Tourism and Sustainable Development - Taylor & Francis Online

133 downloads 1340 Views 184KB Size Report
University of Northumbria, Longhirst Campus, Longhirst Hall, Morpeth, .... Since the early 1950s, four main schools of development thought, or para- digms ... theory which suggests that liberalised international trade can be a positive force .... ignorance or lack of concern, live unsustainably, its message is that 'resource.
Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide Richard Sharpley Unive rsity o f N orthum b ria, Lo nghirst C am pus, Longhirst Ha ll, M o rp eth, N orthum b erland N E61 3LL, U K Despite the significant attention paid by tourism academics and practitioners to sustainable tourism development in recent years, there has been a consistent failure within the tourism literatureto relate the concept to the theory of its parental paradigm, sustainable development. As a result, the applicability of sustainable development to the specific context of tourism is rarely questioned. This paper addresses this omission in the literature. Reviewing development theory and the notion of sustainability, it proposes a model of sustainable development against which the principles of sustainable tourism are compared. It is argued that tourism development remains embedded in early modernisation theory whilst the principles of sustainable tourism overlook the characteristics of the production and consumption of tourism. As a result, significant differences between the concepts of sustainable tourism and sustainable development are revealed, suggesting that the principles and objectives of sustainable development cannot be transposed onto the specific context of tourism.

Introduction Over the last decade, the concept of sustainable tourism development has become the focus of increasing attention amongst tourism theorists and practitioners alike. It has now achieved widespread acceptance as a desirable objective of tourism development policy and practice and many organisations representing destinations or tourism industry sectors have published sustainable tourism development plans and sets of principles (for example, IFTO, 1994). Nevertheless, the concept of sustainable tourism development remains the subject of vigorous debate. It is variously interpreted and its validity as a means and/or end of tourism development is questioned in many quarters, reflecting, in part, the lack of clarity or consensus concerning its meaning or objectives. Definitions abound, to the extent that ‘defining sustainable development in the context of tourism has become something of a cottage industry in the academic literature of late’ (Garrod & Fyall, 1998: 199). Such definitions fall primarily within two categories; those which are ‘tourism-centric’ (Hunter, 1995), focusing on sustaining tourism as an economic activity, and those which consider tourism as an element of wider sustainable development policies (Cronin, 1990). Sustainable tourism has also been referred to as an ‘adaptive paradigm’, encompassing a set of meta-principles within which ‘several different development pathways may be legitimised according to circumstance’ (Hunter, 1997: 859). Whilst this conceptualisation of sustainable tourism as a kind of free-floating development process is undoubtedly attractive, neatly side-stepping the need for a concise definition, it nevertheless does little to sharpen the focus of study onto the processes and overall viability of the concept. 0966-9582/00/01 0001-19 $10.00/0 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

© 2000 R. Sharpley Vol. 8, No. 1, 2000

1

2

Journa l of Susta ina ble To urism

More importantly, however, although ‘sustainable tourism should be consistent with the tenets of sustainable development’ (Stabler & Goodall, 1996: 170), suggesting that the sustainable tourism discourse should be built upon a solid theoretical foundation and understanding of the concept from which it has been born, there has been a consistent and fundamental failure to build a theoretical link between the concept of sustainable tourism and its parental paradigm (Lanfant & Graburn, 1992: 112). This is not to suggest that sustainable tourism has become totally divorced from sustainable development. However, the validity of the sustainable development concept and its specific applicability to tourism are rarely, if ever, questioned. That is, with a few recent exceptions (for example, Wall, 1997; Mowforth & Munt, 1998), there appears to be a rigid acceptance that the principles and objectives of sustainable development can be easily transposed onto most tourism development contexts (Inskeep, 1991: xviii). As a result, a number of fundamental questions with respect to tourism’s potential role in the development process in general, and the validity of the sustainable tourism development concept in particular, are overlooked. The purpose of this paper, then, is to build a theoretical bridge between sustainable tourism and the broader framework of sustainable development in order to introduce a more solid theoretical foundation to the sustainable tourism development debate. As such, it does not seek to add to the already considerable literature concerned with the definition and processes of sustainable tourism development, but to explore the theoretical basis and, hence, the validity of the concept. The first task, therefore, is to briefly review the theory of sustainable development.

What is Sustainable Development? The concept of sustainable development suffers the same definitional problems as it does in its tourism-specific guise. More than 70 different definitions have been proposed (Steer & Wade-Gery, 1993) and, perhaps inevitably, ‘people from many diverse fields use the term in different contexts and they have very different concepts, approaches and biases’ (Heinen, 1994). More specifically, it has also been criticised for being both ambiguous and inherently contradictory (Redclift, 1987; Worster, 1993). Its ambiguity lies in an absence of semantic and conceptual clarity, resulting in its focus and purpose being interpreted in a variety of ways (Lélé, 1991), whilst some commentators also doubt the compatibility of resource conservation and economic development (Friend, 1992); they regard sustainable development as an oxymoron. Certainly, in the context of neo-classical economics and the more traditional ecological perspective, the technocentric (economic growth/resource substitution) approach to development is diametrically opposed to the ecocentric, deep-ecology approach which represents a virtual rejection of even the sustainable exploitation of nature’s resources (O’Riordan, 1981a, 1981b; Turner, 1993). To further complicate matters, others support the view that the concept of sustainable development in fact mediates between these two polar positions, providing a forum at which a multitude of viewpoints can be addressed. In other words, according to Skolimowski (1995), and in a similar vein to Hunter’s concept of an ‘adaptive paradigm’ referred to above, the inherent ambiguity of

To urism and Susta ina ble D e ve lo pm ent Theo ry

3

the concept is, paradoxically, its strength. It is evident, then, that a universally acceptable interpretation of sustainable development is unlikely to be forthcoming. However, as Lélé (1991) suggests, the philosophy of sustainable development may be explored by splitting it into its constituent parts and assessing each separately. In other words, sustainable development arguably represents the juxtaposition of two separate objectives or processes and may be considered as an equation (Lélé, 1991): Sustainable development = development + sustainability Thus, the theory of sustainable development can be usefully explored by combining development theory with the concept of sustainability. Inevitably this over-simplifies the complex amalgam of political, economic, cultural and ecological processes encompassed by sustainable development. Nevertheless, it does provide a useful basis for conceptualising its inherent principles and objectives and the extent to which they can be transposed onto the specific tourism development context.

