN Technical Paper
2). Washington, D.C.: WWF.
Briguglio, L., Butler, R., Harrison, D., & Filho, W.
(Eds.). (1996). Sustainable tourism in small islands &
small states. London, UK: Pinter.
Bryden, J. (1973). Tourism and development. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Buckley, R. (1992). Triggers, thresholds & tests for EIA:
Policy tools. Environmental Policy & Law, 22(3),
146-149.
Budowski, G. (1976). Tourism and conservation:
conflict, coexistence or symbiosis? Environmental
Conservation, 3(1), 27-31.
Burns, P., & Holden, A. (Eds.). (1995). Tourism: a new
perspective. London: Prentice Hall.
Burr, S. W. (1995). Sustainable tourism development and
38
use: follies, foibles, and practical approaches. In S. F.
McCool & A. E. Watson (Eds.), Linking tourism, the
environment, and sustainability (pp. 8-13). Ogden, UT:
US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station, USDA Technical Report
INT-GTR-323.
Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle
of evolution: implications for management of resources.
Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12.
Butler, R. W. (1990). Alternative tourism: pious hope or
trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research, 28(3), 40-45.
Butler, R. W. (1992). Alternative tourism: the thin edge
of the wedge. In V. L. Smith & W. R. Eadington (Eds.),
Tourism alternatives: potentials and problems in the
development of tourism (pp. 31-46). Philadelphia, USA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Butler, R. W. (1993). Tourism - an evolutionary
perspective. In J. G. Nelson, R. W. Butler, & G. Wall
(Eds.), Tourism and sustainable development:
monitoring, planning, managing (pp. 27-43). Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada: Department of Geography, University
of Waterloo.
Butler, R. W., Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. (Eds.). (1998).
Tourism and recreation in rural areas. Chichester, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.
Carson, R. (1963). Silent spring. London: Hamish
Hamilton.
Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the Third World:
problems for sustainable tourism development. Tourism
Management, 14(2), 85-90.
Cater, E. (1995). Environmental contradictions in
sustainable tourism. Geographical Journal, 161(1), 21-28.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism, and
protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism
around the world and guidelines for its development.
Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
r
references
Christensen, N. A. (1995). Sustainable community-based
tourism and host quality of life. In S. F. McCool & A. E.
Watson (Eds.), Linking tourism, the environment, and
sustainability (pp. 63-68). Ogden, UT: US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station, USDA Technical Report INT-GTR-323.
Clarke, G. P., & Wilson, A. G. (1994). Performance
indicators in urban planning: the historical context. In C.
Bertuglia, G. P. Clarke, A. G. Wilson (Eds.), Modelling
the city: Performance, policy & planning (pp. 4-19).
London: Routledge.
Clarke, J. (1997). A framework of approaches to
sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
5(3), 224-233.
Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international
tourism. Sociology of Tourism, 39(1), 164-182.
Cohen, E. (1978). The impact of tourism on the physical
environment. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(2),
215-237.
Cohen, E. (1989). Alternative tourism - a critique. In T.
V. Singh, H. L. Theuns, & F. M. Go (Eds.), Towards
appropriate tourism: the case of developing countries
(pp. 127-142). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Collins, C. O. (1979). Site and situation strategy in
tourism planning: a Mexican case study. Annals of
Tourism Research, 6(3), 251-366.
Conlin, M. V., & Baum, T. (Eds.). (1995). Island
tourism: management principles and practice.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Consulting and Audit Canada. (1995). What tourism
managers need to know: a practical guide to the
development and use of indicators of sustainable
tourism. (Project No. 570-0872). Ottawa, Canada:
Consulting and Audit Canada.
Coomer, J. (1979). Quest for a sustainable society.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Cooper, C. (1995). Strategic planning for sustainable
tourism: the case of the offshore islands of the U.K.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(4), 191-209.
D’Amore, L. J. (1992). Promoting sustainable tourism -
the Canadian approach. Tourism Management, 13(3),
258-262.
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
de Albuquerque, K., & McElroy, J. L. (1995). Alternative
tourism and sustainability. In M. V. Conlin & T. Baum
(Eds.), Island tourism: management principles and
practice (pp. 23-32). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Dernoi, L. A. (1981). Alternative tourism: towards a new
style in North-South relations. Tourism Management, 2,
253-264.
Devall, B., & Sessions, G. (1985). Deep ecology. Layton,
UT: Gibbs Smith.
Ding, P., & Pigram, J. J. (1995). Environmental audits:
an emerging concept in sustainable tourism development.
Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(2), 2-10.
Doxy, G. (1975). Acausation theory of visitor-resident
irritants: methodology and research inferences (pp.195-
198). In The Impact of Tourism: Sixth Annual Conference
Proceedings. San Diego: Travel Research Association.
