How sustainable is sustainable

tourism? Policy learning and the

need to reconsider approaches to
sustainable tourism

C. Michael Hall
http://canterbury-nz.academia.edu/CMichaelHall
michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz

Presented at School of Tourism and Hotel Management, University of South Pacific, Suva,
Fiji, August, 2010
 Outline of presentation
• How sustainable is sustainable tourism?
Words meet global change
• Why is it such a difficult idea?
• Policy learning and failure
• What sort of learning do we have in
sustainable tourism?
• What order of innovation and change?
 1. How sustainable is sustainable
tourism?
• Diffusion of a concept/term - If words
count it is a great success!
• Journals
• Textbooks
• Many journal articles
• Adoption in policies and strategies at
numerous scales within public and
private spheres
 Policy
• International agencies and organisations: UN
Environmental Programme, UN World Tourism
Organisation, the World Travel and Tourism Council
(WTTC), World Economic Forum (WEF) as well as
joint reports
• Most supranational bodies and tourism
organisations, ie OAS, African Union, APEC, EU
note role of sustainable tourism
• Mentioned in most national or regional government
tourism policies or statements
• Also referred to in many private sector organisations
The futures so bright…
WTO forecasts
 But…
• Despite all the words the contribution of
tourism to environmental change is
increasing

• Along with the growth in international

(and domestic) tourism arrivals
 Dimension 2001 estimates 2007 estimates
No. of international tourist 682 million1 898 million1
arrivals (overnight)
No. international tourist trips 639.4 mn2 841.9 mn2
(est)
No. of domestic tourist arrivals 3,410 mn2 4,490 mn2
(overnight)
Total no. of tourist arrivals 4,092 mn2 5,353 mn2
Change of land cover (alteration 0.5 % contribution3 0.66 % contribution4
of biologically productive lands)
Energy consumption 14,080 PJ3 18,585.6 PJ4
Emissions 1400 Mt of CO2-e3 1848 Mt of CO2-e4 (1307 Mt of CO2- 4.95% total world
share5)
Biotic exchange Difficult to assess3 Difficult to assess, however rate of exchange is
increasing4
Extinction of wild species Difficult to assess3 Difficult to assess, particularly because of time
between initial tourism effects and extinction
events.
Health Difficult to assess3 Difficult to assess in host populations, but sickness
in tourists in tropics assessed at 50% by WHO 4
World Population6 6,169.8 mn 6,632.2 mn
No. of tourist arrivals as % of 66.1% 80.7%
world pop.
No. of international tourist 11.1% 13.5%
•1. UNWTO figures; 2. Hall and Lew (2009) estimates based on UNWTO data; 3. Gössling (2002) estimate; 4. Hall and Lew (2009) extrapolation based on Gössling’s estimates, This figure remains well below
arrivals as % of world pop.
the upper estimate of the UNWTO, UNEP & WMO 2008 estimates; 5. UNWTO, UNEP and WMO (2007) estimate for 2005. 6 Mid-year world population estimate by US Census Bureau International Data
Base (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.html)
 Biological diversity
• A study of the socio-economic parameters influencing
plant invasions in Europe and North Africa found that the
density of naturalised species was positively correlated to
the number of tourists that visit a country (r = 0.49)
• Given the relationship observed by Ehrlich (1994) between
energy and emissions as well as energy use and
biodiversity loss, it is conservatively estimated that
tourism is responsible for approximately 3.5-5.5% of
species loss with a future higher figure being likely if
climate change scenarios are considered.
 Aviation
• According to ICAO (2009), the aviation industry foresees a
continuous increase in fuel use. Passenger numbers will
grow by 4.0% per year and distances travelled at 5.0% per
year (measured in revenue passenger-kilometres, RPKs)
over the coming 20 years, a development fuelled in particular
by the fastest growing economies, such as the Asia-Pacific
region (Boeing, 2008).
• Airbus (2007) projects even higher growth rates, with an
annual 4.9% increase in passenger numbers up to 2026.
• Consequently, to meet the emission reduction target of 25-
30% for tourism related aviation by 2020 (WTTC 2009),
efficiency gains in the order of 6% per year would have to be
achieved over the next decade.
 CO2 Trip impact
• While the average trip generates 0.25 tonnes of CO2, long
haul trips and luxury cruises can generate up to 9 t CO2 per
person per trip (35 times the emissions caused by an
average trip).
• Even ‘ecotourism’ holidays, such as dive holidays, will cause
high emissions in the range of 1.2 to 6.8 t CO2 due to
emission from air, automobile and boat travel.
• The impact of aviation based long-haul travel on the
environment is even more significant: such trips can generate
higher per person emissions in a single holiday than the
annual per capita emissions of the average world citizen (4.3
t CO2), or even the higher average of an EU citizen (9 t CO2)
(Scott et al. 2008).
 Major challenge in terms of a
response
• Tourism’s contribution to global environmental change
• If tourism was a country it would rank 5th in terms of emissions - after
USA, China, Russia, and Japan (using the UNWTO estimate). If you
looked at the upper end only the USA and China would be in front.