Development Despite the attention paid to tourism as a vehicle of development, relatively few attempts have been made in the tourism literature to draw on development theory, notable exceptions being Britton (1982), Erisman (1983), Lea (1988) Pearce (1989), Harrison (1992), de Kadt (1992), Opperman (1993), Dieke (1995) and Telfer (1996). In short, the concepts of tourism and development remain ‘a discordant and unreconciled set of thoughts’ (Nelson, 1993: 4). However, to appraise tourism’s potential role in (sustainable) development, it cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader developmental context of which is meant to be a part. Development is an ambiguous term that is used to describe both a process through which a society moves from one condition to another, and also the goal of that process. That is, the development process in a society may result in its achieving the state or condition of development. Yet, development does not refer to a single process or set of events, nor does it imply a single, static condition. Thus, development may be seen as a term ‘bereft of precise meaning … [and] … little more than the lazy thinker’s catch-all term, used to mean anthing from broad, undefined change to quite specific events’ (Welch, 1984). The concept of development has evolved over time (Goulet, 1992). Traditionally, it has been defined in terms of Western-style modernisation achieved through economic growth (Rostow, 1960; Redclift, 1987: 15). Indeed, development and economic growth have been widely considered synonymous. However, recognition of the frequent failure of economic growth policies to solve social and political problems resulted in the aims of development becoming more broadly redefined (Seers, 1969). Initially, it came to be seen as a process of modernisation with the emphasis on ‘how to inculcate wealth-oriented behaviour and values in individuals’ (Mabogunje, 1980: 38), but this was superseded by the broader concept of development as the reduction of widespread poverty, unemployment and inequality. People, rather than things, became the focus of attention and the notion of self-reliance, in particular, became a fundamental developmental objective. Thus, development now implied ‘inter alia, reducing cultural dependence on one or more of the great

4

Journa l of Susta ina ble To urism

powers’ (Seers, 1977). It was no longer considered to be a process lying in the control, or ‘trusteeship’ of the advanced, Western nations (Cowen & Shenton, 1996: x); ‘development can be properly assessed only in terms of the total human needs, values, and standards of the good life and the good society perceived by the very societies undergoing change‘ (Goulet, 1968) (emphasis added). In short, in the space of some thirty years the concept of development has evolved from a process or condition defined according to strict economic criteria to a continual, global process of human development guided by the principle of self-reliance; whilst economic growth remains a cornerstone, it also embraces social, political and cultural components. The question now to be addressed is: how is development achieved, in particular through the medium of tourism? The basis of the answer lies in a brief review of development theory.

Theories of development Since the early 1950s, four main schools of development thought, or paradigms, have evolved. Each new paradigm has emerged as a result of increasing knowledge and understanding of the developmental process and a consequential rejection of preceding paradigms (Telfer, 1996; Wall, 1997). M o d e rn isa tio n th e o ry The evolutionist perspective of development forms the theoretical foundation of the modernisation paradigm, chronologically the first development paradigm. According to this, modernisation is an endogenous process which realises the potential for development in all societies (Hettne, 1990: 61). Different societies may be identified as lying at different points on the traditional-modern development continuum, placed according to indices such as GNP, per capita income, acceptance of ‘modern values’, social differentiation, or political integration (Fitzgerald, 1983: 12–13), but all are following the evolutionary path to modernisation. The core premise of the paradigm is economic growth which, according to Rostow (1960), enables societies to advance through stages from traditional to an age of mass consumption. The benefits of economic growth ‘trickle down’ or diffuse through the spread of ‘growth impulses’ (Browett, 1985) or ‘poles of growth’ (Perroux, 1955), eventually leading to an adjustment in regional disparities (Opperman, 1993). Interestingly, though criticised on a number of grounds, particularly the use of ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ as ambiguous ideal-type classifications with Western ethnocentric overtones (Bendix, 1967; Mehmet, 1995), the modernisation paradigm continues to underpin the rationale for tourism-induced development. That is, the perceived developmental contribution of tourism through, for example, foreign exchange earnings, the multiplier concept and backward linkages throughout the economy, are firmly embedded in modernisation theory. Development is assumed to occur as a result of the economic benefits that diffuse from growth impulses (the tourism sector) or growth poles (resorts). Therefore, despite the present widespread acceptance of the principles of sustainable tourism, tourism’s role in development continues to be justified for the most part on the more narrow basis of economic growth, contradicting more recent development theory.

To urism and Susta ina ble D e ve lo pm ent Theo ry

5

D e p e n d e n c y th e o ry Dependency theory, the dominant development paradigm of the late 1960s and 1970s, has informed much tourism research, particularly with respect to the way in which international tourism reflects ‘historical patterns of colonialism and dependency’ (Lea, 1988: 10). Essentially, dependency theory represents a conditioning situation in which the economies of one group of countries are conditioned by the development and expansion of others. A relationship of interdependence between two or more economies … becomes a dependent relationship when some countries can expand only as a reflection of the expansion of the dominant countries. (Dos Santos, 1970: 231) In particular, the theory proposes that capitalist development in the core, metropolitan centres perpetuates underdevelopment in the periphery as a result of economic surpluses in the periphery being expropriated by foreign enterprises, misused by the state or squandered by the traditional elites. The possibilities for development are thus limited and ‘for backward countries to enter the road of economic growth and social progress, the political framework of their existence has to be drastically revamped’ (Baran, 1963). That is, the solution lies in withdrawal from the world capitalist system and development guided by a socialist political system. As discussed shortly, there are evident correlations between dependency theory and the political economy of international tourism.