Duff, L. (1993). Ecotourism in national parks: Impacts
and benefits. National Parks Journal, 37(3), 18-20.
Dymond, S. J. (1997). Indicators of sustainable tourism
in New Zealand: a local government perspective. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 5(4), 279-293.
Eber, S. (1992). Beyond the green horizon: principles for
sustainable tourism. London, UK: World Wildlife Fund
and Tourism Concern.
Ehrlich, P. R. (1972). The population bomb. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Elliott, J. A. (1994). An introduction to sustainable
development. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Erisman, H. M. (1983). Tourism and cultural dependency in
the West Indies. Annals of Tourism Research, 10, 337-361.
Faulkner, B., & Russell, R. (1997). Chaos and
complexity in tourism: in search of a new perspective.
Pacific Tourism Review, 1(2), 93-102.
Fennell, D. A., & Weaver, D. B. (1997). Vacation farms
and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal of
Rural Studies, 13(4), 467-475.
Finney, B., & Watson, K. (1975). A new kind of sugar:
tourism in the Pacific. Honolulu: East-West Centre.
Forsyth, T. (1995). Business attitudes to sustainable
39
r
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
references
tourism: self-regulation in the UK outgoing tourism
industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 3(4), 210-231.
Frazier, J. G. (1997). Sustainable development: modern
elixir or sack dress? Environmental Conservation, 24(2),
182-193.
German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Ed.).
(1997). Biodiversity and tourism. Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer.
Gill, A., & Williams, P. (1994). Managing growth in
mountain tourism communities. Tourism Management
15, 212-220.
Gonsalves, P. S. (1991). Alternative tourism: a Third
World perspective. Lokoyan Bulletin, 9(2), 23-28.
Goodall, B. (1992). Environmental auditing for tourism.
In C. P. Cooper & A. Lockwood (Eds.), Progress in
Tourism, recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 4,
pp. 60-74). London: Belhaven Press.
Goriup, P. (1991). Special issue on ecotourism. Parks, 2.
Hall, C. M. (1995). Introduction to tourism in Australia:
Impacts, planning and development. (2nd ed.).
Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Hall, C. M., Jenkins, J., & Kearsley, G. (Eds.). (1997).
Tourism planning and policy in Australia and New
Zealand: Cases, issues and practice. Sydney, Australia:
Irwin Publishers.
Hamilton, C., & Attwater, R. (1997). Measuring the
environment: the availability and use of environmental
statistics in Australia. Australian Journal of
Environmental Management, 4(2), 72-87.
Harris, R., & Leiper, N. (Eds.). (1995). Sustainable
tourism: an Australian perspective. Chatswood, N.S.W.:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Harrison, D. (1995). Development of tourism in
Swaziland. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 135-156.
Hawkes, S., & Williams, P. (Eds.). (1993). The greening
of tourism from principles to practice: a casebook of best
environmental practice in tourism. Burnaby, B.C.,
Canada: Centre for Tourism Policy and Research, School
of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon
Fraser University.
Henry, W. R. (1980). Patterns of tourist use in Kenya’s
40
Amboseli National Park: implications for planning and
management. In D. Hawkins, E. Shafer, & J. Rovelstad
(Eds.), Tourism marketing and management issues (pp.
43-57). Washington, D.C.: George Washington
University.
Hodge, T., Holtz, S., Smith, C., & Baxter, K. H. (Eds.).
(1995). Pathways to sustainability: assessing our
progress. National round table on the environment and
economy in Ottawa, Canada
Holden, P. (Ed.). (1984). Alternative tourism: report on
the workshop on alternative tourism with a focus on Asia.
Bangkok: Ecumenical coalition on Third World tourism.
Hunter, C. J. (1995). On the need to re-conceptualise
sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 3(3), 155-165.
Hunter, C. J. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive
paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 850-867.
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: an integrated and
sustainable development approach. New York, New
York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
International Working Group on Indicators. (1993).
Indicators for the sustainable management of tourism:
report of the International Working Group on indicators
of sustainable tourism to the environment committee,
World Tourism Organization . Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Canada: International Institute for Sustainable
Development.
IUCN, UNEP, & WWF. (1980). World conservation
strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable
development. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, UNEP, WWF.
Jafari, J. (1989). An English language literature review.
In J. Bystrzanowski (Ed.), Tourism as a factor of
change: a sociocultural study (pp. 17-60). Vienna:
Centre for Research and Documentation in Social
Sciences.
Klemm, M. (1992). Sustainable tourism development:
Languedoc-Roussillon thirty years on. Tourism
Management, 13(2), 169-180.
Lane, B. (1994). Sustainable rural tourism strategies: a
tool for development and conservation. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 2(1&2), 102-111.
Lanfant, M.-F., & Graburn, H. H. H. (1992).