• More seriously the recent report of the Global Humanitarian Forum

indicates that every year climate change leaves over 300,000 people
dead, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses of
US$125 billion (more than the all present world aid).
• Some could interpret this as meaning that in % terms tourism is
responsible for about 15,000 deaths, seriously affecting 8.25 million
people, and economic losses of US$6.25 billion as a result of its
emissions. What wonderful headlines that would be?
 The problem is…
• Issue of scale… [some things have been achieved in
individual businesses or destinations but these are just
a small part of the big picture]
• Growth in tourism on a global scale is greater than
efficiency gains with respect to emissions or energy
(which also tend to be relatively localised). The WEF
estimate that CO2 emissions from tourism (excluding
aviation) will grow at 2.5% per year until 2035 and
annual increases in carbon emissions from aviation will
be limited to about 2.7% because of expected load
factor gains and more fuel efficient planes, which will
replace existing fleets.
• there is not a simple and predictable relationship
between pollution and per capita income so that as
incomes rise the level of pollution declines (the so-
called environmental Kuznets curve)
 Absolute contribution to continue
• UNWTO-UNEP-WMO (2008) provide a technology-adjusted
business-as-usual scenario, indicating that the sector’s
growth in CO2 emissions may exceed 150% between 2005
and 2035, most of this attributed to air travel.
• The UNWTO (2009) and the World Travel and Tourism
Council (WTTC 2009) have called for drastic reductions in
emissions from tourism, in the order of 25-30% by 2020 and
50% by 2035 (both from 2005 levels). When set against
projected ‘business as usual’ growth trends, this raises
important questions regarding the technical, economic and
social feasibility of achieving these stated emission
reduction goals.
 problem?

• The growing contribution of tourism to

environmental change while it is
simultaneously being promoted as a means
of economic growth - usually through
increasing visitor numbers - suggests that
sustainable tourism development is a
significant policy problem.
 2. Is sustainability the problem?
• Temporality - Natural and cultural systems function
over time scales that are often vastly greater than
those which determine political and policy cycles.
• Spatiality – Sustainability and environmental problems
tend to be cross-boundary in nature and for some
types of problems, such as climate change, global in
scale
• Limits – The concept of sustainability suggests that
there are limits to exploitation of natural capital
because of its capacity for renewal
• Cumulative – Most anthropogenic impacts on natural
capital is cumulative rather than discrete
 Relativities of scale with respect to
climate change
global
international policy

climate research
Climate Cycle

national transnational strategy

national policy

national tourism
research
regional Wea
th
Sys er
tem
destination
planning
r E athe

extension
nt
ve
We

local
touristSmall operator

days years decades

Source: From Hall & Lew 2009

• Irreversibility – Some natural capital or environmental assets
cannot be renewed once it has gone, such as a species, or
are not easily substitutable. In some cases timescale for
renewal is well outside the normal parameters of policy
cycles.
• Complexity and connectivity – Problems are interconnected
or interlocking, meaning that issues such as climate change
and biodiversity cannot be easily separated in scientific
terms although they often are in policy making terms.
• Uncertainty - difficult to judge the efficacy, implications and
socio-economic impacts of policy measures
• Ethical issues – Although ethical questions are integral to all
policy choices sustainability has added nuance because of
generational and intergenerational equity and rights of non-
human species.
 Is sustainability the problem?