Th e ‘n e o -c la ssic a l c o u n te r re v o lu tio n ’ (To y e , 1 9 9 3 ) During the 1970s, a variety of new schools of development thought emerged; the consecutive paradigms of modernisation and dependency were replaced by a ‘kaleidoscope diversity’ of new approaches (Hoogvelt, 1982: 128). These ranged from the limits-to-growth school (Anderson, 1991; also Mishan, 1969; Schumacher, 1974) which included the ‘eco-doomsday theorists’ (Preston, 1996: 241) of the Club of Rome to the Basic Needs Approach (Streeten, 1977) and the calls for the establishment of a New International Economic Order. It is no coincidence that during this period attention was first drawn to the potential negative consequences of the unbridled growth of mass tourism. However, it was not until the 1980s and the Reagan-Thatcher era that a new identifiable development paradigm emerged. Following neo-classical economic theory which suggests that liberalised international trade can be a positive force in export-led economic development (Ingham, 1995: 334), the neo-classical counter revolution was manifested in development policies that built upon the fundamental reliance on the free market and that favoured market liberalisation, the privatisation of state enterprises and overall reduction of state intervention. In particular, it has guided the policy of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and their Structural Adjustment Lending (SAL) programmes which render loan facilities conditional on specific policy and economic structure changes in loan-receiving countries (Mosley and Toye, 1988). However, such policies have attracted widespread criticism both in a general development context (Harrigan & Mosley, 1991) and in the specific context of tourism (Dieke, 1995).

6

Journa l of Susta ina ble To urism

A lte rn a tiv e d e v e lo p m e n t Representing, both chronologically and logically, the current end-point of the development paradigm continuum, alternative development advocates a break from the preceding linear, economic growth-based policies (Redclift, 1987). In contrast, it proposes a broader resource-based, ‘bottom-up’ approach embracing human and environmental concerns. The fundamental principle of alternative development is, therefore, that it should be endogenous, satisfying basic needs – the fulfilment of people’s potential to contribute to and benefit from their own community (Streeten, 1977) – and encouraging self-reliance. Thus, it is based upon a grassroots, community focus to development, building on the argument that ‘development does not start with goods; it starts with people and their education, organisation and discipline’ (Schumacher, 1974: 140). However, the importance of recognising the environmental constraints to development, or the need for ‘ecodevelopment’ (Redclift, 1987: 34) are also central to the alternative development thesis. There are evident links between alternative development and tourism. For example, Emery (1981) considered ‘alternative futures’ in tourism, whilst Dernoi (1981) proposed alternative tourism as ‘a new style in North-South relations’. The concept of environmental harmony (Budowski, 1976; Farrell and McLellan, 1987) and self-reliance, fundamental requirements of alternative development, also became the focus of research into alternative tourism, the latter manifested in the emerging literature on local community involvement in tourism development (Murphy, 1983, 1985, 1988; Haywood, 1988). As will be seen shortly, alternative development also provides the foundation for sustainable development which, as noted earlier, may be conceptualised as the fusion of development theory and environmental sustainability.

Sustainability Just as development theory has evolved from the narrow, classical economic growth perspective into the broader, alternative development approach, so too has environmental concern – the driving force behind sustainability – evolved from the more narrow conservation ideology of the 19th century into the broader environmental movement of the late 20th century. Since the 1960s, in particular, environmentalism has come to embrace not only resource problems, but also the technological, economic, social and political processes underpinning such problems. Moreover, and of particular relevance to the present discussion, the focus of environmentalism has also become global. Influenced by Boulding’s notion of ‘spaceship earth’, it has been recognised that the ‘effluence of affluence’ does not respect national boundaries. The earth is now viewed as a closed system, a ‘single spaceship, without unlimited reservoirs of anything, either for extraction or for pollution, and in which, therefore, man [sic] must find his place in a cyclical ecological system which is capable of continuous reproduction of material form even though it cannot escape having inputs of energy’ (Boulding, 1992: 31). It is this that sets the parameters for the concept of sustainability. The global ecosystem’s source and sink functions have a finite capacity to, respectively, supply the needs of production/consumption and absorb the wastes resulting from the production/consumption process. Thus, the variables in the equation become (a) the rate at which the stock of natural (non-renewable) resources is

To urism and Susta ina ble D e ve lo pm ent Theo ry

7

depleted relative to the development of substitute, renewable resources, (b) the rate at which waste is deposited back into the ecosystem relative to the assimilative capacity of the environment, and (c) global population levels and per capita levels of consumption (Goodland, 1992: 31). Of course, perspectives on sustainability (and sustainable tourism) vary according to environmental ideology. Definitions of sustainability and how it may be achieved are subject to ecocentric or technocentric approaches (O’Riordan, 1981a) which are themselves underpinned by alternative political and socioeconomic ideologies. However, for the purpose of this paper, sustainability can be viewed as, simply, the capacity for continuance.

Development + sustainability = sustainable development As suggested earlier, sustainable development may be conceptualised as a juxtaposition of two schools of thought: development theory and environmental sustainability. The most recent thinking in both concepts was first combined within the Brundtland Report, ‘Our Common Future’ (WCED ,1987). However, the report has been criticised for its central, Western-technocentric development through economic growth message (Adams, 1990: 57–65). In contrast, a more recent report, the IUCN’s ‘Caring for the Earth’ (IUCN, 1991), gives primacy to the requirement for more sustainable lifestyles, particularly in wealthier, developed nations. Arguing that more affluent groups or countries, either through ignorance or lack of concern, live unsustainably, its message is that ‘resource problems are not really environmental problems: they are human problems’ (Ludwig et al., 1993). Arguably and as suggested shortly, nowhere is this more pertinent than in the context of tourism. A comparison of the two reports is beyond the scope of this paper. However, the fundamental principles and strategies they propose, combined with the tenets of alternative development and sustainability outlined above, permit the construction of a conceptual model of sustainable development. Inevitably, this does not reveal the inherent variable mixture of political, economic, cultural and environmental forces that result in a lack of definitional clarity. Nevertheless, it provides a basic template against which, in the following section, the viability of sustainable tourism development may be compared. This conceptual model of sustainable development, embracing its fundamental principles, objectives and prerequisites for its achievement, is summarised in Table 1.