International tourism reconsidered: the principle of the
r
references
alternative. In V. L. Smith & W. R. Eadington (Eds.),
Tourism alternative: potentials and problems in the
development of tourism (pp. 88-112). Philadelphia, USA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Leiper, N. (1995). Tourism management. Melbourne,
Australia: TAFE Publications.
Lele, S. (1991). Sustainable development: a critical
development. World Development, 19, 607-621.
Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Lloyd, B. (1996). State of the environment reporting in
Australia: A review. Australian Journal of Environmental
Management, 3(3), 150-162.
Lockhart, D., & Drakakis-Smith, D. (Eds.). (1997). Island
tourism: trends and prospects. London, UK: Pinter.
Lovelock, J. (1979). Gaia: a new look at life on earth.
New York: Oxford University Press.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: a new theory of the
leisure class. New York, USA: Schocken Books Inc.
Maclaren, V. W. (1996). Urban sustainability reporting.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2),
184-206.
Manning, E. W. (1993). Managing sustainable tourism:
indicators for better decisions. In S. Hawkes & P.
Williams (Eds.), The greening of tourism from
principles to practice: a casebook of best
environmental practice in tourism (pp. 97-99).
Burnaby, B.C., Canada: Centre for Tourism Policy and
Research, School of Resource and Environmental
Management, Simon Fraser University.
Manning, E. W., & Dougherty, T. D. (1995). Sustainable
tourism: preserving the golden goose. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 29-42.
Marsh, J. (1993). Questions and comments on tourism
and sustainable development workshop. In J. G. Nelson,
R. W. Butler, & G. Wall (Eds.), Tourism and sustainable
development: monitoring, planning, managing (pp. 255-
258). Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Department of
Geography, University of Waterloo.
Matthews, A. (1993). Australia works towards sustainable
tourism. Tourism & Travel Review, 1(6), 12-13.
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
McIntosh, R. W., Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, J. R.
(1995). Tourism, principles, practices, philosophies. (7th
ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McKercher, B. (1993a). Some fundamental truths about
tourism: understanding tourism’s social and
environmental impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
1(1), 6-16.
McKercher, B. (1993b). The unrecognized threat to
tourism: can tourism survive ‘sustainability’? Tourism
Management, 14(2), 131-136.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., &
Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. New
York, New York: Signet.
Middleton, V. T. C., & Hawkins, R. (1998). Sustainable
tourism: a marketing perspective. Oxford, Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Miller, M. L., & Kaae, B. (1993). Coastal and marine
ecotourism: a formula for sustainable development?
Trends, 30(2), 35-41.
Moscardo, G., Morrison, A. M., & Pearce, P. L. (1996).
Specialist accommodation and ecologically-sustainable
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(1), 29-52.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and
sustainability: new tourism in the Third World. London,
UK: Routledge.
Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: a community approach.
New York, New York: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Murphy, P. E. (1994). Tourism and sustainable
development. In W. F. Theobald (Ed.), Global tourism:
the next decade (pp. 274-290). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Nelson, J. G., Butler, R. W., & Wall, G. (Eds.).
(1993). Tourism and sustainable development:
monitoring, planning, managing. Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada: Department of Geography, University of
Waterloo.
OECD. (1980). The impact of tourism on development.
Paris: Organisation for economic cooperation and
development.
Padgett, T. (1996, July 1). The battle for the beach.
Newsweek, 128, 58.
41
r
CRC FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
references
Pearce, P. L., Morrison, A. M., & Rutledge, J. L. (1998).
Tourism bridges across continents. Sydney, Australia:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Perez, L. A. (1973). Aspects of underdevelopment - tourism
in the West Indies. Science & Society, 37, 473-480.
Pigram, J. J. (1990). Sustainable tourism: policy
considerations. Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(2), 2-9.
Place, S. (1995). Ecotourism for sustainable
development: oxymoron or plausible strategy?
GeoJournal, 35(2), 161-173.
Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in
popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly,
14(4), 55-58.
Romeril, M. (1989). Tourism - the environmental
dimension. In C. P. Cooper (Ed.), Progress in tourism,
recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 1, pp. 103-
113). London: Belhaven Press.
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful. London,
UK: Blond & Briggs Ltd.
Shivji, I. (1973). Tourism and socialist development. Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania: Tanzania Publishing House
Smith, S. L. J. (1989). Tourism analysis: a handbook.
Essex, England: Longman Scientific & Technical.
Smith, V. L. (Ed.). (1977). Hosts and guests: the
anthropology of tourism (1st ed.). Philadelphia, USA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Stabler, M. J. (Ed.). (1997). Tourism & sustainability:
principles to practice. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
TCA (Tourism Council Australia), & Commission, A. T.
(1998). Code of sustainable practice 1998. Barton, ACT:
National Policy Office, TCA.