• Despite the length of time the policy problem attributes

of sustainability have been recognised there appears
little advance in making the sustainability of tourism
more tractable to solution

• the nature of the sustainability problem is such that

while policy actions may appear logical or appropriate
at the micro-scale, the emergent nature of tourism
systems, let alone the inherent complexity of
environmental change, can mean that those measures
may have little effect at the meso or macro-scales
 3.Policy failure and learning

• Dissatisfaction with policy performance and

outcomes can provide a stimulus to
consider other policy and implementation
alternatives.

• Learning is an integral part of the public

policy process
 Three types of policy learning

1 instrumental or technical learning which is concerned

with adjusting or modifying existing policy instruments in
order to pursue policy goals.
2 conceptual or social policy learning which is concerned
with changes in basic policy beliefs and paradigms. A
policy paradigm is the framework of ideas and standards
that specifies not only the goals of policy and the kind of
instruments used to attain them, but also the very nature
of the problems they are meant to be addressing.
3 political learning, proposed by May (1992) which entails
lessons about policy processes and prospects.
 Central elements
1 Previous policy settings or legacies are more
influential on policy than contemporary economic
and social conditions
2 Policy experts or entrepreneurs located both within
and at the edge of the state act as promoters of
policy learning in given policy domains.
3 Policy learning is also affected by the extent to
which institutions and policy experts are insulated
from external public political pressure.
 Orders of change

• First order change: characterised by incremental, routine

behaviour that is based around government officials and
policy experts that leads to a change in the levels (or
settings) of the basic instruments of policy

• Second order change: characterised by the selection of new

policy instruments and techniques and policy settings as a
result with previous policy experience but the overarching
policy goals remain the same - more strategic.

• Third order change: a policy paradigm shift, takes place when

a new goal hierarchy is adopted by policy makers because
the coherence of existing policy paradigm(s) has been
undermined
 4. What sort of learning do we have in
sustainable tourism?
• Sustainability has actually been around for a long time

• In tourism policy terms, sustainability is primarily seen as

being ‘environmental’ and development as ‘economic’
(and to a lesser extent ‘social’) and the concept of
sustainable tourism or sustainable tourism development
aims to mitigate the paradox between them

• Importance of “balance”
 The ‘bible’ for decision-makers
• The UNEP and UNWTO (2005)
‘guide for policy makers’ on
‘making tourism more
sustainable’ (described as ‘a
“bible” for all decisionmakers
who are encouraged to be
actively involved in the
development of an
environmentally and socially
responsible tourism which
creates long term economic
benefits for the businesses and
destinations’ by Eugenio Yunis
(2006: 2), Head of Department
UNWTO), argues that the
concept of sustainable
development had evolved since
the 1987 Brundtland definition:
Three dimensions or ‘pillars’ of sustainable
development are now recognized and underlined:
• Economic sustainability, which means generating
prosperity at different levels of society and
addressing the cost effectiveness of all economic
activity. Crucially, it is about the viability of
enterprises and activities and their ability to be
maintained in the long term.
• Social sustainability, which means respecting
human rights and equal opportunities for all in
society. It requires an equitable distribution of
benefits, with a focus on alleviating poverty….
• Environmental sustainability, which means
conserving and managing resources, especially
those that are not renewable or are precious in
terms of life support.
• … It is important to appreciate that these
three pillars are in many ways interdependent
and can be both mutually reinforcing or in
competition. Delivering sustainable
development means striking a balance
between them (UNEP & UNWTO 2005: 9).
 Academic balance
• ‘unfortunately, many studies in the tourism literature that
incorporate an attempt to define [sustainable tourism] do not
venture beyond the rhetoric of balance and the underlying
rationale for policy formulation’ (Hunter, 2002: 12).