Tourism and Sustainable Development: A Critique The purpose of this section is to consider the extent to which sustainable tourism development, as generally proposed in the literature, accurately reflects the conceptual model of sustainable development suggested here. To this end, the following discussion follows the four components of the model in Table 1, the underlying premise being that sustainable tourism development should logically embrace both development and sustainability objectives of its parental paradigm.

8

Journa l of Susta ina ble To urism

Fundamental principles The concept of sustainable development is underpinned by three fundamental principles which emanate from both its developmental and environmental contexts and against which sustainable tourism development may be compared. Table 1 A model of sustainable development: principles and objectives Fundamental principles

Development objectives

Sustainability objectives

Requirements for sustainable development

Holistic approach: development and environmental issues integrated within a global social Futurity: focus on long-term capacity for continuance of the global ecosystem Equity: development that is fair and equitable and which provides opportunities for access to and use of resources for all members of all societies, both in the present and future Improvement of the quality of life for all people: education, life expectancy, opportunities to fulfil potential Satisfaction of basic needs; concentration on the nature of what is provided rather than income Self-reliance: political freedom and local decision making for local needs Endogenous development Sustainable population levels Minimal depletion of non-renewable natural resources Sustainable use of renewable resources Pollution emissions within the assimilative capacity of the environment Adoption of a new social paradigm relevant to sustainable living International and national political and economic systems dedicated to equitable development and resource use Technological systems that can search continuously for new solutions to environmental problems Global alliance facilitating integrated development policies at local, national and international levels

Sources: Streeten (1977); Pearce et al. (1989); WCED (1987); IUCN (1991).

H o listic a p p ro a c h Sustainable development advocates an holistic perspective; development can only be sustainable if it is considered within a global political, socioeconomic and ecological context. At first sight, the underlying philosophy of sustainable tourism development appears to embrace this notion of holistic planning. Lane (1994), for example, views sustainable tourism as a balanced triangular relationship between ‘host areas and their habitats and peoples, holiday makers, and the tourism industry’ where no one stakeholder upsets the equilibrium. Similarly, Müller (1994) proposes a ‘magic pentagon’ comprising five balanced elements

To urism and Susta ina ble D e ve lo pm ent Theo ry

9

and, in both cases, the potential for sustainable tourism development exists if no single factor or stakeholder predominates. Importantly, however, the extent of the holistic approach to tourism development is, in general, the tourism system itself and, in particular, individual tourism destinations or industry sectors. In other words, despite the acceptance that tourism should be integrated into national and local development strategies, the focus of sustainable tourism development is usually inwards, or product-centred. This is not surprising. Given the complex, fragmented, multi-sectoral and profit-oriented nature of the tourism industry, the ‘operationalisation of sustainable tourism development is fraught with difficulties’ (Hunter, 1995). Thus, sustainable tourism strategies in practice tend to focus almost exclusively on localised, relatively small-scale development projects, rarely transcending local or regional boundaries, or on particular industry sectors. At the same time, although different sectors of the tourism industry are, to varying degrees, adopting environmentally sound policies, there is little evidence of a common development and business philosophy according to sustainable principles across the industry (Forsyth, 1995). This is not to say that localised destination or sectoral strategies are neither necessary nor desirable. Nevertheless, although such strategies should ideally be located within the wider national or global context, many are not. For example, Place (1995) demonstrates how eco-tourism in Tortuguero, Costa Rica, though more environmentally benign, has itself contributed little to the sustainable development of local rural communities whilst the national policy remains focused on larger-scale, coastal tourism development. More generally, tourism is a global phenomenon, yet its scope in terms of resource exploitation and its scale as a global activity are overlooked. Thus, in a sense, developing sustainable forms of tourism in some areas simply sweeps the problems of tourism under the carpet of other destinations. As Klemm (1992) suggests, ‘the real challenge for the future is to provide sustainable tourism for the mass market’. Moreover, attention is rarely paid to the relationship between tourism and other economic sectors and the relative merits of alternative developmental strategies (Hunter, 1995). Over-dependence on tourism has long been recognised as a potential cost of tourism development, yet tourism is frequently ‘permitted’ to become the dominant economic activity, even when developed within a sustainable planning framework. Bali (Wall, 1993) and Cyprus (Sharpley, 1998) are just two examples of where tensions have arisen between tourism and sustainable development policies, suggesting that a variety of factors within the political economy of tourism militate against the implementation of sustainable tourism development. In other words, the role of tourism as a developmental tool is rarely questioned; the aim becomes sustaining tourism itself and the lack of attention paid to a balanced relationship with other economic sectors results in tourism competing for, rather than sharing, resources. In the extreme, the activities of other economic sectors are seen as an ‘attack’ on tourism (Jenner & Smith, 1992).

Fu tu rity Futurity is undoubtedly a primary concern of sustainable tourism development policies. The WTO (1993) defines sustainable tourism development as

10

Journa l of Susta ina ble To urism

meeting ‘the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future’, whilst most sustainable tourism development strategies stress the need for due regard to be given to the long-term appropriate use of natural and human resources. However, the above argument surrounding the product-centred focus of sustainable tourism development principles is equally applicable here. That is, the focus is primarily upon the ecological sustainability of tourism itself rather than the potential contribution of tourism to long term sustainable development. There is, therefore, some commonality of approach between the two sets of principles within the context of futurity but little evidence within sustainable tourism development principles of concern for the potential contribution of tourism to long-term development goals.