Tisdell, C., & Wen, J. (1997). Why care is needed in
applying indicators of the sustainability of tourism.
Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 4(1), 1-6.
Turner, L., & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes:
international tourism and the pleasure periphery.
London: Constable.
42
Van’t Stot, J. (1996). Pacific islands seek
ecotourism solutions. Ecotourism Society newsletter,
second quarter, 1-3.
Wahab, S., & Pigram, J. J. (Eds.). (1997). Tourism
development and growth: the challenge of sustainability.
London, UK: Routledge.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and
Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Weaver, D. B. (1991). Alternative to mass tourism in
Dominica. Annals of Tourism Research, 18 (3),
414-432.
Weaver, D. B. (1993). Ecotourism in the small island
Caribbean. GeoJournal, 31(4), 457-465.
Weaver, D. B. (1995). Alternative tourism in Montserrat.
Tourism Management, 16(8), 593-604.
Weaver, D. B. (1998). Ecotourism in the less
developed World. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB
International.
Weaver, D.B. (1999). A broad context model of
destination development scenarios. Tourism
Management, in press.
Western, D. (1982). Amboseli National Park: enlisting
landowners to conserve migratory wildlife. Ambio, 11,
302-308.
Wight, P. (1995). Sustainable ecotourism: balancing
economic, environmental and social goals within an
ethical framework. Tourism Recreation Research, 20(1),
5-13.
Willers, B. 1994. Sustainable development: a new world
deception. Conservation Biology , 8, 1146-1148.
Williams, P. W. (1994). Frameworks for assessing
tourism’s environmental impacts. In J. R. Ritchie, & C.
Goeldner (Eds.). Travel, tourism, and hospitality
research: a handbook for managers and researchers (pp.
425-436). (2nd ed.) Chichester, UK: Wiley.
WTO. (1998). Yearbook of tourism statistics (Vol.1).
(50th ed.). Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.
a
authors
David Weaver
D r. David Weaver is a Senior Lecturer in the School o
Tourism and Hotel Management at the Gold Coast
campus of Griffith University, Queensland, and is director of
the school’s masters programs in tourism and hotel
management. He earned his Ph.D. in the geography of
tourism at the University of Western Ontario in 1986. After ten
years of teaching in the Canadian university system, he moved
to Australia in 1996. Dr. Weaver has authored or co-authored
over forty refereed journal articles and book chapters on a
diversity of subjects related to the tourism industry.
His areas of focus include sustainable tourism, tourism
management, ecotourism, resort cycle dynamics, tourism
on small islands and other peripheral regions, resort
timesharing, linkages between war and tourism, and the
geopolitics of tourism. The geographical scope of his
investigations has ranged from the Caribbean and Pacific
to the Canadian great plains, southern Africa and
Australia. Dr. Weaver has spoken on numerous occasions
Laura Lawton
M s. Laura Lawton is a PhD Candidate within th
School of Tourism and Hotel Management at the
Gold Coast campus of Griffith University. She holds an
Hons. Bachelor of Arts degree (urban planning) and a
Master of Arts degree specialising in the geography of
tourism from the University of Western Ontario in Canada.
After eight years of employment as a senior research
officer with Saskatchewan Environment and Natural
Resources, she moved from Canada to Australia in 1996.
Laura Lawton has authored or co-authored numerous
government reports and academic journal articles in several
of fields, including state of the environment reporting,
protected areas management and policy, the Australian
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
as a conference guest speaker and presenter.
David Weaver is the author of the recently published
(1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World, which
represents a comprehensive analysis of this emerging
topic area. The book employs a case study approach
focusing upon Costa Rica, Kenya, Nepal and Thailand.
Dr. Weaver is currently Editor-in-Chief of the
Encyclopedia of Ecotourism for CAB International. Dr.
Weaver is also co-authoring an introductory university
text on tourism management.
Dr Dave Weaver, Senior Lecturer
School of Tourism & Hospitality Management
Faculty of Commerce & Management
Griffith University Gold Coast
PMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre QLD 9726
Ph: 07 5594 8591 • Fax: 07 5594 8507
Email: d.weaver@mailbox.gu.edu.au
timeshare industry, and the cruise ship sector. Her Ph.D.
research considers resident attitudes toward high profile
tourist attractions on the Gold Coast of Australia. She is also
extensively involved in a variety of research projects involving
ecotourism, tourism in the hinterland of the Gold Coast,
tourist activity space systems, and the timeshare industry.
Ms Laura Lawton
School of Tourism & Hospitality Management
Faculty of Commerce & Management
Griffith University Gold Coast
PMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre QLD 9726
Ph: 07 5594 8591 • Fax: 07 5594 8507
Email: l.lawton@mailbox.gu.edu.au
43