• ‘For sustainable tourism to be successful, long-term policies

that balance environmental, social, and economic issues
must be fashioned’ … ‘positive sustainable tourism
development is dependent on forward-looking policies and
new management philosophies that seek harmonious
relations between local communities, the private sector, not-
for-profit organizations, academic institutions, and
governments at all levels to develop practices that protect
natural, built, and cultural environments in a way compatible
with economic growth’ (Edgell, 2006: xiii) (this author’s
emphasis).
Conceiving sustainable tourism
‘standard model’
SOCIAL GOALS ECONOMIC GOALS

• community • economic

benefits COMMUNITY benefits to locals

• participation BASED and other

• planning ECONOMICS stakeholders

• education • economically

• health viable industry

• employment

• visitor

SUSTAINABLE
satisfaction

TOURISM

CONSERVATION ENVIRONMENT

WITH ECONOMY

EQUITY INTEGRATION

• resource benefits

• minimal resource degradation

• acceptance of resource values

• matching of supply and demand

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE GOALS

 First and second order change
• Strong focus on first and second order change - ie
indicators and some instruments.
• 1st order change: focus on developing sustainable
indicators and use of voluntary instruments
• 2nd order change: focus on developing more
efficient tourism with respect to energy use and
emissions
• Yet the continuing contribution of a growing tourism
industry to environmental change raises a clear
question as to whether sustainable tourism can
actually be achieved via a ‘balanced’ approach that
seeks to continue to promote economic growth
 The problem with balance
• Sustainable development gained support from such a wide
range of interests and stakeholders because it gave the
impression that it could bring about a rapprochement
between ecological (sustainability) interests and economic
(development) interests (Sachs, 1993).
• As portrayed via government and supranational institutions
the sustainable development concept suggests that it is able
to cope with ecological crisis without affecting existing
economic relationships of power and with capitalism and
ecology not appearing contradictory (Baeten, 2000).
• The problem with the notion of ‘balance’ is that, while
perhaps conceptually attractive, it underplays key questions
of what is being balanced for whose benefit, and devalues
the importance of the natural capital that actually underpins
all economic growth and socio-economic well-being and is
fundamental to an ecological understanding of sustainability.
 Reallocation of natural capital from
economy of nature to human economy
in the process of economic growth

K
Natural capital
allocated to
wildlife /
environment
GDP
Natural capital
allocated to
human / tourism
economy

Source: Adapted from Hall, 2010

TIME
 Growth economy is failing
• As Daly (2008: 2) commented in a report to the UK
Sustainable Development Commission:
The growth economy is failing. In other words, the
quantitative expansion of the economic subsystem
increases environmental and social costs faster than
production benefits, making us poorer not richer, at
least in high-consumption countries. Given the laws of
diminishing marginal utility and increasing marginal
costs, this should not have been unexpected… It is
hard to know for sure that growth now increases costs
faster than benefits since we do not bother to separate
costs from benefits in our national accounts. Instead
we lump them together as “activity” in the calculation
of GDP.
 Second & Third Order responses
• The efficiency approach which seeks to reduce the rate of
consumption by using materials more productively.
- Eco-efficiency stresses the technological link between value
creation in economic activities and environmental quality.
This approach places more focus on recycling, using energy
more efficiently, eco-innovation, and reducing emissions, but
otherwise operating in a ‘business as usual’ manner.
• The sufficiency approach
- changing the nature of consumption and the behaviours
associated with it
 Growth vs development
• Growth refers to the quantitative increase in
economic output, whereas development refers to an
increase in the quality of output without an increase
in material and energy use.