E q u ity Within the context of equity, the concept of sustainable tourism development is both weak and contradictory. Sustainable development calls for both intraand inter-generational equity; that is, fair and equitable opportunities for development for all people, both in the present and in the future. Tourism has long been considered a ‘basis for reaching a greater level of respect and confidence among all the peoples of the world’ (WTO, 1980: 3), whilst, more specifically, alternative tourism ‘seeks to achieve mutual understanding, solidarity and equality amongst participants’ (Holden, 1984: 15). In other words, in addition to its economic developmental role, tourism is considered by some to be an effective means of achieving a more equitable social condition on a global scale. However, although most sustainable tourism development strategies emphasise the importance of community-based, or collaborative, tourism planning, the objective being a more equitable share of the benefits accruing from tourism development (Murphy, 1985; Godfrey, 1990; Inskeep, 1991; Dowling, 1993; Getz & Jamal, 1994; Brohman, 1996), in reality both the flows and the structure of international tourism suggest that equitable development through tourism is unachievable. Despite the emergence of newer popular destinations and new tourism generating countries, the major international tourism flows and corresponding economic benefits remain highly polarised and regionalised. Europe and North America are, in particular, the main beneficiaries of tourism development, yet even within most Third World regions tourism has been monopolised by a few countries to the exclusion of the rest (Brohman, 1996). Moreover, in many less developed countries which are popular tourism destinations, tourism is frequently distributed unevenly, diminishing the opportunities for equitable development through tourism even on a national scale (Britton, 1982; Jenkins, 1982; Opperman, 1993). Tourism is frequently influenced by local power relationships which favour the political or economic lite, or concentrated within enclave resorts or tourist ghettos, thereby contributing to socioeconomic inequities through a developmental process which, ironically, is often promoted by the central governments of the countries in which the resorts are located (Pearce, 1989: 95). This situation is exacerbated by the structure of international tourism. Not only are tourist flows dominated by western, industrialised nations, but also the

To urism and Susta ina ble D e ve lo pm ent Theo ry

11

‘three most lucrative components of … [international] … tourism (i.e. marketing and the procurement of customers, international transportation, and food and lodging) are normally handled by vertically integrated [western owned] global networks’ (Brohman, 1996). As a result, there is a lack of local community control over resource use (Oliver-Smith et al., 1989) and, in particular, a significant proportion of tourism earnings is lost through overseas leakages. In short, the patterns and structures of international tourism, particularly between the metropolitan centres and peripheral developing nations, reinforce rather than diminish global socioeconomic inequities. Thus, unsurprisingly, although localised, small-scale (alternative/sustainable) developments attempt to reverse this trend, much international tourism still reflects the problems of dependency (Høivik and Heiberg, 1980; Britton, 1982; Bastin, 1984; Nash, 1989; Wilkinson, 1989). Overall, then, sustainable tourism development policies do not fully embrace the three fundamental principles of sustainable development. Although the notions of futurity, equity and an holistic perspective are evident in specific tourism development principles, their focus is inward and product-centred, giving primacy to ecological sustainability over the developmental contribution of tourism. Furthermore, the structure of international tourism more accurately reflects the dependency theory of development. As now discussed, these weaknesses are also evident in relation to the more specific developmental/sustainability objectives and requirements of sustainable development.

Development objectives Tourism is widely perceived to be an effective vehicle for development, although, as suggested earlier, the goals and inherent processes of ‘development’ are largely overlooked in the tourism literature. Therefore, the objectives of tourism-related development should, logically, be commensurate with those of the prevailing development paradigm: sustainable development. Certainly, this is often the case in principle. However, the extent to which the stated objectives of sustainable tourism development represent realistic planning and management goals in practice is less certain. In particular, the issues of the scale and scope of international tourism and the character of the tourism production system, as well as the ‘tourism-centric’ orientation of most sustainable tourism development policies, again undermine the potential for achieving the objectives of sustainable development through tourism. For example, the degree of improvement of the quality of life for all people (see Figure 1) is restricted by the spatial inequity of tourism development. Research into local community attitudes towards tourism has revealed that, usually, those who are directly involved in tourism view it favourably, whereas those who are less economically dependent on tourism for income or employment tend to be ambivalent, if not openly antagonistic, towards tourism (Belisle & Hoy, 1980; Brougham & Butler, 1981; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Akis et al., 1996). Furthermore, given the relationship between tourism development and modernisation theory referred to earlier, it is unclear how tourism can contribute to the specific elements of the ‘good life’ as an inherent objective of sustainable development. Similarly, the extent to which import substitution and backward linkages through the local economy, a vital factor in sustainable development, occur is

12

Journa l of Susta ina ble To urism

also dependent on the nature of tourism production. In the case of tourism in The Gambia, for example, not only is tourism development largely restricted to the Atlantic coastal strip, but virtually all goods to support the tourism industry are imported (Sharpley & Sharpley, 1996; Thomson et al., 1995). As a result, there are minimal backward linkages throughout the Gambian economy, net tourism earnings represent approximately 20% of total tourist expenditure, and relatively few of the country’s one million population benefit from tourism. The satisfaction of basic needs and self-reliance, fundamental objectives of sustainable development, are also implicit objectives of sustainable tourism development. In particular, the emphasis on community involvement in the planning, development and control of tourism is a linchpin of sustainable tourism development strategies. That is, it is only when priority is given to the developmental needs and interests of local communities over the goals of the tourism industry itself that broader social development will be achieved (Simmons, 1994; Brohman, 1996). Although there is widespread support for community-based tourism planning, in practice such local involvement is, generally, only feasible on a small scale, whilst some commentators question the very concept of community involvement in tourism (Taylor, 1995). Nevertheless, there are many examples of successful locally planned and managed tourism developments, such as the locally-controlled rural tourism projects in Europe supported by the LEADER programme (Barke & Newton, 1994). However, the achievement of development objectives, particularly self-reliance and endogenous development, must be considered within the context of a global tourism production system which, although fragmented, diverse and comprising a multitude of small businesses, is becoming increasingly dominated by major international players. The enormous power wielded by, for example, tour operators and their resultant ability to control tourist flows, to influence tourist attitudes, expectations and behaviour and to influence the nature of tourism services, severely restricts opportunities for development according to local needs. Moreover, the very nature of tourism as a form of discretionary consumption suggests that endogenous development is an unrealistic objective. A variety of economic, political and social factors can adversely impact upon the demand for tourism, thereby not only weakening the ability of destinations or countries to maintain control over tourism-related development but also highlighting the inherent dependency (i.e. non-sustainability) of all tourism development. Therefore, although there is some correlation between the developmental objectives of sustainable development and sustainable tourism development, such objectives are of greatest relevance to local, small-scale tourism developments and may even then be subject to a variety of exogenous factors.