The nineteenth-century economist, William Stanley Jevons,

noted in “The Coal Question” that every increment of
additional efficiency in coal extraction and utilization was met
with an increment of additional coal extracted and consumed.
“Jevon’s Paradox” helps illustrate the chicken-or-egg nature
of economic growth and technological progress. As long as
economic growth is the goal, technological progress will not
result in biodiversity conservation; rather, an expansion of the
human niche and the consumption of more natural resources
will result (Czech, 2006: 1563).
 Same or increased
personal travel
demand. ‘Business
as usual’. No
PRODUCER
fundamental change
BEHAVIOUR in destination choice
ECO-EFFICIENCY or consumption
PRODUCTION choices: ‘Green
More productive use of Growth’ Continued
Efficiency materials and energy. run down of natural
capital if only policy
approach

DRIVERS EXTERNAL INTERNAL Increased Product Life Spans SUSTAINABLE

FOR Regulation; Value change; Changed Consumer CONSUMPTION
CHANGE Cost of Ethical & Behaviour
energy; social
Competition responsibilities Reduction in
personal demand.
Fundamental
change in demand
SLOW CONSUMPTION
to emphasise ‘local’
Sufficiency Changed consumption patterns destinations and
leading to reduced throughput of reduce resource
CONSUMPTION products and services and less consumption and
energy. distance travelled:
CONSUMER ‘Reorientation’.
Recessionary in
BEHAVIOUR
implementation if
used in isolation
Source: After Hall 2009 from other
measures.
 Alternative?: ‘Slow’, ‘décroissance’,
‘steady-state’, ‘transition tourism’
• The development of voluntary and mandated
environmental standards
• The adoption of cradle-to-cradle lifecycle analysis in
determining tourism infrastructure and product life spans
• Relocalisation schemes that reinforce the potential
economic, social and environmental benefits of
consuming, producing and travelling locally
• Ethical consumption measures that focus on living better
by consuming less and the satisfaction of non-material
needs
• Taxation that reflects the full environmental cost of travel
and tourism development
 Sustainable tourism
consumption
• …does not necessarily mean people holidaying or
travelling less, although in the case of long-distance
air travel there will be a decline, but it will mean
people travelling more locally and, when people do
travel long distance, potentially staying longer,
travelling by the most efficient means and/or paying
substantially more so as to reduce the overall
environmental effects of their trip in terms of
emissions, energy consumption and environmental
damage.

• Although some isolated destinations distant from

their origin markets will be affected many will benefit.
• Shift from long-haul to short-haul/local:
Travelling shorter distances for holidays would
have the most immediate benefits in terms of
emissions and energy consumption: Actually
potentially economically beneficial to many
countries
• Change in mode of transport: shift from planes
to trains (run on renewables) where possible,
implications for where train (or boat) stops
• If you do travel long distance…: higher
charges (politically difficult), make people stay
longer so as to reduce overall impact
(institutionally difficult).
• Paying a more realistic cost for externalities?
Energy and water use, pollution (politically
difficult)
• The internalisation of external diseconomies -
those costs incurred by the activity of one actor but
borne by the community at large: fully applying the
principle of polluter pays in order to ensure that
costs as well as benefits are demonstrated in
economic activities rather than being externalised.

• In the context of tourism that will therefore bring a

strong focus on the activities of the transport
sector, and airlines in particular. (and the airline
sector - along with the private transport sector is
enormously politically powerful)

• Changing behaviours and accepting less long-

distance mobility and accepting less/different
consumption: The most important and also the
most difficult given thinking about the economy,
thinking about tourism and thinking about
consumption and identity
 But is it more of an academic debate?
• External shock?
• Continuing bad environmental news?
• Change?