Sustainability objectives The principles of sustainable tourism most closely reflect those of its parental paradigm within the context of environmental sustainability objectives. A fundamental principle of all sustainable tourism development policies is that the natural, social and cultural resources upon which tourism depends should be protected and enhanced. Furthermore, most, if not all, sectors of the tourism industry have a vested interest in following such a policy. This may result from

To urism and Susta ina ble D e ve lo pm ent Theo ry

13

either a genuine commitment to sound environmental practice, from the adoption of ethical business principles which, according to some commentators, embrace sustainability issues (Wheeler, 1992; Hultsman, 1995) or for more pragmatic, business reasons (Swarbrooke, 1994). However, the extent to which sustainability objectives are achievable remains questionable. Resource sustainability is dependent on all sectors involved directly and indirectly in the tourism industry working towards common goals. Therefore, whilst there is no doubt that different organisations and industry sectors have, to a lesser or greater extent, attempted to implement sound environmental business practices, it will only be when the entire tourism industry accepts the need to introduce policies for sustainable resource utilisation that sustainability within the context of tourism will be achievable. In other words, there is little point in only some tourism organisations, or only particular aspects of tourism operations, being sustainable; tourism, ‘irrespective of the scale of analysis, cannot exist in isolation from regional, national and global resource utilisation concerns’ (Hunter, 1995). Thus, the issue of scope and the fundamental requirement of an holistic approach again reveal an inherent weakness of sustainable tourism development policies.

Requirements for sustainable development As suggested in Table 1, the achievement of sustainable development is dependent upon the fulfilment of a number of basic requirements. In relation to tourism, a number of points deserve emphasis. Firstly, it is recognised that national and international co-operation should exist to facilitate the adoption of sustainable tourism development policies. However, the political structure and fragmented nature of the industry suggest that ‘political systems dedicated to equitable development and resource use’ are unlikely to be forthcoming. Secondly, from a technocentric perspective on development, many of the principles of sustainable development have been criticised for ignoring the contribution of technological advance to solving environmental problems (Beckerman, 1992). There is little doubt that technology has much to contribute to sustainable resource use, although within the context of tourism its role is less clear. On the one hand, technology has provided the means for reducing certain environmental impacts, such as noise reduction and fuel efficiency in jet engines. On the other hand, technological advance has, paradoxically, contributed to the continuing growth in tourism, not only increasing tourist numbers but also access to more distant and fragile environments. Thirdly, sustainable tourism development requires ‘the adoption of a new social paradigm relevant to sustainable living’; herein lies what is, arguably, the greatest challenge to its achievement. For example, many practical environmental policies are proposed by the International Hotels Environment Initiative (IHEI), launched in 1992, yet it has been suggested that ‘fully convincing evidence of a major shift in consumer attitudes – backed by a willingness to pay for environmental quality – does not exist for hotels’ (Middleton & Hawkins, 1993). This is indicative of a wider problem. Much of the literature on sustainable tourism claims that tourists are becoming increasingly environmentally conscious and are, therefore, seeking out sustainable forms of tourism or are prepared to adopt modes of behaviour more appropriate to the tourism environ-

14

Journa l of Susta ina ble To urism

ments they enter. This position is justified partly on the results of surveys which imply the emergence of the so-called green consumer, and partly on rapidly increasing participation in ecotourism (Cater, 1993). However, there is little evidence to suggest that the popularity of ecotourism is specifically related to the emergence of green consumerism (Eagles, 1992), whilst recent research not only reveals significant ambivalence amongst consumers to different environmental issues, but that stated environmental concern is rarely translated into consistently ‘green’ consumer behaviour (Macnaghten & Urry, 1998; Witherspoon, 1994). Thus, it is unlikely that there exists a widespread propensity amongst tourists to adopt a new, sustainable (tourism) lifestyle; indeed, as McKercher (1993) argues, the nature of the consumption of tourism positively discriminates against the possibility of its achievement.

Conclusion This paper set out to explore the theoretical divide between the concept of sustainable tourism development and its parental paradigm, sustainable development. In so doing, it has revealed that, although sustainable tourism should logically reflect the tenets of sustainable development, there exist significant differences between the two concepts. In particular, despite its appearance as an holistic, equitable and future-oriented development strategy, sustainable tourism development has a largely inward, product centred perspective. In other words, whilst it embraces the objectives of environmental sustainability, sustainable tourism does not appear to be consistent with the developmental aspects of sustainable development. This is, perhaps, not surprising. Neither the inherently imperialistic, dependent nature of tourism production on a global scale nor the characteristics of tourism consumption fit easily with the principle of endogenous, alternative development. At the same time, the rationale for tourism as a means of development remains firmly embedded in economic growth-induced modernisation theory which, as has been shown, has long been superseded by other developmental paradigms. This suggests that the principles of sustainable development cannot be transposed onto tourism as a specific economic and social activity. In other words, ‘true’ sustainable tourism development is unachievable. Of course, these issues, particularly the ecological versus developmental objectives of sustainable tourism, have been raised elsewhere (Cater, 1991, 1993). Moreover, the factors identified here which militate against sustainable tourism development reflect many of the criticisms of sustainable development itself, including the oxymoronic coinage of the term in general and the more specific dilemmas of choice, equity, liberty and ‘ownership’ of the concept (Enzensberger, 1972; Bennett, 1992). However, this paper has provided the theoretical foundation, previously lacking in the literature, to support the position that the concept of sustainable tourism development is, in effect, a red herring. That is, it draws attention away from many of the realities of tourism development, realities which are in opposition to a number of the principles and objectives embodied in the concept of sustainable development. This is not to suggest that tourism does not play an important developmental role; indeed, the growth of mass forms of tourism has proved to be a vital and

To urism and Susta ina ble D e ve lo pm ent Theo ry

15

effective vehicle of economic growth and consequential socioeconomic development in many nations. Nor is it to suggest that many of the principles of sustainable tourism are invalid. On the contrary, they play a vital role in drawing attention to the global nature of tourism and the undoubted need to consider the consequences of tourism development on a global scale. However, on a global scale, the challenge must be to continue to seek or encourage more environmentally benign forms of tourism which best suit a destination’s social and economic development criteria without hiding behind the politically acceptable yet – in the context of tourism – inappropriate banner of sustainable development.

Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Richard Sharpley, Senior Lecturer in Travel and Tourism, University of Northumbria, Longhirst Campus, Longhirst Hall, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3LL ([email protected]). References Adams, W.M. (1990) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World. London: Routledge. Akis, S., Peristianis, N. and Warner, J. (1996) Resident attitudes to tourism development: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management 17 (7), 481–494. Anderson, V. (1991) Alternative Economic Indicators. London: Routledge. Baran, P. (1963) On the political economy of backwardness. In A. Agarwala and S. Singh (eds) The Economics of Underdevelopment(pp. 75–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barke, M. and Newton, M. (1994) A new rural development initiative in Spain: The European Community’s ‘Plan LEADER’. Geography 79, 366–371. Bastin, R. (1984) Small island tourism: Development or dependency? Development Policy Review 2 (1), 79–90. Beckerman, W. (1992) Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose environment? World Development 20 (4), 481–496. Belisle, F. and Hoy, D. (1980)The perceived impact of tourism by residents: A case study in Santa Marta, Colombia. Annals of Tourism Research 7 (1), 83–101. Bendix, R. (1967)Tradition and modernity reconsidered. Comparative Studies in Society and History 9 (3), 292–346. Bennett, G. (1992) Dilemmas: Coping with Environmental Problems. London: Earthscan. Boulding, K. (1992) The economics of the coming spaceship Earth. In A. Markandya and J. Richardson (ed.) The Earthscan Reader in Environmental Economics (pp. 27–35). London: Earthscan. Britton, S. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (3), 331–358. Brohman, J. (1996) New directions in tourism for Third World development. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (1), 48–70. Brougham, J. and Butler, R. (1981) A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to the social impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 8 (4), 569–590. Browett, J. (1985) The newly industrializing countries and radical theories of development. World Development 13 (7), 789–803. Budowski, G. (1976) Tourism and environmental conservation: Conflict, coexistence or symbiosis? Environmental Conservation 3 (1), 27–31. Cater, E. (1991) Sustainable Tourism in the Third World: Problems and Prospects. Discussion paper No. 3. Department of Geography, University of Reading. Cater, E. (1993) Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management 14 (2), 85–93. Cowen, M. and Shenton, R. (1996) Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge. Cronin, L. (1990) A strategy for tourism and sustainable developments. World Leisure and Recreation 32 (3), 12–18.

16

Journa l of Susta ina ble To urism

de Kadt, E. (1992) Making the alternative sustainable: Lessons from development for tourism. In V. Smith and W. Eadington (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism (pp. 47–75). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Dernoi, L. (1981) Alternative tourism: Towards a new style in north–south relations. International Journal of Tourism Management 2 (4), 253–264. Dieke, P. (1995) Tourism and structural adjustment programmes in the African economy. Tourism Economics 1 (1), 71–93. Dos Santos, T. (1970) The structure of dependency. American Economic Review 60 (2), 231–236. Dowling, R. (1993) An environmentally-based planning model for regional tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 17–37. Eagles, P. (1992) The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research 31 (2), 3–13. Emery, F. (1981) Alternative futures in tourism. International Journal of Tourism Management 2 (1), 49–67. Enzensberger, H. (1972) A critique of political ecology. New Left Review 84, 3–31. Erisman, M. (1983)Tourism and cultural dependency in the West Indies. Annals of Tourism Research 10 (3), 337–362. Farrell, B. and McLellan, R. (1987) Tourism and physical environment research. Annals of Tourism Research 14 (1), 1–16. Fitzgerald, F. (1983) Sociologies of development. In P. Limqueco and B. McFarlane (eds) Neo-marxist Theories of Development (pp. 12–28). Beckenham: Croom Helm. Forsyth, T. (1995) Business attitudes to sustainable tourism: Self-regulation in the UK outgoing tourism industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3 (4), 210–231. Friend, A. (1992) Economics, ecology and sustainable development: Are they compatible? Environmental Values 1 (2), 157–170. Garrod, B. and Fyall, A. (1998) Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism Management 19 (3), 199–212. Getz, D. and Jamal, T. (1994) The environment–community Symbiosis: A case for collaborative tourism planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (3), 152–173. Godfrey, K. (1990) The tourism planning charrette: A strategy model for community based tourism planning. Paper presented at the Conference on Tourism Research into the 1990s, Durham University. Goodland, R. (1992) The case that the World has reached its limits. In R. Goodland, H. Daly, S. Serafy and B. von Droste (eds) Environmentally Sustainable Economic Development: Building on Brundtland (pp. 15–27). Paris: UNESCO. Goulet, D. (1968) On the goals of development. Cross Currents 18, 387–405. Goulet, D. (1992)Development: Creator and destroyer of values. World Development20 (3), 467–475. Harrigan, J. and Mosley, P. (1991) Evaluating the impact of World Bank structural adjustment lending. Journal of Development Studies 27 (3), 63–94. Harrison, D. (1992) International tourism and the less developed countries: The background. In D. Harrison (ed.) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries (pp. 1–18). London: Bellhaven Press. Haywood, M. (1988) Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management 9 (2), 105–118. Heinen, J. (1994) Emerging, diverging and converging paradigms on sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 1, 22–33. Hettne, B. (1990) Development Theory and the Three Worlds. Harlow: Longman. Høivik, T. and Heiberg, T. (1980) Centre-periphery tourism and self-reliance. International Social Science Journal 32 (1), 69–98. Holden, P. (1984) Alternative Tourism With a Focus on Asia. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism. Hoogvelt, A. (1982) The Third World in Global Development. London: Macmillan.