• The ecological footprint of humanity exceeds the

biological capacity of the Earth by a wider
margin than at the time the 2010 target was
agreed (Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity,
2010)
 Conclusion: What order of innovation,
learning and change?
• Most learning with respect to sustainable
tourism is first order
• Some second order change is occurring but
is within dominant paradigm, ie focus on
efficiency
• What difference does a perceived crisis
make?
• Economic growth dominates
• But… more does not mean better, and
growth does not mean development.
 Some sources
Gössling, S., Hall, C.M., Peeters, P., & Scott, D. (2010). The future of tourism: Can tourism growth and
climate policy be reconciled? A climate change mitigation perspective. Tourism Recreation Research,
35(2).
Gössling, S., Hall, C.M., & Weaver, D. (Eds.) (2009). Sustainable tourism futures: Perspectives on systems,
restructuring and innovations. New York: Routledge.
Greener, I. (2001). Social learning and macroeconomic policy in Britain. Journal of Public Policy, 21, 133-152.
Hall, C.M. (2009). Degrowing tourism: Décroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-state tourism.
Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1).
– (2009). Archetypal approaches to implementation and their implications for tourism policy. Tourism
Recreation Research, 34.
– (2010). Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steady-state tourism. Tourism
Recreation Research, 35(2).
– (2010). Crisis events in tourism: Subjects of crisis in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 13
– (2010). Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity guidelines on biodiversity and tourism
development. Journal of Heritage Tourism, in press.
– (2011). Biosecurity, tourism and mobility: Institutional arrangements for managing biological invasions.
Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3(3).
– (2011). Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: From first to third order
change? (draft manuscript available from author)
Hall, C.M., & Lew, A. (2009). Understanding and managing tourism impacts. London: Routledge.
Hall, P.A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in
Britain. Comparative Politics, 25, 275-296.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global biodiversity outlook 3. Montreal:
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
World Economic Forum (2009). Towards a low carbon travel & tourism sector. Davos: World Economic
Forum.
Policy Spatial scale Problem nature Policy challenge Examples
problem
Macro- Spatially and Complex and Potentially highly International biodiversity
policy temporally highly uncertain disruptive of natural and and climate change
diffuse. and often socio-economic systems conventions
International connected to and challenges existing
or global in other macro- patterns of consumption
scope. policy issues as and production, policy
part of the meta- processes and
policy problem institutional
of sustainability arrangements
Meso- Usually Significant Routine policy Integrated catchment
policy addressed problem that is management. Does not management,
within a often high on pose overwhelming transboundary pollution
national or the policy threats to existing and resource problems
bilateral agenda patterns of production
governance and consumption, policy
context processes, and/or
institutional
arrangements
Micro- Spatially and Not overly Day-to-day policy Environmental impact
policy temporally complex or management. Does not assessment, tourism
discrete. uncertain require large resource development approval,
Usually local commitment. Uses pollution licensing,
or sectoral existing technology, tourism industry
scale policy process, and/or regulation
institutional
arrangements
Sources: Dovers, 1995; Hall, 2008
Policy Spatial scale Problem Policy challenge Type of Hall Learning
problem nature change (1993)
Macro- Spatially and Complex and Potentially highly Changes to Third Conceptual
policy temporally highly disruptive of the policy order / Social
diffuse. uncertain and natural and socio- paradigm change policy
International often economic systems (the learning
or global in connected to and challenges hierarchy and/or
scope. other macro- existing patterns of goals political
policy issues of consumption and values learning
as part of the and production, that
meta-policy policy processes underpin
problem of and institutional policy)
sustainability arrangements
Meso- Usually Significant Routine policy Changes to Second Instrumental
policy addressed problem that management. policy order learning and
within a is often high Does not pose instruments change political
national or on the policy overwhelming and/or learning
bilateral agenda threats to existing indicators
governance patterns of within
context production and existing
consumption, policy
policy processes, paradigm
and/or
institutional
arrangements
Micro- Spatially and Not overly Day-to-day policy Changes to First Instrumental
policy temporally complex or management. the setting order learning
discrete. uncertain Does not require of policy change
Usually local large resource instruments
or sectoral commitment. and/or
scale Uses existing indicators
technology,
policy process,
and/or
institutional
arrangements
Sources: Dovers, 1995; Greener, 2001; Hall, C.M. 2008, 2009b; Hall, P., 1993; May, 1992.