To urism and Susta ina ble D e ve lo pm ent Theo ry

17

Hultsman, J. (1995) Just tourism: An ethical framework. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (3), 553–567. Hunter, C. (1995) On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3 (3), 155–165. Hunter, C. (1997) Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (4), 850–867. IFTO (1994) Planning for Sustainable Tourism: The Ecomost Project. Lewes: International Federation of Tour Operators. Ingham, B. (1995) Economics and Development. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. IUCN (1991) Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland, World Conservation Union. Jenkins, C. (1982) The effects of scale in tourism projects in developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (2), 229–249. Jenner, P. and Smith, C. (1992) The Tourism Industry and the Environment. Special Report No. 2453. London: Economist Intelligence Unit. 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. and Graburn, N. (1992) International tourism reconsidered: The principle of the alternative. In V. Smith and W. Eadington (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism (pp. 88–112). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lea, J. (1988) Tourism and Development in the Third World. London: Routledge. Lélé, S. (1991) Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development 19 (6), 607–621. Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R. and Walters, C. (1993) Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons from history. Science 269 (5104), 17, 36. Mabogunje, A. (1980)The Development Process: A Spatial Perspective. London: Hutchinson. Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J. (1998) Contested Natures. London: Sage Publications. McKercher, B. (1993) Some fundamental truths about tourism: Understanding tourism’s social and environmental impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 6–16. Mehmet, O. (1995) Westernising the Third World: The Eurocentricity of Economic Development Theories. London: Routledge. Middleton, V. and Hawkins, R. (1993) Practical environmental policies in travel and tourism – Part I: The hotel sector. Travel and Tourism Analyst 6, 63–76. Mishan, E. (1969) The Costs of Economic Growth. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Mosley, P. and Toye, J. (1988) The design of structural adjustment programmes. Development Policy Review 6 (4), 395–413. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge. Müller, H. (1994) The thorny path to sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (3), 131–136. Murphy, P. (1983)Tourism as a community industry. Tourism Management 4 (3), 180–193. Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. London: Routledge. Murphy, P. (1988)Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management 9 (2), 96–104. Nash, D. (1989) Tourism as a form of imperialism. In V. Smith (ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (2nd edn) (pp. 37–52). Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press. Nelson, J. (1993) An introduction to tourism and sustainable development with special reference to monitoring. In J. Nelson, R. Butler and G. Wall (ed.) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing (pp. 3–23). University of Waterloo. Oliver-Smith, A., Arrones, F. and Lison Arcal, J. (1989) Tourist development and the struggle for local resource control. Human Organisation 48, 345–351.

18

Journa l of Susta ina ble To urism

Opperman, M. (1993) Tourism space in developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 20 (4), 535–556. O’Riordan, T. (1981a) Environmentalism (2nd edn). London: Pion. O’Riordan, T. (1981b) Environmentalism and education. Journal of Geography in Education 5 (1), 3–17. Pearce, D. (1989) Tourism Development (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman. Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan Publications. Perroux, F. (1955) Note on the concept of growth poles. In I. Livingstone (ed.) Economic Policy for Development: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Place, S. (1995) Ecotourism for sustainable development: Oxymoron or plausible strategy? GeoJournal 35 (2), 161–173. Preston, P. (1996) Development Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Redclift, M. (1987) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions London: Routledge. Rostow, W. (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schumacher, E. (1974) Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Abacus. Seers, D. (1969)The meaning of development. InternationalDevelopment Review 11 (4), 2–6. Seers, D. (1977)The new meaning of development. InternationalDevelopment Review 19 (3), 2–7. Sharpley, R. (1998) Island Tourism Development: The Case of Cyprus. University of Northumbria: Centre for Travel and Tourism. Sharpley, R. and Sharpley, J. (1996) Tourism in West Africa: The Gambian experience. In A. Badger et al. (ed.) Trading Places: Tourism as Trade. London: Tourism Concern. Sheldon, P. and Var, T. (1984)Resident attitudes towards tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management 5 (1), 40–48. Simmons, D. (1994) Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management 15 (2), 98–107. Skolimowski, H. (1995) In defence of sustainable development. Environmental Values 4, 69–70. Stabler, M. and Goodall, B. (1996) Environmental auditing in planning for sustainable island tourism. In L. Briguglio et al. (eds) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies (pp. 170–196). London: Pinter. Steer, A. and Wade-Gery, W. (1993) Sustainable development: Theory and practice for a sustainable future. Sustainable Development 1 (3), 23–35. Streeten, P. (1977) The basic features of a basic needs approach to development. International Development Review 3, 8–16. Swarbrooke, J. (1994) Greening and competitive advantage. ETB Insights (Vol. 6) D43–50. London: English Tourist Board. Taylor, G. (1995) The community approach: Does it really work? Tourism Management 16 (7), 487–489. Telfer, D. (1996) Development through economic linkages: Tourism and agriculture in Indonesia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario. Thomson, C., O’Hare, G. and Evans, K. (1995) Tourism in the Gambia: Problems and proposals. Tourism Management 16 (8), 571–581. Toye, J. (1993) Dilemmas of Development: Reflections on the Counter-revolutionin Development Economics (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell. Turner, K. (1993) Sustainability: Principles and practice. In K. Turner (ed.) Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice (2nd edn) (pp. 3–36). Chichester: J. Wiley. Wall, G. (1993) International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism in Bali, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 38–47. Wall, G. (1997) Sustainable tourism – unsustainable development. In S. Wahab and J. Pigram (ed.) Tourism, Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability (pp. 33–49). London: Routledge.

To urism and Susta ina ble D e ve lo pm ent Theo ry

19

WCED (1987) Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Welch, R. (1984) The meaning of development: Traditional view and more recent ideas. New Zealand Journal of Geography 76, 2–4. Wheeler, M. (1992) Applying ethics to the tourism industry. Business Ethics: A European Review 1 (4), 227–235. Wilkinson, P. (1989) Strategies for tourism in island microstates. Annals of Tourism Research 16 (2), 153–177. Witherspoon, S. (1994) The greening of britain: Romance and rationality. In R. Jowell et al. (ed.) British Social Attitudes: The 11th Report (pp. 107–139). Aldershot: Dartmouth. Worster, D. (1993) The shaky ground of sustainability. In W. Sachs (ed.) Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict (pp. 132–145). London: Zed Books. WTO (1980)Manila Declarationon World Tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (1993) Sustainable Tourism Development: A Guide for Local Planners. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation.