Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues 9781845414740

Citation preview

Tourism and Development

ASPECTS OF TOURISM Series Editors: Chris Cooper, Oxford Brookes University, UK, C. Michael Hall, University of Canterbury, New Zealand and Dallen J. Timothy, Arizona State University, USA Aspects of Tourism is an innovative, multifaceted series, which comprises authoritative reference handbooks on global tourism regions, research volumes, texts and monographs. It is designed to provide readers with the latest thinking on tourism worldwide and push back the frontiers of tourism knowledge. The volumes are authoritative, readable and user-friendly, providing accessible sources for further research. Books in the series are commissioned to probe the relationship between tourism and cognate subject areas such as strategy, development, retailing, sport and environmental studies. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.channelviewpublications.com, or by writing to Channel View Publications, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

ASPECTS OF TOURISM: 63

Tourism and Development Concepts and Issues 2nd Edition

Edited by Richard Sharpley and David J. Telfer

CHANNEL VIEW PUBLICATIONS Bristol • Buffalo • Toronto

To Olivia and Rosie and Kyoko and Sakura

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues/Edited by Richard Sharpley and David J. Telfer. — Second edition. Aspects of Tourism: 63. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Tourism. 2. Economic development. I. Sharpley, Richard II. Telfer, David J. G155.A1T589342 2014 338.4'791–dc23 2014021761 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-84541-473-3 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-84541-472-6 (pbk) Channel View Publications UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Website: www.channelviewpublications.com Twitter: Channel_View Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/channelviewpublications Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2015 Richard Sharpley, David J. Telfer and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Techset Composition India (P) Ltd., Bangalore and Chennai, India. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Short Run Press Ltd.

Contents

Contributors Introduction

vii xi

Part 1: Tourism and Development: Conceptual Perspectives 1

Tourism: A Vehicle for Development? Richard Sharpley

2

The Evolution of Development Theory and Tourism David J. Telfer

3 31

Part 2: Relationship between Development and Tourism 3

Tourism and Economic Development Issues Tanja Mihalicˇ

4

Tourism and Poverty Reduction Regina Scheyvens

118

5

Tourism and Regional Development Issues David J. Telfer

140

6

Tourism and Community Development Issues Tazim Jamal and Dianne Dredge

178

7

Tourism and Socio-cultural Development Issues Atsuko Hashimoto

205

8

Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Socio-economic Development Dallen J. Timothy

237

9

Tourism, Development and the Environment Chris Southgate and Richard Sharpley

250

v

77

vi

Tour ism and Development

Part 3: Barriers and Challenges to Tourism Development 10 Towards a New Political Economy of Global Tourism Revisited Raoul V. Bianchi

287

11 Tourism, Climate Change and Development C. Michael Hall, Daniel Scott and Stefan Gössling

332

12 The Consumption of Tourism Richard Sharpley

358

13 Human Rights Issues in Tourism Development Edward Nkyi and Atsuko Hashimoto

378

14 Tourism, Development and International Studies David J. Telfer and Atsuko Hashimoto

400

15 Sustainability: A Barrier to Tourism Development? Richard Sharpley

428

16 Conclusion: Tourism and Development David J. Telfer and Richard Sharpley

453

References Index

469 541

Contributors

Raoul V. Bianchi is Principal Lecturer in International Tourism at the University of East London. His primary research interest lies in the international political economy of tourism and the politics of tourism and citizenship. He has also conducted research on tourism development and social change, sustainable tourism, cultural heritage and world heritage, principally in the Canary Islands and various Mediterranean states and regions. Dianne Dredge is Professor in the Department of Culture and Global Studies, Aalborg University and is based at Copenhagen, Denmark. She is an urban and environmental planner with 20 years experience in tourism and environmental planning in Australia, Mexico and China. Her research interests include tourism planning, policy and governance, community capacity building and tourism education. She is currently Chair of the Tourism Education Futures Initiative (TEFI), a global network of tourism educators. Stefan Gössling is a Professor at the School of Business and Economics at Linnaeus University, Kalmar, and the Department of Service Management, Lund University, both Sweden. He is also the research coordinator of the Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism at the Western Norway Research Institute. Stefan has worked with sustainable tourism since 1992, focusing primarily on climate change, transport, mobilities and resource use. C. Michael Hall is a Professor at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, and Docent in the Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Finland. He is also a visiting professor at the Linnaeus University School of Business and Economics, Kalmar, Sweden and a senior research fellow, School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Co-editor of Current Issues in Tourism, he has published widely in the areas of tourism, regional development, environmental change and gastronomy. Atsuko Hashimoto is Associate Professor in the Department of Tourism Management at Brock University. Her research focuses on socio-cultural, cross-cultural and human aspects of tourism, human rights and equity issues vii

viii

Tour ism and Development

in tourism development and issues in sustainable tourism development in rural areas. She is also a member of the Environmental Sustainability Research Centre at Brock University. Tazim Jamal is Associate Professor in recreation, park and tourism at Texas A&M University, USA. Her study areas include community-based tourism, heritage tourism and collaborative planning for sustainable destination management. She also works on theoretical, methodological and pedagogic issues related to tourism and sustainability and is the co-editor of The Handbook of Tourism Studies (SAGE, 2009). Tanja Mihalič is a Professor of Tourism at the Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. As a tourism researcher she has contributed to several international research projects and publications in the field of tourism economics, development and management, especially tourism competitiveness and sustainable tourism. She collaborates with many national and international tourism organisations, and is a member of the United Nations WTO World Committee on Tourism Ethics. Edward Nkyi is a Graduate Student of the MA (Peace and Conflict) Program and a Teaching Assistant at the University of Manitoba. Edward has research interests in tourism, human rights, international development and political economy. He holds a Master of Arts Degree in Political Science from Brock University and Master of Laws Degree in Human Rights and Criminology from the University of Hull (UK). In addition, he has a Bachelors Degree in Political Science from the University of Ghana. Daniel Scott is a Canada Research Chair in Global Change and Tourism and the Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre on Climate Change at the University of Waterloo (Canada). He has worked extensively in the area of climate change and tourism, including collaborations with the United Nations World Tourism Organisation, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation. Dr Scott has been a contributing author and expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third, Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports and is currently also on the Advisory Committee to the Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism. Regina Scheyvens is Professor of Development Studies at Massey University. Here she combines a passion for teaching about international development with research on tourism and development. Two books have emerged from this research, Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities (Pearson, 2002), and Tourism and Poverty (Routledge, 2011), along with articles on themes such as backpacker tourism, ecotourism and sustainable tourism. She has conducted research in a number of countries in southern Africa, the

Introduc t ion

ix

Pacific Islands and Southeast Asia, most recently examining corporate social responsibility in the hotel sector in Fiji. Richard Sharpley is Professor of Tourism and Development at the University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK. He has previously held positions at a number of other institutions, including the University of Northumbria (Reader in Tourism) and the University of Lincoln, where he was professor of Tourism and Head of Department, Tourism and Recreation Management. His principal research interests are within the fields of tourism and development, island tourism, rural tourism and the sociology of tourism, and his books include Tourism and Development in the Developing World (2008, with David Telfer), Tourism, Tourists and Society, 4th Edition (2008) and Tourism, Development and Environment: Beyond Sustainability (2009), The Darker Side of Travel: The Theory and Practice of Dark Tourism (2009, with Philip Stone), and Tourist Experience: Contemporary Perspectives (2011, with Philip Stone). A second edited collection on tourist experiences, The Contemporary Tourist Experience: Concepts & Consequences, was published in 2012. Chris Southgate was formerly a lecturer in environmental management at the University of Central Lancashire, UK, and is now Dean of the College of Sustainability Sciences and Humanities, Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, UAE. He completed his doctoral thesis at the University of Manchester in 1998 on natural resource management and institutional change in Kenya’s Maasailand. David J. Telfer is Associate Professor in the Department of Tourism Management at Brock University. His principal research areas include the relationship between tourism and development theories, economic linkages between tourism and host communities, tourism planning and rural tourism. He is co-author of Tourism and Development in the Developing World (2008, with Richard Sharpley) and is also a member of the Environmental Sustainability Research Centre at Brock University. Dallen J. Timothy is Professor of Community Resources and Development and Senior Sustainability Scientist at Arizona State University. He is also Visiting Professor at Universiti Teknologi Mara (Malaysia), Visiting Adjunct Professor at Indiana University, and visiting instructor in the Erasmus Mundus European Master’s Program at the University of Girona, Spain. He serves on the editorial boards of 13 international journals and is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heritage Tourism. His primary tourism research topics include geopolitics and international borders, cultural heritage, religious pilgrimage, identity and nationalism, immigration and diasporas, and cultural adaptation. He has published many articles and books on these and other topics, and currently has ongoing research projects in Asia, North America, the Middle East, the Caribbean and Europe.

Introduction: Tourism and Development: A Decade of Change

In the first edition of this book, we suggested that, at that time, a ‘conceptual leap’ existed between the recognised economic benefits of tourism and its potential contribution to development more generally. Putting it another way, by the end of the 20th century, not only were most, if not all, nations promoting themselves as tourist destinations but also, for many, tourism had emerged both as an integral element of development policy and as a significant economic sector. Nevertheless, despite this widespread adoption of tourism as a catalyst of development (and, of course, equally widespread adherence within both policy and academic circles to the notion that tourism represents an effective means of achieving development), relatively little attention had been paid to the inherent processes, influences, objectives and outcomes of tourism-related development – or, more precisely, few if any attempts had been made to draw together existing work on tourism and development into a cohesive, theoretically informed body of knowledge. In short, although tourism had at that time come to be viewed widely, though not universally, as a developmental panacea, a broad understanding of the assumed positive relationship between tourism and development remained relatively elusive. This is not to say that awareness of what we refer to elsewhere as the ‘tourism development dilemma’ did not then exist (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). The economic benefits (and costs) that flow from the development of tourism had long been researched and understood, as had the environmental, social and cultural consequences of tourism that represent, in a sense, both debits and credits on the tourism ‘balance sheet’. Thus, it had long been recognised that reliance on tourism as an agent of development requires a tradeoff between the (primarily economic) benefits of tourism and its costs, the assumption being that the former outweigh the latter – though some commentators have long argued otherwise (Croall, 1995; Hickman, 2007; Mishan, 1969; Turner & Ash, 1975; Young, 1973). Moreover, by the early 2000s, the concept of sustainable tourism had assumed the position as the dominant xi

xii

Tour ism and Development

tourism development paradigm, widely considered to be the most appropriate means of optimising the benefits of tourism to the destination, the tourism ‘industry’ and tourists themselves, though not necessarily to wider socio-economic development. Nevertheless, the lack of academic attention paid to the relationship between tourism and development in general, and of a rigorous theoretical framework within which the objectives and processes of tourism development could be analysed in particular, meant that a number of fundamental issues and questions remained unanswered or, indeed, unanswerable. Hence, the purpose of the first edition of this book, which located the analysis of tourism as an agent of development within the disciplinary context of development studies, was to bridge the conceptual leap between tourism and development. In so doing, it sought to challenge, or at least consider from a more robust, theoretically informed position, the then popular assumption that tourism is an effective means of achieving development, that the creation of a tourism sector will inevitably result in the flow of developmental benefits to destination areas and communities. In the Introduction to the first edition, we proposed a model that conceptualised the relationship between tourism and development studies and the consequential implications for the study and understanding of the potential contribution of tourism to the development of destination areas. This model is reproduced in Figure 1. Demonstrating the interdependence between not only tourism and the broader socio-cultural, economic and political environment within which it operates but also between the various consequences of tourism that collectively result in ‘development’, it represents a dynamic tourism–development system and, as such, remains relevant to the contemporary study of tourism and development. The point that deserves emphasis, however, is the dynamic nature of this tourism–development system; its constituent elements are not fixed but subject to transformation, as is the relationship between them. Thus, the study of tourism and development should itself be dynamic, not only recognising but responding to such transformations. In the 10 plus years since the first edition was published, a number of significant transformations have indeed occurred within this dynamic tourism–development system. Not only has the nature and scale of tourism, in terms of both demand and supply, continued to evolve and change, but the world within which tourism occurs and with which it interacts has also experienced a variety of specific events, political-economic change, technological innovation and socio-cultural transformations, all of which, to a greater or lesser extent, represent either opportunities for or challenges to tourism and development. Moreover, the last 10 plus years have also witnessed increasing academic attention being paid to the relationship between tourism and development in general – and to specific forms of ‘pro-development’ tourism in particular – to the extent that it has become an increasingly significant theme within the tourism literature. At the same time, debates

Introduc t ion

xiii

Dominant Development Paradigm

Global Political Economy

Structure of international tourism production system

Global sociocultural environment

Tourism consumption patterns and trends

Environmental Development

Economic and Political Development

Nature of Tourism Development

Socio-cultural Development

Nature of Local/Regional/ National Development

Community roles/ Development

Human Resources

Development

Figure 1 Model showing the relationship between tourism and development studies

surrounding the meaning, objectives, processes and validity of ‘development’ itself, both as a concept and as an activity that individuals, organisations and governments engage in, have continued unabated within academic and policy circles. Those in the post-development school argue, for example, that more than half a century of effort directed towards global development has been largely futile. What is clear is that there has been an expansion of new (and old) perspectives on the nature of development into what Knutsson (2009) refers to as a widening potential repertoire in the intellectual history

xiv

Tour ism and Development

of development. In short, the 10 plus years since the first edition of this book was published undoubtedly represent a decade of change. The purpose of this second edition, therefore, is to consider advances in knowledge and understanding of the relationship between tourism and development and, in particular, to explore the implications of the trends and transformations that have occurred within the tourism–development system over the last decade. Indeed, a number of new chapters have been written for this new edition that reflect significant issues for tourism development, such as the increasing focus on poverty reduction as a fundamental goal of global development and, inevitably, the challenges of climate change. At the same time, however, a number of questions posed in the first edition still remain relevant to tourism and development today, such as: What is ‘development’? Through what process may development be achieved, if indeed it is a realistic objective? Is tourism an appropriate vehicle of development? Who should be responsible for encouraging or supporting development? Are different forms of tourism development more or less suitable to different countries, societies or developmental needs and objectives? Can tourism contribute to development on its own or should it be considered in combination with other economic sectors or activities? At what scale is tourism likely to contribute most to development – at the international, national, regional or local level? And, what are the influences and forces that determine the extent to which tourism can play an effective developmental role? This second edition continues to attempt to address these questions within the context of the trends and transformations that have occurred over the last decade. These are identified and discussed throughout this book but, for the purposes of this introduction, the following are notable: •

The demand for tourism (and, hence, the value of tourism-related expenditure or receipts) has continued its inexorable growth. In 1990, just over 439.5 million international arrivals were recorded. By, 2000, this figure had risen to 687.3 million, representing an average annual increase of 4.6%. Since then, a number of factors, in particular the global economic downturn in the latter part of the decade, have potentially limited further growth in tourism, yet, by 2010, international arrivals amounted to 940 million, representing a remarkable 7% increase on the previous year (UNWTO, 2011e). A significant milestone was reached in 2012 when international tourist arrivals exceeded the 1 billion mark for the first time (UNWTO, 2013b). In 2013 international arrivals reached 1,087 million, a 5% increase on the 2012 figure (UNWTO, 2013b). Tourismrelated expenditure has enjoyed equal, if not more rapid, growth; from a figure of US$268.9 billion in 1990, international tourism receipts rose to US$481.6 billion in 2000, reaching US$1,075 billion in 2012 (UNWTO, 2013b). Moreover, these figures exclude domestic tourism which, for many countries, is significantly larger in volume and value

Introduc t ion

•

xv

than international (incoming) tourism and globally represents some 85% of total tourist activity (Bigano et al., 2007). What these figures demonstrate is not only the resilience of tourism to external forces and influences, but also its continually increasing significance as the voluntary transfer of wealth to and, hence, the basis for economic growth and development in destination areas. They also suggest that the UN World Tourism Organisation’s long-standing and rather daunting forecast of 1.6 billion international arrivals by 2020 will be easily met, if not exceeded (WTO, 1998a). Nevertheless, assumptions of such continued growth should be questioned, if not challenged. Not only will enormous investment in infrastructure be required to sustain such growth, but a variety of factors, such as oil price rises, political interventions, environmental concerns and economic uncertainty, may serve to restrict the growth in tourism. This, in turn, has implications for the future role of tourism as an agent of development and, consequently, the need for some, if not all, destinations to reconsider their dependence on tourism. The continuing growth in tourism has underpinned or, perhaps, been stimulated by the emergence of new destinations around the world, whilst more countries are becoming important generators of international tourism. In other words, not only has international tourism demonstrated continuing growth over the last decade but, more importantly, the patterns of growth have been transformed. Traditionally, of course, the major flows of international tourism have been within defined regions, with Europe in particular both generating and receiving the highest proportion of international tourists. This still remains the case. In 2012, Europe attracted 52% of total international arrivals, though this share has been steadily falling from 72.6% in 1960 and 61.6% in 1990 (UNWTO, 2011e; UNWTO, 2013b). In contrast, the Asia Pacific region has enjoyed a rapid increase in their share of global arrivals whilst, in particular, a number of least developed countries, such as Tanzania and Cambodia, have in recent years experienced growth rates in tourist arrivals well in excess of the global average. Moreover, over 70 countries now attract more than 1 million international tourists each year, with recent entrants to the ‘1 million club’ including Jordan, Cuba, Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, Vietnam and Cambodia, as well as a number of former USSR states, such as Latvia, Estonia and Azerbaijan. Much of the increase in tourist arrivals in the Asia Pacific is the result of intra-regional travel underpinned by economic growth in those regions whilst, in particular, China, Russia and India have become major tourism markets. China has become the number one source market of international tourists with many countries actively marketing to the Chinese. In February of 2014, Jamaica for example, removed the visa requirement for Chinese tourists.

xvi

•

•

Tour ism and Development

Collectively, these trends point to a fundamental shift in the political economy of international tourism. The (Western) centre-periphery dependency model of tourism popularised in the 1970s and 1980s no longer holds true as new regional economic powers have emerged; the demand for and supply of tourism has become global, if not globalised, with the consequence that destinations operate in an increasingly diverse and competitive market. Thus, for some, tourism has become an increasingly attractive developmental option; for others, tourism can no longer be relied upon as a source of economic growth and development. A significant factor in the continued growth of tourism, beyond economic growth in tourism-generating countries, has been the deregulation or liberalisation of international air transport in general, and the emergence of low-cost airlines in particular. The latter phenomenon, though occurring globally, has been particularly prevalent in Europe over the last decade, contributing to a significant growth in intra-regional tourism. Moreover, whilst the cost of air travel globally has declined in real terms since 1990, low-cost airlines have not only enabled more people to travel (or people to travel more frequently), but have also played an influential role in the development of new destinations within their sphere of operations. Ryanair, for example, carried over 74 million passengers to 27 different countries in 2010, making it the world’s largest international airline. More importantly, however, numerous new destinations have emerged directly as a result of Ryanair’s operations, but remain dependent on the airline for their supply of tourists. In addition to the emergence of the low-cost airlines, the cruise line industry has also seen tremendous growth. Cruise Lines International Association forecasts 21.7 million passengers in 2014 on their 63 member lines which, collectively, will be introducing 24 new ships in 2014–2015, representing capital investment of approximately $US8 billion (CLIA, 2014). Questions have been raised over cruise lines flying flags of convenience whereby ships are registered in other, often developing, countries in efforts to reduce their operating costs. Over the last decade or so, the world within which tourism exists has in some respects become a more uncertain place. Of all the events that have occurred during this period, the ‘9/11’ terrorist attacks in the USA have, in all likelihood, had the most far-reaching impact on travel and tourism, although successive terrorist activity, such as the infamous ‘shoe bomber’ and the ‘7/7’ bombings on London’s underground train network, have contributed further to the imposition of heightened security measures on air travel. However, tourists have in general become seemingly more vulnerable to terrorist or criminal activity – in recent years, for example, a British tourist in Kenya was murdered and his wife kidnapped allegedly by an armed gang from neighbouring Somalia – whilst political upheavals, notably the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011, have had significant impacts on

Introduc t ion

•

xvii

tourism throughout the Middle East. At the same time, natural events, such as the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, the Icelandic volcano, which led to closure of much of Europe’s airspace for a period of six days in April 2010 and the To¯huku earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 have also impacted on tourism, albeit in evidently different ways. The 2009 Mexican swine flu crisis, though having a relatively limited and shortterm effect on tourist flows, served to demonstrate (as did the SARS outbreak in 2003 and the 2014 Ebola outbreak) how tourism can both contribute to and be influenced by international health scares, whilst the continuing turmoil in the global economy, in addition to having an immediate impact on tourist flows, has contributed further to a contemporary sense of uncertainty. That is, the ‘triumph’ of capitalism in the years following the collapse of communism in the late 1980s has been followed in recent years by evident failings in the capitalist system; and tourism is, fundamentally, a form of capitalist endeavour. The global economic crisis beginning in 2007–2008 and the Eurozone crisis starting in 2009 have had significant impacts on the global economy resulting in greater involvement of state governments and international lending agencies. Of course, tourism has always been vulnerable to external events; equally, such events have long occurred. However, the increasing pervasiveness of tourism, particularly its penetration into more ‘risky’ countries and regions, has perhaps rendered it more susceptible to political, economic, environmental and other events, whilst in an increasingly inter-connected, inter-dependent (or globalised?) world, such events may have a much more far-reaching impact. Thus, not only is risk or crisis management becoming more prevalent in tourism, but also enthusiasm for tourism’s developmental potential must be tempered by recognition of its lack of immunity from external uncertainties and challenges. Of all the transformations to have occurred over the last decade, the increasing focus on climate change is perhaps the most significant in terms of tourism and development. This is not to say that climate change or, more precisely, global warming is a new phenomenon – the relationship between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rises in average climatic temperatures has, for example, long been recognised and understood. However, the years since 2002 have witnessed increasing public awareness of and political concern for climate change and, despite continuing debates surrounding climate change in general and global warming in particular, particularly the extent to which it is related to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHCs), it is now generally accepted that there is an upward trend in global temperatures. Moreover, there are clear connections between tourism and the characteristics of and transformations in the global climate, to the extent that global warming undoubtedly presents significant challenges for the

xviii

•

Tour ism and Development

tourism sector. On the one hand, both air and car transport are significant sources of GHCs; therefore both patterns of travel and modes of transport may alter dramatically as individuals and organisations seek to reduce their ‘carbon footprint’. On the other hand, destinations will need to respond to both gradual climatic changes related to global warming, such as rising sea levels, and to more frequent extreme events. Either way, in many destinations climate change is likely to have a major impact on tourism and, consequently, its contribution to development. Although the issue of climate change, referred to in the preceding section, has increasingly dominated the political and environmental agenda in recent years, the notion of sustainable development, which first came to prominence in the late 1980s, has continued to frame development policies and processes in general, and tourism development policies in particular. However, despite the continuing sustainability rhetoric, there has been increasing criticism and, indeed, rejection of sustainable development as a broad agenda for development with attention turning to more specific concerns such as poverty reduction, the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international aid programmes and issues of national governance. Indeed, over the last decade, under-development has come to be widely associated with the concept of the failing state. To an extent, a similar trend has occurred within the context of tourism. Not only has the broad concept of sustainable tourism development faced increasing criticism, but also alternative approaches, from the optimistically labelled ‘responsible tourism’ to ‘pro-poor’ tourism, ‘voluntourism’ and value-chain analysis have come to the fore as more appropriate means of enhancing tourism’s developmental contribution. Global approaches to development, through initiatives such as the UN Millennium Development Goals, illustrate the shift towards poverty reduction and these have been adopted by various tourism organisations including the UN World Tourism Organisation. In other words, as perspectives on and processes of development in general have continued to evolve, so too have new approaches to tourism development in particular evolved. Nevertheless, it still remains unclear to what extent these might contribute more effectively to the broader socio-economic development of destinations.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of the changes that have occurred within the tourism–development system over the last decade. For example, advances in communication technology have transformed the relationship between the supply of and demand for tourism, weakening the traditional role of intermediaries and their consequential influence on destination development. Small tourism operators in developing countries with access to the internet can market directly to new customers and independent travellers are increasingly booking their own holidays online. Small tourism companies can apply online for micro-credits to develop their businesses through

Introduc t ion

xix

websites such as Kiva Loans. Recent work in the development literature has been focusing on ICT4D (information and communication technologies for development) as a way to bridge the digital divide and alleviate poverty (Unwin, 2009). Nevertheless, they point to the dynamic nature of tourism and development and, as noted earlier, the purpose of this second edition is to highlight and explore the implications of advances in knowledge and understanding of this changing relationship between tourism and development. Original chapters from the first edition have been revised and updated and a number of new chapters have been included. More specifically, Part 1 introduces the concept of development and establishes a relationship between development theories and tourism theory, thereby setting the theoretical parameters for the more specific issues addressed in the following section. Chapter 1 reviews the popularly held justification for the promotion of tourism as a means of achieving development. The chapter asks the fundamental question: what is development? Making reference to social, economic and political factors that characterise underdevelopment, it argues that the concept of development has evolved from simply economic growth to a broader achievement of the ‘good life’ that encompasses social, cultural, political, environmental and economic aims and processes. Having considered the ‘meaning’ of development, Chapter 2 goes on to explore the evolution of seven development paradigms that have evolved since World War II and how they relate to tourism. The chapter provides an overview of the nature of development before reviewing and critiquing seven development paradigms including modernisation, dependency, economic neoliberalism, alternative development, post-development, human development and global development. Parallels are drawn between the changes in development theory and tourism development, assessing the extent that tourism reflects transformations in development thinking. The purpose of Part 2 of the book is to explore, within the context of specific themes, the relationship between development and tourism. Thus, each chapter in this part of the book, referring to and building upon the theoretical foundation introduced in Part 1, addresses particular issues or challenges related to the use of tourism as a developmental vehicle. Given that this role of tourism is principally referred to in terms of economic benefits, the section commences by addressing, in Chapter 3, economic development issues. Taking economic growth as the fundamental indicator of (economic) development, the chapter explores tourism consumption as an expendituredriven economic activity and the economic impacts of tourism. The chapter focuses on a number of issues that may challenge or enhance the economic developmental potential of tourism. This is followed by, in turn, chapters that explore poverty reduction, regional development issues, community development issues, socio-cultural issues, heritage issues and environmental issues. In the evolution of development thought, poverty alleviation has come to the forefront as is evident in the UN Millennium Development Goals. Chapter 4

xx

Tour ism and Development

explores the emergence of pro-poor tourism as well as a number of practical initiatives that incorporate poverty reduction including Fair Trade, the role of NGOs, the UNWTO ‘ST-EP’ (Sustainable Tourism – Eliminating Poverty) programme and corporate social responsibility. The chapter argues that the rights and well-being of poorer peoples should be prioritised in all tourism initiatives that seek to reduce poverty as well as ways to address the systematic inequalities that limit the poor from benefiting from tourism. Chapter 5 examines the use of tourism as a regional development tool. Governments around the world have selected tourism as a means to promote development or redevelopment in peripheral or economically disadvantaged regions. The chapter begins by examining regional development concepts including the shift to new regionalism followed by a discussion of innovation, growth poles, agglomeration economies and clusters. The challenge of using tourism as a regional development tool is explored through a number of cases in a variety of different contexts, including urban redevelopment, rural regeneration, island tourism, tourism in peripheral regions and tourism across international regions. It is argued that for tourism to be an effective tool for regional development so that more than multinational corporations or the local elite benefit, there must be strong economic linkages to a variety of sectors in the local economy. Chapter 6 explores the central question: to what extent can tourism contribute to community development? After examining the issues, challenges and critiques with tourism, community and development, various tourism approaches and forms such as ecotourism and indigenous tourism are explored. Community based tourism planning approaches and mechanisms are then investigated. The chapter raises critical questions on the nature of community, power and politics, empowerment and the fact that communities do not exist in isolation. The chapter argues that under sustainable development, there needs to be a fair distribution of goods and a fair procedure for participation in the context of community based tourism. Chapter 7 explores the relationship between tourism development and socio-cultural development. Challenging the traditional, Western-centric ‘measurement’ of development and the resultant inherent bias in assessing the socio-cultural impacts of tourism in particular, the chapter introduces a variety of indices against which development may be measured. It goes on to examine both the positive and negative socio-cultural impacts of tourism before highlighting the contradictions of tourism development and proposing that there is a need to divorce the assessment of tourism’s development outcomes from traditional, universalist development paradigms. Continuing on the theme of society and culture, Chapter 8 explores the relationship between cultural heritage, tourism and socio-economic development. The chapter examines current trends in heritage tourism, including scaling the past, democratisation, new directions in religious tourism and heritage trails, incorporating both tangible and intangible dimensions of heritage resources. While heritages sites represent opportunities for tourism

Introduc t ion

xxi

development, they require careful planning and management to protect them for future generations. Completing Part 2, Chapter 9 considers the relationship between tourism development and the environment. Critiquing mainstream sustainable development theory which is manifested in deterministic and managerialist approaches to the planning and the use of tourism’s environmental resources, this chapter explores the concept of sustainability as a complex interaction of local social, environmental, political and economic processes. It argues that, despite the recognised negative consequences of tourism development, a focus upon local governance embracing ecological sustainability principles may emphasise the environmental benefits that accrue from tourism. Finally, Part 3 introduces and addresses what are referred to as ‘barriers and challenges’ to tourism development. It has long been recognised that a variety of externalities serve to limit the growth of tourism and, hence, its economic development potential, such ‘limiters’ including, for example, government restrictions on inbound/outbound travel, political turbulence, global oil prices, natural disasters, and so on. Beyond these specific factors that impact negatively on tourist flows, normally in the shorter-term and with respect to specific regions or destinations, there are a range of important sets of influences that restrict or present challenges to tourism’s contribution to development. First, as discussed in Chapter 10, the political economy of tourism, in terms of both the internal structure of the tourism system itself and the global context within which the tourism system operates, has frequently been explained in relation to neo-colonialist dependency theory. However, with an increasingly globalised political economy, the structure of transnational corporate operations represents a new ‘threat’ to the achievement of development. The chapter raises the question as to whether the emergent industrial and geographic configurations of tourism production, exchange and consumption challenge or reinforce global distributions of power and inequality. A second emerging and very significant challenge to tourism development is climate change and is the focus of Chapter 11. Many developing countries and, in particular, island destinations often rely on tourists taking long-haul flights or sailing on cruise ships and both of these industries generate emissions contributing to climate change. A central challenge is that in the pursuit of development through tourism, there has not been integration of the implications of climate change. The chapter raises the question: if we travel now, will we pay later? Third, the very nature of tourism as a form of consumption also militates against development (Chapter 12). As an ego-centric social activity, tourism is principally motivated by twin aims of avoidance/escape and ego-enhancement/ reward. Therefore, despite the alleged spread of environmental awareness and the consequential emergence of the ‘new’ tourist, not only does tourism remain relatively untouched by the phenomenon of green consumerism but also the ways in which tourism is consumed suggest that, beyond financial considerations, tourists contribute little to the development process.

xxii

Tour ism and Development

Fourth, the production and consumption of tourism generates a range of human rights issues some of which may go against the very nature of development. Chapter 13 traces the evolution of the concept of human rights and then goes on to examine human rights in tourism development including inhumane treatment of people, employment, displacement, security checks, safety while travelling, multinational business practices, the impacts on the environment and slum tourism. The chapter notes that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNUDHR) is not without criticism and that human rights are not only challenges for host populations and societies, but also for tourists and tourism businesses which include multinational corporations. Fifth, Chapter 14 argues that the tourism development process needs to be better understood within the broader context of global issues as we are living in an increasingly connected or globalised world. The chapter begins by examining global issues and threats (economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological) and the issue–attention cycle that can potentially limit or challenge the role of tourism in the development process. The chapter argues that incorporating the approach of international studies will give a diversity of perspectives and/or explanations which will facilitate a greater understanding of the tourism development process. The final area of concern is sustainable tourism, which has become the dominant tourism development paradigm but can also be seen as a barrier to development. That is, as Chapter 15 suggests, sustainable tourism development has evolved into a prescriptive and restrictive set of guidelines for tourism development that, whilst offering environmentally appropriate, commercially pragmatic and ethically sound principles for optimising tourism’s development role, draws attention away from the potential benefits of other forms of tourism and, indeed, other development agents. The chapter suggests that a destination capitals model of tourism development may be a way forward. Finally, drawing together the various concepts, themes and issues introduced and discussed throughout the book, the conclusion (Chapter 16) considers the implications for the role of tourism as a means of achieving development. As such, it raises a number of important points and questions that may encourage further debate among students, academics and practitioners of tourism while, more generally, it is hoped that this book as a whole will contribute to further understanding and knowledge of the inherent processes, challenges and benefits of tourism as a vehicle of development. In the 10 plus years since the first edition of this book, the tourism literature has grown at an incredible rate, yet there are still many questions on the role of tourism in the development process. Richard Sharpley and David J. Telfer October 2014

Part 1 Tourism and Development: Conceptual Perspectives

1

Tourism: A Vehicle for Development? Richard Sharpley

Introduction Tourism is, without doubt, one of the major social and economic phenomena of modern times. Since the early 1900s when, as a social activity, it was largely limited to a privileged minority, the opportunity to participate in tourism has become increasingly widespread. At the same time, distinctions between both tourism destinations and modes of travel as markers of status have become less defined; tourism, in short, has become increasingly democratised (Urry & Larsen, 2011). It also now ‘accounts for the single largest peaceful movement of people across cultural boundaries in the history of the world’ (Lett, 1989: 277), an international movement of people that, in 2012, reached over 1 billion arrivals for the first time (UNWTO, 2013b). In 2013, international arrivals reached 1087 million, a 5% increase on the 2012 total (UNWTO, 2014). Moreover, if on a global basis domestic tourism trips are also taken into account, this figure is estimated to be between six and 10 times higher. Reflecting this dramatic growth in the level of participation, what has long been referred to as the ‘pleasure periphery’ (Turner & Ash, 1975) of tourism has also expanded enormously. Not only are more distant and exotic places attracting ever-increasing numbers of international tourists – as noted in the introduction to this book, more than 70 countries, including Jordan, Cuba, Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, Vietnam and Cambodia, now receive in excess of 1 million international visitors each year – but also few countries have not become tourist destinations. Even the world’s most remote or dangerous areas are attracting increasing numbers of visitors. For example, in 1997 some 15,000 tourists visited the Antarctic, a figure that had reached 37,552 by 2006–2007 (British Antarctic Survey, 2011), while, prior to the 2003 war, Iraq was promoting itself as a tourist destination, ironically using the slogan ‘From Nebuchadnezzar to Saddam Hussein: 2240 years of peace and prosperity’ (Roberts, 1998: 3). By 2009, tour operators were again officially escorting 3

4

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

tourists to that war-torn country and recent reports point to a resurgence of tourism there. Moreover, as evidence of this emergence of tourism as a truly global activity, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) now publishes annual tourism statistics for about 215 states. However, tourism is not only a social phenomenon; it is also big business. Certainly, ‘mobility, vacations and travel are social victories’ (Krippendorf, 1986: 523), yet the ability of ever-increasing numbers of people to enjoy travelrelated experiences has depended, by necessity, upon the myriad of organisations and businesses that comprise the ‘tourism industry’. In other words, tourism has also developed into a powerful, world-wide economic force. International tourism alone generated over US$1.075 billion in 2012 (UNWTO, 2013b) whilst, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), if both direct and indirect expenditure is taken into account then global tourism – including domestic tourism – is a $7 trillion industry, accounting for over 10% of world gross domestic product (GDP) and around 9% of global employment. Such remarkable figures must, of course, be treated with some caution; as Cooper et al. (1998: 87) once observed, ‘it is not so much the size of these figures that is so impressive, but the fact that anybody should know the value of tourism, the level of tourism demand or to be able to work these figures out’. Nevertheless, there can be no doubting the economic significance that tourism has assumed throughout the world. Owing to its rapid and continuing growth and associated potential economic contribution, it is not surprising that tourism is widely regarded in practice and also in academic circles as an effective means of achieving development. That is, in both the industrialised and less developed countries of the world, tourism has become ‘an important and integral element of their development strategies’ (Jenkins, 1991: 61). Similarly, within the tourism literature, the development and promotion of tourism is largely justified on the basis of its catalytic role in broader social and economic development. Importantly, however, prior to the early 2000s, relatively little attention had been paid in the literature to the meaning, objectives and processes of that ‘development’. In other words, although extensive research had been undertaken into the positive and negative developmental consequences of tourism, such research had, with a few exceptions, been ‘divorced from the processes which have created them’ (Pearce, 1989: 15). Over the last decade, of course, increasing academic attention has been paid to the relationship between tourism and development, including the first edition of this book. Nevertheless, tourism’s alleged contribution to development generally continues to be tacitly accepted whilst a number of fundamental questions remain unanswered. For example, what is ‘development’? What are the aims and objectives of development? How is development achieved? Does tourism represent an effective or realistic means of achieving development? Who benefits from development? What forces/influences contribute to or militate against the contribution of tourism to development?

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

5

The overall purpose of this book is to address these and other questions by, in particular, establishing and exploring the links between the discrete yet interconnected disciplines of tourism studies and development studies. In this first chapter, therefore, we consider the concepts of and inter-relationship between tourism and development, thereby providing the framework for the application of development theory to the specific context of tourism in Chapter 2 and the more specific issues in subsequent chapters.

Tourism and Development As suggested above, tourism is widely regarded as a means of achieving development in destination areas. Indeed, the raison d’être of tourism, the justification for its promotion in any area or region within the industrialised or less developed world, is its alleged contribution to development. In a sense, this role of tourism has long been officially sanctioned, inasmuch as the then World Tourism Organisation (now UNWTO, to distinguish it from the World Trade Organisation) asserted in its 1980 Manila Declaration on World Tourism that: world tourism can contribute to the establishment of a new international economic order that will help to eliminate the widening economic gap between developed and developing countries and ensure the steady acceleration of economic and social development and progress, in particular in developing countries. (WTO, 1980: 1) Interestingly, and reflecting the organisation’s broader membership and objectives, the focus of the UNWTO continues to be primarily on the contribution of tourism to development in the less developed countries of the world. In this context, tourism is seen not only as a catalyst of development but also of political-economic change. That is, international tourism is viewed as a means of achieving both ‘economic and social development and progress’ and the redistribution of wealth and power that is, arguably, necessary to achieve such development. (It is, perhaps, no coincidence that, in 1974, the United Nations had also proposed the establishment of a New International Economic Order in order to address imbalances and inequities within existing international economic and political structures). This immediately raises questions about the structure, ownership and control of international tourism, issues that we return to throughout this book. The important point here, however, is that attention is most frequently focused upon the developmental role of tourism in the lesser developed, peripheral nations. Certainly, many such countries consider tourism to be a vital ingredient in their overall development plans and policies (Dieke, 1989; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008) and, as Roche (1992: 566) comments, ‘the

6

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

development of tourism has long been seen as both a vehicle and a symbol at least of westernisation, but also, more importantly, of progress and modernisation. This has particularly been the case in Third World countries’. Not surprisingly, much of the tourism development literature has long had a similar focus, with many texts and articles explicitly addressing tourism development in less developed countries (for example, Britton & Clarke, 1987; Brohman, 1996b; Harrison, 1992b, 2001a; Huybers, 2007; Lea, 1988; Mowforth & Munt, 1998, 2009; Singh, T. et al., 1989; Weaver, 1998a). However, the potential of tourism to contribute to development in modern, industrialised countries is also widely recognised, with tourism playing an increasingly important role in most, if not all, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. In Europe, for example, there has long been evidence of national government support of the tourism sector, in some cases dating back to the 1920s and 1930s, and more recently ‘tourism – along with some other select activities such as financial services and telecommunications – has become a major component of economic strategies’ (Williams & Shaw, 1991: 1). In particular, tourism has become a favoured means of addressing the socio-economic problems facing peripheral rural areas (Cavaco, 1995a; Hoggart et al., 1995; Phelan & Sharpley, 2011; Roberts & Hall, 2001) whilst many urban areas have also turned to tourism as a means of mitigating the problems of industrial decline. Indeed, government support for tourism-related development is evident in financial support for tourism-related development or regeneration projects. For example, one method of disbursing European Union (EU) structural funds for rural regeneration in Europe has been through the LEADER (Liaisons Entre Actions pour la Développement des Économies Rurales) programme. Of 217 projects under the original LEADER scheme, tourism was the dominant business plan in 71 (Calatrava Requena & Avilés, 1993). Thus, just as tourism is a global phenomenon, so too is its developmental contribution applicable on a global basis. What varies is simply the contextual meaning or definition of ‘development’, or the hoped-for outcomes of tourism development. Therefore, it is important to understand what is meant by the term ‘development’ and how its meaning may vary according to different contexts. First, however, it is necessary to review the reasons why tourism, as opposed to other industries or economic sectors, is seen as an attractive vehicle for development.

Why Tourism? Throughout the world, the most compelling reason for pursuing tourism as a development strategy is its alleged positive contribution to the local or national economy; as Schubert et al. (2011: 377) summarise, ‘international tourism is recognised to have a positive effect on the increase of long-run

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

7

economic growth through different channels’. First and foremost, international tourism represents an important source of foreign exchange earnings; indeed, it has been suggested that the potential contribution to the national balance of payments is the principal reason why governments support tourism development (Opperman & Chon, 1997: 109). For many developing countries, tourism has become one of the principal sources of foreign exchange earnings whilst even in developed countries the earnings from international tourism may make a significant contribution to the balance of payments in general, and the Travel Account in particular. For example, in 2010, the UK attracted 29.8 million tourists who collectively contributed to international tourism receipts of £16.9 billion. Whilst this represented just 6.5% of total exports, it offset around 53% of the £31.8 billion spent by UK residents on overseas trips that year (VisitBritain, 2011). It should also be noted that domestic tourism in the UK generated almost £70 billion in direct expenditure, pointing to the importance of domestic tourism in national development and the reason for the government wishing to encourage British people to take domestic holidays rather than travelling abroad. By 2013, overseas visitors spent £20.99 billion, 13% more than in 2012 and it was the first time the £20 billion mark was passed (VisitBritain, 2013b). Tourism is also considered to be an effective source of income and employment. Reference has already been made to the global contribution of tourism to employment and GDP and, for many countries or destination areas, particularly with a dominant tourism sector, tourism is the major source of income and employment for local communities. In the Maldives, for example, about 26% of the workforce is employed directly in tourism and a further 27% indirectly. In the UK as a whole, tourism directly and indirectly accounts for around 8% of employment although in tourism-intensive areas, such as the English Lake District, well over 50% of employment is tourism related (Sharpley, 2004). It is also one of the reasons why tourism is frequently turned to as a new or replacement activity in areas where traditional industries have fallen into decline. Schubert et al. (2011) suggest that tourism is also pursued as a source of economic growth because, in addition to foreign exchange earnings and income and employment generation, it stimulates local competition and investment in infrastructure, it encourages other economic sectors to develop and may encourage technical and human capital development. The economic benefits (and costs) of tourism are discussed at length in the literature, as are the environmental and socio-cultural consequences of tourism. Many of these are considered in the context of development in later chapters. The main point here, however, is that the widely cited benefits and costs of tourism, whether economic, environmental or sociocultural, are just that. They are the measurable or visible consequences of developing tourism in any particular destination and, in a somewhat simplistic sense, tourism is considered to be ‘successful’ as long as the benefits

8

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

accruing from its development are not outweighed by the costs or negative consequences. What they do not provide is the justification or reason for choosing tourism, rather than any other industry or economic activity, as a route to development. From a perhaps cynical point of view, the answer might lie in the fact that, frequently, there is simply no other option (F. Brown, 1998: 59). For many developing countries with a limited industrial sector, few natural resources and a dependence on international aid, tourism may represent the only realistic means of earning much needed foreign exchange, creating employment and attracting overseas investment. Certainly this is the case in The Gambia, one of the smallest and poorest countries in Africa. With an estimated average annual per capita income of US$310 amongst its population of 1.6 million, The Gambia lacks any natural or mineral wealth and its economy is largely based on the production, processing and export of groundnuts. As a result, the country remains highly dependent upon international aid. However, with its fine Atlantic beaches and virtually uninterrupted sunshine during the winter months, The Gambia has, since the mid-1960s, been able to take advantage of the European winter-sun tourism market. Tourism now represents around 11% of GDP and directly provides some 10,000 jobs (Sharpley, 2009a; Thomson et al., 1995). However, because of the extended family system prevalent in Africa, up to 10 Gambians are supported by the income from one job. At the same time, local schools, charitable organisations and environmental projects rely heavily upon income derived directly from tourists whilst, in the absence of scheduled services, regular charter flights to northern Europe provide essential communications and freight services. Thus, despite the fragility of the tourism sector in The Gambia, as evidenced by the collapse of the industry following the military coup in 1994 (see Sharpley et al., 1996), the country had no other realistic choice other than to develop tourism and it now makes a significant contribution to the economy of The Gambia. More positively, however, a number of reasons may be suggested to explain the attraction of tourism as a development option (see Jenkins, 1980; 1991).

Tourism is a growth industry Since 1950, when just over 25 million international tourist arrivals were recorded, international tourism has demonstrated consistent and remarkable growth. Indeed, over the last 60 years it has sustained an overall average annual growth rate of 6.2% in terms of international arrivals and over 10% annual growth in receipts (see Table 1.1). Interestingly, between 1950 and 2000 the rate of growth in arrivals and receipts declined steadily. For example, during the 1990s the average annual growth in global tourist arrivals was 4%, the lowest since the 1950s (Table 1.2).

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

9

Table 1.1 International tourist arrivals and receipts, 1950–2012 Year

Arrivals (million)

Receipts (US$bn)

Year

Arrivals (million)

Receipts (US$bn)

1950 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

25.3 69.3 112.9 165.8 222.3 278.1 320.1 439.5 442.5 479.8 495.7 519.8 540.6 575.0 598.6

2.1 6.9 11.6 17.9 40.7 104.4 119.1 270.2 283.4 326.6 332.6 362.1 410.7 446.0 450.4

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

616.7 639.6 687.0 686.7 707.0 694.6 765.1 806.6 847.0 903.0 917.0 882.0 940.0 995.0 1035.0

451.4 464.5 481.6 469.9 488.2 534.6 634.7 682.7 742.0 856.0 939.0 851.0 927.0 1042.0 1075.0

Source: Adapted from UNWTO data.

Since the start of the new millennium, however, the average annual increase in arrivals has levelled off at around 4.5%, and it would appear that the UNWTO’s long-standing and perhaps rather daunting forecast of 1.6 billion arrivals (and receipts of US$2 trillion) by 2020 will be easily met, if not exceeded (WTO, 1998c), although rises in the cost of oil along with potential ‘green’ taxation on aviation may lead to significant rises in the cost of air travel and, hence, serve to dampen demand in the future, at least for international travel. It must also be questioned whether such growth over the coming decades is sustainable both environmentally and in terms of the Table 1.2 Tourism arrivals and receipts growth rates, 1950–1998

1950–1960 1960–1970 1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–1998 Source: WTO (1999b).

Arrivals (average annual increase %)

Receipts (average annual increase %)

10.6 9.1 5.6 4.8 4.0

12.6 10.1 19.4 9.8 6.5

10

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

enormous investment in infrastructure that would be required. Nevertheless, at first sight tourism as an economic sector has demonstrated healthy growth and, hence, is considered an attractive and safe development option. However, the overall global figures mask two important factors. First, although international tourism can claim to be a growth sector (and, indeed, has proved to be remarkably resilient to eternal events), certain periods have witnessed low or even negative growth. The OPEC crisis of the mid-1970s, the global recession in the early 1980s and the Gulf conflict in 1991 all resulted in diminished growth figures and, for some countries, an actual drop in arrivals. For example, although worldwide international arrivals in 1991 grew by just 1.25%, Cyprus, as a result of its proximity to the Middle East, experienced a fall of 11.3% in its arrivals figures that year (CTO, 1992). More recently, the events of 9/11 resulted in an overall decline in global tourist arrivals in 2001, whilst a similar global decline in 2009 was directly attributable to the economic crisis which, at the time of writing, continues to effect some parts of the world. Moreover, although global reductions in international tourist arrivals are rare, particular regions have experienced temporary falls in tourism, such as those destinations affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Thus, tourism is highly susceptible to a variety of influences which, at least in the short term, may have a significant impact at a destinational level on tourism’s economic development contribution. Moreover, the highly seasonal character of tourism in many destinations, and the consequential impact on income flows and employment levels, may also weaken tourism’s development role. Second, as Shaw and Williams (1994: 23) point out, the global growth in tourism does not imply that ‘global mass tourism has now arrived and that the populations of most countries are caught up in a whirl of international travel’. Despite the growth of international tourism to and within certain regions, in particular the Asia and Pacific area, the flows of international tourism remain highly polarised and regionalised. That is, international tourism is still largely dominated by the industrialised world, with the major tourist flows being primarily between the more developed nations and, to a lesser extent, from developed to less developed countries. Indeed, despite the emergence of new, increasingly popular destinations, such as China, Poland and Thailand, the economic benefits of tourism remain highly polarised, with ‘exchanges of money generated by tourism [being] predominantly North-North between a combination of industrialised and newly industrialised countries’ (Vellas & Bécherel, 1995: 21). For example, developing countries as a whole receive approximately one-third of international tourism receipts, the remainder accounted for by industrialised countries. Indeed, according to the UNWTO, ‘advanced’ economies accounted for 63.1% of international tourism receipts in 2010, and ‘emerging’ economies just 36.9% (UNWTO, 2011a). At the same time, the largest international movements of tourists occur within well defined regions, in particular within Europe.

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

11

Table 1.3 Percentage share of international tourist arrivals by region, 1960–2012

1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Africa

Americas

Asia & Pacific

Europe

M. East

1.1 1.5 2.6 3.3 3.6 4.0 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.1

24.1 25.5 21.6 20.4 19.8 18.6 16.6 16.0 15.8 16.1 15.9 15.9 15.7 15.8

1.4 3.8 8.2 12.7 15.6 16.8 19.2 19.7 20.4 20.1 20.5 21.7 21.9 22.6

72.6 68.2 65.6 61.6 58.6 57.1 54.8 54.6 53.6 52.9 52.3 50.7 51.9 51.6

0.9 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 3.5 4.7 4.8 5.3 6.0 6.0 6.4 5.5 5.0

Source: Adapted from UNWTO (2008b, 2011e;, 2013b).

Other significant regions include North America, with major flows between Canada and the USA and between the USA and the Caribbean, and the Asia Pacific region (Table 1.3). It should be noted that Asia and Pacific figures are based on combined data from regions previously referred to by the UNWTO as East Asia and Pacific (EAP) and South Asia. As a result, international tourism contributes most, in an economic sense, to those countries or regions that least require it. However, the significant tourist flows within the developed world are also evidence of the potential contribution to development in industrialised countries, particularly in deprived urban areas or peripheral rural regions. In Ireland, for example, the government established its ‘Programme for National Recovery’ in 1987, the aim of which was to create 25,000 jobs and to attract an additional IR£500 million in tourist expenditure through doubling the number of overseas arrivals over a five-year period (Hannigan, 1994; Hurley et al., 1994). The success of this policy led to a further tourism-related development policy for the period 1994–1999, during which another 35,000 jobs were expected to be created.

Tourism redistributes wealth Both internationally and domestically, tourism is seen as an effective means of transferring wealth and investment from richer, developed countries or regions to less developed, poorer areas. This redistribution of wealth

12

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

occurs, in theory, as a result of both tourist expenditures in destination areas and also of investment by the richer, tourist generating countries in tourism facilities. In the latter case, developed countries are, in principle, supporting the economic growth and development of less developed countries by investing in tourism. However, it has long been recognised that the net retention of tourist expenditures varies considerably from one destination to another, while overseas investment in tourism facilities more often than not may lead to exploitation and dependency (see Chapters 2 and 10).

No trade barriers to tourism Unlike many other forms of international trade, tourism does not normally suffer from the imposition of trade barriers, such as quotas or tariffs. In other words, whereas many countries or trading blocks, such as the EU, place restrictions on imports to protect their internal markets, major tourism generating countries generally do not normally impose limitations on the rights of their citizens to travel overseas, on where they go and on how much they spend. One notable exception is the ‘ban’ on American citizens flying directly from the USA to Cuba unless they have a licence, whilst currency restrictions may limit international travel from certain less developed countries. For the most part, however, destination countries have free and equal access to the international tourism market, constituting ‘an export opportunity free of the usual trade limitations’ (Jenkins, 1991: 84). This position has been strengthened by the inclusion of tourism in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which became operational in January 1995. The requirement of visas for some travellers to certain countries is, however, one form of a barrier. In theory, then, destinations can attract as many tourists as they wish from where they wish, although the lack of trade barriers does not, of course, remove international competition. At the same time, the structure and control of the international travel and tourism industry also limits the ability of destinations to take advantage of this free market.

Tourism utilises natural, ‘free’ infrastructure The attraction to tourists of many countries or regions lies in the natural resources – the sea, beaches, climate, mountains, and so on. This suggests that the development of tourism (and its subsequent economic contribution) is based upon natural resources that are free or ‘of the country’, inasmuch as they do not have to be built or created, and that ‘economic value can be derived from resources which may have limited or no alternative use’ (Jenkins, 1991: 86). Similarly, historic sites and attractions that have been handed down by previous generations may also be considered to be free, although costs are, of course, incurred in the protection, upkeep and management of all tourist attractions and resources, whether natural or man-made.

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

13

The point is that, in the context of tourism as a favoured development option, the basic resources already exist and therefore tourism may be considered to have low ‘start-up’ costs.

Backward linkages Owing to the fact that tourists require a variety of goods and services in the destination, including accommodation, food and beverages, entertainment, local transport services, souvenirs, and so on, tourism offers, in principle, more opportunities for backward linkages throughout the local economy than other industries. Such opportunities include both direct links, such as the expansion of the local farming industry to provide food for local hotels and restaurants (Telfer, 1996b), and indirect links with, for example, the construction industry. Again, however, the optimism for this developmental contribution of tourism must be tempered by the fact not all destinations may be able to take advantage of these linkage opportunities. That is, a variety of factors, such as the diversity and maturity of the local economy, the availability of investment funds or the type/scale of tourism development, may restrict the extent of backward linkages. For example, referring back to the case of The Gambia above, the economic benefits derived from tourism are very much limited by the fact that, as a result of poor quality and a lack of supplies, the majority of tourist hotels import virtually all their food and drink requirements, as well as all fixtures and fittings in the hotels. A variety of other, secondary, reasons may also be suggested for the popularity of tourism as a development option. These include the facts that the development of tourism may lead to infrastructural improvements and the provision of facilities that are of benefit to local communities as well as tourists; that tourism often provides the justification for environmental protection through, for example, the designation of national parks; and, that tourism may encourage the revitalisation of traditional cultural crafts and practices. Together, along with the primary reasons outlined above, they explain why virtually every country in the world has, to a lesser or greater extent, developed a tourism industry.

The Contribution of Tourism to Development The extent to which tourism contributes to the national or local economy or, more generally, to development varies according to a variety of factors. However, as a general rule, it is likely that a greater dependence will be placed on tourism in less developed countries than in industrialised countries. Certainly, in many smaller, less developed nations with highly limited resource bases, in particular island micro-states, tourism has become the dominant economic sector (McElroy, 2003; Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008a).

14

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

The Caribbean islands, the Indian Ocean islands of the Seychelles and the Maldives and the islands of the South Pacific fall into this category and, as Sharpley (2007) notes, the top 25 nations ranked according to the contribution of tourism to GDP are all islands. However, the importance or scale of the tourism industry is not always related to a country’s level of development. For example, in some less developed countries, such as India or Peru, tourism represents an important source of foreign exchange yet is not the main engine of development. In India, international tourism contributes just 1.9% of GDP, while in Peru tourism is not considered a primary growth area despite its 4.3% contribution to GDP. Conversely, in some developed states tourism is the dominant economic sector. With a per capita GDP of around $21,000, Cyprus is a high income country and, though non-industrialised, enjoys human development indicators matching those in developed countries. There, tourism has long been the most significant economic sector; throughout the 1990s, tourism contributed up to 20% of GDP, 25% of employment and about 40% of exports (Sharpley, 1998) although, in more recent years, these contributions have reduced somewhat as the significance of tourism has shrunk relative to other economic sectors. Even in modern, industrialised countries where tourism makes a relatively small contribution to overall economic activity, it may be the dominant sector in particular regions. In the English Lake District, for example, referred to earlier in this chapter, tourist spending amounted to £925.7 million in 2009. In all cases, it is evident that the contribution or outcome of tourism development is measured in the quantifiable terms of tourism receipts, contribution to exports, contribution to GDP and employment levels. However, whilst these are certainly indicators of the economic contribution of tourism, it is less clear whether they are indicators of the developmental contribution of tourism. Therefore, as a basis for exploring the relationship between tourism and development, it is important to define not only the desired outcome of tourism, namely, ‘development’, but also the means of achieving that outcome.

Defining Tourism Such has been the growth and spread of tourism over recent decades that it is now ‘so widespread and ubiquitous. . .that there are scarcely people left in the world who would not recognise a tourist immediately’ (Cohen, 1974: 527). However, ‘tourism’ remains a term that is subject to diverse interpretation, with a wide variety of definitions and descriptions proposed in the literature. This reflects, in part, the multidisciplinary nature of the topic and, in part, the ‘abstract nature of the concept of tourism’ (Burns & Holden, 1995: 5). To complicate matters further, there is no single definition of the ‘tourist’. In 1800, Samuel Pegge wrote in a book on new English usage that,

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

15

simply, ‘a traveller is now-a-days called a Touri-ist’ (cited in Buzard, 1993: 1), although there is some debate as to when the word tourist was first used. Some attribute the origin of the term to Stendhal in the early 1800s (Feifer, 1985), whilst others suggest a number of different sources and dates (Theobald, 1994). Nevertheless, there now exists a diverse array of definitions and taxonomies of tourists, many of which are etic, being structured according to the specific perspective of the researcher. Despite these difficulties, however, it is important to establish a working definition of tourism as the activity or process that allegedly acts as a catalyst of development. As a starting point, Chambers English Dictionary refers to tourism as ‘the activities of tourists and those who cater for them’ (emphasis added), (1988: 1552) immediately reflecting the dichotomy between tourism as a social activity and tourism as an industry which enables and facilitates participation in that activity. In a similar vein, Burkhart and Medlik (1981: 41–43) identify two main groups or classifications of tourism definitions:

Technical definitions Technical definitions of tourism attempt to identify different types of tourist and different tourism activities, normally for statistical or legislative purposes. The first such definition, proposed by the League of Nations in 1937, defined a tourist as someone who travels for 24 hours or more outside their normal country of residence. It included those travelling for business in addition to pleasure, health or other purposes, and it also introduced the ‘excursionist’ as someone who stays in a destination for less than 24 hours. A similar definition, though resorting to the more general description of ‘visitor’, was produced by the United Nations Conference on Travel and Tourism in 1963. It states that a visitor is ‘any person visiting a country other than that in which he [sic] has his usual place of residence, for any reason other than following an occupation remunerated from within the country visited’, a visitor being either a tourist, staying overnight, or an excursionist on a day visit. This remains the basis of definitions of tourism adopted, for example, by the UNWTO, and is used primarily for the quantitative measurement of tourist traffic (see Table 1.4)

Conceptual definitions In contrast, attempts have also been made to conceptually define tourism from an essentially anthropological perspective. That is, a number of commentators have attempted to inject the meaning or role of tourism (to tourists themselves) into the definitional process. For example, Nash (1981: 461) considers that ‘at the heart of any definition of tourism is the person we conceive to be a tourist’. Approaching tourism from the perspective of motivation and touristic practices, he defines tourism as simply the activity

16

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

Table 1.4 Technical definitions of tourists To be included in tourism statistics

Not to be included in tourism statistics

Category

Purpose

Category

Tourists: non-residents nationals resident abroad crew members

Holidays Business Health Study Meetings/missions Visiting friends and relatives Religion Sport Others

Border workers Transit passengers Nomads Refugees Members of armed forces Diplomats Temporary immigrants Permanent immigrants

Excursionists: cruise passengers day visitors crews

Source: Adapted from WTO (1994).

undertaken by ‘a person at leisure who also travels’ (Nash, 1981: 462). Smith develops this theme with a more explicit reference to motivation, a tourist being a ‘temporarily leisured person who voluntarily visits a place for the purpose of experiencing a change’ (Smith, 1989: 1). Similarly, Graburn (1983: 11) emphasises tourism’s functional role inasmuch as it ‘involves for the participants a separation from normal “instrumental” life and the business of making a living, and offers an entry into another kind of moral state in which mental, expressive, and cultural needs come to the fore’. These technical and conceptual categories of tourism definitions evidently represent two extremes of a ‘definition continuum’ (Buck, 1978) which are constrained by their disciplinary focus. Ideally, therefore, a balanced, holistic definition that embraces both the factual and theoretical perspectives of tourism is desirable (Gilbert, 1990). Jafari (1977) goes some way to achieving this by epistemologically defining tourism as: The study of man [sic] away from his usual habitat, of the industry which responds to his needs, and of the impacts that both he and the industry have on the host’s socio-cultural, economic and physical environments. However, it is important to recognise here that these more traditional approaches to defining tourism explicitly consider it as a separate, identifiable sphere of social and economic activity. In other words, many definitions, particularly from a conceptual perspective, reflect the somewhat outdated notion that tourism is an activity both temporarily and spatially separated from normal, day-to-day life, and that it is motivated primarily by the desire to

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

17

escape, for change or a search for the ‘Other’. Certainly, many forms of ‘mass’ tourism, from the ‘ritualised pleasure’ (Shields, 1991) of the 19th-century seaside resort through to contemporary packaged sun-sea-sand holidays were, and remain, a separate, identifiable activity differentiated by time, location and behaviour from normal social activities and institutions. However, it has been suggested that, over the last 30 years or so, this differentiation has become less apparent: ‘tourism is no longer a differentiated set of social practices with its distinct rules, times and spaces’ (Urry, 1994). That is, tourism has become ‘de-differentiated’ from other social practices; it has allegedly merged into other social activities, such as shopping, eating out or participating in/spectating at sport events and, thus, can no longer being considered in isolation from other social practices and transformations. As a consequence, it is ‘increasingly being interpreted as but one, albeit highly significant dimension of temporary mobility’ (Hall, 2005: 21). In other words, the broad concept of mobilities, or the increasing and widespread movement of people, capital, information and material goods both globally and locally, is not only becoming a defining characteristic of contemporary societies. It is also adopting the mantle of a new social scientific paradigm. That is, social and economic life is increasingly patterned and influenced by networks of mobilities (and immobilities) and, therefore, the study of mobilities is increasingly seen as an appropriate theoretical framework for the study of societies more generally. Evidently, tourism is one manifestation of mobility; the dramatic growth in the scope and scale of tourism reflects, or has contributed to, the increasing mobility of both people and the services (finance, information, communication and so on) that facilitate tourism. As a consequence, the study of tourism is increasingly being located within a mobilities framework (Hall, 2005), and it is now being accepted that a fuller explanation of contemporary tourism requires knowledge and understanding of the meanings and implications of the multiple mobilities of people, capital, culture, information, goods and services more generally. This, in turn, suggests that tourism as a social phenomenon may in fact be indefinable; it is, simply, one dimension of mobility. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this book, it remains important to offer a definition of tourism as a recognised phenomenon that is widely utilised for the purpose of development. And it is primarily a social phenomenon. If people had neither the ability nor the desire to travel from one place to another, tourism would not exist. Thus, tourism is an activity which involves individuals who travel within their own countries or internationally, and who interact with other people and places. It involves people who are influenced and motivated by the norms and transformations in their own society and who carry with them their own ‘cultural baggage’ of experience, expectations, perceptions and standards. It is, in short, a social phenomenon which involves the movement of people to various destinations and their (temporary) stay there. By implication, therefore, tourists themselves play a

18

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

fundamental role in the development of tourism and, as considered in Chapter 12, the manner in which tourism is ‘consumed’ has significant implications for the developmental outcomes of tourism. At the same time, of course, tourists would not be able to travel without the variety of services provided by the tourism industry, the nature of which also influences the tourism development process. Therefore, tourism can be defined here as a social phenomenon determined by the activities and attitudes of its participants and possessing a number of characteristics which may determine its contribution to development. In particular: • • • •

it is normally considered a leisure activity, generally associated with short-term escape from the routine or ordinary and, implicitly, involving freedom from (paid and domestic) work; it is socially patterned. That is, the ability to participate in tourism and the nature of tourism consumption is influenced by tourists’ socio-cultural background; it is supported by a diverse, fragmented and multi-sectoral industry, the structure and characteristics of which are significant determinants in the nature of tourism development; it is largely dependent upon the physical, social and cultural attributes of the destination and the promise of excitement, authenticity and the extraordinary. It is also, therefore, an ‘ecological’ phenomenon inasmuch as tourism not only requires an attractive, different environment, but also interacts with and impacts upon that environment.

In effect, these characteristics set an agenda for the study of the developmental contribution of tourism. That is, the nature of tourism, the tourism industry and the destination are all factors which influence the manner or extent to which tourism contributes to development. The next task of this chapter is now to explore what is meant by the term development.

Defining Development Development, according to Cowen and Shenton (1996: 3), ‘seems to defy definition, although not for want of definitions on offer’. It is an ambiguous term that is used descriptively and normatively to refer to a process through which a society moves from one condition to another, and also to the goal of that process; the development process in a society may result in it achieving the state or condition of development. At the same time, it has been suggested that development is a philosophical concept as it alludes to a desirable future state for a particular society (though desirable to whom is not always clear). Or, as Thomas (2000: 29) puts it, development is ‘a vision, description or measure of the state of being of a desirable society’, while development plans

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

19

set out the steps for the achievement of that future state. In short, development can be thought of as a philosophy, a process, the outcome or product of that process, a plan guiding the process towards desired objectives. More broadly, development is also considered to be synonymous with progress, implying positive transformation or ‘good change’ (see Thomas, 2000). In this sense, development is neither a single process nor set of events, nor does it suggest a single, static condition. Therefore, although development is most commonly discussed in the context of the developing world, it is a concept that ‘relates to all parts of the world at every level, from the individual to global transformations’ (Elliot, 1999: 10). A society that is ‘developed’ does not cease to change or progress; the nature or direction of that change may, however, be different to changes in less developed societies. Generally, then, development may be seen as a term ‘bereft of precise meaning. . .[and] . . .little more than the lazy thinkers catch-all term, used to mean anything from broad, undefined change to quite specific events’ (Welch, 1984). Its ambiguity is compounded by different uses of the term in different contexts and disciplines and, furthermore, the concept of development has evolved over time. Where at one extreme planners once adhered to ‘the myth of development as progress’, at the other extreme they denounce it as regression (Goulet, 1992: 468). Nevertheless, as McGillivray (2008: 21) observes, ‘without a definition of this term we cannot determine whether a country is achieving higher levels of development, or whether it should be considered developed, developing or underdeveloped’, while, for the specific purposes of this book, it is vital to have a working definition of development as the goal of or justification for developing tourism.

The evolution of the development concept Traditionally, development has been defined in terms of Western-style modernisation achieved through economic growth (Redclift, 1987). That is, as the national economy grows, the national productive capacity increases and, as long as output grows at a faster rate than the population growth rate, then development is assumed to be the inevitable consequence. This perceived ‘primary role of economic forces in bringing about the development of a society has often been taken as axiomatic, so that development and economic development have come to be regarded as synonymous’ (Mabogunje, 1980: 35). Indeed, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the path from under-development to development was seen to lie along a series of economic steps or stages (Rostow, 1960) and, as a result, development came to be defined according to economic measurements, such as gross national product (GNP) or per capita GNP, or according to economic structural criteria. Implicitly, as the economy grows – typically at an annual rate of 5–7% (Todaro, 2000: 14) and as social, economic and political structures modernise (according to Western parameters – see

20

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

Traditional

Modern

• Traditionalism: - orientation to the past/tradition - inability to adapt to new circumstances • Kinship system: - economic, social, legal structures determined by kin relations - ascription as opposed to achievement • Influence of emotion, superstition, fatalism

• Traditional values less dominant: - ability to change/adapt - challenge to obstacles of tradition • Open social system: - geographical/social mobility - economic, social, political freedom - achievement as opposed to ascription • Forward looking society: - innovation, entrepreneurial spirit - objective, rational approach

Figure 1.1 Characteristics of ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ societies Source: Adapted from Webster (1990).

Figure 1.1) to encourage or accommodate such growth, then development is considered to be occurring. By the late 1960s it had become clear that, in many countries, economic growth was not only failing to solve social and political problems but was also causing or exacerbating them (Seers, 1969). Some countries had realised their economic growth targets, but ‘the levels of living of the masses of people remained for the most part unchanged’ (Todaro, 2000: 14). Moreover, although the aims of development had become more broadly defined with investment in education, housing and health facilities (with corresponding ‘social indicator’ measurements) becoming part of the development process, economic growth and ‘modernisation’ remained the fundamental perspective. Thus, during the 1970s the pendulum began to swing away from development as an economic phenomenon towards the broader concept of development as the reduction of widespread poverty and unemployment. Increasing numbers of economists called for the ‘dethronement of GNP’ (Todaro, 2000: 14), although, as has been argued, this was not to suggest that economic growth was unnecessary or destructive. Growth ‘may matter a great deal, but, if it does, this is because of some associated benefits that are realised in the process of economic growth’ (Sen, 1994: 220). Indeed, even the concept of global sustainable development is, according to the widely cited Brundtland Report, dependent upon growth in the world economy by a factor of five to 10 (WCED, 1987: 50). Nevertheless, the traditional economic growth position was challenged by many, in particular Dudley Seers (1969), who asserted: The questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore: what has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

21

unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If all three of these have declined from high levels, then beyond doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If one or two of these central problems has been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result ‘development’, even if per capita income had doubled. To these three conditions he later added a fourth: self reliance. The oil crisis of the early 1970s had revealed the cost of dependence of many countries and, for Seers, development now implied ‘inter alia, reducing cultural dependence on one or more of the great powers’ (Seers, 1977: 5). Thus, not only had the concept of development expanded beyond simple economic growth to include broader social objectives collectively described by Mabogunje (1980: 39) as ‘distributive justice’, but also the notion of self-determination also became an essential ingredient of development. In other words, no longer was development considered to be a process lying in the control, or ‘trusteeship’ (Cowen & Shenton, 1996: x) of the advanced, Western nations; ‘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: 387 – emphasis added). According to Goulet, three basic values represent this ‘good life’: • •

•

the sustenance of life: all people have basic requirements, such as food, shelter and health, without which ‘a state of underdevelopment exists’. esteem: all individuals seek self-esteem, a sense of identity, self-respect or dignity. The nature of esteem varies from one society to the next and may be manifested in increased wealth and material well-being or, conversely, in the strengthening of spiritual or cultural values. freedom: in the context of development, freedom represents increased choice for the individual members of society and freedom from servitude to ignorance, nature, other societies, beliefs and institutions. Indeed, for Sen (1999), freedom in its broadest sense lies at the heart of development.

More specifically, Sen equates ‘freedom’ with capability; as McGillivray (2008: 34) explains, ‘capability is treated as the freedom to promote or achieve combinations of valuable functionings’. Thus, development may essentially be seen as the development of human capabilities, a perspective reflected in the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report 1995 (UNDP, 1995). This defines development as ‘the ability to lead a long, healthy life, the ability to be knowledgeable and the ability to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living’ (UNDP, 1995: 18). Thus, the concept of development has evolved, over half a century or so, from a process narrowly defined (by the Western, industrialised nations) as

22

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

economic growth to ‘a far-reaching, continuous and positively evaluated change in the totality of human experience’ (Harrison, 1988: xiii). The goal of the process is, in effect, the self-actualisation of individuals within a society, embracing at least five dimensions (see Goulet, 1992): (1) an economic component: the creation of wealth and equitable access to resources as a means of overcoming the ‘pollution of poverty’. (2) a social component: the improvement of health, education, employment and housing opportunities. (3) a political dimension: the recognition of human rights, the creation of political freedom and the enabling of societies to select and operate political systems appropriate to their needs and structures. (4) a cultural dimension: the protection or affirmation of cultural identity and self-esteem. (5) the full-life paradigm: the preservation and strengthening of the meaning systems, symbols and beliefs of a society. To these, perhaps, should be added a sixth dimension, namely, an ecological component, which reflects the emergence of environmental sustainability as a guiding principle of all development policies. Together, these dimensions are broadly reflected in the development objectives proposed in the United Nations’ ‘Millennium Development Goals’ (Figure 1.2). Development, then, is a complex, multidimensional concept which not only embraces economic growth and ‘traditional’ social indicators, such as health care, education and housing, but which also seeks to confirm the political and cultural integrity and freedom of all individuals in society. It is, in effect, the continuous and positive change in the economic, social, political and cultural dimensions of the human condition, guided by the principle of freedom of choice and limited by the capacity of the environment to sustain such change. This is, perhaps, best summarised in the UNDP’s most recent definition of human development. Though recognising that there remains no consensus over the term, the 2010 Report (UNDP, 2010b: 22) defines human development as: the expansion of people’s freedoms to live long, healthy and creative lives; to advance other goals they have reason to value; and to engage actively in shaping development equitably and sustainably on a shared planet. People are both the beneficiaries and drivers of human development, as individuals and in groups. Thus stated, human development has three components: •

Well-being: expanding people’s real freedoms – so that people can flourish.

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

• •

23

Empowerment and agency: enabling people and groups to act – to drive valuable outcomes. Justice: expanding equity, sustaining outcomes over time and respecting human rights and other goals of society.

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Target 1: reduce by half the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day Target 2: reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education Target 3: ensure that children everywhere are able to complete full primary schooling Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women Target 4: eliminate gender disparity in all levels of education Goal 4: Reduce child mortality Target 5: reduce the under-five mortality rate by two-thirds Goal 5: Improve maternal health Target 6: reduce the maternal mortality rate by three-quarters Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Target 7: halt/reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS Target 8: halt/reverse the incidence of malaria and other serious diseases Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability Target 9: integrate the principles of sustainable development into national development policies Target 10: halve the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation and drinking water Target 11: achieve a significant improvement in the lives of 100 million slum dwellers Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development Target 12: develop an open, non-discriminatory trading and financial system Target 13: address the special needs of least developed countries Target 14: address the special needs of landlocked developing countries and small island developing states Target 15: deal comprehensively with the developing countries’ debt problems Figure 1.2 The Millennium Project: Goals and targets Source: Adapted from www.unmillenniumproject.org

24

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

The Characteristics of Under-development Having explored the meaning of development, it is also important to consider briefly the opposite side of the coin, namely, under-development. In other words, although many of the problems facing less developed countries, such as pollution, poverty, unemployment, inequality and so on are evident in the goals of development, it is less clear what the specific characteristics of under-development are. Consequently, also unclear is the extent to which particular development vehicles, such as tourism, are effective means of addressing these problems and challenges. By definition, it is primarily the less developed countries of the world that experience the problems of under-development. However, in the present context it is important to remember again that tourism also plays a developmental role in the wealthier, industrialised countries. There, specific areas, such as peripheral rural areas, suffer similar problems to less developed countries, albeit to a lesser extent. For example, unemployment, a lack of essential services, a dependence on primary economic sectors and inequality in housing or educational opportunities, as well as the challenge of environmental sustainability, are items high on the rural governance agenda. Nevertheless, it is the problems facing the 160 or so developing countries that are the principal focus of international development policies. Of course, not all developing countries suffer the same problems, nor to the same extent, reflecting the fact that there exists an enormous diversity of countries that constitute the developing world. As Todaro (2000) explores in detail, developing countries vary greatly according to geographic, historical, socio-cultural, political and economic structural characteristics, all of which have some bearing on a country’s level and rate of development. Nevertheless, developing countries are typically classified according to either per capita income, non-economic development indicators, such as literacy or life expectancy, or a combination of the two. Such classifications, in turn, draw upon the typical features of developing countries which characterise the condition of under-development. These include:

Economic dependence upon the agricultural sector and the export of primary products and, conversely, a limited industrial sector Compared with industrialised nations, most less developed countries are highly dependent upon agricultural production and exports as a source of income and employment. For example, on average almost 60% of the workforce in the less developed world is employed in agriculture compared with just 5% in developed nations. Similarly, agriculture typically contributes 14% of GDP in less developed countries compared to 3% in industrial countries,

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

25

although significant variances exist. For example, in some African countries, such as Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda, the contribution of agriculture to GDP is 58%, 57% and 50% respectively, whilst in other, particularly South American, countries, the contribution is much lower (UNDP, 1998: 182–183). Frequently, productivity is barely above subsistence levels and a lack of technology and investment finance limit opportunities for increasing output. Therefore, although the export of primary agricultural products represents the principal source of foreign exchange earnings for many developing countries, typically accounting for between 60% and 70% of the foreign currency earnings of the developing world, their share of total world trade continues to decline (Todaro, 2000: 60).

Low levels of living – low incomes and low levels of health and education/literacy In many less developed countries, a variety of factors contribute to what may be described generally as a low level of living. Principal amongst these is the low level of income, most commonly measured as per capita GDP or GNI (Gross National Income) as a guide to the relative economic well-being of people in different countries. Within the less developed world there are significant variances; thus, for example, the World Bank categorises the developmental status of countries according to different levels of GNI (Table 1.5). However, two points must immediately be made. First, quantitative measures of wealth (or poverty) do not necessarily reflect culturally defined, non-economic interpretations in some countries: There may be as many poor and as many perceptions of poverty as there are human beings. The fantastic variety of cases entitling a person to be called poor in different cultures and languages is such that, all in all, everything and everyone under the sun could be labelled as poor, in one way or another . . . For long, and in many cultures of the world, poor was not always the opposite of rich. Other considerations, such as falling from one’s station in life, being deprived of one’s instruments of labour, the loss of one’s status or the marks of one’s profession...defined the poor. (Rahnema, 1992: 158) Second, level of income does not necessarily indicate level of development. For example, although in Table 1.5 only 36 countries are categorised as ‘low income’, the UN lists 48 countries as ‘least developed’, based on meeting (or suffering) all of the following criteria (UN, 2011, 2013): (1) Low per capita income (GNI under $992 for inclusion, above $ 1,190 for graduation in 2013)

26

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

Table 1.5 Per capita GNI country classifications, 2014 Low income economies

Lower-middle income economies

Upper-middle income economies

High income economies Non OECD

Per capita GNI

$1,035 or less

$1,036–$4,085

$4,086–$12,615

$12,616 or above

Number of countries in group

36

48

55

44

Source: Adapted from World Bank data.

(2) Human resource weaknesses based on indicators of: (a) nutrition: percentage of population undernourished; (b) health: mortality rate for children aged five years or under; (c) education: the gross secondary school enrolment ratio; and (d) adult literacy rate. (3) Economic vulnerability based upon a complex combination of a number of indicators, such as the instability of agricultural production and the relative economic importance of non-traditional activities, which comprise an economic vulnerability index. Referred to elsewhere as the ‘bottom billion’ (Collier, 2007), not only are these least developed countries (LDCs) home to the world’s poorest people but also the development gap between them and developing countries more generally (and developed countries too) is becoming greater. Collier (2007: 9) claims, for example, that per capita income in LDCs declined by 0.5% per annum during the 1990s; by 2000, ‘they were poorer than they had been in 1970’. Interestingly, however, in recent years some LDCs, such as Uganda, Tanzania and Cambodia, have experienced rates of growth in tourist arrivals and receipts significantly higher than the world average, while their economies have become increasingly reliant on tourism; it now represents over 70% of service exports in LDCs. In terms of low levels of health, a variety of measures are utilised to demonstrate the health-related challenges within the developing world. These include life expectancy at birth (55 years in land-locked developed countries (LLDCs); 68 years in all developing countries; 80 years in industrialised countries) and infant mortality (83 per 1000 live births in low income countries compared with five per 1000 in industrialised countries). However, progress is being made. According to the UNDP, since 1970, there has been a 25% improvement in development indicators in general in developing countries, and a doubling of per capita income (UNDP, 2010b: 26).

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

27

High rates of population growth; high unemployment Over 80% of the world’s population live in the developing world, a proportion that will increase as developing countries generally experience higher birth rates than those in developed countries. Indeed, crude birth rates (the annual number of births per 1000 population) in less developed countries vary between 20 and 50, equating to an average annual population growth rate in developing countries of around 2.0%, compared with 0.7% in industrialised countries. This means that, between 1995 and 2025, the populations of many developing countries will double. In addition to inevitable pressures on scarce resources, such rapid population growth will also exacerbate an already serious under- and unemployment problem. It is estimated that unemployment in developing countries varies between 8% and 15% of the labour force, although the figure may be double amongst the 15–24 age group.

Balance of payments problems and high levels of international debt Among the most publicised problems facing less developed countries are their balance of payments deficits, their high level of international debt. With limited natural resources and restricted industrial production, less developed countries, by necessity, import many of their basic needs. However, the opportunity to balance the import bill is severely restricted by their dependence upon the export of primary, agricultural products, the real value of which fell by some 25% during the 1980s alone.

Socio-political structures ill-equipped to address the challenges of under-development As discussed in Chapters 2 and 10, and of particular relevance to international tourism, many of the problems associated with under-development are frequently attributed to the evident inequality in the global distribution of economic and political power. However, social and political structures within many developing countries may also determine the degree to which development strategies are successful. The last two decades or so have witnessed significant changes in the political structures in many countries, with corresponding impacts on development. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, for example, brought about important changes within Eastern Europe although, as Hewitt (2000) points out, political freedom was been achieved at the cost of reduced aid from the West. Indeed, between 1982 and 1992, aid to the former Soviet Union fell by 14% in real terms. More generally, there has been a dramatic shift in the global patterns of democratisation. For example, in 1975 there were, globally, 101 authoritarian regimes, 11 partial democracies and 35

28

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

liberal democracies, the latter primarily in Europe, North America and Australia. By 1995, there were 43 authoritarian states, whilst the number of partial and liberal democracies had grown to 42 and 79 respectively (Potter, 2000: 369). However, two points must be emphasised. First, and generally, it has increasingly come to be accepted that the nature of governance or the effectiveness of state intervention is a significant factor in the development process in developing countries; a lack of development has come to be equated with the concept of the ‘failing state’ (Di John, 2010; Ghani & Lockhart, 2009). Second, democratisation by itself may not facilitate development, and may even impede it. That is, irrespective of changes in the nature of government, the distribution of power within many less developed countries tends to favour a small, powerful élite (their position often being strengthened and legitimised by the democratic process); experience has shown that successful development is dependent upon fundamental transformations in socioeconomic structures that challenge this traditional dominance of the élite. This is not, of course, a definitive list of the characteristics of underdevelopment. There are many other indicators of human development, including gender-related issues, access to energy and natural resources, safety and security and so on that must be included as measures of development. At the same time, there are also many ‘developmental’ problems facing industrialised countries. For example, the so-called Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) which, in addition to correcting for income inequalities hidden in standard GDP figures, attempts to make adjustments for environmental costs, the depreciation of natural capital, unpaid work, ‘defensive’ health care and other indicators of overall welfare (Daly & Cobb, 1989). While both controversial and applied to relatively few, mostly developed, countries, the results of the ISEW are interesting in that they consistently demonstrate a perceived increase in welfare below the rate of increase in GDP and in some countries, notably the USA and the UK, a decline in welfare over the last 20 years. In other words, some developed countries are experiencing ‘negative’ development according to broader welfare indicators (Jackson & McBride, 2005). Many of these issues are discussed in depth in the development studies literature. The main point here, however, is that for tourism to be considered an effective vehicle for development, then it should implicitly represent a means of addressing and providing a solution to many of the developmental challenges outlined above. In other words, there is little doubt that, as an economic sector, tourism has much to contribute to countries or specific areas within both the industrialised and less developed worlds; indeed, there are innumerable examples of tourism’s positive contribution to income, employment and foreign exchange earnings in destination areas. What is less certain, however, is the extent to which this economic contribution of tourism feeds the developmental process, or whether tourism, as a single, identifiable economic sector, represents on its own an effective developmental

Tour ism : A Vehicle for Development

29

vehicle. As has been suggested here, the notion that economic growth is synonymous with development has been largely discredited – development is not simply about enrichment in a material sense, but about the enrichment of people’s lives in terms of freedom, choice, self-betterment and well-being. Tourism undoubtedly creates wealth but, as subsequent chapters question, does it contribute to this broader concept of development? Interestingly, some would suggest that neither tourism, nor indeed any other economic activity, can be an effective catalyst of development. More specifically, it is argued that ‘development’ is no longer a viable global process or objective, that we have reached the ‘end of development’ (Hewitt, 2000). Therefore, this introduction to the role of tourism in development would not be complete without, finally, a consideration of the future of the concept of development as a whole.

The End of Development? Since the early 1990s, a number of commentators have increasingly questioned the very concept of development, concluding that the age of international development as a realistic global process had come to an end. As Sachs argues, after 40 years of development as the primary objective and aspiration of the less developed world, now ‘the idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape . . . It is time to dismantle this mental structure’ (Sachs, 1992: 1). Along with other members of the so-called ‘post-development school’, Sachs argues that the notion of development is fundamentally flawed, inherently unjust and has never worked and, therefore, should either be simply abandoned or replaced with a less mechanistic, prescriptive approach (Rahnema, 1997). A number of factors influence post-development thinking. Generally, global development is considered by some to have been achieved at a high cost to some developing countries; poorer, peripheral nations have been particularly susceptible to globalisation and neoliberalism (Sidaway, 2007). More specifically, the 1980s and 1990s are widely considered to have been ‘lost decades’ of development. That is, in many less developed countries the development process either stagnated or went into reverse, with socioeconomic conditions worsening for the majority of people in those countries. A variety of interrelated problems and factors, including high debt repayments, a decline in real non-oil commodity prices, a decline in foreign investment and aid and greater trade protectionism within the industrialised world, contributed to this situation whilst, more generally, the neoliberal economic development policies of the 1980s also came to be widely criticised (Hewitt, 2000). At the same time, the industrialised countries themselves were experiencing severe economic recession, further retarding economic growth in less developed countries.

30

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

More importantly, perhaps, development has long been criticised as a Western-centric philosophy, a process whereby Western economic and sociocultural values have become the objective of development – in short, a process based upon the belief that ‘West is best’. Equally, and reinforcing the argument, Western-inspired development policies have also been seen as mechanisms for the imposition of economic control over less developed countries to an extent that is equally, if not more, pervasive than the preceding colonial system (Escobar, 1997). Certainly, the early concepts of development as economic growth and modernisation demonstrated a Western bias, but even the most recent concept of sustainable development is criticised for reflecting classic Western-centric economic growth principles. For many developing countries, escaping from the pollution of poverty is more vital than the luxury of sustainability. It is not possible here to explore the idea of post-development in depth (see, for example, Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997; Sidaway, 2007), although the criticisms levelled at the development paradigms that comprise the ‘age of development’ are addressed in Chapter 2. The important point is that doubts have been raised about the validity of development, as an essentially Westerninspired concept, as a global process and objective. Indeed, it has been argued (in a rather romantic, idealistic sense) that under-developed, pre-industrial societies may, paradoxically better represent the ‘good life’ than developed societies: ‘the world’s most primitive people have few possessions, but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people’ (Sahlins, 1997: 19). Thus, if development itself is a debatable concept, then the potential for any activity, including tourism, to contribute to development must also be in doubt. Nevertheless, it is an inescapable fact that many countries of the world are ‘worse off’ than other countries, and that even within the industrialised nations, certain regions are ‘poorer’ or enjoy fewer opportunities and benefits than others. At the same time, it is also an inescapable fact that tourism represents one (and in some cases, the only) avenue along which development or the ‘good life’ may be pursued. The extent to which this is achievable through tourism is the primary focus of this book. Chapter 2 explores the evolution of development thought since the end of World War II and its relation to tourism, including emerging ideas beyond post-development.

2

The Evolution of Development Theory and Tourism David J. Telfer

Introduction The evolution of development thought since World War II is complex and ever changing as various paradigms come to the forefront and recede, though never disappearing as they face new and varied critiques. The diversity of voices and ideas on development continues to expand in what Knutsson (2009) refers to as a widening potential repertoire in the intellectual history of development. The focus of development has widened in scope dramatically from an initial focus on economic growth in the 1950s to a more comprehensive perspective today, reflecting shifts towards safeguarding the environment with concerns over global climate change as well as the adoption of a pro-poor agenda as evident in the UN Millennium Development Goals (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). Development theory and tourism have evolved along similar time lines since World War II, with tourism continuing to be one of the leading strategies for development in many destinations. Tourism is being used to generate foreign exchange, increase employment, attract development capital, create enterprises and promote regional development as well as economic independence (Britton, 1982a; UNWTO, 2011f). Countries are fiercely competing for international tourism receipts forecasted to total over US$2 trillion by 2020 (WTO, 1998a) and arrivals predicted to top 1.8 billion by 2030 (UNWTO, 2011f). The purpose of this chapter is to address the theoretical gap between development theory and the use of tourism as a development tool. It focuses on the nature of development and the evolution of development theory since the ending of World War II. Over the 10 plus years since the first edition of this book was published, new paradigms in development theory and tourism have emerged reflecting the broadening of the development agenda. One of 31

32

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

the goals of the chapter is to acknowledge overriding development paradigms and how they influence or are reflected in tourism. While it is acknowledged that there is a diversity of approaches and classifications of development theory, for the purposes of this chapter the seven main paradigms that have been identified are: modernisation; dependency; economic neoliberalism (also commonly referred to as globalisation); alternative development; postdevelopment; human development; and, most recently, an emerging paradigm of global development. While is not possible to provide a detailed comprehensive study of development theory, the key components of each development paradigm are discussed as they form the basis of the analysis to which tourism development is evaluated in subsequent sections. The chapter begins by examining the nature of development.

Nature of Development While there have been tremendous advancements, the planet still faces a number of new and old problems. The problems of persistent poverty and unfulfilled elementary needs, famines and widespread hunger, violations of political freedoms and basic liberties, neglect of the interests and agency of women, and increasing threats to the environment and the sustainability of economic and social welfare continue to face both rich and poor nations (Sen, 1999). Collier (2007) refers to the Bottom Billion who are the people living and dying in 14th-century conditions in countries that are falling behind and often falling apart. Other more optimistic views indicate that, over the last 200 years, global health has improved in countries once identified as ‘developing countries’ (Rosling, 2013). The definition of development, classified as a normative term, has long been debated (Harrison, 1988; McKay, 1990). A widespread view today of development is ‘the imposition of institutions and values by the West on areas deemed to be in need of development guided by an over-ambitious all-explanatory development theory’ and the people in these areas are seen as legitimate objects for development intervention often more of the harmful kind (Hettne, 2009). As pointed out in Chapter 1, the term development has had several meanings including ‘economic growth, structural change, autonomous industrialisation, capitalism or socialism, self-actualisation, and individual, national, regional and cultural self-reliance’ (Harrison, 1988: 154). Initially, in the years following World War II, the idea of development was conceived narrowly as economic growth, and social and cultural factors were only recognised to the extent they facilitated growth (Brohman, 1996b; Malecki, 1997). Development later expanded to incorporate social, moral, ethical and environmental considerations as it dealt with human betterment and fulfilment through the expansion of choice (Goldsworthy, 1988; Ingham, 1993). Eight years after addressing development in terms of poverty, unemployment and

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

33

inequality, Seers (1969, 1977) introduced the concept of self-reliance to his definition. A further expansion of the term can be seen in the work of Todaro (1994), who outlined three core values (sustenance, self-esteem and freedom) and three objectives of development. The first objective is to increase the availability and distribution of basic human needs, the second is to raise the standard of living, which involves: higher incomes, better education, provision of more jobs, and greater attention to cultural and humanistic values thereby promoting greater individual and national self-esteem. The final objective is to expand the range of economic and social choices so that individuals and nations are not dependent on other people or countries. The expansion of freedoms is also at the heart of Sen’s (1999) Development as Freedom, with calls for expanding freedoms in the areas of economic opportunities, political freedoms, social facilities, transparency guarantees and protective security. Acknowledging the interconnectedness of significant societal processes, Lund (2010: 20) offers a fairly broad definition of development as ‘the reproduction and transformations process, which somehow impinge on inequality, impoverishment and human insecurity’. With the growth of the environmental movement, development expanded to encompass the highly debated term, sustainability (Redclift, 2000). The most cited definition of sustainable development, proposed by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987: 43), is ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. The 1992 United Nations (UN) Conference on the Environment and Development (also known as the Earth Summit or Rio Conference) produced Agenda 21 (see Keating, 1994), an action plan for achieving sustainability based on the involvement of local communities using a bottom-up approach. The second Earth Summit (Rio + 5) held five years later noted an increasing reliance of some developing countries on tourism and the need to plan appropriately (Holden, 2000). The Rio + 20 Conference was held in Rio again in 2012 and included a meeting on Tourism for a Sustainable Future, where tourism is seen as ‘a key instrument for eradicating poverty, responding to climate change, environmental sustainability and contributing to the Millennium Development Goals’ (UNWTO, 2011c). As a reflection of the changes noted above, not only has the meaning of development altered over time, but how development is measured has also changed. The traditional measures for the quality of life such as per capita income or gross national product (GNP) have been eclipsed by other measurements, such as the Human Development Index influenced by the work of Amartya Sen (mentioned above). Other indices, such as the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, 1992 (Brown, 1992), illustrate the shift from an economic focus. Bhutan is known for its Gross Happiness Index with nine domains and indicators (psychological indicators, health, education, culture, time use, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience and living standards) (Ura et al., 2012). The UN

34

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

Millennium Development Goals agreed upon at the Millennium Summit in 2000 with a target date of 2015 reflects the shift to a pro-poor development agenda and include: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Achieve universal primary education. Promote gender equality and empower women. Reduce child mortality. Improve maternal health. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. Ensure environmental sustainability. Global partnership for development (UN, 2013c).

It is not the intention here to develop a new definition of development or new ways to measure it but, rather, to recognise the expanding scope of the term (see Chapter 7 for a further discussion of development indicators). As Hettne (1995) suggests, there can be no final definition of development, only suggestions of what development should imply in particular contexts. Thus, development involves structural transformation that implies political, cultural, social and economic changes (Hettne, 1995). The following section addresses the seven main development paradigms and ways of thinking about development since World War II.

Development Paradigms The strength of ‘development’ discourse comes of its power to seduce, in every sense of the term: to charm, to please, to fascinate, to set dreaming, but to abuse, to turn away from the truth, to deceive. (Rist, 1997: 1) The analysis of social change with respect to development encompasses a wide range of perspectives resulting in a variety of social theories and contested notions of change (Preston, 1996). Hettne (2009) makes a key argument that schools of development thinking need to be contextualised historically rather than understood as a cumulative evolution of ideas leading to a universal development theory. As with the definition of development, development theory has broadened from simplistic economic growth models towards more holistic theories of historical social change (Hettne, 1995). Development theory can be divided into development ideology (the ends) and development strategy (the means). Development strategy is the means of implementing the development process guided by a specific ideology (Hettne, 1995). Goldsworthy (1988) argues that much of development thinking remains politically uninformed and more attention is needed to clarify the ideological underpinnings of development theory, as displayed in

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

35

Table 2.1 Political ideological underpinnings of development thinking Conservative

Liberal

Radical

Market Open market competition Minimal state role Authoritarian Strong role of state allied with capital Top down development

Non-structural reformist Direct assault on poverty Basic needs

Social struggle Marxist Class struggle as route to development Commandist Leninist Political elite commands economy to organise production in the name of the people

Structural reformist Broad based reforms for greater social distribution of power and wealth Land reform

Source: Goldsworthy, 1988.

Table 2.1. Goldsworthy (1988) also suggests that all development theories, policies, plans and strategies consciously or unconsciously express a preferred notion of what development is and these preferences in turn reflect values. The recognition of the inherent value systems and political underpinnings in development theories illustrate that development has a powerful normative component. Hettne (2001) distinguishes between mainstream and counterpoint when theorising on development. Mainstream refers to the dominant view from the state or market perspective while counterpoint focuses on oppositional ideas from ‘civil society’ made by or on behalf of those excluded from the development process. Mainstream and counterpoint are contrasting positions within a particular development discourse (Hettne, 2001). The development paradigms that evolved after World War II were products of three major influences: the US Marshall Plan, which helped to rebuild Europe after World War II resulting in a belief in managed capitalist economic and social development; an optimistic view of the future; and a sense of rising determination of the colonies to follow a path to independence (Dickenson et al., 1983). These influences led to a belief in the superiority of Western interventionist economics and that policy development was a linear process leading towards the same political, economic and social structures as those of the West (Dickenson et al., 1983). This perspective continues to be challenged from a variety of viewpoints, as will be seen in this chapter. Table 2.2 outlines chronologically seven main development paradigms, and their component parts, which have evolved since the end of World War II. It must be stressed that there are a variety of different classification systems for development theories and the information presented in Table 2.2 is only one perspective used to introduce readers to the various concepts, and which will be used to examine tourism development. The timeframes are

Development paradigms

Modernisation

Dependency

Economic neoliberalism

Alternative development

Time guide

1950s and 1960s

1950s and 1960s

Mid-1970s and 1980s

1970s and early 1980s

Table 2.2 Evolution of development theory

Grass roots

Basic needs

Structural adjustment One world

Free market

Structuralism

Dualism

Neo-colonialism

Diffusion

Stages

Selected theoretical approaches or models

Societies pass through similar development stages as Western countries Spread of growth impulses from developed areas; growth poles; trickle down effect; state involvement; regional economic development Under-development caused by exploitation by developed countries; Western cultural influence Poverty is functional to global economic growth; rich and poor – between countries and within countries, regional inequalities Domestic markets; import substitution; social reforms; protectionism; state involvement Supply side macroeconomics; free competitive market; privatisation, globalisation; Washington Consensus Focus on market forces and competitive exports New world financial system; deregulation internationalisation of production Priorities of food, housing, water, health and education People-centred development; local control of decision making; empowerment; nongovernmental organisations (NGOs)

Key concepts/strategies

36 Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

Human development

Global development

1990s and 2000s

2000s and 2010s

Global international relations and governance

Culture studies Development and human security

Developmental state-theory Civil society and social capital Transnational social movements

Human development

Post-development

Women in development; gender relations; empowerment Environmental management; meet the needs of the present generation without compromising future needs Rejection of development; postmodern-critique of metanarratives of development discourse; pluralistic ways of thinking; value local knowledge and solutions Human development; human rights; pro-poor growth; good governance; democracy; debt cancellation; conflict resolution; development as freedom; Human Development Reports; HDI State-led development Connection of citizens and state Environmentalists; indigenous peoples; feminists; peace; etc. Different world views are accommodated Complexity of conflict and chaos with state disintegration (failed states); ‘New wars’; shift to human security UN Millennium Development Goals; improvements in quality of international relations and global governance by new supranational political institutions that still are to be built

Source: After Telfer, 1996b (sources: Brohman, 1996a; Todaro, 1994); Telfer, 2009; Hettne, 2009; Knutsson, 2009; Momsen, 2004; Peet, 1999; Sahle 2009).

The impasse and post-development

Late 1980s and early 1990s

Sustainable development

Gender

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism 37

38

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

only guidelines as it can be difficult to precisely indicate when a development paradigm started. The timeframes indicate when the paradigm gained prominence after World War II. Different approaches to development may fade from favour but they do not disappear and still offer insight into the development process. The development paradigms are not all mutually exclusive and some stress directed strategies and policies as to how development should proceed (e.g. structural adjustment, basic needs) while others comment more on the underlying reasons of the existence of underdevelopment in a nation (e.g. neo-colonialism, post-development). Each new development paradigm can be viewed, in part, as a reaction against the paradigms and theories, which preceded it. Lewis et al. (2014: 19) argue that ‘all forms of development knowledge can be – and historically have been – largely understood as a series of “stories”’ and this chapter traces these ‘stories’. In examining the changes in paradigms, Rist (1997: 2) states, ‘every perspective involves a particular point of view, which should be defined so as to dispel the illusion of objectivity or exhaustiveness’.

Conceptualising Tourism’s Role in Development Theory The model presented in the introduction to this book indicates the complexity of the relationship between tourism and development. Development theory and tourism have evolved along similar time lines since World War II and have shared similar focuses and there is a growing body of work that has investigated the relationship between tourism and development (for example see Babu et al., 2008; Burns, 1999a; Burns & Novelli, 2008b; Dieke, 1993, 2000; Harrison, 1994; Holden, 2013; Ioannides, 1995; Mowforth & Munt, 1998, 2009; Opperman, 1993; Telfer, 2009; Telfer & Sharpley 2008; Woodcock & France, 1994). Tourism research advanced mainly after World War II with the rise of mass tourism (Britton, 1980). Papers on tourism can be traced to the 1930s and earlier, with the bulk of the literature on tourism evolving from the 1960s (Pearce, 1993). Tourism research initially functioned as an instrument for development with the majority of the research being conducted by planners and economists who worked for organisations including the UN, the World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Graburn & Jafari, 1991). During the 1960s, mass tourism was essentially equated with development, which was part of the modernisation paradigm. There was a belief that tourism created increases in foreign exchange and employment and that tourist expenditures generated a large multiplier effect which stimulated the local economy (Davis, 1968; Graburn & Jafari, 1991; Peppelenbosch & Templeman, 1973). However, in time, authors began to question the benefits of tourism (Bryden, 1973), indicating

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

39

that lower multiplier effects and high levels of leakages were closer to reality, resulting in a focus on the dependency paradigm. The title of de Kadt’s 1979 book Tourism: Passport to Development? indicates the uncertainty involved in using tourism as a development tool. The negative impacts of tourism in developing countries began being documented in anthropology and sociology (Graburn & Jafari, 1991). In the 1980s and 1990s, the economic neoliberal or globalisation paradigm gained prominence and tourism studies focused on international markets, competitive exports and free trade. This paradigm is still extremely influential today. With the growing importance of the environmental movement, tourism research came to embrace the concept of sustainability as part of the alternative development paradigm with ecotourism research in particular becoming more prevalent (Butler, 1993a; Holden, 2000; Pigram, 1990; Smith & Eadington, 1992; Wall, 1993a, 1993b). These changing trends in tourism research were analysed by Jafari in 1989 (cited in Smith & Eadington, 1992), who aggregated writings on tourism into four groups: the advocacy platform, the cautionary platform, the adaptancy platform and the knowledge-based platform. Initial support for tourism was called into question when the impacts of tourism were examined leading to calls for more responsible or alternative tourism. The knowledge-based platform is based on a more holistic approach with the aim of creating a scientific body of knowledge on tourism. As the 1980s moved forward, there was continued recognition that many in the world faced extreme difficulties in day-to-day living, calling into question the entire concept of development. Development thinking moved into an impasse led by those in the post-development paradigm questioning the very concept of development itself. From the impasse in the 1990s there was an emergence of a multitude of voices with different ideas, many criticising the concept of globalisation which continued to hold economic and political influence on the world stage. Many of these ideas in the 1990s and 2000s centred on the human development paradigm, focusing on human rights, civil society, human security and the pro-poor agenda. Through the 1990s and 2000s, tourism incorporated aspects of human development with pro-poor tourism and tourism-related NGOs gaining increased recognition. The most recent paradigm shift, which began in the new millennium and particularly in 2008 after the global economic crisis, is global development, which Hettne (2009) recognises as being so new it is an emerging discourse focused on improvement in the quality of international relations and global governance by way of new, yet to be realised, supranational political institutions. Tourism again has moved with the times, incorporating more global-related initiatives including contributing to the UN Millennium Development Goals and recognising global climate change. The seven main development paradigms profiled in Table 2.2 are analysed below in greater detail regarding the extent that they have informed or have the potential to inform tourism.

40

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

Modernisation Modernisation has been defined as socio-economic development which follows an evolutionary path from a traditional society to a modern society, such as North America or Western Europe (Schmidt, 1989). There is a shift from agriculture to industry and from rural to urban (see Lewis, 1954), and the money market plays a central role. The influence of the family declines and institutions become more differentiated while modern values and institutions opposed by tradition are introduced (Harrison, 1988). Modernisation has roots in a variety of different perspectives applied by non-Marxists to developing countries in the 1950s and 1960s (Harrison, 1988). Its early roots can be traced to growth theory, grounded in economics based on the transfer of Keynesian models for analysing economic growth developed in the US and Europe (Brohman, 1996b). Thinking in the time period immediately after World War II was dominated by functionalist modernisation (Svenson, 1991) and influenced by Keynesian economics, which advocates a high degree of state involvement (Asimakopulos, 1991). Rostow’s (1967) Stages of Economic Growth posited that for development to occur, a country passes through the following stages: traditional society, pre-conditions for take off, the take off, the drive to maturity and the age of high mass consumption. Developed countries had passed the stage of take off into selfsustaining growth while underdeveloped countries were still in the traditional society or the preconditions stage. Rostow (1967: 1) argued that the stages were ‘in the end, both a theory about economic growth and a more general, if still highly partial, theory about modern history as a whole’. Adherents to the Stages of Economic Growth believed that countries must save and invest a proportion of their GNP in order to have economic growth. Countries able to save 15–20% of GNP would develop at a much faster rate (Todaro, 1994). The initial economic focus expanded to include the sociological traditions of evolutionism, diffusionism, structural functionalism, systems theory and interactionism along with input from other disciplines such as political science, anthropology, psychology, economics and geography (Harrison, 1988). Economic growth was measured in terms of per capita income and GNP, while social development indicators included literacy rates, access to medical services and ownership of consumer durables (Harrison, 1988). Harrison (1992a: 9) identifies modernisation as the process of ‘westernization, whereby the internal structures of “developing” societies become more like those of the West allegedly by emulating Western development patterns’. Theories and strategies of regional economic development which focus, in part, on the transmission or diffusion of growth impulses (Browett, 1980; Higgins & Higgins, 1979; Hirschman, 1958; Myrdal, 1963; Perroux, 1955 (note see Perroux, 1988); see also Preston, 1984; Schumpeter, 1934, 1961), can

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

41

also be considered as strategies within modernisation. Perroux (1955), for example, discusses development poles, which are locations that contain propulsive enterprises that generate spread effects through investments (see Chapter 5). The system of urban areas is also seen as a dynamic agent of development (Friedmann, 1978). The regional inequalities, which occur as a result of policies of regional economic development, are discussed later in terms of dependency theory. As mentioned above, development paradigms do not disappear and modernisation contributed towards the evolution of the economic neoliberalism or globalisation paradigm explored later in this chapter. As Hartwick (2005) suggests, the demise of modernisation is premature as the neoliberal idea of copying Western countries to achieve development is not dissimilar to modernisation theory, and ideas similar to modernisation continue to direct governmental agencies and international agencies, including the World Bank. Critics have challenged the unidirectional path of development of modernisation and also the assumption that traditional values are not compatible with modernity (So, 1990). Criticism has also been directed at Western ethnocentrism embedded in the model and the fact that it does not consider alternative or traditional methods of development (Galli, 1992; Mehmet, 1995; Said, 1978, 1993; Schmidt, 1989; Wiarda, 1983). Modernisation theorists have been criticised for high levels of abstraction (So, 1990). Dependency theorists have suggested that modernisation is an ideology used to justify Western involvement and domination of the developing world. Modernisation has also come under attack from those in the post-modernism camp who argue that large-scale top-down meta-theories no longer apply universally across a diversity of environments.

Modernisation and Tourism Modernisation has been the implicit base for many studies on tourism in developing countries. Tourism has been promoted as a development strategy to transfer technology to increase employment, generate foreign exchange, increase gross domestic product, attract development capital, promote a modern way of life with Western values and generate rural transformations of traditional societies (Britton, 1982a; Cater, 1987; Harrison, 1992a; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Pi-Sunyer, 1989). The focus of tourism and modernisation has often been linked to the development of large-scale mass tourism in many developing countries. Sharpley (2003), for example, found that the development of mass tourism as a modernising growth pole in Cyprus had contributed to remarkable socio-economic development since the mid1970s. In accordance with the modernisation paradigm, the UN Conference on International Travel and Tourism in 1963 noted that governments should give more attention to tourism with regard to economic development plans

42

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

and trade agreements (Peters, 1969). Mantećon (2010) argues that Spain’s modernisation has been based to a large extent on ‘residential tourism’. This form of tourism represents not only a production model but also a type of lifestyle migration. The Spanish Stabilisation Plan of 1959, which sought to modernise Spain’s economy, had tourism as a pillar of the country’s socioeconomic modernisation as they opened up to the Western world. The increase in the balance of payments is one of the most publicised economic considerations of tourism (Baretje, 1982; Mathieson & Wall, 1982) with the tourism satellite account promoted as an improved method for keeping track of tourism statistics (Smith, 1998). Initial studies focused on the positive economic aspects of tourism (Davis, 1968; Bond & Ladman, 1980) before turning to question its value (Bryden, 1973; de Kadt, 1979a, 1979b; Diamond, 1977; Young, 1973). Van Doorn (1979, cited in Pearce, 1989) argues that tourist development can only be understood in the context of the development stage of the country. This comment reflects the design of evolutionary models of tourism linked to modernisation. Krapf (1961, cited in Pearce, 1989) focused on the economic growth of tourism and drew on Rostow’s model. Thurot (1973, cited in Pearce, 1989) linked the development of international tourism to the evolution of airline routes. Plog (1977) differentiated stages of resort development according to interests and activities of tourists, while Miossec (1976, cited in Pearce, 1989) developed a model, which depicts the structural evolution of tourist regions and identified hierarchy and specialisation. Van Doorn (1979, cited in Pearce, 1989) proposed a typology which combined the stage of tourist development with levels of social and economic development. Finally, in a widely cited model, Butler (1980) developed an evolutionary model of a tourist area based on the product life cycle that traces the evolution of resorts as they become more popular and witness the arrival of multinational corporations that are linked to free markets and Western development models. Tourism has also been promoted as a regional development tool as a form of distributive justice (Pearce, 1989). Governments seeking to even out opportunities across the country may act as an entrepreneur to attract foreign investment in line with the concepts of modernisation, creating the preconditions for economic growth (Jenkins, 1980). The regional economic development work of Myrdal and Hirschman can be seen in tourism studies that have focused on filtering economic benefits (direct, indirect and induced – Milne, 1992) through regional, national and local economies. The strategy of utilising growth impulses through the economy falls under the diffusion approach outlined in Table 2.2. Similar to the theories of Perroux (1988), Mexican government planners have used a growth pole approach when developing tourist centres along the coast (Clancy, 2001; Kemper, 1979) and infrastructure requirements for tourism have been widely used as regional development tools (Peppelenbosch & Templeman, 1973). Elsewhere,

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

43

economic concepts such as consumer and production theory, market structure, deductive modelling, cost–benefit analysis, econometric analysis and multiplier analysis have all been applied to tourism (Archer, 1982, 1977; Eadington & Redman, 1991) although the inappropriate use and calculations of multipliers have been well-documented (Archer, 1983; Bryden, 1973; Mathieson & Wall, 1982). In terms of tourists, Opperman (1992) found that active tourists (those who had stayed in at least four different locations) in Malaysia contributed more to regional development while the travel patterns of less active tourists tended to reinforce existing spatial disparities. Finally, travel and tourism are seen as being part of modern society (WTO, 1983). The production of tourism under modernity takes the form of consumption. Tourism is commoditised and consumed as an end product of experiences and enjoyment. It also appears as symbolic consumption, which is related to the culture of status differentiation and market segmentation (Wang, 2000). In the destination, however, locals may adopt these Western values and migrate to urban and resort areas in search of higher incomes resulting in the demonstration effect (Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Macnaught, 1982) (see Chapter 7).

Dependency The dependency paradigm gained prominence in the 1960s as a critique of modernisation and is one of the best-known neo-Marxist development theories (Schuurman, 1993). Proponents argue that developing countries have external and internal political, institutional and economic structures, which keep them in a dependent position relative to developed countries (Todaro, 1997). International dependence models gained increasing support, especially among intellectuals from developing countries, as a result of growing disenchantment with stages and structural change models (Todaro, 1997). Dependency theorists argued that Europe’s development, for example, was based on ‘external destruction: brutal conquest, colonial control and the stripping of non-Western societies of their peoples, resources and surpluses’ (Peet, 1999: 107). At the risk of simplifying the theoretical diversity within dependency, Hettne (1995) presented some of the common aspects of the dependency approach to development and under-development. The most important obstacle to development is not the lack of capital or entrepreneurial skills but the international division of labour. This obstacle to development is then seen as an external force as opposed to an internal force. The international division of labour is then analysed in terms of centre and periphery regions, with surpluses in the economy moving from the periphery to the centre. With the surpluses moving from the periphery to the centre, development occurred in the centre while simultaneously, under- development was occurring in the periphery. With the periphery

44

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

doomed to under- development due to its linkages with the centre, it was necessary for a developing nation to ‘disassociate itself from the world market, to break the chains of surplus extraction and to strive for national self reliance’ (Hettne, 1995: 97). Similar to modernisation, dependency has roots in a variety of different perspectives and approaches, a few of which are outlined in more detail below. The dependency school emerged from the convergence of two major intellectual trends. The first of these has its roots in Latin American structuralism, which led to the formation of the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) led by Prebisch (Cardoso, 1979; Hettne, 1995), whilst the second has roots in Marxism, including classical Marxism, MarxismLeninism and neo-Marxism. While some of the approaches related to dependency have been criticised for being vague on policy recommendations (So, 1990), the ECLA developed a series of domestic industrialisation policies based in the context of self-reliance. Theoretically, the ECLA believed that only ‘central’ nations benefited from trade whereas ‘peripheral’ nations suffered. The ECLA’s development strategy included domestic industrialisation, protectionism, and import substitution. Ideologically, the approach of the ECLA constituted a form of economic nationalism (Hettne, 1995). With its focus on domestic industrialisation and self-reliance, this chapter will later return to the structural approach in examining tourism development. The work of the broad-based school of neo-Marxists has been referred to at various times as dependency theory, world systems theory and underdevelopment theory (Harrison, 1998). Neo-Marxism reflects a transformation of Marxist thinking from the traditional approach, focusing on the concept of development with a Eurocentric view, to a more recent approach which focuses on the concept of under-development and expresses a Third World view (Hettne, 1995). The emergence of the dependency paradigm came not only from some of the perceived weaknesses of the ECLA but also as a more radical response to orthodox development thinking such as that advanced by Rostow’s Stages of Economic Growth. Oman and Wignaraja (1991) outlined three main currents of dependency in Latin America. The first is found in the writings of Furtado and Sunkel who sought to reformulate the limits of the ECLA and argued that economic policy should be reoriented towards national economic development to overcome the constraints of the centreperiphery relationship. The second current is found in the neo-Marxist views of Frank (1966) who negated the possibility of capitalist development, stating that capitalism itself leads to the ‘development of underdevelopment’. Frank argued that ‘metropolitan capitalism depends on the exploitation and active underdevelopment of an already capitalist periphery’ (Corbridge, 1995: 5). Finally, Cardoso and Faletto accepted the possibility of capitalist development and thus are closer to traditional Marxism. They acknowledged that for some parts of the periphery, ‘dependent development’ was conceivable (Oman & Wignaraja, 1991).

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

45

The neo-Marxist, neo-colonial dependency model states that the Third World exists in a state of under-development as a result of the ‘historic evolution of a highly unequal international capitalistic system of rich-poor country relationships’ (Todaro, 1994: 81). Local elites are often presented as serving the interests of, or are dependent on, multinational corporations, national bilateral-aid agencies or multilateral assistance organisations such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which can result in the perpetuation of underdevelopment (Todaro, 1997). The resulting international system leaves an unequal power relationship between the rich, developed countries (the centre) and the poor, under-developed countries (the periphery). Similarly, the dualistic dependency thesis emphasises dual societies (rich and poor), which exist between and within developed and developing countries, resulting in areas of wealth surrounded by poverty. The impoverished sectors are indispensable for the wealthy sectors as they supply them with cheap labour. This dualistic system is chronic and the gap between the two sectors is increasing (Todaro, 1994). Finally, the world system approach, often identified with Wallerstein, shares common traits with the dependency school. Within the world system, there are three main economic zones: the core, the semi-periphery and the periphery (Peet, 1999) and under-development occurs as peripheries are incorporated into the world system (Hettne, 1990). Parallels have been drawn between the dependency paradigm and post-development, which will be examined later in the chapter (Nederveen Pieterse, 1998). Dependency can also be examined in terms of regional economic development as it applies to regional inequalities. Theorists such as Myrdal (1963) and his discussion of backwash effects and Friedman’s (1966) centre-periphery model both mention the regional inequalities which result from economic development. While these theorists are not necessarily proponents of dependency, their narratives on the processes and policies of regional economic development illustrate similar concepts to those presented in various forms of dependency theory. The concept of dependency has also been applied to culture. The following comment by Desjeux (1981: 33) illustrates the influence a development project formulated in Western philosophy and organisational structures can have on a local culture: ‘Development projects tend more towards an attempt at normalising social behaviour on the basis of rules and scientific organisation of work or Western organisational models’. According to Desjeux (1981: 33), this trend is based on sociological or psychological postulates that there is one universal reality and individuals are in agreement with this organisation. This type of thinking places the weak cultures in developing countries at an extreme disadvantage. The integration of local culture into development projects also becomes difficult as people who are removed from and do not participate in the culture, often make decisions on development in the host’s local culture (Desjeux, 1981).

46

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

Dependency theory has faced a wide range of criticisms which mirror its diversity of approaches. It is criticised for being highly abstract, pessimistic, rhetorical and for emphasising external conditions over internal factors (So, 1990). Booth’s (1985) well-known critique of dependency argued on a number of fronts, including the fact that the meta-theoretical influences within Marxism have led to grand simplifications, which are either wrong or too general to be relevant to the most important practical issues facing development economists (see also Booth, 1993). Critics argue that the dependency perspective, with the exception of the structuralist school, is vague on policy recommendations and does not identify concrete plans for newly independent states (So, 1990). Friedmann and Douglas (1978) have published a critique of the development strategy of the dualistic dependency theory. The protectionist policies and isolationism of the structural school have also been criticised for being overly optimistic about the point that industrialisation would end all development problems (So, 1990; Cardoso, 1979).

Dependency and Tourism Tourism has been accused of creating the equivalent of a new type of plantation economy. Tourism destinations in the developing world are the ‘pleasure periphery’ (the tourism belt that surrounds the industrialised zones of the world) ‘where the rich of the world relax and intermingle’ (Turner & Ash, 1975: 12). The needs of the metropolitan centre are being met by the developing countries where the wealth generated from tourism is transferred from the ‘colony to the motherland’ (Mathews, 1978). The predominance of foreign ownership in the industry imposes structural dependency on developing countries (Britton, 1989) in a core-periphery relationship preventing destinations from fully benefiting from tourism (Nash & Smith, 1991). Dependency has been one of the dominant development theories used in tourism research, and it has been explored by several authors (Britton, 1982a, 1987a, 1987b, 1989; Chaperon & Bramwell, 2013; Harrison, 1995a; Høivik & Heiberg, 1980; Hills & Lundgren, 1977; Lacher & Nepal, 2010; Mathews & Richter, 1991; Mbaiwa, 2005b; Mowforth & Munt, 2009; Turner, 1976a; Wellings & Crush, 1983; and Wu, 1982). The basis of the dependency argument lies in the organisation of the tourism industry and in the structure of Third World economies (Lea, 1988). Muller (1979) has argued that multinational corporations have led to the under-development of the Third World. The controlling and integrating force in international tourism has become the large multinational First World companies which control airlines, cruise ships, tour wholesaling and hotel chains. In the airline industry, alliances such as the Star Alliance and One World have 26 and 14 member airlines respectively and dominate the skies, and even ecotourism can be externally controlled, as in the Okavango Delta of Botswana where foreign safari

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

47

companies and investors dominate the tourism industry (Mbaiwa, 2005b). These companies are able to create, coordinate and market the components of the industry to develop a tourism product (Britton, 1982a) and, in the case of Crete, the tourism industry is heavily dependant on foreign tour operators (Andriotis, 2004). Britton (1982a) developed a three-tiered structural model of Third World tourism (headquarters, branch offices, small-scale tourist enterprises), which indicates the lack of control that many Third World countries have over their tourist industry. Developing countries become locked into the marketing system of comprehensive, standardised tourism packages organised in developed countries. Tourist destinations rely on multinational corporations for tourism infrastructure and tourists (Britton, 1982a). The control of foreign and local dominant capitalist firms is perpetuated through commercial practices, which include: control over tourism technology (communications), industry expertise, product design and pricing, and economies of scale. The dominant firms in the hierarchy are able to control the lower firms and penetrate their markets (Britton, 1982a). The inability of agricultural and manufacturing sectors in many developing countries to guarantee the quality and continuous supply of inputs to the tourist sector often results in the reliance on imported supplies (Britton, 1982a). This power structure reinforces the dependency and the vulnerability of developing countries. In trying to understand the social and institutional processes along with the economic situation of how certain elites come to benefit, Britton (1982a) was among the first to examine the political economy of tourism. The structure of developing economies is exploited by the tourist industry as the economy is often linked to the colonial past. Metropolitan companies and governments have maintained the special trading relationships with local elites who gain from the less than equal share of income and profits remaining in the peripheral economy (Lea, 1988). Dieke (2000) has focused on the political economy of tourism in Africa, arguing that in the pursuit of tourism as a means of development, one needs to consider that governments responsible for tourism interact with pressure groups, which may lead them to pursue a certain type of development policy. The political economy of tourism is considered more in-depth later in this volume (Chapter 10) in the context of recent transformations in the global capitalist order. Centre-periphery relationships in tourism have been explored by several authors (Brown & Hall, 2000; Christaller, 1963; Høivik & Heiberg, 1980; Husbands, 1981; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Keller, 1984; Murphy, 1985; Smith, 1989). Lundgren (1973, cited in Mathieson & Wall, 1982) referred directly to Myrdal and Hirschman when commenting on the relationship between the metropolitan centre and the tourist destination (periphery). The migration of workers from the rural areas to the tourist destinations can be linked with backwash effects (Myrdal) or polarisation (Hirschman). In outlining the main tourism issues facing peripheral areas in Europe, Wanhill (1997) noted that there are often limited organisational structures, a lack of

48

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

planning and direction and little statistical information. Lacher and Nepal (2010: 964) examined the dependent relationship of four tourism-related villages in the periphery in Northern Thailand and a corresponding urban area, noting that the peripheral regions in most developing countries have to deal with ‘uneven terms of trade, economic exploitation, and political manipulations from central governments’. Political dependency and tourism have been explored in the context of the peripheral island of Gozo, where political decisions on their tourism development were made on the main island of Malta (Chaperon & Bramwell, 2013). Others have also explored the issue of dependency of small islands along with the dangers that are apparent when these islands rely on tourism for their livelihoods (Boissevain, 1979; Britton, 1987a; Francisco, 1983; Macnaughten, 1982; Oglethorpe, 1984; Pérez, 1980; Wilkinson, 1987). Bertram (1986), however, argues that there are regions, such as small islands, where ‘dependent development’ is sustainable and preferable to the drive for self-reliance and where migrant labour remittances, licensing fees from foreign fishing vessels and tourism should be pursued. One of the origins of dependency is the structuralism school, which has domestic industrialism as one of its main strategies of development. During the post-war tourism expansion, a number of newly independent states pursued state-led tourism development, including the creation of domestic hotel chains to modernise the country and to promote economic self-reliance (Curry, 1990). In Tunisia, for example, 40% of the accommodation was built with state funds from 1960–1965 (de Kadt, 1979b). The difficulty with this approach of building a state-led tourism industry will, however, be pointed out in the following section on economic neoliberalism. In the end, many of these countries had to borrow money from international lending agencies for large-scale tourism projects. Dependency is also discussed in the tourism literature in terms of cultural dependency, which evolves with mass tourism (Erisman, 1983; Nash, 1989). The demonstration effect, whereby locals adopt the tourists’ values and behaviour, illustrates the role of tourism in cultural change. Developing countries were seen to be on the receiving end of these impacts. However, Wall (1995) has suggested that this notion of impacts and dependency needs to be changed as communities are not only impacted by tourism but also respond to it. There have been efforts to apply greater levels of theoretical sophistication to the nature of the impacts of tourism and also how people such as entrepreneurs respond to opportunities (see Bras, 1997; Hashimoto & Telfer, 2004).

Economic Neoliberalism While some theorists called for the creation of a hybrid approach incorporating modernisation and dependency-world systems perspectives, others

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

49

moved in the direction of neoliberalism (Brohman, 1996b). The development of economic neoliberalism was a reaction against the policies of strong state intervention, including those promoted by structural dependency theorists. Economic neoliberalism, also referred to as globalisation, focuses on free trade and limited state involvement in the global economy. The neoliberal ‘counterrevolution’ was dedicated to counteracting the impact Keynesianism had on development theory (Brohman, 1996b). Economic neoliberalism gained popularity following the oil crisis in the early 1970s and the subsequent restructuring of international capitalism which led to a redefinition of the role of the state and, thus, the end of Keynesianism and the welfare state (Schuurman, 1993). The rise of conservative governments in the US, Canada, Britain and West Germany in the 1980s continued to influence this revolution in thinking (Todaro, 1994). Neoliberalism draws on neoclassical economic theory which ‘treats people as atomistic individuals who are bound together only through market forces’ (Brohman, 1995: 297). It also has roots in the work of Adam Smith and his principle of laissez-faire and David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, which both call for a minimalist approach to state involvement in economic transactions (Brohman, 1996b). The movement favours supply-side macroeconomics, free competitive markets and the privatisation of state enterprises. It has also been referred to as the ‘Washington Consensus’, where globalisation is seen as a process of international integration (Klak, 1998: 3). Developing countries are encouraged to welcome private investors from developed countries. As outlined by Lal (1985: 36), the problems of developing countries are not due to market problems but to ‘irrational government interventions’, including foreign trade controls, price controls and inflationary financing of fiscal deficits. The resulting shift placed new emphasis on ‘supply-side factors, private investment, market-led growth and outward development while turning away from older developmentalist policies based in demand stimulation, import substitution, state intervention and centralized development planning’ (Brohmam, 1996b: 27). The Washington Consensus refers to a set of policy recommendations linked to agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF which include: fiscal discipline; redirection of public expenditures; tax reform; financial liberalisation; adopting a single competitive exchange rate; trade liberalisation; eliminating barriers to foreign investment; privatisation of state-owned enterprises; deregulating market entry and competition; and ensuring property rights (Storey, 2005). International lending agencies would provide loans to structurally adjust receiving economies to follow the Washington Consensus. Early structural adjustment models of development formed part of the modernisation paradigm and focused on mechanisms in the economy which would transform a subsistence agricultural society to a modern urbanised society (see Lewis, 1954, unlimited supplies of labour theory). Chenery and Syrquin’s (1975) comparative studies (cross section and longitudinal) on

50

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

developing countries identified the ‘correct’ combination of development policies for sustained growth. These policies included a shift from agriculture to industry and a change in consumer demand to manufactured goods and services. The World Bank, the IMF and other international development agencies invested large amounts of resources in Structural Adjustment Lending Programmes (SALP) (Mosley & Toye, 1988). SALP are directed at specific policy changes within the receiving countries. The objectives of SALP focus on financial, macroeconomic and microeconomic adjustments, which include: removing import quotas, reforming budgets, dissolving the powers of state marketing boards, currency devaluation, reducing inflation, downsizing public services, privatisation of public enterprises and export promotion (Konadu-Agyemang, 2000; Mohan et al., 2000; Mosley & Toye, 1988). The SALPs imply that the strategies of the international monetary agencies will lead to the correct path of development (Singer & Ansari, 1992) and it is the endogenous factors that serve as impediments to development and not the exogenous factors that are problems as cited by those in the dependency arena (Konadu-Agyemang, 2000). The SALP of the IMF and neoliberal theory have strong links to monetarist economics. Monetarist economics can be traced to equilibrium theorists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries who advocated using interest rate adjustments for sustained economic equilibrium with lower rates promoting increased growth. In addition, the quantity theory of money is central to monetarism. Macroeconomic problems such as inflationary pressures and indebtedness of developing countries are viewed as monetary problems as a result of excess government spending and other demand stimulation, which has driven up the quantity of money in the economy to an unsustainable level (Brohman, 1996b). McKay (1990) argues that the dominant model, which prevails among policymakers and among those controlling investment funds, is a global model which supports the notion of ‘one world’. Like other neoliberal approaches towards development, this model stresses the efficiency of the free market in the allocation of resources, deregulation and export orientation. It attributes, however, even more importance to international money markets in the ‘one world’ or global market. Neoliberals also support a monoeconomic approach whereby the problems of developing countries are amenable to general solutions based on standard economic principles rather than proposing different solutions for developing countries (Brohman, 1996b). Economic neoliberalism has been criticised for its financial strategies (SALP) and being dominated by Western countries. SALPs have been criticised for their national or regional outlook and, more specifically, for their dire social implications, such as declining standards of living and growth of poverty. It is argued that privileged groups who have access to resources and key contacts can take advantage of the new outward economy while the disadvantaged groups face a shrinking domestic economy, falling wages, removal of labour regulations, rising prices for basic consumption and

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

51

cutbacks in social assistance programmes (Brohman, 1996b). Poor women and children have particularly been noted to suffer the effects of structural adjustment policies. Criticisms of the IMF, including its devaluation policy of the Mexican peso (Drouin, 1995) and its emergency rescue packages for Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea in the context of the Asian economic crisis (Hale, 1998) are a reflection of disillusionment with these policies. Kendie (1995) argues that structural adjustment programmes need restructuring to include environmental dimensions. The main focus of structural adjustment programmes has been to reform the political economy without properly linking the measures to the democratic process. It has been argued that this has resulted in the strengthening of national and transnational elites in the new economic order (Dieke, 1995). Critics of the new global economic order, such as Strange (1988, 1996), argue that governments of all states have been weakened with the accelerated integration of national economies into a single global market economy and they criticise the power of international organisations. Chomsky (1999: 7) critically writes that ‘neoliberalism is the defining political economic paradigm of our time – it refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit’. Protests at meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle, the IMF in Prague and the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City were also seen to be the start of the growing disenchantment with the policies of international financial agencies. Neoliberalism has also been criticised for its association with orthodox neoclassical theory. Neoclassical theory, in turn, has been criticised as it neglects sociocultural and political relations, environment and sustainability issues, and the intersubjective realm of meaning and values of development (Brohman, 1995). It is usually said that when a development project fails it is because no account has been taken of the qualitative variables i.e. of culture in the broadest sense of the term: that cultural model, traditions or irrational behaviour restrain the introduction of rational and universal technicoeconomic innovations. (Desjeux, 1981: 37)

Economic Neoliberalism and Tourism Under economic neoliberalism, multinational tourism companies (e.g. hotels, airlines, cruise ships) should be free to operate across national borders unfettered by onerous regulations or protectionist measures. Liberalisation of trade rules in the airline industry as seen in Open Skies Agreements between nations (e.g. EU–USA) illustrates the movement to remove trade barriers in tourism (Micco & Serebrisky, 2006), while cruise ships operate

52

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

under flags of convenience taking advantage of fewer regulations. Brohman (1996a: 51) suggests that ‘serving as a centre piece for the neoliberal strategy of outward-oriented development in many countries is the promotion of new growth sectors such as tourism or nontraditional exports (NTEs)’. In the race to attract international investors to open tourism businesses such as hotels, destination governments compete against each other offering attractive investment incentives. In 1980, the government of Turkey shifted its policies towards the private sector and passed The Foreign Investment Law allowing up to 100% foreign investment in projects or joint ventures with Turkish development banks and companies. The Tourism Encouragement Act of 1982 provided similar encouragement for investment in tourism (Inskeep, 1991). Today, Dubai which is well known for its iconic tourism-related infrastructure, such as the Palm Islands, is an example of a destination actively promoting tourism through investment incentives in the Jebel Ali Free Zone and Airport Free Zone, which includes 100% foreign ownership and control, renewable 15-year guarantee of no taxation, no customs duties, flexible investment opportunities and more (Dubai Department of Tourism and Commence Marketing, 2014). In a related strategy, outsourcing has also increased in the tourism industry (e.g. catering, ticket booking, and so on: see Chapter 10) allowing the industry to take advantage of lower costs and efficiencies. In economic neoliberalism, there is an emphasis on privatisation with the integration of markets. The UN World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) also highlighted the importance of the international monetary markets for tourism in their study on the impact of the Euro on tourism. This study noted that the Euro will have a direct effect on the business environment for tourism by eliminating exchange rate fluctuations, guaranteeing price stability and making prices across borders denominated by a single currency, all of which will increase market transparency (WTO, 1998a). Tourism is an export industry and a wide range of international aid agencies has provided funding to develop tourism plans and tourism infrastructure (see Hawkins & Mann, 2007). These loans were increased starting in the 1960s (Diamond, 1977). The European Union (EU), for example, has provided assistance to developing countries in the following areas: infrastructure, human resources, product and market development, preservation of resources and strategy development. More concretely, the EU provided funding to ACP (Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific) countries under the Lome Convention. Lome III (1986–1990) was the first to mention tourism extensively under new chapters as an integral part of cooperation and trade services (Lee, 1987). The EU has also provided funding for tourism development through the LEADER programme, which is explored in Chapter 5. International funding for tourism started within the modernisation framework in the 1960s. The importance of tourism as an economic activity designed to earn foreign exchange increased after the global shift towards economic neoliberalism. The World Bank has funded a range of tourism policy plans and

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

53

resorts, including Nusa Dua Resort in Bali (US$14.3 million), Pomun Lake Reso, Republic of Korea (US$25 million), Puerto Plata Resort, Dominican Republic (US$25 million), and the South Antalya Tourism Development Project, Turkey (US$26 million) (Inskeep & Kallenberg, 1992). While the World Bank has not had a department dedicated to tourism since 1979, two of the agencies within the World Bank Group, including the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), have been actively involved in the sector. The IFC’s tourism investments involve (i) early investment in transitional economies opening up the private sector; (ii) creation of critical hotel infrastructure for business development; and (iii) supporting rehabilitation and upgrading of existing and obsolete hotel infrastructure, targeting countries with few development prospects but where tourism has the potential of becoming an important part of the economy and contributing to the dispersal of economic activity throughout a country (Pryce, 1998). The mandate of MIGA is to promote the flow of foreign investments into and between developing countries. While efforts are underway to raise the profile of tourism within the World Bank Group, most of the projects that are carried out can be classified into one of the following categories: infrastructure; environmental programmes, where the focus is frequently on ecotourism; cultural heritage protection; and small and medium-sized enterprise programmes (Pryce, 1998). Writing in 2007, Hawkins and Mann indicated that there were 164 World Bank projects with a value of $3.5 billion linked to tourism in some way. In their analysis of the World Bank funding guideline, Hawkins and Mann (2007) interestingly indicated there was a shift over time towards an expanded notion of development by incorporating sustainable development and micro development projects discussed later in this chapter. With an emphasis on competitive exports and an increase in international loans for tourism development, there were inevitably links to structural adjustment lending programmes. As a condition to accepting some loans, destinations had to take steps to restructure their economy. Dieke (1995) was one of the first to explicitly examine the relationship between tourism and structural adjustment programmes. As a result of the severe economic slump in economic activity from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, 29 African countries implemented, to some degree, structural adjustment programmes. These programmes, inspired by the World Bank and IMF, took the form of: reducing the size of the government workforces, reducing state monopolies, selling state assets to private companies and liberalising the economy to allow foreign investment. The last of these options relates directly to tourism enterprises (Dieke, 1995). Structural adjustment programmes have reduced the influence of the state system and highlighted the strategic importance of the private sector in the development of tourism. Dieke (1995) argues the government has important functions, which are seen as enabling rather than operational for the tourist sector. Governments

54

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

need to provide assurances for items such as investment incentives and tax holidays, which will stimulate the participation of private companies in the tourism sector. Governments in Africa have permitted an increased role of the private sector in the development of tourism, recognising the role of the market in the efficient use of resources (Dieke, 1995). However, structural adjustment lending programmes have been heavily criticised for causing hardships for citizens on a number of fronts. In a study on structural adjustment programmes and tourism in Ghana from 1983–1999, KondaduAgyemang (2000, 2001) noted the negative impacts were the retrenchment of over 300,000 workers, currency devaluation, increasing socio-economic and spatial disparities, rising mortality rates and a decline in nutrition. However Kondadu-Agyemang (2000, 2001) notes that the structural adjustment programme’s efforts in transforming the economy may have helped transform the tourism industry from obscurity to a top foreign exchange earner for Ghana, but suggests that adjustments should be made to structural adjustment policies (SAP) to render them more humane.

Alternative Development Since the early postwar period, mainstream development strategies centred on economic growth and top-down diffusion of growth impulses (Brohman, 1996b). The alternative development paradigm is a pragmatic, broad-based approach which arose out of the criticisms of these models. Schmidt (1989) argues that there are inherent contradictions in social theories of economic change which were developed by urbanised thinkers, and which were based on development concepts from industrialised countries. Edwards (1989) writes on the irrelevance of development studies, arguing for more practical research which appreciates indigenous knowledge systems and popular participation. The various alternatives to the Eurocentric, metanarrative, economic models are centred on people and the environment and the planning focus is often from the bottom up. The dissatisfaction with mainstream development models became widespread in the development community in the early 1970s and many international and bilateral aid agencies began searching for alternative, more people-oriented approaches (Brohman, 1996b). The basic needs approach begins with providing opportunities for full physical, mental and social development of the human personality (Streeten, 1977; see Maslow, 1970, for hierarchy of needs). Direct attacks are made on problems such as infant mortality, malnutrition, disease, literacy and sanitation (Streeten, 1977). Meanwhile, indigenous theories of development are promoted as they incorporate local conditions and knowledge systems (Chipeta, 1981; Schafer, 1989). There is a call for increased local involvement in the development process (Alamgir, 1988; Bock, 1989; Haq, 1988; Pretty, 1994; Telfer, 2000a,

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

55

2003; Telfer & Wall, 1996, 2000). Increased participation is then linked to the concepts of empowerment and local control over decision-making (Brohman, 1996b). Indigenous development theory received greater attention as did increased recognition of the role of women in local development (Awa, 1989; Brohman, 1996b; Gladwin, 1980; Norem et al., 1989; Momsen, 2004). Moser (1989) identified five historical approaches to gender studies, which include welfare, equity, anti-poverty, efficiency and empowerment. The UN declared the decade from 1975–1985 as the Decade for Women, which coincided with the Women in Development Approach. The South Commission (1990) redefined development to be self-directed and focused on self-reliance. The process of involving local populations and empowering them is the focus of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (Chambers, 1994). Other grass-roots approaches include the learning process approach (Korten, 1980), the participatory approach (Edwards, 1989) and the structured flexibility approach (Brinkerhoff & Ingle, 1989). Nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) have increasingly played a role in local and community-based development initiatives without the burden of government responsibility. NGOs have been able to engage in extensive participatory fieldwork generating innovative solutions to local problems rather than standardised state solutions (Brohman, 1996b). Friedmann (1966), who proposed the well-known ‘centre-periphery’ model, reversed his position (Friedmann & Forest, 1988) acknowledging the politics of place. He advocates for planning and development based on social learning and indigenous approaches. Some of these perspectives on the alternative development paradigm have been carried through into the human development paradigm which is discussed later in this chapter. Along with a focus on people, alternative development is closely connected to the environment and sustainability. The concept of sustainability has developed with the realisation that environmental resources are limited on our planet (Loening, 1990). Highlighted by the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development’s (WCED) Our Common Future (1987) and the 1992 AGENDA 21 (Keating, 1994), sustainability has come to mean meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. As Redclift (1987) suggests, the dominant modernisation, dependency neoclassical paradigms did not incorporate the environment into development. Now, however, ecological processes and resources are being increasingly considered as part of the economic system (Barbier, 1989) (see Chapters 3, 9 and 15). The links between the environment and politics have also come to the forefront in the field of political ecology, which attempts to describe the spatial and temporal impacts of capitalism on Third World people and environments (Bryant & Bailey, 1997). Additional environmental conferences, such as the Rio + 20 Conference in 2012 and the UNDP’s Green Economy Initiative launched in 2008, which focuses on an economy that results in ‘improved human well-being and social equity, while

56

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities’ (UNDP, 2014), illustrate the continued prominence of the environment in development discourse which continues into the global development paradigm discussed later. In addition to increased environmental awareness, the concept of sustainability recognises the role of local communities in development. The following comment illustrates the need to understand culture in relation to sustainability: Specialists trained in western science often fail to recognise indigenous ecological knowledge because of the culture and religious ways in which indigenous peoples record and transmit that learning. Ways of life that are developed over scores of generations could only thrive by encoding ecological sustainability into the body of practice, myth and taboo that passes from parent to child. (Durning, 1993: 91) Pretty (1994) developed a typology of seven forms of how people participate in development programmes and projects. Participation ranges from passive participation, where people are told what development project is proceeding, to self-mobilisation, where people take initiatives independent of external institutions. Pretty argues that for development to be sustainable, then at least the fifth level of participation (functional participation) must be achieved. Functional participation includes the forming of groups by local people to meet predetermined objectives related to the development project. The sixth level is interactive participation, which involves people participating in joint analysis of the development projects, which leads to action plans and institutional strengthening. The seventh stage of participation is self-mobilisation as outlined above. Criticisms of alternative development are as varied as its approaches. Criticisms of the basic needs approach include: it may impede economic growth in the long term, it underestimates the importance of political change, and it can lead to too much state control (Van Der Hoeven, 1988). Critics of indigenous development theories cite problems of consensus building, barriers to participation, lack of accountability, weak institutions, and lack of integration with international funding sources (Brinkerhoff & Ingle, 1989; Wiarda, 1983). More generally, the term sustainable development is criticised for being vague (see Chapters 9 and 15). There are multiple definitions of the term depending on the problem being addressed (Arnold, 1989). Policymakers are forced to decide what constitutes sustainability criteria and at what level they should be applied (project, regional, national, global). Questions are raised as to what should be sustained, and who decides what should be sustained. One consensus surrounding the definition is that it may be defined differently in terms of each culture. However, Redclift (2000) argues this is

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

57

superficially convenient. Difficulties also arise in measuring and quantifying environmental impacts. Graf (1992: 553) argues that the WCED reasserts the ‘Northern global ideological hegemony’. There has also been a shift in focus, which has raised criticism. In the 1980s, environmentalists were usually concerned with the local or national space and with ideas such as eco-development or self-reliance that aimed to increase political and economic independence of a place by reconnecting ecological resource flows. However, in more recent years, environmentalists have taken on a global view, in part an outcome of space travel, whereby the planet has become a visible object from space. This shift to global environmental management, however, can also be seen to be in conflict with the aspirations of cultural rights, democracy, self-determination and present a threat to local communities and their lifestyles (Sachs, 1996).

Alternative Development and Tourism Following similar trends in development theory with the dissatisfaction of existing development philosophies, many tourism analysts became disillusioned with mass tourism in favour of alternative tourism (Brohman, 1996b). Alternative tourism has been defined as tourism that is consistent with natural, social and community values, which allows hosts and guests to enjoy worthwhile interaction and shared experiences (Eadington & Smith, 1992). Writing in 1996, Brohman (1996b) suggested that alternative tourism had emerged as one of the most widely used (and abused) phrases in the tourism literature over the previous decade. He suggested there are a number of recurring themes which can be utilised to define the concept. Alternative tourism strategies stress the following: ‘small scale, locally-owned developments, community participation, and cultural and environmental sustainability’ (Brohman, 1995: 65). Within the alternative development paradigm, tourism authors have written on a range of issues such as community-based tourism, ecotourism, empowerment of local communities, the role of women in tourism, indigenous tourism development and sustainable tourism development. There are, however, debates over the definition; indeed, Butler (1992) likens alternative tourism to sustainable development in that it sounds attractive and suggests a new approach and philosophy to an old problem, but the phrase can mean almost anything to anyone. One of the challenges with focusing on the scale dimension of alternative tourism is that it sets up a false dichotomy whereby small-scale tourism is assumed to be sustainable while large-scale tourism is unsustainable. The debate on the issue of scale has, however, largely moved on to making all forms of tourism more sustainable. This shift towards sustainability in tourism was evident with the launching of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism in 1993. Telfer (2013) provides a detailed analysis of the 1987 Brundtland Report and the resulting

58

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

influences on the study and practice of sustainable tourism. The debates and criticisms surrounding the term sustainable development were incorporated into research on tourism, including what is sustainable tourism development and who decides what is sustainable in various contexts (Hall, 2000; Hall & Lew, 1998; Mowforth & Munt, 1998, 2009) (see Chapter 9). Saarinen (2006) identified three main traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. The resource-based tradition reflects on the limits of resources and the need to protect nature and local culture. The activity-based tradition refers to the resource needs of the industry for present and future development in order to sustain economic capital investment in tourism. The third is the community-based tradition, which focuses on wider involvement and empowerment of various actors especially host communities with an emphasis on social capital. Saarinen (2006) argues it is the activity-based tradition that is the widely accepted hegemonic idea of sustainability as it reflects the idea that tourism as a tool for development can contribute to sustainability. There was increased recognition that tourism planning must be guided by principles of sustainable development (Gunn, 1994; Holden, 2000; Inskeep, 1991) and this was promoted by the UNWTO. Researchers began examining the fact that indigenous communities are not only impacted by tourism but they respond to it through entrepreneurial activity (Dahles 1997; Long & Wall, 1993; Lundgren, 1975; Shaw & Williams, 1990, 1994, 1998; Telfer, 2000; Telfer & Wall, 1996; Wall, 1995; Wahnschafft, 1982). Long and Wall (1996) studied small-scale lodging establishments in Bali and found that conversion into homestays allowed residents to be entrepreneurs in tourism, but there were social and environmental costs. In Tufi, Papua New Guinea, Ranck (1987) found that small-scale guesthouses based on local ownership and management is a viable industry. They used local labour and construction materials and few imported foods. Archer (1978) found that domestic tourism may be a better generator of local income than international tourism as it relies more on local sources. Telfer and Wall (1996) examined the response of local farmers and fishermen to the introduction of tourism on the island of Lombok, Indonesia. Authors in the field of tourism planning also began to stress the need for local community involvement and empowerment in the planning process (Gunn, 1994; Hall, 1994c; Inskeep, 1991; Jamal & Getz, 1995; Murphy, 1983; Simmons, 1994); however, there are often institutional obstacles in developing countries to community involvement, which may be difficult to overcome in these destinations (Sofield, 1993). Some of the obstacles for increased community development are explored in Chapters 6 and 7. As part of understanding the empowerment of local people in the tourism industry, authors also explored the nature of gender, work and tourism (Apostolopoulos et al., 2001; Cukier, 2002; Kinnaird & Hall, 1994; Sinclair, 1997; Hashimoto & Telfer, 2011; Wilkinson & Pratiwi, 1995).

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

59

Tourism researchers have increasingly explored the tourism industry’s efforts to adopt more sustainable practices, including environmental audits, codes of conduct and initiatives such as the Green Globe scheme (an international environmental awareness programme for the tourism industry), which arose out of the 1992 Rio Conference and was launched in 1994 (Mowforth & Munt, 1998). Font (2001) examined over 70 tourism environmental certification schemes as various authors and agencies began outlining principles and guidelines for sustainable tourism development (Eber, 1992; Pigram, 1990; WTO, 1993). In 1995, Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry was released by the World Travel and Tourism Council, the UNWTO and the Earth Council. Looking ahead to the global development paradigm discussed later in this chapter, a more recent certification scheme is the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria. The tourism industry also moved towards developing corporate social responsibility (CSR) statements (some posted on their websites); however, the debate surrounding all of these initiatives is whether they work or whether they are more of a marketing tool. Codes of conduct were also developed to encourage tourists to behave in a responsible manner, but will tourists voluntarily change their behaviour (see Chapter 12)? Within sustainability came the promotion of certain types of tourism, such as ecotourism (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1991; Fennell, 1999) and community-based tourism (see Chapter 6). Using the concepts of sustainability and community involvement, ecotourism proclaims to preserve fragile and protected areas (see Chapter 6). Hashimoto and Telfer examined the challenges for ecotourism in Canada’s north for aboriginal peoples, which included a fragile environment, lack of accessibility, expectations of tourists, level of indigenous control, level of experience in tourism businesses and lack of capital. They also noted that ‘the use of the ecotourism label developed from the Eurocentric exogenous tourism industry may clash with the social and cultural values of the aboriginal communities’ (Hashimoto & Telfer, 2004: 223). Elsewhere, Horochowski and Moisey (1999) investigated the role of environmental NGOs in sustainable tourism development in Northern Honduras. The study investigated the local population’s support for ecotourism and found that strategies adopted by the NGOs which emphasised local participation were most likely to achieve development and resource sustainability. One NGO which has received a great deal of attention in the media is UK-based Tourism Concern, which draws attention to exploitation in international tourism, often in developing countries. Questions continue to surround sustainability and Sharpley (2009b) suggests there is a significant gap between the idealism of sustainable tourism development and the reality of tourism development in practice. He suggests there is an impasse in the academic study of sustainable tourism and it is time to move beyond the restrictive and managerialist ideals and offers a destination capitals model as an alternative framework (see Chapter 15).

60

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

The Impasse in Development Studies and Post-development Until the mid-1980s, post-World War II development shared at least three characteristics and these included: (1) The essentialisation of the Third World and its inhabitants as homogeneous entities. (2) The unconditional belief in the concept of progress and the makeability of society. (3) The importance of the (nation) state as an analytical frame of reference and a political and scientific confidence in the role of the state to realize progress. (Schuurman, 2000: 8) However, frustration developed around these characteristics, leading to what has become known as the impasse in development studies. Writing in 1993, Schuurman identified seven reasons for the impasse in development studies: (1) realisation that the gap between rich and poor nations was continuing to widen; (2) recognition that developing countries were more concerned with shortterm policies to keep their heads above water in terms of debt and not able to implement policies on intermediate or long-term bases; (3) economic growth was having major impacts on the environment and advocates of sustainable development called for reduced growth which does not correlate with existing development theories; (4) socialism was no longer seen as viable politically to solve development problems; (5) with world markets and globalisation there was recognition that traditional development theories that focused on the role of the state did not coincide with the reduction in state power; (6) recognition that a homogeneous ‘Third World’ did not exist; (7) rise of postmodernism in social science undermining grand narratives. (Cited in Telfer, 2009) Other authors also identified related causes for the impasse. Binns and Nel (1999) argued that the general failure of grand development narratives in the post-World War II era, the theoretical vacuum left with the collapse of state socialism in the 1980s and dubious results of structural adjustment combined to create the impasse in development thinking in the 1990s. In fact, the 1980s have been referred to as the lost decade of development. Schuurman (1993, cited in Hettne, 2009) also identified the three main causes for the paradigm

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

61

crisis as being the failure of development in the south, the postmodern critique and the rise of globalisation, which raised questions on how development could take place with the state no longer being a major player. Schuuramn (2000) indicated that, in the second half of the 1980s, there were already signs indicating a shift towards theoretical renewal, including contributions from the Regulation School as well as development within the domain of gender and environment. Schuurman (2000) suggests that development studies made it to the 21st century, but just barely. Out of the impasse ‘every imaginable paradigmatic position with respect to the question of development and underdevelopment was reviewed and awarded its own label, which varied from “anti-modernist non-development” (Sachs) via “alternative development and post-development” (Rahnema) to “reflexive development”’ (Nederveen Pieterse, 1998, cited in Schuurman, 2000: 8). Development paradigms began to lose their hegemonic status and, at the threshold of the 21st century, a loose set of partly descriptive, partly heuristic notions like civil society, social capital, diversity and risk came to the forefront (Schuurman, 2000; see also Telfer, 2009). Schuuramn (2000) refers to this time in development thought as being one of paradigmatic disorientation. From the ‘paradigmatic disorientation’ a number of authors (e.g. Escobar, 1995; Sachs, 1996), critical of traditional development theory, argued the need for a new conception or even rejection of development and their writings can be examined within post-development. Post-development as a label represents a diversified approach and, as Escobar (2000: 11) states, the works do not constitute a unified position or even a trend. Sidaway (2007: 348) even suggests that to a ‘considerable extent, post-development critiques represent reformulations of skepticism about (and alternative conceptions of) development that have been around for a long time’. Those in the post-development camp raise criticisms aimed at the various paradigms of development that have already been covered in this chapter. The commonalities in postdevelopment writing do, however, focus on critiques of Western notions and assumptions of superiority and expertise that often accompany development interventions and aid (Sidaway, 2007). The authors of the Development Dictionary took aim at the conceptual foundations of the practices of development professionals, criticising not only official declarations on development but also grass-roots movements (Peet, 1999). In an often-quoted passage, Sachs (1996: 1) stated the following: The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape. Delusion and disappointment, failures and crimes have been the steady companions of development and they all tell a common story: it did not work. Moreover, the historical conditions, which catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished: development has become outdated. But above all, the hopes and desires, which made the idea fly, are now exhausted: development has grown obsolete.

62

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

The rejection of the concept of development itself is based on a paradox and post-development writers have been criticised for offering few alternatives except the self-organising capacity of the poor (Nederveen Pieterse, 2000). Sharpley (2009b: 102) argues that, ‘with an emphasis on the discourse of development and an eclectic philosophical underpinning, post-development offers little by way of a solution to the development “impasse”’. The post-development writers favour revitalised versions of non-modern or nonWestern philosophies and cultures, as Western development is a destructive force to be resisted (Peet, 1999). In describing post-development theory in practice, Sahle (2009: 79) states that while the movements are not monolithic, they tend to ‘engage in participatory forms of politics, value local ways of knowing and solutions, seek autonomy from the state and international development institutions, and promote pluralistic ways of thinking in terms of economic, cultural and political practices’. One of the recurring themes in post-development is the support of local initiatives and the importance of community involvement in the development process (Peet, 1999).

The Impasse and Post-development and Tourism The critiques involved in post-development share some similarities with those in tourism writing on dependency, post-colonialism and the alternative development paradigm for their criticisms of foreign control and historical legacy. The debate over the value of post-development as a theoretical approach has also been addressed in the tourism literature. The overriding concept of rejecting development itself in post-development is questioned by Scheyvens (2002a), who illustrates the potential contribution of backpacker tourism to Third World development. She draws on the work of Rangan (1996), who states that it is ironic that while there are calls for a post-development era, it occurs when the voices from the margin are demanding greater access to the idea of development. Scheyvens argues that backpackers do have a role to play in the development process and the notion of rejecting all forms of tourism development when it is a desirable livelihood option in many Third World countries is inappropriate. She goes on to state that, rather than reflecting on the problems of being integrated into global tourism as underdogs, local communities often pursue the opportunities the industry can bring. Similarly, in the case of ecotourism in Celestun, Mexico, Azcárate (2006) argues that the reliance of post-development approaches severely restricts how tourism works in practice. However, Butcher and Smith (2010) argue that the politics that are behind volunteer tourism are better characterised as a rejection of modernisation as development in favour of a postdevelopment approach. In addition to the work on how post-development relates to tourism development in terms of theory, there are also debates over the concept of post-development in tourism practice. For example,

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

63

post-development raises alternative perspectives on tourism development in that tourism development should be driven by the needs of the destination (as prescribed by the destination) and resources in cooperation with external actors (Sharpley, 2009b). Sharpley (2009b) points out that this is not the same thing as community-based tourism (as highlighted above in the alternative development section), with an emphasis on a local or small-scale development as the destination can be a resort, a region or a nation-state while the community can be a national population. A criticism of post-development in the context of tourism development is that it assumes that the local structures (political, economic and social) operate both efficiently and effectively in the interests of local people and that local action would be the solution (Sharpley, 2009b). While post-development is debated both generally and in the context of tourism, in the end the value that it brings may be more with the questions it raises about the nature of development (Rapley, 2002).

Human Development Knutsson (2009) refers to the 1990s as a complex and ambiguous period in line with his claim that development thought continues to become more complex and the agents of development and levels of development analysis have multiplied. Within this emerging context, various trends have been associated or intertwined in 1990s with the concept of human development. Chapter 4 of the UNDP’s Human Development Report of 1990 commences with the following statement: ‘The 1990s are shaping up as the decade for human development’ (UNDP, 1990: 61). The report argues for accelerating economic growth, reducing absolute poverty, while preventing negative impacts on development. What is different from previous efforts is that these three elements would be clustered around the central goal of enlarging human choices. The UNDP adopted the Human Development Index (HDI), which incorporates life expectancy, education and income required for a decent standard of living (UNDP, 1990). Linked to human development at this time were concepts that came to the foreground, including human rights, good governance, democracy, civil society, poverty reduction strategies (PRS), debt cancellation and human security (Knutsson, 2009). The Poverty Reduction Papers were a replacement for the SAPs noted under economic neoliberalism above and are linked to shifts towards human development and pro-poor growth. Sen’s (1999) Development as Freedom focused on expanding people’s capabilities in terms of development and was a significant contribution to this area of development thought. In the 1990s and into the first decade of 2000, there was a shift away from the commitment to market liberalisation with a new concern for the capacity of states and their ability to support markets and citizens along with neo-institutionalist economics stressing the regulatory role the state

64

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

must play in a capitalist economy (Bately, 2002). Saul’s (2005) book entitled The Collapse of Globalisation and the Reinvention of the World reflects the shift away from the Washington Consensus and raises questions about market forces driving development. With the state having a reduced role under globalisation, civil society and social capital became important as a variety of organisations such as NGOs stepped in to help fill in the void. Civil society is the cooperative social relationships ‘that create bonds of trust, public opinion, legal rights and institutions and political parties that voice public opinion and call for action’ (Alexander, 1998: 3, cited in Sommerfeldt, 2013). In turn, social capital refers to the ‘features of social life – networks, norms and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives’ (Putnam, 1995: 664–665). Putnam (1995) argues that social trust and civic engagement are strongly correlated, and Lin (2001) suggests it is the elements of information, influences, social credentials and reinforcement that make social capital effective. With increased social capital and an engaged civil society there is potential for the Third sector to take an active role in development. More active engagement has led to the transnational social movements listed in Table 2.2, which strengthened in the mid1990s in opposition to neoliberal policies (Telfer, 2009). The transnational social movements cover a range of issues such as the environment, indigenous issues, feminist issues and peace, to name a few. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio and Agenda 21 and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change illustrate the growing recognition of environmental concerns (Knutsson, 2009) and NGOs were playing a bigger role in environmental awareness. Large protests at major international conferences, summits and meetings where the global economy was being discussed, such as the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle became more frequent. Transnational activism has been referred to as interest groups taking their causes across borders and the EU funding of Czech social movement organisations empowered them to engage in transnational protests (Císarˇ & Vrábliková, 2012). In the 1990s, development thinking experienced a cultural turn. Culture emerged at the heart of development, as reflected in the UN Decade for Cultural Development from 1988 to 1997 (Racliffe, 2006). The main reasons for the prominence of culture as a key concept in development include: the failure of previous development paradigms; perceptions of globalisation’s threat to cultural diversity; activism around social difference (gender, ethnicity, anti-racism); and the development of success stories in East Asia and the need for social cohesion (Racliffe, 2006: 3). Development thinking was also being challenged by Marxists, feminists and post-colonial writers who demonstrated that development was embedded in the cultural economy of Western capitalist political economies and European colonialism (Racliffe, 2006). The final component in this section on human development focuses on human security. The events of 9/11 in the United States and the subsequent

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

65

War on Terror brought the issue of security to the forefront. In addition to the these events there have been food riots, civil wars, irregular warfare, warlordism, reappearances of genocides and failing states (Hettne, 2002; Saul, 2005), also referred to as the ‘new wars’. Ghani and Lockhart (2009: 4) suggest that 40–60 states which are home to close to two billion people are either sliding backward and teetering on the brink of implosion or have already collapsed. This increasing global chaos contradicts everything that the concept of development has come to represent (Hettne, 2002). Security has been increasingly linked to human development as there has been a widening and deepening of the concept of security involving many more organisations below and above the level of the state (Beswick & Jackson, 2011). The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report is widely regarded as signaling a sea-change in thinking on security with a shift from a focus on nationstates to individuals or human security (Beswick & Jackson, 2011). Human security has a focus on freedom from fear and freedom from want (UNDP Report, 1994, in Beswick & Jackson, 2011). The report outlined the need to change from an exclusive stress on territorial security through armaments to a greater stress on people’s security through sustainable human development (Beswick & Jackson, 2011). The sources of threats to human security in the 1994 UNDP Report include economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security and political security (Beswick & Jackson, 2011). It is important to note, however, that most contemporary interventions would involve both state and human-centric approaches. Beswick and Jackson (2011: 18) argue that ‘development in mainstream policy discourse has since the 1990s been dominated by attempts to define and find ways of (re)producing liberal states, both in the aftermath of conflict and in more ambiguous contexts of considerable instability and insecurity’. Knutsson (2009: 29) notes that ‘new wars’ opened up the concept of humanitarian interventionism in conflict areas, bending the traditional UN principle of sovereignty, indicating ‘the world community to a larger extent acknowledged its own existence’. Given the diversity of approaches in human development, there are various criticisms that have been raised. For example, one of the new indicators of human development is the HDI and by only relying on life expectancy, education and income, it fails to embrace the rich variety of development capabilities and deprivations and it also reveals little of the experiences of individuals (Holden, 2013). Criticisms have also been directed at the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers; as Fraser (2005) indicates, they are a technology of social control that seeks to shape domestic political space. Reflecting on a ‘Decade of Human Development’, and the diversity of approaches, Sen (2010: 23) states that ‘the human development approach assumed the leadership of a pluralist world of multiple concerns, and its intellectual departure has a coordinating function that is quite central to the entire enterprise’.

66

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

Human Development and Tourism Human development has received a significant amount of attention in tourism research, especially in areas like pro-poor tourism (Holden, 2013), responsible tourism (Smith, 1990), appropriate tourism, ethical tourism and volunteer tourism (Wearing, 2001). Many of these types of tourism focus on poverty reduction. Pro-poor tourism, first proposed in a British report in 1999, has since received ‘widespread support from development agencies, donors, governments and various tourism organisations’ (Scheyvens, 2012: 124). Rather than being a specific type of tourism, it is an approach or set of strategies to extend the benefits of tourism to those who are in poverty. Propoor strategies in tourism include job creation and the development of small to medium-sized enterprises that sell to tourists or the tourism industry; other livelihood benefits to the poor such as access to potable water and access to markets, education and health care whose development is linked to tourism; and opportunities for engagement in decision-making for the poor to improve their livelihoods by securing better access to tourists and tourism businesses (Jamieson & Nadkarni, 2009) (see Chapter 4). Volunteer tourism could be considered to be aligned with the strategies of pro-poor tourism. Volunteer tourism, first packaged as overseas charity work in the 1990s, reflects the shift to travel with a humanitarian purpose (Vrasti, 2013) and applies to tourists who volunteer to ‘undertake organised holidays that might involve aiding or alleviating the material poverty of some groups in society, the restoration of certain environments or research into aspects of society or environment’ (Wearing, 2001: 1). Promotional materials directed at volunteer tourists include phrases such as ‘giving back to the community’, ‘making a difference in the world’ and ‘travel with a difference’ (Vastri, 2013). However, in a review of the literature on volunteer tourism, Palacios (2010) found there are a number of cases where the experiences do not encourage critical reflections on poverty, foreign interests are prioritised over local ones and the sending organisations and volunteers receive more benefits than those who are ‘voluntoured’. Tourism has links to civil society, social capital, culture and transnational social movements through NGOs. ‘NGOs prioritize tourist development approaches that are inclusive of indigenous and/or host communities, and involve ethics of care for nature’ (Wearing et al., 2005). Kennedy and Dornon (2009) found that tourism-oriented NGOs were using tourism as a tool for poverty reduction and they have become increasingly relevant as an alternative and legitimate source of aid in many developing countries. Many NGOs based in developed countries partnered with developing world NGOs and communities in order to create locally initiated solutions to poverty, generating financial and non-financial benefits. Kennedy and Dornon (2009: 197– 198) suggest that the NGOS are able to work with ‘the poorest rural and

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

67

most unorganized communities that otherwise might not receive any type of international aid and in that specialized sense are acting in a more effective manner at the local level than many governments’. They indicate that tourism-oriented NGOs have grown substantially, taking advantage of recent trends in globalisation, including technology, travel, philanthropy, CRS and fair trade in tourism; however, their effectiveness at reducing poverty is difficult to measure. The cultural turn in human development is reflected in the work of Hall and Tucker (2004) on tourism and post-colonialism and the launching of the Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change in 2003, with the increasing recognition of the role of cultures and the influences that the colonial past has on tourism. Aitchison (2006) and Bianchi (2009) also examine the ‘critical’ and ‘cultural’ turn in relation to tourism studies. Bianchi (2009) states that the ‘critical’ turn in tourism studies is a product of the ‘cultural turn’ in social sciences and the influence of post-structuralism, whereby tourism studies embrace multiple worldviews and cultural studies (Ateljevic et al., 2007, cited in Bianchi, 2009). State-led development is about the state taking back more responsibility from the market. In tourism we have seen the state take on more active roles in regard to regional development and place promotion as well as providing investment incentives for tourism. Special Economic Zones and urban regional development projects continue to highlight tourism and EU funding is provided for rural development projects (see Chapter 5). Lastly, authors in tourism research have been analysing the relationship between tourism and security, including the concept of security and destination image and the impact of terrorism. Tourism has also been examined in post-conflict areas. In the context of Bosnia Herzegovina, Causevic and Lynch (2013) found that tourism was ahead of other industries in encouraging partnerships between sides that were previously in conflict.

Global Development Nearing the halfway point of the second decade of the 21st century, we can ask the question: in what direction is development thought moving? It is important to remember that previous paradigms do not fade away as time goes on but, rather, continue to inform development thinking. This section here draws greatly on several works by Björn Hettne. Hettne (2009) argues for what he calls global development. He states that this is so new that he refers to it as an emerging discourse that is lacking in social practice. In setting out his argument, Hettne (2009) draws on the work of Polanyi’s ([1944] 2001) ‘great transformations’. These transformations are a combination of two movements, the first being an expansion of the market and the second being society defending itself through political intervention to respond to the disorder caused by market expansion (Hettne, 2009). This is

68

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

then followed by a ‘great compromise’ where the ‘dialectic of market expansion and political intervention is contained’ for a period of time in a stable equilibrium (Hettne, 2009). The great transformation covered the time from the mid-19th century to the 1930s followed by the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944, setting out the framework for a ‘great compromise’ (Hettne, 2010a). The new great transformation is often understood to cover the 1944 ‘compromise of embedded liberalism’, with ‘globalisation as the establishment of a market on a global scale from 1980, and the critical counter-movements searching for development alternatives in the new millennium’ (Hettne, 2009). The process of globalisation at the centre of the new great transformation followed the Washington Consensus and structural adjustments; however, there has been disrupting social consequences of deterritorialisation from market-led globalisation, which has generated ‘political counter-forces to halt or modify globalisation to guarantee territorial governance, sustainability, cultural diversity and human security’ (Hettne, 2010b: 2). Problems began emerging with globalisation in the 1990s and faced waves of protests of anti-globalism as the problem of failed states became widespread. It was the financial crisis of 2008 that was the major crisis that was the catalyst for discursive change. The global financial crisis coincided with ‘climate change, conflicts over resources, a threatening “global civil war” and known and unknown pandemics’ and it was clear that these complex events could not be solved by the global market (Hettne, 2010b: 2). After the start of the 2008 financial crisis, which is still being felt today, the ‘new signs of discursive struggle and paradigmatic change abound’ (Hettne, 2010b: 2), leading to the global development paradigm. Global development, as defined by Hettne (2009), is an improvement in the quality of international relations and global governance through the creation of new supranational political institutions that are still to be built. Global development is a comprehensive policy in areas of trade and economic cooperation, development cooperation, foreign and security policy that has a focus on conflict management and environmental policy focusing on biodiversity and climate change (Hettne, 2009, 2010b). The achievement of global development incorporates intercultural dialogue, more symmetric power structures, strengthening of global welfare as done, for example, through multilateral global governance, respect for international law and provision of global public goods (Hettne as cited by Knutsson, 2009). Realising the relative newness of all of this, Hettne (2009, 2010b) recognises that, from a global development perspective, there is a major governance gap and that while economics is global, politics is largely national. There is a call for a new ‘great compromise’ (referring to Polanyi) and the development of a truly global compact providing the framework for global development (Hettne 2009, 2010b). To promote global development, Hettne (2009) states that instead of cultural homogenisation and structural polarisation, there needs to be an ‘inter-civilizational dialogue on the level of macro regions or

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

69

macro cultures’ and this, in turn, requires reasonably symmetrical power bases for regionally based civilisations. To bridge the gap between regions and to horizontalise the structure of world order, transnational and interregional institutions are needed (Hettne, 2009). State functions may become ‘unbundled through the emergence of supranational protective and interventionist structures strengthening the societal dimensions of world order and increasing the quality of international relations’ and this will necessitate multi-level global governance (Hettne, 2009). Global development will be pluralistic and have a core value of justice, which means there is the need for dramatic expansion of global consciousness (Hettne, 2009). The current world order crisis illustrates the need for financial regulation, a global social policy and global environmental (climate) policy (Hettne, 2009). Hettne (2009) also calls for the development of global social theory (taking into account the societal experience from around the world) along with global studies as a possible way forward for development studies in the future. With the next world order being multipolar, Hettne (2010b) raises the question of what will be the nature of these emerging poles and whose interests will be pursued, which in turn raises the question of global ethics. Noting the complexity of ethics and different points of view on the subject, he states that the Eurocentric view typical of the 18th century is not compatible with the post-Westphalian world in which ethics must be post-national, culturally pluralist as well as ecologically conscious (Hettne, 2010b). He notes these differences as a call for an interdisciplinary analysis of societal challenges that constitute an ethical transformation already underway that will facilitate the transformation of global awareness. In the end, Hettne (2010b: 5) states ‘global ethics is not a particular kind of ethics but globalised ethic, which means confrontation, coexistence, and possible convergence of different values systems, as some values undoubtedly have and inherent universal quality’. The EU and the UN Millennium Development Goals are presented as examples of cooperation and various scenarios for future types of global governance are provided in global development, but a detailed account of these is beyond the scope of this chapter. The perspective needs to change from society as contained in the nation-state to society which is an emerging transnational phenomenon (Hettne, 2009). Hettne’s call for global development is also echoed in part in the 2013 UNDP Human Development Report. Here, there are appeals for new institutions to facilitate regional integration and south–south cooperation as well as a call for a critical look at global governance institutions and a new era for partnership. The world is changing as we are seeing the ‘rise of the rest’ with improvements in many developing countries, such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), challenging conceptions or myths of what is a developing country (Rosling, 2013). Nevertheless, Rosling (2013) still acknowledges the wide gap that does exist in many parts of the developing world and, for that matter, there are

70

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

many in the developed world facing poverty and hardship. The market is still a major force, yet the role of state and non-state actors is also changing; they are adopting wider roles, as are regional and global initiatives. Commenting on the after-effects of the 2008 economic crisis, Nederveen Pieterse (2010) suggests neoliberalism is past, Keynesianism is back, financialisation has to be brought under control and America has faded as the world’s leading economy. ‘Clearly, the current era signals a new development epoch, more multipolar, with a greater role for developing countries and a greater importance to south–south relations’ (Nederveen Pieterse, 2010: 219). Many of the challenges associated with global development relate to the fact that it is such a relatively new paradigm. Whether new global organisations will succeed is yet to be seen. There may be conflicts over how these various organisations are formed and operated and what control they have, as well as who has control within these organisations. Clearly there are issues of global importance, such as climate change, that need to be dealt with. However, it remains to be seen how much international cooperation there will be.

Global Development and Tourism As the political infrastructure has yet to be built for global development, it is difficult to predict how this new evolving paradigm will influence tourism, yet its beginnings can be seen. Certainly, there are a number of global organisations in tourism, such as the UNWTO and tourism NGOs, that focus on the global industry as well as identifying specific issues and destinations impacted negatively by tourism. It is clear the events causing the shift in development thinking towards global development have had significant impacts on tourism. The 2008 financial crisis, climate change, conflict over resources, war and pandemics have all influenced the way the industry operates (see Chapter 14). Knutsson (2009) outlines some of the global initiatives that, in part, support the notion of global development and some of these initiatives have links to tourism. A key step in this direction of global development has been the establishment of the UN Millennium Development Goals in the year 2000 with a target date of 2015. Several studies have investigated the role of tourism in contributing to those goals (see Novelli & Hellwig, 2011). The UNWTO has a programme ‘ST-EP’ (Sustainable Tourism – Eliminating Poverty) and they have also released an interactive magazine on the internet entitled Tourism and the Millennium Development Goals (UNWTO, 2010). Hettne (2010b) posed the question of a global ethics and the study of ethics has increasingly been incorporated into the study of tourism (Fennell, 2006). The UN General Assembly adopted the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism on 21 December 2001. A related example cited by Knutsson (2009) is the UN Global Compact, where businesses commit to aligning their

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

71

operations with the principles of human rights, labour, environment and anticorruption as well as supporting the UN Millennium Development Goals. The UNWTO, along with the UN Global Compact, launched TOURpact. GC, which aligns the principles of the Global Compact with the UNWTO’s Global Code of Ethics for Tourism. Another example is the creation of Type II partnerships that evolved out of the 2002 Johannesburg (Rio + 10) summit which are partnerships between governments and non-state actors that favour a multi-stakeholder approach as opposed to a top-down state-centred approach preferred from the 1992 Rio Summit. One of the Pacific Partnerships launched in 2002 was focused on sustainable tourism development for the Pacific (UNESCAP, 2011). In addition, the Global Sustainable Tourism Council was formed in 2010 with the focus of its work being on creating the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria. Knutsson (2009) also notes the re-emergence of the state as is evident in the Third Way ideology in Europe and this has been examined in the context of tourism, where Burns (2004) proposed incorporating the Third Way into tourism planning in the developing world as a way to resolve social issues that are largely neglected by master planning approaches. Knutsson (2009) raises the issue that no one actor can be the guarantor of development and so actors have to work together to facilitate development. A key issue of global importance is climate change and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released in 2014 states that human influence on the climate system is clear, which is evident by ‘increasing greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming and understanding of the climate system’. Scott et al. (2012b: i) state that ‘climate change is already affecting the tourism industry and is anticipated to have profound implications for tourism in the 21st century, including consumer holiday choices, the geographical patterns of tourism demand, the competitiveness and sustainability of destinations and the contribution of tourism to international development’ (see Chapter 1). Tourism Concern has a campaign to encourage tourists to fly less as well as switching to other forms of transport. It is clear that global cooperation is going to be required to address climate change. The UNWTO, the UN Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation led the formation of the 2007 Davos Declaration on Climate Change and Tourism – Responding to Global Challenges. This is an example of global cooperation calling for action on climate change among governments, international organisations, the tourism industry and destinations, consumers and research and communications networks.

Conclusion This chapter has examined seven main development paradigms, or schools of thought, which have evolved since World War II and explored

72

Par t 1: Tour ism and Development : Conceptual Perspec t ives

these changes in the context of tourism, which has evolved along similar patterns. Referring on Hettne’s (2009) argument, development paradigms need to be viewed in their historic context and not to be construed as evolving to a universal theory of development thinking. As development thought has evolved, new paradigms can be viewed in part as a reaction to previous paradigms; however the old paradigms are still influential today. Modernisation was criticised for its lack of local control of the tourist industry and capital flight, which led to neo-colonialism. The structuralist school, which is part of the background to the dependency paradigm, advocated protectionist measures to ensure there was local control of the industry. Economic neoliberalists felt there was too much government control in the previous paradigms and advocated a free market approach to the tourist industry under globalisation. International tourism is an export industry and, as such, under economic neoliberalism, it should be permitted to operate under neoclassical economic principles with limited government involvement. The alternative development paradigm addressed the weaknesses of the previous three paradigms, which paid little attention to the environment or the concept of sustainability. The importance of linkages to local communities is stressed in alternative development. With the perceived failure of development, development studies went through an impasse in the 1980s with mainstream development theories not being able to accommodate the widening gap between the rich and poor. Out of the impasse came a range of theories or approaches critical of globalisation and those in the post- development camp called for the end of development itself. Development thinking continued to increase in complexity and the 1990s saw a focus on human development with links to human rights, good governance, state-led development, civil society and social capital, transnational social movements, cultural studies and human security. More recently, there is evidence of an emerging discourse focused on global development with attention paid to improvements in international relations and global governance by supranational political institutions still to be built (Hettne, 2009). The UN has already set up a System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda as we move past the date for the Millennium Development Goals. In noting the complexity of development, Knutsson (2009: 38) remarks that ‘the goal of contemporary mainstream development thinking seems to be a complex merger of poverty reduction, economic growth, enhanced capabilities, human rights, security, democracy, gender equality, environmental sustainability and so on and so forth whereby different schools of development thought such as modernisation, sustainable development, human development and global development becomes largely mixed up’. As development theory transitioned and evolved, so did tourism in its approach. Transitions can be seen in the evolution of tourism in product development, research and debates over tourism and growth poles, tourism and neo-colonialism, globalisation and tourism, sustainable tourism, pro-poor tourism and tourism

The Evolut ion of Development Theor y and Tour ism

73

and the Millennium Development Goals. As in broader development theorising and practice, tourism has seen contributions from far more varied organisations at a wider variety of scales yet, as Butler (1999a) indicates, there can be a wide gap between tourism development principles and tourism development practices. The complexity of the relationship between tourism and development is highlighted in Harrison’s (1992c) work in Swaziland, where he found tradition simultaneously legitimising the existing political structure and giving a crucial theme in selling the country while at the same time contributing to the process of modernity. As highlighted in this chapter and, indeed, throughout this book, the nature of development is a highly contested concept influenced by a wide range of social, political, economic and environmental perspectives each with their own set of values. Key questions such as those raised by Lord (1998) when examining the power relations in partnerships also need to be addressed: Who will benefit? Who will be harmed? Is there a common purpose and value? What beliefs about people and change are inherent in the project? How will those differences be addressed? Who will control the process? How will partners work together so that each partner’s experience is honoured? How will participation be maximised? How will valued resources be shared? It is important to understand development in terms of development by whom and for whom. Drawing on the work of Nederveen Pieterse (2001) on understanding development, Knutsson (2009: 41) states that the ‘process of collective learning, inquiry and debate is likely to be more fruitful on the basis of knowledge of precedent logics (and their shortcomings) and an explicit recognition of increasing complexity’. This can be applied to tourism as an instrument in development as we need to understand the basis of various types of tourism developments in the past (and their shortcomings) with an understanding of the increasing complexity of tourism as an agent of development into the future. The concepts of development and tourism raised in this chapter will be revisited throughout this book. The second section of the book explores tourism-specific development issues, including economic development, poverty reduction, regional development, community development, social-cultural development, heritage and socio-economic development and the environment. The final section of the book examines barriers and challenges to tourism development by addressing the political economy of tourism, tourism and climate change, the consumption of tourism, tourism and human rights, tourism and international studies and questions the validity of the term sustainability as it applies to tourism development.

Part 2 Relationship between Development and Tourism

3

Tourism and Economic Development Issues Tanja Mihalicˇ

Introduction Over the last six decades, tourism has expanded to become one of the largest economic sectors in the world. Receipts from international tourism, excluding international fares, rose dramatically from US$2 billion in 1950 to reach US$919 billion by 2010 (UNWTO, 2011b, 2011h). If we also take domestic tourism into consideration, the tourism volume figures would be some six to 10 times greater. In 2010, based on slightly different methodologies, tourism contributed between 5% and 9% to gross domestic product (GDP) and 6% and 9% to world employment (UNWTO, 2011h; WTTC, 2011).1 While in some advanced economies tourism’s contribution to GDP might be minimal, in some developing destinations tourism might create a significant share of GDP and employment. The last few decades have witnessed the spatial diversification of tourism development which is still progressing intensively, with many new destinations emerging alongside those that existed in the 1950s. Then, almost all international tourism was concentrated in just 15 principal tourism countries whereas nowadays many, if not all, countries promote themselves as tourist destinations. Consequently, over the last six decades the top 15 countries’ share of international tourism arrivals has dropped from 97% to 55% (Kester & Croce, 2011; UNWTO, 2011g). Emerging destinations are not only boosting their physical international tourism flows, but are also increasing their competitiveness, as reflected in higher spending per visitor at the destination. Many developing countries and regions see tourism development as an opportunity for economic and social development. This is also reflected in the list of top tourism countries which, in the 1950s, was dominated by advanced economies but by 2010 was increasingly populated by emerging countries such as China, Turkey, Malaysia, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and India (UNWTO, 2011h). At the current rate, it is likely that tourism will 77

78

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

grow faster in emerging destinations than in advanced ones. Vibrant economic growth in emerging source markets coupled with appropriate proactive tourism policies to develop tourism in the receiving countries will be the primary drivers of this performance (Kester & Croce, 2011). Even oil-rich countries such as the United Arab Emirates have been expanding their tourism sectors and trying to attract more visitors. At the same time, highly developed countries, such as Japan, are also increasing their hitherto not yet fully developed tourism destination role (Soshiroda, 2005). Indeed, it is the bright future prospects of tourism regarding its expected growth and potential contribution to development in terms of socioeconomic and environmental progress that makes every country want a piece of the global tourism cake. Tourism financial flows generated by inbound tourism currently generate US$3 billion a day, with the number of international travellers expected to reach 1.6 billion by 2020 (UNWTO, 2011e). In 2012, international tourist arrivals exceeded the 1 billion mark for the first time (UNWTO, 2013b). As observed in Chapter 1, tourism development is frequently justified by its potential contribution to economic development. More specifically, it is widely assumed that tourism can help eliminate the growing economic gap between the developed and the so-called Majority World, where the majority of the world’s population live in poverty (Burns & Novelli, 2008a; Harrison, 2001b; Mowforth & Munt, 2009; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). It is also assumed that tourism can help achieve the Millennium Development Goals, alleviate poverty, create jobs and empower women (Hawkins & Mann, 2007; UNWTO, 2011d). In addition, tourism is increasingly expected to become an agent for sustainable development and green economies (Lipman & Vorster, 2011). Certainly, tourism has the potential to fulfil all of these roles, contributing to the (economic) development of destination areas, although in practice many factors may serve to reduce these potential benefits for the host country. In other words, despite the support for tourism as an economic development agent, its potential may not always be fully realised and serious doubts remain that, without international political intervention and a fundamental transformation of global political structures, tourism can help establish a more even and equitable economic world order. Tourism economists agree that tourism provides positive economic developmental benefits, as discussed at length in the literature (Balaguer & Cantavella-Jorda, 2002; Bull, 1995; Gartner, 1996; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Mihalič, 2002a; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008; Tisdell, 2005; Tribe, 2005). Undoubtedly, tourism influences the economic development of the host region or country. It is a valuable source of foreign currency earnings; as a service sector it might reduce inflationary tendencies; it generates employment opportunities, new investment, new sources of income and governmental revenues; and, last but not least, it creates earnings through exploitation of the host country’s natural and cultural attractions and promotes

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

79

environmental protection and care. However, it is important to bear in mind that the impacts of tourism are not simply unidirectional as they are highly complex, temporary and may be location- and time-specific and dependent on many factors. Consequently, tourism development may not bring lasting economic benefits to a country; rather, it might trigger inflation and bring environmental degradation and economic dependency. Hence, it is unrealistic to expect tourism to be a magic wand that can resolve all the problems of under-development and close the economic gap between the developed and the Majority World. Therefore, this chapter briefly reviews tourism’s main economic impacts but primarily focuses on fundamental issues and discusses many factors and contexts that may enhance or reduce its economic developmental potential for a given economy. Due to the differing factors and situations that shape tourism’s developmental potential in different countries, the figures presented here are merely illustrative. They may support different sides of an argument and should be interpreted in the wider economic, social and political context of the country in question.

Tourism Consumption It is tourism consumption or visitor demand that underpins the economic impacts of tourism and that is, thus, at the centre of economic measurements of tourism. Tourism consumption represents ‘the total consumption expenditure made by a visitor or on behalf of a visitor for and during his/her trip and stay at the destination’ (UN & WTO, 2010). The definition of visitors covers not only individuals who travel for holidays or personal reasons but also those travelling for business purposes. The resources used for tourism consumption are an individual’s or household’s own cash resources, savings and other personal incomes and social transfers, as well as the accounts of businesses, governmental or other non-profit organisations. Tourists spend their money on tourism services and other products. The first group are products created by tourism industries, such as accommodation, food and beverage services, passenger transport, travel agencies and tour operators, cultural services and recreation and entertainment. Yet tourists may also spend their money on other goods, such as tourism-connected products like fuel or tobacco, or on non-tourism-related consumption products such as cosmetics, shoes or other goods (WTO, 1999a). Regarding the above division, the structure of tourism consumption may vary significantly from country to country and, accordingly, so do the tourism-related economic benefits. While visitor consumption always relates to people travelling or intending to travel outside of their usual environment, the acquisition of goods and services may also occur within their normal home environment (before and after travel) as long as the use of such goods and services clearly forms part

80

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

of their trip or holiday. Another element of tourism consumption relates to all expenditures made during the trip and stay at the destination, regardless of the nature of the goods and services purchased. The sum of all these expenditures is called gross tourism consumption (Planina & Mihalic, 2002). In order to calculate net tourism consumption, the reduction of living costs in the place of residence achieved via the traveller’s absence is subtracted from the gross tourism consumption figure. In other words, some consumption (for example, food, drinks and certain variable household costs) does not, of course, occur in the home residence context during an individual’s trip or holiday and, therefore, represents resources that can be spent on or during the trip. Conversely, other, fixed expenditure (for example, mortgage repayments) must be made irrespective of where the person is. This element of normal, day-to-day variable consumption moves with the traveller to the destination and can be spent on different goods and services, such as visiting an attraction rather than paying a local energy supplier. Net tourism consumption thus reveals the increase in personal consumption because a person is travelling. It may be argued that gross tourism consumption is the most relevant indicator as it takes account of all tourism consumption effects and the redistribution of national income, both geographically and within sectors of the economy. In the domestic tourism context, net tourism consumption demonstrates the total increase in consumption within the economy since the tourism consumption of domestic tourists travelling within their own country remains within and contributes to the national economy. Consequently, the economic impacts of international tourism in the host country are derived from tourism consumption that enters the host economy. Since tourism-generating markets are geographically separate or distant from the host country, a significant part of a traveller’s gross tourism expenditure may never enter the host country’s economy but may impact on other economies. As mentioned, expenditures may occur at home for goods and services intended for a trip. These may vary from expenditure on personal sport equipment, clothing for the holiday or the processing of holiday photographs to the cost of a package tour paid to a national or international outgoing tour operator. In the latter case, only some of this amount will enter the host economy when the tour operator settles its accounts with local suppliers at the destination. Thus, although the economic contribution of international tourism is usually measured in terms of receipts in the destination country, the value of gross tourism consumption and its influence on economic growth in total may be much higher. However, despite its impressive growth and development over the last six decades, tourism’s economic potential has, on the one hand, often been exaggerated for political reasons, mainly in less developed countries that have sought to develop their economies by developing tourism. On the other hand, tourism’s economic potential has frequently been overlooked, particularly in

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

81

developed countries able to build their competitiveness and development on other, often more productive and more value-added2 rich industries. For many industrialised areas and cities, tourism was a last resort (Swarbrooke, 2000) if there was no chance of attracting enough other, more traditional industries to help regenerate the local economy. Nevertheless, when we look at modern tourism flows, it is evident that more and more countries are trying to attract international visitors: today, almost 100 countries receive more than one million international visitors per year (Kester & Croce, 2011).

Tourism and Development There are many definitions of development and the term is evolving over time (see Chapter 1). Nowadays there are calls for a more holistic approach to development that recognises that higher economic growth rates and higher income or GDP per capita are necessary, yet development also refers to education, health and nutrition, less poverty, a better environment, equality, freedom, sustainability, a culturally richer and happier life (Stiglitz et al., 2010; World Bank, 1991). Nevertheless, for the specific purposes of this chapter, a more reductionist, holistic definition of development is employed: economic development is a process of economic transition that involves, first, the structural transformation of an economy and, second, the growth of an economy’s real output over time (Pass et al., 1993). Structural transformation is achieved through industrialisation and measured in terms of the relative contribution to GDP of the agricultural, industrial and service sectors. Developing countries are characterised by subsistence primary production (i.e. agriculture) and low per capita GDP whilst, conversely, developed countries are characterised by large manufacturing and service sectors, a relatively small agricultural sector, and high levels of per capita GDP. Frequently, however, and for the sake of simplicity, only indicators of economic growth are taken into account to measure economic development or, more precisely, progress in economic development (Ray, 1998). The economic growth rate is measured by an increase in GDP or per capita GDP. The different economic growth rates achieved in the past have divided the world into developed and developing countries. Within developing countries and regions tourism is, of course, frequently considered as a development opportunity – that is, as a contributor to economic growth and a catalyst of a positive structural transformation of the local economy. However, tourism’s actual ability to support a country’s economic growth and make an increasingly significant contribution to GDP remains the subject of intense debate, particularly since much evidence can be found to support both sides of the argument. In reality, the advanced economies which account for 14.47% of the world’s population receive 65% of world tourism earnings and generate

World Advanced countries USA Canada Austria Germany France UK Italy Hong Kong (China) Spain Greece

1

World/Region/ Country

104 16 19 35 47 31 39 22

53 13

4 17

918 597

3

International tourism receipts 2010 (US$ billion)

2 15 11 8 1 6 5 14

2

Top 20 international tourism arrivals countries (ranks)

17 3

76 30 10 78 39 49 27 18

918 553

4

International tourism expeditures 2010 (US$ billion)

36 10

28 −14 9 −43 8 −18 12 5

0 44

5

Difference (receipts expenditures) (US$ billion)

53 15

60 16 22 27 77 28 44 20

940 498

6

Internatonal tourism arrivals 2010 (million)

996 847

1731 975 850 1290 607 1089 890 1104

977 1198

7

International tourism receipts per international tourist arrival (US$/night)

133 163

229 345

208 561

8

Tourism Expenditures per visitor per day (US$)

30,529 26,934

47,184 46,148 44,863 40,509 39,460 36,100 33,917 31,758

9858 44,704

9

GDP p.c. (US$)

1138.83 1114.04

325.88 461.49 2226.19 422.66 742.04 493.55 641.32 3171.43

132.88 596.70

10

International tourism receipts per capita (US$)

Table 3.1 Illustration of international tourism and GDP in advanced and emerging and developing countries for 2010

2.95 3.10

0.69 0.95 4.09 0.89 1.49 1.06 1.57 8.50

1.35 1.33

12

Travel and tourism economy contribution to GDP (%)

82 Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

365 1 8 27 5 7 8 5 55 4 2

321

18 9 9

21 12 18 20 46 4 13

16 5 10 15 −9 0 10

17 1 −18

−44

27 22 25 16 56 21 14

12 13 20

442

770 529 744 1245 822 179 887

1479 752 443

727

88

111 139

185

190

10,106 9166 8373 4613 4393 3007 2699

40,919 12,271 10,440 274.77 106.69 644.37 286.54 33.82 83.70 147.93

35,200.00 245.56 62.95

34.36

2.51 0.93 7.29 6.24 0.86 1.69 5.29

1.46 0.37

Notes: Some data are for 2009. The data in columns 2–8 and 9 are from the UNWTO, the data in column 9 are from the World Bank (WB) and those in column 12 are from the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). Advanced country grouping according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Although Macau had reached the level of developed countries, it is not recognised by any international organisation as a developed/advanced territory. The World Bank classifies Macau as a high-income economy (along with developed economies as well as a few developing economies). Sources: IMF, 2011a; UNWTO, 2011h; World Bank, 2011; WTTC, 2011.

Emerging and developing countries Macao (China) 20 Poland 19 Russian 13 Federation Turkey 7 Mexico 10 Malaysia 9 Thailand 16 China 3 Ukraine 12 Egypt 18

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues 83

United States* Spain France* Italy* Germany* United Kingdom* Australia Hong Kong China Austria Canada* Switzerland

Advanced countries

Earnings 1 4 2 3 5 6 15 11 7 9 8

Earnings 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 12 15 16

Visitors 2 4 1 5 8 6 − 14 11 15 −

1990

2010

Rank according to international earnings and visitors

Visitors 2 3 1 4 9 7 − 19 6 10 11 China Turkey Thailand Macao, China Malaysia India Mexico Ukraine Russ. Federation Egypt Poland

Emerging and developing countries Earnings 4 10 11 13 14 17 − − − − −

2010 Visitors 3 7 16 20 9 − 10 12 13 18 19

Earnings − − 13 − − − 10 − − − −

1990

Rank according to international earnings and visitors

Table 3.2 Top 20 tourism countries according to UNWTO rankings, broken down by a country’s development for 2010 and 1990

− −

17

Visitors 12 − − − 15 − 8

84 Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

− −

− − − − 14

18

19 20

− − − − − 17 − − − 10 − 19 − 18 18

17 14 20 16 12 − − − 13 14 16 − 14

20

− Hungary Croatia

6

− −

10

− −

2

− −

6

5 18

Notes: *Indicates the biggest advanced economies, known as the G7. The IMF list of advanced economies includes the following 34 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US). Sources: (IMF, 2011a, 2011b; UNWTO, 2011b, 2011g).

Japan* Netherlands Denmark Belgium Singapore Greece Portugal Czech Republic Korea Rep. No. of countries

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues 85

86

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

60.22% of world tourism spending (Table 3.1). Over time, ever more emerging and developing countries have opened up and invested in tourism development as they seek to turn modern tourism into a key driver of their social and economic progress. This is demonstrated by the UNWTO rankings of the top 20 tourism countries (Table 3.2). According to 2010 data on international visitors, there are 10 emerging and 10 developed countries among the top 20, a ratio of 10 to 10. Twenty years ago the ratio was 6 to 14. Emerging countries are also well represented on the tourism earners list, although financial tourism flows are more in favour of advanced (14) than emerging economies (6). Twenty years ago this ratio was 17 to 3 in favour of advanced economies. It is expected that lists will further develop in favour of emerging destinations owing to the quantitative growth of tourism that is expected to continue, and the increased efforts of such countries to attract visitors and increase their spending whilst visiting.

Relationship between tourism and economic development – capital coefficient analysis The economic argument for tourism as an agent of economic growth and development is frequently derived from a capital–output ratio analysis, with the capital–output ratio being based on the amount of capital required to produce a single unit of output in the economy.3 It represents the ratio between the capital input and the output produced over a particular period of time and, therefore, an increase in the rate at which capital produces a unit of output (i.e. a lower capital–output ratio will enhance the economic growth rate). In the specific context of tourism, a capital–output analysis is based on a comparison of the tourism sector capital–output rate and the equivalent rate calculated for the whole economy (Mihalič, 2002c; Planina, 1997). It divides tourism development into three stages according to tourism’s contribution to growth of the local destination economy. During the first development stage (equivalent perhaps to Butler’s (1980) exploration stage), tourism development is spontaneous and unsupported by either a tourism development policy or intensive capital investment. When tourists come, their hosts ‘. . .get together and rent rooms, offer meals. . .they purchase a slot machine. One of them gives up fishing and takes the tourists out in his boat, a woman converts her house into a pension. . .another woman begins to weave for visitors. . .’ (Krippendorf, 1987: 3). In other words, pioneer tourists visit attractive places and generate some expenditure in the host region; in response, without the benefit of any purpose-built tourism infra- and superstructure, the local community improvises in its attempts to satisfy tourists’ needs. At this stage, the average capital–output ratio in the ‘tourism sector’ is low, and much lower than the average for the economy as a whole. Certainly, tourism businesses contribute to economic growth in the region, although tourism earnings in this first stage are not

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

87

normally substantial. At the same time, they might be more important at the local level if the destination’s GDP is low due to the under-development of economic activities. However, as a result of the non-existent capital investment in tourism businesses, the marginal capital–output ratio4 suggests that the amount of additional investment required in the tourism sector in order to boost tourism earnings is almost zero. As the number of visitors and consequential opportunities for tourism businesses expand, the destination enters the second tourism development stage. The destination becomes aware that tourism investments are needed to support further tourism growth. Now, tourism development is promoted and politically supported with investment in tourism infra- and superstructure. Significant levels of capital investment are usually required and, since there is a time lag between invested inputs and generated outputs in the form of tourism earnings, the average capital–output ratio for the tourism sector rises and becomes higher than the average ratio for the economy as a whole. Thus, during this second stage, the capital–output ratio within the tourism sector increases substantially and might exceed the overall economy’s average capital–output ratio, thereby slowing down the average national economic growth rate. However, during this stage, other benefits of tourism development are promoted, such as improvements in the host population’s quality of life in terms of new infrastructure or the opportunity for cultural exchanges with visitors, and the multiplier effect of tourism consumption, where the (future) indirect and induced effects of tourism consumption on non-tourism sectors are stressed. The third stage of tourism development is reached when the average tourism capital–output ratio falls. This results from both the benefits of past investment in tourism infra- and superstructure being realised and current innovations and improvements in the quality and assortment of tourism products which, together, encourage higher levels of tourist consumption, hence contributing to the local economy’s economic growth. This is a stage of maturity where tourism-led economic growth theory may find its place if the tourism coefficient falls below that for the economy. The marginal capital–output ratio is low and little additional tourism capital investment is required for an additional increase in tourism yields. Ideally, the latter is mainly achieved by enlarging daily tourism consumption per visitor, with the number of visitors being unchanged. However, in many cases a rise in the tourism yield is achieved by increasing visitor figures by promoting large numbers that lead to mass tourism and the related advantages of large-scale production and disadvantages in terms of cultural and natural environmental damage. There is much evidence to suggest that many destinations have attempted to overcome their lack of financial resources and to speed up the process of developing tourism infra- and superstructure with the help of international capital and expertise. That is, they have tried to attract

88

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

private foreign capital for tourism superstructure development such as accommodation, restaurant or entertainment facilities. At the same time, investment in general infrastructure, which is required for manufacturing and other sectors, including the tourism industry, is also needed. The development of general and tourism infrastructure, such as airports, terminals, roads and power, water and sewerage, is often seen as the responsibility of the national and local governments. It is recognised that the provision of public infrastructure can facilitate growth. Indeed, new growth theorists acknowledge that, within tourism, infrastructure represents a secondary tourism resource base (Stabler et al., 2010). International organisations, such as the World Bank and other international development organisations, for many years have been major suppliers of capital for such investments (Bull, 1995; Pearce, 1989). There is certainly no doubt that foreign capital investment gives rise to extra income and growth, encourages foreign currency earnings and creates new jobs but, at the same time, it unfortunately generates more leakages than domestic capital investment from local private or public sources. This is, of course, because more foreign staff are usually employed, more imported goods may be used to support the tourism business and profits are remitted to the parent company. At the same time, it is evident that the economically favourable third stage of tourism development may not be reached as easily as theory suggests (Mihalič, 2012). The achieved decrease in the average capital–output ratio, based on an economy’s ability to increase daily tourism consumption per visitor without much new capital investment, depends on many factors. For example, international tourism data show that the more a destination economy is developed, the higher the tourism earnings per visitor and vice versa. Thus, for each tourist night, Germany earns approximately three times as much as Turkey or Spain; Austria and Italy more than twice as much as Egypt (Table 3.1). In other words, it tends to be those countries with more developed and diverse economies to which the economic benefits of tourism development accrue more effectively. Thus, the development level of the host economy is an important factor in achieving a decrease in the tourism capital–output ratio. Further, developed countries may develop other, nontourism sectors that make a greater contribution to overall economic growth than is possible through tourism. In this case, the potential of tourism-led economic growth might be derived from other sectors that may service the tourism consumption of connected tourism and other non-characteristic tourism goods or from indirect or induced suppliers’ industries. Although diversification of the economy can be a major source of tourism-led growth, Tooman (1997) claims that what seems critical for social welfare in the case of smaller destinations is not the stage of local development but the degree of diversity itself in the area where the development is taking place. For example, in Buncombe County, North Carolina, tourism

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

89

offered considerable opportunities for earning a supplemental income through either tourism itself or linkages with agriculture and crafts. In addition, in today’s ever more competitive world, some tourism destinations that have achieved economic growth via tourism development, such as the Canary Islands, encounter the question of how to continue to maintain their presence on the international markets with prices that are compatible with growth and income (Parrilla et al., 2007). Indeed, only the future will reveal whether or not growth theory, emphasising the importance of destinations’ knowledge, innovativeness and natural capital, can offer the desired outcome. As seen from the discussion above, the relationship between tourism and development depends on both the level of development of a country in general and on the level of tourism-related development in particular. First, in terms of a country’s development, a distinction is usually made between developed and developing countries. The term ‘developed country’ is used to describe countries that have achieved a high level according to some criteria. These criteria relate predominantly to economic development, such as national income or per capita GDP and the level of industrialisation. Countries with a high per capita income or with dominant tertiary and quaternary sectors are, thus, considered to be developed. However, recognising a broader (not only economic) understanding of development, attempts have also been made to construct a more suitable development measure (Tisdell, 2005). Newer welfare criteria combine economic measures, such as GDP, with social and political development measures, such as indices for life expectancy, health, education, politics, efficiency, security, participation and equity (UNDP, 2011c), opportunities and freedom (World Bank, 1991) or happiness (Stiglitz et al., 2010). Nevertheless, as a result of the need for economic indicators in addition to the correlation between economic and socio-political welfare indicators, many similarities exist when determining the status of developed countries, irrespective of the measurement set used. For example, the IMF’s 2011 economic-based classification of developed (advanced) economies is built on an economic understanding of development that combines GDP and industrialisation level and provides a list of 34 advanced countries. It varies only marginally from the UN’s list of high human development countries based on the Human Development Index that includes indicators such as life expectancy and education (IMF, 2011b; UNDP, 2011c). From this perspective, countries higher on the development list have better general infrastructure, a greater potential to diversify and to increase tourism spending. That is, they have moved into the third stage of tourism development. Yet, there is no generally accepted list of countries based on their stage of tourism as a generally accepted definition of a developed tourism country and the criteria for calculation have still to be created. The capital coefficient cannot be used as such a criterion for both practical and theoretical reasons. From a practical perspective, data for all countries are

90

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

not yet available and, hence, such a list cannot be created. Theoretically, the output of the tourism sector, on which the capital coefficient value depends, tends to be higher, ceteris paribus, if a country is more developed and so the tourism capital coefficient is sensitive to the general level of development of a given country. In addition, some existing assumptions, such as less developed tourism countries primarily being in the Majority World, are not helpful. Furthermore, the main demand data that inform the UNWTO’s lists of tourism destinations present tourism demand volumes and the quantitative importance of tourism in given countries, not the level of tourism development. The existing lists neglect the country size and relative tourism impacts. Relative measures, such as per capita international tourism receipts, tend to place tourism countries with a smaller population on top of the list, whereas a measure like tourism’s contribution to the economy will, ceteris paribus, favour tourism developing countries with a smaller volume of GDP. It should be noted that there have been some promising attempts to measure tourism development using the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI) (WEF, 2011). Unfortunately, however, the TTCI ranking is based on an extensive list of different indicators that combine factors and policies relevant to tourism development and is therefore not fully relevant for the purpose. Kester and Croce (2011) also demonstrate that a country’s rank on the TTCI tourism list depends on the country’s general development level. They found that the list tends to rank advanced economies higher than countries at a lower development stage since the TTCI criteria include conditions for tourism development which more developed countries can better provide. Consequently, they have attempted to eliminate the impact of a country’s development level on its tourism position by employing the Human Development Index as a measure for development. As a result, Thailand, China, India, Gambia and South Africa made up the top five tourism countries on a new TTCI list relative to country development. We can also try to measure the level of tourism development by looking at tourism consumption relative to its volume or structure. The TSA provides country data on tourism demand or tourism consumption broken down by products, such as accommodation, food and beverages, transportation, culture, entertainment and recreation, shopping and health. Is a country that earns more money per visitor per day more developed? Can we assume that destinations where a smaller share of total tourism spending is used for basic tourist needs, such as travel, accommodation and food, compared to spending on other activities are more developed? For example, according to available TSA data, the share of internal tourism consumption of food, drinks and travel in Germany in 2000 was 48% whereas in Cyprus in 2007, visitors spent 85% on the same products from characteristic tourism industries (Eurostat, 2009). Moreover, does a higher share of spending on tourism- connected and non-specific products produced by other industries demonstrate the diversification level of the economy and tourism

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

91

development level? In 2003, tourists in Germany spent 42% and in Cyprus 13% on related products. Even if we agree with the above criteria for defining a destination’s development level, would not such a tourism country list again assume that becoming a developed tourism country requires a certain level of general country economic development? And if so, how can tourism then be seen as a tool for reducing the development gap between the developed and less developed world if a less developed country can never efficiently reach the tourism development stage and be competitive with developed ones on the other side of the gap? Can the criteria for a developed tourism country ignore a country’s level of development in terms of GDP per capita and structural characteristics?

The Economic Impacts of Tourism Seventy years ago, Hunziker and Krapf (1942) showed that tourism has an influence on national economies. They demonstrated that, depending on the inward or outward direction of tourist flows, tourism can have both a positive and negative impact on the national income. Consequently, tourism first brings about a redistribution of national income, dividing the world into tourist-generating and tourist-receiving countries, regions and destinations. Second, it also leads to a redistribution of income between sectors and companies within the economy, with the latter reflecting the fact that tourism consumption differs from personal consumption. Since then, many tourism analysts have studied the different so-called economic impacts of tourism, amongst which the tourism multiplier effect is probably the most widely considered. When a country starts to develop its tourism infra- and superstructure, large financial resources are needed and the value of the capital coefficient in tourism starts to grow strongly, exerting a negative impact on economic growth. At this stage, tourism’s economic benefits in terms of income, jobs and foreign exchange have yet to emerge and, hence, strong arguments are needed to support the decision to undertake such tourism-related investments. It is here that the idea of a tourism multiplier, whereby the total change in tourism output is even greater than the initial change in tourist consumption, becomes relevant. The tourism multiplier concept is based on the recognition that tourism introduces extra expenditure into an economy, such as tourists’ spending on goods and services in the visited area, tourism-related investment, governmental spending or exports of goods stimulated by tourism. Tourism expenditures have direct, indirect and induced effects. For example, first-round direct tourism expenditures, such as tourists’ spending on hotels, food, beverages, transport, culture, recreation, gambling or shopping, is known as direct or primary tourism consumption and equates to the amount of tourism consumption (tourism receipts) in the host country.

92

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Nevertheless, the contribution of first-round tourism spending does not fully reflect tourism’s total contribution to the economy which is calculated over a one-year period. In the second round, first-round recipients spend their revenues to settle their accounts. First-round tourism partners transfer money to supplier accounts and, in subsequent transactions, funds are then transferred in turn to the accounts of their supplies. This is referred to as the indirect effect of tourism expenditure. At the same time, induced local demand causes the induced effect. Household income rises as the tourism expenditure expands economic activity and increases employment. A proportion of the increased income is re-spent on goods within the local economy, thus generating induced effects on income, employment and governmental revenues. The sum of all these effects (direct, indirect and induced) represents the total change in the economy resulting from the initial tourist expenditure and has a positive effect on economic growth.5 The multiplier can be calculated for different aggregates: the increase in the host economy’s level of output, income, employment, government revenue and (where applicable) foreign exchange flows (Fletcher, 1994). However, there are several different and conflicting types of tourism multipliers, such as income, transaction, output and employment multipliers and their variations. In addition, there are also different methods of calculation, from the base model to the Keynesian, input-output (I-O) or social accounting matrix (SAM) models. This diversity has led to a number of deficiencies in multiplier analyses. A number of studies (Archer, 1977; Fletcher, 1994; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Vanhove, 2005) have found that the multiplier is often incorrectly calculated and interpreted and, very often, it is not clear which multiplier has been calculated. Vanhove (2005) claims that orthodox income multipliers, based on direct income, hold little value as they only give an idea of the degree of internal linkages in the local economy. In contrast, the unorthodox multiplier, based on a change in final demand, gives lower values and demonstrates how much income is created by each additional unit of tourist expenditure. Vanhove (2005), for example, calculated both multipliers for Flanders: the orthodox was 1.30 while the unorthodox was 0.57. Indeed, in the tourism literature there are many more calculations that reveal significant variations in the value of multipliers. On the one hand, these variations are due to the multiplier type, model used and different definitions of the variables. On the other hand, the multiplier value also differs from economy to economy and is determined by the size of the economy, its level of development and degree of economic diversification, the number of transactions that happen in a one-year period, taxation legislation, share of foreign labour force, propensity to save and propensity to import. Bigger, more developed and diversified economies tend to have larger multipliers since they are subject to fewer leakages and the potential to satisfy the growing demand inside the economy is larger. Any reduction of the amount of money flowing in an economy reduces the multiplier value. Money is reduced on account of

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

93

savings or spending on imports, regardless of whether this occurs because of tourist demand for imported goods or stronger import demand due to the demonstration effect. Moreover, money can also flow out of a regional or local economy owing to national taxation whilst the repatriated profits of foreign owners of tourism enterprises also represent a capital outflow. Expatriate workers can have the same effect if the ‘imported’ staff remit a portion of their income to the place of their domicile. In this case, induced effects will be reduced. On the one hand, tourism development decision-makers may tend to prefer those multipliers that reveal the highest economic impacts in order to justify tourism development which requires a high level of investment. On the other hand, tourism economists warn against the uncritical use of multipliers for policy formulation as some multipliers have limited policy relevance. For example, transaction or output multipliers show bigger values yet suffer from double counting as the increased output from one industry is an input into another. Furthermore, multipliers take induced effects for granted even though the increase in production can only happen if there are unused resources in the economy and if a suitable resource (re)allocation is possible. Where there is no excess capacity or there are resource rigidities the increased demand will trigger inflationary tendencies (Dwyer et al., 2010). More recently, tourism researchers and policymakers have begun to use computable general equilibrium (CGE) models that use actual economic data and estimate how the economy might react to changes in tourism. These models are more realistic as they take account of the links between tourism and other industries, recognise resource constraints as well as intersectoral price and cost effects of tourism spending, and offer a more realistic assessment of the economic impacts of changes in tourism expenditure (Dwyer et al., 2010). Nevertheless, experience with this model is quite limited and, thus, its weaknesses have not been fully considered. Moreover, in comparison to the enthusiasm that many tourism researchers and policymakers have shown towards the ‘old’ tourism multipliers, the new impact models might encounter some resistance as they are complex and difficult to apply, they require significant amounts of data and, compared to the ‘old’ methods, they compute even lower values for tourism effects as a result of tourism expenditures. Overall, however, economic impacts assume more or less importance depending upon the tourism context. For less developed countries, for example, tourism is generally favoured for its potential as a generator of foreign currency, whereas, within Europe and in the light of European Union (EU) policy, it is tourism’s role as a source of employment that has been growing in importance, together with its contribution to regional development. In the last decade, tourism has often been seen as a vehicle for sustainable development and a possible agent of more green economies. Importantly, the last two decades have also been dominated by the debate on the environmental

94

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

impacts of tourism. Although these impacts are usually considered from a non-economic point of view, it can be argued that the environmental issues of tourism development should also be located within the economic debate. That is, tourism should no longer be viewed only as a reason for environmental protection. The environment is also a financial resource, with the environmental resources the tourism industry indirectly sells becoming increasingly important economic goods and, hence, an ever more important element of market economies. Thus, in the context of tourism, environmental protection and valuation are becoming an economic activity and, therefore, part of economic development and contributors to economic growth. Of course, tourism development also has many non-economic developmental impacts, such as socio-cultural consequences (see Chapter 7), educational benefits and so on. However, this chapter is primarily concerned with the economic dimension of tourism, in particular the issues surrounding tourism’s potential contribution to (economic) development. Therefore, rather than addressing the wide range of topics typically included in an economic analysis of tourism, it focuses principally on specific areas where tourism, from an economic perspective, may contribute to or militate against development. These include: • • • • •

the impact of tourism on economic development – convergence theory; the impact of tourism on the balance of payments; the impact of tourism on inflation/deflation; the impact of tourism on employment; and environmental goods valuation in tourism (Mihalič, 2002b).

The impact of tourism on economic development – convergence theory In the context of convergence theory, tourism is seen as a tool for bringing the different economic growth rates in developed and less developed areas closer together. Here, tourism consumption, which is directed towards less developed countries or peripheral regions rich in tourist attractions (natural or social and cultural), leads to the redistribution of national income to the benefit of the host destination. An increase in financial resources on the demand side requires increased supply in the host country/region, provoking new directly tourism-related activities, an increase in the production of indirect suppliers to ‘first-round’ tourism businesses, the creation of new jobs, extra incomes, new additional consumption on the part of new employees, new investment and so on. As a result, national income in the incoming destination, in theory, increases whilst, other things being equal, the reduced final consumption in the visitor’s place of residence slows down economic growth in the more developed country or region. This gives rise to the concept of convergence. That is, as a result of tourism consumption the relative

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

95

difference in economic growth rates between the incoming and outgoing, less developed and developed areas becomes smaller. The development of convergence theory in tourism embraces two distinct themes. On the one hand, tourism is seen as an agent of economic growth and regional development within a particular country, contributing to the alleviation of regional imbalances, in particular between the metropolitan centres and peripheral areas. On the other hand, tourism’s developmental role is considered in the context of a world divided into developed and less developed countries, the assumption being that the gap between the two may be reduced through tourism development projects in the latter. Some authors refer to this theory as ‘the dispersion of development to non-industrial regions’ (Bryden, 1973: 72). According to this classic view, tourism ‘tends to distribute development away from the industrial centres towards those regions in a country which have not been developed’ (Williams & Shaw, 1998: 12). Although both themes (regional and country) stress the contribution of tourism to development, there are a number of reasons why it is important to distinguish between the two because they have different implications for tourism’s actual contribution to development. First, at the national level, the attitude to tourism may vary considerably in less developed and developed countries. In the former, tourism is frequently much more economically important, for example in terms of its share of GDP (Table 3.1) and, as a result, tourism development is often supported, with high expectations, by a national tourism policy as, for example, in Turkey (see Daoudi & Mihalic, 1999; Pirnar, 2009). In developed countries, however, there may not be a specific tourism policy. Rather, tourism development may constitute an element of regional or industrial policy, other industries or service sectors may have the potential for much higher added value, and tourism may be seen as a priority economic activity only for less developed regions as opposed to the whole national economy. Such a situation exists in a number of countries. Second, the negative impacts of tourism development are frequently claimed to be much more evident in less developed countries, primarily as a result of the economic and socio-cultural gulf that exists between them and the developed countries that are the principal generators of tourists and, as a result of both factors, much more attention has been given to tourism development theory in the context of the less developed world. Yet in reality, the extent to which convergence in growth rates and, consequently, expected convergence in per capita GDP may be achieved also depends on the ability of tourism businesses to add value in comparison to other activities in the developed region and on the capital–output ratio in the tourism region compared with that in the developed, generating region. If the added value in the tourism industry is lower (and the capital–output ratio higher) compared to added value (capital–output ratio) in other industries in rich regions, then poorer regions can never catch up with the wealthier

96

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

regions. At the same time, it must be stressed that parity between metropolitan centres and less developed peripheral regions is rarely, if ever, an objective of tourism development; the goal may simply be to gain some economic developmental benefit through tourism. Some authors who support the theory of dependency go so far as to claim that tourism is another form of colonialism or imperialism (Harrison, 2000a) (see Chapter 2). This suggests that less developed tourism regions exhibit a reliance upon external factors and, as such, derive their growth from corresponding growth in the developed regions. Tourism development may therefore reflect the symptoms of dependency when it results in the enrichment of developed countries or regions at the expense of poorer ones (Fletcher, 2000). Tourism development might introduce leakages from the economy arising from the import of products used in the tourism industry and the domination of foreign and multinational firms in the hotel, tour operating and transport sectors that redistribute tourism expenditures back to the developed areas in which they are located. Wealthier tourist-generating centres become richer from tourism in developing destinations on account of the tourist expenditure that leaks out of these destinations, either in the first round when tourists buy imported goods or in subsequent rounds when tourism companies purchase goods and services from suppliers outside the borders of the region/country. Furthermore, tourist-stimulated consumption in the place of residence before and after travel has the same effect. Lacher and Nepal (2010) studied the dependent relationship of the developed urban area and its rural hinterland in Northern Thailand and found that between 15% and 61% of village tourism revenues leak out of the villages, depending on several factors. Yet they emphasise that the revenue which does stay should prove beneficial for further development and that the villagers are eager to engage in tourism. Further evidence against convergence theory is provided by the regionally uneven tourism development in China. Recent developments have created an economic disparity between the prosperous coastal region and impoverished inland region, and tourism development has significantly exacerbated this disparity, being even more concentrated in coastal areas. The three coastal gateways (Shanghai, Beijing and Guanzhou) that enjoy the highest per capita GDP and account for 40% of the total population have attracted 62% of the country’s tourist receipts since the mid-1980s (Wen & Tisdell, 2001). In addition, some researchers (Nowak et al., 2010) have shown that the scale of cross-border tourism production is quite substantial. Particular countries may be competitive in some parts of the tourism product only, whereas they may not be efficient enough to compete in other parts. For example, tourism products are becoming increasingly based on information and communication technology (ICT) and it is logical to expect that countries with technological advantages in ICT will also possess a comparative advantage for these services.

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

97

Although the development of tourism brings improved infrastructure and external or foreign investments into host regions and countries, at the same time it may make the local economy dependent upon tourism for its survival whilst squeezing out traditional industries, not to mention the other negative, non-economic consequences of tourism development on the natural, social and cultural environment. Furthermore, mono-development based predominantly on one industry, such as tourism, is economically highly risky. Tourism demand tends to be very unstable, frequently changing allegiance from one destination to another. This can happen for a variety of reasons, including unfavourable exchange rates, high prices, inflation, a change in fashion, environmental catastrophes, terrorism, political instability or wars and so on. For example, when the German media reported on algae blooming in the Adriatic Sea in 1988, tourism bookings to Rimini, Italy, dropped 50% compared with the previous year (Becheri, 1991: 230). There are also many other examples of external factors that might affect tourism flows, ranging from the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl in 1986, the terrorist attack on New York in 2001, the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and the volcanic eruption in Iceland in 2010 through to the global financial and economic crisis (GFEC) of 2007–8 that to some extent is still in evidence (see Chapter 14). The views on regional convergence in economic growth are not new, nor is regional income divergence theory. Myrdal argued that market forces normally tend to concentrate endogenous development forces and ‘to increase, rather than decrease the inequality between regions’ (Marcouiller et al., 2004), as growth rates are determined by ownership and return to factor resources. In this context, the ownership rights and returns to tourism-specific factor resources are vitally important. The main challenge, as pointed out earlier, is modern, late-20th century tourism development. Although tourism has traditionally favoured poorer areas, recent transformations in tourism markets and investments have benefited richer regions and countries (Williams & Shaw, 1998). That is, the rapid expansion of new forms of tourism, such as urban tourism, cultural tourism, heritage tourism (see Chapter 8) and theme parks, favours those destinations which are relatively accessible to major metropolitan areas. This has been observed in the UK, in particular in London and the southern counties, as well as in Austria where a significant shift in tourism demand towards richer regions, such as Vienna and Lower Austria, has been noted (Zimmerman, 1998: 30). This shift in tourism demand towards wealthier, industrialised destinations has, on the one hand, been demand-driven by new tourism behavioural patterns involving short breaks and new products. On the other hand, it has been strongly supported by the supply side. Many places suffering an economic decline as a result of losing major traditional industries, such as coal and steel production, textiles and ship building, as well as others seeking a more general revival, have sought to develop tourism

98

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

(Kotler et al., 1993). In other words, tourism is expected to bring prosperity to ailing economies (Swarbrooke, 2000), with examples being Baltimore and Boston in the 1970s and Essen and Dortmund in Germany in the 1990s. Rosentraub and Joo (2009) studied more than 300 metropolitan areas in the US that invested in amusements and sports attractions and found this investment to be associated with a higher level of employment in the tourism sector, household incomes and local businesses. In all cases, however, it was not only the ‘take-off’ of declining areas through tourism development that was hoped for. That is, there is some evidence that increasing tourism can also increase the attraction of places to foreign investors and, as Sandford and Dong (2000: 217) demonstrate, tourism stimulates direct investments in a wide variety of (non-tourism) industries and subsequently gives rise to economic development. Furthermore, any clear-cut understanding of the relationship between tourism and development based on a world divided into developed and less developed countries and regions may also be criticised. For example, it neglects the fact that although developed countries may earn substantial absolute amounts of direct tourism expenditure, these are often relatively unimportant as a share of total GDP. At the same time, a developed country’s travel balance deficit may be significant. A good illustration is Germany which, on one side, has gained a reputation for being ‘the world champions of travelling’ (Schnell, 1998: 269), but, on the other, is also a tourism destination. In 2010, for example, Germany’s tourism balance showed a deficit of around US$43.4 billion, with the US$78.1 billion spent by Germans abroad easily exceeding the US$34.7 billion the country earned from foreign visitors (Table 3.1). Moreover, an oversimplified theory of tourism development also neglects the fact that tourism expenditure per visitor per day is normally higher if a developed country or region is being visited (see Table 3.1). From this it is possible to speculate that developed countries are able to add higher value to their tourism product. Thus, it is logical to suggest convergence in economic development cannot be achieved through the development of tourism. This is not to say that tourism does not represent a development opportunity for less developed countries, helping them to achieve economic growth and restructure their domestic economies. However, it must be concluded from the analysis of added value that the power of tourism as a means of development depends on the existing development level in the tourism destination country or region. In other words, it is not only the development level of the tourism sector that is important, but also the degree of development of other sectors of the economy (also see the discussion on the third stage of tourism development and capital–output ratios in the preceding section on tourism and development). Taking into account the dependency of different sectors that, within the host economy, must be involved to satisfy the demand for tourism, it is clear that a better developed economy will be able to earn more, and also retain more of those earnings, within the national economy or region.

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

99

Despite the wealth of evidence of a stronger impact of tourism expenditures in developed destinations, there are doubts about the developmental role of tourism in richer regions. It is true that tourism’s impacts on income generation or the balance of payments in these areas are in most cases marginal since tourism is not a main activity. Many authors (Dwyer et al., 2010; Smeral, 2001; Vanhove, 2011) warn against unrealistic development expectations from tourism since the interactive effects between tourism and other well-developed sectors of the economy must be taken into account. Moreover, the situation might be very different in less developed regions in less developed countries (Mihalič, 2012). Many authors have proven that tourism demand raises aggregate household income and substantially benefits the destination. Unfortunately, its potential to alleviate poverty has been questioned by many studies, with contemporary analyses showing that it also worsens the distribution of income. Wattanakuljarus and Coxhead (2008) found that the general equilibrium effects on growth in inbound tourism in Thailand undermined profitability in agriculture, from which the poor mainly derive their income. Furthermore, others have confirmed that tourism benefits the lowest income groups less than some higher income groups and, thus, does not reduce inequalities if additional policy instruments are not implemented (Blake, 2008; Blake et al., 2008). In general, then, empirical evidence on tourism-led economic growth theory supports both its defenders and opponents. Many researchers (Balaguer & Cantavella-Jorda, 2002; Holzner, 2011; Kim et al., 2006; Lee & Chang, 2008) claim that tourism has a positive impact on the nation’s output and growth. In addition, Holzner (2011) argues that tourism and the manufacturing sector can co-exist and together can generate above-average income based on a common investment in the physical infrastructure both need. Lee and Chang (2008) point out that in developed (e.g. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) countries, tourism has an impact on economic growth yet in less developed countries and in sub-Saharan African countries the causality is stronger and bidirectional. Similarly, Seetanah (2011) confirms a bi-causal relationship between tourism and growth for island countries. Another study of Taiwan came to the same conclusion (Kim et al., 2006). In addition, the unidirectional tourism-led economic growth hypothesis has been confirmed by Spanish researchers (Balaguer & Cantavella-Jorda, 2002; Parrilla et al., 2007) for the Spanish economy and for the Balearic and Canary Islands. In contrast, Oh (2005) questions the general validity of these findings, demonstrating empirically that the expected co-integration between tourism and economic growth does not exist in Korea. He shows that economic growth may result in tourism development and not vice versa. This again points to the dependency between general economic and tourism development. Accordingly, questions remain about whether, in a given country, tourism contributes to the economy as is commonly believed, whether economic growth results in tourism

100

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

development or whether they reinforce each other and how important is the general level of a country’s development for tourism development and reaching maturity.

Tourism and the balance of payments As long ago as the 17th century, the mercantilist Thomas Mun was one of the first to recognise tourism’s potential influence on a country’s balance of payments (Planina, 1997: 58). Although the word ‘tourism’ had yet to enter common usage at that time, the ‘expenses of travailers’ that influence the ‘Balance’ (Mun, 1664: 86) were nevertheless used to describe the impact of international tourism on the balance of payments. Planina (1997: 61) maintains that tourism’s impact on the balance of payments was also the first tourism issue to become a matter of economic scientific debate in the 1920s. More recently, in the first half of the 20th century and, in particular, during the years of economic recession in the decade preceding World War II in Europe, many economists were also concerned with the ability or potential of international tourism to generate foreign currency earnings. At the same time, many countries had adopted protectionist measures in order to increase (incoming) tourism receipts and to decrease (outgoing) tourism expenditure, demonstrating the importance of the receipt/expenditure impact of tourism, even for developed countries. Thus, although the UN interceded against protectionism in tourism in 1936, governments have continued to promote incoming tourism flows and destimulate outflows through economic controls. For example, in 1966 the British government, concerned about the deficit in the travel balance, limited the amount of domestic currency taken on trips out of the country to £50 per day. As a result, British foreign tourism expenditure decreased significantly and the tourism balance became positive. Similarly, in 1968 the US attempted to discourage overseas travel for balance of payments reasons. Although Congress refused to adopt the proposed measures that would have limited Americans’ freedom to travel, the then president nevertheless asked American citizens to reduce their foreign travels in the forthcoming years and, in 1968, American overseas tourism expenditures decreased. The tourism balance was thus reduced, aided by higher foreign tourism earnings (Unkovic, 1985). In comparison, overseas tourism expenditure by the Japanese rose when they were encouraged by their government to travel more. Again, the reason was to address an imbalance in the balance of payments, although, for Japan, the problem was not a deficit but a surplus in foreign trade with the US and Europe and tourism was seen as a particularly effective way of reducing the country’s international trade surplus (Polunin, 1989: 5). This has proved to be a highly successful policy (see Burns, 1996). Not only has it evolved into a ‘10 million programme’, but subsequent agreements with Canada are designed to encourage 2 million tourists from each country to visit the other.

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

101

At the same time, in the early 1990s the permitted value of duty-free goods brought back into Japan was doubled, from 100,000 to 200,000 yen, thereby increasing the expenditure of Japanese tourists in the destination. In economic terms, international tourism receipts are classified as exports and international tourism expenditure as imports. International tourism brings in foreign currency, yet the export of such is not a physical good like traditional exports. Due to its service characteristics and balance of payments impact, international tourism is seen as an invisible export or import. As such, it has many advantages compared to classical the exports of goods: •

•

• •

Some goods which cannot become the subject of exchange within international trade, such as the natural and cultural or social attractiveness of a country, can be valorised through tourism. They attract tourism demand and are indirectly ‘sold’ in the tourism market in the form of higher prices for tourism products (see the section below on environmental goods valuation in tourism). Some products that are ‘exported’ by being sold to foreign tourists visiting the country, such as a bottle of wine or food items, may achieve higher prices than if exported ‘traditionally’ (that is, physically transported for purchase and consumption overseas). ‘Exporting’ by selling to tourists also results in higher profits because, apart from the higher prices mentioned earlier, the costs are lower (for example, lower or no transportation costs or insurance costs). Some perishable goods, such as agricultural products, which are sold to tourists in the country may simply not be suitable for export owing to an insufficiently developed infrastructure and management of export flows.

International tourism receipts from foreign visitors and expenditures arising from the travels of residents abroad are presented in the travel balance, which forms part of the service account of any country’s balance of payments. However, the balance of such a simply defined travel balance is relatively meaningless from the perspective of tourism’s economic impacts on the national economy. It only quantifies the final payments made by tourists. It is necessary to account for all tourism-related transactions in order to determine the true significance of tourism. This not only includes the final payments by tourists and payments for travel costs, but also all international payments related to investments in the tourism industry and its operations. That would lead to a ‘correct’ tourism balance which would contain all relevant transactions related to tourism. For example, the increased travel propensity of Japanese tourists in the 1990s would be shown in the tourism balance. Yet, parallel to this, Japan also increased its foreign direct investment (FDI) in a number of tourism businesses abroad, such as in Hawaii, and this capital outflow also contributed to a reduction of the total balance of

102

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

payments surplus that was not visible in the above-mentioned narrow travel balance. In addition, international transactions connected to tourism FDI also demonstrate how tourism’s economic impacts are not only unidimensional and might have diverse effects on the balance of payments. In the above case, when the Japanese travel to destinations which are supported by Japanese capital, the effect of the outgoing tourism on the Japanese balance of payments is not only negative since transactions in relation to remitted profits, salaries to Japanese employees, payments for imported goods from Japan in order to support tourism business abroad are shown on the other side. Moreover, tourism’s true value to the balance of payments may, in fact, be greater than suggested by focusing on the tourism sector alone. That is, the tourism economy can include all industries and sectors beyond the actual tourism industry per se. Thus, tourism is an important source of foreign currency. In world terms, tourism is the fourth top export category in the world after fuels, chemicals and automotive products. In 2010, overall tourism exports, including passenger transport, exceeded US$1 trillion. Tourism exports account for 30% of the world’s exports of commercial services and 6% of total exports (UNWTO, 2011e). By 2012, tourism exports reached US$1.3 trillion (UNWTO, 2013b). For many developing countries, tourism is the main source of foreign exchange earnings and their number one export category, as well as an opportunity for development. It is, therefore, not surprising that for many countries, particularly those with a limited industrial sector or with few opportunities to develop alternative export sectors, tourism provides a vital source of foreign exchange earnings. In Cyprus, in the 1980s and early 1990s for example, tourism accounted for about 40% of total exports and, until the mid-1990s, balanced the rapidly increasing imports bill (Sharpley, 2001). However, the figures in Table 3.1 demonstrate that tourism’s contribution to exports in general, and the balance of international tourism expenditures and receipts in particular, varies considerably from country to country and, indeed, does not closely follow the level of a country’s development as the theory would suggest. For instance, less developed countries are expected to show a positive travel balance as they are non-industrialised and considered to possess greater tourism attractiveness due to a less degraded environment. At the same time, they consider tourism to be an export opportunity which has been subject to relatively high growth rates and holds the potential for higher earnings than more traditional forms of export. On the contrary, more developed countries are expected to show a negative tourism balance the more their residents travel. In Table 3.1, the six countries that belong to the G7 group simultaneously offer evidence for and against this contention. On the one hand, Germany, Canada and the UK reveal a travel deficit; on the other hand, the remaining three – France, the US and Italy – reveal a travel surplus. And yet a more narrow geographical analysis of the

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

103

case of Europe may confirm the above argument about the differing travel balance of developed and developing countries. For instance, within Europe, the countries of highly developed western and northern Europe have a negative tourism balance, whereas southern and eastern European countries have a positive balance. Equally, on a global scale a large, positive tourism balance tends to be enjoyed by less developed countries as the majority of emerging economies in Table 3.1 show a positive travel balance. In addition, this is also very much the case for many less developed countries not shown in Table 3.1. Hence, in many cases a deficit in the tourism balance is a characteristic of developed countries. Yet, it becomes obvious that some highly developed countries do not follow the expected pattern and, even more, while total tourism earnings in advanced economies exceed tourism spending the opposite is the case for emerging and developing countries. Nevertheless, for developing countries tourism is thus seen as a relatively cheap and easy – and sometimes the only – way of earning the foreign currency required to invest in development. Since many countries face ‘balance of payments difficulties because of a deficit in the trade account or capital account, or both’ (Witt, 1989: 487), international tourism receipts can help to alleviate such balance of payments problems and contribute to the financial resources needed for economic and social development. However, tourism’s overall contribution to the current account may be reduced by a host of factors (Williams & Shaw, 1998: 6). First, it is important to consider the overall balance between international tourism receipts and expenditures. Second, there are leakages of expenditures from the national economy, the level of which is a function of the import propensity of the country, partly a function of the structure of the ownership of tourism and related industries, and partly a function of the degree of development of domestic industries and their ability to meet tourists’ needs from domestic production. Third, the demonstration effect additionally increases the import expenditures of a country as the local population imitates tourists’ consumption patterns and increases its demand for imported goods. Fourth, the upward pressure of inbound tourism on the exchange rate may cause adverse effects on the balance of payments. Because of a higher value of the national currency due to increased foreign tourism demand, the country’s exports may decrease which will offset any positive balance of payments tourism effect (Dwyer et al., 2010).

Environmental goods valuation in tourism Tourism is able to increase the economic growth rate and GDP in a destination via the environmental goods valuation process. Environmental goods, in tourism defined as natural or socio-cultural attractions, have a potential or optional value that is not derived from their current use when tourism development had not yet begun. They are free or public goods and,

104

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

as such, they are not traded, have no direct price and do not form any supply. Only with investment in tourism development, for example, with the development of built supply, is their transformation into tourism supply enabled. Once environmental goods enter the tourism production process and become part of a tourism product or experience, they become elements of the tourism supply and the valuation process commences (see Chapter 9). Fabricated tourism products based on built tourism supply, such as overnight stays, attract higher demand and thus a hedonic price in the tourist market due to the presence of the destination’s natural or social and cultural attractions. Accordingly, the valuation is indirect and reflected in higher tourist product prices. Attractions are given a premium or valuation value (VV) by ‘selling’ them in the tourism market. The theory of the tourism valuation of natural goods – essentially the theory of local public goods applied to tourism – states that some aspects of nature and culture may be converted into premium prices6 if ‘sold’ on the tourism market. If the supply is fixed, increased demand translates into higher prices whereby the valuation value is a premium accruing to a supplier, known as economic rent. Thus, tourist countries, regions and destinations, and the tourism companies operating in such areas, promote attractions such as a beautiful countryside, pristine beaches, cultural heritage and so on because in tourists’ eyes they are part of the tourism supply (Tschurtschenthaler, 1986: 118). The payment from the ‘consumption’ of natural goods is included in the (higher) price of tourism services which emanates from the greater tourist demand reflecting the attractiveness of the natural or cultural goods. For example, it was once suggested that British ‘green’ tourists are willing to pay a premium of £509 for a fortnight’s holiday in Tropical North Queensland for the unspoiled condition of its natural environment and if the authorities continue to protect it (Huybers & Bennett, 2000: 37), though it should be noted that the validity of such assertions has increasingly come into question. Defenders of this theory claim that the ‘selling’ of natural and cultural attractions through premium prices does not reduce the wealth of a country as is the case, for instance, with raw material exploitation and exports. Indeed, the fact that certain visitors have experienced a particular country’s attractions may enhance its appeal and therefore increase its value for others (Ritchie & Crouch, 1993: 35). Another view on the economic tourism potential of environmental goods can be derived from the traditional foreign trade theory (Heckscher-Ohlin theory). This theory claims that the sources of comparative advantages are factor endowments, labour or capital. Developed industrialised countries are able to produce industrial goods (capital-intensive production) with lower capital costs than developing countries and, conversely, developing countries are able to produce tourism services (labour-intensive production) with lower factor costs than industrialised countries. The extent to which each will

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

105

benefit from trade will depend on the real terms of trade at which they agree to exchange tourism services for industrial goods. As unique natural (or cultural) attractions can also become a source of a country’s competitive advantage, countries with rich endowments of natural attractions such as beautiful beaches should, in theory, develop international tourism in order to ‘export’ products that depend upon them and thus exchange ‘island beaches for industrial goods’ (Smeral, 1994: 499). Some authors (for example, Marcouiller et al., 2004) have studied the impact of natural amenities such as land, rivers, lakes and warm and cold weather attributes and their potential for recreation in rural America and conclude that, in particular, water-based resources provide a key factor in the distribution of income. However, although the existence of a premium value on account of environmental goods is clear in theory, there are situations and external factors that might bring this into question both generally or in specific destinations. One such situation might be when the property rights to environmental goods are not determined and, therefore, this value belongs to the domestic or foreign tourism company which ‘sells’ them as part of its fabricated product. In some cases, the premium earnings resulting from the exploitation of the destination’s natural and cultural property belong to foreign firms and are transferred out of the host country. Consequently, tourism may become a form of neocolonialism, whereby the control of national property is taken over by foreign capital. On the one hand, this may be seen as very similar to the colonial exploitation of other natural resources such as minerals; on the other hand, it is significantly less transparent. Namely, international tourism, as an invisible export, may create leakages from the economy before the consumption of tourism even commences in the host country. A significant share of the financial flows might not accompany travellers but instead remain with foreign or multinational companies based abroad. In particular, in the case of package destinations the payment for goods and services in the host destination passes through the hands of the outgoing tour operator that normally enjoys a high level of bargaining power and is able to negotiate low prices with local suppliers. The consequences are twofold. First, the impact of the foreign expenditure in the local host area is, of course, reduced. Second, and of greater relevance here, the premium value for the natural and cultural attractions that should, in theory, belong to the host country is appropriated by the foreign company. As a result, the tourism output in the economy is reduced, the capital–output ratio increases and the economic development effects of tourism are therefore eroded. An extreme case is international vessels that ‘sell’ cruises. Frequently, such ships anchor in the national waters of certain tourism destinations close to beautiful beaches, yet they leave without generating any tourist expenditure if the tourists on board have not been given the opportunity to visit the mainland. A second situation that might reduce the valuation value refers to environmental damage through tourism development. The reduction in the value

106

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

of natural goods resulting from tourist exploitation and pollution may be categorised as a negative external effect; in practice, this is manifested in, for example, visual pollution of the countryside through inappropriate tourist utilisation of the area, water pollution, and other forms of degradation of the environment such as noise, congestion, the destruction of flora and fauna, and negative impacts on the local society and culture. Although the economic success of tourism companies depends on the quality (attractiveness, purity) of natural goods, they are not generally willing to take responsibility for the costs, especially for the repair of environmental damage or degradation caused in the past and the consequences of such damage. Thus, the costs of environmental repair and protection are sustained by the host country irrespective of who has profited from exploitation of the environment. In effect, where no one is held responsible for environmental protection and management, environmental quality and, consequently, its attractiveness to tourism, may deteriorate. As a result, premium prices would fall and the valuation value may even become negative. Tourists would be unwilling to ‘pay’ for poor environmental quality. Indeed, they would require a visitor premium (visitor rent) in the form of low prices (Mihalič, 2000) or reject polluted or environmentally spoilt destinations, in both cases reducing the tourism’s economic contribution to development. Another situation relates to the problem of added value. A less developed country may lack the ability to add value to its natural or cultural resources, even when a ‘third party’ country is not involved in the tourism business. This may be the result of a lack of expertise, poor marketing and promotion, limited access to tourism-generating markets, poor branding and so on. In the event the premium value earned is low or zero (or even negative), due to the low prices, the tourism output is proportionally lower and thus the value of the capital–output ratio is higher, which holds, as already described, negative implications for the economic growth and development. On the contrary, positive tourism rent can bring additional financial resources into an economy. If used for environmental protection, it will generate new economic activities in this sector and at the same time prevent tourism assets from depreciating. The long-term tourism valuation of the (maintained) environmental goods will thereby be assured, as will a sustainable source for economic growth. In addition, value might be reduced by some external factors that influence the attractiveness of places for tourism and consequently the prices and visitation levels. Such external events are diseases, terrorism or political instability. For example, in 2003 an outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) devastated tourism in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Vietnam, and cost these four economies US$20 billion in lost GDP (McKercher & Chon, 2004). Further, the damaging impact of terrorism on international tourism is well-documented whilst Llorca-Vivero (2008) showed that the cost of terrorist actions in terms of tourist arrivals is

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

107

noticeably higher in developing countries, mainly because they have lessdeveloped crisis management institutions. However, external factors, such as oil shocks or the global financial crisis, also lead to price reductions and if tourism firms are unable to adjust to the corresponding cost-cuts, the premium value will disappear in the disparity between the price and cost reductions and may even become negative.

The inflationary/deflationary consequences of tourism Inflation is a major problem of the world economy. Rising prices, often the consequence of economic expansion, have spared neither developed nor developing countries. Evidently, tourism also contributes to the price spiral. Rising tourism prices may be due to either an increase in tourism demand or higher production costs. Tourism-pull inflation is caused by increases in aggregate demand due to the additional financial resources international tourists bring to a country. If the supply of goods and services in the destination country cannot adapt to the increased effective demand, the general price level will rise. Similarly, in the tourism-spending country international tourism creates an outflow of money and thus a reduction in demand which, ceteris paribus, has an anti-inflationary effect. Theoretically, this may cause deflation or a reduction of the current inflation rate (Mihalič, 2002c). In addition, tourism may also cause cost inflation if prices are pushed up by the rise in costs. In a labour-intensive tourism industry increased demand leads to stronger employment in local service industries and an acceleration of the wage-price spiral as the higher labour costs of production are passed on as higher prices for tourism services. Further, higher fees and taxes on some tourist products or services will have the same effect. Since additional tourism demand is primarily oriented to the supply of services where the production quantity can to some extent be quickly adapted, tourism has a certain capacity to absorb the additional demand. This capacity depends on the elasticity of the tourism supply, which varies according to the type of supply and availability of resources and how employed the existing capacities are. The same amount of tourism consumption may have a different impact on an increase in the production quantity and price level if the supply curve is less or more steep. Figure 3.1 assumes that, in the absence of international tourism, the purchasing funds of local inhabitants equal the funds of goods and services and the economy is in equilibrium P0 Q 0L . In this case, tourism expenditures increase the supply of money and bring about inflation. The additional tourism demand shifts total demand from D0L which represents local demand to D1(L+T) which represents the sum of local and tourist demand. A direct or primary effect of tourism expenditure is a new equilibrium at P1Q1(T+L), where more products are traded, but at a higher price. Since local consumers,

108

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Figure 3.1 Infl ation and tourism Notes: S, supply curve; D0L, local demand (before tourist expenditure enters the economy); D1(L+T), local and tourist demand after tourist expenditure enters the economy (primary or direct effect); D2L, increased local demand due to increased employment and income (secondary effect); D3(L+T), local and tourist demand after the secondary effect took place; P, general price level; Q, general quantities of products.

whose income remains unchanged, are only able to buy quantities along the curve D0L in a new equilibrium at higher prices, they may only buy a lower quantity Q2L . Furthermore, because tourism demand increases production, local employment and salaries will rise (a secondary effect). Some of the additional salaries will shift the local demand curve to the right (D2L ) as locals are now willing/able to spend more money for the available goods and services. At the same time, the total demand curve D1(L+T) will move to D3(L+T) and push prices up further. It is the slope of the supply curve that decides how much additional local purchasing power will be absorbed by the higher prices. Where a country has more purchasing funds than commodity funds, international tourism will increase the inflation rate; in the opposite case, in an economy with deflationary tendency it will stabilise prices. Conversely, outgoing tourism acts as reducer of purchasing power in an outgoing economy – theoretically, it may reduce the inflation rate or cause deflation. After the arrival of visitors, the increased demand in the destination country will lead to trading with a larger quantity of products at higher prices. The residents are worse off as they will receive a smaller quantity of products at higher prices (a primary inflation effect). Since the additional tourist demand triggers additional production, the employment rate and wages of the residents increase. These wage increases enhance the residents’

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

109

purchasing power and their demand which causes a secondary inflation effect (curve D2 and corresponding equilibrium points A1, A2 or A3). A new balance is established at a higher price level and a larger quantity of products. The extent to which the residents’ purchasing power will increase and how much of it will be ‘eaten up’ by the higher prices depends on the slope of the supply curve, and thus on the elasticity of supply. Higher inflation also affects both domestic and international tourism flows. As the residents must spend more on necessities due to the higher costs of visit, less money is then available to spend elsewhere, including travel. Therefore, the residents may travel less within their own country and domestic tourism will decline. At the same time, the country will become less competitive than similar destinations due to the higher prices. The number of international tourists will then fall, as will revenues. Yet it should be noted that in a country with its own currency, inflation will force an adjustment of exchange rates which will also have an additional economic and psychological effect on tourism demand. The effect of relative prices and exchange rates has been quantified by many researchers in tourism demand models (Martin & Witt, 1988; Webber, 2001; Witt & Witt, 1994). Beside the factors of income and trend, the majority of these models quantify the effect of relative prices, costs of living at the destination, transport costs and exchange rates on tourism demand. The theoretical assumption is that the price elasticity of tourism demand is negative and cross-price elasticity with the competing destinations is positive. Higher prices in one destination country will redirect, all other things being equal, tourist flows in the direction of a competing destination country. In the case of lower cross-price elasticities, the change will be smaller, ceteris paribus. Yet, it should be noted that the price elasticity of tourism demand varies across destinations and origin markets. For example, one study for UK outgoing tourism showed that British tourists were very sensitive to price changes in Greece (coefficient −5.60) and much less to price changes in Austria (coefficient −0.23) (Martin & Witt, 1988). The same variety has been confirmed for exchange rate elasticity values, that ranged from insignificant to as high as −12.01 for Australian tourism flows to Malaysia (Webber, 2001). Indeed, the given values come from different models and different time periods and should thus be only regarded as illustrative to show the complexity of price and exchange rate impacts on tourism demand. In general, it can be argued that prices and the exchange rate influence tourism demand. However, although a change in the exchange rate influences the final costs of a commodity for a tourist, tourists do not necessarily connect the two. This means that tourists take account of relative prices and exchange rates separately in their decision-making (Stabler et al., 2010). Exchange rates have a psychological effect on tourism demand as a more favourable exchange rate would attract tourism demand irrespective of what the real inflation rate in the destination has been. In the short term this irrational behaviour might

110

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

be explained by the fact that tourists are not aware of inflation rates or price levels in distant destinations and only take the exchange rate into consideration. However, in the long term a tourist destination country will lose its price competitiveness if the country’s exchange rate does not reflect the increase in the prices of products that tourists are buying. When these prices rise but the export prices do not follow that increase, the exchange rate will not compensate for the rise in tourism prices. From the tourist’s perspective, an overvalued currency will visibly increase their living costs in the destination and thus reduce visitation and spending levels. Yet it would be wrong to conclude that tourist-generating countries are pure exporters and destination countries are pure importers of inflation. That conclusion would not take into account that the physical flows of international tourism in the direction of tourist-generating to destination countries do not completely equal the financial flows resulting from such travel. Then we must take account of the fact that a portion of the money stays in developed tourist-generating countries or leaks to them later and that a large part of the tourist economy is becoming international, owned by foreign and multinational corporations. Tourism’s inflationary/deflationary potential therefore depends, along with many other factors, on the quantity of money that goes into or out of a country as a result of international tourism. Developed countries mostly have stable economies and low inflation while developing countries usually have stubbornly high inflation. Therefore, inflation falls further in developed countries with a low inflation rate in the case of prevailing tourist outflows. The developing countries have high inflation levels even without tourism and tourist spending only exacerbates this. A phenomenon called the ‘export of inflation’ may occur which further increases the differences in inflation between highly developed and developing countries. However, one may argue that inflation triggered by tourism demand is conducive to a faster economic growth rate since the excess demand and favourable market conditions might stimulate investment and expansion. If tourism is a country’s major economic activity and represents a large share of its GDP, inflationary tensions in tourism may spill over into the economy and contribute to a rise in general inflation. Yet several authors argue that in many cases inflationary tourism effects are limited in terms of time, space and the kind of products or markets. Tourism demand may cause higher prices only during the high seasons and the pressure on prices might be limited to the most visited places, such as particular holiday resorts, cities or even streets. Moreover, tourists are interested in a narrow range of goods and services such as food, accommodation, entertainment, fashion or beauty products and, thus, the impact is limited. Although such higher prices do affect residents, they may change their buying behaviour and move to other points of sale and thus avoid the negative effect of the higher prices for food and similar products.

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

111

However, although local residents are able to overcome the problem of higher prices for some products, this is not the case with real estate. If land prices rise, locals also have to pay more. In some destinations, young families might be unable to buy a future home and will therefore have to find a property somewhere else. In addition, local business people might not continue their traditional businesses when the real estate costs of their businesses become too high. Consequently, more and more real estate will be used for tourism purposes, which relates to interdependency theory. This leads to the local economy becoming dependent on tourism for its survival. Vanhove (2005) argues that this effect is also quite local and does not substantially contribute to general price increases in the real estate market at the national level. In addition, he argues that, from a macroeconomic point of view, higher real estate prices represent a benefit and all owners profit from the additional value that accrues. Overall, then, the inflationary/deflationary effects of tourism demand are complex and often temporal and local, yet there is sufficient evidence in the tourism literature that prices and exchange rates do influence real tourism demand and, thus, the economic effects of tourism in any given country.

The impact of tourism on employment Tourism creates valuable employment opportunities. Indeed, commonly regarded as a human-resource intensive activity, tourism represents what may arguably be described as the world’s single largest source of employment. As statistics on tourism development are still underdeveloped, different estimates are based on different methodologies and, thus, vary. However, as pointed out in the introduction, the tourism economy – that is, both the direct and indirect tourism sectors – provide between 6% and 9% of global employment (UNWTO, 2011a; WTTC, 2011). By 2012, 1 in 11 jobs were linked to tourism (UNWTO, 2013b). Tourism’s role and contribution to employment and, hence, development varies considerably according to the scale, character, stage of development and relative importance of the tourism industry in a country or destination. Table 3.3 indicates tourism’s contribution to overall employment in top tourism and some other smaller countries. In some developing countries that base their economies strongly on tourism, the tourism sector might employ more than half the total labour force. For example, according to WTTC data, the tourism sector in Aruba accounts for 74.7% of total employment, in Macau 87.0% and in the Seychelles 55.1% of the total employment (WTTC, 2011). While these data might be methodologically overestimated, it is evident that tourism-related jobs represent an important or main source of employment for some countries. At the same time, tourism may be an important generator of jobs in some developed countries: it generates more than one-tenth of total employment in Austria, France and Spain (Table 3.3). In some tourism regions in developed countries it may even be the main generator of employment.

112

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Table 3.3 Travel and tourism economy and industry employment, top 10 tourism earners and selected countries, % of total, 2010 2010 Employment tourism industry (% of total)

2010 Employment tourism economy (% of total)

Travel and tourism economy employment

2010 Employment tourism industry (% of total)

World Top 10 tourism earners – advanced countries

3.3

9.0

Austria

4.6

11.7

France

4.4

9.2

Canada USA Germany UK Italy Spain Hong Kong (China) Greece

3.2 3.8 1.8 3 3.6 2.6 5.8

5.0 8.8 4.6 6.9 8.4 14.3 12.1

7.7

15.3

OECD Top 10 tourism earners – emerging and developing countries Macao (China) Russian Federation Poland Mexico Turkey Malaysia Ukraine Thailand China Egypt Other countries Aruba Seychelles Morocco

2010 Employment tourism economy (% of total)

3.5

9.3

46.3

87.2

1.4

5.6

1.9 7.3 2.1 6.6 1.8 4.8 2.7

5.1 12.7 10.0 15.7 7.9 14.7 8.3

6.9

17.5

26.5 22.0 7.6

74.7 55.1 18.9

Source: (WTTC, 2011).

However, the tourism-related employment debate in less developed countries generally tends to focus on the generation of employment opportunities for lower skilled workers, tourism as a new source of income/wages, and on small-scale entrepreneurship in cottage industries. Similarly, in developed countries tourism’s potential contribution to employment stresses job creation and entrepreneurship, mainly in the tertiary and quaternary sectors. Yet

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

113

it is frequently tourism’s impact on employment in peripheral areas, thereby counteracting rural–urban migration or a population shift towards more developed regions, that is most emphasised. Tourism-developing regions provide jobs that prevent migration and make these regions more attractive to young families. Thus, tourism employment issues in developed countries are closely connected to regional development but are more often associated with national economic growth and development in less developed countries. Nevertheless, in some less developed countries, such as Mexico and Indonesia, tourism has been promoted as a regional, as opposed to a national, employment generator. Inevitably, tourism’s impact on employment is widely criticised and it has long been recognised that the promise of high quality, permanent jobs is not realised in practice. Tourism industry employment has a negative image, associated with the service sector in general and long and unsociable working hours in tourism in particular. More specifically, criticism is frequently directed at the part-time, seasonal and thus non-permanent nature of many tourism jobs. Indeed, it is the nature of many tourism jobs to have these characteristics. For example, in 2008 Greece reported that 41% of tourismrelated jobs were temporary, while in the same year only 11% of the country’s total jobs were temporary (Demunter, 2008). In addition, the tourism sector offers less stable permanent jobs than the rest of the labour market. On average, EU employees stay with the same employer for 10 years. However, in the hotel and restaurant sectors, the figure is only just over five years (Demunter, 2008). Further, its negative image is also connected to the fact that tourism often attracts individuals such as students or retired people who might not be considered part of the working population. At the same time, either the lack of local workers or the low wages, unsociable hours and poor image of working in tourism may result in foreign workers being employed, either officially or unofficially, in the sector, resulting in a variety of social tensions. For example, 22.7% of tourism job places in Canada in 2010 were held by immigrants (Statistics Canada, 2011). Finally, it is frequently claimed that, particularly in developing economies, the jobs created in tourism for local people are generally menial and at a lower level. Canada reports that tourism wages per hour are lower than in other sectors (Statistics Canada, 2011). Conversely, in many less developed countries, such as Cuba, potential earnings in the tourism sector may actually be higher than in other professions (see also Cukier, 2002). It should be noted, however, that especially in developing countries, the higher paid, managerial positions are more often occupied by foreign nationals and, as already observed, this importation of labour usually intensifies the leakages that negatively influence economic development. From the economic development perspective, there is consensus that tourism creates employment that generally benefits the economy. However, it may also be argued that, rather than creating new, extra jobs, tourism

114

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

development simply serves to redistribute existing labour. That is, the potential attraction of working within tourism means that traditional industries, in particular agriculture, lose their labour force and go into decline. As a consequence, more primary products have to be imported, contributing to a negative balance of payments. At the same time, it has also been suggested that working seasonally may be more attractive to the local labour force and thus non-tourist industries with higher value-added potential may not consider it worthwhile locating in the area (Mathieson & Wall, 1982). Yet, despite these problems there is little doubt that through its employment generation potential tourism effectively contributes to economic development, particularly in areas where few, if any, alternative employment prospects exist. Given the enormous variety of businesses which directly and indirectly facilitate travel and in light of the positive trends in the growth of travel and tourism it is likely that in the future significant new job opportunities will directly and indirectly depend on tourism. So far, there has been little research on the quality of indirect and induced job places whose characteristics are certainly different to jobs in the direct tourism industry, which is very often studied in terms of data for the hotel and restaurant or travel agent sectors. In general, in developed countries fewer and fewer jobs are available in primary and secondary sectors in both relative and absolute terms on account of the increased capital intensity, a decline in the traditional food production and raw materials extraction sectors, as well as because of technological progress and the reallocation of production to developing countries with cheaper labour. To some extent, this reduction is compensated by increasing employment in the tertiary sector which encompasses tourism. In addition, tourism also generates additional job places in the quaternary sector as it is an increasingly important user of services like ICT, culture, education or governmental services. Indeed, tourism is seen as a relatively labour-intensive industry, which is especially true in the initial stages of development. Yet as it develops, the tourism industry may become increasingly more capitalintensive, depending on the type of tourism involved. For example, Bull (1995) cites Morocco as an example of a labour-intensive tourism industry that in total employs 18.9% of the working population as opposed to London, where tourism development is capital-intensive and provides jobs for 6.9% of total employees (Table 3.3).

Conclusion and Discussion While it is evident that tourism development research requires a more holistic approach that would take account of all development dimensions and correlations, this chapter has employed an approach based on the discipline of economics. It has considered the economic dimension of tourism

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

115

development, which refers to economic growth, structural changes as well as the equitable distribution of tourism benefits and the economic potential of environmental factors from the perspective of developed and developing countries and regions. Such a reductionist rather than holistic approach enables us to harness a developed theoretical and methodological framework of tourism economics and to understand one dimension of tourism development which forms a basis for economic tourism policy and planning. There is no doubt that tourism, as both an incoming and outgoing economic phenomenon, directly influences national, regional and local economies. Indeed, tourism has various positive economic impacts that may positively influence a country’s economic development. The criticism of promoting tourism development for its positive economic impact can be based on the fact that the magnitude of economic impacts is determined by a variety of factors, such as the level of tourism and general development of the host economy, its diversification, import propensity, availability of resources, resource attractiveness, and so on. Development theories too often neglect the leakages of tourism spending out of the state supplying the capital for tourism. In addition, it is easier to realise the benefits of tourism in developed economies that are able to earn more per visitor by virtue of the more developed tourism products available, strongly supported by other, non-tourism sectors. Although more and more developing countries are supporting the development of tourism, efforts to attract increasing numbers of visitors to developed countries are also being made, exemplified by the development of new forms of tourism in richer regions. All of this contradicts the theory of convergence in economic tourism growth that is the main argument for how tourism can be used as a tool for decreasing the development gap between developed and developing countries. How can the tourism development model reduce the gap between the developed and developing worlds if developed countries are, on the one hand, highly involved in developing/investing in tourism in the developing world whilst, on the other hand, becoming ever more active in developing tourism in their own territory, where they are able to achieve a significantly higher yield per visitor than developing countries? As this chapter has demonstrated, despite valid criticism of some of the alleged economic benefits of tourism, there are a variety of economic measures. At the same time, economic analysis provides us with two possible solutions to the equity in development issue. First, it would be more equitable or fair to allow host countries to retain the premium value of their attractions by establishing some kind of property rights over these attractions. Although the focus of the debate here is how to enable developing countries to fully realise the valorisation value of their attractions, some economists believe that property rights are the fundamental reason for the world being divided into developed and less developed countries in the first place (Sotto, 1993: 8). Modern market economies generate growth because

116

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

widespread, formal property rights permit massive, low-cost exchanges and, thus, account for varying economic growth rates and different GDP figures in different countries. The difference between the export of raw materials and island beaches is that, through the tourism process, the latter form part of a tourism supply which might be exported at a negative value for a country that possesses them if someone outside of the country is collecting their premium value. Furthermore, premium value might also be lost if external factors, such as terrorism or political instability, reduce tourism prices to the lowest possible level. Second, a possible economic means of addressing the problem of inequity would be to introduce national financial compensation for not travelling (Mihalič, 1999: 128–131). In other words, travelling represents the ‘free’ consumption of the environment and, thus, runs counter to the principle of equity inasmuch as outgoing tourism remains mainly the privilege of citizens from developed industrial countries. At the same time, of course, the citizens of poorer countries possess the same right (if not the economic means) to travel and consume (free) resources. The introduction of financial compensation for not travelling (paid by travelling nations) would bring money to developing countries that could be used for future development programmes that would help close/reduce the gap between rich and poor countries.

Notes (1) The estimated span is a result of different methodologies that have been used in calculations of the contribution of tourism and travel to world GDP. The latest United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) calculation (direct and indirect tourism’s contribution to GDP of 5%, and to employment 6–7%) is based on the country Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) in the 2008 Methodology of the United Nations Statistics Commission. As relatively few countries have fully comparable TSA data, the UNWTO estimate is based on still-fragmented information and how reliable the estimates are is unknown. The WTTC (2011) calculation (travel and tourism’s direct and indirect contribution to GDP of 9%, to employment of 8.6%) is also based on country TSA data, where available, as well as other data, and complemented by economic modelling developed over the past 20 years that allows crosscountry benchmarking. Experts believe that the WTTC economic calculation is overestimated, meaning that the WTTC travel and tourism world GDP contribution estimate might be relatively high. Nevertheless, in this chapter the WTTC data are used extensively, but for illustration purposes and benchmarking only. Should readers try to derive conclusions from this, it is their responsibility to keep a critical distance from the different data sources used. (2) Value added is the difference between the total output, i.e. revenues and the costs of inputs of raw materials, components or services bought to produce that output. Value added is the value a firm or industry adds to its bought materials and services through its own production and marketing efforts. (3) The capital–output ratio θ is calculated as follows:

θ = K(t)/Y(t)

Tour ism and Economic Development Issues

117

where K(t). . . capital over time t Y(t). . . produced output (gross national product GNP) over time t. (4) The marginal capital–output ratio θ is calculated as follows:

θ = ΔK(t)/ΔY(t) where ΔK(t) . . . change in capital over time t ΔY(t) . . . change in produced output (gross national product (GNP)) over time t. (5) The multiplier value (M) depends on the change in total output (ΔY) and the initial change in expenditure (ΔE) and, as shown by the equations below, a higher multiplier means a higher economic growth rate (y): ΔY M = ΔE ΔY

M ∗ ΔE ; ΔY = M * Δ E ⇒ y = Y Y (6) The premium in price (with fixed supply also known as tourism rent) refers to the valuation value (VV) which is the value placed on a tourism product by a tourist because of increased demand due to the destination’s attractiveness (environmental, cultural, etc.): y =

P = C + PF + VV where P . . . the price of the tourism product; C . . . costs of the tourism product; PF . . . profit (a ‘normal’ return on the capital involved); VV . . . valuation value (tourism rent).

4

Tourism and Poverty Reduction Regina Scheyvens

Introduction For several decades, researchers have sought to untangle the relationship between tourism and poverty. While many agree that this relationship exists, some are in opposite camps, asserting either that tourism entrenches poverty or that tourism can contribute to poverty alleviation. It is the latter view which will be explored, in the main, in this chapter, focusing particularly on the period from the late 1990s onwards which saw the emergence of so-called ‘pro-poor tourism’ (PPT). To set the enthusiasm around the potential of PPT in context, the chapter begins by looking back briefly at how, over time, researchers have conceptualised the relationship between tourism and poverty. Selected tourism initiatives which are attempting to reduce poverty are then discussed, followed by a section reflecting on the constraints to tourism alleviating poverty in practice. To conclude the chapter, ways forward in terms of tourism providing a more comprehensive approach to poverty alleviation are suggested, highlighting the important role that developing country governments have in setting the context within which tourism occurs in their countries.

Conceptualising the Relationship between Tourism and Poverty Views of tourism and its potential to alleviate poverty have varied considerably over time. Therefore, the purpose of this first section is to explain the main changes in views from the 1950s through to the present, with changes from modernising views to critical perspectives, and then alternative views on tourism development. 118

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

119

In the 1950s, tourism was identified as a strategy that could help newly independent developing countries to pull themselves out of various states of under-development. The liberal approach to tourism is informed by the logic of modernisation theory, which informed development practice particularly from the 1950s through to the 1970s (see Chapter 2). From this perspective, tourism is regarded as ‘a catalyst for modernization, economic development and prosperity in emerging nations in the third world’ (Williams, 1998: 1), an industry which generates jobs and foreign exchange, while also bringing beneficial socio-cultural change in terms of demonstrating ‘modern’ ways of life to people living in traditional cultures. A basic premise of this approach was that people’s traditional ways of life contributed to their poverty. This approach thus endorses tourism as a suitable strategy for governments of poorer countries to kick-start their economies, engage with Western society (the intended source of tourist arrivals) and to pursue a range of development goals, including infrastructure development, job creation and growth. However, by the 1960s it was becoming clear that even when economic growth occurred, this did not necessarily ‘trickle down’ to benefit the poor. Thus, in the 1970s and 1980s many social scientists argued that poor people and developing countries are typically excluded from or disadvantaged by what tourism can offer. Tourism was widely critiqued as an industry dominated by large corporations which exploit the labour and resources of developing countries, cause environmental degradation, commodify traditional cultures, and lead to social disharmony (Britton, 1982b; Pleumarom, 1994). It was claimed that tourism, in many cases, exploits, highlights and entrenches the differences between rich and poor (Brohman, 1996a). There are also contemporary studies which seriously question the benefits of tourism for developing countries (e.g. Akama, 2004; Manyara & Jones, 2007; Mbaiwa, 2005b). Post-colonial writers also contribute to this critical stance on tourism in developing countries, demonstrating how contemporary tourism is anchored in colonial and post-colonial relationships, how neo-colonial ideas still resonate in tourism marketing, and questioning, for example, the power relations implicit in images and text used to promote tourism (Hall & Tucker, 2004; Akama, 2004). They thus note that certain places and peoples have appeal because they are seen as ‘unspoilt’ to the middle and upper classes of the West and the emerging economies (Jaakson, 2004; Wels, 2004). ‘Unspoilt’, however, often equates with poverty; while resorts and luxury lodges have every convenience, those living in the ‘picturesque’ villages nearby may lack basics such as access to clean drinking water and sanitation services, and health facilities and schools may only be available to those who can afford transportation and fees. Tourism has been accused of aestheticising poverty, of turning poverty into ‘the picturesque’ (Marshment, 1997: 28). This has sometimes been the case with ‘slum tourism’ (see Chapters 6 and 13), which has increased in popularity since the release of the Oscar Award winning

120

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

movie Slumdog Millionaire, set in Dharavi, Mumbai. Other tourists are attracted to the ‘cheap’ holiday which is possible in poorer countries, overlooking the fact that their ‘great deal’ is due to the low price of labour, lack of unionisation and poor labour rights (Scheyvens, 2011: 89–90). While acknowledging the concerns of those coming from a critical perspective, some scholars have suggested that tourism can contribute to development if it is approached in an alternative way (Smith & Eadington, 1992). Indicative of early publications in this field was Dernoi’s (1981) ‘Alternative tourism: towards a new style in North–South relations’. Support for alternative tourism was ‘driven by “a sense of outrage” over the misuse of nature, the costs of materialism and the loss of culture in tourism destinations’ (de Kadt, 1990: abstract). Alternative approaches to tourism as a means of development and poverty alleviation are informed by a number of bodies of thinking. Alternative development perspectives centre on grass-roots development and embrace ideas on participation, equity, gender-sensitivity and empowerment (Telfer, 2002). Timothy (2007: 203) shows how decentralising decision-making power by empowering ‘people locally on the ground’ can lead to more effective development outcomes. Cole (2006) and Sofield (2003) also apply empowerment to their analysis of tourism and development, arguing that it is a key to achieving sustainable tourism. Incorporating the above ideas, alternative approaches to tourism generally support small-scale or locallybased tourism initiatives which attempt to bring benefits to poorer communities, minimise harm to the environment and to local communities, and aim to build good relationships between ‘hosts’ and ‘guests’ (Krippendorf, 1987). They also support the notion that local residents should play an active role in tourism planning and decision-making forums (Murphy, 1985), and support tourism that is fair, just and equitable (Scheyvens, 2002b). Alternative development perspectives have provided a strong critique of forms of tourism dominated by outside interests and offered some viable alternative ideas on tourism development which is more in line with local interests. They have been less effective, however, in tackling the need for change in the most important market: mass tourism. This is where PPT is said to have considerable potential.

Emergence of Pro-poor Tourism Given the strength and vigour of the critique of tourism discussed above, it is fascinating to see how there has been a concerted push towards a reversal of this thinking in recent years, partly inspired by some of the alternative tourism thinking but also going beyond this, and coinciding with the development industry’s global focus, from the 1990s, on poverty alleviation. This will be discussed below.

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

121

1990s–2000s: Global Development Focus on Poverty Alleviation In the development field, the decade of the 1990s was characterised by a move to establish poverty alleviation as the number one development agenda. Despite billions of dollars donated to charities, decades of development planning, aid projects and programmes, grants and loans, by the end of the 1980s it was clear that limited progress had been made in eliminating poverty (Cling, 2003). It is in this context that poverty alleviation was made the leading development agenda in the 1990s and ‘pro-poor’ discourse came to the fore. It is no coincidence that the term ‘pro-poor tourism’ (PPT) was first used in the development literature in 1999 (see Deloitte & Touche, 1999). The focus on poverty proved alluring: ‘It has provided a powerful rallying cry – a new development mantra – for those in development practice and charged with garnering flagging political and financial support for aid programmes’ (Storey et al., 2005: 30). The World Bank and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) came out in favour of this approach in 1990, followed by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which established International Development Targets (the precursors of the Millennium Development Goals) in 1996. Concurrently, a number of multilateral and bilateral donors also came on board to endorse the poverty agenda as their central aim, for example the Department for International Development (DFID) in 1991, and AusAID in 1997. By 1999, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) introduced Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) as a participatory, poverty-focused way of planning for development in a wide range of countries. Interestingly, in 80% of these PRSPs, tourism is identified as an important economic sector (Mann, 2005: iv), leading to the suggestion that tourism can be effectively targeted towards benefiting the poor. This period was characterised by what many see as a consensus on poverty, including the belief that poverty results from poor governance and protected economies, and that globalisation offers a path out of poverty. Thus, blame for economies that were failing was placed squarely with those countries themselves rather than recognising the roles that outside structures and institutions, historically and contemporarily, play in producing the conditions for poverty (Erbelei, 2000). Contemporary poverty analysis has thus overlooked the underlying causes of poverty (Green & Hulme, 2005; Hickey, 2008). The ‘poverty consensus’ has also been criticised in terms of its heavy focus on economic development, while overlooking important environmental, social and political issues. Associated with the poverty consensus are the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a set of eight goals that are almost universally

122

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

supported, having been agreed upon by all 191 member states of the United Nations: • • • • • • • •

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Achieve universal primary education. Promote gender equality. Reduce child mortality. Improve maternal health. Control HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. Ensure environmental sustainability. Develop a global partnership for development.

Each goal has associated targets, to be achieved by 2015. While gaining widespread support and lauded for identifying a single, unifying goal for development agencies, the MDGs have also been criticised because, as Hickey (2008: 355) notes, ‘. . .the focus on targets and the narrow politics of securing quick wins has sidelined a more thorough consideration of the institutional arrangements and political processes required to move towards these goals’. In a similar vein, Mowforth and Munt are concerned that no fundamental changes are being suggested under the MDGs, rather, neoliberal reform and economic growth are still the focus of development efforts: . . . it is interesting to note that all the rhetoric about poverty reduction and elimination that has emanated from the supranational institutions in recent years has assumed that there will be and can be no change in the prevailing model of development. The point is not that the intentions to adjust policy are ill-inspired, but that they are contingent upon a system which has manifestly failed to date to deliver development to a majority of the world’s population. (Mowforth & Munt, 2009: 339) Thus, some authors feel that an emphasis on poverty reduction is a means of window dressing which may deflect criticism of earlier neoliberal policies, when the orthodoxy on which the operations of many development-related organisations are based has barely changed: ‘. . .one gets the strong impression that the Bretton Woods institutions are using the poverty issue as a pretext for broadening and deepening the neoliberal agenda’ (Öniş & Şenses, 2005: 280). Nevertheless, a number of agencies – including those associated with tourism – have joined the ranks of governments and international agencies all around the world in endorsing the MDGs. For example, ESCAP, the Green Hotelier and the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) all suggest ways in which the travel industry specifically can address the MDGs (see ESCAP, 2007: 9–10; and Mowforth & Munt, 2009: 339–341). Thus, according to the UNWTO,

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

123

For poor countries and small island states, tourism is the leading export – often the only sustainable growth sector of their economies and a catalyst for many related sectors. It can play a key role in the overall achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. (Francesco Frangialli, Secretary-General of the UNWTO, cited in Asia Travel Tips, 2005) It is important now to consider how the evolution of PPT is linked to this consensus on poverty.

Support for Pro-poor Tourism The emergence of PPT is strongly associated with the development industry’s 1990s–onwards global focus on poverty alleviation described above. Considerations of poverty in relation to tourism were seen filtering into international initiatives in the 1990s as well as the UNWTO’s 1997 Global Code of Ethics for Tourism, which stated that local people should have an equitable share of the social, cultural and economic benefits of tourism. Similarly, support for alternative forms of tourism grew through the 1980s and 1990s, although this did not always prioritise the needs or interests of the poor: ‘One reason that pro-poor tourism was initiated was that the “people” elements often fell to the periphery in responsible and sustainable tourism discussions, particularly within business’ (Ashley & Haysom, 2006: 2–3). PPT was also inspired by UK-sponsored research on sustainable livelihoods in southern Africa (see for example, Ashley & Roe, 1998), and a comparative study of tourism, conservation and sustainability issues in protected areas of Indonesia, India and Zimbabwe (Goodwin et al., 1998). Through such studies, tourism was identified as an industry which had considerable potential to improve the well-being of rural communities in some parts of the world and, as a consequence, the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), together with the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions, commissioned a paper to be written on sustainable tourism and poverty elimination (Goodwin, 1998). Goodwin cites this as the initial paper written on tourism and poverty elimination. However, as noted above, the concept of ‘pro-poor tourism’ was first used in a report commissioned by DFID in 1999 (Deloitte & Touche, 1999). The British delegation to the 1999 meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD7) then used this research to get tourism as a means of poverty alleviation on the agenda. After CSD7, governments were urged to ‘maximise the potential of tourism for eradicating poverty by developing appropriate strategies in cooperation with all major groups, indigenous and local communities’ (IIED, 2001: 41). Following this, in 2000 the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) initiated a research project focused on analysing the theoretical basis of PPT and examining case studies of tourism in practice (Ashley et al., 2001). This

124

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

project was conducted by the Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership, a collaboration of Harold Goodwin (International Centre for Responsible Tourism), Dilys Roe (International Institute for Environment and Development) and Caroline Ashley (ODI). In the years that followed, the PPT Partnership was responsible for a wide range of studies on PPT, funded in the early years by DFID (see for example, Ashley & Roe, 2002; Roe et al., 2002) and, after DFID’s priorities changed and their funding to PPT ceased, mainly by the ODI but also occasionally by others, such the Travel Foundation. The PPT Partnership has thus been extremely influential, with Ashley, Goodwin and Roe authoring many of the early reports on tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation and its website providing a clearing house for research and other information related to PPT. While other agencies and individuals have since put their own spin on PPT, it is the PPT Partnership that really defined and drew attention to this approach to tourism. PPT was coined to mean ‘tourism that generates net benefits for the poor’ (Ashley & Roe, 2002: 62). Brown and Hall (2008: 842) surmise that the concept of PPT emerged ‘. . .perhaps as a way of demonstrating that tourism need not be as inequitable as it often appears’. This may be why it has become seemingly more acceptable for a range of development agencies to put tourism directly on their agendas when, in the past, they were concerned that this sector created wealth for the already wealthy, and was best left to private business. Agencies that have demonstrated a commitment to PPT include: bilateral donors (e.g. SNV from the Netherlands, German agency GTZ and the Danish agency DANIDA); tourism industry organisations (e.g. Pacific and Asia Travel Association); non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (e.g. Oxfam, IUCN – the World Conservation Union); research centres/universities (e.g. Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok, George Washington University, and London Metropolitan University); and multilateral organisations (e.g. the UNWTO, the Asian Development Bank). Other UN agencies supporting poverty alleviation through tourism include the UNDP, UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific), and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme).

The Pro-poor Approach to Tourism Members of the PPT Partnership stressed that PPT was not a product but an approach to tourism which seeks to bring social, environmental and cultural benefits to the poor in addition to economic benefits. PPT does not aim to expand the size of the sector, but to ‘unlock opportunities for the poor within tourism, at all levels and scales of operation’ (PPT Partnership, 2005a: 1). This is interesting, as it does not focus on growth of tourism, and it does not just focus on the community level. The people behind the PPT Partnership

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

125

firmly believed that it was important to bring about changes in mainstream tourism, including challenging corporates to change the way they operate, rather than, for example, to establish numerous community run bungalow ventures with dubious business prospects. Proponents of PPT want to ‘. . .“mainstream” pro-poor tourism so that it is a business approach across the industry, rather than a niche market’ (Ashley & Ashton, 2006: 3). They suggest that to achieve poverty alleviation, it is more constructive to work through large-scale, mainstream tourism businesses than small-scale and well-intentioned alternative operations. It has been suggested that a wide range of stakeholders, from local entrepreneurs to government officials and international tour companies, will need to make concerted efforts if poverty reduction is to occur: Pro-Poor Tourism is about changing the distribution of benefits from tourism in favour of poor people. It is not a specific product. It is not the same as ecotourism or community-based tourism, nor is it limited to these niches. Any kind of tourism can be made pro-poor. PPT can be applied at different levels, at the enterprise, destination or country level. (Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership, 2005b: 1)

The Promise of PPT Tourism has been identified as a promising economic sector through which to develop poverty alleviation strategies thanks to some persuasive statistics. Developing countries now have a market share of 40% of worldwide international tourism arrivals, up from 34% in 2000 (UNWTO, 2007: 4). For over 50 of the world’s poorest countries, tourism is one of the top three contributors to economic development (UNWTO, 2000, cited in Sofield, 2003: 350). Furthermore, it is suggested that the approximately $68 billion given in aid annually pales in significance compared with revenues of around $153 billion from tourism (Ashley & Mitchell, 2005, cited in Christie & Sharma, 2008: 428). Tourism is purported to provide a number of distinct pro-poor benefits (Table 4.1). First, tourism can bring ‘economic benefits’ which contribute to the well-being of the poor directly through the generation of jobs – the tourism industry in 2009 employed over 235 million people world wide (8.2% of all jobs) (WTTC, 2010: 7), a figure that reached 266 million in 2013 (8.8% of world employment) (WTTC, 2013). It also stimulates the provision of income-earning opportunities for many others who provide goods and services to the industry, and brings economic benefits through collective community income such as lease money paid by resorts based on communal land or a share of gate takings at a national park going directly to a resident community. Second, by enhancing local livelihood options, tourism can enable some rural communities to thrive rather than undergoing serious decline due

126

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Table 4.1 Pro-poor strategies to provide economic and other benefits Strategy focus

Examples

Economic benefits

Expansion of employment and wages through job creation and training for the poor. Expansion of business opportunities for the poor through entrepreneurial opportunities. Development of collective community income through e.g. lease fees, donations, equity dividends and cooperatives. Capacity building, training and empowerment. Mitigation of environmental impacts of tourism on the poor. Equitable management of resources between tourists and local people. Improved access to services and infrastructure (e.g. roads, water supply). Supportive policy frameworks at the national and local level that enable participation by the poor. Increased participation by the poor in decision-making. Encouragement of partnerships between public and private sectors. Enhancement of communication and the flow of information among all stakeholders.

Non-cash livelihood benefits

Policy, process and participation

Source: Based on Ashley (2002: 20).

to continuous out-migration of their youngest and brightest members (ESCAP, 2003: 28; Scheyvens, 2007b). Third, tourism can also bring ‘noncash livelihood benefits’ to the poor, including conservation of natural and cultural assets, opportunities for the poor to get training and develop further skills, and also indirect benefits through tax revenues which governments use to support infrastructural development such as roading and water supplies, and to provide basic services, including education and health care (Ashley & Roe, 2002; Goodwin et al., 1998). Finally, there may be ‘policy, process and participation’ benefits for the poor whereby the government puts in place policy frameworks which encourage more direct participation by the poor in decision-making, where partnerships between the public and private sectors are encouraged, and where communication channels are improved so poorer peoples have better access to information. As Holden et al. (2011: 317) conclude from their study of the poor of Elmina, Ghana, participation goals are very important for the poor: [Poor people] need to be included in tourism policy and practice, not only as a target group, but also in participatory mechanisms to ensure the

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

127

appropriate use of tourism for poverty reduction...it is only through a better understanding of poor people’s experiences of poverty, that tourism can be used more meaningfully as a strategy for its alleviation.

Examples of PPT-related Initiatives Which Have Emerged With a wide range of stakeholders involved in PPT, from governments to donors, the private sector, NGOs and community members, it is not surprising that a diverse range of initiatives has emerged under the guise of ensuring that the poor benefit from tourism. Due to space constraints, this section will explore just four of these: FTT (Fair Trade in Tourism), CSR (corporate social responsibility) in tourism, the ST-EP (Sustainable Tourism – Eliminating Poverty) initiative, and the efforts of NGOs to support poverty alleviation through tourism. The different emphases of various organisations is clear: some focus more on tourism as a fairly traded activity, stressing both awareness of consumers and a fair deal for tourist service providers; others see it as a means to overcome exclusion of disadvantaged groups; and others again seem to emphasise combining development opportunities for the poor with environmental and business sustainability.

Fair Trade in Tourism In recent years, there has been growing interest from tourists in ethical tourism products (see Chapter 12). The Fair Trade in Tourism movement offers an opportunity for tourism enterprises to be accredited for ethical business practices which deliver genuine benefits to the poor. This is not just an economic movement; rather, it is based upon recognition of the uneven economic playing field on which developing countries must try to compete, and the need to overcome political and social factors which often lead to exploitation of poorer players in the tourism equation. This approach holds much promise. It is multi-dimensional, considering social and cultural benefits as well as economic ones, and is different from other approaches in that it seeks to change the awareness and practices of Western consumers: Fair trade tourism policies seek to create social, cultural and economic benefits for local people at the destination end and minimize leakages. Such policies adhere to national laws, establish strong First World and Third World consultation structures, are transparent, involve open trading operations (such as social accounting), are ecologically sustainable, and respect human rights. The key focus is on changing consumption patterns in the First World. (Mowforth & Munt, 2009: 99)

128

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

FTTSA (Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa) is, perhaps, the most active national movement to support fair trade in tourism (see www.fairtourismsa. org.za), embracing ideas of participation, equity and empowerment. As noted by a Volunteer Service Abroad volunteer working with FTTSA in 2007, FTTSA is about contributing to the transformation of the South African tourism industry and integrating the small, locally owned businesses alongside the more established white-owned companies. . .It’s about spreading benefits around a community and making sure the tourism experience is beneficial for locals and visitors alike – environmentally, socially and economically. (Cited in Jennings, 2007: 24) FTTSA also certifies enterprises under the world’s first fair trade in tourism certification programme and, thus, provides a guarantee for consumers regarding a business’s ethics. This provides assurance to clients that these tourism enterprises contribute substantially to the well-being of local communities, and that the business is socially and environmentally responsible. As of August 2012, there were 63 certified fair trade tourism businesses in South Africa, including community-based endeavours, adventure tours, mainstream accommodation providers (e.g. four Mecure hotels) and exclusive private lodges. This includes, for example, Singita Sabi Sand, known as the world’s best place to view leopards in the wild. The Singita company owns a number of lodges in South Africa and elsewhere, and has a stated commitment ‘to our local communities and to assist in generating prosperity and social upliftment’ (www.singita.com). Another enterprise with fair trade certification is Bulungula Lodge which was established by a South African entrepreneur, with the Nqileni community having a 40% share in the endeavour. The Nqileni people use the lodge somewhat as a community centre and often congregate there to mingle with the tourists. In addition to providing direct jobs accommodating visitors, the lodge has helped provide an income for over 30 families through associated activities including horseriding, woodcarving, cooking, and guiding. Tourists who use local transport to get to the lodge, rather than a tourist bus, receive free accommodation for one night (Jennings, 2007).

NGOs supporting PPT NGOs are involved in PPT in a number of ways (Kennedy, 2008; Scheyvens, 2011; see also Chapter 6). There are some organisations, such as Tourism Concern in the UK, whose role is primarily focused on education and advocacy, for example, raising awareness in Western countries about how to be an ethical traveller, or how to run an ethical tourism business which benefits developing countries. Others play watchdog roles, keeping a watching brief on tourism policies and practices to ensure the poor and

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

129

vulnerable are not being exploited. A growing number of NGOs send volunteers to work on development projects around the world. The way to distinguish commercial volunteer-sending organisations from the NGOs is that the latter usually aim to do a combination of assisting people who live in poverty, raising awareness of voluntourists about global inequalities, building relationships between people in different parts of the world, and stimulating action towards social justice in Western countries (Scheyvens, 2011: 98–99). Many NGOs now work directly with communities, assisting them to develop alternative livelihood strategies which can help them to protect the integrity of their natural resources and culture while also bringing in a source of income. They can be distinguished from a smaller group of NGOs, such as Oxfam Caribbean, which see it as strategic to also work at the national or regional level to influence the frameworks and institutions which shape possibilities for development of sustainable livelihoods at the grass-roots level. At a local development level, Oxfam Caribbean works effectively with both government and the private sector to build linkages between tourism and agriculture which enhance livelihood outcomes for local people (Meyer, 2007). In 2003, Oxfam established a Market Access Initiative (MAI) which aimed to ‘increase the power of small-scale rural farmers through advocacy and lobbying for the implementation of a positive policy framework which creates an enabling environment’ (Scott, 2008: 2). Oxfam then provided support in terms of production, marketing and purchasing. For example, a marketing company was set up by Oxfam Caribbean to foster cooperation and communication between the tourism and agriculture sectors. To encourage hotels to purchase from local farmers, incentives are being developed, including accreditation of hotels that buy locally, marketing material about the scheme to be used for hotel promotion, and tax benefits for those that contribute to poverty reducing objectives (Meyer, 2007: 576–579). In addition, Oxfam has supported four farmer cooperatives so farmers can pool their resources, market their produce effectively and negotiate with hotels (Ashley et al., 2006: 3). At a higher level, Oxfam provides advice on the policy framework at the national level and has been involved in efforts to influence Caribbean trade policy at the regional level. For example, they worked with the Caribbean Policy Development Centre which lobbies against unfavourable trade regulations at the regional and international levels (Scott, 2008).

Corporate social responsibility in tourism In recent years, there has been a determined and rapid shift to support CSR in the tourism industry: In the mid-1990s. . .its [the tourism industry’s] focus on issues of business ethics, social development and human rights was seen as rather

130

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

radical and ill-focussed. Less than six years later, the same issues could be discussed comfortably in most Board rooms. (Corporate Social Responsibility Forum, 2002, cited in Mowforth & Munt, 2009: 199) While some tourism businesses which are committed to CSR focus on changing their environmental practices, others are making a solid commitment to social responsibility, including poverty alleviation. PPT strategies of private sector stakeholders are noted in Table 4.2, which highlights, for example, that fair employment strategies, mentoring and support of local businesses and local procurement, can all bring direct benefits to poor peoples. It appears that partnerships between the private sector and other stakeholders can lead to particularly impressive results, as in the case of collaboration among foreign hotels, central banks and the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank in Berimbau resort in Brazil. This involved support to local businesses, including agriculture and fishing cooperatives, a recycling factory, a cultural group and a textile cooperative, and resulted in 1300 jobs as well as a ten-fold increase in the earnings of artisans (Barrowclough, 2007: 634; UNCTAD, 2007: 114–115). Some interesting initiatives by travel industry groups have also emerged in recent years particularly in the UK and Europe, perhaps spurred on by the presence of advocates of responsible tourism and PPT in this part of the world. Certainly, the NGO Tourism Concern has tried to work closely with travel industry groups in the UK, introducing them to the concepts of CSR and fair trade in tourism, and developing a tool they can use to audit their social impacts (Scheyvens, 2011; see also Chapter 7). They also launched a campaign in 2004 to urge tour operators to take responsibility for the labour practices in tourism businesses they worked with internationally. This led to some UK tour operators embedding labour conditions in their policies, and labour conditions are also included in a checklist for hotels promoted by the Federation of Tour Operators (Barnett, 2008: 1001). In addition, the Tour Operators Initiative (TOI) is a non-profit initiative established in 2000 with the support of UNEP, UNWTO and UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). It promotes sustainable tourism practices, including cooperation with destinations and supply chain management (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008: 53). TOI has published the following toolbooks on its website: ‘Supply chain engagement for tour operators – 3 steps towards sustainability’ and ‘A practical guide to good practice: managing environmental and social issues in the accommodation sector’. It is interesting also to observe changes taking place among very large tourism operators. TUI Tourism and First Choice Holidays PLC merged in 2007 to form TUI Travel PLC, which is the largest tour operator in the world in terms of people moved, estimated at 30 million annually. TUI had a good environmental programme, and First Choice had a good social

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

131

Table 4.2 Types of private sector stakeholders and their PPT strategies Business or tourism associations

Tour operators

Hotels/resorts/ lodges

Mentoring schemes Facilitate linkages between mainstream and alternative tourism businesses Adopt a code of ethics or code of conduct guiding practices of members Give awards for ethical practice Provide networking opportunities Assist members to run viable businesses by linking them with training and credit opportunities Adopt ethical codes of conduct Incorporate small-scale, locally-owned enterprises into the itinerary Make donations to schools and charities Use local guides Provide clients with information on how to behave/dress in a culturally and environmentally sensitive manner Inform tourists about ways in which they can contribute to local development e.g. through their spending choices Provide accurate information on local history, culture, and nature Employ local staff under fair employment conditions and practices, considering addition of health insurance and pension schemes Human resources policy which provides security of employment, training and progression opportunities. Employ a ‘social equity manager’ or similar Establish a community development fund (which guests can contribute to) Develop joint ventures with community groups Partner with local suppliers of e.g. produce, crafts or tours Procurement of a wide range of local services (e.g. laundry, security) and goods (e.g. furnishings, art and crafts, soaps, linen and produce) Assist and mentor microenterprises e.g. advice and support for guides, craftspeople and entertainers Encourage guests to spend more locally by providing information on entertainment options, tours, taxis and local charities. Share resources with nearby residents (e.g. food scraps for fertiliser, glass and paper to local recycling companies, allowing them to use resort phones or transport in emergencies)

Source: Scheyvens (2011: 116), based on ideas from Karammel and Lengefeld (2006), Ashley and Ashton (2006) and Meyer (2007).

132

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

programme, so they tried to marry the two in the new company. What they are doing is significant because they cater for mainstream tourists. The UK and Ireland branch serves over 7.5 million customers each year and has over 83 aircraft, which makes it the UK’s third largest airline. First Choice undertook research which revealed that 30% of tourists are ‘concerned’ about how their holiday may impact on the destination’ (Ashley & Ashton, 2006). However, it was questions asked by their investors about improving practice that led to some interesting changes. For example, 87% of TUI businesses now support charitable programmes. Two objectives for their destinations demonstrate their commitment to social responsibility and spreading the economic benefits from tourism: ‘Implement the principles of the Child-Protection Code across TUI Travel businesses’, and ‘Support destination initiatives to stimulate increased local involvement in the tourism supply chain’.1

The ST-EP initiative The World Tourism Organisation was established as an organ of the United Nations in 1975 with the understanding that tourism could make a major contribution to development. However, it was not until 2003 that it was formally made a United Nations agency (UNWTO). The ST-EP programme (‘Sustainable Tourism – Eliminating Poverty’) was launched by the UNWTO, in partnership with UNCTAD, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. Through a non-profit body formed in 2005, the ST-EP Foundation, the UNWTO seeks to assist with a range of activities. A $5 million donation from the government of the Republic of Korea in 2003 led to the ST-EP Foundation being based in this country. Activities of ST-EP to date have included: • •

•

Capacity building seminars: held at regional and national level, to build capacity of government officials. Research and publications: a number of major reports have been published focusing on topics such as ‘Tourism, Microfinance and Poverty Alleviation’ (2005), and ‘Manual on Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: Practical Steps for Destinations’ (2010). ST-EP projects: project identification missions were held in 30 countries and over 150 potential projects related to sustainable tourism development were targeted for implementation. Least developed countries and the poorer regions of other developing countries are the primary beneficiaries of support via ST-EP projects. As well as working with NGOs on the ground to implement some of these projects, several donors have contributed funds or expertise including SNV, and the governments of Italy, France and Macao (China).

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

133

The UNWTO website lists 101 ST-EP projects which were initiated between 2006 and the end of 2011, just over half of them in African countries. Analysis of the projects reveals that most are either (a) associated with protected areas and ecotourism or (b) community-based tourism ventures focused on a particular locality. 2 These include a handicraft project in Ethiopia, a footbridge project in Kenya, and improving local guiding services in Bolivia. There are also a number of interesting regional initiatives funded, such as developing regional tourism routes or trails that take in a number of attractions, and marketing a region as a destination. For example, in May 2009 the ST-EP programme presented a marketing strategy to stakeholders in eight African countries regarding multi-destination circuits. There appear to be few initiatives to connect local food producers with mainstream tourism enterprises, which has been identified in the PPT literature as an area of great potential. While the ST-EP Foundation funded many of the 101 projects noted above, it is unclear whether the foundation has maintained its emphasis on harnessing the development power of tourism in order to fight poverty. While there are recent press releases from the foundation pertaining to achievement of the MDGs and discussions on tourism at Rio + 20, many of their press releases in 2012 drew attention to activities which had limited connection to the idea of sustainable tourism that eliminates poverty (see www.unwtostep.org/ ). For example, several news items related to preparations for the 10th World Symposium on Choral Music, to be held in Seoul in 2014: the Chairperson of the ST-EP Foundation happens to be a member of the Board of Directors for the International Federation of Choral Music. Other items focused on the 2018 Winter Olympics to be hosted in the Korean city of PyeongChang. Something more specifically associated with poverty alleviation was the Thank You Small Library initiative which the chairperson had been supporting in a number of African countries. While clearly an education initiative which could benefit people without access to books in poorer communities, there was no direct link to tourism and it was unclear why this was ever initiated as a ST-EP project. In 2009, the Secretary General of the UNWTO, Taleb Rifai, was interviewed about his views on what the UNWTO had achieved and what direction it should take in the future. Commenting specifically on ST-EP, he stated that their achievements had been mainly in increasing awareness globally about the potential of tourism to contribute to poverty alleviation, while admitting that the organisation may not have made much of a tangible contribution to alleviating poverty (eTurboNews, 2009). While a wide range of good projects have been implemented through ST-EP, they do not address some changes at national and global levels which could also be of great significance. For example, it is relatively straightforward for donors to support communities in developing their own tourism enterprises. However, it is more difficult and controversial to endorse labour rights for all tourism sector

134

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

workers in a country, or worldwide, or to work with developing country governments to establish a policy environment conducive to controlling the activities of foreign investors and protecting local businesses.

Limitations of PPT The above examples of NGOs, the private sector and development agencies supporting tourism for poverty alleviation have shown some promise, although a few concerns have also been raised. Over 35 years ago Turner and Ash warned in their landmark book on The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery, that ‘tourism has proved remarkably ineffective as a promoter of equality and as an ally of the oppressed’ (1975: 53, cited in Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006: 1193). Is there any reason for us to believe that things have changed radically due to the emergence of the PPT concept and a few hundred PPT initiatives around the globe? As the major players in this industry, as in any industry, are still concerned with profit maximisation, we need to consider whether PPT is just ‘window dressing’, or tokenistic, or, like transformations made under a ‘green agenda’ before it, intended mainly to reduce costs and/or enhance the positive publicity for the agencies concerned. Even writers who, overall, are optimistic in their assessment of PPT tend to conclude that pro-poor tourism ‘. . . is easier said than done’ (Van der Duim & Caalders, 2008: 122). Some major limitations of PPT reaching its potential are considered below.

Labour rights in the tourism industry A central concern for anyone promoting PPT should be the labour rights of those in the tourism industry. Essentially, while growth of tourism can certainly lead to more employment opportunities, these jobs do not necessarily lead to increased well-being. For example, the bonded employment of a 10-year-old boy in an Indian hotel where he must work at least 16 hours per day every day of the week, is allowed to visit home once a year, and is faced with regular verbal and physical abuse, cannot be considered an example of tourism employment contributing to the alleviation of poverty. In this case, the hotel may provide the boy with all of his basic needs while, at the same time, trampling on his fundamental freedoms and self-esteem. While this example may seem extreme, there is a great deal of evidence from around the world about a lack of labour rights in the tourism industry, as seen in evidence from Tourism Concern’s campaign ‘Sun, Sand, Sea and Sweatshops’.3

Tourism can undermine livelihood opportunities Another concern is that tourism has often directly undermined the livelihoods of people who live off the natural environment by displacing them

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

135

from their ancestral lands, whether for the creation of national parks and wildlife reserves in African countries, or to create coastal resorts in Asia and elsewhere (Carruthers, 1997; Goodwin et al., 1998). Such tourism development, which removes or limits their prior freedom to hunt, fish, collect medicinal plants and meet multiple other needs from the natural environment. The new opportunities which tourism offers them are typically limited by comparison. Even if they can later earn a little money from the sale of souvenirs to tourists, the fact remains that their land rights have been systematically ignored and their communities may start to disintegrate as the young and more educated migrate away in the hope of finding better opportunities (see also Chapter 13, which examines how people’s fundamental human rights are being compromised by tourism).

Poverty alleviation versus profits While PPT is often presented as a ‘win–win’ situation for both the private sector and local communities, this can be misleading. Chok et al. (2007: 51) suggest that many advocates of PPT have not been realistic about the types of trade-offs required to ensure that tourism benefits the poor: Tourism development that generates net benefits for the poor and protects the environment . . . will place restrictions on human activity and challenge our current rapid expansion development model. In other words, there may be strong moral imperatives but weak profit margins. Certainly, when one examines what real changes PPT has brought about in the practice of the tourism industry, many examples appear tokenistic rather than transformational. The UNWTO’s ST-EP projects to train guides, develop infrastructure and support community tourism are cases in point. Similarly, under the guise of CSR many tourism enterprises will happily engage in philanthropy but most are not willing to make more significant, long-term changes to their business strategies and practices to make them more pro-poor (Ashley & Haysom, 2006). Such more noteworthy changes could include implementation of comprehensive policies that support labour rights (including training, health and retirement schemes), a commitment to joint ventures whereby the resident community’s contribution is their land and/or cultural knowledge rather than financial capital, programmes to mentor small-scale entrepreneurs, and implementation of procurement policies that maximise opportunities for local producers and service providers.

Systemic barriers to the poor benefiting from tourism It is easy to surmise that the poor are missing out on opportunities to benefit from tourism because they lack appropriate education, capacity,

136

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

business know-how and access to credit. These things can all be addressed relatively simply and, certainly, development agencies around the world have often done a good job of providing support to overcome these barriers. More complex are the systemic barriers which prevent the poor from benefiting from tourism: barriers that might include, or be linked to, a history of oppression, the powers of an entrenched elite class, an intractable bureaucracy, lack of democratic governance, or inadequate legal frameworks such as land laws which leave the poor open to exploitation. An awareness of such barriers has led to a number of development actors expressing reservations about supporting tourism development. Their reluctance is well summed up by donors in Vanuatu who were concerned about committing aid for tourism when, first, there was a lack of evidence of the benefits of this (with perceptions that the ‘hype’ about tourism could not be substantiated in terms of outcomes), and second, they thought that tourism enhanced inequities, as seen in the following quote: Donors are reluctant to support an industry that is dominated by foreigners, for foreigners. Our assessment of tourism is that it provides low paid, low skilled jobs for ni-Vanuatus. Managers and operators are almost always foreign. Apart from anecdotal evidence, there is little to substantiate that tourism is benefiting ni-Vanuatu. This is the main concern for donors. We don’t want to be lining the pockets of the private sector necessarily. (Donor quoted in Cheer & Peel, 2011: 260) According to Trau, the open environment for foreign investment and lack of regulation around land leases is heightening disparities in Vanuatu, and undermining opportunities for local businesses to thrive: The lack of more comprehensive investment laws in Vanuatu, and the effective monitoring or enforcement of even existing economic policy and regulation, directly contributes to the inability of Roi Mata Cultural Tours and other more grassroots PPT enterprises to expand and grow. (Trau, 2012: 161) In another example of systemic inequalities, Hunt’s (2011) research on Nicaragua paints a persuasive picture of how government plans to enhance foreign investment and rapidly increase tourist arrivals can be realised, but this will not erase the legacy of decades of autocratic dictators, natural disasters and conflict. Instead of delivering on economic development and poverty alleviation goals, this might just entrench existing inequalities: By placing well-heeled travelers in a carefully controlled idyllic setting where they are presented with bargain real estate speculation and investment opportunities along the country’s Pacific coast, tourism as it is

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

137

currently developing in southwestern Nicaragua appears to be exacerbating inequalities by allowing greater accumulation of capital among both wealthy Nicaraguan elites and a growing number of foreign/ex-patriot investors, while furthering impoverishment of rural residents through increasing costs of living, land displacement, and legal marginalization. (Hunt, 2011: 265) These concerns about systemic inequalities can only be addressed by challenging existing power structures, something which is very difficult to do. This may be why, so far, PPT researchers and advocates have not grappled sufficiently with issues of power, even though tourism researchers more broadly have tried to emphasise the importance of power relations for some time (e.g. Bianchi, 2004; Hall, 1994c; Mowforth & Munt, 2009; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). The relative lack of power developing countries have in influencing the actions of foreign investors, due to the competition for their funds from elsewhere, and their lack of power in regional and international trade negotiations, is not typically raised as an issue of concern. Furthermore, PPT does not seem to discuss how the actions of local elites, company directors and government leaders may influence whether tourism is working in the interests of the poor, or not. Pro-poor policies are put forward then to take place in the context of existing structures or power hierarchies, considerably limiting their potential.

Conclusion To date, many reports have extolled the potential of PPT to contribute to poverty reduction in a wide range of countries and contexts. Such enthusiasm for PPT has led others to comment that PPT may be yet another passing trend: ‘. . .within the tourism industry pro-poor tourism has become the latest in a long line of terms and types to attract attention, funding and energy’ (Mowforth & Munt, 2009: 335). There could be a danger that, like a number of trends before it (e.g. ecotourism in the 1990s), pro-poor tourism is something of a fad, a new way of dressing up the tourism industry to reclaim its credibility not just as an engine of growth but also as a ‘soft’ industry that is both socially beneficial and environmentally benign. While tourism definitely can benefit the poor, there have been questions about the strength and validity of some of the claims made about PPT. Thus, this chapter suggests that there is a clear need for more in-depth critical exploration of the claim that tourism is an effective poverty alleviation strategy. It is certainly unlikely that PPT will work in every country and every context. Where inequalities are particularly entrenched, where corruption is rife, where human rights violations go unchecked by the ruling powers and

138

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

where existing structures preclude the empowerment of the poor, it will be difficult for PPT to contribute effectively to poverty alleviation: ‘PPT will not “cure” corruption and cronyism, nor can it rid a place of patriarchy and racism. As a tool, tourism is overly burdened with ideals it cannot realise’ (Chok et al., 2007: 51). If PPT is to work as a comprehensive approach, it will require what Chok et al. (2007) call a fundamental shift in ideology, from relying on supposed altruism to a more solid foundation of ethics. A number of researchers support the need for a more ethically grounded approach to pro-poor tourism (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006; Schellhorn, 2007) which suggests that development policies focus less on growth and more on equity (Schilcher, 2007). This accords with Harrison’s (2008: 865) assertion that tourism studies needs to regain ‘a moral dimension which was there in the 1970s and 1980s’. It is useful to reflect back on the 1980 Manila Declaration, prepared during this period, in which moral imperatives were more at the forefront of tourism debates, which stated: ‘world tourism can only flourish if based on equality and if its ultimate aim is the improvement of the quality of life and the creation of better living conditions for all peoples’ (WTO, 1980: 1). For many decades, governments of developing countries have pursued growth in their tourism sectors in the belief that this would create jobs and be an engine for development of their countries. However, from the modernisation-inspired agendas of the 1950s through to the neoliberal agendas of the present it is apparent that growth of tourism does not always lead to equitable distribution of benefits. Rather, ‘a proactive interventionist approach is needed’ whereby governments target the poor and establish legislation to back up affirmative action strategies (Sofield, 2003: 351). It is vital that developing country governments create an environment which promotes ethical business practice and also seeks to control the nature of tourism development in order to minimise potential harm and maximise local and national level benefits. Governments can, for example, seek to attract foreign investors while also ensuring there are clear performance standards to maximise benefits for their country (e.g. requirements for local procurement or joint ventures); establish a legal and policy environment which is supportive of development initiatives by nationals of a country; support freedom of expression, allowing for strong NGOs and advocacy groups which play a watchdog role regarding tourism development; and implement good labour rights legislation along with appropriate incentives for upskilling employees or employing vulnerable peoples (e.g. youth at risk). It is, after all, the role of the state, not private companies, to advance the well-being of citizens: Companies should not be expected to take over governments’ responsibility for social policy – the state should set the rules and regulate in the interests of all groups equitably and efficiently. (Standing, 2007: 2)

Tour ism and Pover t y Reduc t ion

139

Poverty is not just about people lacking economic resources or material possessions; rather, poverty is a complex, multi-dimensional concept (Scheyvens, 2011; Chapter 2). A key challenge remaining is to ascertain how tourism can contribute not just to the economic well-being of the poor, but how it can address poverty more generally by reducing the vulnerability of the poor, enhancing their capacity, helping them to gain more control over resources, empowering them to make well-informed decisions about development occurring in their localities, and assisting them to claim their rights. In addition, for pro-poor tourism to be effective strenuous efforts will be needed to develop the capacity of partner governments to manage tourism programmes effectively, and also to encourage a wide range of mainstream tourism businesses to be driven by something beyond the profit motive.

Notes (1) See http://sd2008.tuitravelplc.com/tui-sd/pages/workstreams/destinations/ destination2 (accessed 30 May 2010). (2) See www.unwto.org/step/projects/en/projectsCountry.php (accessed 13 June 2010). (3) See www.tourismconcern.org.uk/index.php?page = sun-sand-sea-sweatshops.

5

Tourism and Regional Development Issues David J. Telfer

Introduction Governments and development corporations around the world favour tourism as an economic tool for regional development. Funds for regional tourism development are available and sophisticated plans based on place branding, infrastructure development and collaboration networks are being created for regions to compete in what Kotler et al. (1993) term ‘place wars’. The scale of the destination can vary from an international region to ‘a nation, a sub-national or local area, with marketing and promotional activities being geared towards the production of a distinctive and competitive place identity’ (Dredge & Jenkins, 2003: 383). For example, Laos was named as the World’s Best Tourist Destination for 2013 by the European Council on Tourism and Trade, with a potentially significant impact on visitor numbers. Projects ranging in scale from urban waterfront redevelopment to hosting festivals or mega events like the Olympics, or from creating rural culinary and wine routes or achieving Cultural Capital designations, are some of the many potential ways tourism is being used to generate regional development. As outlined in Chapter 3, the promise of increases in employment, foreign exchange, technology and development capital (Britton, 1982b) is highly attractive to governments as they attempt to reduce economic inequalities among regions through tourism. In regions where extractive industries, manufacturing or agricultural sectors go into decline, governments often turn to tourism to diversify the economy. While the goals of regional development may vary, the main concern is to even out or narrow the gap in life chances, employment opportunities and real income of the citizens regardless of which region of the country they come from (Mabogunje, 1980). In China for example, tourism is seen as a way to foster regional economic development to ameliorate the inequalities in income distribution between inland and coastal regions (Jackson, 2006) whilst in Turkey, domestic 140

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

141

tourism is viewed as a chance for regional development in the South-East and East Anatolia region (Seckelmann, 2002). In the context of core-periphery, Christaler (1963) argued that tourism could be a means of obtaining economic development in peripheral regions, with rich tourists travelling from the metropolitan centre to the periphery, bringing foreign exchange and creating jobs. Coastal, rural or alpine regions represent destinations for metropolitan visitors and, since these regions can fall below national averages on indicators of socio-economic well-being, tourism can act to redistribute wealth from the richer metropolitan areas to the poorer peripheral regions (Pearce, 1989). If, however, regional tourism development is based primarily on external inputs of capital, labour, know-how and technical resources, then the resulting high rates of leakage will prevent tourism from being an effective regional development tool (Pearce, 1989; see Chapter 2 on dependency). The challenge in using tourism for regional development is ‘to what extent tourism actually contributes to the regional dispersion of economic development, and to what extent it is a better regional development agent than other industries or services remains largely unexplored’ (Oppermann & Chon, 1997: 35). The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the potential of tourism to contribute to regional development in a variety of different scales and destinations. It begins with an examination of the changing concepts related to regional development, highlighting the shift to new regionalism, before going on to look at the relationship between tourism and regional development by considering some of the models presented in the tourism literature relating to regional development. The role of the state and public policy in regional tourism development is then explored, as it is frequently the state that proposes, plans and potentially funds regional development schemes. The chapter then considers tourism in a variety of different regions including urban, rural, islands, peripheral regions, as well as tourism regions which cross international borders. It concludes by stressing the need for strong collaboration and linkages to the surrounding region if tourism is to be used successfully as an agent for regional development. Before turning to the concepts related to regional development, it is first useful to highlight Higgins and Savoie’s (1988) rationale for paying particular attention to the regional structure of a national economy: • •

Regional disparities create social and political problems that need to be addressed in any political society and especially in countries where ‘regions’ and gaps among them correspond to states or provinces. National economies are aggregations of regional economies which vary in the degree of integration. Some regions in some countries are more integrated with the world economy than with other regions of the same country. These regional differences need to be understood in order to develop effective plans.

142

• • •

•

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Accelerating growth of a nation as a whole requires an attack on the problems of less developed regions. All countries face increasingly complex urban problems. The interactions between cities and regions are a fundamental aspect of these urban problems, and of regional and national social and economic problems. Some kinds of resource management – natural and human – are best studied and executed at regional levels as the resources are best defined in terms of space. Examples include river valleys, metropolitan areas, recreation areas and parks. Improving the methodology of the social sciences and improving policy and planning requires study of the principal actors where they are at regional and community levels.

Whilst the above comments reflect the importance of understanding a region in the context of a national economy, it is also important to keep in mind the changing nature of regions and the fact that they extend beyond national boundaries. Dredge and Jenkins (2003) note that, in an era of globalisation, there are competing forces. Globalisation through transnational capital movements and economic integration have facilitated multinational tourism corporations leading to homogenisation of tourism products (see Chapter 10) whilst, at the other end of the spectrum, differentiating local destinations by strengthening local cultures is becoming important in selling destinations (see Chapter 7). Glocalisation is the global–local dialect where local identity is reinforced by global processes (Dredge & Jenkins, 2003) and tourism regions are increasingly interacting at global levels.

Changing Concepts of a Region and New Regionalism The concept of a region can be quite complex, as regions are often not static but evolving as conditions warrant (Malecki, 1997). Tosun and Jenkins (1996) suggest despite the countless attempts to define a region, a satisfactory definition has not been formulated. Blair (1995) considers a region as a part of an area. However, in practice, he refers to the term as a chameleon, taking its meaning from the context of use. In other words, a region can be as small as a neighbourhood region or extend across borders to a multinational region, the latter receiving increasing amounts of attention as trade between nations increases, such as through the European Union (EU), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The more traditional definitions of a region cannot fully address these complex regions, such as the EU with its dynamic internal economic and cultural conditions (Malecki, 1997). With the integration of global economies, regions have had to deal with crises such as the

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

143

Eurozone economic crisis. Globalisation of the media also relays images across the world of the popular revolts in regions such as the Arab world that started in late 2010 (Fioramonti, 2012; see Chapter 14). Different perspectives of regions include (i) relations of production in a given time and place; (ii) regions being defined by a local culture; and (iii) the region as a setting for social interaction of all types (Malecki, 1997). While a region is a geographic part of the earth’s surface, it has also been defined as a space occupied by people who feel affinities of speech, religion, history or way of life (Tosun & Jenkins, 1996). In identifying the three main types of regions, Smith (1995) lists (i) a priori regions; (ii) homogeneous regions; and (iii) functional regions. An a priori region is one in which someone has already created a boundary around it and assigned it a name, such as a political unit. A homogeneous region is defined by an objective set of internal similarities. This is the type of region that planners most often think of when hearing the term region. Important issues with defining such a region are the selection of relevant characteristics and the specification of the degree of similarity that would cause a locale to be included in the region. Smith’s (1995) final region is the functional region, which is an area with a high degree of internal interaction. Malecki (1997) highlights the changing concept of a region extending beyond national boundaries. He suggests that there have been major changes which have occurred in response to technological changes, including industrial shifts such as lower transport costs, standardisation of production and increased minimum efficient scale of plants. These changes have resulted in regions being not only subsets of national space but also of international space and, therefore, part of the globalisation process. The complexity of the region in the context of globalisation is also raised by Coe et al. (2004). They argue that in developing a framework for understanding regional development, one must pay attention not only to endogenous growth factors within specific regions but also the strategic needs of trans-local actors coordinating global production networks. Their conceptualisation of regional development is ‘a dynamic outcome of the complex interaction between territorialized relational networks and global production networks within the context of changing regional governance structures’ (Coe et al., 2004: 469). Acharya (2012: 22) traces the changing nature of regions in the literature on international relations. Regions were traditionally viewed as focused on ‘relatively fixed variables including geographic proximity, shared cultural and linguistic features and common heritage’ (Acharya, 2012: 22). Studies in the 1960s from a behavioural perspective focused on discovering what regions were based on quantitative methods and, in particular, Acharya (2012) refers to a study by Thompson (1973) who found three clusters of attributes of regional subsystems. The three clusters are (i) general geographic proximity; (ii) regularity and intensity of interactions; and (iii) shared perceptions of the regional subsystem as a distinct theatre of operations. More recent

144

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

perspectives on regions focus on social constructivist approaches. These include political economy approaches, where regions are by-products of globalisation whereby location and linkages with the global economy and transnational production structures determine regions (Acharya, 2012; see also Chapter 14). Other similar approaches focus on conflict and cooperation; clusters of shared identity perceived by self and others and regions being conceptualised not in terms of geographic continuity but by purposeful social, political, cultural and economic interaction among states which are often, but not always, in the same geographic space (Acharya, 2012). Similarly Katzenstein (2005: 12) states that ‘regions are not simply physical constants or ideological constructs they express changing human practices’. Acharya (2012) makes the argument that a social constructivist approach needs to be incorporated with the material perspective that stresses variables including geographic location, power or economic linkages and interdependencies. ‘This view challenges the exclusively materialist conception of regions defined in terms of geography, geopolitics or market forces’ (Acharya, 2012: 25). Likewise, Hettne (2003) suggests that regions are ever evolving and changing and, therefore, must be understood as a process as well as a social construction. The changing trends on the theory of regions discussed by Acharya (2012) above are a reflection of ‘New Regionalism’. While regional policies in the 1960s and 1970s reinforced ‘spacio-industrial [sic]’ determinism, in the 1980s a growing recognition of the importance of social relations in determining the capacity for regions to grow meant that regionalism had lost momentum (Dredge & Jenkins, 2003). In the 1990s, New Regionalism emerged, stressing the need to ‘go beyond spatial configurations of industrial and economic homogeneity to consider regions as networks of social relations’ (Dredge & Jenkins, 2003: 387). Söderbaum (2003: 1–2) states that ‘new regionalism’ is ‘characterised by its multidimensionality, complexity, fluidity and non-conformity, and by the fact that it involves a variety of state and nonstate actors, who often come together in rather informal multi-actor coalitions’. As a result, a region is a more elusive and complex phenomenon (Hettne, 2003; Söderbaum, 2003). Table 5.1 illustrates some of the differences between old and new regionalism. Shone and Memon (2008) suggest there has been a shift in public policy in New Zealand from neoliberal political ideology, which focused on deregulation, to a more proactive role for the local state influenced by ‘new regionalism’ and that has affected tourism development. The shift anticipates a devolved tourism-planning mandate fostering long-term strategic collaborative planning that will enhance the contribution of tourism to sustainable community well-being (Shone & Memon, 2008). The shift in ‘new regionalism’ to bottom-up collaboration and a shift from neoliberalism were identified in Chapter 2 in the changes in development theory. Scott (2001) also recognises the shift away from neoliberalism under ‘new regionalism’ in the

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

145

Table 5.1 Differences between ‘old’ and ‘new’ regionalism ‘Old’ regionalism

‘New’ regionalism

Formed in bipolar Cold War context

Formed in a multipolar world order in the context of globalisation More of a voluntary process where there was an imperative to cooperate Open in terms of economics and compatible with interdependent world economy New objectives are a result of more comprehensive and multidimensional societal process Part of globalisation where variety of non-state actors are operating at several levels of the global system

Created from above In economic terms more inward-oriented and protectionist More specific in terms of objectives whether economic or security focused Concerned with relations of neighbouring nation-states

Source: After Hettne (2003: 23–24).

context of emerging global city-regions. These global city-regions are the sites of new experiments in local participation and reorganisation as different social groups in these regions deal with stresses and strains of globalisation and at the same time these global city-regions are becoming economic forces and political actors with a definite identity on the world stage. These global city-regions compete with each other trying to attract investment and tourists. As will be illustrated later in the chapter, there is an increasing trend towards greater collaboration in tourism at many levels.

Regional Economic Development Models and Concepts The processes of economic development of a region have been studied from a variety of different approaches. Blair (1995) outlines a variety of fundamental theories of regional growth, a few of which are discussed here. (1) Stage models describe key stages that a city or region passes through; as a region develops, it is able to replace imports and develops additional products for exports. (2) The export-base theory of growth is based on the idea that for a local economy to grow it must increase its monetary inflow and the only way to do this is through an increase in exports. This model is usually discussed in terms of income or employment. The income, which is earned

146

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

by the export sector is spent and re-spent locally, thereby creating additional jobs through the multiplier effect. The size of the multiplier is determined by the degree to which individuals spend money in the local economy. With tourism being an export, as seen in Chapter 3, there have been numerous studies conducted on tourism multipliers. (3) The supply side models of economic growth developed out of the criticisms of the demand side approaches such as the export-base theory of growth. Supply side growth theories state that growth occurs in a region due to an increase in the supply of resources available, or because existing resources are used more efficiently. Important determinants of supply include intermediary inputs and primary factors such as land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship. While there are criticisms of both supply and demand-based models, what is important to keep in mind is the extent that development can generate growth throughout a region. At a broader scale, the trickle-down theory suggests that overall growth in gross national product and income per capita would bring benefits (or would trickle down) to the masses in the form of job creation and other economic opportunities (Todaro, 1997). Within the context of tourism, one option governments have used to establish the trickle-down effect is by creating new resort complexes in hopes that economic linkages would spread throughout the region. Table 5.2 highlights early influential regional economic growth theorists who acknowledge not only growth impulses for regional development but also the resulting regional inequalities which can occur. The core-periphery dichotomy or dualism is one of the main metaphors of regional development. From an economic perspective, the core is a set of regions where complexity, technology and control are considered the norm and strong linkages to other nodes and the global system are common. The global system marks deep disparities between the core and periphery not only between nations but also between regions within nations (Malecki, 1997). In the context of developing countries, dualism may be more appropriate, especially as it applies to the linkages between the formal and informal economies (Malecki, 1997). Dualism is the coexistence in one place of two situations that are mutually exclusive to different groups. Examples include extreme poverty and affluence, modern and traditional sectors and growth and stagnation (Todaro, 1997). Myrdal’s (1963) discussion of backwash effects and Friedman’s (1966) centre-periphery model both mention the regional inequalities which can result from economic development. Innovation, growth poles, agglomeration economies and clusters are linked to regional development. Schumpeter (1949) argues that for development to occur, ideas have to produce innovations or new combinations of productive means. This can include the introduction of a new good or a quality of good, the opening of a new market, the introduction of a new

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

147

Table 5.2 Early regional economic development theorists Author

Key concepts

Schumpeter, 1934, 1961

Emphasised innovation and entrepreneurship; rate depends on favourable social climate Growth pole (theory component); development poles (location containing propulsive enterprises that generate spread effects through investments) Circular and cumulative causation; spread effects (positive – economic expansion from growth centre); backwash effects (negative – market forces increase regional inequalities) Polarisation and trickle-down effects Centre-periphery model; economic growth is externally induced; dominant centres feed off less developed regions increasing inequalities; advocates growth centre strategy

Perroux, 1955 (see Perroux, 1988)

Myrdal, 1963 (1st published 1957)

Hirschman, 1958 Friedman, 1966

Source: Above authors plus Higgins and Higgins, 1979; Preston, 1984.

means of production or source of supply or the new organisation of a new industry. Perroux (1955, see Perroux, 1988) outlined growth pole theory with development poles. Development poles are identified as locations which contain propulsive enterprises that generate spread effects through investments. A growth pole consists of a cluster of expanding industries that are spatially concentrated and set off a chain reaction of minor expansions in the surrounding hinterland (Haggett, 1975). The arguments presented in favour of growth poles are that they will result in agglomeration economies. Agglomeration economies are a result of the cost reductions which occur due to spatial concentration of economic activities. Agglomeration economies can range from savings, which benefit one establishment, to agglomeration economies that spread throughout an entire region. Early work on agglomeration economies and regional development is linked to Weber (1909), Isard (1956), Hirschman (1958) and Myrdal (1963). Myrdal discussed the process of cumulative causation, which refers to the process of change in one direction that can reinforce other tendencies for change in the same direction. For example, a region may start to prosper and self-reinforcing factors can cause cumulative growth. An increased income allows for more amenities, attracts business and thereby increases agglomeration economies (Blair, 1995). In the context of tourism development, improved infrastructure provided by the government may help to stimulate additional tourism investment.

148

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

The process of clustering offers economies of agglomeration, which are linked to external economies of scale. The production unit derives its external economies from its locational association with a larger spatial cluster of economic activities (Lloyd & Dicken, 1977). Agglomeration economies focus on the connections or links between economic activities in a restrictive geographic space. Lloyd and Dicken (1977) outline three main types of links of manufacturing firms, including production linkages, service linkages and marketing linkages. Other economies may be derived as associations link firms. ‘Interindustry agglomeration occurs through both forward and backward linkages. A forward linkage involves suppliers attracting buyers; a backward linkage involves buyers attracting suppliers’ (Blair, 1995: 97). Hirschman (1972, cited in Blair, 1995) argued that, underdeveloped countries, and hence underdeveloped regions have weak interdependencies and weak backward and forward linkages. If tourism is to be a successful development tool, it will be essential to strengthen linkages within the local economy. It is important for economic development officers to understand the existing linkages between firms, how to strengthen these linkages and how to build new linkages between firms (Blair, 1995). With many of the more conventional theories and polices of regional development focusing on the capital–labour production function and responses of the state through various policies, these have now been combined with a new emphasis based on economic competitiveness as a priority to firms, regions and nations (Malecki, 1997). Porter’s work on clusters (1998) also suggests a new focus tied to competitive advantage. Porter (1998) states that traditional arguments for agglomeration and the existence of clusters have been undercut by globalisation of supply sources and markets. Traditional concepts of backward and forward linkages emphasise the need to build industries with linkages to many other industries while cluster theory advocates building on ‘emerging concentrations of companies and encouraging the development of fields with the strongest linkages to or spillovers within each cluster’ (Porter, 1998: 207). There is a greater role for clusters in competition in the current knowledgebased economy. Porter defines clusters as ‘geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated institutions (for example, universities, standards agencies and trade associations) in particular fields that compete but also cooperate’ (Porter, 1998: 197). Effective clusters move beyond hierarchical networks to become ‘lattices of numerous overlapping and fluid connections among individual firms and institutions’ (Porter, 1998: 226). Clusters highlight the externalities, linkages, spillovers and supporting institutions key to competition. Competition is affected by increasing productivity levels, increasing capacity for innovation and stimulating new business formation, promoting innovation and expansion of the cluster (Porter, 1998). The influence of clusters on competition depends on the extent of personal relationships, and the interaction

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

149

among networks of individuals and institutions. Porter (1998: 263–266) outlined the common characteristics of successful cluster initiatives as: • • • • • • • • •

a shared understanding of competitiveness and the role of clusters in competitive advantage; a focus on removing obstacles and easing constraints to cluster upgrading; a structure that embraces all clusters in a nation or state; appropriate cluster boundaries; wide involvement of cluster participants and associated interests; private sector leadership; close attention to personal relationships; a bias towards action; institutionalisation.

Not only do destinations have to become more competitive, but also government tourism agencies have to act more in an entrepreneurial manner, not only attracting multinational tourism corporations but also facilitating tourism partnerships as evident in new regionalism. Regional development can also be seen as a process that operates within two complementary characteristics. The first is the linkage with the exterior, including the goods, services capital and information and foreign exchange earnings. The second is the level of internal differentiation or internal structural change reflecting a system’s capacity to process external linkages including skill improvement and organisational development (Young, in Nuryanti, 1998). How these two forces come into play and who controls these forces will determine how successful tourism will be as a regional development tool. The shift away from just an economic focus on regional development is echoed by MacBeth et al. (2004), who argue that social, political and cultural capital is key to fostering innovation in regional development. Formulated out of criticisms of the functional approach to regional development with growth poles, trickle-down and spread effects as a way to solve regional development problems, a shift occurred in regional planning that incorporated decentralisation and local participation. Integrated regional development planning focuses on the development of integrated small and intermediate urban centres as a way to stimulate growth in rural and peripheral regions. The establishment of well-articulated regional hierarchies of spatially dispersed small/medium cities and market towns may develop more balanced equitable growth rather than the propulsive growth of a few large cities (Brohman, 1996b). This concept could be mapped into tourism, for example, through integrated rural tourism development. The territorial regional planning approach places priority on promoting locally appropriate development by mobilising the human, material and institutional resources of the region to serve the needs of the popular majority. Rather than being subjected to exploitation, peripheral rural regions should pursue a more

150

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

endogenous form of development (Brohman, 1996b). Community-based tourism planning is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6.

Tourism and Regional Development At a broad level, Malecki (1997) evaluates some of the concepts of tourism that make it attractive as a regional development tool. Tourism is a growing focus of economic policy in regions where employment creation through other means of investment is difficult. The tourism industry is labour-intensive and it also provides entrepreneurial activities. Locations, which have special natural, cultural or historic attractions, can turn these items into exports by attracting tourists. Tourism is also created by the construction of shopping malls, casinos, theme parks and convention facilities, along with hotels, restaurants and gift shops. Tourism can also be developed around special events and festivals. Along with this list of positives, Malecki (1997) noted a series of negative factors which can prevent tourism from being an effective tool for regional development. Tourism often has low paying jobs that can be seasonal. The amount of benefit a region receives relates to the level of leakage which occurs through imports. In some small countries, the level of leakage can be quite high, thereby reducing the multiplier effect. Within the international tourism industry, competition can be quite intense and as regions fall out of favour, they will go into decline. In order to develop tourism, a series of barriers have to be overcome, including the building of infrastructure for hotels. Luxury hotels in developing countries also require excessive financial support and can use a disproportionate amount of water, energy, food and construction materials, all of which may be in short supply in the region. If a region pursues concentrated enclave type tourism development, it is also open to competition from other tourist regions and, over time, the demands of tourists for more amenities tend to increase. Finally, as more countries opt to pursue options such as ecotourism, there is great debate as to whether or not ecotourism can be developed in a sustainable manner. The overall difficulty with the industry is that destinations are trying to respond to demand factors which are beyond their control and, often, the industry supply is controlled by multinationals (Malecki, 1997). Discussing the relationship between tourism and regional development, Shaw and Williams (1994) examined three aspects of tourism: (i) tourism is a product which must be consumed at the production point; (ii) most forms of tourism are highly temporal; and (iii) tourism is an industry subject to restructuring. In the context of mass tourism, the supply points are spatially fixed and subject to a high regard for spatial polarisation. These points are influenced by things like climate and geomorphological distribution of tourist objects such as beaches/sunshine and mountains/snow. Social construction also has a role in distinguishing what is important for tourists to see.

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

151

The second feature is that tourism has a degree of seasonality, which can generate a dichotomy of core-periphery workers with employees in the periphery holding temporary contracts. The final element of their analysis is the fact that tourism has undergone a process of restructuring that has seen the development of a variety of different forms of tourism such as cultural and industrial heritage exhibits that have different spatial attributes. Some of these ‘newer’ types of tourism benefit the core while others benefit the periphery. Within the destination region, Smith (1995: 199) adapted the work of Gunn (1979) to develop a list of criteria to define tourist destination zones: • •

• • • •

The region should have a set of cultural, physical and social characteristics that create a sense of regional identity. The region should contain an adequate tourism infrastructure to support tourism development. Infrastructure includes utilities, roads, business services, and other social services necessary to support tourism businesses and to cater to tourists’ needs. The region should be larger than just one community or one attraction. The region should contain existing attractions or have the potential to support the development of sufficient attractions to attract tourists. The region should be capable of supporting a tourism planning agency and marketing initiatives to guide and encourage future development. The region should be accessible to a large population base. Accessibility may be by road, scheduled air passenger service or cruise ships.

A number of the specific concepts and models related to regional economic development discussed previously in this chapter have been applied to tourism in both urban (Beauregard, 1998) and rural areas (Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997). Christaler (1963) argued that tourism is a means of obtaining economic development in peripheral regions with rich tourists travelling from the metropolitan centre to the periphery. The periphery has expanded considerably, with international tourist arrivals passing the one billion mark in 2012, travelling to locations that are more and more remote. Oppermann (1992) found that, in Malaysia, active tourists who stayed in at least four different localities contributed more to the goals of regional development. Porter (1998) suggests that the building of a tourism cluster in developing economies can be a positive force in improving outlying infrastructure and dispersing economic activity. Other authors, such as Williams and Shaw (1991) illustrate the potential for tourism to bring development to economically neglected regions of European countries while Peppelenbosch and Tepelman (1973) suggest that infrastructure requirements for tourism could act as regional development tools. Tourism developments have been constructed to act as growth poles to help stimulate regional development. Mexican government planners, for

152

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

example, have used a growth pole approach when developing tourist centres (Kemper, 1979) including Loreto, Los Cabos, Huatulco and Cancún (Weaver & Oppermann, 2000). In selecting tourism as a growth pole, governments identify a site, which is usually in an economically marginal area, that is deemed suitable for sustaining a form of tourism development. With government initiatives and incentives, both public and private investment is injected into the selected area, often in the form of subsidised facilities and infrastructure. The incentives attract additional tourism development and employees. Eventually economic growth in the area becomes self-sustaining and independent of tourism when a critical mass of residential population is attained. The larger residential population, rather than just tourism, attracts additional development. Government incentives may be withdrawn and the benefits of tourism ‘trickle down’ from the growth pole to the surrounding area (Weaver & Oppermann, 2000). Caalders (2000: 187) states that in regional economic planning, ‘the emphasis has been on attracting foreign industries capable of creating regional growth poles and serving as a pull factor for other economic activities’. The development of Cancún as a growth pole began in the 1970s and it has surpassed Acapulco as the biggest mass resort in Mexico (Hiernaux-Nicolas, 1999). The Mexican government and the Inter-American Development Bank financed the large-scale project and it is coordinated through FONATUR, the agency responsible for promoting tourism development. The rationale for the project was that it would generate foreign exchange and many new jobs outside of existing overtaxed urban centres such as Mexico City, and would counter patterns of regional inequality. Originally planned as a resort complex, recently it has been shifting from a resort enclave to an open urban centre with increasing levels of integration into the neighbouring Mayan region. Although the impact has been substantial, in terms of regional development it is not a clear success. It has not produced substantial improvements in regional conditions (Brenner & Aguilar, 2010; Hiernaux-Nicolas, 1999). The distance continues to grow between local winners and the remaining population, which has been impoverished by national and regional economic crises, and the vast majority of the Mexicans in the region have not benefited from the development in Cancún, as seen in the following comment: ‘Low wages, unstable labour markets, racism, a high cost of living, and poor housing are some of the conditions the would-be migrants have found in Cancún’ (Hiernaux-Nicolas, 1999: 139). Murray (2007) suggests that the high degree of centralised planning in this project by FONATUR has not proven adequate in addressing the myriad environmental and social impacts that have resulted. In the context of new regionalism and the importance of social relations and collaboration, Amin and Thrift (1994, cited in Dredge & Jenkins, 2003) note the concept of ‘institutional thickness’. This refers to understanding how institutional arrangements can influence the capacity of regions to compete globally. They define institutions broadly, to incorporate the informal

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

153

and formal nature of agglomerations of actors and agencies involved with economic development. Institutional thickness depends on ‘inter-institutional interaction and synergy; collective representation by many bodies; a common industrial purpose; and shared cultural norms and values’ (Amin & Thrift, 1994, cited in Dredge & Jenkins, 2003: 387). Dredge and Jenkins (2003) argue that institutional thickness has implications for tourism and provide the example that at the local level tourism is often fragmented and that alliances and synergies have to be built. Calls have been made for increased collaboration and strategic alliances within the tourism industry for firms and regions to become more competitive (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Telfer, 2000c). Sinclair and Stabler (1997) also note the importance of economic integration in tourism (vertical, horizontal and conglomerate) between firms as a way to respond to competition. Calls for increased collaboration in tourism go beyond just the business environment but are also the focus of sustainable development, defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987: 4). From the global to the local level, tourism policy and planning has increasingly been defined by the objectives of sustainable development (Sharpley, 2009b). The Brundtland Commission continues to hold influence in tourism development (Telfer, 2013; see Chapter 15), although the extent to which it has been put into practice remains debatable (Sharpley, 2009b). As Hall (2000) suggests, meeting the conditions of sustainability is a major political, economic and environmental issue that requires new ways of thinking about development and growth along with the role of individuals, governments and the private sector. Community involvement in the tourism planning process is linked to sustainable development and the work of Murphy (1985), who emphasises an ecological, community approach to development and planning, encouraging local initiative, local benefits and a tourism product which is in harmony with the local environment and community (see Chapter 6). If a nation incorporates sustainability and community involvement into regional tourism planning it will mean a decentralisation of power along with an increased focus on the environment. There are a number of models developed in the tourism literature that are useful in the context of regional development. Under the diffusionist paradigm, it is assumed that development is inevitable, it occurs in stages and development is diffused from the core to the periphery (Oppermann & Chon, 1997). Butler (1980) developed the Tourism Area Cycle of Evolution, which draws on the product life cycle. Tourism developments go through the following stages: exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, decline or rejuvenation. In the context of regional development it is important to note that while initial control of the industry is held locally, eventually larger multinational firms enter the market. If the region stagnates and goes into decline, the usefulness of tourism as a regional development tool will also

154

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

decline. Miossec (1976, cited in Oppermann & Chon, 1997) also developed a model which looked at the evolutionary development process of a resort area. The model examines five different stages for resorts, transport, tourists and hosts. At the final stage, the regions are fully developed with a hierarchy and areas of specialisations. There is maximum connectivity between resorts and also there are excursion circuits, which in theory would bring additional income to businesses in these excursion areas. The development of excursion routes on the island of Bali, Indonesia for example opened the interior of the island to tourist traffic. Along many of these excursion roads, gold, silver and woodcraft shops have opened to cater to tourists. There are also tourism development models that highlight the challenges in using tourism as an agent of regional development. At the top of Britton’s (1982a) enclave model of tourism development are the head offices of global and national tourism firms, which control the industry, and funds generated through tourism are leaked out of the tourist region back to the metropolitan countries. The model highlights potential inequalities within a country as attractions in rural areas receive less attention than those attractions in urban areas. Weaver (1988) similarly proposed a plantation model of tourism evolution whereby tourism results in the peripheralisation of the destination and the basic structural relationships between the core and the periphery remain essentially unchanged with the tourism landscape reflecting profound spatial inequality. Oppermann (1993) proposed a spatio-temporal development model of tourism space. A key dimension of this model is the distinction between the formal and informal tourism sector. While the formal sector is often associated with employment in hotels, the informal sector consists mainly of hawkers or street vendors and locally owned accommodations. The informal sector is labour intensive with very limited capital, and yet they can derive high profits per unit and the money increases the multiplier effect for the local economy (see Chapters 3 and 6). If the strategy behind regional development is to generate economic benefits for those living in peripheral areas, then the governments need to calculate which type of tourism will bring more benefits to the local community. If the informal sector is discouraged, then there is a lost opportunity for local entrepreneurial development. Wall (1993b) advocates a mix of both tourist types (mass to explorer) and accommodation types (five-star to guest houses) to promote the sustainable development of tourism.

State Involvement and Public Policy in Regional Tourism Development The various institutions of the state can have an impact on how tourism is used as a vehicle for regional development. The main institutions of the state include ‘the central government, administrative departments, the courts

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

155

and judiciary, enforcement agencies, other levels of government, government business enterprises, regulatory and assistance authorities and a range of semi-state organisations’ (Hall, 1994c: 23). In addition to this list, Hall (1994c) adds components of society such as political parties, trade unions and industry associations (including tourism and hospitality) that receive money from the state. The parliamentary institutions (whether democratic or not) provide the framework for the development of alternative policies and the decisionmaking process as to which policies are adopted. National or provincial/ state ministries of tourism and their related bureaucratic structures influence tourism policy and as Hall (1994c) points out, one of the significant aspects of the state is the balance of power which exists between the central government and the various regions in the country. All levels of state do not necessarily share the same objectives. The political ideology of a government can determine whether a government favours large resorts, backpacker hostels, ecotourism or casinos (Elliot, 1997). Ioannides (1995) identifies two broad important roles for governments to play in the tourism sector. The first is establishing the forum enabling the tourism industry suppliers to coordinate their activities. The second major role is that of promoter. Hall (1994c) outlines seven roles of government in tourism, which include: coordination, planning, legislation and regulation, entrepreneurship, providing stimulation, social tourism and interest protection. Each of these roles can be adapted to varying degrees of success to help promote regional development and will be reflected in examples in the second half of this chapter. When a government selects certain policies, the government is also choosing between different sets of values and these decisions are made within a complex policy arena (Hall, 1994c). Elliot (1997) argues that the tourism industry could not survive without governments as they have the ability to provide the political stability, security and legal and financial framework which tourism requires. Governments have the power but how it is used depends on factors including ‘political culture, political and economic power holders and their perception of the tourism industry’ (Elliot, 1997: 4). Governments have the ability to assist tourism by providing services and they have the ability to control the industry to ensure those activities and safety standards are maintained in the public interest. How government performs these activities depends on its public sector management (PSM), which is typically defined as public interest, public service, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability (Elliot, 1997). Oppermann and Chon (1997: 20) indicate that governments of developing countries can influence tourism development through fiscal and investment policies such as: • • • •

investment into the general infrastructure of a destination or region; investment into tourism infrastructure; investment incentives for companies; and influencing exchange rates.

156

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

In the very competitive environment of tourism destinations, Hall (2008b) suggests there is a range of regional competitiveness strategies that can be implemented from a low road to a high road. Those strategies that are on the low road are linked to packaging the place, product and reimaging strategies as well as investing in infrastructure such as meeting and convention facilities, sports stadiums or entertainment and shopping. High road strategies focus on entrepreneurship and innovation by developing learning regions, using concepts such as agglomeration economics and networking. The World Economic Forum publishes a Travel and Tourism Competitive Report measuring the factors and policies that make it attractive for developing the travel and tourism industry in different countries. The three main categories in the index are (a) the regulatory framework, (b) the business environment and infrastructure and (c) the human, cultural and natural resources. In 2013, Switzerland was ranked first (World Economic Forum, 2013). Hall (1994c) cautions, however, that the state is not simply a reflection of the interests of society, and at times the state will impose its value preferences even if they are in contrast with other members of society. This warning is particularly relevant in terms of regional development, as governments in some countries have in the past evicted local residents in the drive to pursue national or regional tourism development plans. In Tanzania, for example, the Massai have been displaced from cattle grazing areas to make way for safari tourism (Renton, 2009). It is, therefore, important to understand the political process which brought the government to power as well as how the government operates and interacts with interest groups inside and outside the country. In examining the nature of the political economy of tourism, Dieke (2000) states that the traditional role of government has been changing towards free-market liberalism, a trend which is supported by several international donor agencies. International loans for tourism development projects have often been strongly linked to the specifications of the neoliberal agenda of the lending agency and receiving governments are required to follow these conditions in order to obtain the loan (see Chapter 2). Government agencies use geographic scales (national, regional and local) in the application of tourism planning. Theoretically, as in a hierarchy, ‘national policies set a broad agenda for development that directly shapes regional-level policies whilst they in turn form a framework for locally implemented plans. As the scale of intervention diminishes, so the level of detail in planning proposals increases’ (Williams, 1998: 133). In commenting on the role of national plans, Williams (1998: 135) indicates that the national plans designate tourism development regions. Tourism development regions are identified to ‘help structure programmes for the redistribution of wealth and to narrow inter-regional disparities; to create employment in areas where unemployment is an issue, or to channel tourism development into zones that possesses appropriate attractions and infrastructure and are therefore considered for tourism’. In the UK, both national and regional tourism

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

157

organisations have tried to extend the benefits of tourism to all areas of the country. In 2013 VisitBritian launched a new Britain Tourism strategy with the aim of attracting 40 million international visitors a year, spending £31.3 billion by 2020 (VisitBritian, 2013b). At a national level, the objectives of the Thailand national growth policies have been to foster growth throughout the country by selectively designating key development areas (Pearce, 1989). The country of Indonesia has a national tourism plan as well as regional tourism plans. Regional designation can also be guided by environmental factors such as the need to protect a fragile area from tourism development. Regional tourism plans contain some of the same overriding concepts as national tourism plans as well as containing distinctive elements. Themes, which are carried from national level plans to regional level plans, include: • •

• •

concerns for the impact of tourism upon regional economies and employment patterns; development of infrastructure, including transport systems, to assist in the circulation of visitors within the regions, as well as provision of public utilities such as power and water supplies, both of which are frequently organised at regional levels; further spatial structuring in which tourism localities within regions are identified; regional-level marketing and promotion, especially where the region processes a particular identity and/or set of tourism products (Williams, 1998: 133).

Three distinctive aspects, which are often included in regional plans, are a greater concern over environmental impacts, more detailed consideration of the type and location of visitor attractions along with supporting services such as accommodation and greater recognition of visitor management strategies. Management strategies at the regional level encompass strategic placement of key attractions, designation of tourist routes and regional zoning to either concentrate or disperse visitors (Williams, 1998). One strategy for regional development has been the construction or expansion of regional airports. In Europe, where there has been a rise in low-cost air carriers using regional-level airports as they are less costly than major airports, there has been a corresponding increase in tourism income. China has seen rapid expansion in the number of airports. In the 12th Five-Year Plan period from 2011–2015, 56 new airports are to be built, 16 relocated and 91 expanded (eTN, 2013). Kasarda and Lindsay (2011) argue that in the future the ‘aerotropolis’ will be the focus of the way we will live, which is a combination of a giant airport, planned city, shipping facility and business hub. Within the EU, regional designation has also become linked to protecting specific names through geographic indication, which is linked to intellectual property rights. Geographic indication is used as a sign to identify a product as

158

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

originating in a region or locality where the quality and reputation is linked to the geographical origin (European Commission, 2013a). Examples include Champagne, Parma ham and Scotch whisky, and these products bring tourists to these regions. As noted by the European Commission (2013a) geographical indications can ‘create values for local communities that are deeply rooted in tradition, culture and geography’. Government funding of regional tourism initiatives can be vital to establishing new projects and partnerships. In 2010, the provincial government in Ontario, Canada, reorganised the province into 13 Regional Tourism Organisations (RTOs) and three northern sub-regions with each RTO being led by one organisation. The new RTOs are independent, industry-led, not-forprofit organisations, which take a key role in providing regional leadership and coordination. They work with industry to increase tourism through strategic planning, research, product development, training, investment attraction and marketing. The annual funding for the tourism regions is CDN$40 million. The development of the RTOs came out of the recommendations of a 2009 Tourism Competitiveness Study, which included the finding that there were many different organisations involved in marketing at the regional level and many direct marketing organisations were focused on marketing and not the management and development of the regions as destinations (Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, 2013). Partnerships are becoming more prominent in regional development. Canadian Badlands Ltd, for example, is a not-for-profit Alberta Corporation based in south-eastern Alberta and it includes 62 municipal governments cooperating to develop a strategic regional tourism development plan (Canadian Badlands, 2013). In Australia, the national government has a Tourism Industry Regional Development Fund, announced in June of 2012, with funding of $48.5 million over four years (Australia Government, 2013). Tosun and Jenkins (1996) note that in many developing countries, most of the tourism development is a product of central planning. A shift to a regional planning approach would require decentralisation of power. In the context of Turkey, the authors recommend that the country draw lessons from the United Kingdom where tourism planning is sub-national. ‘Unless there is a mechanism to manage and control tourism development at a sub-national level, tourism growth may not be sustainable and contribute to national development, although it may continue to contribute to the balance of payments’ (Tosun & Jenkins, 1996: 530). International tourism development policy for regional development is demonstrated through the EU (Kauppila et al., 2009). The most significant financial interventions for tourism development used by the EU are structural funds and cohesion funds (Davidson & Maitland, 1997). These financial instruments are used with the EU’s Regional Development Policy to strengthen economic and social cohesion within the EU and to reduce the disparities between the regions of the EU. The main structural funds, which

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

159

benefit tourism, include the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). While the EAGGF has contributed to rural tourism, most of the tourismrelated funding has come from the ERDF (Davidson & Maitland, 1997). This fund has helped disadvantaged regions develop their tourism potential through direct investment for the construction of projects such as marinas, conference centres, airports, and indirect investment in the areas of transportation and communication infrastructure. The second type of assistance is targeted at regions, which are over-dependent on tourism and suffering from its negative impacts. Funds are used to help with environmental problems and to diversify the economy (Davidson & Maitland, 1997). From 2007 to 2013 the EU planned to spend €6 billion under the Cohesion Policy with the aim of mobilising tourism for job creation and sustainable regional development (European Commission, 2013b). In Canada, the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) acts as a partnership between the tourism industry businesses and associations, provincial and territorial governments and the government of Canada. The CTC has the authority to plan, direct, manage and implement programmes to generate and promote tourism in Canada. It is made up of industry representatives from across the country (Goeldner et al., 2000; Telfer & Hashimoto, 2013a). In Canada, the provinces also play a major role in setting tourism policy and initiating programmes. The CTC has also established the Product Clubs Programme, which provides funding to small and medium-sized businesses in underdeveloped sectors. Many of these product clubs, such as the Northern Wilderness Adventure Product Club, involve companies trying to develop tourism in lesser known regions of the country. Similarly, in the province of Ontario, Canada, the ministry responsible for tourism has established the Tourism Marketing Partnership Programme which helps small, diverse independent tour operators join forces and establish tour packages. This programme has significant potential for fostering tourism development in more isolated regions. In developing a specific region, government officials can attempt to purchase jobs and the related benefits of associated growth by offering businesses a number of different subsidies. These subsidies can include, but are not limited to: tax abatement, infrastructure and site assistance, low interest loans, labour force training, regulatory relief, sale-lease back and technical assistance (Blair, 1995). Blair (1995) suggests that major downtown hotels almost always receive special government incentives, often from more than one level of government. Porter (1998) argues that governments should take an active role in enhancing clusters. ‘A location’s best chance of attracting foreign investment and promoting exports, for example lies in its existing or emerging clusters’ (Porter, 1998: 253). In China, the government has established Special Economic Zones (SEZ) to generate economic growth, with Hainan Island SEZ as a site of tourism development (Gu & Wall, 2007).

160

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Elsewhere, such as in Dubai, the government has established Free Zones with attractive investment incentives. In regard to the promotion of tourism of destination regions, Williams and Shaw (1995) call for additional investigations into the social construction of tourism and tourism images. As governments pursue tourism as a regional development tool, they need to consider what forms of tourism to develop in different areas and what agencies will be responsible for the development project. Ultimately, if regional development is the focus, consideration needs to be directed towards who will actually benefit from tourism development. In the case of the poorest regions, Burns (1999) proposes a continuum on which tourism planning advice may be placed. The first pole is ‘Tourism First’, whereby developing the tourism industry is the focus of the planning and the second pole is ‘Development First’, whereby planning is framed by national development needs. Whether a government selects to pursue tourism so that national development needs are met and regional disparities are reduced or whether they let industry lead by facilitating tourism development will depend on the agenda of the government. While in many cases government takes an active role in the development process it is important not to neglect the role of the private sector, including small entrepreneurs and the growing role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). There is also intense competition between private sector tourism consulting companies to bid for the right to create regional tourism development plans for various levels of government (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). The remainder of this chapter will examine regional tourism development cases in a variety of locations (urban, rural, island, peripheral and international). While it is not possible to highlight every possible type of region, it is hoped that these examples highlight the challenges and opportunities associated with tourism and regional development.

Tourism and Urban Redevelopment The use of tourism for regional development is promoted in urban areas as governments attempt to revitalise sections of a city. ‘The creation of urban development corporations and enterprise boards is tied in with urban and regional redevelopment programmes seeking to “rejuvenate” inner-city and industrial lands. Urban revitalisation typically includes the development of inner-city leisure spaces, waterfront redevelopment, festival market-places, casinos, conference centres and sports stadia’ (Hall & Jenkins, 1995: 38). Jansen-Verbeke and Lievois (1999: 81) comment that ‘policies for urban revitalisation are strongly inspired by the possibilities of exploiting the cultural potential of urban historic cities’. In reviewing the pros and cons, Fainstein and Judd (1999) found that proponents of regeneration through tourism argue that central-city regeneration spurs economic growth through strong

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

161

multipliers, improves a city’s aesthetic and built environment and enhances facilities for residents. In addition, advocates argue that with a lack of alternatives for developing an economic base, if cities do not compete for tourism dollars they will lose out in an increasingly global environment (Fainstein & Judd, 1999). Those opposed to this type of renewal argue that its potential as a growth engine falls short on claims made by proponents. They claim that imitations of publicised festival market places such as those in Boston or Baltimore do not always work in other cities. Detractors cite examples of US city-centre retail markets, which failed to meet expected visitor flows or incurred losses such as those in Toledo, Ohio; Richmond, Virginia; and St. Louis, Missouri (Fainstein & Judd, 1999). In addition, detractors argue the impact of convention centres has fallen short of expected projections; however, cities are forced to upgrade facilities just to keep up with the competition (Fainstein & Judd, 1999). In the context of a city, tourism is just one form of industry, and how it is integrated into the community can have an impact on its role in regional development. In some cities where there are high urban crime rates, rather than integrating the new tourism development into the surrounding community, it is cordoned off, designed to separate the affluent tourists, such as with the Renaissance Centre in Detroit in the US (Fainstein & Judd, 1999). Granville Island in the city of Vancouver, Canada is a successful mixed-use area which combines a market, bookstores, tourist shops, a hotel, a theatre, restaurants and cafés along with traditional waterfront businesses such as chandlers, boat repairs and moorings. The project was developed on an incremental scale and benefits not only tourists but also local residents and businesses (Hall, 2000). Hall (2000) suggests that appropriate tourism development may mean that relatively small-scale change with public involvement such as in Granville Island is better than large-scale development with limited numbers of owners. While the large-scale projects may be attractive to politicians, the gradual change may be more sustainable. An important point is raised by Hall and Jenkins (1995) in that, while local and regional governments may see tourism as a source of employment and income, the role of tourism within the bigger picture of economic and social development processes is often lost. Governments have become more entrepreneurial in trying to attract tourists to their cities through various government agencies or tourism development corporations. For example, the Tourism Partnership of Niagara, Canada, one of Ontario’s 13 Regional Tourism Organisations, is turning towards increased place marketing. The city of St. Catharines in Niagara is redeveloping its downtown core with a new hockey arena, performing arts centre and a school of fine and performing arts with Brock University. Some cities have an existing historical image while others try to create an image. The creation of a landmark building such as the Sydney Opera House or the CN Tower in Toronto can be a valuable attraction as well as giving a city a

162

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

world-class recognisable icon. Other entrepreneurial strategies in promoting redevelopment include attracting a world-class event to the city. ‘The Olympic Games represents the biggest prize for cities seeking mega-events’ (Holcomb, 1999). The main focus for the unsuccessful Toronto 2008 Olympic bid was a multi-million dollar redevelopment plan of the city’s waterfront supported by the city, province and federal governments while the 2012 Olympics in the UK saw the redevelopment of parts of London. Heritage tourism in urban areas has received increased attention (JansenVerbeke & Lievois, 1999). In the context of European cities, it is suggested that heritage tourism has the mission of marketing nostalgia, authenticity, education and entertainment in a way to safeguard the heritage resources for future generations. This is taking place within the objective of using tourism as a stimulus for the urban economy and adding value to urban life (JansenVerbeke & Lievois, 1999). The danger, however, is that these fragile sites are finding it increasingly difficult to deal with the growing number of tourists. Finally, casino complexes have become major tools in urban areas. Las Vegas and Macau are two places synonymous with casino development (Balas, 2013). In Las Vegas from 1970 to 2011, visitor numbers went from 6.7 million to 38.9 million and room inventory went from 25,430 to 150,161 (LVCVA, 2013). In Macau, there were 28 million visitors in 2011 (Balas, 2013). In comparing Las Vegas and Macau, each city has two main clusters of casinos with major investments in Las Vegas at $33 billion and in Macau at $6 billion (Balas, 2013). In the context of Las Vegas, however, this growth strategy and the claims of job creation have to be tempered with increases in compulsive gambling, struggles of citizens to afford housing in service sector jobs, the reduction of public space in favour of private space, bankruptcy of small independent stores, the fiscal difficulties of local government trying to subsidise profitable gambling establishments while maintaining local infrastructure and environmental degradation (Parker, 1999). Both Las Vegas and Macau faced the 2008 global financial crisis, which slowed development projects, making real estate entrepreneurs and policymakers cognisant of the challenges of sustainability and climate change (Balas, 2013). The focus on urban entertainment centres was highlighted by Hannigan (1998) in his book Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis, in which he states that cities have come to represent fantasy experiences and piers, factories and warehouses have been replaced by casinos, megaplexes, and themed restaurants. Revisiting the topic in 2007, Hannigan suggests that the fantasy city development is on the wane in North America; however, it has flourished in other regions in the world, most notably in Dubai where attempts to diversify the economy have seen a shift to tourism and real estate with the creation of artificial islands in the shape of palm trees (Palm Jumeirah), an indoor ski slope and the world’s tallest building: the Burj Khalifa. With the fantasy city on the wane, there has been a shift to the creative city, where rather than the focus being on casinos and convention centres, culture

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

163

and creativity have become key elements in urban economic growth. As Richards and Wilson (2007) point out, destinations are replacing or supplementing culture-led development with creative development.

Tourism and Rural Regeneration With downturns in rural economies, it is understandable that governments have given a great deal of attention to the economic benefits of tourism, particularly for rural areas attempting to keep pace and adapt to the globalised economy (Hall & Jenkins, 1998). As Grolleau (1994) suggests, growing numbers of city-dwellers are ‘getting away from it all’ in the countryside and the advantages of rural tourism are that it is based on local initiative, local management, has local spin-offs, is rooted in local scenery and it taps into local culture. The development of rural routes and trails has been used to link clusters of related attractions and build partnerships (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004). In theory, this emphasis on local can help to generate regional development and, according to Sharpley and Sharpley (1997), rural tourism is increasingly being used for socio-economic regeneration and diversification. While there is a wide range of definitions of rural in different countries, Sharpley and Sharpley (1997: 20) describe rural as all areas, ‘both land and water, that lie beyond towns and cities which, in national and regional contexts, may be described as major urban centres’. For tourism to be described as rural tourism then it should mirror the characteristics that signify a rural area, including small settlements, low population densities, agrarian-based economies and traditional societies (Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997). Lane (1994) further details the difficulty in attempting to create a definition of rural tourism as not all tourism in rural areas, is strictly ‘rural’. Rural tourism extends beyond farm-based tourism to include ‘special-interest nature holidays and ecotourism, walking, climbing and riding holidays, adventure, sport and health tourism, hunting and angling, educational travel, arts and heritage tourism, and in some areas, ethnic tourism’ (Lane, 1994: 9). Opportunities for rural tourism in the public sector often occur in national or provincial parks. Sharpley and Sharpley (1997) outlined the benefits and costs associated with developing rural tourism. As mentioned above, many of the businesses associated with rural tourism are small and independently owned and therefore generate income for the local economy. By developing rural tourism, the local economy becomes more diversified as jobs are created in tourism and tourism-related businesses. Existing services and businesses are supported while new businesses may be attracted to the area, further diversifying the economy. One of the more significant components of the rural tourism product in many industrialised countries is vacation farms. There is a long history

164

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

in Europe of vacation farms and countries such as Australia and New Zealand have experienced growth in this sector (Weaver & Fennell, 1997). In terms of social benefits, local transport and health care may be maintained and there may be a revitalisation of local customs, crafts and cultural identities. As rural tourism relies on the natural environment, the industry may be a stimulus for conservation. As with any type of tourism, there are associated costs, which are in relation to the importance of the industry, volume of tourists and the resiliency of the local community (Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997). Rural tourism may result in increases in the price of land and goods. In the Muskoka Region, north of Toronto, Ontario, the land values for cottages have surpassed the levels at which many locals can afford. Jobs created may also be seasonal and outsiders may control many of the tourism businesses. The dependency on a business of which they have little control, may also cause difficulties for the local community. Congestion and crowding, which impinge on the daily life of local residents and the replacement of traditional shops with souvenir shops can have a negative effect on resident attitudes towards tourism development. The evolution of turning rural towns and their heritage-scapes into leisure-scapes of mass consumption has been studied in the context of creative destruction (Halpern & Mitchell, 2011). As communities go through three stages of destruction (early, advanced and post-destruction), the scale and nature of the development is designed to appeal to a mass tourist market resulting in significant challenges for the initial local inhabitants (Halpern & Mitchell, 2011). Butler and Clark (cited in Page & Getz, 1997) warn that rural tourism may not be the magic solution with its income leakages, volatility, low pay, imported labour and conservative investors. They argue that the least favourite circumstance in which to promote rural tourism is when the economy is weak, since tourism will further create highly unbalanced income and employment distributions. Hall and Jenkins (1998) also warn that while tourism can diversify and therefore stabilise a local economy by creating jobs, business opportunities, incomes and an increased tax base, rural communities are often faced with limited resources, over-extended leaders and volunteers, and they are forced to compete with other rural areas that are also developing tourism. Many countries and regions have developed rural policies which have either directly or indirectly had an impact on rural tourism. In the EU, the Common Agricultural Policy and its subsequent reforms have indirectly had an effect on rural tourism. Within the policy there has been a reduction in the amount of subsidies provided to farmers, some farmers have taken land out of production and others have been given incentives for early retirement. The end result being that a large amount of rural land is available for other uses. The LEADER programme (Liaisons Entre Actions pour la Développement des Économies Rurale) of the EU has particular interest for tourism as it is intended to promote an integrated approach to rural development with emphasis on local support and involvement. Local Action Groups are

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

165

formed and if their business plans are accepted, the groups receive funding from EU structural funds along with national and private sector funding. Tourism has become one of the main concepts of the business plans submitted. In a successful case noted by Sharpley and Sharpley (1997), the South Pembrokeshire Partnership for Action with Rural Communities (SPARC) in the UK covered some 35 rural communities and they were able to help over 100 different projects with many of them related to rural tourism. In England, the government has launched a £25 million fund aimed at encouraging tourism in the countryside in association with VisitEngland and the ‘Holidays at Home are Great’ campaign featuring Wallace and Gromit (stars of British stop motion animation films) as well as working with 34 areas of outstanding natural beauty to help support sustainable rural tourism and developing path networks (DEFRA, 2013). Major inflows of capital were put into some rural areas under state socialism, including the winter sports centres in Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania and the holiday complexes along the Black Sea and the Adriatic Coasts. Hall, D. (1998) argues that, within south-eastern Europe, there is potential for leisure-related activities to influence employment growth significantly. In addition, opportunities exist for rural attractions in these areas to act as a resource for tourism organised through locally owned small enterprises and for ‘farm-based tourism to act as a vehicle for integrated rural development to raise incomes, stabilise populations, sustain cultures, and redistribute economic roles within the rural household’ (Hall, D., 1998: 428). However, Hall, D. (1998) expressed concerns in the context of south-eastern Europe about the long-term viability of rural small and medium tourism enterprises, their social impact and multiplier effect. In Portugal, Cavaco (1995b) found that rural tourism provided funds to restore manor homes and encouraged families who owned these estates to educate the tourists about nature and rural culture. It also revitalised thermal spas and resorts and local trade and restoration businesses. However, it was recognised that this sort of tourism occupies a very small niche and is limited to specific areas so the social and economic impacts are very modest. Cavaco (1995b) stated that it was unlikely that the National Tourism Plan would fulfil the role it wished to play in raising standards of living in rural areas. The difficulties in using tourism as a regional development tool here included the financial risks required, the remoteness of markets and local cultural life, the services and the other types of activity. The marketing of small-scale tourism products is often handled through an intermediary, which results in a reduction of income for local craft people. Agritourism has been found to promote community development in the village of Bangunkerto in Indonesia (Telfer, 2000a). The National Tourism Strategy for Indonesia indicated that special interest tourism such as agritourism should be supported. With help from the Provincial Agricultural Department, 4000 salak plants were given to the village which worked on a

166

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

cooperative basis to establish a salak plantation tourism centre. Traditional dances were performed at the centre and the guides were hired from the surrounding villages. While at the time of the investigation the project had not created a lot of additional income for the village, the villagers were hoping in time to expand the facilities. Rural heritage trails including food and wine tourism have increasingly been the focus of rural development strategies. In rural Japan, the ‘One Village One Product’ scheme has been promoted to brand a rural community around a specific agricultural product which is advertised at train stations and along the road ways (Telfer & Hashimoto, 2012). Hall (2012: 57) argues that the ‘key to maximising benefits of food and wine tourism in local regional development is understanding the role of the intangible economy in regional competitiveness’. The four intangibles are intellectual property of place, brand, new networks and relationships and finally intellectual capital. Hall goes on to argue that networks and cluster relationships are important in developing intangible capital. Key factors in the development of successful food tourism clusters and networks include: • • • • • • • • • • • •

innovative clusters; government financing and policies; skills and knowledge levels (human capital); technological capabilities (research and development activities); transport, information and communication infrastructure; availability and expertise of capital financing in the region; strong tax and regulatory environment; skilled migrants and their associated capital; spatial proximity of network members (co-location tends to enhance network development); clarity of public governance (the clearer the roles of various government agencies and departments in development, the greater the ease in successful network development); entrepreneurial and innovative champion(s); and regular face-to-face meetings (to develop relationships and trust between parties). (Hall, 2012: 58)

In the Niagara Region of Ontario, Canada, efforts are now underway to promote the rural areas beyond the well-known attraction of Niagara Falls through the use of rural routes. The Niagara Wine Route links over 74 wineries throughout the region. In addition to offering tours and tastings, many of the wineries have moved into the area of wine tourism and offer special events throughout the year as well as elaborate wine tasting venues (Telfer, 2000c, 2001a, 2001b; Telfer & Hashimoto, 2013b). The wineries have been successful at not only attracting domestic tourists but also international tourists (Hashimoto & Telfer, 1999; Telfer & Hashimoto, 2000). Part of the

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

167

development of wine tourism in the area is also due to the numerous food and wine festivals and events held throughout the year featuring local food and wine, which highlight not only the product but also the producers and farmers (Telfer, 2000b; Telfer & Hashimoto, 2013b). One of the key factors for the success of rural tourism in the Niagara Region has been the development of partnerships. As indicated in Telfer (2001a), the success of the wineries has been the development of competitive advantage of embedded clusters similar to the concepts highlighted by Porter (1998). While rural tourism continues to gain in popularity as a regional development tool, planners need to be aware of the possible conflicts and whether the region can accommodate large numbers of visitors. There is also possible migration of labour out of the traditional industries such as agriculture into the tourism sector leaving fewer people on the farm when needed at harvesting time. Reflecting on over 30 years of modern rural tourism, Lane (2009: 366) argues that ‘a key challenge will be to retain the individual post-Fordism approach inherent in rural tourism, retaining personal discovery and an artisan approach while being keenly professional’. With increased competition between rural areas, Butler and Hall (1998: 117) pose the question ‘[h]ow many heritage trails, pioneer museums and villages, historic houses, roadside produce stalls, authentic country cooking, festivals, country shops, and Devonshire teas can we stand?’ This increased competition has forced rural areas to develop strategic place marketing through imaging or reimaging.

Island Tourism Development From the Caribbean to the islands of the Mediterranean or the South Pacific, tourism is the development option of choice for many islands, where there is a lack of resources and a limited range of other economic activities. As Milne (1992) suggests, the microstate category of islands is an amorphous one as it groups relatively large nations with mature tourism industries such as Malta, Fiji or Barbados alongside extremely small states with limited visitor flows and small populations such as the Cook Islands or Niue. In developing tourism, there is a set of common issues which islands face (Butler, 1996). Islands are vulnerable to external influences, have limited local markets and lack a critical mass. Depending on the island, they may have poor communications and transportation links with potential markets. One of the sources of vulnerability is a high rate of dependence on agencies for providing services such as transportation and finance. In cases where the government is off island, their priorities may be different from those of the host population. Despite these challenges, many island nations pursue tourism. However, in general, the smaller the island, the less control the local population has had over the nature and scale of the tourism development (Butler, 1996; Graci, 2013). More recently, concerns have been raised over long-haul flights to

168

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

islands contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, with islands contributing to their own demise as sea levels are rising and extreme weather events more frequent (Carlsen & Butler, 2011; see Chapter 11). Within the theme of this chapter, one could examine the Caribbean, for example, as a region of islands which relies heavily on tourism. Alliances between nations in the Caribbean include CARICOM (Caribbean Community), the OECS (Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States) with its common currency (the East Caribbean Dollar) and the pan-Caribbean ACS (Association of Caribbean States) (Wilson, 1996). The Caribbean Tourism Organisation represents 30 countries and its focus is on leading sustainable tourism (CTO, 2014). Wilkinson’s (1987: 142) investigations in the Caribbean found that although tourism is a major export earner, a large part of the expenditure leaves the economy ‘through international airlines, and major hotel chains, and purchases of foreign food’. Gmelch (2012) notes the importance tourism plays in the economies of the Caribbean; however, the loans that some Caribbean governments have had to take to develop and maintain tourism infrastructure have been costly and the creation of all-inclusive package holidays has been devastating for local businesses dependent on tourism clientele. Widfelt (1996) has raised other potential problems for island nations. The intensive use of coastal zones with the construction of harbours, marinas, hotels and airports has had severe effects on the environment while, at the same time, Caribbean farming and fishing have been marginalised. Rural encroachment can also occur as tourism develops. The economic benefits of tourism in the Caribbean have also been called into question. To build and maintain expanded infrastructure requires a great deal of capital and a high proportion of tourism dollars tend to flow out of the region in various forms, including profits, payments for imports and other services (Widfelt, 1996). Within the Caribbean, there has also been a dramatic increase in the number of passengers taking cruises. However, as Bresson and Logossah (2011) point out, there seems to be a crowding-out effect of cruise tourism on stay-over tourism. As a result, they recommend that Caribbean authorities that have traditionally believed the two types of tourism were complementary need to revise their strategies. Regional development can also be examined within the context of a single island. Nuryanti (1998) examined tourism and regional imbalances on the island of Java, Indonesia. She indicated that the success of tourism generating regional development depends on the interaction of the level of provincial specification or differentiation in terms of socio-cultural and economic structures, tourist density, accessibility and characteristics of tourism development. A region with a high level of specification or differentiation can absorb tourism impacts in a positive way as the region has the internal capacity to: • •

integrate and create the linkages; adapt its organisational structure;

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

• •

169

increase its level of specification or differentiation; and handle long-term, more integrated development.

A region with a lower level of differentiation may respond to this instability by obtaining imported assistance such as goods, foreign investment and services to meet the demands set by international tourism (Nuryanti, 1998). If tourism is to be used effectively as a regional development tool, it is necessary that backward and forward linkages be established throughout the surrounding region. Telfer (1996a, 1996b) and Telfer and Wall (1996, 2000) explored linkages between the tourism industry and the agricultural sector on the islands of Lombok and Java in Indonesia. Case studies on both Lombok and Java revealed that large-scale hotels are able to make a wide variety of linkages with the local agricultural sector to purchase local products. The hotels examined used both small-scale suppliers who visited local markets to purchase products and larger suppliers with broad-based links throughout the region. In the case of Lombok, a resort hired a small-scale fisherman turned supplier to travel to the various fish markets and purchase fresh local seafood. The hotel also provided a local farmer with a variety of seeds for crops, some of which were not grown traditionally on the island. When the crops were ready the hotel would purchase them from the farmer. Lombok is a much smaller island than Java and less fertile so it was difficult for the hotel to get all of the products it required locally. The economic benefits to the region are improved when linkages are developed and maintained with local industry. The challenge, however, is maintaining these types of initiatives on a long-term basis. The form of tourism development created can have an impact on the regional benefits of the industry for the island. Weaver’s (1988) evolutionary plantation model of tourism based on the Caribbean islands has three phases: (i) pre-tourism; (ii) transition; and (iii) tourism domination. The model suggests that the main town area is commonly the dominant focus of tourism development in the initial stages. As stage three is reached, tourism development is not evenly distributed in the peripheral areas and the centre of the island is left as non-tourism space while the outer edges of the island are more fully developed. McDonnell and Darcy (1998) also examined the form of island tourism development. They compared Bali and Fiji and suggested that one of the possible reasons for the decline in Australian market share for Fiji compared to Bali was the lack of tourism precincts on Fiji. A tourism precinct is defined as ‘an area in which various attractions such as bars, restaurants, places of entertainment or education, accommodation, amenities, and other facilities are clustered in freely accessible public spaces. Tourism precincts by their nature enhance certain aspects of the tourist experience and facilitate social interactions between tourists and locals’ (McDonnell & Darcy, 1998: 354). The term tourism precinct has its roots in the following terms: recreational business districts, peripheral tourism areas, enclaves,

170

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

tourist-historic cities, integrated beach resort development, tourism shopping villages, tourism business districts, tourism destination areas, and tourism districts (McDonnell & Darcy, 1998). While the central and provincial governments of Indonesia and Bali have in many ways been the developers of tourism, Fiji’s government has taken on more of a role of support. In Bali there are four well-defined tourism areas (Kuta, Sanur, Nusa Dua, and Ubud) along with other more minor areas, while in Fiji, tourist attractions tend to be more scattered over a wide area with no distinctive tourism precincts (McDonnell & Darcy, 1998). There is debate in the literature as to the merits of enclave resorts versus integrated resorts on islands. Enclave resorts are characterised by the following three points: the structure is not intended to benefit the local residents directly; the site is physically separated from the existing community; and they are used almost exclusively by foreign tourists (Jenkins, 1982a). It is argued that resort enclaves are dominated by multinationals with a management style that creates and controls the physical and cultural environment for the tourist (Freitag, 1994). Enclave resort development in the Dominican Republic is blamed for exploiting local lower classes as cheap labour while national elites and foreign countries are the ones that benefit from higher incomes (Freitag, 1994). This type of development places the destination community in a dependent position. Carlisle and Jones (2012) note that the beach enclave is a landscape of power that protects the tourists rather than national interests with leisure access and business opportunities for locals. However, integrated tourism development attempts to match the scale of the project to fit within the local community. Integrated tourism development is characterised by its small scale, with local capital and management (Jenkins, 1982a). Jenkins (1982a) hypothesised that this type of tourism development may be more easily assimilated into the host community. Rodenburg (1980) evaluated the social and economic effects of international standard hotels, economy hotels and homestays in Bali and found that the best development strategy did not always include large industrial tourism. It was suggested that smaller-scale enterprises may present greater opportunities for control and profit by local people. Jenkins (1982a) criticised Rodenburg (1980) by arguing that large-scale tourist developments were likely due to market structure of international tourism and external economies of scale, and suggested that problems with tourism could be mitigated to some extent if there is preproject planning. While initial debates tended to surround whether smallscale tourism development was more sustainable than large-scale development, now the focus is on making all forms of development more sustainable. In the Caribbean, NGOs are becoming increasingly important for national and regional development. Organisations such as the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) are involved in strengthening the capacity of human communities to manage natural resources. This organisation has been promoting nature-based tourism on the south-east coast of St. Lucia as part of a

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

171

project to demonstrate the links between development and conservation (Widfelt, 1996). In addition to the form of development, the rate of tourism development can also raise concerns. In the context of the Balearic Islands, Morgan (2000) notes that 50 years ago most of the residents were subsistence farmers. Ibiza for example, is now known for its clubbing scene and mass hedonism. It has been the centre of a construction boom which has spoiled huge areas of coast and countryside and caused a dramatic water shortage. Attempts by the Balearic government to impose an eco-tax have, however, met with resistance from the industry (Morgan, 2000). Within the context of regional development, governments need to decide on the nature of tourism that they want to develop. The rapidly growing middle class in East and South Asia has the potential to generate significant cruise tourism in the Pacific, which will generate demand for less-congested ports offering a range of shore excursions (Macpherson, 2008). While the cruise industry has been growing rapidly (Lee & Ramdeen, 2013), there are concerns over the social, environmental and economic impacts of the increasingly larger and faster ships (Macpherson, 2008). Milne (1992) argues that for tourism to be of maximum benefit for island microstates, the industry needs to be planned on an integrated basis with other parts of the economy, taking into account the broader social, political and economic objectives and constraints. Profits derived from tourism should not necessarily be put straight back into further tourism expansion but should be used to secure a regionally, economically and socially balanced pattern of investment and development. Harrison’s (1992a) comment on the work by Smith on the island of Borcay in the Philippines concludes this section. While the once subsistence-based island has been modernised by tourism and is now more closely connected to the world economic system with the expansion of a cash economy along with the introduction of ‘Western’ norms, the question is raised: was the island developed and who is the judge?

Tourism Development in Peripheral Regions As the tourism product continues to diversify to satisfy an ever increasingly demanding market, the geographic location of where tourists are travelling to moves further and further away from developed areas and into the periphery. Tourism in the periphery here is considered as different from rural tourism discussed above and is associated with more remote settings. Botterill et al. (2000) outline the main characteristics of the periphery as: low levels of economic vitality and dependence on traditional industries, more rural and remote – often with high scenic values – reliant on imported technologies and ideas, poor information flows, remote from decision-making leading to a sense of alienation, and poor infrastructure. Tourism in these peripheral regions has been identified under a variety of labels, such as

172

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

wildlife tourism, nature-based tourism, ecotourism and adventure tourism. In order to meet this market, governments are opening up regions for tourism that have never had visits from tourists before. Price’s (1996b) work on people and tourism in fragile environments focuses on case studies from mountain regions, savannahs and the Arctic. ‘Increases in accessibility – whether by land, air or sea – may be driven by a government’s desire to develop tourism as a means of increasing national incomes or revitalising local economies’ (Price, 1996a: 2). Not only are these fragile ecosystems under threat, but they are also home to some of the world’s remaining indigenous people whose lifestyles are also under threat. More than 5 million tourist trips visit the Arctic and subarctic each year while more than 40,000 tourists visit Antarctica annually (Hall & Saarinen, 2010). These communities are facing increasing levels of outside involvement in their communities and a potential loss of access to resources. The economic rational for indigenous tourism development is that it will result in increased economic independence along with a higher rate of self-determination and cultural pride as the shackles of poverty and social welfare are broken (Butler & Hinch, 1996). The second perspective put forward by Butler and Hinch (1996) is that increased participation by indigenous people in tourism will facilitate better understanding between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. The increased understanding will generate a more equitable relationship between the two groups. In their revised book in 2012, Butler and Hinch state that the complexity of the debates continue on whether indigenous tourism is an economic opportunity or whether it presents a major threat of hegemonic subjugation and cultural degradation; debates also continue on more operational issues linked to indigenous tourism. Ecotourism has become a favoured label for tourism in untouched ecosystems in many parts of the word (Malecki, 1997) and it is in danger of becoming a marketing label. With many of the beautiful natural environments being located in rural areas of less developed countries where there are often problems of under-development and poverty, the potential economic benefits to be gained from ecotourism also mean that there is a potential threat to conservation of these areas (Holden, 2000). Without strict government control over development, there is little reason to assume the development cycle will be any different from other forms of tourism (Holden, 2000). These strict government controls on the environment may help to protect the environment; however, they may reduce the ability of a region to capitalise on its resources and thereby reduce overall regional development. On the other hand, if a region pursues tourism to such a degree that there are major negative impacts on the environment, tourists will no longer want to visit the area. Recent debates in ecotourism surround certification and standards as well as whether these efforts lead to green-washing (Haaland & Aas, 2010). Other challenges associated with opening up these regions to varieties of tourism such as ecotourism or adventure, not only include a lack of tourism

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

173

infrastructure but also the nature of the market. Tourists interested in adventure tourism or ecotourism may not be as ready to return to the same site, not only because of the costs involved but they may want to move on to the next challenge/destination. Therefore, the destination must constantly seek out new customers (see Chapter 12). These destinations often require significant travel and carbon consumption, further raising questions about sustainability (see Chapter 11). Sinclair and Pack (2000) examined wildlife tourism within the framework of the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe. The programme attempts to give local communities ownership and control of the wildlife in their domain and to ensure that they receive a return from the resources in terms of cash or community projects (Campfire, 2013). The strategies used to implement the programme are charges, quotas and regulations for wildlife viewing and hunting tourism. ‘The community-based wildlife tourism offers a way of improving rural livelihoods in areas where agricultural prospects are at best marginal’ (Potts et al., 1996: 217). The difficulties in using this project in regional development are, however, indicated in the comment by the authors that while the project has been welcomed in some areas of the country, it has been less successful where economic returns have been relatively low or unequally distributed (Sinclair & Pack, 2000). In Belize, the government focused on a tourism policy based on ecotourism as a way to attract foreign investment and protect the environment. However, the majority of the tourists have their travel and accommodations arranged by foreign tour operators, which has lead to higher rates of economic leakage. In addition, the growth in the industry led to inflationary prices along the coastline and it is estimated that 90% of the coastal region is under foreign ownership and the government has no plans to reduce this foreign ownership because it needs the investment (Holden, 2000). In 1993, the Queensland government in Australia decided not to extend the electricity grid north of the Daintree River in order to put limits on the possibilities of local governments attracting more tourism development into the isolated Far North Region. This was a political decision based on ideological grounds, anxiety about the World Heritage tropical rainforests and Great Barrier Reef, but also in response to the power of the environmental lobby (Elliot, 1997). In December of 2012, however, the Queensland government repealed this policy, allowing residents and businesses to install their own isolated networks that can be used for more than one building. Part of the rationale posted on the government’s website is that it will be ‘a boost for the region’s eco-tourism industry’ (Queensland Government, 2013). Tourism developments in peripheral regions can also be quite large scale. Whistler Ski Resort in British Columbia is one such example where largescale public and private investment was required to achieve an international resort destination status. An integrated comprehensively planned resort

174

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

community was built with heavy reliance on public funds used to develop infrastructure and to ensure a viable economic environment to attract private investment (Gill, 1998). However, in the construction of the Whistler resort, Cubie (2000) argues that while local contractors were initially involved in the construction of Whistler village, many local non-union companies were squeezed out by union labour as the development proceeded. Larger companies controlled much of the remaining development and local companies moved in a new direction, building unique high-end homes and showing off their craftsmanship. Whistler was the site of the 2010 Winter Olympics and Highway 99, or the Sea to Sky Highway, was improved to move additional traffic between Vancouver and Whistler. While there are both stories of success and failure in using tourism as a regional development tool in remote peripheral areas, concerns have been raised that the use of environmental resources for activities such as ecotourism may, in terms of negative impacts of tourism, be more detrimental, as ecotourism environments are often rich in biodiversity and highly susceptible to change (Holden, 2000).

International Regions Tourism regions often are not confined by national borders and cross international boundaries. The establishment of international trading blocks, such as ASEAN, the EU and the NAFTA, illustrate the growing trend of cross-border collaboration. Cross-border collaboration for tourism development has been explored in a number of different contexts by Timothy (1995, 2000a). As noted above, the countries of the Caribbean work together to promote the region, and the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) established a tourism sector in 1984 (Teye, 2000). In the Niagara Region, along the border between Canada and the US, efforts are underway to promote the Canadian and American side of Niagara Falls jointly as a regional tourism destination as part of the Bi-national Tourism Alliance. Within the EU the development of Euroregions and Eurometropolis have facilitated cross-border collaboration and cross-border shopping tourism has been a significant driving force behind cooperation between regions or cities (Tömöri, 2011). One of the notable efforts for encouraging regional development across borders within the ASEAN community is known as the growth triangle. The concept originated in 1989 when Singapore invited the Indonesian province of Riau and Malaysia’s state of Johor to join forces in an economic union (Timothy, 2000b). One of the goals of the growth triangle was strengthening the economic and social links between Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia, including the joint promotion of the area as an investment site for various multinational corporations including those involved in tourism (Timothy, 2000b). A second goal was to decrease barriers

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

175

within the region and allow greater flows of goods, capital and labour across the borders. With successful industrial development on the Indonesian island of Batam, focus shifted to the neighbouring island of Bintan. Just a short ferry ride away from Singapore, the island was selected to become a major resort complex over the next two decades. Efforts are under way to develop a 23,000-hectare resort complex on the north coast of Bintan. Singapore and Bintan are marketed together as tourism destinations. Critics of the growth triangle. however, argue that it is Singapore that is the main beneficiary of the developments in the region and the Malaysian state of Johor has been left behind (Timothy, 2000b). While the government of the state of Johor would like to become a more active member of the growth triangle, it needs to wait for approval for action from the federal government. The federal government in turn, however, fears that as Johor is already the fastest growing state, further integration would increase growth and the federal government is trying to maintain a national policy of spreading economic growth to other parts of the country (Timothy, 2000b). Other similar cases of international collaboration include the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand triangle and the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines collaboration. International tourism collaboration is also being developed in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), which includes Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and China. The GMS Tourism Sector Strategy 2005–2015 was developed in assistance with the Asian Development Bank with the objective of the strategy being: To develop and promote the Mekong as a single destination, offering a diversity of good quality and high yielding sub regional products that helps to distribute the benefits of tourism more widely; add to the tourism development efforts of each country, by fostering a sustainable tourism development approach, by contributing to poverty alleviation, gender equality and empowerment of women, while minimizing any adverse impacts. (MTCO, 2014) As with any partnership there are dangers that there will not be an equal distribution of risks taken and benefits achieved. This can become even more apparent when the partnership crosses political boundaries and various national interests need to be served.

Conclusion Tourism continues to be a favoured regional development tool for many governments around the world. Regions are complex entities ranging from a small sub-region of a nation to an international region. Where regional imbalances exist, tourism is seen as way to generate jobs and create new income.

176

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Governments have purposely targeted specific underdeveloped regions or regions with high unemployment and have created policies to disburse tourists to these regions. Through a variety of strategies, including regional development funding, investment incentives, provision of infrastructure, place branding and the promotion of tourism partnerships, governments have taken an active role in the development of tourism. The role of the internet and information and communication technologies in place marketing has become exceedingly important for destinations (Buhalis & Law, 2008; Munar & Jacobsen, 2013). Some of the more classic regional development theories such as growth poles and agglomeration economies are apparent underlying development projects. However, as is evident in the work of Porter (1998), regions need to move beyond developing traditional agglomeration economies and develop highly competitive clusters with strong linkages in order to become a competitive destination. The increased competition for investment dollars has forced some governments to act in a more entrepreneurial fashion as well as to provide opportunities for increased collaboration in the context of new regionalism. As Hall (2008b) suggests, regions increasingly need to focus on place branding, innovation, entrepreneurship, networking and agglomeration economies in order to become learning regions and be able to compete in the globalised tourism economy. This chapter has examined the use of tourism in a variety of different forms and scales, in a variety of different regions. Destinations with special natural, cultural or historical attractions are adopting tourism for development. Increasingly, tourism is also being created by the construction of convention facilities, shopping districts, hotels, restaurants, theme parks (Malecki, 1997) and cruise ship docks. In urban areas, regional development programmes have been set up to rejuvenate inner-city and industrial lands. In rural areas, programmes have been initiated at a variety of government levels to promote rural regeneration in areas where there is agricultural decline or to provide additional sources of income. Tourism is used as a major source of income in island destinations and, depending on the form of development, benefits can spread to the surrounding region if strong linkages are established. Pearce (1989) states that tourism developed gradually over time will allow for a longer period of social and environmental adjustment. This will allow more of the local population to become involved since labour, supplies and capital are more likely to be obtainable from local sources (Pearce, 1989: 185). In peripheral regions, a variety of types of tourism have been adopted, including nature-based tourism or ecotourism and, in some cases, tourism NGOs are becoming increasingly involved. This type of development invariably means opening up new regions which have not previously been exposed to the tourism industry. Finally, the chapter has examined tourism developed on the scale of international regions whereby nations cooperate to promote tourism. Regions are not isolated entities but are influenced by the forces of globalisation and interact beyond borders. The examples presented illustrate

Tour ism and Regional Development Issues

177

the challenges and potential benefits associated with using tourism as a regional development tool. Tourism has the potential to generate growth and development but can also exacerbate inequalities if only the local elite benefits. One of the central themes of this book has been to question who benefits from tourism development. As Tosun and Jenkins (1996) suggest, the costs and benefits of tourism are not shared equally. In pursuing tourism, a destination opens itself up to the forces of the market and the forces of globalisation. If countries pursue multinational enterprises to lead tourism development, they face issues of dependency and high rates of leakages when local resources are not used in the industry. Tourism is moving further than ever before into remote regions and, along with the potential economic benefits which may arise from the new industry, there are social and environmental costs that need to be considered. If a region has high levels of unemployment, the introduction of tourism may cause more disruption when imported labour is used. Workers migrate to areas of opportunity so the development or redevelopment of tourism in a region can induce migrant workers. Careful examination of the various policies is needed. Questions need to be asked as to who benefits from these regional development policies. Do local people want tourism development? If a region is set up as a growth pole, does it really work and who benefits? How fast does the tourism development occur? Is the development part of the national agenda to generate foreign exchange or is it meant to help out specific regions. What is the image of the destination and how has it been created? Throughout this book, the concept of sustainable tourism development is mentioned along with the importance of local involvement in the decision-making process. If local participation is encouraged, it may require a decentralisation of power, which national governments may or may not want to undertake. Under the concepts of sustainability, tradeoffs may need to be made in order to protect the environment. If the policy of regional development is to be successful, there needs to be strong backward economic linkages and collaboration within the targeted region so that as many people as possible will benefit from the industry.

6

Tourism and Community Development Issues Tazim Jamal and Dianne Dredge

Introduction Development is a challenging concept. Telfer and Sharpley (2008) observe that problems such as poverty, inequality, poor health care and a lack of educational opportunities are widely recognized and reflected in the goals of international development programs such as the UN Millennium Project. However, as these authors state, it is unclear as to what extent particular developmental vehicles such as tourism are effective in addressing these issues, especially as many of the problems facing developing countries may be the outcome rather than the cause of under-development (see also Telfer, 2009). The notion of ‘community’ is also problematic, and heterogeneity rather than homogeneity may be far more appropriate to describe communities that are encased with geographic (or virtual) boundaries (see Dicks, 1999). An alternative view of community, characterized by belonging to multiple networks over time and across spatial scales, fits our contemporary understanding of a globalized world, but also makes ‘community’ a slippery concept for the purposes of planning and policy. Hence, both the notion of ‘community’ and ‘development’ tend to be contested, adding to the challenge of understanding the meaning and contribution of ‘communitybased tourism’. The recent critique of community participation in tourism by Butcher (2010) in the Research Probe section of Tourism Recreation Research, and responses by Singh (2010) and Weaver (2010), show that the debate around resident responsive tourism and community participation in tourism are far from over. This chapter continues to explore the challenges encapsulated in these debates and attempts to address the overall question: to what extent can tourism contribute to community development? Disadvantaged, lowincome and minority populations generally tend to incur a high proportion 178

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

179

of negative environmental and socio-cultural impacts compared to other social groups, such as tourists and local elites. How does community-based tourism address inequalities in the distribution of economic, environmental and sociocultural costs? And how do pro-poor and sustainable tourism agendas address pressing issues like climate change in the context of community development? This chapter will take up these questions of tourism’s contribution to community development, first by examining the key issues and challenges that underpin the topic, followed by an examination of various approaches and forms of tourism. Planning and participatory approaches and mechanisms will then be addressed.

Issues and Challenges The relationship between tourism, community and development (CD) has, over recent years, been subjected to sustained critical debate with the orthodox view that tourism as a tool for community development is now viewed as oversimplified and naïve (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006; Weaver, 2010). A number of factors have led to this assessment and are important to highlight so that a critical perspective can be adopted in exploring the different approaches and forms of community-based tourism later in the chapter. First, there has been a progressive breaking down of rational and modernist views of the world, with communities now seen as being more dynamic, complex and diverse. Individuals might belong to multiple communities that operate in and across a range of geographical, social, cultural, environmental and economic spaces. When arguments first started to emerge about the role of tourism in community development, the world was divided between, for example, ‘first’ and ‘third’ worlds, between north and south, and between center and periphery. Over the last 30 years, however, these divisions have disappeared in favor of more nuanced approaches to understanding the flows of power, resources, influence and the impacts of tourism on people, places and communities. In this context, traditional discourses of development often seemed to position developed and developing regions as dichotomous in terms of development challenges and CD priorities, but such a blunt classification has been quite misleading. For instance, while wealthy urban or resort communities may not need to worry about basic needs, securing health services or a primary school, or obtaining a sense of pride or respect after years of colonial subjection, community benefits of tourism are not always distributed evenly across space, and benefits might also vary over time. Further, impoverishment and marginalization can prevent minority, diverse or low-income residents in industrialized countries in the ‘North’ (as referred to by the Brundtland Commission, WCED, 1987) from achieving self-reliance and well-being, as measured by the UN Human Development Index.

180

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

This point is well illustrated by the plight of many Aboriginal communities in Australia that are characterized by high levels of poverty, ill-health and premature death, which sits in sharp contrast to the country’s developed economy and its robust tourism sector (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2003). In various studies of indigenous tourism in Australia, Higgins-Desbiolles and her colleagues (2003, 2007, 2010) observe that the involvement of Aboriginal communities in tourism is subject to very different challenges compared to mainstream operators and industry and yields vastly different community development benefits, including self-esteem and cultural revival. Second, a shift in the way development is defined has also contributed to critical insights into relationships between tourism and community development. Orthodox views of development have tended to prioritize economic growth and the march of global capitalism (Bianchi, 2002; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006). Tourism has been seen as a development tool for integrating communities in the developing world into a globalized trading system (HigginsDesbiolles, 2003). Recent developments have seen an expansion in CD-related goals to include capacity building, poverty alleviation, education, training, conservation, environmental and social justice, equitable distribution of tourism costs and benefits, as well as developing a sense of pride and respect. Selfreliance, self-determination and cultural survival can also be crucial priorities although critical studies of practice reveal such outcomes may be emergent rather than planned (Dyer et al., 2003). In other words, the notion of development has broadened to include socio-cultural well-being and environmental conservation goals in addition to the traditional economic ‘growth’ and industry well-being together with token participation from residents. Third, relationships between global capital and local sovereignty have received increasing critical attention, contributing rich insights into the nature of power and control (Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). Craik (1995) argued strongly for greater attention to understanding the changes that might be brought to the character of place and the destination culture, and that the consequences of cultural changes on destination communities through tourism should be central to the debate about sustainable tourism development. Local community control over environmental and cultural goods, however, is a hard fought battle. Examining local resistance to a major sports event in regional Australia, Dredge and Whitford (2011) observe that decisionmaking about the use of local community resources is sometimes made at higher levels of government and for a wider ‘public interest’. In such circumstances, the local community’s lack of access to decision-making can lead to a sense of disempowerment and resistance. The factors identified above coalesce to create challenges in the management of tourism–community development relationships. Indicators for community development and cultural well-being, plus indicators for resident control over the commodification and transformation of their cultural as well as environmental goods, are essential to develop (see Craik, 1995).

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

181

However, this requires confronting difficult questions such as: What cultural trade-offs do residents want to make in order to receive ‘community development’ benefits? How do diverse populations and minority ethnic groups get to have a say about their cultural well-being or survival, given power differentials and the heterogeneous nature of ‘community’? And what, then, is the greater ‘community good’ that policymakers aspire to work towards, and whose interests are being prioritized in the complex intersections of tourism and CD (see also Chapter 7)? To illustrate, the mountain resort destination of Canmore, Canada, experienced runaway growth in the 1980s and early 1990s, until an extensive community-based process involving a wide range of interests, including local residents, was implemented to develop a growth management strategy. Out of this arose eventually the Biosphere Institute (BI), a local non-governmental organization (NGO) that is playing a leading role in the community, working on local capacity building, training and education related to sustainability and climate change (Biosphere Institute of the Bow Valley, 2011). Among its many tasks, the Biosphere Institute teaches visitors about human– wildlife interactions and appropriate environmental behaviors, trains volunteers to participate in this and other sustainability oriented initiatives, and works with residents and schoolchildren to increase their learning and participation in sustainability action in this mountain community. Registered as a non-profit society in 1997 and awarded charitable status in 2003, it works with all levels of government, industry, other non-profits, and the general public in fulfilling its mission. Facilitated by resources provided by local government (The Town of Canmore), the BI has initiated a number of intergenerational programs that involve schoolchildren, teachers and residents, as well as local and area-based businesses such as taxi drivers and other transportation providers that cater to locals and visitors. Among these programs were an extensive ‘anti-idle’ campaign, and a door-to-door campaign that applied community-based social marketing principles to inform and involve residents in climate change action and resource conservation within their homes and community (see Jamal & Watt, 2011). Through its leadership, the BI is contributing to what might be seen as a hybrid form of local governance for sustainable community development that involves policymakers, the tourism industry and local businesses, as well as an increasingly informed and involved base of residents, including teachers, youth and children, among others. However, it should be noted that the notion of ‘community’ is highly complicated here, too, as the resort destination has been shaped by various mobilities over the years – rapid second home growth and incoming amenity migrants, a growing resident population of service providers catering to an expanding tourism sector, and ebbs and flows of temporary and migrant workers. Close to 30% of the homes in Canmore are owned by second-home residents, and the community’s aging volunteer base (seniors) are unable to meet the need for a greater volunteer

182

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

presence at local community events. The mobilities that have shaped Canmore over the past four decades have also raised challenges for community-based action and participation in sustainable development and resource conservation initiatives such as being initiated by the Biosphere Institute. The example of Canmore, a mountain community in Canada with a large proportion of well-educated and well-to-do residents, illustrates a range of commonalities with community development and tourism issues in emerging as well as lesser developed countries, for instance: (i) mediating the effects of mass tourism, or rapid destination growth due to amenity migration and second home investors – justice issues abound in both cases; (ii) building capacity to address climate change (and climate justice); and (iii) conflict and resistance to neoliberal agendas and striving to enable structural transformation towards more sustainable, alternative tourism forms that offer greater opportunity for societal, community and environmental health and well-being. Some of these issues are addressed below, along with a look at several forms of tourism that are perceived to be conducive to community development, social well-being and local empowerment.

Tourism and Community Development: Approaches and Forms Alternative tourism and the pro-poor agenda Dependency critics and political economists have long argued that the logic of capital penetrates and regulates the economy of periphery countries, creating dependency on external stakeholders in ‘core’ tourism generating regions (usually in the industrialized West). Britton (1982a), for instance, describes how core areas in the Western, developed world (primary visitor generating regions) control the periphery (receiving countries). The controlling and integrating forces in international tourism are primarily the large multinational ‘First World’ companies that control airlines and hotel chains that facilitate and manipulate the movement of large numbers of travelers (hence ‘mass tourism’). Under neoliberal market conditions, national, transnational and global economic policies and regulations are set up in ways that facilitate the profitability and success of these organizations, while the destination countries end up depending on them for visitors, expertise and financing. The results might include high levels of vulnerability to currency exchange rates, shifts in airline capacity and route changes, extreme disparities and inequities in the distribution of costs and benefits of development, and high leakage of tourist expenditures back to the core generating regions (see Chapter 10). Early studies, such as Hills and Lundgren’s (1977) coreperiphery analysis of Caribbean tourism, showed these impacts of mass tourism, and led to a growing call for alternative approaches to and forms of

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

183

tourism that might address these vulnerabilities and dependencies. From the 1970s, responsible tourism and ecotourism, followed by sustainable tourism development and, more recently, pro-poor tourism have emerged. A key principle forwarded in the Brundtland Commission’s report on sustainable development (WCED, 1987) is that development can be reconciled with environmental protection and used in a way that provides for the equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of development between generations (intergenerational equity) and within generations (intragenerational equity). Acknowledging the vast disparity in benefits and well-being between the developed and lesser developed world, the report also called for bridging this ‘north–south’ gap. Sustainable tourism approaches based on this initiative, such as proposed by the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 1996), offered holistic guidelines for sustainable tourism development but said little then about poverty alleviation or the structural and other inequities that might inhibit the well-being and development opportunities of disadvantaged communities and minority populations. Poverty alleviation eventually grew in importance in global development agendas in the 1990s (see Chapter 4). The Pro-Poor Tourism (PPT) Partnership conducted a number of studies in South Africa and other developing countries on topics ranging from sustainable livelihoods and conservation to pro-poor linkages and initiatives (Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership, 2005b). At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, the WTO launched its ‘Sustainable Tourism-Eliminating Poverty’ (ST-EP) agenda. Pro-poor tourism refers to a type of tourism whose main goal is to generate net benefits for the poor (Ashley et al., 2001; Meyer, 2003). As Scheyvens (2002b) states, PPT is an approach rather than a form of tourism. Its orientation toward strategies that enhance benefits and opportunities for the poor, rather than expanding the overall size of the tourism sector, means it must address not only local community needs and issues, but also changes needed at corporate and government levels. By corollary, multi-stakeholder perspectives and interests need to be taken into account. Neoliberal approaches to PPT emphasize the efficiency of large-scale free market capitalism, limited government involvement (other than to facilitate free trade interests regionally and globally) and economic growth (seen as ‘development’) to resolve trade deficits and national debt, which should help the indebted country to attend to poverty alleviation (see Telfer, 2009). Alternative approaches to poverty alleviation emphasize the development of local, small-scale tourism initiatives, local control, resident involvement in planning and decisionmaking, environmental conservation, capacity building and social benefits to the local community (Simpson, 2008). Such alternative approaches to tourism as a means of development are driven by several views, including sustainable development thinking and the sustainable livelihoods perspective (Scheyvens, 2007a); using tourism to diversify livelihood options for the poor fits well with increasing recognition of the link between poverty and environmental

184

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

degradation. Alternative tourism forms and initiatives focused on grass-roots development, poverty alleviation, gender and income equity, local empowerment and participation have thus arisen, such as the ‘Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa’, ‘green tourism’, ‘soft tourism’, and variants such as ‘volunteer tourism’ and, more recently, ‘community-based tourism’ (CBT). While multiple definitions of CBT abound, it is viewed as a form of tourism that is locally controlled through community involvement in tourism planning and development, generates net benefits to local residents (rather than external interests), and is environmentally, socially and culturally sustainable (see Beeton, 2006; Hatton, 1999; Mowforth & Munt, 2009). As such, it is seen to contribute to CD goals such as community empowerment, self-reliance and building local capacity (see Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2010, on community agency; see Simpson (2008) for a critique of community participation and community benefit tourism initiatives).

The political economy of tourism: ‘Net benefits’ to whom? In light of the approaches and issues outlined above, what correctives or contributions have pro-poor tourism and alternative tourism forms made to community development? On the one hand are success stories of sustainable livelihoods and ecological conservation, such as reported by Mbaiwa and Stronza (2010) in rural Botswana, and Pegas and Stronza (2010) in Brazil. On the other hand, critiques of the political economy of tourism and the neoliberal agenda suggest that pro-poor tourism initiatives should also be approached with caution (see Hall, 2007a). While based on what appears to be fair and ethical principles (see Fennell, 2006), they may offer far fewer ‘net benefits’ than apparent, especially when considered within a long-term sustainability horizon, and from a structural and historical perspective (Chok et al., 2007). Britton (1982a) felt that many developing economies are exploited by the tourism industry because their economies are often linked to a colonial past whose structures and processes help to facilitate the continuity of domination and control (see Akama, 2004). Bruner and KirshenblattGimblett (1994), in their study of local Maasai participation in cultural tourism activities of British landowners, illustrate how the script of overseas tour operators dictates the actions and behaviors of the Maasai towards tourists (e.g. not wearing jeans when meeting the visitors). It is important to understand, however, that local community members do not sit around passively under the control of external stakeholders, but actually resist colonizing actions, and negotiate their interests where possible – for instance, through the dance they perform for tourists sipping tea on the lawn of British settlers, the Maasai might enact and sing about traditional practices forbidden by the government, reinforcing their sense of cultural identity and community through act and remembrance (see Bruner & Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1994). Furthermore, the selling of souvenirs and crafts to tourists may be a conscious

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

185

act of choice in commodifying aspects of their culture, while choosing to keep other aspects safe from the tourist gaze, such as in the case of the Pataxó Indians of Porto Seguro, Brazil described by Grünewald (2012). Cultural empowerment under conditions of oppression are thus not entirely precluded when state and tourism interests intervene, but the hope is that tourism can foster rather than hinder cultural well-being, selfdetermination, self-reliance, sense of pride and respect, local control and sustainable livelihoods (Grünewald, 2002; Higgins-Desbiolles et al., 2010) (see Chapter 7). Empowering and enabling better control by those who stand to be most impacted by their goods and resources being shared with the tourist means that mechanisms and approaches to CBT must address the political, economic, marketing and policy linkages and stakeholders in the wider region and global context in which the local is embedded. Bianchi (2002), Hall (2007a) and Mosedale and Albrecht (2011), among others, call for a relational understanding of tourism-related spaces and the socio-economic, political and cultural processes and practices that transcend multiple scales in tourism.

Ecotourism and community-based conservation Whether in developing or developed countries, an important principle of ecotourism, and its conservation objectives of mitigating adverse effects on the human–ecological relationship and facilitating biodiversity health, is the involvement of local communities in conservation (see Fennell, 2003). With increased recognition of the connection between poverty and environmental health, community development objectives such as capacity building, training and ensuring economic and socio-cultural benefits at the local level have gradually gained greater significance over the years. The International Ecotourism Society succinctly captures this interrelated, often interdependent, relationship as ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local people’ (Honey, 1999: 6). Various other forms of community involvement have arisen as a consequence, such as indigenous co-management, community-based conservation (CBC), and community-based wildlife management, combined with nonconsumptive activities such as photographic tourism. Political ecology studies show that a crucial factor underlying environmental degradation and human poverty is institutionalized inequalities in access to, and use of, natural resources (see, for example, Stonich, 1998). Power disparities are especially exacerbated by tourism policies and practices that result in the inequitable distribution of environmental benefits and costs among low-income groups, minority and indigenous populations. Satria et al.’s (2006) study of community-based coral reef management in Gili Indah, Indonesia, shows how the failure to mediate conflict between fishers and tourism entrepreneurs (originally fishers and of the same ethnic

186

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

background who attained vertical mobility by generating new tourism operations (e.g. scuba diving) in collaboration with foreign investors) can reinforce inequities. As Plummer and Fennell (2009: 151) discuss with respect to the Gili Indah case, the growth of self-organized governance systems have ‘changed to favor tourism entrepreneurs, reducing community cohesion as decision making no longer appears to adhere to traditional laws or norms. New power structures (tourism) have thus evolved to make changes that are in the industry’s own best interests at the expense of the community’. Examples of good governance and cultural sustainability demonstrate collaborative efforts being undertaken, such as in joint planning and management initiatives. Natural resource conservation and issues of rights, obligations and self-determination of indigenous people have coincided positively in co-managed protected areas such as British Columbia’s Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, which is co-managed between the Haida Nation and Parks Canada (a federal agency). Environmental and cultural respect, inclusion of traditional knowledge, equitable sharing of tourism income, and indigenous empowerment are also being facilitated in Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory of Australia, which is jointly managed by the Kakadu National Park (KNP) Traditional Owners and the federal Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Aboriginal cultural advisors and park rangers were employed from the outset in Kakadu, by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service but power sharing was seen to be insufficient by Davey (1993) because of the failure to include Aboriginal landowners in joint policy and planning (Davey, 1993, cited in Plummer & Fennell, 2009). Similarly, other forms of CBC have also arisen in Eastern and Southern Africa. Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) programs have been carried out in Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia thus far. It serves as an alternative form of employment in wildlife regions, and aims to address land use conflicts, distribution of wildlife economic benefits to people living in wildlife areas, plus local community participation in wildlife resource management (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). Drawing upon common property theory, it promotes resource use rights of the local communities, under the assumption that rural communities will feel greater stewardship over their environments and support conservation if they derive economic benefits from natural resource use. Of the 42 registered CBNRM projects in 2002, 12 were involved in Joint Venture Agreements (JVA) with at least seven private safari companies, and have experienced significant socio-economic benefit from hunting, photographic and related tourist offerings in terms of revenues, local livelihoods and jobs, as a result. Study of three villages in the program (Khwai, Mababe and Sankoyo) using a sustainable livelihoods framework, indicates that residents employed by the CBNRM project in the Okavango and by the joint venture with the safari hunting company have been able to enjoy improved livelihoods in all three communities (Mbaiwa &

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

187

Stronza, 2010). In Sankoyo, most households have benefited from employment and tourism development (Arntzen et al., 2003b, cited in Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). In her study of community tourism ventures in Botswana and subSaharan Africa, Dixey (2009) notes that a wide range of NGOs, development agencies and government departments have provided significant technical and financial assistance to CBT development in Botswana from the early 1990s. The IUCN/SNV CBNRM program has provided substantial direct and/or indirect wider benefits in some communities in northern Botswana although wide local differences in the impacts of CBT development have been noted. In some instances, the material benefits have been mostly restricted to trust employees and board members of the community trusts set up and the benefits to local livelihoods were seen to remain small (Arntzen et al., 2003a, cited in Dixey, 2009). A review of the SNV experience in three CBT trusts concluded that the most important benefit was the process of community empowerment in becoming managers of their natural resources; overall, CBT benefits generally appear to have largely accrued to village elites, at the expense of those most dependent on natural resource use for their survival – the poorest (Rozemeijer, 2000, 2003, cited in Dixey, 2009). Dixey’s (2009) evaluation reveals a number of constraints to effective CBT in Botswana and sub-Saharan Africa, including a lack of institutional support and marketing, plus dependency on external organizations and sponsors. CBC programs, such as CBNRM in Botswana and CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) in Zimbabwe, appear to contribute positively overall to sustainable livelihoods, local control and environmental conservation; however, they also raise oft-ignored questions in terms of cultural sustainability and the commodification of human-environmental relationships. Aided by international conservation organizations, government and scientific interests, participating villages in the CAMPFIRE program learn to employ wildlife population censuses, village mapping, monitoring and other management techniques to ensure a healthy wildlife population for recreational hunting and nonconsumptive safaris. Income from these tourism-related activities is applied to community development projects; women are also seen to benefit from CAMPFIRE. However, too little information is available on how this successful program affects local people’s perceptions, identification and relationship with commercially valued wildlife that was once simply part of everyday life and the non-capitalist lifeworld. The concern here is not that economic valuation is inappropriate for managing public or ‘free’ goods but that by valuing or defining wildlife purely in economic terms, it becomes primarily an economic resource, and other values for community well-being risk being omitted in decision-making. Too few questions are raised about the instrumental discourses of rationality, efficiency and technical plus scientific control that structure ecotourism practices and create generalized

188

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

strategies and approaches for ‘sustainable’ community development and conservation, while enabling ecological modernization (Rutherford, 1999) (see Chapters 3, 9 and 15). Associated with neoliberalism, this discourse brings natural areas into the network of global capital markets through rational and scientific management of resource use and conservation, and has tended to eschew or marginalize emotional, socio-cultural and spiritual values. In Vanuatu in the south-west Pacific region, the adherence of the Roi Mata Cultural Tours to the equitable redistribution of benefits across the whole community sits uneasily against international development indicators based on individual wealth accumulation and profit maximization (Trau, 2012) (see Chapter 7).

Indigenous tourism, cultural empowerment and grass-roots planning/action Much greater discussion is, therefore, needed on identifying mechanisms for cultural empowerment and ensuring that cultural knowledge is valued and used in CBT and CBC, and is able to temper the rationalizing and managerialism of an externally driven tourism industry (see Mowforth & Munt, 2009). Lazrus (2005: 4) identifies an important issue when she says that ‘social and ecological simplification is necessary to render the local situation legible to managing authorities’. Speaking in the context of climate change concerns in the independent nation-state of Tuvalu in the South Pacific, Lazrus (2005) states that governance, political inequality and knowledge are intimately linked in environmental governance, and power issues play out in the institutional context of government and NGO policy-driven research and claims to authority that are juxtaposed with place-specific knowledge. Observed shifts to incorporate local and traditional forms of knowledge reflect a positive and much-needed move to redress the tendency of government officials and scientists to simplify representations of humans and environments, which ‘allows for an essentially universal set of applications to govern complex local systems from afar’ (Latour, 1987; Lazrus, 2005: 4). Paradoxically, Lazrus (2005: 16) feels that globalization and global governance have brought more diverse types of knowledge to the policy drawing board, which may become ‘exceedingly important as challenges to justice, national sovereignty, and human and natural security increase’. Social equity and inclusion in the policy drawing board are especially important considerations with respect to sustainability issues such as climate change, as health, habitation and the livelihoods of vulnerable groups, especially the poor, and women, children, elderly and indigenous populations in rural, island and coastal communities, are at risk of being disproportionately affected (Dulal et al., 2009; see Chapter 11). Community-based collaboration between scientific experts, the tourism industry and local inhabitants is essential to bring scientific knowledge, indigenous knowledge and local knowledge

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

189

(including citizen science) to bear on issues related to resource conservation, climate change, social equity and poverty alleviation (Agrawal, 1995; Rettie et al., 2009). In the context of climate change, as Manuel-Navarrete et al. (2010) discuss, adaptation that includes locals may also foster modifications of governance structures and, perhaps, the very evolution of governance. Their study of governance and climate change in the popular tourism destination state of Quintana Roo, Mexico (in which Cozumel and Cancun are located) indicates that, for effective climate change governance to occur, entrenched tourism ‘powerspheres’ will need to shift to include local residents, which include Mayan as well as other ethnic Mexican groups. The tourism powersphere has been dominated by, among others, tourism business factions (which include a range of tourism business associations, national entrepreneurs, international corporations, etc.), along with regional and national members of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and the federal government. They ‘share a core culture based on seeking economic gain, and capitalistic development discourses’ and their main concern is ‘to control the benefits of tourism growth, while forging alliances to attract capital to the region, maximize investment returns, and further their position within the powersphere’ (Manuel-Navarrete et al., 2010: 13). The prospects of meaningfully involving Quintana Roo’s indigenous Maya or poor migrant populations working in the tourism service industry in Cancun in CBT, PPT, or in participating and community-based governance of climate change remain slim without significant changes occurring in the tourism ‘powersphere’ in Quintana Roo. In sharp contrast to low indigenous involvement and poor cultural empowerment in Quintana Roo is the case of beach fale tourism in Samoa (Scheyvens, 2005). Embedded in a strong cultural independence or faaSamoa despite almost a century of foreign domination by Germany of Western Samoa, followed by New Zealand at the start of World War I, respect for faaSamoa (the traditional way of life of the Samoan people) is key to the cautious, slow and small-scale development of tourism on the island. This respect is evident in government tourism policies, which have been closely aligned with the strong social and cultural traditions of faaSamoa (Scheyvens, 2005). Another essential consideration is customary land tenure practices, which control about 81% of the land, so it cannot be sold or transferred but developers may gain access via 30-year leases or joint ventures. As Scheyvens (2005) explains, local Samoans diversified reluctantly into tourism as agriculture declined, and lack of interest in dealing with external development interest enabled the rise of small-scale, locally-owned accommodations and services that cater to both international and domestic visitors. External aid by the New Zealand government helped support tourism development, including beach fale ventures, seminars for fale owners, community awareness programs, advice and financial grants. Beach fales are

190

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

controlled by local families overseen by the council of matai (chiefs) of each village; the fales follow customary cultural traditions in design and service, and have fostered community development in many ways, including sustainable livelihoods, use of local produce (hence low leakage and a strong multiplier effect), and respect for local cultural and environmental goods through tourist learning via close encounters with local residents over meals and services, plus a cultural protocol that beach fale owners instruct their guests to follow (e.g. how to dress for entering a village, or how to behave during evening prayer time). While some concerning changes are being introduced by the government for greater formalization of planning procedures and minimum quality standards for fales that wish to be endorsed/promoted by the government, Scheyvens (2005: 201) says beach fale tourism on Samoa is on the right track to community development: From a community development perspective as well, which stresses reliance on local skills, knowledge and resources, and emphasizes local ownership and control, improved standards of living for rural communities, respect for environmental and cultural assets, and local level empowerment, beach fale tourism in Samoa is also largely on the right track. Local indigenous control and a high level of participation in tourism as the Samoa example above demonstrates offer crucial insights for the development of CBT and governance structures. Modernization and change are affecting indigenous cultural survival and well-being around the world, and self-reliance, cultural empowerment, sustainable livelihoods, policy support and devolution of political governance to include local indigenous populations are especially important considerations if tourism and community development (CD) are to forge useful alliances. Youth, gender and women’s roles will continue to be high priorities on the tourism and CD agenda; Ateljevic and Doorne (2003) describe a tie-dying enterprise in China where women-centered cooperatives thrive successfully through tourism, and Byrne-Swain (1989) shows also the important role of women in Kuna Yala, Panama, who are engaged in the production of traditional mola that is sold into a thriving tourism trade.

Rural tourism, linkages and integrated approaches Lane (2009) describes rural tourism broadly as encompassing a wide range of activities such as farm tourism/agritourism, food and wine tourism, adventure tourism, cultural and heritage tourism, nature tourism and ecotourism. In many counties, the presence of numerous communities and family-based small and medium enterprises (SMEs) within the rural sector contribute significantly to overall tourism revenues and employment. Rural

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

191

tourism in the UK, for instance, produced approximately £12 billion in revenues in 2000, compared to £15 billion from the agricultural sector and a total UK tourism revenue of £64 billion that year; British rural tourism was found to employ over 380,000 people in 25,000 businesses (Sharpley & Craven, 2001; cited in Lane, 2009). Rural tourism has been seen to be a significant player in regeneration of rural areas that have seen out-migration due to the decline of agriculture, forestry, railroads and other core industries located in the rural sector. Forty-six percent of UK farms have diversified to include one of 224 recognized on-farm but non-agricultural enterprises, of which tourism-related activities have been the most popular choice (Lane, 2009; see Chapter 5). Support for rural tourism development projects and capacity building has been extended from regional sources, e.g. European Union funding via the Leader+ programs (European Commission, n.d.), to national and local government support as well as through self-help groups and public–private partnerships (Lane, 2009). While new product offerings like food tourism, slow food movements, fair trade tourism and organic farm tourism offer additional opportunities for sustaining rural SMEs and agricultural communities, the ability of rural tourism to contribute to community development goals and enable sustainable livelihoods across the developed and the developing context continues to be challenged by declining agricultural incomes (often affected adversely by global free trade policies), lack of marketing and business planning skills, as well as lack of integrated approaches to policymaking, planning, developing and marketing rural tourism products and attractions (see Araujo & Bramwell, 2002). Collaborative networks and linkages between SMEs and communities, as well as between key stakeholders, including policymakers and funding organizations, are considered to be vital to effective CBT in rural areas (see Albrecht, 2011; Dredge, 2006). The growth of organic farm tourism in Korea reflects the important role of government in implementing policy prescriptions to support rural livelihoods and community well-being, in light of globalization and falling agricultural trade barriers between Korea and the United States. The 1999 Environmentally Friendly Agriculture Promotion Act in Korea facilitated the development of certification emblems for fresh agricultural products and grains, and encouraged farm diversification into tourism activities, leading to an emergent ‘green’ agritourism sector that underwent strong expansion (Choo & Jamal, 2009). Subsidies for promoting organic products are offered to encourage farmers to grow organic produce and practice environmental conservation. Related to the 2004 Cooperative Green Tour Action Plan developed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Korea Tourism Organization implemented the development of 32 green agricultural experience villages and aims to complete 1000 Green Tour Villages by 2013 (five to seven villages per city). The Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs sponsored the Information Network Village (INVIL)

192

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

project, which provides marketing tools to farmers with tourism businesses as well as access to information through 306 websites (www.invil.org) (Choo & Jamal, 2009). While the Korean organic farm tourism communities and SMEs are wellsupported by government incentives and regulatory/policy frameworks, greater difficulties may be experienced in informal as well as formal economies in emerging or lesser developed rural regions, and exacerbated by historically entrenched barriers. Torres and Momsen’s (2004) study of linkages between hotels purchasing from agricultural producers in Quintana Roo, Mexico, for instance, showed deep mistrust and lack of communication between the primarily Mayan rural farmers and the local non-Maya elites, tourism industry and the hotel chefs – some of this may be traced to historical discrimination against the Maya in the Yucatan and Quintana Roo that stems from its colonial past. Poverty alleviation efforts in this context have to be cognizant not only of strengthening economic linkages, but also addressing entrenched discrimination and racism against minority groups and communities that may prevent them for accessing and developing networks with tourism service providers such as hotels, and establishing linkages between the formal and informal sector. The role of (good) government is a critical success factor in stimulating rural tourism and poverty alleviation in both informal and formal sectors. Zambia, like some other African countries, has made policy commitments to harness tourism for poverty reduction in rural areas. Dixey’s (2008: 330) extensive study of community tourism in Zambia broadly defined it in the context of that research as ‘tourism which is owned and/or managed by communities with the aim of generating wider community benefit’. A wide range of international and local NGOs and bilateral and multilateral donors assisted the development of community enterprises in tourism and crafts with mixed results. These include African Parks Conservation, African Wildlife Foundation, Choma Museum and Crafts Centre Trust Ltd, Conservation Lower Zambezi, Kasanka Trust Ltd, North Luangwa Conservation Project, Source Connection Foundation, West Lunga Trust, Wildlife Conservation Society, WWF Zambia, Danish International Development Agency, USAID and the World Bank. The study found that it was difficult to develop community tourism in remote rural tourism areas away from the ‘tourism capital’ of Livingstone. Furthermore, its weak legal status meant there was no enabling legal framework to cater to the needs of community tourism participants, which inhibited business partnerships. The results also suggest that while grass-roots enterprise development and local capacity were important components, actions needed to go beyond the local toward policy and legal action at the wider level (Dixey, 2008). Capacity building of Zambia’s rural sector had to also include marketing, business development, coordination and planning skills, aided by improved local governance and policy coordination between local and state levels (Dixey, 2008).

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

193

Planning and Policy Support for CBT Tourism as a system or sector faces multiple challenges, from dealing with competing interests, multiple stakeholders and needing to coordinate policy at various scales and levels (Dredge, 1996). Tourism planning and decision-making processes can be highly political, as government participants grapple with the diversity and multi-scalar nature of public interests and meeting the needs of its other constituents, including tourism industry members, diverse residents and ‘bottom-up’ or grass-roots processes. CBT planning approaches and mechanisms have been forwarded by Beeton (2006), Gill and Williams (1994), Inskeep (1991), Murphy (1985) and Simmons (1994), among others. In this section, several approaches are summarized and aspects of the planning process examined in the context of tourism and community development.

Participation in tourism and tourism planning As proposed by Murphy (1985), a community-oriented tourism strategy has four prime considerations: environmental and accessibility, business and economic, social and cultural, and management considerations. Murphy suggests an ecological approach to tourism planning, where systems theory can be applied to explain the close interdependence among the living and nonliving parts of an ecosystem. A tourism destination area, where visitors interact with living (hosts, natural environment) and non-living (facilities, sunshine) elements to experience the tourism product, contains an ecological community with species living together in a locality (Murphy 1985). A theoretical framework offered by Michaelidou et al. (2002, cited in Himberg, 2006) argues for equal consideration of ecosystem conservation and community survival, as they are interdependent. Community viability in their approach consists of four main categories: (1) culture (includes cultural sustainability, plus environmental and cultural values), (2) well-being (includes economic well-being and physiological and psychological well-being), (3) participation (this involves community participation and community capacity) and (4) knowledge (environmental and cultural knowledge). Hence, qualitative changes as opposed to quantitative changes in community conditions should be emphasized when talking about development (see various discourses of CBT cited earlier). As these authors argue, project activities striving to be community development should in the first place focus on ways of life rather than livelihoods, and local people should have the option to decide what kind of development, if any, is desirable to them. As summarized in the case example of beach fale tourism in Samoa above, residents would draw upon their values, beliefs, traditions and customs to guide the process of change. Due to the close interdependence of the various parts of the community ecosystem, Murphy (1985) suggests early involvement of the community in

194

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

local tourism planning. Community involvement has to be legitimate and appropriate, and may vary depending on political and decision-making structures. In Arnstein’s well-cited ‘ladder of participation’, citizen involvement with authorities can take the form of non-participation, tokenism and citizen power (Arnstein, 1969). Legitimate, early involvement of stakeholders in tourism planning is not an easy task, in light of the fragmented control and multiple stakeholders in the destination. It must be emphasized here that the role and inclusion of residents is vital and goes beyond merely voicing opinions or voting on certain agenda items – in addition to early involvement in the planning process, full ownership by local residents of the planning and decision-making process is crucial, from initiation to strategy making, to implementation, evaluation, monitoring and adjustment of the implemented strategy. This means that adequate resources have to be allocated to the community tourism planning process, and information provided to enable a joint knowledge base and foster understanding that can inform sound decisionmaking. Generating ongoing community awareness, support and involvement in tourism is critical to the success of tourism at the local level, and public awareness and educational programs using various communication strategies should be implemented. Based on the work of Pretty (1995), France (1998) provides a taxonomy of participation in tourism that ranges from exploitative at one end to self-mobilization and self-sufficiency at the other. Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participatory approaches ranges from participants having none or merely token input (being heard at best), to full participatory decision-making power. Sustainable tourism principles argue for full resident control of the planning process, and would be situated at the end of the ladder, providing full citizen power and control. Co-management in protected areas, for instance, aims for such upfront and full involvement of traditional owners such as in Kakadu National Park (mentioned earlier). Another example of local, indigenous control is the Kooljaman at Cape Leveque in Western Australia, a wilderness style luxury camp that is fully owned and managed by Bardi Aboriginal people from two communities. The indigenous Board of Directors liaises with community councils in both communities on all major issues, and significant decision-making and development planning is done in conjunction with the Bardi people (Tourism Australia, 2006). New enterprises have emerged from the success of Kooljaman, which is oriented to the aims and wishes of the two communities; environmental and cultural conservation are high priorities (Tourism Australia, 2006). Similarly CBC programs aim for resident involvement and control over the conservation and use of wildlife resources on which local residents may depend. Crucial to such endeavors is the ability to receive input of traditional, local and scientific knowledge (including citizen science cultural heritage management and environmental conservation (see Rettie et al., 2009). Thus participatory mechanisms and collaborative processes are required for

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

195

meaningful community and knowledge input that is perceived as more than ‘tokenism’ by policymakers and destination managers. Various participatory research methods such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) have been used to engage community residents directly in the context of community development (see Koutra, 2010).

Community readiness Two important early steps that are often omitted or assumed as a given are the readiness of the community to participate in tourism and the pros and cons of diversifying into tourism, especially given the range of adverse impacts and the trade-offs that the community may need to make in order to benefit from tourism. Getting the community prepared for tourism starts with an assessment of its needs and readiness for tourism (see Jamieson, 1997). Evaluating the role of tourism in the community and its potential contribution toward community development, and the existing level of support for tourism is an essential part of the planning process. Evaluating the community’s attitudes, its desires and aspirations with respect to tourism development is a key action (see Choi & Sirakaya, 2005). The opportunity to say ‘no’ to tourism may be denied as dominant (or external) tourism and government interests driven by a desire for economic growth and profit may initiate community involvement processes well after the decision to engage in a particular tourism action, or after tourism has ‘colonized’ a destination, as in the case of Hawaii. Personal communication with a key stakeholder at the Native Hawaiian Authority in 2004 resulted in an inspiring conversation that generated a visionary statement by the Hawaiian stakeholder of what community tourism ought to be (see Appendix 6.1). A crucial aspect, he said, was that the community had to be ready (physically, emotionally) to extend hospitality – this is captured in his statement, as are other community development parameters. Unlike the case of beach fale tourism in Samoa described earlier, local Hawaiians had little choice, they could not choose to say ‘no’ to the flood of mass tourism, and residents had to ‘react’ to it, rather than being able to choose what they wanted tourism to contribute in terms of community development and well-being. As Mr Apo explains in Appendix 6.1, the community has to be ready before it can engage in tourism. The steps toward that may be slow and lengthy. The question this raises is how much tourism can contribute toward CD and poverty alleviation in communities where basic and essential needs are still unmet – can its residents participate meaningfully in tourism that can contribute to capacity building, sustainable livelihoods and other desired aspects of CD? Does it have the luxury to consider alternative CD tools and approaches till the community is strong and resilient enough, culturally empowered enough to retain control over its natural and cultural goods? Can it stand up to local elites whose (sometimes

196

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

well-intended) interests to stimulate tourism may focus on particular agendas that may have little to do with greater community good and development? (Albrecht, 2011).

Developing a community vision One of the biggest challenges to sustainable community development through tourism is dealing with multiple stakeholders who may hold differing interests and values with respect to development and tourism. Among the various stakeholder management approaches, partnerships are advocated by Bramwell and Sharman (1999), networks by Dredge (1996), and multistakeholder collaboration by Jamal and Getz (1995) and by Hall (2000), who also notes the important role of government in sustainable tourism development (good government presumably). As various examples in the previous section indicate, community development and cultural empowerment through tourism at the local level are insufficient to focus on alone – planning, policy and politics in relation to state, national and global interests and stakeholders need to be taken into account. Tosun (2000) warns of the challenges of well-organized elites that may prevent meaningful resident participation or CBT (see also the example of Quintana Roo, Mexico, described earlier). How then can diverse values and beliefs be addressed for community well-being (‘good’) in this complex political planning domain? Community round tables, living room discussions, campfire discussions and community gatherings have been used to bring community residents together in joint dialogue (see Gill & Williams, 1994, for example). Community tourism-related organizations or local community-based committees have been formed in ecotourism and CBC initiatives in developing regions (see examples above). In developed countries accustomed to strategic planning processes, once a decision has been arrived at to initiate CBT, a community vision statement developed with broad-based public input has been seen to be helpful to provide a long-term projection of the community’s aspirations and ideals, based on its current state and the values that it holds as being important to community well-being. A review of the tourism vision statement can be done every few years, unless drastic changes in the community’s direction and future require a more immediate revision. The vision statement of the popular winter and summer destination of Revelstoke, British Columbia, Canada, is shown below. Wishing to shape their own future and create an integrated expression of community values, the community leaders of this town of 8000 inhabitants initiated a visioning exercise in November 1991. An interdisciplinary team was formed, called the Revelstoke Community Vision Committee, whose members consisted of 37 citizens from various sectors of the community. Visionary speakers were hosted, and a facilitator appointed. By May 1992, a draft vision was formed, which sought for the historic alpine town to be a leader

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

197

Revelstoke will be a leader in achieving a sustainable community by balancing environmental, social and economic values within a local, regional and global context. Building on its rich heritage, this historic mountain community will pursue quality and excellence. Revelstoke will be seen as vibrant, healthy, clean, hospitable, resilient and forward-thinking. It will be committed to exercising its rights with respect to decisions affecting the North Columbia Mountains.* Community priorities include: opportunities for youth; economic growth and stability; environmental citizenship; personal safety and security; a responsible and caring social support system; a first-class education system; local access to life-long learning, spiritual and cultural values; and diverse forms of recreation. All residents and visitors shall have access to the opportunities afforded by this community. *An area roughly bounded by Eagle Pass (W), Donald (E), Mica (N) and Trout Lake (S). Figure 6.1 Revelstoke’s 1994 vision statement

in achieving sustainable development by balancing environmental, social and economic values. Feedback from the resident public on the draft vision statement was sought via a communitywide survey plus the results of a research team comprised primarily of Earthwatch volunteers (Mountain Town with a Vision Research Project) who interviewed over 300 individuals (including residents and visitors) to obtain their comments on the visioning process. Based on the information received, the draft vision statement was revised and submitted to the city council, which ratified it in February 1994. CD objectives can be seen within this community-based vision (Figure 6.1).

Strategy making, implementation and monitoring Developing a CBT plan requires consideration of the community development goals to which tourism is being applied. Scheyvens (1999) describes four types of community empowerment (economic, psychological, social and political) that provide an insight into some types of community-oriented outcomes that tourism planning might seek to achieve (Table 6.1). Exploring preconditions for successful CBT in the developing country context, Dixey (2008: 15) notes two important aspects: ‘Enabling policies and supporting coordinated framework for implementation’ and ‘Proper monitoring and evaluation and the judging of outcomes based on the contribution to local economic development and poverty reduction (e.g. employment creation and income generation)’. A major impediment to effective tourism planning has

198

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Table 6.1 Types of community empowerment in tourism development Type

Signs of empowerment

Economic

Tourism brings long-term financial benefits to a destination community. Money is spread throughout the community. There are notable improvements in local services and infrastructure. Self-esteem is enhanced because of outside recognition of the uniqueness and value of their culture, natural resources and traditional knowledge. Increasing confidence in the community leads members to seek out further education and training opportunities. Access to jobs and cash leads to an increase in status for usually low-status residents, such as women and youth. Tourism maintains or enhances the local community’s equilibrium. Community cohesion is improved as individuals and families cooperate to build a successful industry. Some funds raised are used for community development initiatives like education and roads. The community’s political structure provides a representational forum through which people can raise questions and concerns pertaining to tourism initiatives. Agencies initiating or implementing the tourism ventures seek out the opinions of community groups and individual community members, and provide chances for them to be represented on decision-making bodies.

Psychological

Social

Political

Source: Adapted from Scheyvens (1999) and Timothy (2002).

been the inability to link strategy, implementation and evaluation, so as to ensure accountability and to measure the success of the planning exercise over time. Without careful assessment and constant monitoring of the actions generated, the plan may receive little ongoing attention with respect to adjusting the plan to respond to problems or ensuring long-term sustainability of the community’s resource base and the achievement of community goals (see Jamieson, 1997). Hence, local community organizations or committees are often set up to work with residents and tourism development interests in strategy making and implementation. An effective monitoring program is also essential to ensure that developments and impacts are monitored and evaluated with respect to the plan’s goals and objectives. Indicators and thresholds of development and/or impacts have been developed in a variety of contexts (see Tourism Recreation Research 36 (3) edited by Jamal & Dredge, 2011) but an uneasiness remains that such practices, often developed by external Western ‘experts’, tend to reinforce pro-growth narratives and do little to address the underlying reasons for inequities, marginalization and poor participation. Considering the many complex issues and concerns, what indicators should the community

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

199

use to ensure that it is able to keep on top of the developments and changes that affect its vision and well-being?

NGO roles As illustrated by the earlier example of Canmore, Canada, local NGO’s can play a valuable role in training, education and capacity building, as well as directing environmental conservation and benefits from tourism toward CD. In addition to these types of activities, external NGOs like the Dutch organization SNV in the case of Botswana’s CBNRM program (see above) help to direct external expertise and funding toward local CBC and CBT initiatives. Dependency on such external assistance has to be watched and weighed carefully against often much needed community development and sustainability actions in both informal and formal economies. Social justice organizations and NGOs such as Tourism Concern and the Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism have been established to focus on tourism and socio-economic inequities in lesser developed and emerging countries (e.g. unfair labor practices), human rights injustices, plus other social issues related to class, ethnicity and gender at the local destination level. This is particularly challenging when the substantial informal sector in developing regions is brought into the local–global tourism system, with too little preparation and understanding on managing the social challenges and cultural change that may follow, and hence may garner too few economic gains for the poor due to neoliberal or other self-interested agendas at play (see Scheyvens, 2007b). The NGO ‘EcoHimal’ (EcoHimal Society for Cooperation Alps Himalaya), for instance, works with mountain tourism in lesser developed regions to promote poverty alleviation and reduce resource depletion in regions where under-development and poverty are prime causes of environmental stress (EcoHimal, n.d.). One of its projects involves mountain tourism in the Rolwaling region of the Himalayas, where it attempts to facilitate ecologically, culturally and socially acceptable tourism. EcoHimal works primarily in cooperation with 20 Community Development Village Committees that were formally registered as cooperatives and that take responsibility for tourism and encourage democratic participation in the committees, and encourage women to participate (see East et al., 1998a, 1998b). The role of local NGOs in assisting local residents with community development is especially important to address in PPT approaches in indigenous communities. The food traditions of indigenous populations in both the US and Mexico are changing, and diseases such as obesity and diabetes are increasing at an alarming rate in these underserved communities. The erosion of traditional lifestyles and traditional food practices related to indigenous foodways in Mexico, for example, combined with socio-economic impacts of a declining agricultural sector (aided by North American Free

200

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and global free tree policies on agriculture and modernization) and modernization influences are exacerbating health problems and poverty in rural communities around the UNESCO World Heritage Site of San Miguel de Allende and the Sanctuary of Jesús Nazareno de Atotonilco (Advisory Body Evaluation, UNESCO, 2008). Food is a physical necessity and a cultural good; it adds to cultural identity, social well-being and a sense of community through the rituals and traditions that revolve around the production and consumption of food. The NGO Apoyo a Gente Emprendedora AC is a small, locally-based NGO engaged in economic development, microlending and community health. In addition to microfinancing small enterprises in the villages it works with, it engages in health initiatives and education (to counter the lack of understanding about the nutritional benefits of Coca Cola, for instance), and financial education (e.g. to counter forays by the formal banking sector to lend high interest loans to impoverished villagers). Some rural residents around Atotonilco prepare and sell food to visiting religious pilgrims and tourists, and some of Apoyo’s microlending goes toward encouraging the development of such linkages. The basic lack of infrastructure and amenities in these communities indicates that much community development work is needed before PPT may be feasible to undertake, and would require careful assessment against other forms of possible community development. Microlending by Apoyo has started to create success stories for local residents, helped by funding and health-related assistance from its networking with other locally-based NGOs like Feed the Hungry (Apoyo a Gente Emprendedora AC, n.d.). Its food kitchens and rural activities are facilitated greatly by American and other foreign expats and retirees in San Miguel who contribute volunteer time and donations. The town hosts a large retirement and expatriate population (approx. 8500– 10,000) of mostly Americans, followed by Canadians, Europeans and other nationalities. Visiting academics and students are also invited to assist with these grass-roots initiatives as well. One might thus ask: What role does volunteer tourism play in sustainable community development through tourism (the online newsletter at www. voluntourism.org/newsletter.html offers useful information on voluntourism). McGehee and Santos (2005: 760) describe volunteer tourists as having ‘discretionary time and income to go out of the regular sphere of activity to assist others in need’. Brown and Lehto’s study (2005) grouped voluntourists into two groups: ‘volunteer-minded’ individuals who may be more driven by altruism, and the ‘vacation-minded’ tourists who are more attracted by the leisure offerings of a destination. Emerging study into this new area suggests that voluntourism offers the potential to assist in poverty alleviation and community development, but much further research is needed to understand this activity, especially in the context of poverty alleviation (see Benson, 2011; McGehee, 2012; Wearing, 2001; see Chapter 4).

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

201

Conclusion Studies of tourism’s contributions to community development reveal a diverse range of forms and approaches to CBT, as well as a wide variety of planning and community engagement tools. Development agendas have shifted to incorporate pro-poor initiatives, and to identify ‘triple bottom line’ (environmental, economic and social) goals that comport with community development agendas. Despite such constructive changes away from traditional economic models oriented toward growth and profit and toward much richer notions of tourism’s role and capacity to contribute to societal well-being, study results tend to be multifaceted and sometimes inconclusive. Even in Brazil, an early proponent of CBT and ecotourism, results have been mixed (Mielke, 2012). As this chapter indicates, optimism is not entirely unwarranted, though adjustments and changes need to be made to improve the well-being of local participants in tourism and CD, in particular disadvantaged groups and those who stand to be most adversely impacted by the commodification and sale of their natural and socio-cultural goods and environments. Opportunities to use tourism as a powerful vehicle of climate change and sustainability pedagogy also need to be taken up, such as via community-based participation and interpretation. Community-based practices for adaptive co-management must engage local and traditional knowledge in addition to scientific and technical inputs (Plummer & Fennell, 2009), collaborative planning and information sharing, for example via collaborative learning around climate change, tourism and community development (see Daniels & Walker, 2001). The power and politics involved in such ‘community-based’ processes merit careful scrutiny – whose interests are being forwarded in pro-poor and other CD and tourism agendas? How is empowerment and local control being facilitated, through what mechanisms and processes? As Simpson (2008) noted, community engagement is a complex endeavor, but especially important with respect to directing the type of tourism development and the allocation of costs and benefits from tourism. While potential for improving community development benefits appears to be present in the various tourism forms discussed in this chapter, much further research is needed to understand the potential of relatively new forms such as volunteer tourism and fair trade in tourism. While this latter form is not discussed due to space limitations, it is an important issue with respect to enabling living wages, reducing economic leakage and facilitating direct producer–consumer linkages (Boersma, 2009) and the PPT benefits of activities such as slum tourism (Weiner, 2008; see also: Science Daily, 2010). Greater vigilance and ‘corporate social responsibility’ will be needed to facilitate improved stakeholder collaboration, partnerships, networks, local economic linkages and fair labor practices in the destinations and communities that are involved in tourism

202

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

via the informal and formal sector. Similarly, the role of local and external NGOs in sustainable tourism development is crucial but is also challenging with respect to weighing up dependencies and change. Integrated approaches to development and planning that bridge the local to the regional/national/ international, via networks, partnerships, collaborative planning, and early involvement of residents and other key stakeholders in the process are key to facilitating tourism’s community development potential. A key insight from this chapter is the vital importance of changing the (external) policy agenda in addition to local policy change. The chapter supports much (not all) of Blackstock’s (2005) critique of CBT, especially with respect to CBT proponents that do not question or challenge tourism as a vehicle for community development, tend to assume homogenous power bases (rather than conflict scenarios) and attend poorly to external barriers and constraints. Harrison (2008) argues that if state-level change in the development agenda toward PPT is to work well, it requires political, economic and social agendas to be structurally reoriented. Schilcher (2007) calls for a reorientation from growth to equity and change institutions, otherwise it is neoliberal governance and business as usual. Under a sustainable development agenda, policies, norms and guidelines are needed to ensure fair distribution of goods in societies and fair procedures for participation in decision-making on the allocation and protection of these resources locally and globally, for current and future generations. These procedural issues must pay careful attention to rights and obligations related to those who dwell, visit and use (commodify) natural and cultural areas and impact human-environmental and other cultural relationships. Communities do not exist in isolation and tourism and community development must address not only the local but also the wider political and governance issues that link the local to the regional and global context of the complex tourism system.

Appendix 6.1 Community Tourism as Envisioned by a Key Hawaiian Stakeholder in 2004 Community Tourism: Empowering Communities to Tell their Own Stories Community tourism is a process not a product. It is a process whose planning must be inclusive of, understood by and embraced by the general population of the place in which it occurs. It is for the most part small-scale tourism whose planning and execution is driven by a genuine desire of a community willing to share itself, its history, traditions and customs with strangers, as a means by which to support economic growth. Community tourism initiatives are travel-related offerings created and operated by local, traditional or indigenous populations to enhance their quality of life, protect

Tour ism and Communit y Development Issues

203

and restore their environmental and cultural assets and engage visitors on terms defined by the area’s inhabitants. Community tourism is only validated if the activity evolves as a solution to economic, environmental, social, educational and cultural growth challenges. It is a process that must yield a fair exchange of value between the host and the hosted, preserve the community’s sense of place and bring dignity and pride to the host.

Examples Community tourism often includes walking tours, home and farm stays, storefront museums, recreational offerings, craft cooperatives, nature and wildlife treks, cultural performances, dining experiences, lectures on local culture and history, healing and health services, storytelling and just about any aspect of community activity that may have value as a visitor experience. In urban neighborhoods, rural communities and wilderness areas, community tourism efforts can provide a powerful economic development strategy, promote cultural diversity and an understanding of tolerance, and generate more revenues for local businesses. Intimacy Community tourism invites far more intimacy in the relationship between host and guest than is normally afforded by other tourism business models. It generally features far more authentic and genuine activity for the guest, because it is activity that exists for its own sake and is not constructed specifically to entertain a stranger. It is a community sharing its real culture by the people who practice it. The very nature of community tourism places boundaries and limitations on how many visitors can be accommodated so that the sense of place is not overwhelmed by large-scale tourism, and the ratio between the local population and the visitor count remains in balance. Sustainable business model Community tourism is a more sustainable business model. Current models often result in creating more problems for a community than they solve, and can be particularly damaging to the culture, traditions and customs of the destination and its sense of place. Community tourism is about maintaining a direct connection between the host population and the visitor and minimizing the reliance on gatekeeper systems of sales and marketing strategies that eventually separate the host from the hosted. It is about preserving the sense of place of a community by making the place, not the visitor, the center of care and attention, recognizing this as the best way to honor the visitor. By making caring for the place the priority, you also preserve the customs, traditions, landscapes and history of the people who live there. What better way to welcome and honor a stranger than to present the community at its very best.

204

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Connecting the past to the future Community tourism is a community celebrating its own greatness and inviting strangers to join the celebration. To be clear, while it is about preserving heritage, it is also about the evolution of a heritage. It need not freeze landscapes or cultural practices and traditions. It is about honoring the past and connecting it to the future in a dynamic evolution of the living culture of the local population – celebrating where they came from, defining who they are in the present and crafting new dreams that extend an unbroken persona of themselves into the future through their children. In the end, community tourism is about preserving the dignity of a people willing to open their hearts to strangers from other places. Source: Apo (2004). Reproduced with permission.

7

Tourism and Socio-cultural Development Issues Atsuko Hashimoto

Introduction In the pursuit of modernisation and the promotion of development within a country, many developing nations have chosen tourism as their preferred growth mechanism. During the process of development, it is often economic indicators that draw the most attention and tourism is seen as attractive as it is argued that it generates foreign exchange, increases employment, attracts development capital and promotes economic independence (Britton, 1982b). As it creates jobs and generates income, ‘tourism is. . .said to promote a level of economic development conductive to increase social wellbeing and stability’ (Weaver & Opperman, 2000: 285). Tourism has always been regarded as a means of encouraging economic development, but it has not been seriously considered as a means of promoting social and cultural development. The concept of socio-economic development emphasises the improvement of various indicators, including improvements in living conditions and the quality of life and well-being of populations. Often, these indicators include decreasing mortality rates, increased literacy rates and access to health care and clean water supplies, as well as broader socio-political aims, such as improving freedom of choice, increasing political autonomy, promoting the opportunity for endogenous decision-making and the encouragement of self-reliance. The extent to which tourism can contribute to the improvement of these indicators is difficult to say. One of the reasons for the lack of clear understanding of the impact of tourism on a society is the fact that tourism development is often only a smaller part of larger development schemes, such as national economic development or regional economic improvement plans. In addition, for many of these broader indices, there is no explicit guideline as to what constitutes a necessary level of ‘improvement’ of these conditions in various cultural and social contexts. Also at issue here is the fact that the concepts of ‘improvement’ and ‘development’ 205

206

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

of social conditions have evolved from economically developed nations or the Western school of thought, and the social and cultural impact of tourism development is measured against these rather biased indices. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the nature of the relationship between tourism development and socio-cultural change. It will also comment on the extent to which tourism development can contribute in a positive manner to improving the well-being of host populations as well as learning from the negative aspects of tourism development. To do this, the chapter will first examine the context of broader development theories and major indices used to measure development. By understanding some of the shortcomings of development theories, the reader will begin to grasp how development measurement indices are influenced by biases that underlie Western development theories. The chapter will then consider positive and negative examples of perceived social and cultural development in host communities from the tourism literature.

Relationship of Development Theories to Tourism As has been discussed earlier in this book, many of the predominant development theories have emerged from a Western school of thought and they do not consider alternative or traditional methods of development (Said, 1978, 1993; see Chapter 2). The idea of ‘modernisation’ started in Europe about 500 years ago and it placed Europe at the centre of a world system (Dussel, 1988). Later, the centre became Euro-America, or, the West, and it developed its own ideas and systems that the rest of the world was expected to embrace (Peet, 1999) in order to undergo the ‘civilisation process’ (Dussel, 1988). This expectation implies that there can be only one set of fundamental values and that others are, to an extent, derivatives of these. This set of fundamental values serves as a single universal measure of rationality for the absolute superiority of one standard (Calhoun, 1995). One of the major characteristics of the ideologies of this Western school of thought is that there is always a ‘them versus us’ contrast when discussing a concern over differences (Calhoun, 1995). Concepts of development and the modernisation of a nation have evolved from the study of Euro-American history (Peet, 1999; Rostow, 1967). According to the above-mentioned fundamental index, the message of development and modernisation theories can be translated as ‘our’ (the ‘developed nations’) value standard being superior to ‘their’ (the ‘developing nations’) value standard and, therefore, ‘they’ should follow the course of development that ‘we’ have taken. Modernisation theories presume that the causes of under-development or poverty reside in the ‘traditions’ of a nation. Rather than considering the role of developed nations and multinational enterprises (MNEs) in the creation of the gap between rich and poor (see Chapter 10),

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

207

modernisation theories focus on non-Western factors in poorer nations that prevent them from becoming wealthy like a Western nation (Mapp, 2008). In his critique, Peet (1999) interprets Rostow’s stages of economic growth as suggesting that traditional societies should ‘copy the already proven examples of the West’ and, in order to help out, the ‘West will provide armies of modernisers’. Rostow’s other suggestion is that ‘backward societies’ ought to accept US aid and investment (Peet, 1999: 83). Rostow’s stages of economic growth model is based on the assumption that there is a universal process of modernisation. Likewise, the concept of development widely employed today is based on a fundamental assumption that every nation in the world should follow the model of the West. According to Peet (1999: 85–86), the four points of ‘development’ are based on assuming: (1) (2) (3) (4)

The mental model of the West (rationalisation); The institutions of the West (the market); The goals of the West (high-mass consumption); Culture of the West (worship of the commodity).

These assumptions are the backbone of much of the development theory discussed in this book. Although the development theories themselves are sound and conceptually significant, the underlying assumptions of the theories can however be a cause of concern. Measurements of the quality of life or level of economic development are always examined against indices that are a reflection of the Euro-American standard of development. The development measurement assumes that the same economic and social systems work perfectly in various nations. This assumption of homogeneity leads to other shortcomings of current development theories. Within the universalist tradition, development theories apply a single superior standard, which happens to be Western societies’ set of values, to the rest of the world. By applying this standard to non-EuroAmerican nations, difficulty arises in making sense of what has been observed (or measured). As interpretation of the unknown has to be derived from known culture, experience and intellectual tradition (in this case, Euro-American tradition), what is really operative in a non-Euro-American context is often misunderstood. Instead, an illusion as to what is not working in a given locale will be created to facilitate ‘comprehension’ of the observed phenomena (Bond, 1991; Calhoun, 1995; Pick & Pick Jr., 1978; Wuelker, 1993). For instance, Western philosophies are often described as unidirectional and linear while Eastern philosophies are often described as circular. The Western idea of development adopts a starting point and progresses over time, but this idea does not openly suggest that the process could be reversed (to regress) or come back to the starting point. Meanwhile, Eastern philosophies suggest that the process is circular and will eventually return to the

208

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

starting point; therefore, the process is endless. To measure the circular concept of development in the East using the linear metric of development of the West requires a great deal of imagination or a drastic change in world-view. However, by the end of the 1990s, it became clear that the process of globalisation is enriching a handful of dominant actors (states or MNEs) in the global market and further impoverishing the most vulnerable, rather than providing equal opportunities to every participating actor. Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom in 1999 inspired the idea of human development, which consequently led to a shift in economy-based development philosophies to human rights-based development philosophies (Eide, 2006; see Chapter 13). When the 1986 UN Declaration of the Right to Development was adopted, the US was the only country that dissented; however, in the 1993 Vienna Second UN World Conference on Human Rights, which confirmed every person’s right to development as a human right, the US fully supported the idea (Sengupta, 2007). The UN’s adoption of sustainable development and greater focusing on human development also indicates a revival of a social-development approach, emphasising that economic development and social development must occur simultaneously (Mapp, 2008; Midgeley, 1995). While some critics, such as George and Varghese (2007), are concerned about whether or not sustainable development is placing too much emphasis on the environment and economy, the social development approach emphasises, in line with the human rights-based development approach, empowerment, improvement of social conditions, building macro-level capacity within clients and prevention of problems rather than remedial aid and relief (Mapp, 2008). Osmani (2006) sees that the human rights-based development approach will counterbalance disproportional inequalities between and within nations as it focuses on groups of individuals that are vulnerable, marginalised, disadvantaged or socially excluded. At the 2004 Shanghai Conference on poverty reduction, then World Bank President Wolfensohn declared that the Washington Consensus (economy-based development with a neoliberal agenda) was dead (Eide, 2006; Maxwell, 2005). While some, such as Maxwell (2005), encourage a modified orthodox development paradigm, or ‘meta narrative’, which forms the over-arching framework of the UN Millennium Development Goals, others embrace the human rights-based approach. The human rights-based approach to development must not be considered ‘value added’ in terms of the orthodox development paradigm; instead, it requires a fundamental ‘value change’ (Eide, 2006). The principles of the right to development represent ‘equality, nondiscrimination, participation, transparency and accountability, as well as international cooperation’ (Pillay, 2011). In other words, development must be people-centred and what needs to be developed varies vastly from one nation to another or even from a region in a nation to another region. By applying the human rights-based approach, development can alleviate ‘distorted development’ (Midgeley, 1995: 4) or globalisation effects on

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

209

the poverty gap between the rich and the poor. The human rights-based approach can also ease the pain of trade-offs associated with development. The human rights-based approach enables ‘incremental trade-off, by which no single right has to be curtailed from an existing level in order to raise other rights’ (Osmani, 2006). Reflecting such changes in development paradigms, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have changed their focuses towards more socially conscious development (Eide, 2006).

Indices of Social and Economic Development In this era of globalisation, knowledge of the state of the social and economic development of each nation has become highly sought-after information. As mentioned above, information from each country typically has been measured against indices created by economically developed nations. The indices used to measure levels of development have become more complex over time, from initially focusing on purely economic measurements such as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita to later rating elements such as literacy rates, levels of political freedom and the status of the environment. The changes in measuring development and under-development are also explored in Chapter 1. The deficiencies of relying on economic growth measures and per-capita income as measures of human well-being can be illustrated by the United Nations’ Development Programme’s ‘development diamond’. Two countries may have a similar GDP per capita but, when compared to the other three indices on the ‘development diamond’, including life expectancy, adult literacy and infant mortality, it becomes very apparent that the countries may differ vastly in terms of quality of life (Yeung & Mathieson, 1998). The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) created a broader approach to measuring development using the following variables: economic performance, competitiveness foundations, health, education, environment and democracy and freedom. Sen (1999) concentrates on freedoms in his discussion of development and focuses on economic opportunities, political freedoms, social facilities, transparency guarantees and protective security. Sklair’s (1995) five types of classification used by international organisations to measure the level of social economic development include income-based classifications, trade-based classifications, resource-based classifications, quality of life classifications and blocbased classifications. However, the fifth classification is disappearing today as socio-economic blocs (i.e. socialist economic systems versus capitalist economic systems) are rapidly disintegrating and disappearing in the modern world. Moreover, Sklair warns that all measures are theory-laden: ‘[t]his is particularly the case for quality of life, for the ways in which the quality of life is measured, and specifically the role and definition of basic needs, virtually define our concepts of development within the global system’ (1995: 23).

210

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

In the following section, four indices of interest (Quality of Life Indicator, Human Development Index, Better Life Index and Social Progress Index) will be briefly examined.

Quality of life indicator The change in understanding of development paradigms (see Chapter 2) has also impacted units of comparison. National growth indicators, such as gross national product (GNP) per capita, are often used for comparing one country to another and were initially the main type of indicator used to rank countries on development scales. The concept of ‘Quality of Life (QOL)’ and related measures have existed since the 1940s; nevertheless, in the 1970s, QOL became a popular social indicator. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the UN and UNESCO adopted QOL in their reports (Land et al., 2012). These indicators attempt to measure ‘being well and doing well’ (Land et al., 2012: 12) or personal wellbeing (emotional well-being and life evaluation) and productivity. QOL indicators have recently been modified to minimise the problem of unit of comparison; however, many indices today are still comparing units of ‘nation’, ‘culture’ or ‘society’. Contrasting units such as ‘whole nation’ and ‘whole society’ suggests an assumption that they are internally integrated or that there is no diversity within the unit, not even male–female divisions (Calhoun, 1995; Sklair, 1995). Within the concept of universalism, there is also the assumption that each society and culture functions based on the same system as in the Euro-American model (Calhoun, 1995). These assumptions of integrity within the unit, and equality of each unit, result in the devaluation of differences. In order to mitigate Western bias of known indicators, the International Society of Quality-of-Life Studies created comparable regional barometers (e.g. Eurobarometer and Afrobarometer) with indigenous researchers (ISOQOL, 2013; Land et al., 2012). The UN Human Development Index is often considered an extension of QOL indices. As a notable achievement, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) calculated its own Quality of Life Report in 2005. The EIU attempted to separate life-satisfaction (subjective) from actual quality of life in the nation (objective). The nine indicators used in the calculation are: material wellbeing, health, political stability and security, family life, community life, climate and geography, job security, political freedom and gender equality. In this calculation, education levels and the rate of real GDP growth and income inequality were excluded based on the results of earlier investigations (EIU, 2005). Challenges in comparison also arise when comparing one nation to another in the study of tourism development. When comparing at the destination level, a researcher may find one destination area to be far more lucrative in terms of economic development than other destination areas in

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

211

the same country, or even in the same region. Different regions within a country may also have different social and cultural values, which will react differently to tourism development; these differences may be overlooked if only national indices are used. Tourism is often only a small part of larger socioeconomic development plans and, in many cases, it is impossible to isolate the effects of tourism development from other forms of development. In some nations, tourism is the major contributor to socio-economic development, while in others, tourism’s overall contribution to development is minimal.

Human Development Index (HDI) The UN started to publish annual reports on the Human Development Index in 1990 as an alternative way to measure national development. The conventional measurement was based on levels of income or rate of economic growth. The new index was intended to ‘[bring] about development of the people, by the people, and for the people, and emphasizing that the goals of development are choices and freedoms’ (UNDP, 2010a). In other words, the HDI stresses that the development of a country needs to be accessed by enhancing human capabilities and individuals’ choices, not by measuring economic growth alone (ELISAN, 2012; UNDP, 2011b). As the most critical dimensions of human development are ‘a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living’, a composite measure of three basic dimensions of human development include health, education and income (UNDP, 2011a). These three dimensions utilise four indicators (see Figure 7.1). The HDI clearly distinguishes itself from other approaches such as ‘economic growth’, theories of human capital formation and human resource

Life expectancy at birth

Health

Educaon Expected years of schooling

Gross naonal income per capita Four indicators

Living Standard Three dimensions

Figure 7.1 The HDI: Three dimensions and four indicators Source: After UNDP, 2013.

Human Development Index

Mean years of schooling

212

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

development’, ‘the human welfare approach’ or ‘the basic needs approach’. These approaches focus on processes of development, or on humans as either an input for development or as beneficiaries of development. In contrast, the UN HDI measures the end result of development; it argues that individuals must be the centre of the development process and that they must be participants of the development of their choice (UNDP, 2013). Sharpe (1999) called the HDI a ‘cross-national index of well-being’ but Harris and Burns (2004) considered this index not well-suited to the comparison of regions within a nation. The HDI is not free from criticism. American Economist Bryan Caplan (2009) questions the calculation of three dimensions, especially the dimension of education. He also points out that the HDI overlooks the potential of the rich nations to improve because these countries are already near the maximum score of the Gross National Income indicator. The European Local Inclusion and Social Action Network (ELISAN) (2012) added that the HDI is nothing new; it failed to include any ecological concerns and it lacks comparability due to assessing development differently among different groups of countries. Basu (2005) argues that human development and deprivation cannot be discussed simply as three dimensions of HDI; some aspects of development, such as spiritual development, cannot be measured quantitatively. Basu cautions that the ‘problem arises when the “eradication of human deprivations” becomes synonymous with “human development”’ (Basu, 2005: 5). Finally, Porter et al. (2013) point out that the HDI only addresses basic needs and lacks a broader set of measurements that will help to provide a more concrete guide for further development. The HDI may be a better alternative measure of the level of development of a nation when compared to an orthodox economy-based indicator, and the 2013 HDI report emphasises that nations from the South show significant improvement in 2012, especially in comparison with 1990 levels. Nevertheless, at the international level, those nations that rank very high are still ‘developed’ nations (Norway holds first place, followed by Australia, the United States and the Netherlands in 2013) and southern countries, even China and India, score low on the index. Even if a nation demonstrated great HDI improvement within a given region like Asia, so long as the gap between this nation and the rest of the developed nations was not diminished, persons in the low HDI nations could still be expected to face considerable inequality and conflict. An example is the case of international tourism; conflicts arise when tourists from developed nations demonstrate superiority over the local population in terms of economy, education and standard of living.

Better Life Index In 2011, the OECD launched an interactive Better Life Initiative after measuring the development of member countries, mainly by GDP, for

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

213

50 years. The Your Better Life Index comprises 11 dimensions: community, education, environment, civic engagement, health, housing, income, jobs, life satisfaction, safety and work–life balance. Multiple indicators measured each dimension, and thus, a total of 20 indicators were used across 11 dimensions, and three more indicators were added in 2012 (The Economist, 2011; OECD, 2012). This measurement was determined by the suggestion of the 2009 report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, also known as the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission (OECD, 2012; Stiglitz et al., 2010). Originally the OECD measured its 34 member countries, plus the OECD key partner countries (China, India, Indonesia and South Africa), and in 2013, the 34 member countries and Brazil and Russia were on the Index (OECD, 2012, 2013). The Your Better Life Index is an interactive visualisation tool, showing each country in the form of a multi-coloured, shape-shifting flower. Each flower petal denotes a dimension of the 11 measurement topics. Each petal’s length represents the country’s score in a particular dimension; the width indicates the significance or priority level that the user assigned (Nesterko, 2013). Users can set their priority for ‘better life’ by manipulating the levels of dimensions in the Create Your Better Life Index tool. Then the display rearranges the location of the countries. When the user moves the curser to a flower, it shows the country’s performance in a bar chart in a separate box (visit ‘Create Your Better Life Index’ at www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/). The report How’s Life? from the 2011 Better Life Index was published in October 2011. This report covers 40 countries and assesses the 11 dimensions of the Better Life Index. This report emphasises that development must be measured beyond GDP: Well-being is intrinsically linked to good health, a clean environment, a strong sense of community and civic engagement, a home in good shape, and a safe neighbourhood. Government should ensure that most people benefit from these factors, while fighting inequality and poverty, which remain big barriers to well-being for too many. (OECD, 2011) Although the Better Life Index is more complex than the HDI, there are still some shortcomings. For instance, Porter et al. (2013) analysed the Better Life Index as being a hybrid of economic indicators and social indicators, which includes subjective evaluation of personal well-being; nevertheless, the overall measurement still leans heavily towards economic indicators. They also argue that, like the HDI, the index does not provide guidelines for further development. Nesterko (2013) examines the userfriendliness of the index tool and points out that the Better Life Index cannot make comparisons over time. The index is also limited to OECD member countries; therefore, newly emerging nations or rapidly developing nations are not included (Nesterko, 2013). These limitations imply that the

214

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

index only provides a snapshot of the development situations of mostly developed nations during a certain year.

Social Progress Index As society began to question the accuracy of development measurement predicated on economic performance alone, new indicators or variables were suggested to measure more comprehensive ‘development’ of nations, regions or communities. The UN’s HDI and the OECD’s Better Life Index are two examples that are currently in use in many organisations and institutions. The concept of social progress, in agreement with sustainable development, emphasises balancing progress in three areas (social, economic and environmental), but not pursuing progress in one area at the cost of others (i.e. achieving economic success at the cost of social and environmental aspects) (Harris & Burns, 2004). In early 2013, another indicator was proposed by the Social Progress Imperative. Although this indicator is untested, it is important because it introduces indicators beyond GDP measurement, and challenges policymakers and business leaders to reconsider multiple facets of ‘social progress’ (Baumberg, 2013). Similar to the UN’s HDI, the Social Progress Index (SPI) uses three dimensions to measure the social progress of a nation. Lars Osberg (2001), whose work provided a foundation for the Social Progress Indicator, stresses that social progress must fulfil individuals’ ‘needs’ or ‘basic human rights’ first, then attend to ‘wants’ (CSLS, 2012; Harris & Burns, 2004: see Chapter 13 for development as a human right). Therefore, the definition of the social progress on which this indicator is based is: Social progress is the capacity of a society to meet the basic human needs of its citizens, establish the building blocks that allow citizens and communities to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, and create the conditions for all individuals to reach their full potential. (Porter et al., 2013: 7) According to Porter et al. (2013), the SPI has unique characteristics that differentiate it from any other measurements of well-being. These five characteristics are: (1) Based exclusively on non-economic indicators. (2) Based exclusively on outcome indicators. (3) Integrates a large number of indicators into an aggregate score of social progress. (4) The model is structured to allow empirical investigation of relationships between dimensions, components and indicators. (5) Breadth of indicators makes the model relevant for countries at all income levels. (Porter et al., 2013: 8)

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

215

Data are collected from other large organisations and institutions such as United Nations, World Health Organization, The Economist Intelligence Unit, Gallop World Poll, and so on (Fehder & Stern, 2013). Michael Green remarked that the SPI revealed that the wealthier a country becomes, the less sustainable it becomes from an environmental perspective, and that wealthier countries with higher GDPs show less social progress than lower-income countries (Paulson, 2013). Figure 7.2 identifies the three dimensions of the SPI: basic human needs, foundations of well-being, and opportunity. Each dimension has four components; however, when each component is closely examined, there are two to six indicators per component. For example, under the ‘Basic Human Needs’ dimension, the ‘Shelter’ component has two indicators (‘Availability of affordable housing’ and ‘Access to electricity’) while the component ‘Nutrition and Basic Medical Care’ has six indicators (‘Undernourishment’, ‘Depth of food deficit’, ‘Maternal mortality rate’, ‘Stillbirth rate’, ‘Child mortality rate’ and ‘Prevalence of tuberculosis’). In total, 52 indicators are calculated and aggregated results are used to measure three dimensions. At the time of writing this chapter, the SPI has been publicised for only a couple of months and its real value, validity and possible shortcomings are

Social Progress Index

Basic Human Needs

Foundations of Well-being

Opportunity

Nutrition and Basic Medical Care

Access to Basic Knowledge

Personal Rights

Air, Water and Sanitation

Access to Information and Communication

Access to Higher Education

Shelter

Health and Wellness

Personal Safety

Does a country provide for its people’s most essential needs?

Ecosystem Sustainability Are the building blocks in place for individuals and communities to enhance and sustain wellbeing?

Personal Freedom and Choice Equity and Inclusion Is there opportunity for all individuals to reach their full potential?

Figure 7.2 Three dimensions of Social Progress Index Source: After Porter et al. (2013: 8); see www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi for an interactive index chart.

216

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

still unchallenged. However, a number of concerns regarding SPI have been voiced. The first concern came from Ben Baumberg (2013) regarding the SPI’s association with strong business interests. Porter and a team of economists developed the SPI as a funded project originating from ‘a mixture of businesses and non-profits interested in the crossover between business strategy and social goals’. In Baumberg’s view, this strong business background dictates what ‘social progress’ needs to be. In terms of measurement, despite the criticism of the HDI and the Better Life Index, the SPI demonstrates that measuring social progress and environmental progress is not easy because of their abstract nature and area-specific properties (Harris & Burns, 2004). Michael Green commented that the SPI lacks ‘country measures of the gap between rich and poor’ (Paulson, 2013), which is often considered to be an important indicator for social progress. Baumberg (2013) concurs, noting the inclusion of variables that do not measure crucial parts of social progress and the exclusion of significant variables. Another concern that Baumberg mentions is that the type of data sets collected from larger organisations limits the measurement of available and comparable data sets; this, in turn, can encourage researchers to overlook potentially important information when determining various dimensions. As seen in the four notable development indices above, how the world views the ‘development’ of a nation has changed over time. Each index attempted to create a better measurement by compensating for the predecessor’s shortcomings or weakness in measuring development. Definitions of ‘development’ have greatly changed as the world has embraced the concept of sustainable development. The more recent approach of human rights-based development addresses inequality issues more strongly than any other development approaches; however, it does not prescribe how to solve problems. These recent indices indicate that the type and rate of improvement in basic needs and standard of living can vary from one nation to another, and countries in different leagues need to be measured separately, rather than internationally. Despite the fact that development paradigms and worldviews are transforming rapidly, in the context of tourism, individuals’ mindsets and the mainstream measurement of development are not changing at the same speed. Tourism provides the space in which the world’s rich and poor meet. Many nations choose tourism as a means of development for economic purposes, but very few do the same for social improvement or environmental protection purposes. Moreover, tourism stakeholders prefer reading economic success as a development indicator because it is not always possible to pinpoint how many of the improvements in a society are attributable to tourism development. The complex nature of the relationship between tourism development and socio-cultural change is explored in the remainder of this chapter.

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

217

Social and Cultural Impacts of Tourism Development Tourism development has often wrongly been accused of being the sole agent of rapid social and cultural change in host communities. The debate surrounding the negative impact of rapid modernisation of societies through tourism development has created a series of stereotypical notions. Host communities are often viewed as ‘victims’, ‘having to’ accept the social and cultural changes brought by tourism, while the guests who ‘impose’ their own values on the host communities are the ‘villains’. Generalisations also exist that portray tourism development sponsored by MNEs as ‘evil invasions’. The positive contributions of tourism to the social and cultural wellbeing of a host community are overshadowed by the attention given to the negative changes brought about by tourism. Claims that tourism development can preserve and protect traditional cultures are ‘attacked’ as serving only to commercialise culture. While these arguments may be true to some extent, in some situations, stereotypical notions are often quite misleading and too simplistic, which is true with respect to the social and cultural changes occurring in host communities. Changes may also occur in the visitors to a destination, which is a concept often ignored in the literature. To begin with, the determination as to what extent tourism development is a major agent of socio-cultural change in a destination is a grey area. Socio-cultural change in destination areas occurs not only through tourism but also on account of a range of other reasons, such as forces of globalisation and the international media. In examining socio-cultural change, sociology for example tends to emphasise different aspects of life, such as social structure, action, culture and power functions (Calhoun, 1995). Exposure to different cultures, peoples and social practices in the form of long-distance trade, military movement, labour migration, pilgrimages and so forth have had a gradual influence and have resulted in subsequent changes in host societies. Tourism is a new form of exposure to different cultures and social practices in more recent years and can influence social change, but the extent of this influence has never been clearly determined. Although the basic philosophy of tourism development is deeply rooted in economic development or modernisation theories, one particular aspect of tourism development is the fact that social and cultural changes in host communities are not always considered positive. Tourism development in many developing countries is the major means of economic development. The magnitude of socio-cultural change is in part determined by the extent of the differences between hosts and guests. Inskeep (1991) suggests that these differences include basic values and logic systems, religious beliefs, traditions, customs, lifestyles, behavioural patterns, dress codes, sense of time-budgeting and attitudes towards strangers. In addition, the speed at which tourism

218

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

develops and the form that the tourism development takes can also have an impact on the rate of socio-cultural change. The tourism industry often sells ‘traditions’ and ‘exotic lifestyles’ as tourist attractions. Tourists often demand ‘authentic’ exhibitions of culture and lifestyles that are considerably different from their own (Bauman, 1996; Burns & Holden, 1995; Graburn, 1989), even to the extent that ‘spectacularisation’ of the host culture takes place (Stanley, 1998). In the name of protection of traditions and cultures, tourism development ironically prohibits the social and cultural changes that are seen as a precondition for further economic development. While tourists and the tourism industry do not always welcome a host community’s modernisation and the mimicking of Euro-American cultures, they consciously or unconsciously demand Western amenities and conveniences in tourist facilities. Similarly, while the economic modernisation of a host country is judged by readiness to copy the Euro-American economic model, the level of cultural modernisation is not. Modernisation of culture and lifestyles are often denounced as ‘cultural imperialism’, ‘demonstration effects’ and ‘assimilation’. While tourists sometimes search for the past and for nostalgia through their international travels (Lowenthal, 1985), they disapprove of the modernisation of a host community through the loss of its ‘charm’ and traditions. Mathieson and Wall (1982) identified three major types of culture that are both susceptible to change and attractive to tourists: (1) Inanimate forms of culture (historical buildings, monuments, traditional arts and crafts); (2) Reflection of normal day-to-day life and activities of the host community; (3) Animated forms of culture (religious events, carnivals and traditional festivals). It seems that the preservation and conservation of inanimate forms of culture and animate forms of culture are unanimously agreed upon as being important and are recommended as attractions by international agencies, the tourism industry, tourists and often by the host communities. Preservation and conservation of these forms of culture can contribute not only to the strengthening of the social and cultural identities of host communities but also to the stimulation of economic activities. However, it is the change in the ‘reflection of normal day-to-day life and activities of the host community’ that is often argued as an unwanted, rather than desirable, transformation undergone in the name of economic improvements. Having said this, socio-cultural factors that are influenced by tourist activities are the most difficult to measure and quantify. While economic and environmental factors lend themselves to objective measurements, the impact of socio-cultural change is often highly qualitative and subjective in nature

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

219

(Cooper et al., 1998). Socio-cultural changes can range from impacts on a group that are more measurable, such as the outbreak of a particular disease and/or infection, to those that are very hard to measure, such as changes in customs or codes of conduct. Even those factors that appear to be more quantifiable (i.e. increases in crime rates and drug use or prostitution) can be difficult to attribute solely to tourism (Cooper et al., 1998). The two fundamental means of assessing socio-cultural impact on a destination include surveying both residents and tourists, while potential secondary sources of information on socio-cultural impact can include criminal activity statistics, employment data, newspaper reports/articles, other related media and notification of infectious disease statistics. Some of the data sources are quantitative in nature while others are more subjective, and careful interpretation is required (Cooper et al., 1998). Researchers at Bournemouth University in the United Kingdom have attempted to embed the process of socio-cultural change within the more quantifiable economic and environmental models. While it is recognised that the number of sociocultural variables that can be included in a quantifiable level is quite small, they have come up with the following items: (1) The ratio of tourists to host population; (2) The number of contacts between hosts and guests for transactions; (3) The number of contacts between hosts and guests while sharing facilities; (4) The number of contacts between hosts and guests for socio-cultural purposes; (5) Differences between hosts’ and guests’ age distributions; (6) Percentage of local population coming into contact with tourists; (7) Percentage of population working in tourism-related industries weighted by indirect and induced employment; (8) Tourist/host clustering; (9) Nature of tourism. (Cooper et al., 1998) Although the identification of these variables may present some interesting results, it also raises further questions about the ability to measure sociocultural change caused by tourism. The socio-economic indices that were discussed earlier look only at quantifiable or measurable variables. For example, literacy rates, access to health care and life expectancy are among the variables used as a barometer of social well-being and are seen as a spin-off of economic development. Tourism development as an economic activity, for the most part, does not contribute directly to these variables, but may contribute to them indirectly (see Chapter 4). As Cooper et al. (1998) point out, the areas of social and cultural change that tourism researchers consider are beyond these measurements and are far more qualitative and subjective in nature, which makes numerical measurements almost impossible. This in

220

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

turn questions the validity and reliability of existing, traditional socioeconomic development indices used in tourism studies. The next two sections will look at the positive and negative sociocultural changes brought about by tourism development. Most of the sociocultural issues discussed in the study of tourism development are not quantifiable in nature. Examples will be used below to examine the most frequently contested topics related to the socio-cultural impact of tourism and how these changes either have the ability to improve on, or detract from, existing quality of life.

Positive socio-cultural impacts of tourism development As mentioned earlier, the relationship between tourism development and socio-cultural change is complex and it has led to a variety of stereotypical notions concerning the impact of tourism; these notions are often quite misleading. For example, issues of commoditisation (or commercialisation) of culture, changing value systems and family structure changes are often discussed as negative impacts of tourism development. However, if managed carefully, tourism development can bring about positive changes in the above areas as well. How a host community responds to the introduction of tourism will vary from destination to destination and, if planned correctly, may increase the well-being of the host population. Tourism development should be a means of socio-economic development and, thus, successful tourism development should bring reasonable economic profit to the involved parties. This, in turn, should improve quality of life for the local population by providing a modern lifestyle and amenities. As Wall (1995) has suggested, indigenous communities are not only impacted by tourism, they respond to it through entrepreneurial activity as well. There are numerous success stories of local individuals who have an entrepreneurial mindset, and have made a fortune in the tourism business. Tour guides who can speak a few different European languages frequently profit sufficiently to live comfortably, with modern conveniences (a new car, stereo, satellite dish, etc.) and a fashionable Western lifestyle (McCarthy, 1994). A young farmer who grew vegetables and herbs to cater to tourists at an international hotel on the island of Lombok, Indonesia, had one of the most luxurious houses in his village (Telfer & Wall, 1996). Young men in Kenya (Peake, 1989, cited in Kinnaird et al., 1994) and in The Gambia (Brown, 1992, cited in Kinnaird et al., 1994) found lucrative formal and informal jobs in the tourism industry and gained economic benefits. If not acting as an agent of commoditisation, tourism development can contribute to the protection and enhancement of traditions, customs and heritage, which would otherwise disappear in the waves of modernisation. Modernisation and globalisation tends to standardise the world’s economic culture by encouraging the adoption of a universal model, and implicitly

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

221

sending a message that indigenous culture and traditions do not bring economic development to a nation. This process encourages developing nations of the South to embrace things that are Euro-American and devalue indigenous culture and traditions. Fisher (1988) studied the impact of modernisation on sub-Saharan societies and noted that imported goods flooded African markets, replacing traditional items. As a result, indigenous craftspersons were discouraged and dependence on unskilled labour for primary production was encouraged. However, as ‘indigenous’ culture and traditions are also important commodities in the tourism business, tourism itself urges local populations to maintain their local values, traditions and heritage. Tourism development can create more opportunities for indigenous craftspersons and artists to preserve traditional art forms. This also leads to the creation of ‘new’ traditions such as Canadian Inuit soapstone carvings. Inuit soapstone carving is not a traditional art in a strict sense. Traditional Inuit carving utilised ivory and bones but a contemporary export ban on certain ivory and bone goods made it impossible for the traditional art form to survive in a commercial sense. Soapstone carving was recently introduced as an alternative means of income for the Inuit population, the members of which were losing their traditional means of living, such as hunting. Soapstone carving has become established today as an authentic form of Inuit art and each piece fetches a high price. With well managed small-scale tourism development, cultural exchange through tourism can also be possible. It is known that tourists in general come to a destination with certain stereotypes in mind regarding the host culture and their stereotypes are often reinforced by the manipulation of cultural exhibitions (Stanley, 1998). In some cases, tourists’ stereotypical images are strengthened during a trip regardless of what they have actually seen in a destination. However, through small-scale development in which local persons are actively involved, direct cultural exchange can be achieved through the use of local guides. Home-stay or farm-stay programmes, the main purpose of which is cultural exchange, are becoming popular. With the widespread use of the internet today, regions or municipalities (e.g. Bungotakada-city, Japan: http://bungotakada-gt.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2011/04/panf.pdf), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (e.g. Servas International: http://servas.org//content/blogcategory/42/77/, The Hospitality Club: www.hospitalityclub.org/ ) and private businesses (HomeStay International: www.homestayinternational.com) are advertising home-stay programmes. Another phenomenon is called ‘couchsurfing’, which involves no monetary exchange between hosts and guests with guests searching through online social media for alternative accommodation. An open mind is the prerequisite for an effective cultural exchange. It does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees with everyone else; however, it means that one can accept the existence of different views, opinions and customs without arguing whose opinions and customs are superior. Higher tolerance and acceptance of

222

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

eccentricities is required in a close-contact situation, often on the host side. Nevertheless, it is important for tourists to acknowledge that they are temporary visitors who come to see a host community’s culture, heritage and natural attractions, and therefore they are the ones who must be more tolerant and accepting of different practices and values. It is also important for host communities to try to remain in control of the guest–host relationship though external forces may not always allow this to happen. This kind of cultural exchange cannot, however, be achieved in a masstourism setting where direct and high-density contact between hosts and guests is minimal. It also may not work for hosts and guests who have strongly fixed mindsets that will prevent them from understanding each other. In this sense, the role of modern and young persons, who tend to have a more open and inquisitive mindset about the outside world, cannot be ignored. Young persons in host communities are drawn to tourists’ cultures and value systems. This does not always have to be a one-way exchange from the tourists to the host youths. With more education for younger generations in host communities about their cultural values and traditions, a positive demonstration of youth culture can be presented both in host communities and in tourists’ home countries. With this hope of mutual understanding among members of younger generations and between tourists and hosts, The ‘Global Summit on Peace through Tourism’ was held in Jordan in November 2000. Some academics claim that tourism is a peacetime movement (for example, Goeldner et al., 2000) while others take the stance that cultural contact during the process of travelling can be a strong drive for world peace. In 1988, the Columbia Charter, in Vancouver, Canada, was drawn from the First Global Conference: Tourism – A Vital Force for Peace. International tourism can be used as a powerful tool for world peace by using it to educate individual tourists to be more responsible for their words and deeds while visiting destinations. This is the basic philosophy of Morton-Mar’s International Institute for Peace through Tourism, which started in Montreal, Canada (www.iipt.org). It has become an international organisation and is celebrating the 25th anniversary of their first global conference throughout 2014. Tourism Concern in the UK (www.tourismconcern.org.uk), in cooperation with other grass-roots organisations, uses international tourism as a force for change in terms of the violation of human rights in tourism. Current campaigns include water equity, all-inclusive tourism (i.e. excluding local people), ethical trekking and more (see www.tourismconcern.org.uk/ campaigns.html). Members of organisations like Tourism Concern believe that international tourism can be a powerful tool in resolving political conflicts as well as in paving a path to world peace. The presence of tourism can also be seen as a force for stability in a society, which benefits local residents. With the highly volatile nature of tourist behaviour, any signs of conflict in a destination can lead to mass

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

223

cancellations of trips. Governments wanting to pursue tourism as an agent of development need to ensure tourist security. A more light-hearted indicator of the link between tourism, peace and stability is the ‘McDonald’s theory of conflict-prevention’ developed by Tom Friedman of the New York Times. A McDonald’s hamburger shop is often one of the main MNEs present in more developed tourism destinations. The theory states that two countries with McDonald’s restaurants do not go to war with each other (Naím, 2001). With the shift to sustainability, additional focus has been placed on involving local communities in planning processes (Hall, 2000). As Swarbrooke (1999: 123) suggests, ‘one of the cornerstones of sustainable tourism development is the idea that the host community should be actively involved in tourism planning and should perhaps control the industry and its activities’. The rationale for increasing the level of community involvement in tourism planning is that it is believed to be in keeping with ideas of democracy, it gives a voice to those who are most affected by impending developments, it makes use of local knowledge in decision-making, and it reduces potential conflicts between hosts and guests (Swarbrooke, 1999). This shift in focus has the potential to empower local communities and thereby increase local political autonomy and promote opportunities for endogenous decision-making. Empowerment and enrichment, which a community can gain through the involvement of the local population, can be of benefit to the overall civic process of a society. In many cases, the consensus is that development should be small-scale with reasonable government intervention in order for community development to be successful (Dahles, 2000; Kamsma & Bras, 2000; Kappert, 2000; van der Straaten, 2000). The empowerment of communities and women through tourism is discussed in detail in other chapters in this book (see Chapters 4 and 6). This section briefly looks at the empowerment issue as a social phenomenon induced by tourism development. Issues of empowerment (especially female empowerment) are considered to be an important indicator of social welfare (Andrews, 1988). Although the United Nations established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed the equal rights of men and women in 1948 (Momsen, 1991), it was not until Danish economist Boserup, in 1970, documented the uneven distribution of development benefits to men and women that agencies and governments responded with initiatives to address the situation (Staudt, 1998). In development and modernisation theories, men and women are affected differently. In modernising developing nations primarily based on agriculture, for example, the new and betterpaying jobs tend to be given to men, with women often losing control of, or access to, resources (Momsen, 1991). With tourism being a part of the service industry, it is often considered part of the ‘informal sector’ and workers are not officially registered. Women in Africa and the Caribbean play a significant role in the retail sector labour

224

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

force. Ninety-three percent of market traders in Accra, Ghana, 87% of market traders in Lagos, Nigeria, and 77% of market traders in Haiti are women (Momsen, 1991). Momsen observed two types of retail workers in the Caribbean: young male beach vendors who sell jewellery or suntan oil for a few years, hoping to meet young female tourists, and older women who braid hair or sell home-made clothing because of the flexibility of work hours. This flexibility facilitates childcare (Momsen, 1991). Momsen also noted that many Caribbean women prefer working as a vendor rather than running a guesthouse due to the caring image of women in retail businesses (Momsen, 1994). Similarly, Samoans consider women to be better at hospitality jobs than men, and the seasonal nature of jobs in tourism suit women’s need to look after domestic chores (Fairbairn-Dunlop, 1994). As an example of successful empowerment, the West Samoan Women’s Advisory Committee began with one woman who started a small-scale hotel business. Her hotel now incorporates historical tours, village tours, businessskills workshops, and is even expanding into ecotourism and conservation workshops. The committee helps workers to develop modern handicrafts for tourists and provides necessary workshops for the women who are the producers. The development of this hotel complex features deliberate educational input at each step and the small size of the business enables it to respond to changes (Fairbairn-Dunlop, 1994). As another example, Indonesia has been operating a national programme primarily funded by UNDP, which has been called P2WIK since 1981. Under this programme, local women are supported in becoming independent batik (traditional wax-dye textile) producers. Even though women enjoy equal rights and the same levels of respect as men in the household, and though many families rely on a wife’s income on the island of Java, Indonesia, women do not always enjoy equality of opportunity (Overholt, 1991). Batik production has traditionally been seen as a woman’s job; ensuring that opportunities for women to produce and distribute their finished products exist means that not only do a few households benefit, but the entire village that participates in this P2WIK project benefits as well. The finished batik products are sold not only to wholesalers, but also to tourists (Overholt, 1991). The empowerment of women through tourism is not only happening in developing nations. Hashimoto and Telfer (2011, 2013) found that the situations of female farmers in rural areas in Japan are not very different from that of women in developing countries. In the depopulating and declining rural agricultural areas or fishing villages in Japan, with government support to develop green tourism (agriculture based tourism) and blue tourism (fishing based tourism) to rejuvenate these areas, women play prominent roles. By supplying food products or traditional arts-and-crafts as souvenirs women play a significant role in the preservation of traditions and the introduction of innovations (Hashimoto & Telfer, 2013). By running farm stay

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

225

accommodations, farmer’s markets and various workshops for tourists, women gain financial independence from husbands and family members, increase their business and social networks and find a space for socialisation and gain a support system (Hashimoto & Telfer, 2011). While there are challenges with these projects the women have achieved a greater degree of empowerment. While some argue that tourism-related jobs for women often involve pitiful working conditions, women who find jobs as cleaners and maids in hotels, as craft-producers, or as inn-keepers can still retain their dignity and economic autonomy. Sex-tourism can be viewed by some agencies as another form of job-creation for unskilled women and girls, and sometimes for men (see Hall, 1994a). Nevertheless, it is not included as a form of empowerment due to the high-risk nature of this work and the devastating consequences of HIV/AIDS. Prostitution, which often develops in tourism destinations, will be addressed in the next section. The above positive socio-cultural changes associated with tourism have the ability to add to the overall quality of life and well-being of those living in a destination. An infusion of tourists into a destination can generate economic benefits for those involved as well as promote social and political stability. It can also facilitate the protection of heritage and cultural traditions. Additional government revenue from tourism may be used further to benefit the wider population in terms of social programmes and recently pro-poor tourism has the potential to generate benefits for those in extreme need (see Chapter 4). It is difficult, however, to know to what extent these factors can contribute to overriding development indicators. Many of the positive changes outlined above can also be argued to be negative, as will be illustrated below.

Negative socio-cultural impacts of tourism development Arguments surrounding the negative socio-cultural impact of tourism development often focus on changes in traditions, customs, festivals, values, language and family structure. Nevertheless, there is little disagreement raised about the modernisation (or Westernisation) of accommodation facilities and transportation or criticism raised about the modernisation of animate culture or reflections on daily life in host communities. The main areas of discussion are often related to cultural imperialism and assimilation of a ‘weaker’ culture. As the majority of tourists come from economically developed nations, they tend to expect familiar amenities and conveniences of life in destination areas as they have in their home countries, such as hot water available 24-hours a day, flushing toilets, air conditioned rooms, comfortable transportation, familiar food and so on. The tourism industry that serves travellers from developed nations tends to impose the cultural values of these nations upon the indigenous populations

226

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

of a destination. In order to accommodate lucrative tourism business, a host community often has to accept tourists’ culture. Even though there may be no need for the host community to take the position of the ‘weaker’ culture, because of the power imbalance, the host community is often placed in a subjugated position. As part of cultural imperialism and assimilation, changes in language will also be observed. Although Mignolo (1998) argues that the relocation of language is nothing but the result of modernisation processes, tourism is a form of modernisation today and transformation of language in destination areas may be partially due to the introduction of tourism. Most international tourists do not learn or know the languages of host communities, and, instead, they use English as a ‘common’ language between themselves and hosts. Those who serve in the tourism industry or related businesses have to learn a communicable level of English. The language use of younger persons also changes, as an expression of ‘fashion’. Pidgin English is a good example of the fusion of local languages and the language of communication with tourists (English, in this case). In other areas of the world, as a legacy of colonisation, the common language may be French or Spanish. To address the use of foreign languages as a vehicle for communication with tourists, school systems also change language curricula. Demonstration effects contribute to social and cultural changes in host communities. During their brief encounters with tourists, members of host populations are not always aware of the fact that tourists’ behaviour is not typical of normal behaviour in their home environments (i.e. tourists being overly self-assertive, extravagant and often promiscuous), and this stirs feelings of envy or disgust in members of host populations. For example, tension between daring female tourists and local Greek women who are loyal to tradition has been documented as mounting (Leontidou, 1994). Balinese communities are becoming aggressive towards tourists, as they have begun to see tourists’ cultures as a threat to Balinese culture (Karyadi, 2000). In Indonesia, an average tourist spends the equivalent of an average Indonesian’s yearly wages for a few nights in a hotel (Karyadi, 2000), and in Tunisia, a tourist spends the equivalent of a Tunisian’s yearly wages in one week (Tsartas, 1989, cited in Leontidou, 1994). What tourists possess and how they spend money affect the material culture of host communities (e.g. cameras and video recorders, electronic gadgets, cell phones, jewellery, fine clothing, or fashionable jeans and T-shirts). McCarthy (1994), particularly considering Indonesian youths, warns that young persons in a host population, admire everything Western without question. The ways in which tourists behave has an influence on the spiritual or cultural norms of host populations: disrespectful attire and behaviour in the context of religious environments, demonstration of affection in public, tourists’ diet patterns and so forth. Authenticity of displayed culture is another debated area. Tourists are seeking ‘the past’ or evidence of ‘heritage’ (Lowenthal, 1985) in foreign

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

227

countries. Although tourists claim to seek the ‘authentic’ or ‘genuine’ culture of host communities, how far they can really accept and appreciate the ‘authentic’ is always questionable (Hitchcock et al., 1993). It is not uncommon for the ‘authentic’ culture to be too different, too strange or too complicated for tourists to fully comprehend. They do not want to spend all day watching rituals which they may not understand or for which they may have insufficient time, given busy travel itineraries. Safety is of the utmost concern for tourists. They want to experience a little bit of a thrill from a safe distance, but they often do not want to risk their safety by participating in cultural activities. Perhaps the factor that causes the most serious cognitive dissonance is tourists’ stereotypical image or idea of how an authentic culture should be. The modern tourism industry’s success relies on successful image-creation of destinations (Morgan & Pritchard, 1998; Selwyn, 1993) and there are many such ‘success’ stories. Images of Scotland that are not true reflections of Scottish history are an example (Butler, 1998b). Information is acquired from travel guidebooks, lure books, travel programmes on TV, the internet, travel journals, novels, or even from friends and relatives. Bruner (1995) observed that many tourists from North America only wanted to ‘see’ what was illustrated in a National Geographic magazine, but they did not bother to wait for ‘authentic’ cultural performances in Indonesia, which were, in this particular case, running late. Often tourists’ quest for authenticity does not go beyond the confirmation of stereotypical images. When these images and ideas do not match authentic cultural exhibitions, tourists tend to reduce dissonance by rejecting such ‘authentic’ cultural exhibitions. In addition to tourists’ views, host communities have different approaches to the display of their own culture. For host populations, it is a good idea to maintain and preserve culture, tradition and arts and crafts, not only for tourists but also for future generations. However, host populations soon learn that tourists often do not understand the true value of indigenous culture. In cases such as these, certain parts of rituals are considered too sacred to share with outsiders who do not fully appreciate them. Host populations also realise that tourists prefer only a certain kind/part of their cultures. By accommodating both tourists’ and hosts’ views, displays of ‘authentic’ culture become merely performances or ‘staged authenticity’. Staged authenticity is observed commonly in the following forms: shortened and abbreviated versions of cultural performances, highlighting the parts/types of cultural performance and crafts that suit tourists’ tastes, re-creation of the stage in a more Westernised and modern environment, and re-arranging or changing some parts of hosts’ cultures so that they make sense and are acceptable to tourists. A few examples of the occurrence of these changes include cultural performances and displays at the Polynesian Culture Centre in Hawaii (Stanley, 1998), performances of the Peking Opera highlights at Taoyuen Theatre in Beijing, the ‘touristification’ of Balinese culture in Indonesia

228

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

(Picard, 1995, 1997), the modification of Pisac pottery to suit tourists’ tastes in Peru (Henrici, 1999), the shortening of the Kecak Dance in Bali, and various other changes in cultural shows at international hotels and in tourist art sold at airports. Family structures and values can also be affected by the introduction of tourism as a form of modernisation. Tourism businesses tend to prefer to use the ‘feminine touch’ or rely on the friendliness of female workers at different levels. That being said, many tourism-related jobs that are available to the local population are unskilled menial jobs, and hence offer low pay. These characteristics of tourism jobs give more women an opportunity to work in the tourism industry both in post-industrialising countries and in developing countries. Although this phenomenon can be argued to be part of female empowerment through tourism development, it can also be discussed as a changing agent in family structure and in the balance of power in social structures. In some traditional societies, women are not the main breadwinners of the family. However, by taking jobs in the tourism industry, women begin to earn salaries and it is not unusual for their earnings to be higher and steadier than men’s earnings in primary industries (i.e. agriculture or fishery). In his 1995 interview with the manager of a fourstar hotel in Senggigi Beach on the island of Lombok, Indonesia, Telfer learned of the case of a young female worker from a traditional local village who had been hired to work at the hotel. After a period of time, the woman’s father came from the village to pick her up at the hotel and would not allow her to return to work. He was in an uncomfortable position, as his daughter had been making more money than he had ever earned, and he also did not want his daughter working in the presence of foreign male tourists (Telfer, 2001, personal communication). In some countries, highly skilled and trained men, such as those working as medical doctors, take up jobs in tourism to make more money (Szivas & Riley, 1999), which often results in displacement of professions, particularly in rural areas. Similarly, men who have limited education are also readily available for tourism jobs. The employment opportunities for local women and men can threaten the authority of chiefs, elders and older men who traditionally hold influential positions in society (Harrison, 1992b). In some nations, like India, for example, where retail business employees are traditionally women, many men who are unable to find higher-level jobs in the tourism industry, or those who have lost their jobs in other sectors, now displace women in their jobs in the retail sector (Rao, 2000). It is not economic autonomy that solely results in social change. ‘Losing’ women to tourism jobs means that family responsibility for domestic chores, which used to be women’s responsibility, has to be re-assigned. The practice of a nine-to-five, 40-hour workweek delineated by shifts is alien to many non-Western societies. Working in such a system prevents many local employees from participating in social obligations, religious rituals and

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

229

festivals, which are the basis of many societies. This may lead to a disruption of communal life (McCarthy, 1994). Also, the selling of ancestral land, voluntarily or by coercion, for the purpose of tourism development causes problems of ownership, relocation of sacred land and displacement of local populations (McCarthy, 1994; Patterson, 1993). Migration through tourism can be categorised into two groups: leisure migration (Tomljenovic & Faulkner, 2000), especially of retired people, and migration of labour. Leisure migration tends to be less significant in terms of effects on local labour markets, and as tourists and retirees migrate semipermanently to enclaves or reserved areas, it contributes to the income of these areas. On the other hand, migration of labour due to tourism has a significant influence on local labour markets and economic leakage, and it is widely studied. Anderson (1988) noted labour migration in the Caribbean Basin, and Szivas and Riley (1998) found highly educated human resources in tourism-related businesses in Hungary. Although most tourism jobs are low-paid, menial jobs, in nations/regions where the unemployment rate is high or where such labourers as farmers and fisher-persons are barely surviving, tourism jobs are so attractive that many individuals migrate to tourist destination areas. Young people, especially young men, are drawn to developed tourist areas where Western consumption styles represent the promise of a ‘better life’ (Dahles, 2000). In some cases, such as Bali, tourism employment is associated with high incomes and high status occupations (Cukier, 2002). Migration of labour is not only displacing workforces in rural and peripheral areas, but it is also destroying family structure as usually one or two family members leave their hometown to seek jobs in tourist areas. Sudden increases in population add pressure to tourist destination areas and vicinities, raising issues of employment, low-income housing, welfare insurance, food-sufficiency, health issues and numerous other social issues. Especially where tourism jobs are heavily influenced by seasonality, unemployment during the low seasons becomes a serious problem. These increases in population through the movement of labour migrants and through tourist influxes generate additional pressures and arguably have a negative impact on the quality of life of host population. In a yet unproven model, Doxey (1976) suggested that attitudes of local residents towards increases in tourism (e.g. the number of tourists, infrastructure and facilities, migrant labour, etc.) often becomes progressively more negative. Migration of labour itself is not the only issue related to drawing individuals closer to tourist areas. It also potentially results in an increase in crime, drugs, terrorism and prostitution, as often happens in developed urban zones. Crimes targeting tourists, such as pickpocketing, mugging, deception in business, illegal business, sexual and physical assaults, and in some cases murders and other crimes are almost daily news topics in some fairly developed destination areas. Airports in Florida, for example, offer information leaflets for tourists regarding how to protect themselves from crime. Many destinations

230

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

provide a tourist police force for the protection of tourists. Trafficking of illegal drugs due to tourism is a problem even in nations like the Netherlands and Belgium that have an unusually high tolerance for the possession and sale of soft drugs. As illustrated in popular films such as Bangkok Hilton and Return to Paradise, some nations do not hesitate to take extreme measures to prevent drug trafficking by tourists. Illegal drugs not only affect tourism, but can also lead to the corruption of the fabric of society. Terrorists and political activists target international tourists as an effective medium for propaganda, relying on worldwide news coverage. Incidents of shooting tourists at attractions or hotels, the planting of bombs in international hotels and tourist buses, outbreaks of civil riots near tourist areas and taking tourists hostage increased at an uncommon rate in the late 1990s. Although the increase in terrorism is not the direct result of tourism development, tourism does lend itself to terrorism, acting as a perfect venue for terrorist groups to have their agenda noticed. The far-reaching effects of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 illustrate the impacts of terrorism. The psychological and economic impact of these attacks is continuing to have direct and indirect effects on the tourism industry around the world. Prostitution that specially caters to tourists is also considered to be one of the negative social impacts of tourism development. Female prostitution is a direct response to local demands rather than tourism demands; however, male prostitution (i.e. ‘beach boys’) is a direct response to tourist demand (Momsen, 1994). In some Asian nations, government officials tolerate sextourism (Staudt, 1998) as this can be an invaluable source of foreign exchange. For instance, sex-tourism is the third largest source of foreign exchange in the Philippines. The existence of Kisaeng sex-tourism is dependent on Japanese clients (tourists and businessmen) in South Korea (Leheny, 1995), and the Thai government took a proactive stance in favour of sex-tourism as a form of job creation even when the AIDS/HIV scare became a major issue in the late 1980s that could no longer be ignored (Hall, 1994a). Nonetheless, women and girls who work in the sex-industry for both local men and male tourists ‘earn from mere pittance wages to salaries that surpass that of factory jobs’ (Staudt, 1998: 106). Other issues also associated with prostitution and tourism include: crossborder human trafficking to satisfy increasing demands, the spread of HIV/ AIDS and resulting deaths, child prostitution to accommodate paedophilia clientele, and associated illegal drug use. Certain destinations are already known as sex-tourism destinations. This is the stereotypical image creation of a destination with regard to women and children in the destination. Women and children in these destinations are wrongly labelled as ‘submissive, obedient, trained to amuse male clients’ and ‘cheap’. This commercialisation of personal relations (trading in human relationships) in some studies is explained in relation to the loss of male identity in clients’/tourists’ home

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

231

culture (Kruhse-MountBurton, 1995) and other studies suggest that it is a reflection of social values in the clients’/tourists’ home culture that approves of the commercialisation of personal relations (Hashimoto, 2000). Sex-tourism does not only occur in tourist destination areas. Trafficking of women often involves the import of women from foreign countries with illegal entry visas (Skrobanek et al., 1997; Seabrook, 1996) to destination areas, with the intent that they will work in the sex industry. Sex-tourism also involves exporting local prostitutes illegally, such that they enter clients’ home countries as eventual mistresses or sex slaves. The above examples of the negative impact of tourism illustrate how complicated the relationship between tourism and a host population can be; standard socio-economic indicators cannot adequately measure these changes. Tourism is a double-edged sword, as the industry may bring more money to a local population and government and thereby raise living standards, but, at the same time, there can be socio-cultural costs associated with this development.

Discussions and Conclusions The issue of tourism as a form of socio-economic development and modernisation is full of contradictions. First of all, the theories of modernisation and development mainly focus on the economic welfare of a nation as a whole, assuming that better economic levels can provide better social welfare, including lower unemployment rates, higher GNPs, and better health care and, resultantly, longer life expectancy. However, the fundamental assumption of these theories is that the Euro-American model of industrialisation is the preferred model of development and that the rest of the world must follow this model in order to improve economic levels and lifestyles. It has not been questioned until recently whether or not this model can apply to different cultures and socio-economic systems. Second, it has not been questioned as to whether or not tourism should be a means of economic development or a means of modernisation to improve living standards. According to socio-economic development theories, economic development and modernisation of living standards should go hand in hand, and lifestyles and living standards are expected to follow Euro-American models. However, in tourism, indigenous lifestyles and customs of host communities are valuable commodities and are not expected to be totally modernised. The question is whether or not it is possible to attain modernisation of lifestyles and living standards without changing the traditions and old customs of host communities. Tourism development can be reviewed under the concepts of dependency theory and economic neoliberalism, both of which reflect upon the domination of economically developed nations in the tourism business, the devaluation of cultural and traditional values of weaker economies and unfair

232

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

competition between the North and South (see Chapter 2). According to dependency theory, under capitalism, wealth is not equally distributed in the global economic system and within the economic system of a nation. In today’s global economy, of the top 500 MNEs/transnational corporations, 132 are located in the US, 73 are in China and 68 are in Japan (CNN Money, 2013). In terms of market value, the world’s biggest public companies (the top 100) include 32 American companies, eight Chinese, eight German, seven Japanese, six France and five British companies (Forbes, 2013). Therefore, there is still a division between North and South today and, even within nations, there is a visible gap between rich and poor. Many traditional societies, or developing nations, have cooperatives or community-help networks. As a traditional society is encouraged to copy a more advanced, complex capitalist society, this old-fashioned system of more equal distribution of wealth is disappearing. Most of the destinations in developing nations embrace tourism development, as it is perceived as a quick foreign exchange earner with little overhead investment, and it is often regarded as a smokeless industry. For destinations that are rich in natural assets such as beaches, mountains, forests, flora and fauna, history and heritage, but lack resources to industrialise the nation, tourism seems to be an ideal form of economic development. However, in reality, the construction of tourist areas, including hotels, restaurants and infrastructure (airports, roads, water and sewage systems, etc.), requires large initial capital, often invested by MNEs. Unless tourism development has been invested in by local entrepreneurs and individual businesses, which often means rather small-scale development, there is no noticeable economic benefit for a destination’s economy due to the high level of leakage of profits back to MNEs. Alternatively, the money circulates only through the local élite. The demand for the ‘product’ of tourism is also unreliable in comparison to tangible products such as minerals or automobile parts. The trends and tastes in tourism products change quickly and disloyal customers do not repeatedly visit the same destinations. Seasonality of tourism products does not help to provide a steady income for various destinations. In order to maintain the level of demand, many destinations use pricing as a marketing strategy. Such a strategy does not help to improve the current economic situation of these destinations. Tourism jobs are often among the lowest-paid jobs. Many tour operators in developed touristgenerating countries take advantage of exchange rates, Third World payment rates and negotiating power to exploit businesses in given destinations. Modernisation encourages socio-cultural changes, as economic growth demands these changes as a foundational stage for further economic development. Similar to imperialism and colonisation, tourism development can offer, to a certain extent, improvements in health care and the supply of potable water, better infrastructure and sanitation, and better housing and education. While these benefits may be apparent within the tourism

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

233

complexes in a destination, such as in a resort enclave, the extent to which these benefits extend from tourism to the host population’s daily life is debatable. There seem to be no systematic reports providing information as to the degree to which social benefits result directly from tourism development in an area. For the most part, supranational agencies’ statistics do not distinguish tourism development from other forms of economic development in nations. For example, many nations strive to attain higher literacy rates among their populations, as it is an important indicator of social welfare. Information as to whether or not more educational opportunities were added due to tourism development, however, is not available. Sharing a scarce water supply, especially in island nations, always represents a controversy between the tourism industry and local populations. In 1988, Lea argued that it is unreasonable to expect skilled medical professionals in a small developing nation to cater to tourists’ needs. However, now the emergence of medical tourism in developing nations is creating a rift between first class medical care for tourists and insufficient professional care for locals. Even in tourist destinations in developed nations, social benefits from tourism development are often perceived as non-existent (Telfer & Hashimoto, 1999). Although the principles of tourism development can be debated from a variety of perspectives, sociologists and psychologists tend to debate the values of indigenous culture and traditions. Tourism development ought to contribute to the protection and maintenance of the cultures, traditions and value systems of host communities. Tourism development should be a catalyst for strengthening the cultural identities and dignity of host populations. Exotic host cultures and traditions are invaluable commodities as part of the tourism product. However, this argument is a double-edged sword. In some extreme cases, a village is designated an historical site, or a museum village, where no alteration or modernisation is allowed. This is done in order to maintain historical accuracy. In this case, villagers are not even consulted in the process of designation (McCarthy, 1994). Tourists demand to see ‘the past’ and the ‘heritage’ of a locale in an authentic setting, but they are unaware of the consequences of their demands. Their expectations of seeing host communities as they were in yesteryear deprive the host populations of their rights to progress and improvement. The tourism industry also creates images of host communities as being populated by the exotic, the unspoiled, the romantic savage, the backward, and the underdeveloped. Such labelling often forces host communities to retain old-fashioned ways of living in order to attract tourists. This clearly goes against the principles of modernisation and socio-economic development. Host communities should have a choice as to whether or not to comply with such labelling, and they should be able to choose to become modernised. However, power imbalances in tourism development inarguably exist, and when, without strong leadership, a host community is the vulnerable one in this power game, it has little choice but to choose to survive through playing the game.

234

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

As in the case of general socio-cultural changes, empowerment of one gender is also a double-sided issue. Women’s empowerment is one of the most desirable issues in Western concepts of development. It is often argued that post-war industrialisation based on capitalism triggered the marginalisation of women today (Staudt, 1998). In many societies, researchers argue that women are subjects of inferior standing in society, a state perpetuated by the practice of religion, systems of education, socio-economic standing and political ideology (Andrews, 1988). Dixon (cited in Andrews, 1988: 126) defined women’s inferiority in society as being based on ‘the degree of women’s access to and control over material resources (food, land, income, and other forms of wealth) and social resources (knowledge, power, and prestige) within the family, in the community, and in the society at large’. This may be true in many nations today; however, there still remains a question as to whether or not this condition was aggravated or reinforced by introducing Western ideology of economic development and modernisation. In tourism, in which many so-called developing nations are involved, there are concerns about changes in social structure and social fabric due to tourism development. Women in economically developing nations such as Fiji and Indonesia, who were mentioned earlier in this chapter, and women in socialist or communist societies tend to have equal or more advantageous social status in comparison with men. Yet, the introduction of industrialisation and tourism development has transformed the value of jobs and created a preference for female workers in the tourism industry, which has inevitably affected women’s socio-economic status. On the one hand, women regained access to material resources (e.g. Aboriginal women’s land ownership in Australia) and social resources (e.g. access to higher education) through tourism-related jobs. On the other hand, women’s income from such jobs can surpass men’s income from agriculture and the fishing industry. Women who leave home to partake in tourism-related jobs can cause radical changes in the traditional social structure and family values. Social changes such as those in gender empowerment, family structure and traditional values are clearly inevitable, particularly if developing nations are to copy Euro-American societies’ lifestyles, value systems and family structures. It is commonly held that the relationship between economic development and associated social modernisation is inarguably positive. Nevertheless, the meaning of social and cultural changes induced by so-called ‘modernisation’ is continuing to be questioned. Some thinkers question whether or not it is worth witnessing unexpected, drastic changes in sociocultural values and practices in order to promote socio-economic development. Arabic traditionalists are calling for a departure from an urban modernisation paradigm and resultant changes in family values, and advocate for a revival of Islamic values, including religiously-based dress codes (Kamal & Fisher, 1988). In spite of the positive aspects of the alternative development paradigm (including sustainable development), as well as the

Tour ism and Soc io-cultural Development Issues

235

human development paradigm, they de-emphasise quick economic development, which is the ultimate purpose of ‘development’ in a capitalist sense. What they advocate requires an enormous initial investment in terms of time and human capital, and they do not necessarily encourage the ‘modernisation’ that Euro-American societies have achieved. Even with the available social well-being indices today, it is apparent that monetary wealth does not always reflect the social well-being of the population. Various indices, though not accurate in many aspects, such as in the comparison of the economic statuses of nations, may indicate a nation’s ability to provide social welfare to its population. The UNDP’s HDI, QOL, Better Life Index and SPI emphasise less the economic status of a nation and more the context of social well-being. Nevertheless, the fundamental concepts of social well-being in these indices are also based on Western concepts and are not truly free of cultural bias. Moreover, in the study of tourism, social and cultural aspects being studied cannot be measured by all of these indices. These indices are not designed to measure the devaluation of culture and traditions in terms of cultural assimilation and acculturation. Nor are they to judge a nation’s level of readiness to copy Euro-American lifestyles and value systems, because these indices fundamentally assume that social and cultural transformations in developing nations are required steps for the improvement of quality of life. Now that development paradigms have shifted (see Chapter 2), perhaps it is time to review and reconsider the persistence of the modernisation development paradigm. Tourism development today raises questions for global economic development theories and modernisation issues, in which many have put their blind trust. Due to the very nature of tourism, socio-cultural changes to host communities are often disapproved of, as visitors want to see the cultural and historical traditions of a destination. However, without these changes, development cannot proceed according to Western theories of development. Similarly, those involved in many tourist destinations have become aware of the significance of natural environments and living environments as tourism assets, and there is a movement against compromising natural-resource management for short-term economic benefit. Today there is an emphasis on making all forms of tourism more sustainable. Changing the foundation of development theory, namely the absolute Euro-American model based on capitalism, may be the most challenging task. This will call into question the development achieved, especially during the post-war period, and will deny today’s widespread belief in Euro-American values in development and improvement in lifestyle. After more than three-score years of blind worship of the Euro-American model of development in the postwar era, its effectiveness has been questioned, especially regarding its unanticipated side-effects on societies, cultures and environments. In response to the Euro-American model, other models have emerged, emphasising tourism development in relation to human rights (see Chapter 13).

236

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Nonetheless, the social, cultural, economic, environmental and political impact of modern-day tourism development has no boundaries. Environmental pollution crosses political boundaries, and socio-cultural influences on host communities cannot be controlled effectively if incoming international tourists are not well-informed. In particular, the cooperation and coordination between government agencies, quasi-government agencies, NGOs and interest groups, as well as self-regulation and the cooperation of MNEs will become more and more significant. There is no certain substitute for capitalism after the domino-effect collapse of socialist and communist blocs in the late 1980s and 1990s. Nevertheless, the emergence of the global development paradigm (see Chapter 2) with strong support for global cooperation suggests that concepts of development in the future must be changed one way or another. Perhaps tourism needs to be considered more within the concept of a gift economy (e.g. potential for social enrichment) rather than solely as a market economy. The UN has been advocating development as a universal human right since the late 1980s. The world has been slowly catching up with this concept, and development indices are measuring success by levels of well-being of individuals in various societies. The tourism industry cannot remain an industry that pursues economic achievement at the cost of human rights. When the human rights-based development approach is honoured, current negative socio-cultural effects will be minimised and positive outcomes will be optimised. Of course, there is a need for exogenous cooperation in order for a new development paradigm to be successful. It is time to consider the socio-cultural impact of tourism development as a fundamental human rights issue in tourism.

8

Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Socio-economic Development Dallen J. Timothy

Introduction Heritage tourism is one of the most universal forms of tourism today and has been for centuries. Even the Grand Tour and Christian pilgrimages of ancient times were based primarily on visits to important artistic, cultural and religious centers. Since the Middle Ages, however, cultural heritage has become one of the main resources upon which mass tourism has been based, the others being chiefly beaches and other coastal developments. Nearly all mass-produced package tours utilize cultural attractions as their most salient resources. The tours available through travel agencies, tour operators and online sellers abound with stops at multiple heritage locales every day. Europe’s package tours notoriously include lists of cathedrals, castles, fortresses and other such grandiose cultural sites. Latin American package tours include Maya, Aztec and Inca ruins, while Asian circuits nearly always include temples, shrines, historic city centers and rural villages. Unmitigated mass tourism and boosterist promotional campaigns have long been fingered as the primary culprits of social, cultural, ecological and economic wrongs associated with tourism. Since the 1990s, scholars and other observers have suggested that special-interest or niche tourism might have fewer negative implications owing to their concentration on specialized experiences wherein visitors tend to have more respect for the places they visit (Weiler & Hall, 1992; Novelli, 2005). Thus, the tourists themselves become resource stewards rather than simply resource consumers. With mass tourism’s overwhelming focus on the built environment and living cultures, heritage resources have had to bear the burden of much of tourism’s negative impacts. On the other hand, they provide much of the development potential for tourism destinations. This chapter describes two 237

238

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

types of development – economic and social – and examines several trends in the subfield of heritage tourism that have salient consequences for economic and social development.

Heritage Tourism and Sustainable Development Although scholars have defined heritage in different ways, in its most basic form, heritage is what humankind inherits from the past and utilizes in the present (Ashworth et al., 2007). Its use includes education, research, conservation and tourism, and its resources comprise tangible objects (e.g. buildings, archaeological sites and museum collections) and intangible elements (e.g. music, dance, beliefs, folklore, cuisine and foodways, handicraft skills, oral histories, familial relations and social mores). There are at least three prominent misconceptions about cultural heritage as a resource for tourism in the sense that the tourism industry has promoted them for tourist consumption (Timothy, 2014). First, heritage must be tangible. This mistaken belief is evident in the prevalence of built heritage resources over those of an immaterial nature in conservation funding, preservation policies, administrative support, regional plans and marketing efforts. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (2004) maintains that tangible heritage alone, without its intangible connections to the past, is essentially meaningless. Thus, in her thinking, they are completely inseparable. The second myth is that heritage must be old. This is certainly not true if the definition of heritage proposed earlier and others are accepted. Recent arts, crafts and 20th-century buildings are just as much a part of cultural heritage as medieval buildings, prehistoric archaeological sites, or musical performances of primeval origin. Besides, age is a relative concept. For instance, what is considered very old in the United States (US), from a colonial perspective at least, is quite new compared to the heritage of Europe or Africa. Finally, heritage is spectacular or global in its appeal. The truth is that most of the world’s heritage is mundane, commonplace and very personal to individuals or local communities, and typically does not attract large numbers of tourists. Regardless of these myths and truisms, most tourists seek cultural sites that are world-renowned, tangible and very old. Heritage tourism is one of the most salient forms of tourism in the world today, with more than half of all domestic and international trips worldwide involving elements of living culture or built heritage. Hundreds of millions of visits are made each year to museums, historic sites and cultural events, resulting in billions of dollars in spending (Timothy, 2011). It is now commonplace to speak of sustainable tourism, or tourism in the context of sustainable development, for these are widely recognized as the ideals for which developers and destination communities should strive (Butler, 1999a). Sustainable tourism is guided by certain principles that will maintain cultural and ecological integrity for generations to come and create

Cultural Her it age, Tour ism and Soc io-economic Development

239

inviting places for tourists to visit without degrading their environments. The most sustainable forms of tourism espouse principles such as balance, harmony, holistic development, participatory growth and stakeholder empowerment, to name but a few (Garrod & Fyall, 1998; Sharpley, 2000a). Empowerment lies at the core of sustainable development and is an underlying principle that should guide community-based tourism (Mbaiwa, 2005a; Salazar, 2012; Timothy, 1999; Timothy & Tosun, 2003; see also Chapter 6). Scheyvens (1999, 2002b) identifies several different types of empowerment in tourism settings, including economic, political, social and psychological, all of which are crucial to balanced growth and social harmony. Access to jobs, the use of indigenous knowledge in tourism planning, resident satisfaction, improved quality of life and social solidarity indicate signs of an empowered community. Positive development is a powerful manifestation of empowered communities and can be seen from these same perspectives: economic development, political development, social development and psychological development. Examining all of these types of development is beyond the purview of this chapter, so these have been narrowed to focus on economic and social development.

Economic Development There are many ways of understanding economic development. Sen (1983) noted that it is not synonymous with economic growth. Instead, economic growth is but one element of economic development, which includes longerterm efforts to sustain actions to enhance human standards of living in quantitative and qualitative terms. Most global perspectives on economic development include social and political elements, such as security, infant mortality, literacy, health and human capital. Tourism is habitually targeted by countries and regions as a means of achieving development goals by generating economic growth (Dwyer et al., 2010) and is frequently, and erroneously, viewed as a panacea for socio-economic ills, particularly in regions that are struggling in other sectors. Tourism can, however, be singled out as part of a broader economic development agenda in conjunction with other industrial sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, mining, education and banking. It is favored by many places for its potential to provide employment, deliver a relatively quick return on investment, eliminate poverty, augment tax coffers, increase foreign exchange earnings, and diversify local, regional and national economies. Given the prominent place of heritage in the larger tourism system, the fact that heritage tourists tend to stay longer in the destination and spend more than the average tourist (Timothy, 2011), it is no surprise that most destinations have an interest in promoting their cultural assets for tourism. Heritage-based tourism is big business, and its value is recognized by increasing numbers of destinations (Hatton, 1999; Madden & Shipley, 2012; Shipley &

240

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Snyder, 2013; Wang & Bramwell, 2012). Even small island states that have heretofore ignored cultural heritage in favor of sun, sea and sun-types of tourism are beginning to capitalize on the growing tourist interest in heritage (e.g. many Caribbean and Pacific islands) (Cameron & Gateway, 2008; Catalani & Ackroyd, 2013). Since the mid-20th century when heavy industry began to decline rapidly, heritage tourism has been instrumental in transitioning economies from extractive and manufacturing industrial activities to post-Fordist, serviceoriented economies in at least two ways. First, it commonly functions as a regeneration tool for declining or derelict industrial zones, brownfields, and other waste areas. This results in the development of parklands, greenways and other recreation areas that attract public and private investments and entice entrepreneurs to open businesses that help stimulate local economies, including employment growth. Similarly, dilapidated industrial centers (e.g. mines and factories) can be reoriented into important attractions for tourists both in urban and rural areas (Otgaar et al., 2010). Second, heritage tourism can help alleviate high rates of unemployment caused by the dismantling of factories, mining operations and other heavy industries. Although tourism is labor-intensive, it is typically unable to provide enough high-paying jobs to replace those that were lost in the process of deindustrialization. Nonetheless, it provides adequate jobs to help communities survive difficult times and grow economically. Even during good economic times, heritage employs millions of people directly and indirectly in an array of positions at cultural events, museums, living history parks, religious sites, ancient monuments, heritage railways, lodging establishments, food services, shops and in transportation (Timothy, 2011). Another related concern of development specialists is the prospective role of heritage tourism in poverty alleviation (Chok et al., 2007; Galla, 2012; Pessis et al., 2012; Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009). Pro-poor heritage tourism involves allowing residents to participate in the benefits of tourism, especially since it is their heritage that is being sold to outsiders (see Chapter 4). While some heritage tourism development programs in the past have resulted in the forced displacement of villagers from their ancestral lands and restricted their ability to earn a living from tourism, most development efforts today try to empower local people in decision-making, educate them about the benefits of heritage tourism, and provide opportunities for residents to help preserve their cultural traditions and built environment (Chakravarti, 2008; Timothy, 1999).

Social Development Social development is as important as economic development, and they are not mutually exclusive. There are many ways of understanding social

Cultural Her it age, Tour ism and Soc io-economic Development

241

development, but some of the most common indicators relate directly to resident quality of life, including community solidarity and cultural identity. Heritage tourism has been shown to improve social indicators such as these at different times and in various settings (Girard & Nijkamp, 2009; Kaltenborn et al., 2013; see Chapter 7). The provision of cultural heritage for tourist consumption simultaneously affords destination residents increased recreational and tourism opportunities, and a chance to understand their own heritage better (McKercher & Ho, 2012; Phillips & Budruk, 2011). Heritage tourism is a prevailing force in fostering and reinforcing national and regional identities because it may preserve elements of the past that might have been on the verge of disappearing, but ideally it also embodies what citizens see as their most important and representative stories, places and events. Living culture and built heritage are instrumental tools for developing social solidarity within a region or country. Common struggles to survive oppressive outside control or environmental vagaries are expressed in national narratives, literary and artistic representations, cultural landscapes and built environments. Cultural heritage and its tourist uses form the cultural core for many diasporic and other migrant communities, who utilize language, cuisine, music, dance and architecture to maintain a sense of identity in an adopted country (Holtzman, 2006; Kaftanoglu & Timothy, 2013). In most societies heritage helps build solidarity, community esteem and common purpose, especially when it is shared by its owners with visitors (Timothy & Ron, 2013). Increased opportunities for residents to experience their own cultural heritage result in a sense of security and familiarity, and will result in more widespread support for it and reinforce collective values (Ashworth & Tunbridge, 2012; Phillips & Budruk, 2011).

Emerging Trends There are a number of emerging research trends in heritage tourism that have salient implications for social and economic development. A few of these are the scaling of the past, valuing intangible patrimony, the democratization of heritage, the heritage of religious tourism and heritage trails.

Heritage scales and branding During the past quarter of a century, heritage has undergone a scaling process that has redefined how it is viewed and utilized as a tourism resource. Heritage may be understood at various scales, which have significant implications for marketing and management (Timothy, 1997). The most basic level is personal or familial heritage. At this scale, heritage is a very intimate part of an individual’s own past. It encompasses places, events and people

242

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

directly involved with one’s own inherited legacy. From a tourism perspective, personal patrimony often manifests in people traveling to seek their own identities, discovering their roots in ancestral lands, undertaking family history research, or visiting landmarks (e.g. churches, cemeteries, libraries, homesteads and churches) that were closely associated with the lives of their ancestors (Timothy, 2008). Many countries that have large diasporic populations abroad have begun to realize the economic potential of catering to the personal heritage needs of detached populations that desire to travel as a means of connecting with their personal pasts and discovering who they are (Lowenthal, 1985). The next scale is local and regional. Local heritage often takes the form of monuments or markers that commemorate notable local heroes and politicians or people who have left the area and achieved prominence elsewhere. As well, locally important structures such as schools, churches, prisons, mines, factories, harbors and museums are often marked and marketed as important attractions within a community or region. Cultural sites and artifacts of national consequence are extremely important for domestic visitors, but they may also attract the attention of international tourists. For most international guests these sites are important because of their iconic value or because of their intrinsic architectural or thematic content. Foreign tourists’ connections to national shrines or monuments are usually somewhat detached and impersonal, while for citizens a visit might elicit deep emotional outbursts or even spiritual experiences. Global heritage is the next scale and typically involves world-renowned, grandiose structures that appeal both to mass tourists and heritage enthusiasts. Many international heritage sites are iconic symbols of human ingenuity, or they mark important events in world history. The Great Wall of China, the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, the Leaning Tower of Pisa and the Roman Colosseum are examples of well-known cultural attractions that have become international icons for China, France and Italy. The scaling of heritage refers to the adaptation of local patrimony into national heritage, and national heritage into global heritage. This is done in several ways, including official designation and inscription on national or international heritage registers. In the US, there are a few different agencies and listings that help document, preserve and promote sites of historic importance. The National Register of Historic Places is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and has registered more than 80,000 properties, comprising 1.4 million individual sites, objects and structures throughout the US. Likewise, the National Historic Landmarks program, also administered by the NPS, designates places of ‘exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States’ (National Park Service, 2013). There are fewer than 2500 historic landmarks in the US. This designation is a critical branding and marketing mechanism for communities nationwide.

Cultural Her it age, Tour ism and Soc io-economic Development

243

The United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) World Heritage List is the most prominent international entity for heritage designation. At the time of writing there were 759 cultural properties, 193 natural and 29 mixed properties in 160 countries. The goal of the list is to identify, protect and preserve heritage throughout the world that is of outstanding value to humankind. Most of the world’s countries have inscribed properties on the UNESCO list. As well, there are many additional sites nominated that might be inscribed in the future. The World Heritage Site (WHS) title is a visible ‘brand’ that travelers recognize as denoting special places that are worthy of a visit. With this knowledge, several countries have dozens of WHSs on the list, while others have only one or two. In recent years, however, there has been a proliferation of nominations by signatory states in an effort to get as many national sites listed as possible. This widespread desire goes far beyond the conservation ethos of UNESCO, as the majority of host countries see the UNESCO brand as a marketable commodity for increasing tourist arrivals. Unfortunately, it is a flawed assumption that UNESCO branding inevitably leads to increased tourist arrivals, for this is not always the end result (Buckley, 2004; Cellini, 2010), although there is some evidence to suggest that it is at already popular destinations (Frey & Steiner, 2011; Yang et al., 2009). Because of this belief and in the process of creating a brand image, concerted efforts are made by host countries to globalize national heritage with the UNESCO label. The same is true of national governments that use prestigious lists (e.g. Historic Landmarks) to nationalize local heritage. This is done to provide a brand for locales or objects and in the process make them more sellable to the traveling public.

Intangible heritage As noted earlier, the heritage industries have for centuries favored artifacts, buildings and historic sites. Today, however, newfound attention is being directed to intangible heritage. Although tourism has long exploited immaterial culture, such as music, dance and cuisines, only recently has the immaterial past been targeted for widespread conservation and promotion (Ruggles & Silverman, 2009). UNESCO’s 1993 Nara Document highlighted the importance of tangible and intangible cultural heritage. The biggest breakthrough happened in 2003, however, with the enactment of UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. This agreement underscored the grave condition of many immaterial heritage elements and attempted to help document and protect them (Blake, 2009; Ruggles & Silverman, 2009). These include, among others, musical traditions, foodways, language and artistic styles. This change illustrates a move from tangible and lavish heritage to a more everyday past and a realization that not all cultural heritage

244

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

is material. At the time of writing there were 257 living culture elements on UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity and 31 cultural features on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. UNESCO’s efforts to safeguard and bring attention to humankind’s intangible heritage has done a lot for getting governments to think outside the box of built and lavish heritage.

Heritage democratization That personal patrimony and intangible culture are more prominent on the tourism scene indicates what many see as the democratization of heritage (Davis, 2004; Richards, 2001). This concept refers to the devolving of cultural knowledge, heritage control and preserved heritage from the elites to the common people and wider segments of society. For centuries heritage was selected, protected and sold by the socio-economically privileged and in the process only the large-scale, grand and choicest heritages were preserve, owned and promoted. Part of cultural democratization can be seen in the growth of agritourism, industrial tourism and volunteer tourism in recent years. Agritourism has a strong heritage element, for it involves farming methods and traditions, rural and agricultural landscapes and horticultural skills that have sometimes been passed down through multiple generations (Harlan, 1995; see Chapter 5). Tourism based on industrial heritage is also growing in importance with more mines, factories, docks, railways, lumber mills and processing plants coming to the fore as people become more interested in the working lives of laypeople from the past and present (Otgaar et al., 2010). Another manifestation of the democratization of culture is the emerging trend of ‘ordinary heritage’, which focuses on the ordinary landscapes, places, people and events that have long been marginalized or left out of official historic narratives (Timothy, 2014). Commonplace elements of the vernacular landscapes, such as cemeteries, farm buildings, slave housing, fish processing plants, boathouses, fences and outbuildings, and other such vernacular symbols of culture are finally gaining recognition as an important part of the cultural landscape worth preserving and chronicling through heritage tourism (Alonso et al., 2010; Çela et al., 2009; Derrett & St Vincent Welch, 2008; Timothy, 2014). The current trends of considering indigenous worldviews in conservation, presentation and interpretation, as well as the growing prominence of heritage cuisines in the tourism narrative, are similar manifestations of the democratization of the past.

Religious tourism and spiritual travel For thousands of years religious devotees have traveled in search of the sacred. The places they visit have been sanctified by angelic visits, healings, associations with holy people, or other miraculous happenings. Pilgrimage is

Cultural Her it age, Tour ism and Soc io-economic Development

245

one of the most important forms of heritage tourism in the world today – heritage because it involves historic structures or other sacred spaces, sustained religious rituals, ancient belief systems and pilgrim paths to enlightenment. The largest tourist gatherings in the world are pilgrim assemblies (e.g. the Kumbh Mela and the Hajj); large-scale pilgrimages such as these often involve the satisfaction of religious obligations. Smaller acts of pilgrimage provide more intimate communions with a deity, opportunities to gain forgiveness or to seek personal healing. There are several interesting trends in the area of religious tourism, or pilgrimage. Three of these are described here. The first began in the mid20th century and stresses the idea that religiousness and spirituality are not synonymous. A person may be spiritual but not religious, or religious but not necessarily spiritual. Olsen and Timothy (2006) noted that even atheists can have ‘spiritual’ experiences or what some might see as cathartic encounters with nature. The New Age movement is a noteworthy manifestation of this phenomenon. New Agers are notorious travelers, who seek out earth places they deem to exude power, or spiritual energy (Ivakhiv, 2003). They often select their own belief systems based upon what they feel is good for them from a whole range of religious traditions or none at all. Some people adopt the animistic beliefs of indigenous peoples and travel to places that are best associated with a general sense of sacredness rather than any particular religion. The second trend is the notion that traditional religious organizations and their adherents are beginning to accept the idea that pilgrimage is a form of tourism, or with trepidation, at least very close to it. The debate stems from the mistaken belief that tourists are pleasure-seeking holidaymakers, who behave irreverently and hedonistically at times. This, however, is not the case, as official definitions of tourists are essentially people who travel away from home for at least one night but less than a year regardless of motive and who are not remunerated from the destinations they visit (UNWTO, 2013c). While the primary motive for undertaking a pilgrimage is spiritual in nature, when away from holy sites, pilgrims usually behave like other tourists do and require hotels, restaurants, attractions and transportation (Gupta, 1999). In some places pilgrims are the most numerous type of tourist, and pilgrimage forms the most important tourism economy. The third trend is that pilgrimages are adapting to the demands of modern societies. The Christian travel product in the broader Mediterranean region is evolving. Whereas in the past Mediterranean Christian pilgrimages focused on the Holy Land and perhaps other sites in Italy, France or Spain, several additional countries have begun to promote themselves as Christian destinations. Cyprus, Malta and Greece, for example, are getting into the lucrative pilgrimage market. A new product is the biblical cruise, some of which begin in Israel and end in Rome, and take in sites in Turkey, Cyprus,

246

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Greece and Malta. Several of these focus on the lives of the ancient apostles rather than Jesus himself, with titles such as ‘In the Footsteps of Paul’ cruises (Ron, 2009). Other examples of this trend can be drawn from the Hajj in Saudi Arabia. Today, it is possible to win Hajj trips on television game shows for Muslims who might not otherwise be able to afford the journey. As well, Hajj package ‘tours’ can be purchased, wherein pilgrims arrive in Saudi Arabia by air, are met with air-conditioned coaches, and are taken to four- or five-star hotels for their stay in Mecca. During the Hajj rituals, the same participants are accompanied by paid guides, who assist them through the ceremonial rites and deliver them back to their hotels. Often these packages include more leisure-oriented activities, such as sports or shopping in conjunction with the pilgrimage. There is also now the possibility of undertaking a virtual Hajj. Here, virtual pilgrims can follow the rituals associated with the Hajj on the internet. While this does not typically satisfy the religious obligations of undertaking the Hajj in person, it does provide a proxy experience until a person is able to attend (Timothy & Iverson, 2006).

Heritage trails For thousands of years humans have used tracks and trails for transportation. Contemporarily, hiking trails, scenic routes and heritage walks have gained considerable popularity and are well recognized as tourist attractions and recreation resources (Timothy & Boyd, 2015). There are many different types and scales of heritage trails. Historic railways, interpretive paths, walks along ancient city walls, pilgrim trails, food and wine routes, canal towpaths and urban heritage trails are just a few of the many sorts of cultural routes that have become important tourism resources in many regions. In terms of scale, heritage trails can be as short and simple as small paths or sidewalks within archaeological sites and outdoor museums. Others are longer and may be national routes that encompass several states, provinces or counties (e.g. Hadrian’s Wall Path or Route 66). There are even multinational historic routes that require travelers to cross international boundaries (e.g. the Silk Road or the Camino de Santiago) if they intend to complete the entire corridor.

Discussion: Connections to Development All of these trends have important economic and social development implications. Heritage scales are crucial in branding tourist destinations, especially under the concept of globalization. As already noted, UNESCO World Heritage List inscription is frequently used by countries to market their heritage products. While the designation might not always increase visitor numbers, the UNESCO ‘brand’ does transform the local into the

Cultural Her it age, Tour ism and Soc io-economic Development

247

global with the potential for increased visibility and brand awareness among UNESCO-aware tourists (Prigent, 2013). In this sense, then, the list becomes a marketing tool with the power to promote places of global importance simultaneously (Marcotte & Bourdeau, 2012). Another poignant recent example of the glocal heritage nexus is the 2012 efforts of 81-year-old Cecelia Gimenez, who attempted to renovate an early 20th-century painting of Jesus in a village church in northern Spain. In the process, the painting was botched, producing a new piece that hardly resembled the original. The faux pas garnered much international media attention during 2012 and 2013, with the story and photographs of the bungled renovation making headlines throughout the world. As of August 2013, more than 40,000 visitors had stopped by to view the fresco and meet the budding artist. While the spoiled painting angered many residents and directed much ridicule toward Cecelia at first, within months the painting, the village, the church and the painter went from being a local issue to national and global heritage with a measured direct economic impact on the village of more than $66,000 the first year. This income from entrance fees was used to improve the quality of life of the village’s elderly residents (Sainz, 2013). Community members now rally around Cecelia, who receives a portion of the proceeds, and many have become honored by the attention this event has brought to the village. There are opportunities at all four scales of heritage (personal, local, national and global) for economic and social development. The economic repercussions are clear, and the social implications are equally important. In addition to shoring up people’s collective immigrant identities in their new lands, personal heritage travel can help build political, social and economic solidarity between diasporic peoples and their primordial homelands. Intangible heritage and the democratization of patrimony both have similar effects. When these are seen by the community as something of value, both in social and economic terms, they are more inclined to want to preserve it. This helps develop unity within communities and nations and contributes to an identity that connects people with their past. Traditionally, the focus on tangible and elitist heritage had the effect of distancing many people from their own patrimony. With the recognition, however, that vernacular heritage is important and worthy of preservation, more sectors of society can become involved in its conservation and management for tourism, especially when they realize that their heritage has value beyond their immediate community. The changes noted in demand for religious tourism have significant repercussions for economic development. In the past, as part of their humbling and penitence process, traditional pilgrims spent very little money in the destination or along the way. They frequently lodged in tents, brought food from home or begged on the street. Today, however, increasing demand for a wider range of lodging, food services, transportation and recreational

248

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

pursuits appears to be increasing employment and regional income in pilgrimage destinations (Egresi et al., 2012; Fernandes et al., 2012). This change is evident in cities such as Medjugorje, Medina, Santiago de Compostela, Mecca, Lourdes and Jerusalem, where pilgrimage is now big business, and the economies of these places are fueled by religious tourism. As well, new pilgrimage products, such as cruises, have the potential for increasing employment in the tourism sector and widening the reach of expenditures to non-traditional centers of pilgrimage. Socially, pilgrimage experiences are believed to create a sense of communitas among spiritual travelers (Turner, 1973), but pilgrimage instills a sense of pride in the communities that are important destinations for millions of devotees each year. To live in a place that is considered by millions (or billions) to be divine or otherwise auspicious is a privilege (Mustafa, 2014), and unites residents in their collective stewardship of the sacred. The growing importance of trails as a cultural resource illustrates how routes have clear social and economic development potential. Trails that link historic locales together can embolden communities socially by the way trails emphasize their shared heritage (see Chapter 6). To be part of a longdistance heritage route becomes a point of pride for many communities and creates an interest in understanding their own community roots, as well as developing them for tourism (Timothy & Boyd, 2015). Cultural routes and trails, regardless of scale or length, have the potential to provide economic growth to a variety of dispersed locations. The increase in food and wine trails during the past quarter of a century has shown how linking similar comestible heritage products and experiences can created a deeper and more meaningful encounter for tourists, but it also links together disparate communities and enterprises that can profit from the synergy of a network of like products and places. In addition, the involvement of multiple locations on a heritage trail helps spread consumer spending to different locations and creates a more balanced economic development model within a targeted region. Heritage trails are especially important in rural development, as connecting villages and other rural areas to towns and cities with a common heritage product can improve the standard of living in the rural hinterland.

Final Word Development takes many forms, including social, economic, psychological and political, and embodies many of the principles of sustainability. This chapter examines the social and economic implications in particular of heritage tourism by examining several current trends in the field of heritage studies. Scaling of the past, the democratization of ordinary and intangible heritage, new directions in religious tourism and the development of heritage trails all illustrate an ability to contribute to, or sustain, economic and social

Cultural Her it age, Tour ism and Soc io-economic Development

249

development. The links to quality of life, social solidarity, strengthening identity and community empowerment are clear. Cultural heritage is one of the most salient resources used by tourism, and its conservation and use are equally as important as the natural environment. As long as there is tourism, there will also be demand for the cultural past. Tourist destinations, their stakeholders and leaders should look to the trends identified here and other recent trends in tourism to help fulfill their sustainable social and economic development objectives.

9

Tourism, Development and the Environment Chris Southgate and Richard Sharpley

Introduction The interrelationship between environment and development has occupied academics and policymakers alike for several decades. Indeed, the contested ideas as to what could constitute a sustainable future for the planet and its inhabitants have fuelled a now weary intellectual debate. Only latterly has tourism become ensconced at the heart of this debate, not least because ‘no other economic activity . . . transects so many sectors, levels and interests as tourism’ (Cater, 1995: 21). However, during two decades in which academic boundaries have become increasingly blurred, a more intricate and complex understanding of tourism, development and the environment has emerged. That is, tourism theory has, as Jafari (1989) famously proposed, passed through four stages, from ‘advocacy’ to ‘knowledge’, in particular with respect to tourism’s developmental relationship with the environment within which it functions (see Chapters 2 and 15). The purpose of this chapter is to chart the convergence of once disparate academic niches to establish the extent to which tourism can be developed within the parameters of sustainable resource use. In so doing, it offers a critique of the mainstream sustainable development discourse and the notion of sustainable tourism which it has informed. Since the 1980s, the concept of sustainable development has pervaded almost all avenues of human activity. From its ecocentric origins to it becoming enmeshed in mainstream development discourse, the term has become a focus of debate, discussion and conceptual confusion (Mundt, 2011). Few issues have spurned so many narratives and counter-narratives and as Munro summarises, the term has ‘been used to characterize almost any path to the kind of just, comfortable and secure future to which everyone aspires’ (Munro, 1995: 27). Indeed, 250

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

251

as others suggest, the term sustainable development has been applied to so many processes and objectives that is has become almost meaningless (Sharpley, 2009b). It is argued here that the principles of environmental managerialism which have underpinned tourism development planning in the Western world hold little relevance to the social, cultural and ecological characteristics of many developing nations. Indeed, the sustainable tourism discourse offers little beyond a well trodden and, in many ways, superficial reconstitution of mainstream developmentalist ideas, espousing the primacy of economy over ecology, of bureaucratic planning over local participation and of designation over consultation. A more relevant interpretation of tourism sustainability – both in terms of what it is and how it is to be achieved – is necessary if the competing demands of tourists, governments and host communities are to be reconciled in the future. Sustainability is a more eclectic theoretical concept that broaches diverse natural, social and economic disciplines and which recognises underlying socio-political structures and issues of governance as key factors in environmental management. In the years ahead, as the world’s poorest nations continue to be increasingly drawn into the global phenomenon of tourism and if sustainability – in its broadest environmental, economic, social and political context – is to be achieved, important lessons must be learned from the wider environment and development discourse. Indeed, with due consideration to local social and environmental determinants of sustainability, tourism, far from being an agent of degradation, can actively enhance the environment and promote local development. The concept of sustainable (tourism) development cannot be fully addressed without an understanding of the forces that gave rise to a widespread environmental consciousness and the subsequent adoption of sustainability as a global development objective. Therefore, the chapter begins by briefly reviewing the origins of the alleged ‘environmental crisis’ facing the global ecosystem and the early responses, manifested in the emergence of the environmental movement in its various guises (see McCormick, 1995). It then considers the origins and differing interpretations of sustainable development as the prevailing development ideology that seeks to establish the middle ground between the competing objectives of, on the one hand, environmental sustainability and, on the other hand, economic development and growth. The manner in which a tourism planning ‘blueprint’ has embraced sustainable development is then explored before the final part of the chapter argues for the need to go beyond that blueprint, with the issues of environmental governance and ecological sustainability providing the foundation for a new interpretation of the tourism–environment relationship. First, however, and as a framework for this chapter, it is important to emphasise the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the tourism ‘environment’.

252

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Conceptualising the Tourism Environment By definition, each and every tourism environment, whether local, regional or national, is unique. Not only are tourism destinations defined by a particular combination of environmental resources, natural or man-made, but the robustness or fragility of those resources, their significance or centrality to the tourism experience, and the scale, scope, character and stage of development of the tourism sector more generally represent parameters within which the tourism–environment interface may be perceived and, consequently, appropriate policies for the management and development of tourism considered. Moreover, even in the context of particular destinations, there may be no single environment. Just as there is no single nature, but multiple ‘natures’ (Macnaghten & Urry, 1998), so too are there multiple environments; the destination environment is defined by the varying perceptions of different local groups, the attitudes and expectations of visitors, regional and national policymakers, and so on (Holden, 2000). In other words, distinctions exist between the ways in which local communities, tourists and other stakeholders perceive or value the destination environment, distinctions which may also be influenced by the broader socio-economic and political context within which the destination is located. Thus, local communities may view the environment as a legitimate resource for development, particularly where tourism plays a relatively important role in the local economy, whereas tourists may value highly a pristine or undeveloped traditional environment. Conversely, the cultural significance of a resource may, for local communities, outweigh any potential economic value arising from its exploitation as a tourist venue or attraction, Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Australia being a notable example (Brown, 1999). At the same time, tourists themselves vary enormously in terms of their attitudes towards particular environments, their degree of understanding of their impacts on the local environment and their consequential behaviour (Hillery et al., 2001). The tourism–environment interface within particular destinational contexts may also be influenced by a variety of factors beyond, or external to, the destination. For example, the broader socio-economic and political context, such as the degree of regional or national economic development or the institutional structures, ideologies and robustness of governance, may impact directly upon the ways in which the environment is perceived, managed and exploited. Equally, private and public sector organisations concerned with supporting and promoting tourism development, as well as pressure or activist groups that seek to limit tourism development, influence attitudes towards and perceptions of the environment. In short, the relationship and interaction between tourism development and the environment, the factors that may influence the nature of that relationship and, consequently, the

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

253

ways in which the environment is perceived and managed must be viewed from a multi-dimensional (and, implicitly, a multi-disciplinary) perspective, giving due recognition to broader forces and influences that may impact upon or shape tourism development at the destination. Figure 9.1 conceptualises the tourism–environment relationship, suggesting the complex and multi-dimensional perspectives on how the environment, in the tourism context, may be perceived. Technology

Global Factors

Destinational Factors

Environment/climate Exogenous factors

Destination characteristics Natural resources Built environment Fragility/robustness of resources

External/international tourism sector Investment Political influence

Tourism development Stage Scale Type Relative economic significance

Regional/national planning policies Economic development Infrastructural development Land-use planning

Stakeholders (values/attitudes/needs) Local community Local tourism sector Local agencies/interest groups

Tourists Volume/types/activities Environmental attitudes/ awareness Satisfaction

Tourism– environment interface

Responses Tourism planning and management

Political economy Political structures/ institutions/ideologies Stage of economic development Tourism planning structures/processes

Economy

Regional/national environmental policy Sustainable development Carbon emission reduction Landscape/wildlife protection Regional/national sociocultural influences Values/attitudes/needs (environmental, spiritual, cultural, utilitarian) National image

Organisations National/international agencies NGOs Third sector Pressure groups

Global Factors

Figure 9.1 A conceptual model of the tourism–environment relationship Source: Sharpley (2009b: 126)

Politics

254

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

The ‘Environmental Crisis’ The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) – the so-called ‘Earth Summit’ – held in Rio de Janeiro in 19921 drew the world’s attention to the vexed question of sustainable development. A myriad of proposals, collectively presented within the wide ranging Agenda 21, were tabled to reconcile the often conflicting interests of governments, industries and conservationists whilst, more specifically, the intellectual discourse on sustainable development – initiated some two decades earlier – received a much needed shot in the arm. However, the tangible sense of optimism amongst the leaders of world’s wealthiest nations at the end of the conference drew media attention away from the vocal environmentalist lobby. Had its voice been heard, the world would have learned that, during the 12-day summit, between 600 and 900 species of plants and animals had become extinct, some 487,200 acres of arable land had turned to desert and well over one million acres of tropical rainforest had been destroyed. Moreover, during the same period, the world’s population grew by 3.3 million. Thus, from the environmentalist perspective, there was little ground for optimism. The message that humanity was facing imminent social and environmental disaster and human tragedy was, by 1992, well rehearsed. Indeed, a similar sense of pessimism was evident at the earlier United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), held in Stockholm in 1972, and was articulated in the ensuing publication Only One Earth (Ward & Dubos, 1972). By the early 1970s, increasing rates of deforestation, declining fish stocks, rapidly diminishing supplies of agricultural land and the general reduction of common property resources had all contributed to the environmentalists’ concern for the earth’s capacity to support prevailing rates of ‘development’. Attracting particular concern was the susceptibility of the earth to increasing levels of pollution. During the 1970s, radioactive fallout from nuclear tests was seen to be just one of many pollutants which ‘ignored’ national boundaries, whilst the acidification of Scandinavian lakes and forests and the presence of DDT in Antarctic and Arctic fish brought home the need for development to embrace an understanding of global ecological ‘limits’. In short, it became recognised that the ‘effluence of affluence’ did not respect national borders, that one country’s activities could have global consequences. Reid (1995: 3), following Boulding’s (1992) description of ‘spaceship earth’, makes the point that, at that time, the first satellite imagery was reinforcing a perception of the world as a ‘precarious and rather vulnerable entity’. Furthermore, by the end of the 1970s, James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, which saw the planet as a single homoeostatic organic entity, added to concerns over the potential for human activity to upset the earth’s delicate ecological equilibrium (see Lovelock, 1979).

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

255

A number of individual catastrophic events served to add substance to the environmentalists’ concerns at that time. For example, the disaster in Bhopal in 1984, which cost the lives of some 2500 local inhabitants, and the Exxon Valdez catastrophe emphasised the extent to which both human and natural environments were vulnerable to such sudden ‘shocks’. In addition to these and other anthropogenic events, which fuelled environmental concerns, the 1970s and 1980s also witnessed a number of natural phenomena which suggested the ‘limits’ of environmental resilience were rapidly approaching. The increasing incidence of floods, drought and famine were well publicised as the media started to reflect widely shared public concerns for the global environment whilst, during the 1970s, the death toll from natural catastrophes increased six-fold over the preceding decade (Reid, 1995). Inextricably linked to the fears over pollution and resource depletion was the concern over population growth. To many environmentalists, as long as the global population continued to grow the problems of resource degradation, pollution and human misery would not be solved (Ehrlich, 1968). Quite simply, ‘resource problems are not really environmental problems: they are human problems’ (Ludwig et al., 1993), and, as long as human exploitation of natural resources increases, so too do the environmental consequences of that activity. Thus, against a background of rapid industrialisation, increasing patterns of inequality and high rates of population growth, the question of sustainability began to dominate the debate over appropriate paths and means of development. Academics and policymakers from diverse backgrounds and spanning the political continuum reacted to the perceived environmental crises, with tourism being no exception. Even by the late 1970s, with international mass tourism still in relative infancy, commentators criticised the unbridled growth of tourism and its resultant environmental consequences and called for restraint in its development (de Kadt, 1979b; Smith, 1977; Turner & Ash, 1975; Young, 1973). As Mishan (1969: 142) argued, ‘travel on this scale . . . inevitably disrupts the character of the affected regions, their populations and ways of living. As swarms of holiday-makers arrive. . .local life and industry shrivel, hospitality vanishes, and indigenous populations drift into a quasi-parasitic way of life catering with contemptuous servility to the unsophisticated multitude’. Interestingly, Mishan’s élitist ‘solution’ was to ban international air travel but, more generally, what were the initial responses to this perceived environmental crisis?

Environmental Crisis: The Neo-Malthusian Response The rise in popular environmental consciousness during the 1970s exhumed many of the founding ideological roots of environmentalism. These resided in mid-19th-century Germany and the work of Ernst Haeckel

256

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

(1834–1919) who coined the term ‘ecology’. It was Haeckel who proposed the notion of organic holism, regarding ecosystems as not only comprising many elements – mankind being but one – but also as having intrinsic moral value of their own (Chase, 1995). However, also interwoven with the emergence of the perceived environmental crisis was the resurrection of the Malthusian school of thought founded upon notions of impending social, economic and environmental doom. Such ideas had lay somewhat dormant during the prosperous postwar era of modernisation and the optimism it instilled in the West but the dawn of neo-Malthusianism permeated a wide spectrum of social and environmental literature. Concerns about the rapidly rising global population started to emerge during the 1950s, the issue receiving attention from, amongst others, Stamp (1953) and Russell (1953), the latter contributing to the influential Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth (Thomas, 1955). The new generation neo-Malthusians of the late 1960s and 1970s firmly placed the ‘population problem’ at the heart of environmentalism. Paul Ehrlich’s (1968) The Population Bomb became a standard core text on countless geography course bibliographies, re-establishing Malthus’ ideas of human population limits, maintained by ‘natural checks’, as the received wisdom in population/environment discourse. Since then, of course, many of these fears have proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, by the late 1960s the North’s unbridled pursuit of economic growth was certainly leaving its imprint upon the natural environment. Ecological concerns over the break up of the Torrey Canyon oil tanker2 attracted public interest whilst in the United States (US), Rachel Carson’s (1962) book Silent Spring raised awareness over intensification of agricultural practices. The 1970s also witnessed the publication of several highly pessimistic commentaries on the emerging environment and development debate. For example, Forrester’s (1971) World Dynamics was one of several attempts to produce global models of a coupled economic and ecological system. The most notable attempt to simulate the consequences of increasing industrialisation was that of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on behalf of the Club of Rome (an international group of academics backed by European multinational companies). Their work, published as The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972) along with ‘Blueprint for survival’ (Goldsmith et al., 1972) became the most influential manifestations of 1970s environmentalism. The former, based upon what are today regarded as simplistic and naïve computer simulations, won popular acclaim, although, in retrospect, both its methodology and ideology have attracted considerable criticism. Simon (1981), for example, dismissed The Limits to Growth as ‘a fascinating example of how scientific work can be outrageously bad and yet very influential’ (quoted in Adams, 1992: 29). Not surprisingly, perhaps, the neo-Malthusian uprising of the 1970s initiated a spate of equally emotive counter-arguments about the capacity

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

257

of the global environment to accommodate rising populations and mankind’s continuing quest for prosperity with technocentrists, such as Beckerman (1992), pointing to the contribution of continual technological advance in addressing such challenges. Thus, for example, over the last 30 years average global food supply increased from 2360 to 2740 calories per person per day as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification. At the same time, and contrary to the forecasts of Malthus and his followers, economic growth (as measured in real per capita incomes), has been highest during periods of rapid population growth. Asian countries experienced economic growth of 25% between 1820 and 1950 whilst their population increased by 84%. From 1950 to 1992, average incomes increased five-fold while their population increased by 128%. India has more than doubled its real per capita income in the past four decades while its population has grown by a factor of four. In the 1960s, the Green Revolution resulted in huge increases in production, particularly for wheat and rice. Thus, the environment and development discourse embraced a new optimism about mankind’s resilience, ingenuity and capacity to institute the social and institutional changes to promote effective environmental management (Boserüp, 1965). Moreover, as suggested later and in Chapter 15, this evidence also raises questions about the environmental/developmental contribution of sustainable tourism compared with more intensive (i.e. mass) forms of tourism development. Yet the ghost of Malthus has not been completely laid to rest. Many still forecast an imminent crisis for humanity due to its sheer size, though they overlook the fact such claims have always proven to be false. Today, attention is drawn towards the differentiated allocation of resources and the unjust political economy of globalisation, rather than population growth itself, as an explanation for the many human crises blighting the World’s poorest (Bernstein et al., 1995; Collier, 2007). Nevertheless, despite the methodological deficiencies of the Limits to Growth school and the ill-conceived Malthusian interpretation of the ‘environmental crisis’, the events of the 1970s very much shaped the emergence of a popular environmentalist movement. In the US, for example, such issues as the preservation of the Spotted Owl at the cost of ‘tens of thousands of jobs’ (Chase, 1995) propelled environmental issues up the political agenda and fuelled a vitriolic corporate ‘green backlash’ (Rowell, 1996), testament to the growing political strength of the incongruent but vocal environmental movement. The emergence of a ‘general Green philosophy’ (Eckersley, 1992) during the 1970s and 1980s drew partly upon its early philosophical roots, as did, arguably, the ‘alternative’ tourism perspective that also emerged in the 1980s (Smith & Eadington, 1992). However, the influence of 1960s left-wing ideology and its focus upon participatory politics, alongside the re-emergence of doomsday environmental literature, gave birth to what Eckersley (1992: 8) describes as a new ‘ecologically inspired political orientation’. The emergence

258

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

of ‘ecopolitics’ – the fusion of politics with environmentalism (see, for example, Doyle & McEachern, 1998) – rapidly gave rise to the formation of protest groups which coalesced into an influential environmental movement, capable of expressing its advocacy for political and social re-orientation in an ‘emotive and morally engaged way’ (Hughes, 1996). Thus, the broad environmental movement embraces a variety of frequently competing political philosophies. For example, social ecology, which espouses collective human control over nature, albeit at the local community as opposed to state level, directly opposes deep ecology which pictures an equitable, interconnected ecosystem where no one species is dominant. Conversely, ‘eco-feminism’ locates gender in the environmental arena, contending that the subordination of women and environmental degradation are linked (see Mellor, 1997). Nevertheless, these political movements have come together within a ‘new social movement’, manifest in such socio-environmental organisations as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Their influence over single-issue environmental campaigns – most notably in respect to nuclear power, stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming – has transformed the political scene (Mowforth & Munt, 2009). This politicisation of environmentalism is also, of course, evident in tourism. Generally, calls for more appropriate forms of tourism development have as much, if not more, to do with social equity as they do with environmental concerns, whilst specific campaigns, such as Tourism Concern’s Burma Campaign which, during the late 1990s, fought against the publication of tourist guide books to that country, are overtly political. However, the important point here is that, collectively, the environmental movement has continued to gain momentum. Not only is it fuelled by over $450 million in grants and a variety of private sources of income (Chase, 1995), but also green politics gained prominence in the 1990s, particularly through such channels as the red–green coalition in Germany. By the end of the decade, the environmental ministries in many European countries were led by ‘green politicians’ (Bowcott et al., 1999). However, their influence has arguably diminished during the first decade of the new millennium, particularly since the global financial crisis of 2007. Nevertheless, as noted by Eckersley (1992: 7), ‘the environmental crisis and popular environmental concern . . . prompted a considerable transformation in Western politics over the last three decades’. Moreover, ‘whatever the outcome of this realignment of Western politics, the intractable nature of environmental problems will ensure that environmental politics . . . is here to stay’ (Eckersley, 1992: 7). It is against this background of growing environmental consciousness and the evolution of ‘ecopolitics’ that the notion of sustainable development has come to permeate development policy and planning, not least within the realm of tourism. The following section briefly reviews its emergence in mainstream development policy.

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

259

The Origins and Contested Interpretations of Sustainable Development The concept of sustainable development has long attracted debate and analysis from virtually all academic standpoints and has transcended the often impenetrable disciplinary boundaries of the social and natural sciences. Many authors have striven to find a single all-purpose definition of sustainable development – even by the early 1990s over 70 different definitions have been proposed (Steer & Wade-Gery, 1993)! – while others have questioned whether the concept, due to its ambivalence and ambiguity, holds any practical or theoretical relevance to issues of environment and development (Lélé, 1991; Mundt, 2011; Redclift, 1987). Indeed, some, such as the post-development school, argue that not only sustainable development but development as a global project in all its guises is a failed concept (Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997). Therefore, it is not surprising that sustainable development, both as an overall development paradigm and in its specific manifestations, such as tourism, remains the subject of intense debate (Sharpley, 2009b). The origins of the concept can be traced to the 1960s and the coincidence of the perceived environmental crisis and a global institutional response. In 1968, the UNESCO Biosphere Conference held in Paris and the Ecological Aspects of International Development Conference in Washington both addressed concerns about the planet’s ecological carrying capacity under growing pressures from human activity. They also heralded the ascendancy of a new environmental awareness in the industrialised West. The 1972 UNCHE in Stockholm, referred to above, is noted for being the first concerted international effort to address environmental problems and is described as a milestone in the development of global responses to environmental issues (Reid, 1995). However, whilst the West was concerned primarily with the threat of pollution due to excessive industrial development, developing economies were more concerned that resource conservation was a luxury which only the West could afford to engage in. For them, a lack of development was the key to environmental damage, hence the notion of the ‘pollution of poverty’. The 26 principles agreed upon by the 119 governments and 400 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) reflected both sets of concerns, with ‘integrated development’ seen as a means of overcoming the perceived paradox between economic growth and environmental protection. However, as Adams (1992) observes, the overall theme of the conference was that development (i.e. growth) need not be impaired by environmental concerns. However, the Stockholm Conference did succeed in placing issues of environment and development on the international political agenda, whilst its lasting achievement was the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). UNEP has been active in encouraging countries to establish environmental policies and was a key figure in the preparation of

260

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

the World Conservation Strategy (WCS), published in 1980. The WCS was essentially biocentric. Development, defined as ‘the modification of the biosphere and the application of human, financial, living and non-living resources to satisfy human needs and improve the quality of human life’ (IUCN, 1980: Section 1.3), was regarded primarily as a vehicle for ensuring protection of the global biosphere. For the first time, the term ‘sustainable development’ was adopted and defined as ‘the integration of conservation and development to ensure that modifications to the planet do indeed secure the survival and well-being of all people’ (IUCN, 1980: Section 1.2). The WCS adopted both a utilitarian and moral ethic for conservation, the former articulated in terms of the economic benefits conservation could yield to governments and local communities, the latter summed up by the claim that ‘we have not inherited the earth from our parents, we have borrowed it from our children’ (IUCN, 1980: Section 1.5). The document also maintained the rhetoric of 1970s global environmentalism by, for example, emphasising that ‘human beings, in their quest for economic development and enjoyment of the riches of nature, must come to terms with the reality of resource limitation and the carrying capacities of ecosystems’ (IUCN, 1980: i). The WCS has attracted criticism on a number of grounds. It has been described as ‘repackaged 1970s environmentalism’ with its emphasis on ‘limits’ (Adams, 1992) and it brought sceptical responses from development pragmatists because of its rekindled emphasis on environmental ethics and morality. Perhaps the most serious limitation of the WCS, however, was its complete failure to take into account social and political obstacles to development – factors which also militate against sustainable tourism development (Sharpley, 2000a, 2009b) – and consequently it has been described as being both ideological and ‘disastrously naïve’ (Adams, 1992). As Redclift (1984: 50) argues, ‘despite its diagnostic value, the World Conservation Strategy does not even begin to examine the social and political changes that would be necessary to meet conservation goals’. Shortly after publication of the WCS, the Brandt Commission (1983) published its first report, North–South: A Programme for Survival (ICIDI, 1980), followed three years later by a second: Common Crisis. North–South declared that ‘no concept of development can be accepted which continues to condemn hundreds of millions of people to starvation and despair’ (ICIDI, 1980: 50), thereby questioning the main precept of modernism, that faster economic growth provided a panacea for poverty in the South. The message was that too little concern had been given to the quality of growth in the past: ‘world development is not merely an economic process . . . statistical measurements of growth exclude the crucial element of social welfare, of individual rights, of values not measured by money’ (ICIDI, 1980: 49). Yet, economic growth remained the essential prerequisite for the alleviation of poverty and the protection of the planet’s natural resources. The problems experienced in the developing world were considered not to be related to

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

261

economic growth per se, but to external economic forces, such as world recession, high interest rates and declining terms of trade. Thus, North–South proposed a new philosophy of economic growth based on multilateralism, international cooperation and increased resources flows from North to South, a theme more forcibly pursued in the commission’s second report. Despite its innovative ideas, few were implemented and the Brandt Commission was disbanded shortly after its second report to the UN General Assembly. In particular, the concept of mutuality of interests (northern economic growth is dependent upon growth in the south) failed to win widespread support, the commission’s proposals again being widely regarded as naïvely failing to take into account the political obstacles to economic and structural reform. The commission also failed to support explicitly a more participatory form of development. ‘The Brandt Commission . . . was composed of top people, thinking top down, as such people normally do. The problem with their top-down recommendations was that other top people . . . who would have had to implement them, were and are doing very well out of the status quo’ (Ekins, quoted in Reid, 1995: 52). By the 1980s, the promotion of economic growth in the South, initiated by a reformed global economic system and based upon a perceived mutuality of economic interest, was seen to hold the key to sustainable development. This was certainly the focus of the widely cited Brundtland (World Commission on Environment and Development) report Our Common Future, the purpose of which was to ‘propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond’ (WCED, 1987: ix). The commission set out to address a problem which previous strategies clearly failed to solve: ‘. . . many development trends leave increasing numbers of people poor and vulnerable, while at the same time degrading the environment. How can such development serve next century’s world of twice as many people relying on the same environment?’ (WCED, 1987: 4). The report placed much emphasis on sustaining development on a global basis, reiterating the environmentalist message vociferously expressed over a decade earlier that ‘the various global crises . . . are not separate crises. They are all one’ (WCED, 1987: 4). Poverty was seen as the underlying cause of environmental degradation: ‘it is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality’ (WCED, 1987: 3). Therefore, the underlying philosophy of the report is economic growth, although for development to be sustainable it must (in the still widely cited and adapted phrase) ‘meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987: 8). However, as Reid (1995) points out, very little attention is given to what these needs are or how they might be met. The UNCED (the Rio Earth Summit) in 1992 again gave the sustainable development concept a fresh impetus. The conference provided a blueprint

262

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

for securing a sustainable course of development in the 21st century, hence the name of the most important product of the event, Agenda 21. One significant contribution made by Agenda 21 is its rationalisation of environmentalist and developmentalist perspectives on sustainability, transcending the ideological and practical discord. Agenda 21 incorporates the philosophy of community empowerment and proactive ‘grass-roots’ development, while articulating the formal structures of planning, legislation and governance in which it should take place. Agenda 21 has been described as the ‘sustainable development bible’ (Doyle, 1998) and has indeed gone some way to bridging the gulf between green ideology and politically viable environmental policy. Yet many question whether the fundamental constraints to genuine environmental sustainability have been addressed simply by reformulating the means by which development should be pursued. As Hunter (1995: 54) claims, ‘sustainability has been seized upon by the political mainstream as a convenient concept for ensuring “sustainable” material growth’ (Hunter, 1995: 54). Since the early 1990s, sustainable development has remained high on the international political agenda, manifested not least in subsequent global sustainable development summits (Rio + 10 in 2002 and, most recently, Rio + 20 in 2012). To some, these have been successful in maintaining awareness of the need for global action to balance environmental and developmental challenges within a global green economy; to others, the lack of agreed actions and policies has been a massive failure, the promise of Agenda 21 being increasingly diluted by few if any positive or tangible outcomes from these subsequent summits. Moreover, the failure of other international conferences, such as the 2012 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, is further evidence of the difficulty in achieving the apparently increasingly elusive goal of international consensus on actions to achieve sustainable development. Indeed, it is evident that despite the competing interpretations of sustainable development that, over time, have become amalgamated in successive reports that have accepted, and responded to, the need for global social, economic and political equity, no satisfactory solution has yet been found to the fundamental paradox of sustainable development – that is, how can continued global economic growth and development be achieved without the degradation or destruction of the planet’s natural resources upon which such development and growth depends? As the next section suggests, this paradox remains a primary challenge to the notion of sustainable tourism development.

Sustainable Development and Tourism As already noted, the nascent environmentalism of the 1960s and 1970s was reflected in specific concerns about the environmental consequences of

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

263

tourism development at that time (Dowling, 1992). In particular, tourism was increasingly considered to be in conflict with the environment, the debate dominated by dependency and limits to growth theorists. However, in parallel with the evolution of sustainable development discourse, concerns about the environmental and social impacts of tourism have continued to escalate in recent years. In this respect, the concepts of ecological limits, sustainable resource use and defined carrying capacities have found wide applicability. As Butler (1991: 203) inferred, ‘unless specific steps are taken, tourist destination areas and resources will inevitably become over-used, unattractive, and eventually experience declining use’. At the same time, however, it has also been recognised that tourism planning and management must be undertaken in the wider context of global commerce and its social, political, economic and environmental impacts. For example, Garrod and Fyall (1998: 199) claim that, ‘[t]o the extent that the tourism industry operates by appropriating environmental resources and transforming them for sale in consumer markets, it is really no different in principle to the extraction of petrochemicals, the mining of metals or any other of the “heavy” industries about which environmental concern is so frequently raised’. Research into the impacts of tourism has embraced the well-established academic pursuit of examining, defining and assessing the applicability of mainstream or sustainable development to the specificities of tourism and recreation. Consequently, a plethora of sustainable tourism definitions have emerged over the last two decades, reflecting some or all of the social, cultural, economic and environmental connotations of the sustainable development enigma. Typically, early definitions of sustainable tourism were founded upon the principle of inter-generational equity, but differ according to authors’ ideological standpoints (see Figure 9.2 for examples). The concept of sustainability or, more precisely, sustainable tourism development, has since become a guiding principle for both the industry and pressure groups. For example, Tourism Concern has long advocated that ‘tourism and associated infrastructures [should], both now and in the future, operate within natural capacities for the regeneration and future productivity of natural resources; recognise the contribution that the people and communities, customs and lifestyles, make to the tourism experience; accept that these people must have an equitable share in the economic benefits of tourism; are guided by the wishes of local people and communities in the host areas’ (www.tourismconcern.org.uk). Despite the attention paid to the subject, however, academic ambivalence over what constitutes sustainable tourism continues. Indeed, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 15, some would argue that the sustainable tourism development debate has reached an impasse, that the time has come to move beyond the restrictive rhetoric of the concept. Specifically, this debate has long been polarised between, on the one hand, sustainable tourism development (i.e. sustainable development through tourism as advocated by, for

264

•

•

•

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

‘To be sustainable (tourism) requires the establishment of an industry which includes consideration of the long-term effects of economic activity in relation to resources and, therefore, concerns for the twin needs for this and future generations’ (Curry & Morvaridi, 1992: 131); ‘The concept of sustainability is central to the reassessment of tourism’s role in society. It demands a long-term view of economic activity . . . and ensures that the consumption of tourism does not exceed the ability of the host destination to provide for future tourists’ (Archer & Cooper, 1994: 87); ‘Sustainable tourism depends on: (a) meeting the needs of the host population in terms of improved standards of living in the short and long term; (b) satisfying the demands of increasing tourist numbers and continuing to attract them to achieve this; (c) safeguarding the environment to achieve the two foregoing aims’ (Cater & Goodall, 1992: 318).

Figure 9.2 Early definitions of sustainable tourism

example, the Globe 90 Conference in Canada which recommended that tourism ‘must be a recognised sustainable development option, considered equally with other economic activities when jurisdictions are making development decisions’ (Cronin, 1990)) and, on the other hand, environmentally sustainable tourism (see Hunter, 1995). As discussed in the literature (Sharpley, 2009b), the latter perspective has, inevitably perhaps, come to dominate the planning of tourism in practice – the tourism industry has marched ahead and embraced the ‘sustainability imperative’ (Garrod & Fyall, 1998) with vigour. A plethora of codes of practice have emerged, and entire (though not necessarily particularly coherent) sub-disciplines such as ecotourism have flourished as the industry has adopted a social and environmental conscience. International, national and industry sectoral organisations have all drawn up codes of practice or lists of guidelines to guide tourism development, whilst tourists themselves have long been exhorted to adopt appropriate or sustainable roles and practices or to become ‘good’ or ‘responsible’ (Goodwin, 2011; Wood & House, 1991). Those which are directed at tourism development in general, such as those advocated by Tourism Concern, emphasise the breadth of socio-economic and environmental prerequisites for sustainability so well-rehearsed in the sustainable development literature. Such conditions as ‘using resources sustainably’, ‘reducing overconsumption and waste’ and ‘maintaining diversity’ echo the environmental prerequisites for sustainability mooted three decades ago and most famously articulated in Rio in 1992.

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

265

It is not possible here to review the numerous and varying sets of principles for sustainable tourism. Figure 9.3, however, provides a recent example, published by the South Australian Tourism Commission. What becomes apparent is that, other than serving to draw attention to essential principles, such lists offer little of substance as far as implementation is concerned. For example, a principle imploring the sustainable use of natural resources is itself open to a wide range of interpretations. On the one hand, the depletion of natural resources could be justified from a utilitarian standpoint so long as the human-created alternative maintains essential ecological functions. On the other hand, the ‘hard sustainability’ interpretation of such a principle would elevate the need to preserve the natural integrity and biodiversity of the environment above all else. Thus, most codes or lists of principles lack detail and, without definition, explanation and, in some cases quantification, are of limited practical value. As Garrod and Fyall (1998: 203) argued some time ago, ‘[s]imple guidelines and codes of practice act as little more than a quack remedy, with sufficient potency to make the patient feel somewhat better but lacking the substance to cure them of their ailments’. What is rather worrying is that there are some tourism experts who feel that the treatment is working.

The Blueprint for Achieving Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Since the early 1990s, there has been an increasing tendency towards integrated tourism planning within the wider concerns of social and economic development (Inskeep, 1991) and, in many countries, tourism frequently cuts across several tiers of planning. In the United Kingdom (UK), for example, the received wisdom on how sustainable tourism could and should be achieved falls under the two rather spurious banners of ‘planning’ and ‘designation’, the former being concerned with the management or control of development, the latter with identifying particular areas or types of land, such as ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’, within which specific planning measures may be rigorously implemented. As with its theoretical basis, the practice of planning for sustainable tourism has, in general, been very much guided by the ethos of environmental managerialism implicit in mainstream sustainable development discourse. Central to achieving sustainability is the emphasis on control and the managerial tools employed by planners to ensure environmental ‘limits’ are respected. At the same time, the rhetoric of sustainability has become institutionalised to the extent that the mere recognition of environmental ‘limits’ is often regarded as the key facet of sustainable tourism planning. Indeed, tourism planning has become somewhat obsessed with the concept of physical carrying capacity, that is, the degree to which an ecosystem, habitat or

266

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Minimising environmental impacts: Tourism should consider both local and global environmental impacts. Achieving conservation outcomes: Tourism should seek to support the conservation of natural areas, habitats and wildlife and minimise damage to them. Being different: One of the keys to successful and sustainable tourism is achieving a clear sense of difference from other competing destinations. Achieving authenticity: The attractions most likely to be successful and of enduring appeal are those which are genuinely relevant to local history, industry, culture, lifestyle and natural resources. Reflecting community values: This means representing the past, present and future aspirations of the local community in a living and dynamic way. Understanding and targeting the market: Understanding broad market trends and the needs and expectations of specific segments is critical. Enhancing the experience: The ‘bundling’ of attributes enhances the appeal of a place and the likelihood of visitation. Adding value: Adding value to existing attributes achieves a richer tourism experience and helps to diversify the local economy. Having good content: Telling the story provides a more rewarding experience and ultimately helps conserve the destination. Enhancing sense of place through design: Good design respects the resource, achieves conservation, reflects community values and is instrumental in telling the story. Providing mutual benefits to visitors and hosts: Tourism is an economic and community development tool and must take into account the benefits that both the host community and the visitor seek. Building local capacity: Good tourism businesses get involved with the community and collaborate with other businesses and stakeholders and help to build local capacity. Figure 9.3 Principles of sustainable tourism Source: Adapted from SATC (2007)

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

267

landscape can accommodate tourism pressures before unacceptable or irreversible decline occurs. Cooper et al. (1993) suggest that the limits of carrying capacity should really be termed ‘saturation limits’ rather than carrying capacity, which they define as: ‘that level of tourist presence which creates impacts on the host community, environment and economy that are acceptable to both tourists and hosts, and sustainable over future time periods’ (Cooper et al., 1993: 95). Despite the limited appeal of the carrying capacity concept resulting from its inherent fuzziness – what, for example, is ‘acceptable’ damage, according to whose needs is it determined and how is it measured? – it has nevertheless been embraced widely as an appropriate diagnostic of the environment’s capability to accommodate change. The UN World Tourism Organisation considers carrying capacity to be ‘fundamental to environmental protection and sustainable development . . . carrying capacity limits can sometimes be difficult to quantify, but they are essential to planning for tourism and recreation’ (WTO, 1992: 23). Similarly, the Brundtland Report enshrines the carrying capacity concept in the more general development context. It states that ‘[d]ifferent limits hold for the use of energy, materials, water and land . . . The accumulation of knowledge and the development of technology can enhance the carrying capacity of the resource base. But ultimate limits there are, and sustainability requires that long before these are reached, the world must ensure equitable access to the constrained resource and reorient technological efforts to relieve the pressure’ (WCED, 1987: 45). Thus, the notion that there is a fixed ‘ceiling’ to developmental activity in general, and tourism in particular, has long served as the guiding principle informing assessment of tourism’s environmental sustainability (see Telfer, 2013, for an analysis of the Brundtland Report and tourism). As will be discussed later, not only does the concept of carrying capacity have rather limited applicability in relation to complex socio-environmental systems within which tourism occurs, but without a means of quantifying environmental change the concept is hollow. Not only are measurable environmental indicators pivotal to the application of carrying capacity as a planning and management tool often lacking (not least because concerns over sustainability often surface after environmental degradation has occurred), but also the absence of time series data precludes attempts to monitor the processes and rate of environmental change. It is interesting to note, however, that in some cases this can be circumvented through formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which has evolved into an important proactive and, frequently, legally required planning tool. EIA can be applied to predict and measure the impacts – social as well as environmental – of any development project, and often utilises environmental data as a baseline for monitoring the rate and direction of environmental change, and recording whether the impact falls within the parameters of acceptability.

268

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Planning for environmentally sustainable tourism As suggested above, the conventional approach to environmentally sustainable tourism development is through statutory planning regulations. According to Green (1995: 93), ‘a statutory land use planning system has the capacity to make a significant contribution to the realisation of sustainable tourism development’ through resource conservation, by identifying appropriate locations for different activities and by encouraging developers to adopt appropriate approaches to development. In a British context this approach was exemplified by the former English Tourist Board (ETB). In response to the government’s then national agenda for sustainable development This Common Inheritance (DoE, 1990), the ETB produced a set of principles to reconcile the growth in tourism with environmental protection (ETB, 1991). Furthermore, these principles were reinforced by the government’s planning advice documentation (produced by the Department of the Environment) which stated that regional and local planning should consider: • • • •

•

the scale and distribution of tourist activity within the area; the identification of areas within the country where there are problems associated with either the growth or decline of tourism; the environmental impact of tourist demand and ways in which any adverse effects can be moderated; the need to protect key tourism assets, including such features as characteristic landscapes . . . unspoilt stretches of undeveloped coastline, areas of special interest for nature conservation, historic buildings and townscapes; and ways in which tourism can contribute positively to other objectives such as economic development, conservation and urban regeneration. (DoE, 1992: 4.1)

Thus, although tourism planning is a discrete activity it should, nevertheless, be an integral part of the land use planning process, accommodating competing demands for resources and reconciling the interests of all interested parties. For example, in the context of rural Britain, those interested parties are often categorised as, on the one hand, conservationists who seek to protect nature and landscape and, on the other hand, ‘commercialists’ who seek to exploit the countryside for financial gain. Their mutual interests are often served through the established system of designation which confers specific legislative and institutional control over areas deemed to have significant conservation value. National park status, for example, confers protection to some 10% of the land surface of England and Wales and, as in the US and elsewhere, the parks were initially established to provide access to ‘nature’ for the urban population (see Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997: 72–77).

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

269

In England and Wales, the control of national parks is established within Town and Country Planning Acts and control over development of tourism and other activities is achieved through strict planning regulations rather than state ownership of the parks’ resources.3 A crucial factor in the achievement of environmental sustainability is the extent to which guidelines articulate with planning procedures and regulations. The parks’ planning authorities are required to produce documents outlining policies and proposals relating to activities controlled by the various Planning Acts, and details of management strategies for environmental resources, services and facilities. As a result of complex and often ambiguous planning structures, such activities as farming, forestry, mineral production and, more recently, large-scale tourism threaten to erode the environmental quality of many UK national parks. In addition to national parks, a diverse range of designations in the UK confers special protection to coastal areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty, trees and woodland and a range of architectural and historical environments, all of which play host to significant numbers of tourists. A further planning device for promoting sustainable tourism is through coastal zone management (CZM). Owing to the popularity of coastal resorts, the integration of tourism considerations with those for water quality, for example, represents an important step towards achieving the goals of sustainability. However, of the 20 different types of designation denoting protected status (stemming from 30 Acts of Parliament), none guarantees absolute protection from the impacts of development. For example, a study of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) in the UK in 1990 found that 40% had been damaged, most of the permanent damage stemming from activities given planning permission. To summarise, then, land use planning and a system of designation collectively provide a framework which, in theory, balances the physical capacities of the resource base against the different interests that are involved in development, providing valuable regulatory mechanisms. However, even within developed countries with established planning systems, sustainable resource use has been sometimes difficult to achieve. Thus, in much of the developing world where tourism is rapidly expanding within a context of diverse and dynamic social, cultural and environmental conditions, the universal relevance of any particular form of development ‘blueprint’, such as proposed in many of the sustainable tourism development guides, has been brought into question. The remainder of this chapter will, therefore, move beyond the ‘static’ blueprint formula for pursuing sustainable tourism, and in so doing question the Western-centric notion of sustainable development.

Beyond the Sustainable Development Blueprint Before proposing an alternative view of how environmentally sustainable tourism may be achieved, it is useful first of all to return briefly to criticisms

270

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

of the sustainable development paradigm upon which sustainable tourism is based and, consequently, founders.

Sustainable development: A critique The irrelevance of mainstream sustainable development theory owes much to the persistence and impenetrableness of now discredited environment and development narratives. Such narratives gain credibility and potency in their acceptance by policymakers and are enshrined as truisms by the élite interest groups that profit from them. Development agencies disseminate the narratives giving such calamitous hypotheses as The Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, 1968) global recognition and an unquestioned belief in their developmental value. When such narratives become institutionalised as ‘received wisdom’, their durability and perceived merit become even more entrenched (Leach & Mearns, 1996). As Adams and Hulme (1992: 3) contend, their ‘influence and durability is not related to their actual economic, social or environmental achievements . . . but to the interests of a complex web of politicians, policy makers, bureaucrats, donors, technical specialists and private sector operators whose needs are served by the narrative’. The perpetuation of sustainable development’s underlying assumptions has achieved little more than justifying conventional top-heavy, interventionist approaches to environmental and developmental initiatives in much of the developing world, reinforcing public acceptance of sustainable development rhetoric, and the institutions vested with responsibility for implementing it. As Sneddon (2000: 525) comments, ‘sustainable development privileges global environmental problems and institutions, perceives poverty rather than poverty-producing conditions as the root cause of environmental degradation, reproduces economistic and developmentalist biases, and advances a highly reductive interpretation of environment as “static” resource’. In recent years, many of these environment and development truisms have been rejected. Many researchers have been quick to identify the limitations, naïve assumptions and inappropriate recommendations embedded within mainstream sustainable development rhetoric. For example, the very assumption that economic growth must be sustained if national social and environmental objectives are to be met disregards culturally diverse interpretations of what ‘development’ itself means (Redclift, 1987). More generally, sustainable development theory is replete with paradoxes. The WCED, in essence, proposed growth and the alleviation of poverty through the much maligned ‘trickle-down effect’ central to the modernist school of development theory (see Chapter 2). At the same time, the economic growth envisaged by the WCED would necessitate a five-fold increase in energy use in the developing world, yet the commission went on to say that ‘the planetary ecosystem could not stand this, especially if the

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

271

increases were based on non-renewable fossil fuels’ (WCED, 1987: 14). Thus, Our Common Future hopes to have its cake and eat it (Adams, 1992). In search of a more appropriate formula for sustainable development in the developing world, radical commentators have questioned the recurrent emphasis on sustained economic growth. The radical environmentalist perspective on sustainable development is first and foremost biocentric, elevating the intrinsic value of the natural world above the value given to it by mankind. As Rees (1990: 18) contends, ‘the emerging ecological crisis reveals fatal flaws in the prevailing world-view. Our mechanical perception of the biosphere is dangerously superficial and our continued belief in the possibility of sustainable development based on the growth-oriented assumptions of neo-classical economics is illusory’. The green perspective gained momentum in the 1970s in reaction to the dominant development paradigm which emphasised modernisation and economic growth. To supporters of the biocentric view, we are no more than stewards of the earth, holding resources on trust for the future. Emphasis is placed upon the very existence of the earth’s natural resources rather than the income flows which they can generate. The burgeoning green development literature also broaches the otherwise unquestioned mainstream assumptions of what development itself should be (Adams, 1992). For example, while the Brundtland Commission emphasised the importance of ‘meeting basic human needs’, these ‘needs’ have conventionally been defined according to a narrow ideological view of the capitalist Western world (Redclift, 1992). Also central to mainstream sustainable development thinking is the unquestioned faith in free market institutions as the most effective and efficient means of mitigating against economic ‘externalities’ associated with development. Environmental policy in much of the industrialised world is today founded upon the principle that ‘the power of the market can be harnessed and channelled towards the achievement of environmental goals’ (Tietenberg, cited in Rees, 1990: 386). The role of government has become one of ensuring that the operation of the market is programmed to give the ‘correct’ cost signals to producers and consumers. Command and control solutions or ‘state environmentalism’, so the neoliberal argument maintains, lead to political (and hence inefficient) allocation of environmental resources (Doyle, 1998). Again, the applicability of the neoliberal perspective on sustainable development to developing world economies, often in need of a remedy against economic differentiation rather than a catalyst, has attracted criticism from a radical socialist school, one which focuses upon structures of power, the distribution of resources (especially land) and the relations of production which lay at the heart of underdevelopment (Redclift, 1987). Sustainability, according to this view, is constrained by the unequal power relations that exist between the capitalist core and periphery, and the power relations which exist within society at all levels. This argument, of course, holds particular relevance for tourism, the production of which is typified by unequal power relations (see Chapter 10).

272

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

Thus, uncoupling the hollow sustainable development meta-narrative from the essential building blocks of a more appropriate notion of environmental sustainability may contribute to a more practical foundation for environmental policy and management, and provide insights into the essential determinants of sustainability for developing world tourism. As Sneddon (2000: 524) argues, it is pertinent to examine the concept of sustainability in isolation from its ‘problematic partner’ of sustainable development, adding that ‘the discussion [on sustainable development] rarely transcends abstract notions of “needs”, “generations” and “global environment” to confront more intractable, untidy questions at the intersection of ecological degradation and social justice’. So, let us consider the two essential elements of a potentially more relevant and appropriate connotation of sustainability, one which may offer a clearer basis from which to approach tourism, environment and development.

Environmental governance and sustainability Central to the concept of sustainability is the issue of appropriate governance or ‘the structures and processes of power and authority, co-operation and conflict that govern decision-making and dispute resolution’ (Hulme & Woodhouse, 2001: 215). What, then, are the principles of environmental governance as enshrined within the sustainable development discourse? The evolution of sustainable development has served to institutionalise ‘top-down’ solutions to socio-environmental problems, regarding local institutional arrangements as necessary components of fundamentally government-driven sustainable development planning (Adams, 1992). As a result, questions of appropriate local governance structures have received little attention. However, by opening our minds to the cultural differences which exist and how they translate into different definitions of ‘development’ and ‘needs’, ‘we immediately open up the exciting possibility that sustainable development might be defined by people themselves, to represent an ongoing process of self-realisation and empowerment’ (Redclift, 1992: 397). Therefore, people must be the ‘architects’ and ‘engineers’ of sustainable development, rather than mere recipients of a model of sustainable development created in the industrialised world. Indeed, the notion that governance must be essentially state-managed and based upon the lines of ‘an idealised notion of western democracy allied to a Weberian bureaucracy’ (Hulme & Woodhouse, 2001: 215) has been largely rejected by development theorists. Within development studies literature, great advances have been made in understanding the value of institutional diversity and local participation in resource management decision-making. In his seminal work Development Projects Observed, Hirschman (1968) drew attention to the tendency for development planners to simplify the world’s inherent social and political complexity. When environmental considerations become part of the planning equation, an entirely separate (though comparable) source of uncertainty and

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

273

complexity further undermines the validity of conventional planning approaches to environment and development. ‘Such narratives are operationalised into standard approaches with widespread application, often leading to the standardised “blueprint” approaches to planning that have been so often condemned as ineffective or destructive’ (Adams & Hulme, 1992: 2). This is exemplified by conventional approaches to national park planning in much of the developing world. Despite being an essential aid to conservation, their designation has often been to the distinct disadvantage of rural populations. Indeed, governments have often excluded local communities under the misconception that people were disadvantageous to environmental conservation (Murphree & Hulme, 1998). The crude notion of social sustainability extends into other areas of contemporary environmental management theory, such as the ‘new conservation’ articulated by Hulme and Murphree (1999). Community conservation implies a more complex and dynamic phenomenon than a mere shift in responsibility from state to community, suggesting similarly a more complex approach to tourism planning than proposed by the traditional ‘community’ approach (Murphy, 1985, 1988; see also Chapter 6). The concept embraces a web of socio-political factors, core concepts including the elevation of indigenous environmental knowledge and the need to recognise rural inhabitants as ‘citizens not criminals’. Such an eclectic marriage of conservation philosophies sits comfortably with the concept of sustainability. The notion of conservation as preservation is challenged by the emerging sustainability paradigm in which both conservation and development (in the sense of improving security of livelihoods and welfare) are seen as mutually exclusive targets. Natural resources accordingly can be utilised so long as sustainability is not compromised (Hulme & Murphree, 1999). The value of institutional capital has also become an established part of development thinking. A common critique of neoclassical formulations of sustainable development has been its oversimplified understanding of social behaviour and, in particular, the social basis of environmental management. For example, neo-classicists consider resources held as common property susceptible to unsustainable rates of consumption because while, they are subject to individual use, they are not subject to individual possession. Thus, optimal rates of return from resource consumption can only be achieved through the allocation of exclusive property rights to individuals and the creation of a market in environmental damage (Jacobs, 1994). This perspective on the ‘common pool resource’ (CPR) problem has long pervaded academic and policy arenas (Berkes, 1989) and has spurred development agencies and governments into measures to dismantle customary CPR management regimes, many of which have consequently succumbed to formal land tenure laws (McKean & Ostrom, 1995), all in the name of ‘development’. Environment and development discourse has, in recent years, begun to reject the conventional wisdom, focusing instead upon the characteristics of

274

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

indigenous CPR management regimes in both the industrial and developing worlds. A new CPR paradigm has emerged from the (mainly theoretical) research into the problems of collective action, which champions indigenous common property regimes and refutes the conventional state- or marketoriented solutions to the CPR problem. According to this ‘new institutionalist’ perspective, the solution to the CPR problem rests with endogenously created (rather than imposed) institutional arrangements which generate levels of mutual trust and assurance amongst resource users, and which provide the necessary incentives and constraints to maintain cooperation. An increasing volume of theoretical literature, supported by field observations, suggests cooperation is often achieved, and ‘co-ordination problems’ (Ullman-Margalit, 1977) resolved, through rule-systems created by resource users themselves. These diverse perspectives emphasise the centrality of social and institutional capital. However, evidence is mounting emphasising how decentralised environmental management structures also articulate with market institutions. Recent insights into the dynamics of community conservation have highlighted the essential balance of local governance structures interacting with market institutions. The sustainability of ‘nature tourism’ in much of the developing world, for example, has revealed the fundamental role market forces play. Be it wildlife, rainforest or cultural heritage, the reality of population growth and economic development has meant that the dictum ‘use it or lose it’ has found profound relevance (Hulme & Murphree, 1999). Protecting environmental resources from the free market, especially through ineffective or corrupt state regulation, exposes the environment to degradation; ‘if species or habitats are to be conserved they must not be protected from market forces as that will place control in the hands of an inefficient state that will allow them to degrade as rent seeking public officials take bribes from poachers and timber companies’ (Hulme & Murphree, 1999: 280). Rather, where the uniqueness and scarcity of natural resources are reflected by their economic value they are more likely to be conserved. Where conservation offers resource managers a higher return as compared to a degrading activity, such as agriculture, the resource managers will have an incentive to conserve rather than consume their natural resource base. The African elephant, for long chastised by communities for destroying crops, damaging property and inflicting injury, has found a new lease of life where its conservation generates local income – be that through hunting (as in Zambia) or wildlife tourism (in Kenya for example).

Ecological sustainability Appropriate forms of governance, therefore, lie at the heart of sustainability. However, in the same way as the intrinsically top-down approach of development planners and policymakers has been discredited, so too must

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

275

the conventional Western conception of ecological management be scrutinised. An emerging school of thought asserts that Western ecological principles and the long-established environmental management tools which they inform have little relevance for complex socio-environmental systems. It may be argued that rhetorical commitments to environmental conservation as central to sustainable development discourse represent no more than a ‘repackaging’ of development planning to present a green face to business-as-usual exploitation of people and resources (Adams, 1992; Sneddon, 2000). The often rhetorical commitment to the principles of environmental protection and conservation are subordinated by the primacy of economic growth, forming the ideological basis for mainstream sustainable development theory. The concept of ecological sustainability has attracted attention, not least because of the catalogue of disastrous development planning initiatives implemented over the years in much of the developing world. As Sneddon writes, ‘ecological sustainability as a policy and management guideline . . . is certainly preferable to a notion of “sustainable development” wherein ecological concepts and their applications are mere afterthoughts’ (Sneddon 2000: 532). Central to ecological sustainability lies a ‘new’ ecological understanding which calls into question traditional Western Clementian ideas of ecological succession and the Western traditions of environmental managerialism that are founded upon them. The new ecology stresses the principles of non-linearity and dynamic equilibria, which contrast with the conventional ecological principles founded upon homeostasis and rigid ‘carrying capacities’. As Munro (1995: 31) perceptibly remarks, ‘[w]e know the carrying capacity of a field for cows is limited; it has objective reality, the factors involved are relatively few and simple . . . But carrying capacity of the earth for people is subject to a multitude of complex, interacting factors’. A central strand to the new ecology is that environments are inherently dynamic, and not moving towards a climax or equilibrium state, and the recognition that ‘natural environments’ have long been shaped by human activity. New ecological theory promotes notions of adaptive management above the rigid positivist models of development planning, emphasising the preeminence of locally-specific knowledge over ‘blueprint’ solutions to environmental management problems. Ironically, it is in the context of African semi-arid environments that the new ecological paradigm has particular reference (Scoones, 1995). Simplistic deterministic ‘command and control’ strategies of environmental management appear redundant in light of the approach. Adaptive techniques, such as those advocated for a more sustainable approach to pastoral development, are formulated on notions of both institutional and ecological diversity (Adams, 1992). The logic of coupling diverse management strategies with non-linear, unpredictable environmental conditions is well captured by Scoones’ (1995) edited text, Living With Uncertainty, which seeks to reconstitute the essential element of sustainability so evidently absent from conventional rangeland development planning. The latter

276

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

positivist approach to environmental managerialism of course runs counter to the philosophy and practice of land use planning. The reorientation of ecology has also cast doubt over the conventional understanding of environmental fragility – again particularly in the semi-arid rangelands. Hierarchical relationships within and between interdependent ecological communities promote a much greater degree of resilience than conventionally thought. Biodiversity is now regarded as a critical element of an ecosystem’s ability to resist disturbance, whether natural or anthropogenic, and is thus seen as an essential prerequisite for achieving sustainability (Holling et al., 1995). Maintaining ecological diversity is also recognised as a widely employed customary natural resource management strategy. The resilience of ecosystems depends upon many interrelated factors. Resilience is closely related to environmental maturity, so that complex and diverse ecological systems are more stable and capable of absorbing ‘shocks’, such as those associated with tourism. Debate over the relevance of conventional ecology and the concept of carrying capacity within tourism literature is nothing new. Butler’s (1991) analysis of environment and tourism development utilises the concepts of environmental limits and the notion of definable carrying capacities, and reconciles the lifecycle of tourism from development to stagnation and eventual decline. It espouses the principles of self-regulation and the endogenous environmental feedbacks which limit environmental capacity to sustain resource consumption above a set level (Hunter, 1995). The model engages traditional ecological principles, which state that as a species population increases it will eventually approximate to the environmental determined limits. Due to time lags, the population may temporarily overshoot carrying capacity, but will oscillate around a set limit until a state of dynamic equilibrium is reached. As Hunter (1995: 56) suggests, ‘such a pattern could be regarded as sustainable over time, and could be taken to represent sustainable tourism development over time, at least in terms of an individual destination area’. He continues to reflect on the popularity of the carrying capacity model as a basis for sustainable tourism: ‘an inherently attractive concept for those concerned with the environmental impacts of tourism and for those seeking a rationale for interventionist management’ (Hunter, 1995: 66). However, a disjuncture evidently exists between the new and emerging paradigm of environmental management and postpositivist ecological theory (based upon notions of non-linearity), and the essentially positivist approach to environmental control implicit in land use planning. Emerging understandings of ecological dynamics underscore ‘the uncertainty of scientific knowledge and its predictive capabilities . . . [and] . . . call into question any human attempts to “manage” ecological systems’ (Sneddon, 2000: 531). To O’Reilly (1986), the value of the carrying capacity concept lies in its ability to foster environmental consideration in tourism planning while

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

277

promoting a precautionary approach to tourism development and ‘respect for local environmental limits’ (Hunter, 1995). Several alternative approaches to carrying capacity have been suggested, such as ‘limits of acceptable change’ (LAC). According to Wight (1998: 82): ‘LAC is a planning procedure designed to identify preferred resource and social environmental conditions in a given recreation area and to guide the development of management techniques to achieve and protect these conditions’. LAC bases the whole notion of ‘acceptability’ on local connotations of positive and negative environmental change, a paradigmatic shift away from the narrow social and environmental basis of carrying capacity. Allied to the concept of ecological sustainability is the thorny issue of environmental valuation (see Chapter 3). A major failing of neoclassical economics pertains to the under-valuation of ecological services and its failure to account for the depletion or degradation of natural resources through processes of ‘development’. The specific problems of devising and implementing methods of environmental valuation have remained marginal to the far more woolly abstract notions of sustainable development. Today’s economic activities bear environmental externalities which must be borne by future generations and, thus, the environmental economic contribution to sustainable development theory argues that the present generation must compensate future generations ‘to ensure that we pass on to the next generation a stock of . . . capital assets no less than the stock we have now’ (Pearce, 1992: 4). The fundamental building blocks of ecological economics are the notions of intergenerational equity, intragenerational equity and the emphasis placed upon meeting basic human needs, and the integration of ecological processes into economic calculations. Operationalising sustainability depends, therefore, upon the maintenance of a non-depleting stock of natural capital and upon a methodology for valuing environmental goods and services. Constanza (1997) has applied valuation methods to value the planet’s global ecosystem in the region of US$33 trillion per year. Other environmental economic prescriptions for achieving sustainability include those that have great theoretical strength but confront political obstruction (such as revamping national accounting systems to accommodate the true costs of natural resource depletion) to others that have become operational within the context of neoliberal approaches to environmental policy (such as ‘green taxes’ and other market-based instruments).

New Interpretations of Tourism, Environment and Development The above discussion implies a need to rethink the relationship between tourism development, the environment and the communities dependent

278

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

upon environmental resources. Sustainability in tourism development lies not in the rigid blueprints of development planning but in recognition and utilisation of local social and institutional capital. Evidence is mounting that sustainability is most likely to be achieved where local as well as national interests are respected by tourism developers, where communities engage in decision-making and where market institutions engage with local and national governance structures. Under these circumstances, tourism can actively promote both conservation and development, a far cry from tourism’s image as a degrading and exploitative industry. Throughout the era of mounting public concern for the environmental impact of development, tourism retained its image as a ‘smokeless industry’, although publications such as Turner and Ash’s (1975) Golden Hordes drew tourism into the ‘limits of growth’ debate. Since then, the dramatic growth in tourism has redefined it as an industry ‘subordinating environmental issues to the primary need to add new products’ (Kousis, 2000: 469), whilst since the 1970s, a vast quantity of research has explored the environmental impacts of tourism and recreation, particularly in respect to impacts on soil and vegetation (for example, Bayfield, 1971; Goldsmith et al., 1970). Significant effort has been dedicated to understanding factors influencing the environmental impact of tourism (Cohen, 1978; Wall & Mathieson, 2006). Indeed, as Croall (1995: 1) contends, tourism can ‘ruin landscapes, destroy communities, pollute the air and water, trivialise cultures, bring about uniformity, and generally contribute to the continuing degradation on our planet’. Is such a critical perspective warranted? Interactions between tourists, developers, policymakers and planners and the environment are often highly complex (Mieczkowski, 1995). Furthermore, it is often difficult to differentiate between environmental changes caused by tourism and those associated with changing biophysical conditions or those related to other social or economic factors. Mieczkowski (1995) states that tourism is vulnerable to environmental deterioration mediated by socio-political pressures outside the control of the tourism industry. Accordingly, the natural environment both ‘constitutes a tourism resource’ and is ‘part of tourism’s product’ (Mieczkowski 1992: 112). Indeed, the damage (environmental, cultural and social) tourism can impart is not an intrinsic product of tourism per se, but a manifestation of the broader socio-environmental hazards of the prevailing mainstream development philosophy which relegates people and resources below the primacy of profit and economic growth. For example, environmental change in and around Kenya’s Amboseli National Park, most evidently borne out by vegetation changes within and outside the park, has occurred over a period of time that has witnessed a marked growth in tourism, a sharp rise in the human population and a related diversification of land use, changing land tenure arrangements, several years of anomalous climatic conditions and increased salinisation of ground water (Lovatt-Smith, 1993). The distant clouds of dust marking the passage of tourist vehicles across the barren

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

279

Amboseli landscape can easily be correlated with the rapid rise in the number of tourist arrivals yet, in this case, environmental degradation is a culmination of complex interrelated social, political and physical phenomena. Nevertheless, the tourism industry is often cited as the main cause of negative impacts and, not infrequently, such criticism is justified. It is true to say, for example, that many commercial operators adopt a short-term perspective on tourism, and are essentially driven by the motive of profit more than any altruistic (or indeed commercial) concern for future generations of the environment upon which they will depend (McKercher, 1993a). At the same time, tourists themselves are also agents of environmental change. No longer are vacations to the planet’s most remote corners an élitist luxury, but products available to the mass tourism market. Consequently, the numbers of tourists descending upon destinations relatively untouched by Western culture and all it entails have increased alarmingly. Thus, the clear economic benefits of tourism development are often, though not quantifiably, countered by the environmental harm generated by the two-week holidaymakers and their own cultural idiosyncrasies. The demands placed upon scarce water resources, for example, particularly in island destinations, may have far reaching social and environmental consequences for the local populations. As Mieczkowski (1995) controversially argues, it is not the quantity of tourists necessarily that inflicts environmental harm, but also the quality of the tourists. ‘The involvement of everyone in the market . . . has increased the potential for destructive behaviour by individuals with lower educational, and occasionally, even moral levels. Thus, the mass tourism market often includes individuals who lack the eco-conscience that would inhibit them from harming nature’ (Mieczkowski, 1995: 164). Such an overtly élitist position typifies the polarity of the mass versus alternative tourism debate (see Chapter 15), yet there is no doubt that, on occasion, the lack of the ‘attitudinal prerequisites’ gives rise to all manner of environmentally degrading activities, ranging from environmental vandalism, including littering and creating noise pollution, to the unconscious degradation of fragile ecosystems, whether through trampling or the collection of ‘souvenirs’. Not surprisingly, the tourism and development literature has long been replete with examples of the industry’s harmful impacts. Salem (1995) notes that 15,000 cubic metres of water will supply 100 luxury hotel guests for 55 days, while it would serve the needs of 100 rural farmers for three years or 100 urban families for two years. Similarly, Keefe (1995) relates the case of Nahua Indians in Mexico who protested against plans to build a golf course, a five-star hotel and 800 tourist villas, estimated to consume 525,000 gallons of water a day. Pollution is one of the most common negative impacts of tourism. For example, only 30% of the 700 towns on the European Mediterranean coastline treat sewage before discharging it into the sea (Jenner & Smith, 1992), whilst in the Caribbean, only 10% of the sewage generated by the annual influx of 100 million tourists is treated. Moreover, many

280

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

emerging tourist destinations in the developing world have no sewage processing infrastructure at all. However, although there is much evidence of the environmentally degrading consequences of tourism development, the adopted image of tourism as an ‘extractive industrial activity’ (Garrod & Fyall, 1998) – intrinsically based upon a development and environment dichotomy – often conceals its potential to promote environmental conservation and social and economic development. The Eselenkei Conservation Project in southern Kenya, for example, has evolved through the joint efforts of a commercial operator and the local Maasai Community in Eselenkei Group Ranch. Not only has the community gained significant socio-economic advantages from the smallscale wildlife safaris conducted on their land, but the mere presence of tourists and the local ‘game scouts’ has rid the area of poaching. Here, tourism is more than just a malign ‘smokeless industry’ but a genuine and positive force for change. Thus, contrary to its reputation as a ‘spectre haunting our planet’ (Croall, 1995: 1), tourism can justifiably be regarded as a ‘smokeless industry’ and an ‘ecology-oriented sector, a logical partisan of environmental conservation’ (Mieczkowski, 1992: 112). In many instances, tourism offers economic incentives for environmental conservation, making protection a more economically profitable option in comparison to other potential resource uses. Wildlife conservation in much of Africa exemplifies the economic and ecological value of conservation, where countless examples of ‘community conservation’ projects throughout the region are founded on the belief that ‘conservation will either contribute to solving the problems of the rural poor who live day to day with wild animals, or those animals will disappear’ (Adams & McShane, 1992: xix). Many such projects, most notably the CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe and Kenya’s pioneering attempts to promote the linkages between conservation and rural development, have hinged upon the ascendancy of tourism (be it primarily based on hunting in the case of the former and wildlife tourism in the latter) above alternative land uses. One particular example is Kenya’s Maasailand, where scarce ‘wetland in dryland’ resources have come under increasing pressure due to an increase in small-scale irrigated cultivation. This has started to degrade the water resource base and initiate wide scale ecological change. Many Maasai have lost access to customary sources of water and pasture for their herds, and wildlife (in particular elephant herds) has been displaced, creating acute wildlife/human conflict problems elsewhere. However, in recent years and with the support of the Kenya Wildlife Service, commercial investors and local communities, a number of ‘community conservation’ projects have emerged which have started to generate income for Maasai communities through safari tours. Local institutional arrangements have been created to protect key natural resources for wildlife, to ensure an equitable distribution of income and to protect wildlife and the community at large from the

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

281

appropriation of land by outside parties to intensify irrigated cultivation (Southgate & Hulme, 2001). Similarly, the Galapagos, labelled the ‘Enchanted Isles’, also provide an insight into the diverse benefits attainable through tourism. Situated some 600 miles off the coast of Ecuador, the cluster of volcanic islands is often regarded as the most precious and fragile of all ecosystems. Remarkably, 95% of the reptiles, 50% of birds, 42% of land plants, between 70% and 80% of insects and 17% of fish found within the Galapagos exist nowhere else in the world. The designation of national park status for 97% of the islands has, without doubt, greatly facilitated conservation although, in doing so, the Ecuadorian government has encountered strong opposition from other groups with vested interests in consuming rather than conserving the archipelago’s resources. Only through a blend of strong regulations and due consideration of the needs and wants of the local population, as well as other groups with vested interests in the islands’ resources, have positive steps been taken to conserve one of the planet’s most valuable enclaves of untouched natural history. The efforts of Ecuador’s national park service (Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Areas Naturales y Vida Silvestre: INEFAN) have been aided considerably by the popularity of tourism in the Galapagos. The income generated by tourism has grown considerably over the years. In 1997, for example, entrance fees were $100 for foreigners, bringing in $5 million directly to the Galapagos National Park (Honey, 1999). Thus, as Honey (1999) notes, conservation has generally benefited from tourism because of the very close relationship between the tourism industry and the state of the environment. In other cases, tourism has become a ‘saviour of ecosystems in crisis’ (Mieczkowski, 1995: 121). In Madagascar, for example, much of the natural environment bares the scars of rapid population growth and its dependence upon natural resources. Up to 85% of the country’s forests have been felled for charcoal production and to create space for cultivation and livestock production, resulting in a greatly enhanced rate of soil erosion. Mieczkowski quotes an Economist report estimating the cost of deforestation to be between $100 million and $300 million a year. However, tourism has provided a lifeline for Madagascar’s diminishing forests. In particular, ‘nature tourism’ has become a major source of income for the Malagasy government owing to the international interest surrounding Madagascar’s unique ecosystem. Species such as the dwarf lemur (Allocebus trichotis) have generated considerable interest amongst the growing number of ‘nature tourists’ and, since 1991, the remaining forests which provide the habitat for this and other lemur species have been protected. At the same time, the Ranomafana National Park has also been established. Importantly, by way of compensating local residents, a USAID-funded project has been established in order to train locals as tourist guides and to provide others with the basic skills required for the local tourism and hospitality industry. Half of the National Park entrance fees contribute towards the running of this project.

282

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

After more than half a century of rapid and continuing growth in international tourism, there remains scope for great optimism that tourism may contribute to both sustainable, equitable development and environmental conservation, something that development initiatives have so often failed to achieve. Indeed, what is widely claimed to be the fastest growing sector of tourism and often labelled as ecotourism or similar, is that in which the interlinkages between vacation, conservation and development are most apparent. According to King and Stewart (1996: 293), ‘in an idealised model of ecotourism, an integration of conservation and development occurs in which entrepreneurs, government agents, and tourists strive to create sustainable relationships with the environment while improving the welfare of local people’. Ecotourism is often defined as one of a number of ‘sustainable tourism’ concepts, alongside ‘green tourism’ and ‘nature tourism’ for example. According to Croall (1995: 2) ecotourism ‘recognises the fragility of the natural environment, and respects the needs and aspirations of the people that live in the areas affected’. More specifically, Fennell (1999: 43) defines it as: a sustainable form of natural resource-based tourism that focuses primarily on experiencing and learning about nature, and which is ethically managed to be low impact, non-consumptive, and locally oriented . . . It typically occurs in natural areas, and should contribute to the conservation or preservation of such areas. Inevitably, perhaps, interpretation of the ecotourism concept varies. Some commentators distinguish between ‘deep’ and ‘shallow’ ecotourism (Acott et al., 1998), others relate it to scientific ecological principles (Tyler & Dangerfield, 1999) or local empowerment (Scheyvens, 1999), whilst yet others focus upon tourist experiential aspects (Ryan et al., 2000). Collectively, however, the emphasis is placed on the integration of environmental conservation, socio-economic development and tourism. With the pressures bearing down on many of the world’s most precious islands of natural abundance, often within the poorest of the world’s nations, the principle that nature must ‘pay its way’ has struck a chord with governments and local communities alike. The many variants of nature-based tourism have proven their ability to generate local income, to provide the incentive for conservation over utilisation, and to meet the multifaceted demands of tourists, governments, NGOs and commercial operators.

Conclusion This chapter has explored the concept of sustainability (as distinct from the sustainable development paradigm) both within the broad context of development and with specific reference to tourism. As suggested here and

Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment

283

elsewhere in the literature, a disjuncture clearly exists between the rhetoric of sustainable development and its successful implementation both within and beyond the tourism sector. In other words, it has proved difficult, if not impossible, to map the specific socio-economic process of tourism development onto the more general framework of sustainable development. To an extent, this has resulted from the nature and characteristics of tourism itself but, more particularly in the context of tourism’s environmental consequences, it has been argued here that sustainable tourism development has ‘failed’ as a result of the environmental managerialism inherent in sustainable (tourism) development principles. In other words, the imposition of a universal blueprint for tourism development, a set of ‘meta-principles’ founded on mainstream planning and designation processes, is inappropriate given the diverse developmental contexts and needs of tourism destinations, particularly in less developed countries. Importantly, sustainability, which represents the resource element of the sustainable development process (Lélé, 1991), is a broader concept than simply the conservation or protection of natural resources based upon neoMalthusian principles. Rather, it refers to the capacity for continuance of any one ecosystem and is, therefore, a function of complex interrelationships between society and natural resources, a myriad of socio-economic and political structures, and local scale management decisions. Thus, although there can be no simple, universal remedy for tourism’s troublesome track record, the complex dynamics of human–environment relationships have long been ignored by development planners. It is, therefore, not surprising that sustainable tourism remains an illusive objective. Nevertheless, the cross-disciplinary approach to sustainable tourism is forging a clearer understanding of those conditions necessary for sustainability to be achieved. The concept of sustainability not only provides a ‘good example of how alternative strategies can challenge the dominant assumptions of development’ (Sneddon, 2000: 535), but it also adds practical value to understanding the complex socio-environmental conditions influencing, and influenced by, tourism. In particular, it provides the basis for recognising and taking into account the environmental, social, economic and political structures, and their interrelationships, that are unique to any tourism development context. Of course, the degree to which the concept of sustainability can be operationalised within the tourism destination planning and management process rests partially upon the structural context of tourism development, such as national political and economic policies, and aspects of local-level political relationships revolving, for example, around gender and ethnicity. At the same time, the increasingly globalised nature of the tourism production system and its inherent power relationships cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples where tourism can sustain communities, conserve environmental resources and genuinely serve the socio-economic and spiritual rights of future generations. Frequently, this is

284

Par t 2: Rel at ionship bet ween Development and Tour ism

in the context of local, small-scale ecotourism-type developments, although larger scale (or even mass) tourism developments may be seen as being in accordance with the principles of sustainability, particularly if the twin requirements of local governance and ecological sustainability are taken into account. The important point is that mainstream sustainable development, both generally and in its tourism guise, fails to address a number of questions with respect to, for example, decisions and yardsticks related to ‘acceptable damage’, the freedom of destinations to develop tourism according to local needs and wishes and their ability to take full and equitable advantage of tourism developmental opportunities. In other words, the managerialist, ‘blueprint’ character of sustainable tourism serves to reduce the potential environmental and developmental benefits of tourism. Development theorists and practitioners have acknowledged the imperative of community empowerment, participatory development planning, and the value of local indigenous knowledge for two decades. The extent to which tourism engages these same principles will, to a great extent, determine the industry’s future.

Notes (1) The second earth summit, or ‘Rio + 10’ was, held in Johannesburg in 2002 while ‘Rio + 20’, the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, returned to Rio de Janeiro. (2) The Torrey Canyon was the first of the big supertankers to come to grief. On 18 March 1967, she struck Pollard’s Rock on a reef between the Scilly Isles and Land’s End, England. Some 31 million gallons of crude oil leaked from the ship, killing much marine life along the south coast of Britain and the Normandy shores of France. (3) It must be noted here that the National Parks in Britain differ from the more conservation-oriented international model. Not only is most land within the parks privately, rather than state, owned, but they are also living, working landscapes as opposed to the more widely accepted model of wilderness. Not only do over a quarter of a million people live within the parks, but also the land is exploited for farming, forestry, transport, quarrying, water and power supply and, of course, tourism and conservation.

Part 3 Barriers and Challenges to Tourism Development

10 Towards a New Political Economy of Global Tourism Revisited Raoul V. Bianchi

Development must start from the actual conditions and social practices of each people. Barratt Brown, 1995

Introduction Despite the continued expansion and diversification of international tourism worldwide and its consolidation as one of the world’s leading economic sectors, the international political economy of tourism has yet to achieve the prominence it (arguably) did during an earlier epoch of tourism development studies and continues to remain conspicuous by its absence in the wider development literature, with one or two noteworthy exceptions (Chin, 2008; Clancy, 1998, 2008; Ferguson, 2010). As argued elsewhere (see Bianchi, 2009), this deficit can be attributed to a number of factors, including, the fact that tourism has predominantly been observed from applied, business-oriented perspectives, as well as, more recently, the turn away from what are loosely described as ‘structuralist’ analyses of tourism, towards those which tend to foreground the analysis of discourse and culture over that of conflict and inequality rooted in economic and political relations of power, otherwise referred to as the ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies (see Ateljevic et al., 2007). Whilst the preponderance of prescriptive and technical studies into tourism’s economic impact upon host societies provided some insight into the overall quantitative value of tourism to host economies, during an earlier period of tourism development research (Bryden, 1973; Cleverdon, 1979), they did little to reveal the complex articulations between technological change and the social relations of power woven into historically specific 287

288

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

modes of tourism development. When the earlier edition of this chapter was written, the influence of dependency theories and the ‘neo-colonial’ model of tourism had already been on the wane for some time, and Britton’s (1991) seminal publication on tourism and post-industrial capitalist development had placed the study of tourism development firmly within the ‘structuralist’ camp. Since then, a more theoretically nuanced picture has emerged which eschews both the macro-structural generalisations which did, to some extent, plague many analyses of tourism and (under)development, as well as the more post-structuralist hubris and which condemns all attempts to view processes of tourism development as interrelated parts of a complex whole, as essentialist. A new generation of scholars, influenced by a range of critical and radical development studies perspectives, have responded to the changes brought about by globalisation and the reconfiguration of global capitalism since the early 1990s to provide a more nuanced and empirically informed picture of the industrial structure and relations of consumption in international tourism (see Mosedale, 2011). The principal objective of this chapter, therefore, is to reflect and elucidate upon the systemic sources of power which serve to reproduce and condition different modes of tourism development, as a basis from which to develop a more theoretically informed understanding of the structure and dynamics of the political economy of tourism. Where appropriate, it has sought to incorporate new theoretical insights into the international political economy of tourism that have emerged in the past decade, although it remains largely true to the ideas set out in the earlier version. This chapter does not claim to provide a comprehensive study of the international political economy of tourism but, rather, presents a particular way of looking at tourism development based on the radical theoretical traditions in political economy (see Dunn, 2009; Sherman, 1987). The central normative preoccupation of such an approach consists of an analysis of the social relations of power which condition unequal and uneven processes of tourism development, which are reinforced through particular configurations of ideologies and institutions. In this regard, the following section reviews some of the central ‘problems’ in political economy as well as examining some of the earlier applications of the neo-colonial dependency model in tourism, before then going on to explore the contemporary tourism political economy in more detail.

Capitalist Development and the Power of Tourism A radical political economy approach to the analysis of tourism and capitalist development both challenges the neoclassical view of market equilibrium as the central dynamic force of development, as well as reified Marxist models which profess to ‘explain’ development processes according to a

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

289

generalised and abstract set of mechanical laws. A radical approach asks how and why asymmetries of power emerge between antagonistic social class interests and the different geographical regions brought together through interlocking networks of exchange through tourism. In particular, it is concerned with the manner in which market relations between different groups of actors in the tourist system conceal the uneven bargaining powers and underlying material interests of different classes. Before considering existing models of political economy in tourism, it is important to dwell briefly upon the principal theoretical assumptions which inform the two main paradigms in political economy.

Defining political economy In its broadest sense, the essential distinction between the neoclassical and Marxist traditions in political economy lies in the respective emphasis given to the centrality of cooperative and competitive instincts in the formation of human societies (Barratt Brown, 1995: xiii). In turn, this has been mirrored by the normative disputes surrounding the appropriate balance between equity and efficiency in the economy (see Levine, 1988: 107–125). The origins of the latter derive from the liberal tradition of economic and political thought in the 18th and 19th centuries, which has consistently emphasised the maximisation of individual liberty (to acquire/dispose of labour and property) as the basis upon which to secure the welfare of society as a whole, in contrast to the former, which is associated with the Marxist tradition, in which it is argued that the formal equality between citizens enshrined within liberal polities conceals deeper underlying antagonisms brought about by the workings of the market (see Walker, 1989: 22–41). Marxist political economy thus places the emphasis firmly upon the power relations which are constituted by the capitalist mode of production,1 which in turn give rise to the increasingly antagonistic relations between capital and labour. In contrast, scholars in the neoclassical tradition, such as Alfred Marshall, who followed on from the earlier work of Smith and Ricardo (see Larrain, 1989: 7–9), tended to reduce political economy to the free play of ‘rational’ individual economic behaviour in the market. While the more deterministic aspects of Marxist political economy have been both greatly exaggerated and, where appropriate, extensively criticised from both left and right (see Kiely, 1995; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; Popper, 1990), the legacy of his work remains central to a radical political economy analysis of the forces of social change and mechanisms of appropriation which condition and structure contemporary patterns of development in the international political economy. Indeed, a number of critical scholars, including Cox (1981, 1987, 2002), Rupert and Smith (2002) Sherman (1987) and Strange (1994a, 1994b) have demonstrated a more open theoretical approach to political economy while retaining the central normative preoccupation of

290

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

examining the systemic sources of power and inequalities at different levels in the global system. In a seminal paper, Cox (1981) developed the concept of historical structures, according to which particular configurations of forces (material capabilities, ideas and institutions) condition rather than determine the range of actions within the international political economy. Thus, the structures of power which both condition and emerge from the process of social change vary according to the historical-geographical configuration of material capabilities, institutions and ideological forces in particular ‘state/ society complexes’ (Cox, 1981: 134–137). Accordingly, Cox argues that, ‘it [production] has no historical precedence; indeed, the principal structures of production have been, if not actually created by the state, at least encouraged and sustained by the state’ (1987: 5). The political economy of tourism should, therefore, seek to elucidate upon the antagonistic forces and social relations which give rise to and are encompassed within specific modes of tourism development. By ‘modes of tourism development’, I am referring to the specific historical combination of technologies and power relations which underpin the organisation of tourism production in any given historical-geographic context. A radical approach to the political economy of tourism thus challenges the realist perspectives which characterise, for example, technical approaches to tourism policy and planning (e.g. Gunn, 1994). Indeed, the weakness of these approaches has been exposed by Hall (1994c: Chapter 1) for underplaying the relations of power and bargaining processes between different groups of collective actors, as a result of its emphasis on rational and overt decision-making processes. It is equally critical of the applied, business-focused school of tourism research whereby the success of tourism is examined in terms of the creativity and innovativeness of individual entrepreneurs and businesses at the expense of analysing the manner in which their ability to do so is constrained and enabled by the prevailing distribution of power in a given historical and societal context (cf. Go, 1997; Poon, 1993). Where destinations are concerned, the pervasiveness of neoliberal governance and the belief in the selfregulating capacity of the market to allocate investment where it is needed most is further illustrated by the importance attached to competitiveness as the guiding principle of tourism development policy, as exemplified by the annual publication of the World Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index (World Economic Forum, 2011). The attempt to conceive of market behaviour in isolation from the ideologies and values of the different actors and interest groups, as reflected in the free market notion of comparative advantage, underplays both the unequal distribution of incomes and power which may result from ‘open’ competition in the tourism market, as well as the political nature of markets whereby the state has historically conditioned the activities of economic classes, and furthermore, ignores the uneven consequences of unlimited market competition (see Barratt Brown, 1995: 24–28; Held, 1995: 59–66). Different economic

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

291

systems, whether under conditions of capitalist production or centralised planning systems, are inherently political insofar as they serve to mobilise resources and organise people into hierarchical arrangements of power for the purpose of extracting surpluses from a given population (Lummis, 1991). Historically, notions of scarcity have been invoked by those at the apex of any given economic system as a powerful means of legitimising the centralised control of resource allocation. This applies as much to centralised systems of planning as it does to the capitalist free market. As demonstrated by Lummis (1991) and Rowbotham (1998), the free market is nothing of the kind but, rather, constitutes a clever means of manipulating consumerist desires whilst simultaneously obfuscating the sources of inequality which arise from the apparent affluence it creates. Thus, the ‘free’ market traps us in the illusion of choice in so far as we see our assimilated values reflected back at us through a glittering array of consumer items presented to us for our gratification (cf. Williamson, 1978). Notions of scarcity are articulated through tourism in many different ways, as evidenced in Urry’s (1995: 133–140) discussion of the socially constructed and contested nature of tourism carrying capacity. It is also particularly relevant in light of today’s conventional wisdom amongst governments and international agencies, that competitiveness, innovation and diversification are the cornerstones of sustainable tourism (Yunis, 2000). The value assumptions which underpin such views involve the implicit acceptance of the prevailing political-economic framework (i.e. the logic of the capitalist free market) within which tourism operates. Furthermore, they ignore the fact that such proposed ‘solutions’ to unsustainable tourism based on, for example, low volume/high spending so-called ‘quality’ tourists, may reproduce the systemic inequalities which characterised previous forms of ‘mass’ tourism development whilst doing little to alleviate pressure on the environment (see Bianchi, 2004). Such views coalesce with a market-based conception of scarcity which serves to conceal underlying arrangements of power whereby different social groups are struggling for control over the ability to ascribe ‘value’ to different types of resources. The approach to the political economy of tourism adopted here can be summarised as the examination of the systemic sources of power which both reflect and constitute the competition for resources and the manipulation of scarcity, in the context of converting people, places and histories into objects of tourism consumption. The questions which need to be posed can be summarised as follows: what are the systemic sources of power which condition and reproduce uneven access to the economic, cultural and political means of production in tourism; how are the relationships between universal mechanisms of change and inequality on the one hand, and historical-geographic specificity on the other, manifest within these processes, and, to what extent is it possible to identify alternative structures of tourism development which challenge the prevailing institutional and economic hegemony of existing

292

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

actors and institutions? As a precursor to a more in-depth consideration of these issues, the following section reviews the concept of core-periphery relations, one which has played an important part in constructing the neocolonial model of tourism development.

Tourism and core-periphery relations Earlier research into the political economy of tourism drew heavily on both the liberal economic paradigm, which emphasises the positive economic effects of tourism and analyses tourism policy in terms of practical solutions to its negative environmental and social consequences, as well as the Marxist tradition, specifically, dependency theory (cf. Frank, 1966; Wallerstein, 1979). Authors in the latter tradition envisaged tourism as an expression of metropolitan hegemony that subordinates peripheral states to a position of dependence on foreign capital and tourists (Leheny, 1995). Although Bryden (1973) and de Kadt (1979b) are rightly credited for some of the earliest critical insights into tourism development, the political economy of tourism is perhaps best associated with Britton’s (1980b, 1982b) pioneering series of articles in which he elaborated upon the manner in which Third World destinations are exploited by metropolitan capitalist enterprises who organise and control the nature and scope of tourism development in the former. According to the enclave model of Third World tourism he devised, it was emphasised that tourism both exacerbates social and economic inequalities between the core and periphery as well as within destinations themselves. Britton, along with certain others (Hills & Lundgren, 1977; Pérez, 1980), focused predominantly on the unequal relations of exchange between destinations in the so-called ‘less developed countries’ and the rich generator nations which were rooted in the historical structures of the colonial trading system. Colonialism had distorted the underlying structure of Third World economies via the imposition of an externally oriented pattern of trade, organised around specialised commodity export enclaves producing for the metropolitan market, otherwise known as the ‘plantation system’ (Beckford, 1972). This resulted in the disintegration of the endogenous economy and the eventual subordination of peripheral states to a position of ‘structural dependency’ even after formal political independence had been achieved. Accordingly, critics have argued, the growth of international tourism was predicated upon the superior affluence of the industrialised nations and underpinned by the systemic inequalities in the world economy (Davis, 1978; Hiller, 1976). Their view offered a stark contrast to the optimistic outlook of developers and governments, who claimed that tourism would help overcome the structural distortions inherited from the colonial economy and promote economic development in many newly independent states (cf. Krapf, 1961; Bond & Ladman, 1980). Thus, rather than stimulate an autonomous dynamic of development, tourism contributes directly towards

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

293

an extension of metropolitan dominance over weaker destination peripheries and ultimately leads to a loss of self-reliance (Høivik & Heiberg, 1980). It was, therefore, claimed that tourism accentuated an enclave pattern of development (Freitag, 1994). In this respect, authors highlighted the structural similarities between the plantation system of agriculture and mass tourism (Butler, 1993b; Hall, 1994b), to the extent that tourism was sometimes referred to as a ‘new kind of sugar’ (Finney & Watson, 1975). Enclave resorts, controlled by metropolitan capital and generating few linkages to local communities, thus came to symbolise the highly unequal economic and cultural relations which structured tourism development in less developed states. In particular, these patterns of tourism development have been more prevalent in small island states characterised by low levels of economic diversification (Wilkinson, 1989). The critical perspectives put forward by proponents of the neo-colonial model also contained a significant spatial dimension. For example, as evidenced in Fiji (Britton, 1980b) and Antigua (Weaver, 1988) the spatial character of tourism development grew out of the pre-existing pattern of the ‘colonial space-economy’. Where tourism takes place in small island states which were previously part of the colonial plantation system, as in the case for many resorts in the Caribbean and the Pacific, large-scale, resorts operated by expatriate capital have often been built on coastal plantation lands, thus reproducing the plantation economy (Hall, 1994b). Not only did this segregate the relatively affluent tourists from impoverished locals and, in many cases, continues to do so (see Pattullo, 1996: 80–82), it also prevented these lands being transferred to smallholders, thereby exacerbating sociospatial inequalities between the rural interior and coastal areas (Hills & Lundgren, 1977: 262; Weaver, 1988: 321–328). According to Britton (1982b: 336), this pattern is compounded by the organisational structure of the international tourism industry itself, particularly the monopolistic control exerted by capitalist multinational enterprises within each of the diverse elements which make up the end-product. Their disproportionate control over capital resources, managerial expertise and most importantly, their ability to dictate consumer demand through marketing and promotion, endows them with an overwhelming competitive advantage compared to local tourism enterprises in the destination countries themselves. Further to the material relations of unequal exchange perpetuated by tourism in the periphery, others have likened tourism to a form of ‘cultural imperialism’ (Shivji, 1975: ix), or rather, the ‘hedonistic face of neo-colonialism’ (Crick, 1989: 322). Here, the emphasis lies on the link between tourism and the objectification of native inhabitants by virtue of their incorporation into a system of generalised commodity exchange much like any other form of merchandise. Moreover, it has been argued that tourism and the institutionalisation of hospitality reinforces notions of subservience, particularly where the legacy of colonialism and slavery is strong, as it is in the Caribbean

294

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

(Husbands, 1983). In this respect, it is argued that tourism serves to inculcate a sense of psychological inferiority to metropolitan tourists amongst locals, a situation that is materially reinforced through the proliferation of servile employment and a clearly demarcated ethnic division of labour (Samy, 1980; Pattullo, 1996: 63–65). Erisman (1983), however, warns that these perspectives tend to underplay the ability of Caribbean populations to negotiate and adapt to the penetration of metropolitan cultural forms through tourism. Moreover, international tourism is one amongst numerous mediums through which consumerist values are communicated. It is certainly arguable that the consolidation of a small number of overwhelmingly North American and Western European global media-telecommunications-entertainment corporations enhances their ability to exercise a far greater degree of influence over local cultural practices and patterns of consumption than tourism does (see Held et al., 1999: 341–360).2 Nevertheless, the historical class and ethnic dimensions of inequality in dependent island economies cannot be ignored, particularly where the symbolism and ideological content of colonial history is refracted through tourism, serving to undermine the emergence of a strong, indigenous, post-colonial identity (cf. Palmer, 1994). What many of these earlier political economy analyses of international tourism had in common was their overly generalised view of macro-structural processes which, some argue, can be attributed to a disproportionate emphasis on international mass tourism (Oppermann, 1993). Whilst crucial aspects of local/regional economic development were certainly overlooked and undertheorised, the neo-colonial model did nevertheless highlight some of the major structural inequalities between markets and destinations in the international tourism political economy. Before moving onto a more detailed critique of the neo-colonial dependency model in tourism, the next section will briefly consider some of the key transformations in the world economy, with an emphasis on the past three decades, and the implications for the international political economy tourism.

Tourism and the global dynamics of unequal development In the absence of widespread capitalist industrialisation in the so-called ‘Third World’, international mass tourism emerged as one of the principal instruments for the diffusion of capitalist modernity into non-industrialised, ‘developing’, or more commonly known, ‘less developed countries’ (LDCs), particularly in those parts of the world that have seen a difficult transition from colonial rule to independence, for example, sub-Saharan Africa. From 1989 to 1997, the proportion of tourist activity accounted for by LDCs rose from 21% to 30.5%, whilst aggregate tourist receipts increased from 26% to 30% (Harrison, 2001a: 11). In terms of its contribution to developing country exports, the importance of international tourism as an export sector nevertheless varies considerably from one region to another, as well as between

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

295

different countries. The economic weight of tourism exports in LDCs, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), varies from as high as 31.1% in the Maldives, to as low as 1–2% in such countries as Bangladesh, Burkina Faso and Zambia (Sharpley, 2009a: 340–341). There are many more places where tourist activity is all but non-existent due to long-standing political unrest and violent conflict, as in the case of Afghanistan, Eritrea and the Democratic Republic of Congo, or indeed where for reasons other than conflict the infrastructure for tourism barely exists, as in Bhutan, the Central African Republic and Equatorial Guinea. Notwithstanding variations in the scale and characteristics of tourism development across the LDCs, together with the fact that the geographic and social distribution of benefits which have accrued from international tourism are unevenly distributed (see Harrison, 1995b: 4–8), there is little doubt that tourism has provided many LDCs with a valuable source of income and employment in the absence of significant levels of industrialisation and a diversified economic base. Such benefits notwithstanding, Sharpley (2009a: 338) highlights what he terms the ‘fundamental paradox’ of tourism development in poor countries, especially in those classified by the United Nations as least developed countries3: Despite the apparently successful growth of tourism in a number of LDCs that possess the potential to develop a tourism sector, wider socioeconomic development has almost without exception, been limited. One of the principal advantages of tourism as an export sector resides in the fact that it has traditionally been less subject to the immense array of tariff barriers which often prevent merchandise exports from the developing countries penetrating lucrative Western markets, despite proclamations to the contrary by the World Trade Organisation (see Dasgupta, 1998: 151–156). Indeed, international tourism has also been one of the few sectors in which ‘less developed’ states with weaker, less industrialised economies, have consistently achieved trade surpluses (which rose from US$6 billion to US$62.2 billion during the period between 1980 and 1996). Moreover, it has enabled their governments to stabilise their foreign currency receipts and provide some protection against price fluctuations in merchandise export sectors (UNCTAD, 1998: 4). Indeed, were it not for earnings from the tourism sector in 1986, Barbados would have registered a net balance of trade deficit of US$315 million rather than the US$324 million surplus it actually managed to achieve (Allen, 1996: 63). Yet, according to latest figures from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), much of the Africa and South Asia still suffer from chronic under-development, poverty, famine and reduced life-expectancy (UNDP, 1999). In particular, the least developed countries, whose real GDP per capita fell from 4.1% per annum to 2.6% between 2008 and 2011

296

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

(UNCTAD, 2011: 6), have witnessed very little in the way of economic improvements since their initial inclusion on the list starting in 1971, with the exception of Botswana, Cape Verde and the Maldives, each of which have recently ‘graduated’ from the list. Despite hopes that tourism would provide a means by which they could overcome the structural obstacles to development, many of the ‘least developed countries’ in particular have faced an uphill struggle in seeking to build viable tourism sectors due to a range of internal constraints which are also conditioned by the precise manner of their historical integration into wider economic systems (see Cater, 1987). In the Caribbean, where a resort-based package tourism industry with a strong presence of all-inclusives has predominated since the 1960s, despite the continued growth of international tourist arrivals and earnings from foreign tourism – which saw a 220% increase between 1990 and 2004 from US$9.8bn to US$21.6bn (Caribbean Tourism Organisation, 2012), high levels of debt, unemployment and poverty continue to exist in many of the Caribbean’s popular tourist destinations, such as Jamaica (Dodman, 2009). Attempts by individual Caribbean states to secure their own autonomous paths of economic development have been further undermined since the late 20th century by neoliberal policies aimed at opening up publically-owned infrastructure to private capital, creating new geographies of inequality across the region (Sheller, 2009). This has reinforced a model of tourism development based on large hotels and a ‘gated, security guarded, even fortified, private enclave of the all-inclusive resort’ (Sheller, 2009: 196), exacerbating socio-spatial inequalities both within particular islands and across the region as a whole. There have nevertheless been notable signs of improvement in countries such as Uganda, Tanzania and Cambodia which have seen above average rates of growth in tourist arrivals and receipts in recent years. In Egypt, tourism has resulted in considerable economic advancement (until the onset of political unrest in February 2011 that, at the time of writing, continues to destabilise the country and its economy) as a result of structural reforms carried out in the early 1990s. These reforms enabled the Egyptian authorities to expand the contribution of tourism to GDP and local employment, and in so doing compensate for declining revenues elsewhere and thus balance their trade deficit (Steiner, 2006). The blame for many of these economic and social ills clearly cannot be solely attributed to tourism, if indeed at all in some cases. Nevertheless, it must be a cause for concern that in those places where tourism has played an instrumental role in economic development, the evidence suggests that it has not brought about the desired/expected benefits for large swathes of the population, as predicted in several well-known studies such as the Zinder and Checchi Reports (see Lea, 1988; Wood, 1979), and promoted by various international agencies (UN, 1963). Notwithstanding the expansion of tourism into ‘new’ destinations, such as Cambodia, Mali, Laos and Myanmar, Uganda and Tanzania (WTO, 1998b: 12), in many cases tourism does not appear to have

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

297

resulted in a substantial improvement in overall standards of living or stimulated an autonomous dynamic of development beyond the entrance of a minority of members from amongst the national elites into some positions of management such as, for example, in Kenya (Sindiga, 1999: 95). During the initial phases of postwar tourism expansion, a number of newly independent states deployed a combination of state intervention and limited foreign investment in order to develop tourism, including in Tunisia, where in the space of five years (1960–1965), up to 40% of the accommodation capacity was built with state capital (de Kadt, 1979b: 20). The chief aims of state-led development, manifested for example in Tunisia which transformed itself into a major Mediterranean beach resort destination by the end of the 1960s via a state-led project of economic modernisation through tourism commencing in 1959 (Hazbun, 2008), was to harness tourism in order to modernise their societies and encourage a degree of economic self-reliance (Curry, 1990). However, despite many of the laudable aims of ‘Third World’ models of socialism and centrally planned development which underpinned many of these attempts to develop a state-run tourism industry, the longterm developmental consequences of state-run domestic hotel chains were on the whole plagued by bureaucratic inefficiencies and under-investment. As the internal contradictions of their economies collided with the ‘perfect storm’ of factors associated with the worldwide economic slump of the early 1970s, extensive borrowing linked to large-scale tourism projects soon became encouraged by different lending agencies affiliated to the World Bank between 1969 and 1979, which funded a total of 24 ‘tourism plants’ in 18 countries, amounting to a total investment of US$1.5 billion (Badger, 1996: 21). By 1968, the proportion of the tourism sector controlled by the state in Tunisia had already passed into predominantly (83%) private hands (Hazbun, 2008: 11). From the outset, these large-scale tourism development projects contributed to the accumulating debt burdens amongst many newly independent states in the ‘Third World’.4 Many cash-strapped countries such as Turkey, Egypt and The Gambia, amongst others, which had a borrowed substantial amount of funds in order to develop large-scale tourism infrastructures, found themselves at the mercy of International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) by the end of the 1970s (see contributions in Badger et al., 1996; see Chapter 2). The significance of these World Bank assisted projects extended beyond the economic sphere into the ideological baggage that accompanied them. Development was seen as axiomatic, and merely depended on the provision of adequate technical expertise and ‘a firm belief in economies of scale in relation to infrastructure and communications’ (Burns, 1999a: 333). In the face of widespread international criticism for its role in exacerbating the debt crisis and economic impoverishment of LDCs via the imposition of SAPs, by the early 1990s the World Bank had started to adopt a different

298

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

approach to its economic interventions in poor states, switching from the harsh language of structural adjustment to the softer discourses geared towards ‘poverty alleviation’ (see Harrison, 2005; see Chapter 4). By the time of the publication of the World Bank’s flagship 2000/2001 World Development Report, ‘poverty reduction’, along with sustainable development, had become firmly established within official aid and development-related discourse, including of course the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, such programmes belie their underlying neoliberal emphasis on the integration of subordinate sectors of the population into capitalist markets, rather than national economic development (Rowden, 2010). Similar contradictions surround the much-touted ‘pro-poor tourism’ programmes which, despite signifying a notable shift towards incorporating the interests of the poor into tourism development policy, may nonetheless be undermined by an inherent neoliberal emphasis centred on economic liberalisation and market-led growth (see Giampiccoli, 2007; Schilcher, 2007; see Chapter 4). Technocratic models of tourism master planning constituted one component amongst a cluster of tourism-related policies, which aimed to promote a particular kind of tourism rooted in a Western economic rationality. A particularly striking example of the paternalistic arrogance of Western development agencies towards Africa is provided by the 1973 World Bank/UNDP project to develop tourism in The Gambia (Harrell-Bond & Harrell-Bond, 1979). The plans included the facilitation of expatriate investment and the provision of expertise which, it was assumed, would involve ‘the wholesale social reorganisation of Gambian society which was deemed necessary for the tourism industry to flourish’ (Harrell-Bond & Harrell-Bond, 1979: 78). Although such explicitly ethnocentric language and inappropriate approaches to tourism planning have to a certain extent given way to the language of ‘participatory development’, ‘poverty reduction’ and fair trade, albeit in a rather limited way (see Tosun & Jenkins, 1998), the experience of many destinations, including Eritrea (Burns, 1999a), Zanzibar (Honey, 1999), Jordan (Hazbun, 2000) and Lombok in Indonesia (Kamsma & Bras, 2000), demonstrates that much contemporary tourism planning advice is still driven by a technocratic rationality, albeit articulated through a neoliberal vision of economic liberalisation and deregulation. In a different context altogether, the legacy of a Soviet bureaucratic political culture combined with the aggressive eastward expansion of neoliberal capitalism, has reinforced the application of top-down (supra-national) models of tourism spatial planning in the Baltic region, despite paying lip-service to local and regional perspectives (Jaakson, 2000). The historical timing of insertion of many ‘developing’ countries into the circuits of tourism trade was a key factor conditioning the ‘success’ of these tourism development projects. As Curry (1982) has demonstrated that, in the case of Tanzania, the twin effects of the oil shocks and declining commodity prices during the 1970s, combined with a high proportion of investment

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

299

‘locked into’ fixed costs associated with tourism-related infrastructural development, led to worsening terms of tourism trade precisely at the moment when international tourism was beginning to expand in many other countries, thus intensifying competition. Despite the fact that countries with more diversified economies, such as Kenya, have been able to reduce the leakages from tourism to some extent (Dieke, 1995: 79), Sindiga (1999) warns that it is important to disaggregate tourism by sector in order to get a more accurate picture of the manner in which income accrues to the local population. Thus, for example, foreign leakages in the all-inclusive beach tourism sector are generally higher (62–78%) than, for example, safari tourism (34– 45%) which relies more on independent, locally-run tour companies, tour guides and rangers (Madeley, 1996: 21). These disparities are also reflected in the polarisation of the territorial distribution of benefits. In Kenya, 91% of tourism revenues accrued to Nairobi and Mombasa in 1981, leaving a mere 9% for the rest of the country (Rajotte, 1987: 84–85). Leakages have been further exacerbated by neoliberal policies designed to favour growth and competitiveness via the attraction of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) and increased economic integration of developing countries into global markets. In Fiji, leakages remain in excess of 60% while the majority of tourism ventures are either foreign owned or indeed joint ventures (Schilcher, 2007: 181). Notwithstanding the increased regionalisation of investment flows and the varying degrees of participation by an indigenous capitalist bourgeoisie in their domestic tourism industries, notably in Zambia (Teye, 1986) and Zanzibar (Meyer, 2011), Brown (1998) argues that a combination of oligopolistic corporate control by transantional tourism corporations (TTCs) and ineffectual state intervention/regulation continues to sustain an unequal model of tourism development whose benefits flow predominantly to a privileged minority of state officials and well-placed local capitalists in the host countries and TTCs based in the ‘North’. Indeed by 1975, 47% of all hotels under transnational control were located in LDCs and, by 1978, only one hotel chain (the Indian-based Oberoi chain) out of the top 26 hotel chains was based outside the advanced capitalist countries (Dunning & McQueen, 1982: 72–74). By the mid-1990s, an estimated 13 TTCs, encompassing tour operations, airlines, travel agencies and hotels, exerted a substantial degree of control over much of the global tourism industry (Madeley, 1996: 8). Sinclair et al. (1995: 60) also point out that despite significant moves towards the indigenisation of hotel ownership in Kenya, the majority of middle and upper-category hotels are still predominantly run as joint ventures with foreign companies. By the early 21st century, there was foreign equity participation in up to 70–80% of major hotels in Kenya’s principal tourist locations even if less than 20% of these were owned outright by foreign capital (Endo, 2006: 602). Despite continued high levels of foreign ownership and/or management of tourism facilities in sub-Saharan Africa and, indeed, elsewhere across

300

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

developing state economies (Sindiga, 1999: 23–31), there are signs that patterns of ownership in tourism have become increasingly differentiated at a regional level. Meyer’s (2011) research on FDI in tourism in Zanzibar demonstrates that although the authorities began to remove obstacles to inward investment in 1985, attracting US$440 million of foreign investment between 1986 and 2002, much of this capital came from outside the ‘traditional’ generating regions of Britain, Germany and Italy. Rather, it originated in Bahrain, Mauritius and the United Arab Emirates, as well as from within Africa itself (e.g. Kenya and South Africa), thus also confirming emerging patterns of South–South trade and economies linkages on a wider scale (see UNCTAD, 2011: 4). Meyer (2011: 163) does nevertheless point out that African-owned properties nevertheless still have a tendency to be commercially tied (but not owned) to European-based tour operators, thus confirming the argument that any analysis of the configuration of ownership in tourism must take into consideration its inherently diverse supply chain (see Leiper, 2008). This then also begs the question, notwithstanding the ability of ‘South–South’ FDI to potentially offset a decline in FDI flows from the ‘North’, as to the extent to which the increased geographical diversification of trade and FDI constitutes a sign of a more equitable tourism order that will enable LDCs to overcome the structural constraints on economic development through tourism. The first signs that the Western-inspired model of tourism development in the non-industrialised countries concealed a number of underlying antagonisms occurred as a result of the combined effects of the 1970s oil crises, extensive over-borrowing from both multilateral and private institutions, 5 and declining commodity prices in key export sectors. The principal and most devastating outcome for poorer countries in Africa and Latin America was to hasten the ‘debt crisis’ which was to precipitate a dramatic shift in the balance of power between state and market. The subsequent imposition of structural adjustment programmes by the IMF/World Bank (see Dasgupta, 1998: 66–136), ostensibly in order to ease their balance of payment deficits and alleviate their debt-burdens through export-led economic growth, reflected an ideological shift to the right amongst creditors, who hoped to return these states to a ‘“proper” economic development path’ (Dieke, 1995: 81). This involved an aggressive mix of reforms designed to dismantle state intervention in the economy and promote export-led growth and competitiveness. However, by the end of 1999, regional gross national product (GNP) per capita in sub-Saharan Africa had fallen from 17.6% of world GNP per capita in 1975, to 10.5% (Arrighi, 2002: 3). During the 1980s, the architects of the neoliberal capitalist hegemony (the IMF/World Bank, private banks, transnational corporations, globalising politicians, state bureaucrats, various professional actors and journalists) stressed the imperatives of economic growth, deregulation and privatisation. In order to reduce public deficits, IMF/World Bank-sponsored SAPS

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

301

encouraged the sell-off of state-owned enterprises, which included government-run tourism enterprises in well-known destinations such as The Gambia (Sharpley & Sharpley, 1996: 32) and Kenya (Dieke, 1995). Privatisation programmes also stimulated a massive influx of capital into developing nations, precipitating the shift of assets from the public sector into the hands of foreign investors and domestic economic and political elites. In Costa Rica, for example, structural adjustment has led to the displacement of indigenous village entrepreneurs in nature-based tourism, and budget cuts in a number of state-funded conservation services (Place, 1998). Countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America arguably suffered the most from the social, economic and political upheaval as a result of rising debt burdens and the austerity measures imposed by the IMF and World Bank during the 1980s. Where the state had previously played a key interventionist role in the development and planning of tourism resorts in countries such as Mexico (Clancy, 1999) and Peru (Desforges, 2000), the combined influence of the debt crisis and deregulation of global financial markets signalled the decline of state-controlled tourism development. By 1987, it was estimated that 71% of the top two classes of hotel chain in Mexico were operated by TTCs (Clancy, 1999: 13) while in Peru, the state tourist board had its budget reduced to zero (Desforges, 2000: 186). The extent of neoliberal ideological influence on tourism policy extended to conservation, as manifest by the privatisation of 13 national parks in Thailand (Honey, 1999: 39). Similar proposals were put forward by Peru’s national tourism director who argued that national parks (including the famous Inca ruins and World Heritage Site of Machu Picchu) should be franchised to private investors (Desforges, 2000: 186). Indeed, the prevailing neoliberal economic order is clearly reflected in tourism, in which hotels and other strategic assets in the tourism-hospitality sector are seen as, ‘part of the essential business infrastructure necessary to attract potential investors and to establish a modern market economy’ (Pryce, 1998: 81). Notwithstanding the participation of powerful cliques of Mexican investors in three of the largest Mexican-based hotels chains, each with a considerable presence in other parts of Latin America, by 1994 the United States and Canada were responsible for 70% of total investment in tourism-related activities in Mexico, even before the effects of trade liberalisation under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had begun to have an effect (Rodríguez & Portales, 1994: 320). Similarly, the move towards a more liberalised international trading regime in tandem with the consolidation of regional trading blocs (NAFTA, European Union (EU)) further threatens the survival of small-scale Caribbean agricultural and manufacturing producers, as well as domestic tourism businesses, thus intensifying regional dependence on TTC-controlled tourism (Pattullo, 1996: 7). Although it has been argued by some (e.g. Harrison, 2001b: 33–39) that governments have not been particularly effective managers of tourism

302

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

enterprises, it is rarely mentioned that where attempts by the state to harness productive capital for tourism have failed, it has usually occurred in countries where productive forces were at a low level of development. In addition, the shortcomings of state-led development in certain parts of the world must not only be seen against the backdrop of widespread domestic corruption and political clientelism, but also the failure of capitalist forms of development to institutionalise themselves in places like sub-Saharan Africa, as opposed to any inherent shortcomings of state intervention, as the relatively successful experiences of state-led development in East Asia demonstrate (see Cox & Negri, 2010; Rowden, 2010; Wade, 1990), and arguably Mexico (Clancy, 1999). Notwithstanding the disproportionate dominance of national political and economic elites in tourism destinations in LDCs, there have traditionally been higher levels of indigenous entrepreneurship and ownership of tourism in many Asian tourism destinations, particularly in peripheral regions beyond the principal circuits of corporate capital exchange and accumulation (e.g. Michaud, 1991, 1997; Dahles, 1997). Even on the island of Bali itself, there has historically been a clear spatial differentiation in the ownership of tourism accommodation facilities. While indigenous entrepreneurial involvement in the former fishing village of Kuta and the inland village of Ubud, particularly in the handicrafts and lodgings sector, has traditionally been high, in nearby Sanur, the coastal strip of hotels has been dominated by external metropolitan capital (Wood, 1979: 285). Despite the moves towards an increasingly deregulated global capitalist economy, the structures of ownership and control in tourism cannot simply be read off as linear expansion of capital, or indeed, an expression of neocolonialism. Local and regional conditions of development vary considerably in their relation to globalising capital, which has clear implications for an understanding of the manner in which tourism becomes embedded within and transforms particular social structures. Indeed, Ioannides and Debbage (1998) argue that tourism is characterised by a polyglot of production forms and strategic alliances in which increased levels of industrial concentration (within transnational corporations) have arisen in tandem with the proliferation of a loosely federated structure of specialist tour operator subsidiaries, contractors and independent small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) providing a variety of services at different levels. For example, where both informal working practices and production configured predominantly around the family household prevails, as in many southern European regions where tourism has a strong presence, capital/labour relations may be quite diverse (e.g. van der Werff, 1980). Moreover, in many of the sub-sectors which make up the tourism industry, including accommodation, retail and local transport services, horizontal distinctions between owners and workers are more often than not intersected by the affiliations of ethnicity, gender, religion and kinship (see Galaní-Moutafí, 1993; Michaud, 1991; Zarkia, 1996).

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

303

In this regard, entrepreneurial agency also needs to be examined in the context of diverse systems of social obligation and relations of trust which are mediated by culturally defined loyalties to kinship and ethnic groups, rather than impersonal market forces alone (Dahles & Bras, 1997). This pattern can be seen, for example, in the historical presence of an overseas Chinese commercial diaspora in many South-East Asian economies (Arrighi, 1998). Although they comprise distinctive clan groups, the strong presence of ethnic Chinese tourism businesses in Malaysia (particularly in urban areas and along the west coast) and southern Thailand (Phuket) has been identified by Din (1982) and Cohen (1982). The deepening penetration of capitalist accumulation into local, indeed, household handicraft production processes in for example the small-scale workshops of rural China is heavily mediated by both Chinese state discourses of modernisation, as well as the ethnic and gender differences that cut across the capital/labour antagonisms one typically associates with the logics of capital accumulation (see Ateljevic & Doorne, 2003). The manifold non-class ties which characterise much local tourism enterprise must not be seen as mere epi-phenomena, but rather, highlight the need to distinguish between different forms of ownership and control from the point of production to the point of exchange if we are to accurately assess the social relations of power embedded within tourism economic development processes (see Narotzky, 1997: 196–197). Where there is a high degree of entrepreneurial independence within the family enterprise, particularly with regard to control over the labour process, this power may diminish with regard to the production process as a whole. However, at a wider level, small-scale entrepreneurs are little able to effect change in the overall relations of production once they enter into market transactions in order to sell their services to tourists (see Bianchi, 1999: 251–257), a situation which is exacerbated where intermediary agencies (tour operators) are involved (see Buhalis, 2000). The 1997 Asian financial crisis served to highlight the fragile foundations of the apparently impregnable East Asian ‘Tiger’ economies which impacted severely upon small businesses in particular (see Wade & Veneroso, 1998). As the value of Asian currencies collapsed against the US dollar, unemployment soared as 13 million people lost their jobs, real wages fell (by up to 40–60% in Indonesia) and many small businesses went bankrupt due to the escalating value of their debt (UNDP, 1999: 4, 40). Although most East Asian economies and their tourism industries are on their way to recovery (Prideaux, 1999), this has been achieved at the cost of greater foreign involvement (principally Japanese and US firms and banks) in their economies (although it is not clear to what extent tourism assets are implicated) underwritten by IMF-sponsored restructuring initiatives (Wade & Veneroso, 1998: 14–15). Moreover, the rapid growth in tourism and associated infrastructural developments has also been achieved at the expense of

304

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

considerable ecological and social costs, as demonstrated by the experience of Thailand (Kontogeorgopoulos, 1999). Clearly, then, the geographically uneven nature of capitalist development and its articulation with regional and local socio-economic formations calls into question the continued validity of a neo-colonial dependency model, which envisages an international tourism economy based on the uneven trade between discrete national economies. How can models of analysis be proposed?

Farewell to the neo-colonial model of tourism? In a recent piece on The Guardian’s Poverty Matters blog, Glennie (2012) posed the question, ‘is dependency theory dead’, on the basis that the ‘long predicted convergence between rich and poor countries appears to be occurring’? He nevertheless contests this commonly held view amongst many development analysts and aid advocates alike on two grounds. On the one hand, despite the fact that some countries appear to have broken out of the ‘dependency trap’, it still provides a useful lens through which to analyse the recent history of economic development. On the other hand, although there does in fact appear to be some indication of a narrowing gap between rich and poor states (largely due to the rapid growth of incomes in China), the geographies of global economic inequality that have emerged in the era of neoliberal economic restructuring are far more complex than previous ‘North–South’ divisions once implied (Pollin, 2005: 130–138). With regard to its continued relevance for our understanding of the international relations of trade and development in tourism, according to the neocolonial model of tourism the international organisation of production was conceptualised in predominantly geographical terms in which the organisation and control of the international tourism industry resided in the northern metropolitan core countries. Thus, it followed, that the ‘less developed’ countries in the south became progressively subordinated to meeting the needs of foreign tourists in return for meagre economic benefits, principally in the form of low-wage employment (Turner, 1976a). However, in very few cases were attempts made to theorise the ‘concrete situations of dependency’ in their historical-geographic context (cf. Cardoso & Faletto, 1979). Most critics tended to accept the essential causal link between high levels of foreign ownership and the leakage of economic surpluses back to the metropolitan economy and the under-development of peripheral tourism destinations. For the most part the neo-colonial model of the international tourism system postulated an excessively deterministic relationship between local commercial interests at the destination level, and the metropolitan-controlled agencies higher up the supply chain, whereby the former are rendered functional to the latter by virtue of the disproportionate control exercised by the metropolitan core economies over the overall direction of capital accumulation within the international tourism system (Britton, 1982a: 261).

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

305

Thus, receiving societies are portrayed as inert objects or ‘sub-systems’ (Hills & Lundgren, 1977: 255), unable to resist the hegemonic power of metropolitan tourist capital. These conceptual weaknesses arguably stem from two related assumptions which lie at the heart of the dependency model. First of all, there is an a priori assumption that under-development is principally the result of the transfer of economic surpluses from the periphery to the core through a process of unequal exchange (see Kiely, 1995: 48–53; Larrain, 1989: 115–145). On the one hand, foreign exchange leakages vary widely and are notoriously hard to estimate with any degree of accuracy due to the unreliability of statistical data provided by governments (which tend to play down any negative indicators), on the other hand, a systematic and generalised chain of exploitation is taken for granted where leakages occur, rather than examined in the context of the specific nature of capitalist social relations and class alliances which condition the different forms of foreign capital penetration in the periphery. Although leakages in tourism are typically higher in small island micro-states (50–70% according to the WTO, 1998b: 70) than in larger island states such as Jamaica (foreign leakages of 37% in 1994) and continental states such as Kenya (net earnings were equal to 65% of gross foreign exchange earnings in 1992), where higher levels of local ownership and schemes to link local agricultural suppliers with hotels may account for lower import contents (see Dieke, 1995: 79; Pattullo, 1996: 39, 43–46; Sinclair et al., 1995: 59), this does not explain why, for example, many of the poorer states in the Caribbean are those whose tourism trade is weakest.6 The second principal shortcoming of the neo-colonial model derives from the fact that it tends to overlook the systematic variations in the local conditions of development within which tourism is inserted and to which it contributes. Although Britton (1991: 455) later emphasised that ‘the [tourism] production system is not exclusively capitalistic’, for the most part, these studies devoted insufficient room for the exploration of alternative tourism projects, varied strategies of local adaptation and response to metropolitandriven tourism development. Related to this, has been the lack of attention paid to significant internal inequalities and core-periphery relations within countries, particularly where uneven patterns of development emerge between dominant islands/continental states and peripheral islands. This has been addressed by Weaver (1998b) who demonstrates how domestic tourism in two peripheral islands within archipelagic states (Tobago and Barbuda) exacerbated historical animosities and disparities in the levels of economic development between the dominant and subordinate islands. Other instances of intra-regional and internal core-periphery relationships include the historically important role played by South Africa in the tourist industries of Lesotho and Swaziland, as a supplier of both capital and tourists (Crush & Wellings, 1983), the targeting of the French-dominated tourism sector by Corsican nationalists seeking independence from the French mainland

306

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

(Richez, 1994) and the enforced dependence of North Cyprus on Turkey since the partition of the island in 1974 (Scott, 1999). To summarise, the neo-colonial dependency model tended to conflate a generalised system of domination between metropolitan and peripheral states with a specifically unequal capitalist mode of (tourism) production. The inherent tension between theoretical generalisation and historical-geographical specificity has mediated an incomplete understanding of the manner in which the local and regional experiences of tourism development articulate with wider circuits of capital and decision-making. Insight into the diverse articulations between tourism capital, national states and local enterprise has also been hindered by the conception of tourism development conditioned predominantly by discrete national economies trading with each other, thus obscuring the increasingly transnational social relations which cut across national boundaries (cf. Hoogvelt, 1997; Sklair, 2001). Increasingly, therefore, we need to examine the differentiated architecture of tourism trade and inequality that has emerged as a result of global capitalist restructuring over the past two decades, in which some regions do well out of tourism and others do not, for reasons that are not entirely to do with geographic location, or indeed, economic dependence on tourism. Thus we need to ask ourselves to what extent and in what ways have the social alignments of power and geographies of inequality in tourism been transformed as a result of nearly three decades of economic globalisation. Indeed, as the southern European and, in particular, Greek economies implode under unsustainable mountains of debt, revealing the precarious foundations of the property-tourism fuelled booms of the previous two decades, new patterns of economic development and territorialisations of power will emerge that will surely not leave the structure of the regional tourism economies unscathed. As well as the concentration of financial muscle amongst an increasing number of transnational tourism corporations with considerable global reach, one must also consider the consequences of the shifting centre of gravity of the world’s economy (and indeed international tourism) towards ‘newly industrialising’ countries and emerging economies of Brazil, India, China, Russia (BRIC), and others, a process that is mediated, if not necessarily accelerated, by the financial crisis centred on Europe and North America. Such questions are vital if we are not to be led into the cul-de-sac of market fundamentalism and/or culturalist analyses which either ignore or dismiss altogether, the structural bases of globalisation and inequality.

Economic Globalisation and Transnational Relations in Tourism In 2010, travel and tourism were estimated to represent around 30% of world exports of commercial services and around 6% of total exports of

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

307

goods and services (ILO, 2011). According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), tourism’s direct contribution to world GDP amounted to US$2 trillion or 2.8% of world GDP (WTTC, 2012), whilst figures cited by the UNWTO for 2012 showed that international receipts from tourism exceeded US$1 trillion for the first time, confirming its positioning as one of the world’s leading economic sectors, notwithstanding ongoing disagreements regarding its precise industrial classification (Leiper, 2008). With regard to LDCs or ‘emergent economies’ in particular, over 50% of the total inward stock of FDI is absorbed by services of which tourism and related sectors comprise a substantial part (UNCTAD, 2002, cited in Jacob & Groizard, 2007). There has also been a parallel transformation in the geometries of global travel as the centres of wealth and power in the global economy are reconfigured, ebbing away from the advanced industrialised states towards the emergent nations of the G20. For the most part this is being driven by the continued rise of China, which has moved up to third and fourth place in the world rankings of international tourist arrivals and receipts respectively, up from fifth in 2002 (UNWTO, 2011e). At a theoretical level, there are a number of contrasting interpretations regarding the meaning and scope of globalisation as well as the degree to which powers of the state have receded in the face of global capitalist restructuring (see Hirst & Thompson, 1996; Kiely, 1998; Robertson & Khondker, 1998). It would be hard to deny, however, that a combination of market liberalisation, financial deregulation and technological change have precipitated a dramatic shift towards ever greater economic globalisation and the reconfiguration of power relations within the international political economy. Although manifest in a geographically uneven manner, the process of capitalist economic globalisation principally refers to the emergence of highly integrated cross-border networks of production and finance at many different levels in the global economy. Although ostensibly conditioned by the rigidities of the Fordist mass production model which became increasingly apparent in the late-1960s, particularly in the form of economic stagnation and declining corporate profitability, the shift towards new transnational geographies of production and flows of investment is not reducible to the intrinsic logic of capital accumulation. The processes of economic restructuring and securing of a neoliberal capitalist hegemony constitute a political project in which a coalition of neoliberal corporate, financial and political interests have sought to reorganise the ownership of productive assets, and thereby shift power away from labour towards capital (Henwood, 1998: 14–15). While international tourism activities have been affected by the process of economic globalisation in much the same way as other economic activities, there are significant qualitative differences in the social and geographical organisation of production within and between different branches of the global tourism industry. Much has already been said in this respect by Britton (1991), Clancy (1998, 2011),

308

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Hjalager (2007), Ioannides and Debbage (1998), Reid (2003), Williams (1995), and Williams and Shaw (2011). However the intention here is to review the implications of these changes in the context of the emerging architecture of power relations which flow from these industrial realignments, rather than to subject these arguments to detailed scrutiny.

The power and shape of transnational tourism corporations Despite the fact that tourism represents such a major component of world exports in commercial services, few if any corporations from the tourism industries are listed amongst the world’s top 100 corporations ranked according to their turnover, with the exception of media entertainment groups (Disney) and airlines (Air France-KLM, Delta and Lufthansa). With an annual turnover in 2010 of US$22 billion, the TUI group is currently the world’s largest travel and leisure company, ranked 439 in the Fortune 500 listings (CNN Money, 2012).7 The fact that the measurement of the international trade in tourism services is plagued by definitional vagueness is compounded by the manifold and complex network of agents involved in the provision of tourism-related products and services. The difficulty of delineating the precise organisational structure and fragmentation of tourism ‘commodity chains’ (cf. Clancy, 1998)8 is particularly illustrated where, for example, parent companies such as Bass, which at one time owned several major transnational hotel chains, including Holiday Inn and InterContinental Hotels, has investments spread across different economic activities ranging from brewing, catering, entertainment and hotels (Griffin, 2000: 27). In addition, the growing involvement of real estate investment trusts (REITs) and private equity firms in the international hotel industry, including the Blackstone Group, which in 2006 raised US$26 billion as part of its leveraged buyout of Hilton Hotels Corp. (Wei & Hudson, 2008), has resulted in the separation of the business of hotels from the underlying real estate assets, as well as increasing the turnover of property sales and acquisitions as REITs seek to maximise the profits paid out to shareholders (ILO, 2010: 29–32). According to the new international division of labour theory, the internationalisation of manufacturing production was strongly influenced by the squeeze on profits within industrialised countries which resulted in a shift of investment southwards in search of cheap labour, a process often referred to as ‘peripheral Fordism’ (Frobel et al., 1980). While the squeeze on corporate profitability and, to a lesser extent, demand for cheap labour did play a part in precipitating the geographical expansion of tourism investment into new destinations from the late 1970s onwards, the drivers of the globalisation of tourism have less to do with trends seen elsewhere in the transnational corporate sectors towards out-sourcing and a search for cheap labour. Rather, the location of tourist activities has always been somewhat constrained by the intrinsic natural, historical and cultural attributes of the destination

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

309

locale and the possibilities afforded by the development of transportation infrastructures both globally and regionally. Even where ostensibly little product differentiation between places exists, tour operators are not as footloose as it is often assumed, particularly where tourist loyalties are enhanced by historical familiarity with a destination (e.g. the Balearic Islands). Moreover, destination image and customer identification with a particular place are to some governed by forces beyond the control of corporate marketeers. Certain resorts may develop an iconic status by virtue of their identification with emergent cultural trends (e.g. clubbing in Ibiza and Ayia Napa), thus in effect becoming extensions of the very metropolitan centres from where the majority of tourists originate (a trend which nevertheless needs to be seen in the context of the growth of powerful club ‘empires’ and record company merchandising). Nevertheless, the industrial organisation of the international tourism industries has been subject to a series of significant transformations in the face of economic globalisation and neoliberal policies over the past two decades. These changes have been driven by both external economic factors as well as the competitive forces and technological innovations within the various business sectors that comprise the tourism industry. For example, Hazbun (2008: 13) illustrates the impact of corporate concentration amongst Western European tour operators, on the supply side of tourism in Tunisia, one of the ‘laboratories’ of the Mediterranean package tourist industry: As tourism development became both highly standardized and increasingly competitive, large transitional corporations sought to expand their profits by increasing the scale of operations, thus expanding to new destinations, as well as vertically integrating by increasing their stake in hotel ownership. These competitive pressures would have a profound effect on the structure of both the Tunisian and Mediterranean tourism industries, precipitating a greater influx of foreign capital as tour operators pressured destinations to upgrade the standard of resorts, or threaten to direct their clients elsewhere (Hazbun, 2008: 15). However, although globalisation has been accompanied by increased levels of business concentration amongst a few globallyintegrated TTCs, the precise scope and scale of transnational capital involvement in tourism varies according to the particular sector(s) of the tourism industry involved (i.e. tour operations, hotel, airline, cruising, shopping and attractions), as well as the historical conditions under which specific destinations have become progressively integrated with global markets. Over the past four decades, international tour operators emerged as the principal fulcrum through which different elements of the tourism commodity chain, principally charter airlines and accommodation, could be coordinated and controlled. A combination of technological advances, from the commercial

310

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

exploitation of the potential of jet aircraft in the early 1960s to the increased use of computer reservation systems (CRSs) in the 1970s, organisational innovation and business concentration amongst tour operators was the launching pad for the growth and expansion of a globally-integrated package holiday/‘inclusive-tour’ industry dominated by TTCs in the 1980s, which progressively extended their reach throughout a worldwide network of affiliated companies and contracted suppliers. Where tour operations are concerned, transnational companies derive considerable oligopolistic powers through their ability to negotiate favourable contractual terms from a relatively undifferentiated mass of local accommodation suppliers in the destinations, as evidenced by Mosedale’s (2006) research into the structural organisation of the UK package tour industry in St Lucia, rather than through the accumulation and control of assets. The market power of TTCs is clearly demonstrated, for example, in the case of the Mediterranean package tourism industry, where tourist flows and accommodation capacity have traditionally been far more controlled by a small number of outbound tour operators than say for example in the US (Clancy, 2011: 88). Nevertheless, in the US there are areas of significant corporate concentration in the hospitality sector, where, for example, the 10 largest hotel chains account for 40% of market share (Gladstone, 2005: 42). As Lyth’s (2009) informative history of British air package tours illustrates, the corporate concentration of UK outbound tour operators has its origins in the combination of economic, social and technological changes that took place in the first decade after World War II which created the conditions for the emergence of the British package tourism industry. These factors, of course, benefitted greatly from the economic weakness of southern European states in the European political economy which rendered them susceptible to the superior economic power and commercial know-how of Western European tour operators (Boissevain, 1977; Gaviria, 1974; Jurdao, 1990; Oglethorpe, 1984). Whereas approximately 30% of UK tourists travelling to France do so through a tour operator, this figure rises to 80% in the case of UK tourists travelling to Greece (Ioannides, 1998: 142). Thus, the historical dependence of Greece, which derives nearly one-fifth of its GDP from tourism, on a relatively undifferentiated market controlled by a small number of tour operators served to undermine the bargaining power of local hoteliers who have few alternatives but to accept the contractual conditions demanded by the tour operator for fear of losing their custom (Buhalis, 2000). Many Greek hoteliers suffer significant losses as a result of this power imbalance and, indeed, according to Evans (1999: 9), some may make as little as £10 per bed if revenues are spread across the year. More devastating still has been the impact of the current Greek sovereign debt crisis which has left many island administrations facing crippling debts and the pressure to sell off a range of public assets in order to repay them (Moya, 2010). Recent reports also

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

311

suggested that the German-based giant TUI urged Greek resorts to drop their prices by up to 35% for the 2012 summer season (Smith & Connolly, 2012). Whilst earlier periods of postwar tourism expansion were marked by high levels of FDI, since the mid-1970s transnational hotel chains increasingly substituted non-equity forms of ownership, such as management contracts and franchise agreements, for direct ownership of properties (Wood, 1979: 282). In this way, hotel chains sell or rent their firm-specific proprietary expertise and brand name in return for guaranteed levels and quality of accommodation capacity at minimum levels of risk in order to minimise the risk to investors and to guarantee quality and maintain brand reputation to an increasingly discerning clientele (see Clancy, 1998: 132–133). Castells (2000: 15) has suggested that the new globalised economy characterised by networks rather than hierarchies will lead to a greater de-centralisation and coordination of decision-making. In a similar vein, Poon (1993) has argued that information technologies could enhance the creativity and innovativeness of SMEs. Notwithstanding the expansion of internet-based travel companies over the past decade, as well as the emergence of internet travel review companies with considerable influence over travel purchasing decisions, such as TripAdvisor, arguably the scope and scale of transnational capital involvement in tourism and hospitality industries worldwide has dramatically increased, not least with the entrance of private equity firms and real estate investment trusts into these sectors (see ILO, 2010: 29–32). Furthermore, notwithstanding the growth of ‘South–South’ FDI in tourism as well as the emergence of nonEuropean/North American-based transnational firms based in Latin America (Grupo Posadas in Mexico), the Middle East (Kingdom Hotel Investments), Africa (Southern Sun), South-East Asia (New World/Renaissance Hotels, Shangri-La) and of course China (Jin Jiang International), US-based TTCs remain dominant in key sub-sectors of the global tourism industries as the global ranking of hotel groups (by number of rooms) continues to demonstrate (ILO, 2010: 9–10). Nevertheless, it is important to note, that whilst hotels may be operated by well-known transnational chains, the assets themselves are often owned by wealthy domestic firms or individuals under license or through various contractual agreements (Gladstone, 2005: 40). In addition, one of the most significant changes in the past two years has been the rapid rise of Chinese hotel groups up the global rankings, four of which have entered the top 25 hotels by number of rooms (Hotels, 2011). Although Chinese capital in general continues to make significant inroads into the highest echelons of global corporate activity, particularly in mining and other heavy industries, it is particularly significant that these brands are still predominantly focused on the Chinese domestic market. In terms of their global reach, therefore, the US hotel chains, together with the Inter-Continental Hotels Group (UK) and Accor SA (France), still predominate although this is likely to change as Chinese and other tourist markets in the emerging economies begin to spread their tentacles overseas.

312

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

While there are signs of a shift in the balance of investment capital in the hotel industries from West to East as emerging Asian hotel groups target key investments in Europe and Australia (Jones Lang LaSalle Hotels, 2010), European/North American corporate dominance of the global airline industry remains particularly marked. Here, the rapid expansion of strategic global alliances (allowing airline corporations to avoid anti-trust legislation) has consolidated the centralisation of control in the hands of a few mega-carriers based in Europe and North America (with the exception of Singapore Airlines). Airline deregulation in the US in 1978, and more recently in Europe in 1997, brought with it a proliferation of computer reservation systems, such as SABRE which is owned by American Airlines, through which large megacarriers derive considerable revenue and market share (Clancy, 1998: 138). Thus, despite the existence of almost 400 alliances involving 170 different airlines, four ‘mega-alliances’ control around 70% of the world market (Endo, 2006: 605). The largest of these, the Star Alliance (whose 26 member airlines include three of the world’s largest airlines (Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and United Airlines) carries nearly 650 million passengers to 193 countries, and has combined revenues of US$173 billion (Star Alliance, 2012, 2014). As recently as the late 1990s, 14 of the world’s top 20 airlines, ranked by passenger-kilometres flown, were based in rich industrialised countries. The remaining six were all based in East Asia (Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines are also amongst the top 100 TNCs headquartered outside of the core industrialised countries in the West (UNCTAD, 1999). Despite the existence of regional carriers in the Caribbean (BWIA, Air Jamaica), American Airlines sold 65% of tickets to this region in 1995 (Honey, 1999: 37). In addition to growing competition from ‘low-cost carriers’ such as Ryanair, which now represent 26% of the global market (Centre for Aviation, 2012), there are signs that North Atlantic dominance has started to wane as a result of the rapid growth of global players in China and the oil-rich Gulf states. Indeed, the growing strength of China’s aviation industry was signalled by the continued refusal of Chinese airlines to comply with the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (Wang, 2012). According to the IATA, 50% of the global aviation industry’s aggregate profits in 2011 were earned by Chinese airlines, whilst three of the world’s 10 largest IATA member airlines, ranked by passenger kilometres flown, are now based there (IATA, 2012). The concentration of ownership has also proceeded apace in the European tour operator sector in the context of widening and deepening EU integration and the associated (yet uneven) regulatory convergence (Bywater, 1998). In 2000, 72% of charter seats were controlled by just four airlines (Airtours International 18%, Britannia 22%, Air 2000 16%, JMC Airlines 16%, as well as Monarch, whose 18% is increasingly controlled by Cosmos), each of which is affiliated to one of four major tour operators (Travel Weekly, 24 July 2000: 8). Such dominance is a reflection of the wider European tour operations sector in which it is estimated that up to 80% of the outbound package travel market

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

313

continues to be controlled by a small number of EU-based companies (Endo, 2006: 604). The UK outbound market alone is currently dominated by just two giant corporate entities, with a combined turnover of around €26 billion in 2011, the Thomas Cook Group, which absorbed My Travel (formerly Airtours) in 2007, and TUI Travel (part of the German TUI AG group), which absorbed both Thomson Holidays (in 2000) and First Choice (in 2007). The net effect is to deny this seat capacity to independent tour companies, who only have access to those remaining seats which have not been sold to the customers of the parent company through their integrated supply-chain. Moreover, whereas until recently Club Méditerranée was one of the few European tourism companies to operate outside of its own domestic market, increasingly leading tour operators have begun to establish a commercial presence in non-domestic markets and organise their marketing/sales activities at a trans-continental level. Hence, the declining significance of the nationality of shareholders, particularly within the EU, is also reflected in an increasingly transnational orientation to the development of tourism products and services. For the most part, this has been achieved via the direct acquisition of strategically placed assets (travel agencies, tour operators, hotels and cruise companies) based outside the country of origin of particular TTCs. In addition, the penetration of transnational capital into new markets has been driven by TTCs based in what were previously predominantly destination regions, such as Spain. Since 1985, Balearic hotel chains in particular began to expand the scope of their investment and operations throughout Latin America (Bywater, 1998). By the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, there were around 800 hotels being operated by Balearic hotel chains worldwide, of which approximately 25% are located in Latin America and the Caribbean (Jacob & Groizard, 2007: 977). Many large integrated tour operators have also sought to consolidate their market share via the acquisition of leading specialist tour operators.9 In this way they have been able to capitalise on the specialist knowledge of particular destinations as well as the loyal client base built up over the years by the smaller companies who may not be aware of the change in ownership at the top (O’Connor, 2000). However, it also leaves independent hoteliers in the destination at the mercy of even fewer companies. Although it is estimated that 2.5 million SMEs are involved in the European tourism industry (ILO, 2010: 8) and as much as 96% of the European accommodation sector remains in the hands of independent proprietors (Smeral, 1998), leading tour operators have invested directly in the purchase of holdings in luxury hotels, in order to guarantee access to high quality accommodation capacity in a highly competitive market.10 Paradoxically, it has been suggested that this reversal of stance towards the direct acquisition of assets in the Mediterranean may well also have been precipitated by an increasingly strict regulatory environment in many regions (e.g. Mallorca) thus heightening competition over scarce capacity (Walters, 2000).

314

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Rather than precipitate a flourishing of independent networked enterprises, the evidence suggest that deregulation and economic globalisation has in fact strengthened the asymmetrical structures of corporate control in tourism in key destinations and tourism sub-sectors, albeit through diverse contractual and proprietary relations. Moreover, the adoption and monopolisation of (costly) distributional technologies by mega-corporations has reinforced the growth of industrial concentration and transnational corporate power, while at the same time enabling these same globalised firms to provide individually tailored products for their clients (Milne & Gill, 1998). In some respects, such globally-oriented mega-corporations often preside over minifiefdoms with regard to their relationship with certain destinations as, for example, demonstrated in Cyprus where at one time 20–30% of its tourism industry was controlled by Preussag-Thomson (now TUI) alone (O’Connor 2000: 4). Unsurprisingly, Mander (1999: 171) has referred to such competitive technologies as the ‘central nervous system’ through which increasingly centralised corporate power operates. Together with the fluidity of capital movements, they constitute the foundations upon which an increasingly globalised and transnational tourism political economy has emerged. Nevertheless, as Williams and Shaw (2011) argues, we would be wrong to associate globalisation exclusively with large, vertically-integrated transnational firms or indeed to assume that small- to medium-sized tourism enterprises (SMTEs) will necessarily be subsumed by transnational capital or forced out of business altogether. Indeed, in many low-income developing countries, it is usually small, informal sector enterprises that comprise the majority of tourism businesses, although the lion’s share of receipts will often accrue to large commercial operators, foreign and domestic (see Edensor, 2004). It is, however, beyond the remit of this chapter to analyse the full scope of business involvement and the industrial organisation of the tourism industries in a globalised economy. It is, nevertheless, clear that despite the precipitous expansion and growth of the tourism industries over the past three decades, much of the day-to-day business of providing services to tourists, is still rooted in distinctly localised business environments and cultures. Thus, the answer to the question as to the degree to which TTCs have both extended their global reach and control over geographically dispersed commodity chains lies in further detailed research into the interplay between the logics of globalisation and the historical geography of regional and local capitalist development, as well as the nature of labour relations that emerges from the interactions of various enterprises involved in the provision of tourism.

Patterns of work and labour relations in global tourism The realignments of corporate power associated with globalisation and the changing configurations of the economic power of states, has had manifold implications for the organisation of work and labour relations across the

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

315

global tourism industries. Whilst the degree of integration of different regions into capitalist markets and the scope of transnational corporate penetration is nonetheless differentiated and uneven, the ever-growing complexity of globalised tourism commodity chains is clearly demonstrated by the increasingly opaque and complex layers of outsourcing that make up particular firms. Most international airlines routinely use external contractors to provide routine maintenance, reservations and in-flight catering services (Ioannides & Debbage, 1998; Whitelegg, 2003). Similarly, many leading airlines have sought to shift ancillary services to cheaper ‘off-shore’ locations, as in the case of British Airways who took the lead in contracting out their ticketing services to India (Blyton et al., 1998). Labour is one of the few variable costs in this sector and has, therefore, received the brunt of the cost-cutting exercises (Blyton et al., 1998). Attempts to reduce costs in this manner led to the sacking of nearly 300 LSG Lufthansa Services/SKYCHEF workers in November 1998, prompting a three-month-long strike (International Transport Worker’s Federation, 1999).11 Since the early 1980s, particularly in Europe and North America, successive waves of deregulation and privatisation increased the competitive pressures on airlines. This paved the way for the emergence of low-cost carriers, which in turn placed further downward pressure on wages and led to the progressive erosion of job security and working conditions, in what nevertheless continues to be a relatively unionised workforce compared to other areas of the tourism and hospitality industries. Notwithstanding the argument that tourism and hospitality employment has always been characterised by flexible working arrangements (see Bagguley, 1990), the downward pressure on wages and deterioration of working conditions has increased as a result of economic restructuring and rationalisation that have become the hallmark of neoliberal economic policy and globalisation. Such trends are particularly marked in the labour-intensive tourism and hospitality sectors in the advanced capitalist countries and, increasingly, elsewhere, where work at the lower-end of the labour market is often characterised by low wages, long and antisocial hours, a lack of job security, a high incidence of part-time and seasonal work, health and safety concerns, and in some cases, outright abuse and exploitation (ILO, 2010; Zampoukos & Ioannides, 2010). The UK hospitality sector, in which only 10% of workers belonged to a trade union in 1996, was at the forefront of the Conservative government’s attempt to re-engineer the balance of power in favour of capital through ever greater flexibilisation of labour (Thomas, 1996). Furthermore, several studies point to an immediate decline in wages across the UK hotel sector since the abolition of wage councils in 1993 (Radiven & Lucas, 1997). Although low rates of pay continue to exist, this needs to be set against, for example, the introduction of the minimum wage in 1997, as well as other forces, including the increased ‘professionalisation’ of some aspects of tourism and hospitality work, which may serve to mitigate certain aspects of inequality and further differentiate the labour market (Church & Frost, 2004).

316

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Increasingly, employees in the hotel industry, in the UK and worldwide, recruit a significant proportion of their workforce through (often unlicensed) agencies, in which migrant workers and women in particular are susceptible to abuse and exploitation (Sheikh, 2009; Zampoukos & Ioannides, 2010; see Chapter 7). Whilst there are advantages to this for both employers and workers alike, enabling the former to reduce costs during periods of low demand and giving workers greater flexibility to adapt their schedule around their lifestyle (Lai et al., 2008), such agencies have also been accused of facilitating the circumvention of the statutory responsibilities of hotel employers towards employees (e.g. pensions, sick pay). It also renders the ability of the workforce to bargain collectively increasingly difficult. However, it should also be stressed that these characteristics overwhelmingly apply to the 20% of the global tourism and hospitality workforce located within TTCs and not necessarily the remainder, most of whom work in SMEs of fewer than 250 workers, and often far less (ILO, 2010: 8). That is not to say of course that the exploitation of workers and poor working conditions are not prevalent amongst SMEs (see Harrison, 2001a: 33). What these illustrations suggest is, to some extent, the reduced significance of geographic boundaries in the constitution of contemporary alignments of inequality and occurrences of exploitation in certain quarters of the tourism and hospitality industries. Increasingly, the adjustment to global competitiveness has exerted downward pressure on wages in the advanced capitalist countries, thus leading to a situation where job insecurity and increasing levels of income disparity have also become more prevalent in the advanced capitalist countries (UNDP, 1999: 36–39). In the city of Los Angeles, for example, a combination of state budget cuts during the 1980s and industrial restructuring (particularly the closure of aerospace plants and the shift of many labourintensive manufacturing industries across the border into Mexico), has underpinned the emergence of a low-wage service economy in which a disproportionate number of Mexican immigrants are employed (Davis, 1993: 45–47). Whilst immigrant workers have traditionally been attracted to work in the hospitality and catering sectors in major world cities, such as London, Paris and New York (Harris, 1996: 35), the uptake of migrant workers in tourism and hospitality has not only increased on the back of intensified global market integration and new waves of cross-border migration (permanent and itinerant) since the mid-1990s, but the composition of such flows and indeed the tourism/hospitality workforce, has become increasingly diverse (Joppe, 2012; Stalker, 2000). Tourism is increasingly ‘central to the character of the world city’, which now of course include new centres of global capital accumulation outside the traditional capitalist heartlands of Europe and North America (for example, Dubai), whilst migrant workers, of which there are an estimated 105 million worldwide (ILO, 2010: 36), are the lifeblood of such globalised hubs of hospitality work (Llewlyn Davies et al., 1996, cited in Church & Frost, 2004: 210).

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

317

More so perhaps than other sub-sector in the global tourism industries, the organisational structure of the cruise ship industry both reflects and reproduces increasingly transnational relations of ownership and labour relations. By 1996, three of the world’s largest companies, Royal Caribbean, Carnival Corporation and Princess Cruises, controlled nearly 50% of the market (Ioannides & Debbage, 1998: 112). In 2014 Carnival Cruise Lines with their 10 brands and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd with their five brands accounted for 63.6% of worldwide cruise revenues (41.8% and 21.8% respectively) (Cruise Market Watch, 2014). However, although most of the major cruise companies have their headquarters in the US, the ability to sail under ‘flags of convenience’ has enabled them to register in countries where labour laws, taxes and maritime regulations are far more lax (Wood, 2000: 351). Moreover, given the physical mobility of its primary asset, Wood describes cruise ships as mobile chunks of nomadic capital which are able to avoid state regulations (particularly where labour is concerned) wherever possible. Thus, cruise liners draw on a global pool of migrant labour who benefit from far fewer rights than their land-based counterparts. This is of particular concern for the local workforce in the Caribbean, which according to Wood (2000: 354) is mostly unionised and enjoys higher levels of pay, thus deterring cruise companies from recruiting in the region. The ethnic and social stratification of the workforce within cruise ships also points to a substantial reconfiguration of class relations that cuts across national and geographic boundaries. However, Wood (2000: 353–358) demonstrates how the workforce is drawn from cheaper labour markets across the world and segmented according to ethnicity, thus enabling cruise companies to reinforce an internal division of labour which exploits the precarious nature of employment in their respective countries of origin whilst being subject to the labour regulations of none. With the exception, perhaps, of the cruise ship industry, the overwhelming proportion of the global tourism workforce is nevertheless drawn from local and regional labour markets, as indeed are workers in most sectors in the global economy (see Castells, 1996: 234–235). Notwithstanding the intensification of capitalist social relations and the global reach of TTCs, many tourist destination areas are characterised by the prevalence of informal tourist enterprise and the persistence of localised labour markets in large formal-sector resorts. Often, workers may move between the informal and formal sectors, depending upon seasonal fluctuations in demand for labour. However, as Madsen-Camacho (1996) describes in her study of resort development in Mexico, and as does Edensor (2004) in the case of the numerous local businesses at the Taj Mahal, the survival of small, independent, informal sector enterprises is often threatened by the construction of large hotel complexes and attempts by large, external tour operators to monopolise the flow of tourists to honey-pot tourist attractions. Eventually, the decline in the number of tourists using local facilities may result in the abandonment of these informal enterprises as the former owners are forced

318

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

to seek wage labour in the larger, commercial resorts and tour companies or else face unemployment. As the second edition of this chapter goes to press, in the midst of the worst global downturn for nearly a century, and crippling austerity measures are leading to a jump in rates of unemployment across southern Europe in particular, what scope remains, therefore, for strategic state intervention to challenge the markets and create a business environment in which local tourism enterprise can prosper alongside transnational capital, in accordance with domestic/national social and economic priorities, and in which flexible labour regimes are not merely used simply as a means of maintaining a lid on wages in the tourism and hospitality industries?

Tourism, capital and the state In recent years much has been made of the impotence of governments in the face of volatile financial markets and footloose investors, a perspective that is understandably reinforced by the crippling austerity currently being imposed throughout advanced industrialised economies in response to the 2008 financial crisis. The extension and consolidation of the power of transnational capital and TTCs cannot however be explained simply as the inevitable result of the forces of economic restructuring brought about by post-Fordist capitalism and economic globalisation. The industrial organisation of tourism is conditioned by the actions of governments and, in particular, dominant political classes within the state. However, while it is often assumed that the primary role of the state in a deregulated capitalist market is to ensure an appropriate investment climate for business (Pryce, 1998: 86), this confuses the fact that while states may legislate in the interests of capital, it does not necessarily follow that they are merely ‘executive agents’ of TTCs (Sklair, 2001: 14–15). State involvement in tourism varies considerably according to the domestic political and ideological conditions which structure the institutional organisation of state bureaucracies. Direct state intervention usually involves the provision of large-scale infrastructure projects, such as airports and transport networks, which precede and prepare the terrain for tourism development, as well as the establishment of legal and regulatory frameworks within which tourism can operate (see Chapter 5). Governments in developing states have traditionally deployed a range of investment incentives in order to attract investment capital (see Jenkins, 1982a), as evidenced by The Gambia’s decision to reinstate all-inclusive resort holidays (Bird, 2000: 4). More often than not, however, national governments may incur considerable financial burdens where the state itself contributes a substantial proportion of investment capital. In Senegal, for example, the state contributed 90% of the capital invested in tourism as part of its Fourth Tourism Plan, as well as 52% of capital to a hotel managed by the French transnational hotel chain, Meridien

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

319

(Brown, 1998: 240). Government investment incentives can also, however, be directed towards the strengthening of a local capitalist class, as occurred in Cyprus after partition in 1974 when refugee hoteliers from the north were given incentives to invest in hotels in the south (Ioannides, 1992: 721). Both the direct and indirect involvement of the state in tourism perform an important role in the regulation of the conditions of public and private accumulation of capital. Although it is increasingly rare to find places where the state exercises almost complete control over productive capital in the tourism sector, particularly since the transition towards market economies in Eastern Europe (see Hall, 1991), there is clearly still scope for the state to guide and regulate tourism economic development processes in accordance with domestic political priorities. Thus, we need to go further than to merely label particular states as either favourable or antagonistic towards tourism, but rather, seek to identify how and why different factions within the state respond and adapt to the market, and, in particular, the investment decisions of TTCs. During the early 1990s, the municipal government of Calvià on the Balearic island of Mallorca, which plays host to one of the densest concentrations of tourism development in the Mediterranean, developed a strategy of strategic local intervention into the tourism economy in order to alleviate some of the worst excesses of over-construction and speculative, propertydriven tourism development (see Selwyn, 2000). At the same time, however, the involvement of the conservative-led regional government in numerous fraudulent practices and high-level corruption related to the construction of roads and associated tourism infrastructure, a process mirrored across Spanish resort areas during the 1990s and 2000s, culminated in the resignation, in 1995, of the region’s long-standing prime minister on corruption charges (Fidalgo, 1996). In 2001, a ‘left-green’ regional government coalition oversaw the implementation of a levy on all overnight stays, which became popularly known as the ‘eco-tax’, the revenues from which were then channelled into a variety of environmental and cultural heritage projects. The eco-tax was subsequently revoked in 2003 by a new conservative administration with stronger leanings towards the private sector, and the eco-tax can be seen both as a fiscal instrument to mediate the impact of international tourism on the regional economy as well as a symbol of regional pride and as a means of reinforcing autonomous control over sovereign Balearic territory in the face of external ‘interference’ from both the conservative-led central government and international tour operators (Morell, 2001: 56). Both this and the current conflict surrounding the potential opening up the resort-free beach of Es Trenc in western Mallorca to tourism development (see Manresa, 2012) illustrate how developmental outcomes are shaped by a complex and shifting alliance of forces embracing a range of state, private and non-governmental actors. In contrast, the failure of state-led development programmes in subSaharan Africa has severely compromised their ability to secure even the most basic conditions of economic development and facilitate even modest

320

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

redistributions of income for the populace as a whole. However, while a sustained agenda of structural adjustment and neoliberal reforms further weakened the state and led to the ruination of small producers and widespread poverty throughout much of the region (see Davis, 2004), it has paradoxically reinforced the rise of a new, wealthy upper-middle class, with substantial investment capital both at home and abroad as well as tied closely to the regional hubs of transnational firms, whose lives barely resemble those of the vast majority of their fellow citizens (Hoogvelt, 1997: 83–84; Mark, 2012). In a sign of the growing prosperity of Africa’s ‘new middle classes’, the founder of EasyJet has recently announced plans to launch a low-cost airline in Africa that will operate out of Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana and Angola, thus covering much of the continent (Milmo, 2012). Dominant factions within the state apparatuses are able to negotiate aid, loans and direct investment within a network of transnational capital flows which may strengthen their own position whilst inhibiting the flourishing of viable indigenous tourism enterprises (see Dahles & Bras, 1997: 65; Dieke, 1995: 87–91). Policy instruments, such as the Land Acquisition Act in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, rather than promoting balanced development are often deployed in order to appropriate land from the poor in anticipation of large-scale tourism development programmes (Seifert-Granzin & Jesupatham, 1999: 18). Examples of the restriction of informal working practices in tourism abound (Kamsma & Bras, 2000; Kermath & Thomas, 1992; Wahnschafft, 1982); however, the key distinction here is that local elites are complicit in the under-development of their state, not as instruments of capital but as a result of the prevailing neoliberal market logic in which the range of developmental options available to them has become even more constrained. In Zanzibar, for example, this pattern has become evident as a result of the move by the Zanzibari government to encourage greater involvement of private capital in the tourism sector since 1985. The historical absence of a robust democracy in Zanzibar has enabled the state to implement a strategy of economic liberalisation with little opposition and at the expense of the indigenous hotel sector and small-scale entrepreneurs (Honey, 1999: 265–269). Whilst there is little doubt that structural adjustment programmes in the 1980s and the coercive logic of increasingly competitive capitalist markets in the 1990s and 2000s severely undermined and constrained the ability of states to build viable national economies, this should not blind us to the continued ability of states to direct the accumulation process, as indicated above. Moreover, one should not assume that ‘Third World’ states are merely parasitic institutions, riddled with endemic corruption, constraining the latent potential within their economies. Given the high proportion of informal economic activity12 and the precariousness of small-scale entrepreneurship, both of which are prevalent where tourism is concerned, the imposition of tariffs on international trade is often one of the few sources of revenue for governing elites (Carter, 1995: 608). Given highly competitive external market

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

321

conditions, securing the involvement of foreign and transnational capital in the national economy may be one of the few ways a cash-strapped host government can obtain valuable technical, managerial and financial resources, notwithstanding the deleterious effects on smaller-scale local enterprise (see Farver, 1984: 261). Despite the recent proliferation of tourism in places such as Zanzibar, the benefits which accrue from tourism are still monopolised by a select few countries, and capital cities within them (Harrison, 2000b: 47). The structural obstacles to development faced by many weaker economies are compounded by the lack of an integrated domestic or regional tourist market (few amongst the tourism workforce in developing states are themselves tourists),13 thus reinforcing what development economists often refer to as the ‘low equilibrium trap’ (Hazbun, 2000: 195–196). This places an enormous burden on the scarce resources of poorer states which, in order to generate a sufficient level of tourism demand that would sustain the cost of developing a tourism-related infrastructure, have little choice other than to impose externally-oriented growth policies. Moreover, those countries that are too poor even to provide basic infrastructure for tourism may become ‘structurally irrelevant’ to mobile tourist capital, as demonstrated by the historically low levels of tourist visitation to countries in sub-Saharan Africa which are considered ‘unbankable’ and unsafe for tourists, thus further entrenching the dominance of the more powerful regional centres of accumulation. This brings us to the final question to be considered in this chapter: to what extent is a truly global tourism economy emerging, in which capital and decision-making powers are monopolised by a few TTCs? Or rather, as some of the evidence suggests, are regional imbalances in the nature and scope of a globalising tourism dynamic becoming more entrenched in the context of further market liberalisation?

The global and regional alignments of tourism development Despite the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis, neoliberalising policies continue to exert a stranglehold, albeit to a greater or lesser extent, on governments across different states worldwide. Nevertheless, both the global reach of capital and the degree to which local, household economies have become integrated into wider circuits of production and exchange, are still differentiated by geographical variances in economic systems and political ideologies. Equally, whilst there is evidence to suggest a divergence of interests between transnationals and the countries in which they are based claims for the existence of a coherent ‘transnational capitalist class’ (Sklair, 1991), in which the nationality of the shareholders and corporate executives who control the ‘commanding heights’ of the global tourism industry is of less importance than their corporate affiliations, must be treated with a degree of caution.

322

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Indeed, 75% of FDI flows are concentrated in North America, the EU and Japan while, at the same time, 70% of FDI outside these blocs is absorbed by only 12 countries (Hoogvelt, 1997: 77). Even the precipitous rise of the socalled BRIC economies has so far failed to considerably reverse this figure; in 2008 the combined outward FDI from these states amounted to less than that of the Netherlands (Nolan & Zhang, 2010: 101). Where tourism is concerned (mainly concentrated in hotels and restaurants), it is estimated that it only accounts for 2–3% of total outward FDI from the advanced industrialised nations (indeed outward FDI from within the developing and emergent markets is rising more quickly), whilst by far the largest proportion is absorbed by the large emergent economies such as Argentina, Brazil and Mexico (Endo, 2006). Similarly, it has been argued here that economic globalisation and the transnational restructuring of ownership and labour relations in tourism has not been an even process. It is apparent, therefore, that parallel to the processes of market concentration at a global level, the geographical unevenness of development creates the potential for the peripheralisation of regions and populations that cuts across national boundaries. There thus needs to be an element of caution when considering the precise magnitude and scope of globalisation and transnational corporate penetration into regional tourism industries, as well as the degree to which the expansion of tourism in the 1990s and 2000s has been evenly distributed both worldwide and within specific regions. During the early stages of mass tourism expansion in the 1950s and 1960s, the geographic distribution of tourism production to a large extent mirrored former colonial trading networks, as indicated by Britton (1980b) and others (e.g. Harrison, 2001b: 29). Yet, although the past 20 years has witnessed the opening up of new tourism regions (e.g. the expansion of tourism and capital into Eastern Europe), the dominant tendency has arguably been the growing importance of destinations and intensification of market forces within existing tourism regions, such as the Mediterranean and the Caribbean. This therefore represents the ‘thickening’ of exchanges within particular regions in tandem with the partial widening and deepening of tourist flows to new and emergent regions. The uneven geographical distribution and economic weight of tourism worldwide is illustrated by regional patterns of expansion and contraction in the growth/decline of international tourist arrivals and tourism receipts. Whilst East Asia and the Pacific witnessed growth in its market share of international tourist arrivals from 7.5% to 14.4% during the period 1980–1997, Africa experienced a far less impressive rise from 2.6% to 3.7% during the same period (WTO, 1999a). In contrast, the recent political turbulence along the southern Mediterranean shore and Syria in particular has temporarily halted the recent resurgence of tourism in the Eastern Mediterranean which registered as rise of between 17% in Lebanon and 40% in Syria during the period 2008–2009 (UNWTO, 2011e).

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

323

Despite some signs of change with regard to the territorial distribution of tourism in Africa – principally related to the rapid growth of international tourist arrivals in Mozambique – there has been little change with regard to the fact that six countries account for 65–70% of the region’s arrivals, notwithstanding the fact that both South Africa’s and Zimbabwe’s arrivals figures are inflated by the vast number of migrant labourers who cross the borders on a daily basis (see Harrison, 2001a: 15; UNWTO, 2011e: 9). More recently, spurred by periods of relative political stability in parts of sub-Saharan Africa along with increasing inward investment from China and other countries outside the traditional capitalist heartlands, Africa’s market share of international tourist arrivals in 2012 reached 5%, and its share of international tourism receipts 3% (UNWTO, 2013b). While still very low by international standards, not least given the size of the continent, sub-Saharan Africa has been one of the few regions to show consistent signs of growth in the midst of the financial crisis centred in the advanced capitalist states of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). The growth of business travel and inward FDI in these countries continues, however, to be concentrated in urban areas, particularly in capital cities and the growing centres of regional capital accumulation in emergent economies. The geographical concentration of tourism in urban centres and a few established coastal destination areas (e.g. Mombasa, Kenya) reinforces the view that new investment tends to gravitate towards already established tourism destinations with an existing infrastructure provision, a trained workforce and, more often than not, amenable governments.14 Elsewhere, despite the diversification of international tourism into new destinations and the rise of Brazil, the majority of international tourist arrivals in the Americas remain concentrated in the US, Canada and Mexico, although their overall share has fallen from 73% in 2007 to 65.4% in 2012 (UNWTO, 2011e, 2013b). Meanwhile, India’s emergence as a regional economic powerhouse and the principal hub of tourism in South Asia can be partly attributed to policies of economic liberalisation enacted since 1985, helping, in part, to fuel economic growth rates in excess of 8% and further integrating India into the world economy (Hannam & Diekmann, 2011: 4). Such is India’s importance for tourism that the WTTC opened a regional office in New Delhi in 2000 (www.wttc.org, 13 December 2000). India, of course, along with other ‘semiindustrialised’ and emergent economies, has witnessed the steady growth of its domestic hotel chains, such as the Tata Group, which operates 93 hotels across 53 domestic locations in India under the Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces brand, together with an additional 16 international hotels in the Maldives, Malaysia, Australia, the UK, the US, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Africa and the Middle East (www.tata.com, 31 August 2012). Whilst the past two decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in the role of transnational capital investments in tourism as ever more destinations are integrated into global circuits of capital,15 this does not represent the

324

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

linear diffusion of the hegemonic power of any one particular nation-state, notwithstanding the fact that global capitalism is still strongly associated with the globalisation of US business culture (Arrighi, 1998), as indeed is the ‘culture of international hospitality’ (Baum, 1996: 207). Rather, as emphasised by Hoogvelt (1997: 125), what has become evident is the intensification of a ‘global market discipline’ to which states, regions, companies and workers must respond in order to remain competitive. Increased cross-border corporate ownership and the globalisation of market discipline has serious implications for countries seeking to define an independent path of national economic development, outside the circuits of neoliberal market ideology, as well as the survival of an independent, domestic-based entrepreneurial class, who Sklair (1991: 120–121) argues, will increasingly become ‘trapped in a spiral of declining markets, low technology and uncompetitiveness’. Indeed, the neoliberal emphasis on open markets, private enterprise and competitiveness does not discriminate between states, but, rather, permeates numerous trade agreements, government policies and the workings of a range of intergovernmental bodies (see Balanyá et al., 2000), or a clear exposition of the neoliberal ideological thrust which shapes and directs the activities of both government and TTCs. One need look no further than the increasingly intertwined discourses of the UNWTO, ostensibly an intergovernmental public body which represents the broad interests of the tourism industry worldwide, and the WTTC, whose role it is to promote the interests of TTCs through public opinion formation, lobbying and policy formulation (see Ferguson, 2007). Deregulation and market liberalisation have increased the capacity for TTCs to hide behind the façade of self-regulation whilst vigorously promoting the growth of tourism at all costs. This stance is evidenced both by the persistent lobbying of the WTTC (e.g. to reduce the overall tax burden on tourism enterprises) as well as the UNWTO’s forceful promotion of the idea of ‘tourism liberalization with a human face’ as a means of bracketing its work to accelerate the liberalisation of tourism services worldwide in cooperation with the World Trade Organisation in Geneva (Frangialli, 2003). Nowhere is the de-territorialisation of transnational capital perhaps more evident than in the context of the global cruise ship industry. Liberated from territorial constraints as well as of state regulation and unionisation, these ‘mobile chunks of capital’, as Wood has referred to them, constitute ‘destination resorts’ in themselves (Wood, 2000: 349).16 However, not only are many of the land-based disembarkation points controlled by large businesses linked to the cruise companies themselves (Pattullo, 1996: 164–168), there is even a growing tendency for cruise ships to dock at their own private ‘themed’ islands (Wood, 2000: 361). Thus, rather than disperse capital and tourists amongst different island destinations, cruise ships are able to deprive ports of valuable revenue as well as enable tourists to indulge their fantasies of an island paradise free from local inhabitants and the random and unpredictable nature of public spaces of interaction. In this regard, economic globalisation

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

325

in and through tourism signals the fulfilment of a utopian neoliberal vision of a borderless, albeit striated, global tourism economy unencumbered by the intrusion of the state and cleansed of all uncertainties which enrich the experience of travel. The structural implications of a global market discipline are also poignantly illustrated by the degree to which (Western) standards of service quality have increasingly permeated a variety of areas of tourism service provision, from luxury hotels to small-scale ecotourism lodges. Indeed, the power of transnational hotel corporations is derived from their capacity to sell or rent out their firm-specific reputation for quality (Clancy, 1998: 132–133), which enforces a particular business model on local operators. Where local infrastructure or accommodation standards are said to be below international criteria, local hoteliers struggle to compete with better equipped expatriate investors who are familiar with the desired standards of international service, as is the case in Zanzibar where economic liberalisation since the mid-1980s has lead to the proliferation of luxury ‘ecotourism’ constructions built by foreign capital (Honey, 1999; see Chapter 9). Elsewhere, as part of the broader structural changes in the global economy, Duffy (2006) points to the integration of ecotourism into neoliberalising policies in LDCs which are deemed to be particularly abundant in biodiversity. This has been accompanied by the increased intervention of consortia made up of international financial institutions, donor agencies and foreign private capital, thus contradicting the notion that ecotourism offers a more principled, sustainable and usually locally-run alternative to a tourism industry subordinated to the interests of TTCs. Nowhere, perhaps, have the intersection and tensions between contrasting national economies and the discipline of global markets become more apparent than in the EU and, in particular, Eurozone countries since the onset of the 2008 financial crisis. The major thrust of EU policy, evidenced in its various treaties and policies, such as the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment (Commission of the European Communities, 1999), has been ‘to promote a more business-friendly legislative and regulatory climate’ as a means of promoting economic growth and development through tourism (EESC, 2000: 3). As the EU has continued to expand, integrating a raft of new East European and Mediterranean states in 2004,17 it has continued to pursue a path of market fundamentalism centred on a neoliberal recipe of competitiveness, low inflation, low taxation, deregulation and flexible labour markets which now threatens to unravel the European project itself as the contradictions of monetary union and the unresolved dislocations between the structures of distinctive national capitalisms become increasingly apparent. In parts of the Mediterranean, which accounts for approximately 30% of international tourist arrivals and 26% of receipts (Pierret, 2012), a combination of widening and deepening economic integration, product innovation

326

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

and the reconfiguration of a failing coastal mass tourism model since the early 1990s has precipitated the territorial redistribution of tourist activity and capital into areas hitherto beyond wider circuits of tourism production and exchange, leading to the expansion of new tourist activities in smaller urban centres and lesser islands, as well as the rural hinterlands (Marchena Gómez, 1995). In Spain, the autonomous communities, led by the Balearic Islands, Catalunya and the Valencian Region, and subsequently the Canary Islands, began to devise their own strategic direction with regard to tourism in conjunction with territorial development plans which in theory were to take into account regional differences in culture, territory and economic needs (Pearce, 1997). While there is no denying the unprecedented growth in tourist arrivals and receipts in these regional centres over the past two decades, and a degree of success in terms of promoting less environmentally destructive forms of tourism (see Hughes, 1994), the unfolding Eurozone crisis has brought the underlying structural weaknesses and distortions of the southern European growth model starkly into the light, highlighting the rift between the productive/competitive core and the south, much of which relies heavily upon tourism and agricultural exports. When joining the Euro in 1999 and 2001 respectively, Spain and Greece, two Mediterranean countries with major tourism industries, suddenly found that they had access to cheap credit in addition to the substantial structural funds which had been previously disbursed by the EU in order to stimulate improved productivity, competitiveness and the convergence of their economies. In Spain in particular, an unholy alliance emerged between regional governments, developers and the banking sector, fuelling a construction frenzy and the rapid spread of tourism resorts and establishments along every available valley and coastline, notwithstanding the putative planning restrictions that had been put in place during the late 1990s as well as widespread environmental protests (Bianchi, 2004; López & Rodríguez, 2011: 17). The political consensus within national governments, the EU as a whole and of course throughout the various international financial institutions and corporate lobbying organisations such as the WTTC, is nevertheless that further market integration and neoliberal policies designed to stimulate growth and competitiveness will continue to engender economic growth and spread employment creation to where it is needed. However, if anything, what the Eurozone crisis has brutally demonstrated is that the benefits of market integration and economic liberalisation are more likely to accrue to technologically advanced countries and regions endowed with a welleducated and diversified workforce, sufficient domestic capital, superior productivity as well as locational advantages (see Dunford, 1994; Hudson, 2003). Despite attempts to reduce spatial variations in the levels of economic development through the redistribution of structural funds, deepening (and widening) market integration in the EU has forced the weaker less productive economies of the South and, more recently, the East, to align themselves

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

327

with the logic of market forces without undermining the leading position of the more prosperous regions (Perrons, 1999: 189).18 In addition, it is estimated that fiscal transfers through the disbursement of structural funds in the 1990s contributed to a 4% rise in Spain’s GDP and as much as 10% rise for Greece and Portugal (Commission of the European Communities, 1999: 12), figures that do little to highlight the skewed internal socio-economic distribution of wealth and persistence of significant pockets of poverty. Thus, while regional specialisation has to a certain extent benefited networks of dynamic regional economies and major metropolitan centres in which different layers of capital investment, high status jobs and political control functions intersect, this has been at the expense of those regions and cities which are disconnected from ‘processes of accumulation and consumption that characterise the informational/global economy’ (Castells, 1996: 102–103). On the other hand, the integration of the former East European states stimulated the take-off of mass tourism in major urban centres such as Prague and Budapest (with the associated problems of urban congestion and pollution) and, at the same time, also intensified regional territorial imbalances in economic development (Hall, 2004). However, behind the seemingly glowing facade of two decades of unprecedented expansion in the scale and diversity of tourism development in tourism dependent regions across the Mediterranean, arguably the most successful tourism destination(s) in the world in terms of the sheer scale of its industries, lies a legacy of uncontrolled debt-financed construction and a progressive loss of competitiveness that seemingly can only be counteracted by more of the same.

Conclusion Notwithstanding the remarkable expansion and diversification of tourism worldwide over the past two decades, and the entrance of China into the fray, the overall hierarchy between winners and losers in tourism development has remained relatively unchanged. Together, Europe and North America continue to absorb nearly two-thirds of international arrivals and over half of global receipts from tourism. However, their combined market dominance has been in progressive decline as emergent destinations absorb tourism faster than the overall pace of aggregate growth. Elsewhere, even in successful emerging destinations such as Mexico, which rapidly rose to become one of the world’s leading destinations in the 1990s, growth in market share was combined with plummeting receipts as result of a collapse in the value of its currency in 1994 and the imposition of IMF structural adjustment policies (Gladstone, 2005: 63). In this chapter, it has been argued that over the past two to three decades capitalist restructuring and economic globalisation have precipitated a reconfiguration of power relations that challenges the validity of state-centric

328

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

approaches to the political economy of tourism, epitomised by the neocolonial dependency model. Central to these changes have been the increasing dominance of transnational tourism corporations and the growing structural power of market forces at a global and regional level. Thus, an increasingly complex and differentiated geography of tourism production, distribution and exchange has emerged, underwritten by the forces of economic globalisation and market liberalisation which challenge the straightforward North–South geometries of power articulated in the neo-colonial/dependency model of international tourism. Such transformations in the complex geographies of tourism are manifest in terms of the simultaneous globalisation and regionalisation of tourism, as cross-border FDI and transnational corporate investment in key tourism subindustries take place alongside growing participation of regions and regional growth triangles as relatively autonomous actors competing for a share of mobile tourism capital (see Chapter 5). Furthermore, the dominant power and influence of TTCs over particular tourism sub-sectors and, in particular, distribution chains must be seen in the context of the diverse arrangements of enterprise and capital/labour relations within regional and local destination economies. Among other things, what the 2011–2012 Eurozone crisis has demonstrated is the degree of economic and social differentiation that exists between the southern European ‘tourism’ economies and the northern core in which the majority of creditors and indeed tour operators, when thinking specifically in relation to this industry, are based. In addition, it is clear that the role of the state, both at regional and national levels, remains significant. Many proponents of globalisation have argued that nearly three decades of deregulation and privatisation have reduced the role of the state to that of a mere conduit for geographically mobile transnational investment capital. The autonomous role of the state has indeed given way to overlapping structures of decision-making authority as well as been challenged by the power of TTCs. However, as the interplay of the EU, national states and regional governments in the remaking of Spanish destinations over the past 20 years had demonstrated, state actors have played a central role in the restructuring of places in accordance with the interests of tourism capital. The efforts of regional and national cliques to direct and influence the flow and intervention of capital into tourism destinations have been given further impetus by a cluster of global institutions, including the EU, UNWTO, WTTC and World Trade Organisation. Whilst many parts of the world, including the considerable swathes of household enterprise in southern Europe which paradoxically has enabled many people to endure the ferocity of the Eurozone crisis, remain only partially integrated into, or indeed, may be entirely marginal to, the orbits of transnational tourism capital, examples of alternative economic paths and models of power-sharing which challenge the commodified spheres of marketised economic production and exchange are still few and far between,

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

329

as Duffy’s (2002, 2006) work on ecotourism all too vividly demonstrates. The ability of TTCs to dictate the terms and scope of product diversification and innovation within a wider context of resort restructuring, whilst externalising risk as far as possible via a system of contractual relations with suppliers, continues to distribute the balance of power in favour of capital rather than local destination businesses and workers, particularly when exposed to the kind of brutal economic restructuring currently being witnessed across key southern European destination economies. Indeed, rather than challenge the structural logic of market forces and destructive waves of competition between barely distinguishable destinations, the shift towards ostensibly sustainable forms of tourism at the beginning of the 1990s through product diversification, innovation and branding, became a convenient vehicle for the speculative real estate driven model of tourism whose legacy will be the ravaged coastline and precarious livelihoods of Greek and Spanish coastal communities for many years to come. It is becoming clear that the world is in the midst of a major transition in terms of the relative balance of power between tourism generating and receiving nations as the geographies of tourism production, exchange and consumption shift and change in tandem with the rise of new and emergent centres of capital accumulation and political power. There is little doubt that China and other emergent markets will continue their vertiginous rise (see Jacques, 2012: 2–3), yet one must remain circumspect with regard to the degree to which this constitutes a definitive shift of the global economy’s ‘nerve centre’ from West to East in terms of the rise of a new global hegemon. For one thing, China’s tourism sector remains overwhelmingly regulated by the state whilst the majority of outbound tourism is absorbed by Hong Kong and Macao. What is of perhaps even greater concern will be the terms on which weaker regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa, for whom tourism continues to offer one of few economic development options, will continue to be integrated into wider circuits of tourism capital, wherever these may originate. While tourism development research has long since transcended crude cost–benefit analyses of the overall economic contribution of tourism to destinations, there remains an overwhelmingly positivist tendency to frame the study of tourism development in terms of its overall contribution to LDC economies in particular. Whilst they remain important considerations, the central concern for the international political economy of tourism should not be directed primarily to whether or not national incomes and employment are rising thanks to tourism, or indeed, whether or not TTCs provide a decent wage for their workers but, rather, to what extent are the emergent industrial and geographical configurations of tourism production, exchange and consumption challenging or reinforcing the prevailing global distributions of power and inequality. Only then can we begin to claim that the international political economy of tourism has come of age.

330

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Notes (1) The concept of mode of production refers to the particular constellation of productive forces and social relations which structure the manner in which human beings confront nature in order to secure their material subsistence, and the dynamic consequences which flow from these relations (see Wolf, 1982: 386–387; Hindness & Hirst, 1975: 9–12). (2) Nearly 80% of the television content in the Caribbean is controlled by Western multi-media and satellite television corporations (Brown, 1995: 48). (3) According to the United Nations, least developed countries, of which there are currently 48, must satisfy three criteria, including a threshold of US$905 gross national income (GNI) per capita for inclusion and US$1,086 for graduation) (see UNCTAD, 2011). (4) During the period 1982–1990, US$1345 billion in debt repayments alone were transferred from the developing countries to the creditor nations in the North. After taking into consideration other North–South resource flows the total net transfer of wealth from North to South is calculated at US$418 billion (George, 1992: xv). (5) By 1998 private flows of investment amounted to five times the size of official development assistance to developing countries (Pryce, 1998: 78). (6) Despite relatively low leakages, considerable local ownership in the hotel sector, as well as strong linkages to local agricultural suppliers, Jamaica still ranks lower than many other Caribbean states in terms of per capita income levels (US$3,440) and poverty (in 1997 Jamaica’s Human Development Index was 0.734, compared to 0.828 in Antigua and 0.857 in Barbados), a fact which is undoubtedly connected to high levels of debt-servicing which amount to 98% of GNP (Pattullo, 1996: 21, 39, 47; UNDP, 1999). (7) The Canada-based Thomson Corporation (turnover £5bn), which had a 19% stake in the Thomson Travel Group which was subsequently sold to Preussag AG in 2000, at one time occupied 64th place (UNCTAD, 1997: 29–30). (8) The concept of a global commodity chain is deployed by Clancy (1998) as a means of identifying the complex and differentiated organisational structures of the international tourism industry. They are a useful means of understanding the articulations between different stages of production at local, regional and international levels, and the power relations which ensue from these processes. (9) In the flurry of merger and acquisition activity in the UK travel industry during the mid to late 1990s, the UK-based specialist hiking and rafting tour company, Headwater, was acquired by the Simply Travel Group for nearly £5 million (Balmer, 1999). In turn, Headwater was subsequently purchased by Thomson Holidays for £29 million before Thomson itself was merged into the German travel giant TUI AG in 2000 (See www.tui- com/en/konzern/tui_ profile/portrait). In the summer of 2007, TUI spent nearly £82 million on the acquisition of nine businesses within various niche specialist areas (Travel Mole, 2007). (10) Before being re-branded as My Travel and then becoming part of Thomas Cook plc, Airtours plc acquired the Spanish hotel chain, Hoteles Don Pedro, and also purchased land in the Canary Islands for the purpose of developing luxury hotels. In 1999 they invested £335 m in new acquisitions, which added 17,000 beds to their in-house bed capacity (www.hemscott.com/equities/company/ar/id/016111/ htm, 24 July 2000). During the late 1990s the German tour operator TUI set about acquiring a portfolio of luxury hotels (including Riu, Iberohotel, Grecohotel, Grupotel, Club Robinson, and Dorfhotel) based predominantly in the Mediterranean and Spain (www.tui.com, 24 July 2000). (11) LSG Lufthansa Services/SKYCHEFS are one of the world’s leading in-flight catering contractors. In 1993 they serviced nearly 200 carriers in 72 different locations (Ioannides & Debbage, 1998: 117).

Towards a New Polit ical Economy of Global Tour ism Rev isited

331

(12) According to Davis (2004: 25), informal economic activity accounts for up to 60% of urban employment in Africa. In Ethiopia, where 61% of employment is in the informal sector, 42% of those working in the informal sector are found in the hotel and restaurant business (Demissie, 2008: 521). (13) Domestic and regional tourism flows do exist in certain parts of Africa (Sindiga, 1999: 119–123, 159–161) and Asia (e.g. Goa, Wilson, 1996), for example; however indigenous demand for travel is often restricted to Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR) and work-related migration. (14) Historically lower levels of transnational capital intervention in countries such as Tunisia and Tanzania (Harrison, 2000b), stem from explicit policies by their respective governments to restrict the involvement of expatriate private capital and encourage state-run tourism during the 1960s and 1970s (see Shivji, 1975; Poirier, 1995; Honey, 1999: Chapter 7) (15) Overall, the number of transnational corporations operating in the global economy increased from approximately 10,000 in 1980 to nearly 40,000 in the early 1990s (Madeley, 1996: 8; Arrighi, 1998: 69). (16) The power of transnational cruise companies to resist the regulatory powers of the state was forcefully illustrated in 1993 when Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines threatened to drop St Lucia from their itinerary in response to proposals to implement a standard passenger head-tax for all ports (Pattullo, 1996: 159–160). (17) On 1 May 2004, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, the so-called AC10 states, became members of the EU. Of these, Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia currently use the Euro. (18) Although structural funds represented nearly a third of total community spending at the time when the southern European economies were seeking ‘convergence’ with the EU average, they comprised less than 0.5% of community GDP (Hudson & Williams, 1999: 13).

11 Tourism, Climate Change and Development C. Michael Hall, Daniel Scott and Stefan Gössling

Introduction Climate change is both a consequence of development and affects development. The short and long-term economic, ecological, health and welfare risks that climate change poses to human well-being are now acknowledged in scientific, policy and business circles and, increasingly, by those that are impacted by climatic shifts and high-magnitude weather events. Climate change is, therefore, a key development issue (e.g. Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009; IPCC, 2007, 2012; Kok et al., 2008; Willis, 2011). Similarly, for many countries, tourism has the potential to contribute to economic growth and development (e.g. Hall & Lew, 2009; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008), and is promoted as a potential means of achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), including poverty reduction (e.g. UNWTO, 2006b; World Travel and Tourism Council [WTTC], 2004; World Economic Forum [WEF], 2008). However, development is an extremely contested term (Willis, 2011), while the manner in which climate change is framed and therefore how it should be addressed, is increasingly being seen as being socially constructed (Demeritt, 2001, 2006; Nielsen & Sejersen, 2012; O’Brien et al., 2010; Wainwright, 2010). The interrelationships between tourism, development and climate change therefore presents a significant policy dilemma for many countries, institutions and agencies (Dubois et al., 2011; Gössling et al., 2009), particularly with respect to the capacity to decarbonise tourism in light of concerns over emissions (Gössling et al., 2013). Given the sector’s emission intensity and overall growth, this leads to significant challenges with respect to its management, regulation and long-term development prospects, as any mitigation policy is likely to affect tourist mobility and tourism development (UNWTO, UNEP and WMO, 2008). 332

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

333

This chapter first sets out a broad account of the impacts of climate change before discussing contemporary perspectives on tourism as a development strategy, particularly its potential to contribute to poverty alleviation in least developed countries (LDCs). The major risks that climate policy and climate change pose to the tourism sector and specifically for the prospects for tourism development in developing countries are then examined. What emerges clearly from this evidence is the need to rethink the future of international tourism development in a carbon-constrained global economy that embraces the principles of climate justice.

The Impact of Climate Change Despite greater awareness of climate change, in the absence of effective near term actions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions the likelihood of 4°C warming being reached or exceeded this century continues to increase (World Bank, 2013). The International Energy Agency (IEA) (2012) concluded that, in the absence of further mitigation action, there is a 40% chance of warming exceeding 4°C by 2100 and a 10% chance of it exceeding 5°C in the same period. This does not mean that global mean temperatures will stabilise at such a level. Without appropriate actions it is likely that average temperatures and sea-levels would increase still further in the 22nd century. Moreover, even at the present rate of 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels, observed climate change impacts are already substantial, with shifts in climatic conditions and the frequency and intensity of high magnitude weather events. These impacts are also disproportionately being felt in the LDCs. A summary of some of these general effects is found in Table 11.1. The Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) (2009) indicates that every year climate change already leaves over 300,000 people dead, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses of US$125 billion (more than all of the present world aid combined). In all, four billion people are regarded as vulnerable to climate change and 500 million people are at extreme risk, with approximately half a million lives expected to be lost per annum to climate change by 2029 (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). The general effects of climate change will clearly have a major impact on development processes throughout the world because of effects on socioeconomic, food, political and environmental systems. The tourism system will be affected because of impacts on destinations, changes in generating areas as well as system-wide regulatory structures that seek to address climate change (Scott et al., 2012b). Developed countries have the greatest capacity to adapt to climate change, at least initially, because of their greater wealth. However, this chapter focuses primarily on the tourism–climate change relationship in LDCs for four main reasons. First, many of them are highly tourism dependent. Second, because of their tropical and sub-tropical

334

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Table 11.1 Overview of key climate change impacts Key impacts

Examples unprecedenteda

Unusual and heat extremes expected to occur far more frequently and cover much greater land areas. Rainfall regime changes and water availability. Pressure on water resources is expected to increase significantly.

Terrestrial ecosystems: Increased warming is expected to bring about ecosystem shifts, fundamentally altering species compositions and leading to species extinctions.

Sea-level rise (SLR): A rise of up to 50 cm by the 2050s may now be unavoidable. Limiting warming to 2°C may limit global SLR to about 70 cm by 2100. A 100 cm SLR may occur if emission increases continue and raise the global average temperature to 4°C by 2100 and higher levels thereafter. Although significant uncertainty remains.

In SE Asia under 2°C global warming, heat extremes that are virtually absent at present will cover nearly 60–70% of total land area in summer, and unprecedented heat extremes up to 30–40% of land area. • Declines of 20% in water availability are projected for many regions under a 2°C warming and of 50% for some regions under 4°C warming. • South Asian populations are likely to be increasingly vulnerable to the greater variability of precipitation changes, in addition to the disturbances in the monsoon system and rising peak temperatures that could put water and food resources at severe risk. • By the 2030s (with 1.2–1.3°C warming), some ecosystems in Africa are projected to experience maximum extreme temperatures well beyond present range, with all African eco-regions exceeding this range by 2070 (2.1–2.7°C warming). • The distribution of species within savannah ecosystems is projected to shift from grasses to woody plants, as CO2 fertilisation favours the latter, although high temperatures and precipitation deficits may counter this effect. This shift will reduce forage for livestock and stress pastoral systems and livelihoods. In SE Asia the projected SLR is 10–15% higher than the global mean. The combination of SLR and increased intensity of storm surges and tropical cyclones will severely impact coastal systems, including major cities on river deltas.

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

335

Table 11.1 (Continued) Key impacts

Examples

Marine ecosystems: The combined effects of warming and ocean acidification are projected to cause major damages to marine ecosystems, especially coral reef systems.

• Under 1.5°C warming and increasing ocean acidification, there is a high risk (50% probability) of annual bleaching events occurring as early as 2030 in SE Asia. Projections indicate that all coral reefs in the region are very likely to experience severe thermal stress by the year 2050, as well as chemical stress due to ocean acidification. • Most coral reefs are unlikely to survive if 4°C warming is reached.

Note: a. ‘Unusual’ and ‘unprecedented’ heat extremes are defined by using thresholds based on the historical variability of the current local climate in the base period (1951–1980), which is captured by the standard deviation (sigma). Unusual heat extremes are defined as 3-sigma events. For a normal distribution, 3-sigma events have a return time of 740 years. Unprecedented heat extremes are defined as 5-sigma events. They have a return time of several million years (World Bank, 2013). Source: After World Bank, 2013.

locations they are more vulnerable to some dimensions of climate change, such as SLR, than higher latitude countries. Third, their economic status affects their adaptive capacity with respect to climate change. Finally, they are the overt focus of attempts by institutions, such as the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO), to promote tourism as a mechanism for economic development, often as part of poverty reduction programmes of so-called pro-poor tourism initiatives. Therefore, because of tourism’s contribution to climate change, any measures to reduce emissions may also affect the tourism industries of these countries.

Tourism and Development On a global scale, tourism is a significant economic activity with growth forecast to continue in the foreseeable future. In 2012, international tourist arrivals reached 1 billion for the first time, up from 25 million in 1950, 277 million in 1980 and 528 million in 1995 (UNWTO, 2012, 2013a). International tourism is projected to nearly double by 2030 (UNWTO, 2011f) from its 2012 figure. The UNWTO predicts the number of international tourist arrivals will increase by an average 3.3% per year between 2010 and 2030 (an average increase of 43 million arrivals a year), reaching an estimated 1.8 billion arrivals by 2030 (UNWTO, 2011f, 2012). Upper and lower forecasts for

336

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

global tourism in 2030 are between approximately 2 billion arrivals (‘real transport costs continue to fall’ scenario) and 1.4 billion arrivals (‘slower than expected economic recovery and future growth’ scenario) respectively (UNWTO, 2011f). Most growth is forecast to come from the emerging economies and the Asia-Pacific, and by 2030 it is estimated that 57% of international arrivals will be in what are currently classified as emerging economies (UNWTO, 2011f, 2012). Although international tourism is usually the primary national policy focus because of its trade dimensions (Coles & Hall, 2008), the vast majority of tourism is domestic in nature and accounted for an estimated 4.7 billion arrivals in 2010 (Cooper & Hall, 2013). Although the vast majority of international tourism currently occurs in developed countries, the UNWTO has reported that international tourism in emerging and developing markets grew at twice the rate of industrialised countries. The UNWTO (2007a) estimated that tourism is a primary source of foreign exchange earnings in 46 out of 50 of the world’s LDCs. Between 1996 and 2006, international tourism in developing countries expanded by 6% as a whole, by 9% for LDCs and 8% for other low and lower-middle income economies (UNWTO, 2008b). Growth between 2000 and 2009 was also most marked in emerging economies (58.8%) with their overall global market share growing from 38.1% in 2000 to 46.9% in 2009 (UNEP, 2011). The significant role of tourism in many developing economies is indicated in Tables 11.2 and 11.3, and Figure 11.1. However, it should also be noted that the vast majority of tourism is domestic rather than international in nature and it therefore may not be fully captured in these statistics (UNWTO, UNEP and WMO, 2008). Table 11.2 indicates that although travel as an export activity has continued to grow over 2000–2011 its relative proportion of total global export of services has declined, as with the developing countries, although its contribution to export activity in the LDCs has continued to grow over the same period. In addition, it should be noted that tourism’s relative importance in service exports varies by region, with it being considerably more significant for Oceania and Africa, a slight decline in Asia and a considerable decline in the Americas. To an extent such regional differences are also reflected in Table 11.3 which outlines the importance of tourism to different developing economies, with the most significant regions by number of countries being Oceania, East Africa and the Caribbean, with tourism being especially important to island states. Considering the long-term growth of international tourism to developing countries, it is therefore perhaps not surprising that tourism is increasingly promoted by organisations such as the UNWTO, UNEP and many development agencies as an important element in national employment generation and poverty reduction strategies. According to the UNWTO (2006b: 3), ‘Tourism development, if properly developed and supported, can indeed be a “quick-win” in overcoming the economic and social conditions that prevail in LDCs and in accelerating their integration into the world economy’. More

Source: Adapted from UNCTAD, 2012.

Country grouping World Least developed countries Developing economies Developing economies excluding China Developing economies: Africa Developing economies: America Developing economies: Asia Developing economies: Oceania Transition economies Developed economies Developed economies: America Developed economies: Asia Developed economies: Europe Developed economies: Oceania

2000 479.4 2.5 130.3 114.1 14.5 31.6 83.9 0.3 8.4 340.7 111.5 8.6 209.0 11.6

2005 694.6 4.8 213.6 184.3 28.8 42.9 140.5 1.4 20.5 460.5 119.9 9.5 309.0 22.1

Billions of dollars

Table 11.2 Travel as an export activity 2000–2011

2010 950.5 9.8 362.4 316.6 42.2 55.8 262.9 1.5 29.5 558.5 151.9 18.0 354.9 34.7

2011 1,067.4 11.3 411.4 362.9 40.5 58.8 310.4 1.7 35.8 620.2 166.8 15.9 400.6 36.9

2000 31.5 35.9 37.1 35.6 43.7 51.2 32.9 33.4 34.8 29.7 33.9 10.0 29.6 47.6

2005 27.1 41.3 33.9 33.2 48.2 48.7 29.4 45.9 35.6 24.5 27.7 7.8 24.1 55.6

As % of total services 2010 24.8 44.1 31.9 32.8 46.6 41.9 28.9 45.6 28.6 21.5 24.3 10.9 20.3 61.1

2011 25.2 44.0 32.5 33.5 44.1 39.6 30.4 46.1 29.6 21.7 24.6 9.2 20.6 59.7

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development 337

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Table 11.3 The importance of tourism and developing economies

Region

– – – – China, Macao SAR – – – –

– Anguilla

Palau, Cook Islands

Middle Africa Western Africa Northern Africa Southern Africa Eastern Asia Western Asia Southern Asia Southeast Asia Central America

South America Caribbean

Oceania

Vanuatu

– Aruba, Turks and Caicos Islands, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados

– Cape Verde – – – – Maldives – –

Seychelles

25–50%

Source: Derived from UNCTAD (2008); UNWTO (2011a).

–

Eastern Africa

>50%

– Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Dominica, Cayman Islands, Jamaica, Montserrat, Dominican Republic Samoa, Fiji, French Polynesia

Sao Tome and Principe Gambia Morocco – Bahrain Lebanon, Jordan – Cambodia Belize

Mauritius, Zimbabwe

10–24%

Micronesia (Federated States of), Tonga, New Caledonia

United Republic of Tanzania, Madagascar, Comoros, Eritrea, Kenya – Ghana Tunisia, Egypt Namibia, Botswana Mongolia; China, Hong Kong SAR Syrian Arab Republic – Thailand, Singapore Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, Honduras Suriname –

5–9%

Visitor spending as a % of gross domestic product (GDP) (2009 or most recent available)

338

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

339

Figure 11.1 Travel and tourism contributions to GDP in relation to the Human Development Index for SIDs and LDCs Notes: SIDs: Small Island Developing States, LDCs: Least Developed Countries.

recently, the UNEP (2011) has been promoting the potential poverty reduction benefits of tourism as part of its green economy strategy, suggesting that ‘When tourism-related income grows with a substantial reorientation in favour of the poor, poverty can be reduced’ (UNEP, 2011: 424; see Chapter 4). Tourism can also support international transport and business

340

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

connections, which can then be utilised to export other products and services as well. The UNWTO (2006b: 1) has argued that there are several reasons that make tourism an ‘especially suitable economic development sector for LDCs’ (see also UNEP, 2011): (1) Tourism is consumed at the point of production; the tourist has to go to the destination and spend his/her money there, opening an opportunity for local businesses of all sorts, and allowing local communities to benefit through the informal economy, by selling goods and services directly to visitors; (2) Most LDCs have a comparative advantage in tourism over developed countries. They have assets of enormous value to the tourism industry – culture, art, music, natural landscapes, wildlife and climate and World Heritage Sites. Visits by tourists to such sites can generate employment and income for communities as well as helping in the conservation of cultural and natural assets; (3) Tourism is a more diverse industry than many others. It has the potential to support other economic activities, both through providing flexible, part-time jobs that can complement other livelihood options, and through creating income throughout a complex supply chain of goods and services; (4) Tourism is labour intensive, which is particularly important in tackling poverty. It also provides a wide range of different employment opportunities especially for women and young people – from the highly skilled to the unskilled – and generally it requires relatively little training; (5) It creates opportunities for many small and micro entrepreneurs, either in the formal or informal economy; it is an industry in which start-up costs and barriers to entry are generally low or can easily be lowered; (6) Tourism provides not only material benefits for the poor but also cultural pride. It creates greater awareness of the natural environment and its economic value, a sense of ownership and reduced vulnerability through diversification of income sources; (7) The infrastructure required by tourism, such as transport and communications, water supply and sanitation, public security, and health services, can also benefit poor communities. Nevertheless, there has also long been substantial criticism of what has been perceived as the negative impacts of tourism as a development strategy (e.g. de Kadt, 1979b; Chok et al., 2007; Hall, 2007b; Hall & Lew, 2009; Telfer & Sharpley, 2008). Furthermore, the supposed comparative advantages of LDCs with respect to tourism are not evenly distributed. As noted above, there are many developing countries and regions with only limited opportunities to benefit from international tourism. It is important to note that while tourism has been promoted by some in the development community for over 40 years,

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

341

the mid to long-term relative contribution of international tourism projects to development strategies remains poorly evaluated (Hawkins & Mann, 2007), with some research suggesting that more gradual small-scale domestic tourism focused projects may be more beneficial (Zapata et al., 2011). Economic benefits associated with international tourism development may not be as great as expected because of profit repatriation by foreign investors, the nature of local economic networks and structures, relatively low wages, underemployment because of seasonal demand and the replacement of existing economic activity in some tourism resort areas (e.g. Chok et al., 2007; see Chapter 10). For example, Blake’s (2008) study of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, indicated that hotels and restaurants, and in particular the transport industry, provide below-average shares of income to poor households compared to other export sectors, leading to the conclusion that ‘these results paint a fairly poor picture of the ability of tourism to alleviate poverty’ (Blake, 2008: 511), particularly because tourism tends to be disproportionally beneficial to the already wealthy (Blake et al., 2008; Schilcher, 2007) and can reinforce existing inequalities (Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008a). Similarly, the contribution of international aviation to sustainable development has also been brought into question (Daley, 2009; Walker & Cook, 2009). In addition, the extent to which a nation or specific region is economically dependent on tourism and the relative cost-distance from markets will have implications for the overall economic vulnerability of that destination to climate change and emerging climate policy regimes and its capacities to achieve development objectives. As Table 11.3 illustrates, those economies that are highly dependent on tourism tend to be island states, which are also some of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Mimura et al., 2007; McMullen & Jabbour, 2009; UNFCCC, 2008). However, other highly significant vulnerabilities for developing countries include tourism being concentrated in coastal regions and estuarine systems (e.g. Nicholls et al., 2007), mountain regions (e.g. Beniston, 2003), having environmentally-based attractions, such as safari and ecotourism (Gössling & Hall, 2006a; Scott et al., 2008, 2012b), as well as having a substantial proportion of their market based on long-haul travel (greater than six hours). Indeed, some of the reasons that make tourism attractive as a development mechanism are also the very ones that make it vulnerable to climate change. Taking into account the drawbacks of tourism development, is important for understanding the tourism/development/climate change nexus and the potential vulnerabilities that may arise from a focus on tourism development in an era of rapid climate change. Assessing the contribution of tourism to development on the basis of its immediate potential employment and economic generation alone provides an extremely limited understanding of tourism’s contribution to development. This means that tourism’s environmental and socio-cultural affects also need to be considered when assessing its role as a development mechanism, but also the importance of seeking to assess

342

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

GLOBAL TOURISM ENVIRONMENT International conventions and agreements with respect to global climate and environmental change, Millennium Development Goals and global economy and trade

TOURIST GENERATING COUNTRY Short-term: Government regulatory and legislative actions to adapt and mitigate climate change, including taxation. Voluntary changes by consumers and industry with respect to travel behaviour. New cost structures for international travel. Long-term: Effects of climate change on the economy, environment and infrastructure of the tourist generating region. Changing consumer perception of destinations as a result of climate change and media reporting of change and events. Changes to local tourism resources as a result of climate change. Changes to tourist behaviour

TOURIST RECEIVING COUNTRY Short-term:

TRANSIT REGIONS Short-term: Government regulatory and legislative actions to reduce emissions, including taxation. New cost structures for international travel Long-term: Effects of climate change on the economy, infrastructure and environment of the transit region. Changing consumer perception of transit region as a result of climate change and media reporting of change and events.

Government regulatory and legislative actions to adapt and mitigate climate change. Voluntary measures by industry with respect to climate change adaptation and mitigation. New cost structures for tourism industry.

Long-term: Effects of climate change on the economy, environment, infrastructure and attractions of the destination, including relative government support for tourism over time. New promotional strategies and the development of new markets, including domestic tourism and regional travel. Relative attractiveness of destination compared to competing destinations. Changes to tourism resources.

Competing international destinations Same issues as in the initial tourist receiving country.

Figure 11.2 Tourism in developing countries and the impact of climate change (after Hall, 2005)

affects over time. As Figure 11.2 indicates, although the focus of the development dimensions of tourism are at the destination, changes elsewhere in the tourism system are also significant (Hall, 2005), as a negative impact in one part of the tourism system may constitute an opportunity for another destination elsewhere in the system (Scott et al., 2008). For instance, regulatory initiatives developed to mitigate climate change may have impacts on transport systems and, thus, the mobility of tourists (Scott et al., 2012b). The potential for increased costs for the consumer arising from mitigation practices in one jurisdiction may have implications for the price competitiveness of the destination at an international scale as well as travel within a destination country. One possible effect of this is that the most peripheral and least accessible destinations to markets, which typically are most in need of development initiatives, are therefore potentially the most vulnerable in relative terms to the costs of mitigation strategies based on distance travelled, size of emissions or energy consumed (Hall & Lew, 2009). Such an observation is vital in understanding the potential impacts of international and national climate change mitigation regimes on tourism flows and destinations (Gössling et al., 2008, 2013). However, the magnitude of the impact will depend on real cost increases imposed by climate policy (Gössling et al., 2008; Pentaelow & Scott, 2010, 2011).

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

343

In the longer term, the direct impacts of substantially changed climate regimes and the indirect effects of climate-induced environmental change and societal impacts (i.e. reduced economic growth, increased food and water insecurity; biodiversity loss and/or political destabilisation) will also significantly affect tourism in some regions as a result of damage to, or the complete loss of, key tourism resources that will alter the competitiveness of destinations (Scott et al., 2008, 2012b). These effects need to be considered through the various components of the tourism system (Figure 11.2) as well as the capacities of tourists to perceive impacts accurately (Gössling & Hall, 2006b; Gössling et al., 2012; Scott et al., 2008, 2012b). However, such concerns are not usually configured in tourism and development policies.

Climate Policy Implications for Tourism Patterns Transport, aviation and climate change Tourism transport, accommodation and activities combined were estimated by a UNWTO commissioned study to account for approximately 5% of global anthropogenic emissions of CO2 in 2005 (Scott et al., 2008). Most CO2 emissions are associated with transport, with aviation accounting for 40% of tourism’s overall carbon footprint, followed by cars (32%) and accommodation (21%). Cruise ships account for around 1.5% of global tourism emissions (19.17 Mt CO2) (Eijgelaar et al., 2010). This assessment does not include the impact of short-lived GHGs. A more accurate assessment of tourism’s contribution to global warming can be made on the basis of radiative forcing. Scott et al. (2010) estimate that tourism contributed to 5.2–12.5% of all anthropogenic forcing in 2005, with a best estimate of about 8%. Given expected rates of tourism growth (see above), the contribution of emissions from tourism is expected to grow substantially in both absolute and proportional terms, if other economic sectors are able to achieve their legislated or voluntary emission reduction targets. Based on a business-asusual (BAU) scenario for 2035, which considers changes in travel frequency, length of stay, travel distance and technological efficiency gains, Scott et al. (2008) suggest that CO2 emissions from tourism will grow by about 135% to 2035 (compared with 2005), totalling approximately 3059 Mt (Table 11.4). Most of this growth will be associated with air travel, which transported 51% of international visitors in 2011 (UNWTO, 2012). These estimates are similar to WEF (2009) estimates and are consistent with Airbus (2012) and Boeing (2012) projections that the aviation global fleet will double between 2011 and 2031 with a 4.9% per year growth in passenger numbers. The IEA (2009) baseline scenario in which air travel almost quadruples between 2005 and 2050 represents a tripling of energy used for aviation, accounting for 19% of all transport energy used as compared to 11% in 2006 (IEA, 2009).

344

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Table 11.4 Anticipated growth rates in tourism and transport, various organisations Organisation

Expected growth rates

UNWTO, UNEP and WMO (2008)

Emissions of CO2 will grow by 135% over 30 years, from 1304 Mt CO2 in 2005 to 3059 Mt CO2 in 2035. Growth in international tourist arrivals 2010–2030 of 3.3% per year (central projection). Tourism-related CO2 emissions (excluding aviation) will grow at 2.5% per year until 2035, and aviation emissions at 2.7%, with total estimated emissions of 3164 Mt CO2 by 2035 (plus 143%). Growth in revenue passenger kilometres by 150% between 2011 and 2031 (averaging 4.7% per year); with the global fleet of passenger aircraft growing from 15,560 to 32,550 in the same period. Growth in global aircraft fleet from 19,890 in 2011 to 39,780 by 2031; Airline traffic in revenue passenger kilometres: 5% per year. Air travel almost quadruples between 2005 and 2050 with an average worldwide growth rate of 3.5% per year, but over 4% worldwide until 2025. Absolute emissions from shipping will grow by 1.9–2.7% per year up to 2050.

UNWTO (2011e, 2012) World Economic Forum (2009)

Airbus (2012)

Boeing (2012)

IEA (2009)

International Maritime Organization (2009)

Although international tourism provides for only 16% of tourism trips, it accounts for 44% of emissions (Scott et al., 2008). Even if the per capita per trip contribution of tourists to GHG emissions continues to fall at the historic rate of greater efficiencies from technological, governance and management innovations, the absolute contribution will continue to grow as a result of increasing tourism mobility (Gössling et al., 2010; Hall, 2010b, 2011). Growth in emissions from tourism, and aviation in particular, is therefore clearly in conflict with attempts to reduce GHG emissions. There is currently no agreed global framework for emission reductions, although voluntary post-Kyoto emission reduction pledges have been made by individual countries (Jotzo, 2010). International aviation is not included in the Kyoto Protocol and has not been an explicit topic of post-Kyoto emission reduction negotiations. Under Kyoto, bunker fuels for international aviation and shipping are separated from national emission inventories. Emissions from international aviation are currently not accounted for by any nation. Although the Kyoto Protocol states that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is responsible for limiting and reducing

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

345

emissions from international aviation in Annex I nations, little progress has been made towards reductions (Scott et al., 2012a). The European Union (EU) emission policy target is a reduction of 20% by 2020 and some countries, such as the UK and Sweden, are already discussing cuts of 80% by 2050 (over the base year 1990) (Gössling & Hall, 2008). The EU included aviation in an emission trading scheme (EU ETS) at the start of 2012 (European Parliament and Council, 2009), but deferred application of the scheme to flights operated to and from countries outside the ETS in November 2012 ostensibly because of progress in global aviation emissions negotiations (European Commission, 2012). Nevertheless, the EU ETS will not significantly change tourism flows or reduce absolute aviation sector emissions in its current form (Gössling et al., 2008; Mayor & Tol, 2007; Scott et al., 2010, 2012b). Although the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has a longterm aspirational goal to reduce aviation net carbon emissions by 50% by 2050, compared to 2005 levels (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2009), airlines are highly unlikely to meet this goal because of limitations in potential technical and management efficiency gains and the political difficulties in securing the massive land area required to cultivate sufficient biofuels (Scott et al., 2010, 2012b). Clearly, growth in leisure mobility is such that even under the best scenarios of technology and air traffic control management (Peeters et al., 2009) there will be a growing gap between the increase in absolute emissions and post-Kyoto emission reduction needs (Dubois et al., 2011; Gössling et al., 2013).

Factors leading to the changing attractiveness of aviation accessed destinations Apart from climate policies, at least three other major factors may affect aviation-based tourism in the future. These include fuel price developments; consumer awareness of the environmental impact of air travel and/or environmental change at the destination, which may affect the travel behaviour of environmentally aware tourists; and threats to economic and political security (Scott et al., 2012b). Consequently, climate policy is only one of several factors that can affect tourism in developing countries, and a comprehensive analysis of the risk to developing country destinations should take all of these into account. Yet, it is unclear how the combined effect of volatile, and potentially high fuel price developments, emissions trading and growing customer environmental awareness, will affect arrivals in developing countries. Gössling et al. (2008) focused specifically on the consequences of emission trading on arrivals in developing countries. Using a similar modelling approach to examine the implications of climate policy and oil prices for Caribbean nation destinations, Pentelow and Scott (2011) found that growth in region-wide arrivals would decline no more than 4.3% versus BAU

346

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

growth by 2020. Even under a ‘serious climate policy’ scenario that the authors felt was highly unlikely to emerge before 2020, the reduction in arrivals growth was only 15% less than the BAU scenario, although even this figure may not be acceptable to some members of the tourism industry.

Consequences of emissions trading for arrivals in less-developed island states In their analysis of emerging climate policy in major tourism outbound markets, Gössling et al. (2008) assessed the direct implications of emission trading for the aviation sector and examined the potential consequences for travel costs and tourism demand in 10 tourism-dependent less-developed island states with diverse geographic and tourism market characteristics. The study assumed that additional costs per ton of CO2 of €27.40 in 2012 and €46.90 would apply by 2020. This is certainly too high, as the study considered the inclusion of non-CO2 emissions in the EU ETS for aviation, as was originally suggested by the EC. Furthermore, the study assumed that emissions from aviation in the EU would grow by 40% by 2011 and 100% by 2020, while there would be a cap of 90% of 2005 emission levels in 2012 and 79% of 2005 emission levels in 2020, with 25% of allowances being auctioned. Current EU policy foresees a cap of 5% by 2020, with 15% of allowances being auctioned. These assumptions thus need to be seen as increasing prices far more substantially than climate policy actually will. To test the consequences of a tough climate policy, the study by Gössling et al. (2008) also provided a second scenario called ‘Worldwide Serious Climate Policy’, where costs of €230 per t of CO2 are introduced by 2020 (see Gössling et al., 2008). The results show that climate policy will affect markets in tourismdependent, developing countries, but in view of the post-2001 trends of considerable increase in demand for holidays in most of these locations, climate policy was not projected to lead to a notable decline in tourist arrivals up to 2020. Rather, the result would be a slight delay in growth in arrival numbers in the EU ETS scenario (arrivals would be 0.2% to 5.8% lower relative to a BAU scenario), unless a very strong, international climate policy for aviation is implemented. In the Worldwide Serious Climate Policy scenario, arrivals would grow by 4% to 72% less relative to the BAU scenario. Based on Gössling et al. (2008), Table 11.5 illustrates differences in the carbon intensity of a number of countries. Weighted average emissions per tourist vary between a low of 635 kg CO2 in Jamaica and 1873 kg CO2 in Seychelles. Depending on the number of international tourist arrivals, tourist emissions add up to considerable amounts, ranging from 30,500t CO2 in Comoros to 3.1Mt CO2 in Cuba. Information on the importance of the main market indicates that between 21% (Seychelles) and 72% (Jamaica) of all international tourist arrivals originate from a single country. This indicates a considerable dependence on single markets. Moreover, emissions by each

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

347

Table 11.5 Energy characteristics of tourism in case study islands, 2005 Country

Anguilla Bonaire Comoros Cuba Jamaica Madagascar Saint Lucia Samoa Seychelles Sri Lanka

Average weighted emissions per tourist, air travel (return flight; kg CO2)a 750 1302 1734 1344 635 1829 1076 658 1873 1327

International tourist arrivals (2005)*

Total emissions, air travel (1000t CO2)

Emissions per tourist, main market (return flight; kg CO2) Percentage: share of total arrivalsa

62,084 62,550 **17,603 2,319,334 1,478,663 277,422 317,939 101,807 128,654 549,309

47 81 31 3,117 939 507 342 67 241 729

672 (USA; 67%) 803 (USA; 41%) 1929 (France; 54%) 556 (Canada; 26%) 635 (USA: 72%) 2159 (France; 52%) 811(USA; 35%) 824 (New Zealand; 36%) 1935 (France; 21%) 606 (India; 21%)

Source: *UNWTO 2007b, 2007c; **2004. Notes: aCalculation of emissions is based on the main national markets only, using a main airport to main airport approach (in the USA: New York; Canada: Toronto; Australia: Brisbane).

tourist from these main markets may vary considerably, with emissions of 556 kg CO2/tourist in Cuba and up to 2159 kg CO2/tourist in Madagascar. This is of importance, as in the long term climate policy is more likely to have an impact on countries with a heavy dependence on emission-intense markets that have strong climate policies. There is no evidence to suggest that climate policies or international aviation industry initiatives (e.g. International Civil Aviation Organization, 2009), as currently proposed, would have a meaningful impact on tourism arrivals in developing nations by 2020 or even 2030 given current growth forecasts (Gössling et al., 2013). This situation may change under stronger climate policies, if they emerge, but increases in oil prices may have a far greater impact on arrival numbers in the short-term future. It has been suggested that restructuring markets to short-haul and domestic tourism would be a strategy to reduce the vulnerability of tourism development to growing travel costs. However, domestic tourism cannot always easily substitute for international tourism, at least in the short term (Zapata et al., 2011). At a national level, domestic tourism is only an economic substitute if domestic tourism spending can be encouraged, or if the income retained by domestic tourists not travelling internationally is greater than the income reduction resulting from fewer international visitors. Furthermore, what is attractive

348

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

to domestic tourists in developing countries may not be the same as international tourists. For example, the relative attractiveness of wildlife tourism, ecotourism or the beach is dependent on cultural context, even though there is a growing interest for such activities in developing countries as well. For a number of developing nations, particularly Small Island Developing States (SIDS), there is no short-haul alternative market to draw on. While it may thus be difficult for SIDS to replace markets, there may nevertheless be other options for economic diversification, such as a focus on fisheries and other biodiversity resources, as well as alternative understandings of growth and development (Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008b).

A global ‘climate justice’ perspective Developing countries highly dependent on tourism arrivals have often presented themselves as victims of climate policy, seeking to curb emissions from aviation or maritime tourism. For instance, the Caribbean is one region that has frequently outlined that their contribution to global emissions of GHG is minor, and that the islands should not be ‘penalised’ by the industrialised countries’ ambitions to curb emissions (e.g. Caribbean Hotel Association and Tourism Association, 2007). The Caribbean accounts for only 0.2% of global emissions of CO2, even though its population of 40 million (Dulal et al., 2009) corresponds to 0.6% of the world’s population. However, the reality is somewhat more complex as in many Caribbean countries, and in particular in those that have developed their tourism systems per capita emissions are already exceeding levels that can be considered sustainable at the global level (Figure 11.3). In countries like Aruba (21t CO2 per capita/year), Antigua and Barbuda (5t CO2 per capita/year), or the Bahamas (6t CO2 per capita/year) (UNSD, 2009) all have per capita emission levels that are close to or even exceed those in developed countries, and many exceed the current global average of about 4.3t CO2 per capita per year (IPCC, 2007). Indeed, in many of the countries with high levels of emissions, the large visitor numbers are potentially a major factor behind the seemingly high per capita emissions of the permanent population (Hall, 2010a). If the Caribbean’s contribution to global emissions of CO2 is currently still comparably low on a regional basis, i.e. 0.2% of global emissions, this is largely due to populous islands including Cuba and Haiti and their comparably low per capita emission levels. If all countries had emission levels such as those of the Bahamas, the region would considerably exceed its emission share to population ratio; that is, it would turn into an ‘above average’ contributor to climate change. These insights are of importance in the light of post-Kyoto negotiations. The IPCC recommends that the world should aim at cutting global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050 (IPCC, 2007; Figure 11.3). This would be a minimum required to avoid global average temperature increases beyond 2°C

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

349

Figure 11.3 Caribbean average per capita per year CO2 emissions and global reduction targets Source: Authors, based on data from United Nations Statistics Division 2009*. Notes: *CO2 emission sources include emissions from the energy industry, from transport, from fuel combustion in industry, services, households, etc., and industrial processes, such as the production of cement.

by 2100, or what is generally seen as the maximum level of global warming ‘avoiding dangerous interference with the climate system’ (e.g. Meinshausen et al., 2008). However, as illustrated by the example of Caribbean countries, this could imply emission cuts even in countries like Aruba, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahamas, Cayman Islands or Antigua and Barbuda – all of which exceed global average per capita emissions – while seeking to further develop their tourism economies. In this context it is important to understand sources of emissions in the Caribbean. Figure 11.4 shows emissions by non-Annex I region and sector, including energy, industrial processes, agriculture, waste and land use change and forestry. As Figure 11.4 reveals, emissions in Latin America and the Caribbean arise largely from energy use (fossil fuels), agriculture and land use change. Much of the total is a result of emissions in Brazil, while the Caribbean accounts only for a small share of the overall total. Nevertheless, it seems clear that a considerable share of emissions in the Caribbean is a result of emissions from energy use, and in particular fuels. A considerable share of fuel imports can again be linked to tourism, particularly in those islands being highly dependent on tourism (cf. Gössling et al., 2008; Hall, 2010a): all islands with above average per capita emission levels, including Aruba, Antigua and Barbados. The Bahamas and Barbados have well-developed tourism systems, with 25–50% of their GDP depending on tourism (Table 11.3). It is likely that a considerable share of national emissions is linked to

350

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

6,000,000 Brazil

China

India

South Africa

Gg CO2 equivalent

5,000,000 4,000,000

Energy

3,000,000

Industrial processes

2,000,000 Agriculture 1,000,000 Waste 0 Africa –1,000,000

Asia and the Pacific

Latin America and the Caribbean

Other

Land-use change and forestry

Region

Figure 11.4 Aggregate greenhouse gas emissions and removals by sector by region (Gg CO2-equivalent) Source: UNFCCC, 2005; for 1994 or the closest year reported.

tourism, with each international tourist arrival in for instance St Lucia entailing more than 1t of CO2 emissions (Gössling et al., 2008). Similarly, Hall (2010a) estimated that visitation to a number of the Caribbean islands was equivalent (visitors as a percentage of population multiplied by average length of stay) to a significant percentage of the permanent population and represented the equivalent of 30.5% for Anguilla, 23.1% for Antigua and Barbuda, 25.4% for the Bahamas, 89% for the Cayman Islands and 17.4% for Bermuda. The consumption of which is all included in the consumption figures of the permanent population.

Climate change risks to tourism destinations in developing nations With its close connections to the environment and climate itself, tourism is considered a highly climate-sensitive economic sector similar to agriculture, insurance, energy and transportation (Becken & Hay, 2007; Gössling & Hall, 2006a; Scott et al., 2008, 2012b). Climate defines the length and quality of tourism seasons and plays a major role in destination choice and tourist spending. Climate affects a wide range of the environmental resources that are critical attractions for tourism in many destinations, such as wildlife productivity and biodiversity, water levels and quality, and snow conditions. Climate also has an important influence on environmental conditions that can deter tourists, including infectious diseases, wildfires, insect or water-borne pests (e.g. jellyfish swarms, algae blooms), and extreme events such as tropical cyclones, flooding and heat waves. Consequently, it is anticipated that the integrated effects of climate change (both shifts in climatic means and extremes), climate-induced

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

351

environmental change, and climate-related societal change will have farreaching impacts on tourism destinations; impacts which are already becoming evident at destinations around the world. The regional manifestations of climate change will generate both negative and positive impacts in the tourism sector and these impacts will vary substantially by market segment and geographic region. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss the full range of potential climate change impacts upon the diversity of tourism destinations in developing nations. However, notable impacts include a potential long-term gradual shift in preferred destinations and tourist spending to higher latitude temperate nations and higher elevation mountainous areas (Amelung et al., 2007; Hamilton et al., 2005; Scott et al., 2004); significant impacts on terrestrial and marine biodiversity in developing nations at both species and ecological scales (Hall, 2010c; IPCC, 2007); greater risk of the establishment and spread of invasive species (Hall, 2010a); increased risk of extreme events and attendant infrastructure damage and tourism interruption IPCC (2007); risks to World Heritage Sites (UNESCO, 2008); greater problems with security of water and food supplies (World Bank, 2012); and major risks to coastal tourism infrastructure due to longer-term sea level rise (Dasgupta et al., 2007). Importantly, summary assessments by different groups of international experts have consistently identified developing nations in the Caribbean, SIDS, Southeast Asia, and Africa as the most atrisk tourism destinations for the mid- to late-21st century (Table 11.6). While our understanding of the impacts of climate change for various destination types has continued to improve, there remain major regional gaps in our knowledge of how climate change will affect tourism resources in Africa, the Caribbean, South America, the Middle East and large parts of East Asia (Hall, 2008a; Scott et al., 2008, 2012b; Su et al., 2013; World Bank, 2012). Until more systematic regional-level assessments are conducted, definitive statements on the net impacts on the tourism sector and the potential for future tourism development will not be possible. Leisure tourists have the greatest capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change, with relative freedom to avoid climate change-affected destinations. Climate, the natural environment, personal safety and travel cost are four primary factors in destination choice, and, as outlined above, global climate change is anticipated to have significant impacts on all of these factors at the regional level. It is the response of tourists to the complexity of destination impacts that will reshape consumer demand patterns and play a pivotal role in the eventual impacts on destinations (Gössling et al., 2012). The perceptions of future impacts of climate change at destinations will be central to the decision-making of tourists, tourism investors, governments and development agencies alike, as perceptions of climate conditions or environmental changes are just as important to consumer choices as the actual conditions. Perceptions of climate change impacts in a region are also often heavily influenced by the nature of media coverage. It is, therefore, critical to

352

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Table 11.6 Estimated climate change vulnerability of tourism in developing regions Study

Timeframe assessed

Vulnerability categories

Regions

Deutsche Bank Research, 2008

2030

Negatively Affected (slightly or strongly)a

Gössling & Hall, 2006; Hall, 2008a

Mid-21st century

Hamilton et al., 2005

2025, +4°C warming scenario

Moderately to strongly negatively impactedc Negative impact on tourist arrivalsd

South America, Caribbean/Mexico, Southeast Asia (including China and India), Middle East, Africab Africa, Asia, Latin America, Small Island Nations

Scott et al., 2008

Mid-21st century

Vulnerability hotspotse

Caribbean/Mexico, South America (except Chile), Africa (except Zambia and Zimbabwe), Middle East, Southeast Asia (except China) Caribbean, Indian and Pacific Ocean Small Island Nationsf

Notes: a. Impact criteria considered: climatic changes, regulatory burdens, substitution effects, adaptation possibilities. Data sources and indicators for these criteria were not identified. b. Many nations in the Middle East and Africa were ‘not examined’; however no rationale was provided regarding availability of information for selected nations. c. Impact criteria considered: land and marine biodiversity loss, urbanisation, water security, sea level rise, regime change, fuel costs, temperature changes, disease potential. d. Impact criteria considered: change in annual average temperature. e. Impact criteria considered: summer and winter climatic change, increases in extreme events, seal level rise, land and marine biodiversity loss, water scarcity, political destabilisation, health impacts/disease potential, transportation costs and relative importance of tourism to the economy. f. South America, Africa, Middle East, Southeast Asia were identified as potentially vulnerable, but not listed as ‘hotspots’ due to insufficient information on magnitude of potential impacts.

avoid the type of media speculation and misinformation likely to be more damaging to a tourism destination in the near-term than the actual climate impacts (Scott & Lemieux, 2009, 2010; Scott et al., 2012b). Knowledge of the economic, social and technological capabilities of current climate adaptations to cope successfully with future climate change

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

353

remains rudimentary (Biggs et al., 2012; Scott et al., 2008, 2012b). Climate change is slowly entering into decision-making of a range of tourism stakeholders (e.g. investors, insurance companies, tourism enterprises, governments, development organisations, national park and conservation agencies and tourists). Studies that have examined the climate change risk appraisal of local tourism officials and operators have consistently found relatively low levels of concern and little evidence of long-term strategic planning in anticipation of future changes in climate (Scott et al., 2008). This is especially the case for smaller operators whose immediate focus is business survival rather than the state of their long-term environment (Tervo-Kankare et al., 2013). In many cases, adaptation and mitigation measures only occur because of government regulation and/or financial incentives (Su et al., 2013). Considering that the large information requirements, policy changes and investments required for effective adaptation by tourism destinations will require decades to implement in some cases, the process of adaptation must commence now for destinations anticipated to be among those impacted by mid-century (Scott et al., 2008). However, given the wider social and economic pressures generated by climate change in developing countries (World Bank, 2012), to allocate scarce national resources to tourism destinations may be a significant policy challenge for many governments. Development organisations in particular will need a greater understanding not only of the implications of climate change for the sustainability of tourism products and supporting services at the destination (e.g. coastal zones, coral reefs, water supply, heritage assets), but also the implications of emerging climate policy regimes for the relative cost and accessibility. Most importantly, a more critical perspective is required as to whether tourism will be the best development alternative.

Conclusions: Travel Now, Pay Later? Many of the less wealthy countries in the tropics, and in particular island states, depend on international tourism for a large share of their GDP and foreign exchange earnings. UNWTO, UNEP and WMO (2008) estimate that that the total number of international arrivals to LDCs corresponded to approximately 0.9% of all international tourist trips made in 2005. However, as trips from industrialised countries to the least developed countries are usually long-haul, the share of distances travelled and emissions associated with these trips is higher, amounting to 4.7% of the transport volume (measured in passenger kilometres) and 4.6% of the CO2 emissions caused by international tourist air transport. Similarly, a number of island states have a growing emphasis on cruise ship tourism that also has significant emissions (Scott et al., 2012b). For example, over half of cruise ships that depart US ports have the Caribbean as a destination.

354

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

The above figures highlight that there may be a general trade-off between tourism’s development benefits in the less developed countries and its contribution to climate change. Moreover, it provides a significant challenge to debates over climate justice and responsibility for emissions and how this is assessed. In countries such as Aruba and Barbados, per capita emissions already exceed worldwide average per capita emission levels, and these countries may have to reduce emissions in line with the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities. Depending on how aircraft and cruise emissions are counted (at source, at destination, or a split between the two), the emissions of developing countries that rely on tourism may change significantly. If, as Paavola and Adger (2006) argue, the key social justice dilemmas of adaptation include responsibility for climate change impacts, the level and burden sharing of adaptation assistance to vulnerable countries, distribution of assistance between recipient countries and adaptation measures, and participation in adaptation planning and decision-making, the emissions contribution of international tourism may present developing countries with significant policy dilemmas that are generally ignored by institutions such as the UNWTO. It seems clear that the current development of tourism in most countries is following pro-growth paradigms, where annual growth in arrival numbers is considered an indicator of success and considered a proxy for wealth transfer to poor local populations (Gössling et al., 2013). Nevertheless, such strategies may need to be reconsidered. Increasing energy prices over the longer-term, security concerns and growing environmental awareness among travellers make it meaningful to develop tourism systems with a strong focus on lower energy use and emission avoidance. However, one of the greatest challenges faced in assessing the role of tourism as a development mechanism is that the pursuit of tourism as a means of economic development is not integrated with assessments of the implications of climate change for development. Reducing losses to weather-related disasters, meeting the MDGs and wider human development objectives and implementing a successful response to climate change are aims that can only be accomplished if they are undertaken in an integrated manner. As Schipper and Pelling (2006) note, currently, policy responses to address each of these independently may be redundant or, at worst, even conflicting, with different policy areas arguably conceiving of development in different ways, and economic concerns often not being adequately integrated with environmental and social ones (Ayers & Huq, 2009; Cannon & Müller-Mahn, 2010; Willis, 2011). For example, in the case of tourism, assessment of the economic benefits of international tourism for developing countries typically fails to account for the longer-term contribution of the emissions of tourism to climate change that will, in turn, affect destinations. The philosophy often appears to be ‘Travel Now, Pay Later’. The relationship between sustainable development and vulnerability – the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected (IPCC, 2012)

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

355

– provides a potential avenue into examining responses to climate change and tourism. However, difficulties in progressing and operationalising the concept of sustainable development also point to some of the challenges faced in responding to the relationship between development and climate change (Grist, 2008; Hall, 2011). Such issues have only been exacerbated by contemporary tourism initiatives that focus on reducing tourism’s contribution to climate change on a per capita basis via efficiency measures and technological improvements, while absolute contributions continue to increase (Gössling et al., 2013). Given that the effects of climate change are geographically variable and the capacity to manage risks and adapt to change is also unevenly distributed within and across nations, regions, communities and households (Barnett & Adger, 2007), ‘climate change-related stresses upon and strategies for sustainable development are often most usefully considered in a place-based context, where an integrated view of complex interrelationships is more tractable and strategies for action can be made more tangible’ (Wilbanks, 2003: S147). This is especially the case given the difficulties in achieving clear global and national strategies to combat climate change. Similarly, O’Brien et al. (2008: 19) highlight, ‘Local-level experiences can be considered the front-line of impacts from hazards and extreme events, thus they can provide important insights on the most urgent challenges associated with extreme weather events in a changing climate’. From such a perspective, destinations should seek to assess their dependency and vulnerability on energy-intense tourism. Destinations would seem well-advised to restructure their tourism products towards low-carbon and/or high-value tourism. Many models now exist to strategically reduce the energy intensity of tourism markets with a focus on maintaining or increasing yield. For instance, Gössling et al. (2005) have used eco-efficiency as an integrated indicator combining ecological and economic information. Knowledge of the energy intensity of various markets can, therefore, potentially help consumers help to make decisions in favour of low-carbon tourism that generates high revenue (Gössling et al., 2009). In the absence of other regulatory measures to combat climate change, providing clear cost/benefit results from encouraging certain types of tourism at the expense of others would seem to be the only viable approach to encouraging lower emission tourism at an aggregate level. While tourism growth has encouraged higher levels of economic development in some developing country destinations, it is also clear that tourist arrival numbers as a measure of development highly simplifies tourism production systems, omitting much of the complexity of tourism-derived income generation and the socio-economic benefit it brings. While higher tourist numbers may generally indicate the potential of higher revenue, it is clear that per tourist income varies widely between markets, tourist types and production systems. In some cases, a limited number of backpackers may actually make a more substantial contribution to livelihoods and

356

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

poverty alleviation than large numbers of upscale travellers (Gössling et al., 2004; Wunder, 2003). Upscale tourists, on the other hand, may make a more substantial contribution to government revenue, but this depends on government policies which may often grant tax exemptions to foreign investors, thereby increasing leakage from the local economic system, as well as government spending which may favour one public expenditure over another. There are also longstanding efforts to decarbonise tourism and the economy. For example, the ‘cornerstone’ of many contemporary accounts of sustainability, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) report, Our Common Future (often referred to by the name of its chairwoman, Mrs Brundtland) concluded that ‘the international economy must speed up world growth while respecting the environmental constraints’ (WCED, 1987: 89), primarily by encouraging qualitative economic growth that was less material/resource/energy (MRE) intensive and more equitable, decarbonised and dematerialised. However, the approach, which lingers in contemporary promotion of ‘green growth’ and the ‘green economy’ failed to recognise several significant implications. First, while dematerialisation may occur at a per unit level, overall industrial expansion continues. Second, becoming more efficient leads to an increase in throughput (input plus output); that is, efficiency gains do not equal savings, what is otherwise known as the ‘Jevons’ paradox’ or ‘rebound effect’ (Polimeni et al., 2008). According to Santarius (2012: 4), ‘in the long term and on average, combined rebound effects of at least 50% must be assumed. . .energy efficiency improvements in an economic system will on average yield half the theoretical savings potential of efficiency technologies and measures, and in some cases the saving that is achieved will be even less than this’. Third, being ‘part of an interdependent world economy’ (WCED, 1987: 51) provided a rationale not only for further liberalisation of the global economy and the reduction of trade barriers by LDCs but also for already wealthy countries to further pursue economic growth by increasing consumption so as encourage economic growth in the LDCs. Indeed, this last point has become one of the cornerstones of so-called ‘pro-poor’ tourism development. ‘The alternative that poor countries could create their own markets’ (Daly, 1991: 151), including with respect to tourism, is not one that has been greatly encouraged. The myth of the capacity of decoupling economic growth from natural resource use has also been revealed. Using the material footprint (MF), a consumption-based indicator of resource use, Wiedmann et al. (2013) found that achievements in decoupling in advanced economies are smaller than reported or even non-existent. By calculating raw material equivalents of international trade, they demonstrate that countries’ use of non-domestic resources is, on average, about threefold larger than the physical quantity of traded goods. As wealth grows, countries tend to reduce their domestic portion of materials

Tour ism, Climate Change and Development

357

extraction through international trade, whereas the overall mass of material consumption generally increases. This is not to suggest that MRE efficient technologies should not be promoted. Rather it depends on their context and the overall nature of consumption, not only within tourism but the transfer of consumption between tourism and other aspects of what individuals consume within specific socio-technical systems. As Polimeni et al. (2009: 169), note, ‘If individual energy consumption behaviours are significantly altered to reduce consumption and this behaviour is unwavering, then energy efficient technologies can further reduce energy consumption.’ This is particularly important because of the limited capacities for changing individual behaviours via social marketing in the required time period to avoid disastrous climate change (Hall, 2013, 2014). As Vermeulen (2009: 25) argues, the focus of responses to overconsumption needs to be on ‘structures as a whole, rather than their individual actions. Short-term solutions may rely on improving efficiencies within existing modes of production and consumption (reformist changes). In the longer term, however, what is needed is a rethink of how and what we consume (transformist changes)’ (see Chapter 12). The benefits of tourism to society are, thus, highly complex and not self-evident. Tourism may, particularly in small countries with high arrival numbers, also increase prices for basic staples and, thus, have negative consequences for the poorest part of the population (Gössling, 2003). Such pressures are only expected to be exacerbated by climate change (World Bank, 2012). Therefore, we would strongly agree with Schilcher (2007) who argues that in order for tourism to bring benefits to the poorer parts of society, the focus on growth of tourism per se has to be replaced with a perspective on equity and developing an understanding of tourism within the broader context of economic and social development objectives. Climate change adds a new dimension to this needed transformation with respect to tourism’s role in development. Accumulating evidence indicates that climate change, particularly high emission scenarios, would have profound implications that could fundamentally transform aspects of the global tourism sector and the destinations that rely on tourism economies (Gössling et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2012a, 2012b). Climate change is already beginning to affect decision-making in the tourism sector (e.g. investors, insurance companies, tourism enterprises, governments, tourism organisations and tourists), and it will be a pivotal issue affecting tourism development in the decades ahead (Gössling & Hall, 2006a; Scott et al., 2008, 2012b). Addressing the large information gaps regarding the climate change vulnerability of the tourism sector in virtually all developing nations and better informing decision-makers of the attendant risks must be a core component of any future strategy for tourism to contribute to poverty alleviation and the United Nations MDGs.

12 The Consumption of Tourism Richard Sharpley

It is a mistake to assume that most tourists are anything more than consumers, whose primary goal is the consumption of a tourism experience McKercher, 1993a: 11

Introduction A fundamental characteristic of tourism is that the ‘product’ is consumed on site. That is, whether within their own country or abroad, tourists travel to the destination to enjoy or participate in tourism. At the same time, it is widely recognised that consumers play a direct role in the production and/or delivery of most service products (Cowell, 1984) and tourism, in particular, is no exception. Indeed, it has been suggested that the ‘final output’ of the tourism production process – the personal tourist experience – is dependent upon the involvement of tourists themselves (Sharpley & Stone, 2011; Smith, 1994). Certainly, the tourism industry combines primary (e.g. land and labour) and intermediate (e.g. hotels, shops and modes of transport) inputs to produce intermediate outputs, such as accommodation, meals or performances. However, ‘in the final stage, the tourist utilises the intermediate outputs (services) to generate the final output: intangible but highly valued experiences such as recreation, business and social contacts’ (Smith, 1994: 591). Moreover, contemporary analyses reveal how tourist experiences are not simply the inevitable outcome of the passive consumption of tourism services. Rather, tourists are increasingly viewed as active co-creators of their tourism experiences, in a sense acting in partnership with suppliers to produce personal and meaningful experiences (Goytia Prat & de la Rica Aspiunza, 2012; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). In short, tourists are an integral element of the tourism production process. As a result, the nature of the tourism product is influenced not only by the industry that provides the basic constituent parts of the product but also by the needs, motivations, expectations and consequent behaviour of tourists. Implicitly, therefore, the manner in which tourists consume tourism experiences is as influential as the activities of the tourism industry in determining 358

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

359

the character of tourism development. This, in turn, has a consequential impact on the extent and nature of tourism’s contribution to wider social and economic development in destination areas. The role of tourists in the tourism production process or, more accurately, the potential impact of inappropriate tourist behaviour on tourism-related development, has long been recognised. For example, according to Ousby (1990: 89), in 1848 Thomas Cook wrote in a handbook for visitors that: It is very seldom indeed that the privileges extended to visitors of the mansions of the nobility are abused; but to the shame of some rude folk from Lincolnshire, there have been just causes of complaint at Belvoir Castle: some large parties have behaved indecorously, and they have to some extent prejudiced the visits of other large companies. Conduct of this sort is abominable, and cannot be too strongly reprobated. More recently, particularly since the advent of mass, international tourism, increasing concern has been expressed about the nature of the consumption of tourism. Mass, package tourism – and tourists – have, in particular, attracted widespread criticism; Croall (1995: 1), for example, wrote of mass tourism as a ‘spectre haunting the planet’ while, more recently, Hickman (2007) has joined those seeking to reveal the ‘true cost of our holidays’. Such criticism directed at the mass tourist is as much a social construct as it is a valid or accurate observation of a particular form of tourist behaviour; it is ‘more to do with the society and culture that produce the tourist than it does with the encounter any given tourist or “traveller” may have with a foreign society and culture’ (Buzard, 1993: 5). Nevertheless, in response to the criticism directed towards mass tourism consumption there have been calls from a variety of quarters for more appropriate or ethical behaviour on the part of tourists. Numerous codes of conduct have been published with respect to either specific activities or to particular regions (Cole, 2007; Garrod & Fennell, 2004; Mason & Mowforth, 1995) whilst, more generally, people have been exhorted to become ‘good’ (Popescu, 2008; Wood & House, 1991) or ‘responsible’ tourists (Goodwin, 2011). On occasion, more direct approaches have also been adopted. For example, during 1999 one British charter airline introduced ‘educational’ videos for tourists on flights to holidays in The Gambia. At the same time, of course, the concept of sustainable tourism development has also ‘achieved virtual global endorsement as the new [tourism] industry paradigm since the late 1980s’ (Godfrey, 1996: 60). At the international, national, local and industry sectoral levels, a plethora of policy documents, planning guidelines, statements of ‘good practice’, case studies and other publications have been produced, all broadly concerned with the issue of sustainable tourism development (Diamantis, 1999). Importantly, however, not only is sustainable consumption a core prerequisite of sustainable (tourism) development; as Ludwig et al. (1993: 17)

360

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

succinctly argue, ‘resource problems are not really environmental problems; they are human problems’ and, hence, sustainable resource use depends upon appropriate consumption patterns and behaviour. Sustainable tourism development, whether as a concept or in any of its product manifestations, such as ‘ecotourism’, and guides to/codes of appropriate tourist behaviour, are also based on the fundamental assumption that tourists are responsive to their inherent messages. In other words, it is largely taken for granted that tourists are positively disposed to seek out appropriate forms of tourism or that they will respond to advice on how to behave as tourists. It is assumed, quite simply, that tourists will willingly adapt their behaviour as consumers in order to optimise the contribution of tourism to local development. The purpose of this chapter is to argue that this is not the case. That is, the notion that tourists are becoming increasingly aware of and responsive to the consequences of tourism development (and the implications of their own actions as tourists) in destination areas is overly naïve. Few tourists question or have knowledge of the impacts of tourism (Ryan, 1997: 5) and to expect otherwise is to imply that they follow a rational, knowledge-based consumption process that not only best satisfies their identified needs but which also recognises their contribution to the local society and environment. As Ryan (1997: 3) observes generally, ‘from a purely pragmatic viewpoint . . . [tourism] . . . seems hardly a rational mode of behaviour’, whilst many commentators point out that, more often than not, tourists themselves do not understand why they participate in tourism. Henning (2012), for example, suggests that contemporary tourism consumption may in fact be a habit or even an addiction. More specifically, the expectation of appropriate behaviour on the part of tourists also overlooks the social and cultural forces inherent in the consumption of tourism, forces that, as this chapter suggest, may significantly limit the contribution of tourism to development. Therefore, any analysis of the role of tourism in development would not be complete without exploring the framework of consumerism within which the consumption of tourism occurs.

Development – The Role of the Tourist For tourism to be an effective means of achieving development in destination areas then, according to current thinking, the manner in which tourism is consumed should, ideally, reflect the characteristics of the destination and the desired nature and rate of development (Inskeep, 1991). In some cases, small-scale, integrated tourism may be most appropriate; in others, the development of more traditional, mass forms of tourism may be seen as the most effective strategy. However, in either case, tourist-consumer behaviour should, it is suggested, be appropriate to the setting. In other words, a balanced, symbiotic relationship should exist between tourists – and the satisfaction of their needs – and the developmental needs

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

361

and objectives of the destination (Budowski, 1976). Such a relationship has traditionally and commonly been conceptualised as a triangular interaction between tourists/the tourism industry, the local community and the destination environment (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; ETB, 1991), although it has also been referred to as the ‘magic pentagon’ of tourism development (Müller, 1994). According to the latter, the optimum satisfaction of tourists needs should be balanced with the health of local culture, the local economy, the local environment and, finally, the ‘subjective well-being’ of local communities (Müller, 1994). In both models, it is implied that tourists, in addition to benefiting from the tourism experience, should make a positive contribution to the developmental process. It has long been argued, however, that this does not often occur and, therefore, that tourism development and tourist behaviour should be controlled or influenced to the benefit of the destination. For example, in the late 1960s Mishan (1967: 142) observed that: as swarms of holiday-makers arrive by air, sea and land. . .as concrete is poured over the earth, as hotels, caravans, casinos, night-clubs, chalets, and blocks of sun-flats crowd into the area and retreat into the hinterland, local life and industry shrivel, hospitality vanishes, and indigenous populations drift into a quasi-parasitic way of life catering with contemptuous servility to the unsophisticated multitude. This somewhat extreme viewpoint was reflected in the proposed solution, namely, to simply ban all international air travel! A more considered approach became evident in the extensive literature on the host–guest relationship that emerged from the 1970s onwards, although even as early as 1980, and in opposition to the perceived consequences of mass tourism consumption, there were calls for tourists to adopt a more responsible, ‘good’ approach to being tourists (e.g. Figure 12.1). The mass tourist–good tourist dichotomy was further strengthened by the sustainable tourism debate during the 1990s. As concerns grew about the negative consequences of tourism and, implicitly, its failure to contribute effectively to development, it was argued that ‘the crisis of the tourism industry is a crisis of mass tourism; for it is mass tourism that has brought social, cultural, economic and environmental havoc in its wake, and it is mass tourism practices that must be radically changed to bring in the new’ (Poon, 1993: 3). This view is echoed by others. For example, McLaren (1998: 6) suggests that ‘tourism remains a passive luxury for thousands of travellers. This must change’, while a debate hosted by the pressure group Tourism Concern in the late 1990s concluded that all-inclusive holidays, arguably the epitome of mass-packaged tourism consumption, should be banned (Farrington, 1999). Many would probably agree that the call to transform the ‘passive luxury’ nature of tourism or to ignore popular tourism markets is naïve and

362

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

1. Travel in a spirit of humility and with a genuine desire to learn more about the people of your host country. 2. Be sensitively aware of the feelings of other people, thus preventing what might be offensive behaviour on your part. This applies very much to photography. 3. Cultivate the habit of listening and observing, rather than merely hearing and seeing. 4. Realise that often the people in the country you visit have time concepts and thought patterns different from your own; this does not make them inferior, only different. 5. Instead of looking for that ‘beach paradise’, discover the enrichment of seeing a different way of life, through other eyes. 6. Acquaint yourself with local customs – people will be happy to help you.

7. Instead of the Western practice of knowing all the answers, cultivate the habit of asking questions. 8. Remember that you are only one of the thousands of tourists visiting this country and do not expect special privileges. 9. If you really want your experience to be ‘a home away from home’, it is foolish to waste money on travelling. 10. When you are shopping, remember that the ‘bargain’ you obtained was only possible because of the low wages paid to the maker. 11. Do not make promises to people in your host country unless you are certain to carry them through. 12. Spend time reflecting on your daily experiences in an attempt to deepen your understanding. It has been said that what enriches you may rob and violate others.

Figure 12.1 A code of ethics for tourists Source: O’Grady (1980).

demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of tourism as a form of consumption. At the same time, it defies commercial reality. For example, following the decision of The Gambia’s tourism authorities to ban all-inclusive holidays in 1999, some tour operators reported a significant fall in bookings whilst more recent research in that country revealed that, despite the continuing popularity of its mass winter sun-sea-sand products, government policy was focused on promoting small ecotourism developments (Sharpley, 2009a). Nevertheless, there is also no doubt that, in many instances, there is a need for an aware, responsive or responsible approach on the part of tourists if tourism is to make an effective contribution to the development of destination areas (Goodwin, 2011). As already observed and as suggested in Chapters 1 and 2, sustainable tourism development requires the adoption of sustainable tourism consumption practices, reflecting the need for a new social paradigm of sustainable lifestyles as a fundamental element of sustainable development (IUCN, 1991; Sharpley, 2000a, 2009b). The issue, then, is not about the need for appropriate tourist-consumer behaviour, but whether this is a realistic aspiration. In other words, can it be assumed that tourists are willing or able to adapt their consumer behaviour

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

363

to better match the developmental needs and objectives of destinations? Two important questions immediately follow, forming the basis of this chapter. First, are we witnessing, as some would claim, the emergence of the ‘good’ or ‘responsible’ tourist? And, second, what influence do the characteristics of the consumption of tourism have on the nature of tourism development?

Green Consumerism and the ‘Good’ Tourist? For almost two decades, commentators have proposed that increasing numbers of tourists are adopting what may be described as a more environmentally appropriate approach to the consumption of tourism. In other words, it is alleged that the traditional, mass-package tourist is being replaced by a more experienced, aware, quality-conscious and proactive tourist-consumer; following a shift in general consumer attitudes, tourists ‘want more leisure and not necessarily more income, more environmentally sustainable tourism and recreation and less wasteful consumption’ (Mieczkowski, 1995: 388). Poon (1993) refers to this apparent phenomenon as the emergence of ‘new tourism’ and the ‘new tourist’. Whereas the ‘old’, mass tourist was satisfied with a homogeneous, predictable, sun-sea-sand type holiday experience, the new tourist is more experienced, independent and flexible, seeking quality experiences that educate, are different, are environmentally benign and that satisfy special interests. At the same time, according to Poon (1993: 145) the ‘new’ tourist also knows how to behave, how to consume tourism ‘correctly’. Importantly, this assumed emergence of the new, implicitly good tourist is frequently used to justify the promotion and development of appropriate, sustainable forms of tourism – that is, tourism that will contribute to the sustainable development of destination areas. Indeed, the rapid growth in demand over the last two decades for activities or types of holidays that may collectively be referred to as ‘ecotourism’ is often cited as evidence that everincreasing numbers of tourists, as a result of their heightened environmental awareness or concern, are seeking out more appropriate and, in a developmental sense, beneficial forms of tourism. For example, Cater (1993) reported that the number of arrivals to three selected ecotourism destinations, namely, Belize, Kenya and The Maldives, virtually doubled during the 1980s. Similarly, others suggest that participation in ecotourism has increased annually by between 20% and 50% since the early 1980s and now accounts for up to 20% of all international tourism arrivals (Fennell, 1999: 163; Hvenegaard, 1994). More recently, not only was it argued that more than 1 million ‘responsible’ holidays are taken annually, but it was also predicted that this figure would grow by 25% each year (Goodwin, 2007). The actual size or value of the ecotourism or sustainable tourism market is open to debate, largely because there is little consensus as to the definition of ecotourism itself. Equally, although the figures cited for participation in

364

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

responsible tourism, as measured by the consumption of responsible holidays (see www.responsibletravel.com) are impressive, this represents only a small proportion of total tourism activity; for example, in 2009 United Kingdom (UK) residents made almost 59 million trips abroad. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that not only is this an expanding market sector but also that some, but not all, who participate in such forms of tourism do so on the basis of deeply held environmental convictions. According to Diamantis (1999), this position is supported by research which revealed that 64% of UK tourists believe that tourism causes some degree of damage to the environment and that, generally, UK consumers would be willing to pay more for an environmentally appropriate tourism product. Similarly, a survey by the charity Tearfund found that although affordability, good weather and a good hotel were key attributes that were accorded highest importance in buying a holiday, significant importance was attached to the fact that the holiday was designed to minimise environmental impacts and that a company had ethical policies. Moreover, 59% of respondents stated they would be happy to pay more for their holidays if the extra money were to contribute to higher local wages, environmental conservation and so on (Goodwin & Francis, 2003). Data provided by the International Ecotourism Society also lend support to this argument. For example, it is claimed that, in Europe, between 5% and 10% of travellers demand ‘green’ holidays whilst, according to a survey amongst British, American and Australian tourists, 70% would pay up to $150 more for a two-week holiday in a hotel with responsible environmental attitudes (TIES, 2006). Conversely, there is little evidence to suggest that, in practice, tourists are becoming more environmentally conscious. For example, Swarbrooke and Horner conclude that, although different nationalities of tourists may embrace environmental values to varying extents, on the whole ‘most tourists do not appear to have a real concern with the environment that determines their behaviour as tourists’ (1999: 207). Indeed, studies into the motivation of ecotourists show that the majority seek wilderness scenery, undisturbed nature and the activities that such locations offer as the prime reasons for participating in ecotourism (Eagles, 1992; Eagles & Cascagnette, 1995). In other words, it is the pull of particular destinations or holidays (and the anticipated enjoyment of such holidays) that determines participation rather than the influence of environmental values over the consumption of tourism in general. A similar conclusion is reached by Sharpley (2006: 19), who asserts that ‘although demand for ecotourism remains on the increase, there is little evidence to suggest that ecotourists are also on the increase . . . Tourists may be demanding new, different products, such as ecotourism, yet the conventional reasons for participating in tourism are unlikely to have changed’. To a great extent, this confusion surrounding the extent of ‘good’ touristconsumer behaviour has arisen because the concept of the ‘new’, ‘good’ or ‘responsible’ tourist relies heavily upon the assumption that increasing

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

365

environmental awareness, and the alleged emergence of green consumerism in general, has led to more appropriate styles of tourism consumption in particular. Certainly, since the late 1960s, environmental concern has become, and continues to be, one of the most widespread social and political issues (Lowe & Rüdig, 1986); as Macnaghten and Urry (1998) observe, surveys in both the United States and the UK indicate that public concern over environmental issues continued to increase during the 1990s, although becoming relatively less important compared with other issues. Also, this concern appears to have been translated into people’s buying habits. Green consumerism first appeared during the latter half of the 1980s (Zimmer et al., 1994) and rapidly gained support with, for example, Elkington and Hailes’ book, The Green Consumer, published in 1988, selling over 300,000 copies. Nevertheless, some would argue that green consumerism has been a passing fad, although some surveys suggest otherwise. For example, it has been found that, between 1990 and 1994, the numbers of people who considered themselves to be either ‘dark green’ (i.e. ‘always or as far as possible buy environmentally friendly products’) or ‘pale green’ (i.e. ‘buy if I see them’) consumers both increased, together representing 63% of those questioned (Mintel, 1994). A subsequent survey by the same organisation (Mintel, 2007) found that green consumerism was continuing to become more widespread, although, significantly, consumers are more likely to buy environmentally friendly products to feel good about themselves rather than for altruistic reasons. Indeed, a more recent study revealed that people who are exposed to green products, such as looking at them on a website, subsequently behave more altruistically than those who actually buy the products. The implication of this study was that the act of purchasing may make people feel that they have ‘done their good deed’ and thus may act less altruistically when presented with other ethical dilemmas (Mazar & Zhong, 2010). Importantly, however, there remains ‘an elusive understanding’ (Smil, 1993) of the cause, effect and public response to global environmental problems. Research has increasingly demonstrated that it is not possible to associate green consumer behaviour with particular social groupings (Young, 1991), and that such behaviour is unlikely to remain constant over time or be applied to all forms of consumption. In short, consumers address environmental issues in complex and ambivalent ways (Macnaghten & Urry, 1998) and, as a result, their consumer behaviour is frequently contradictory. For example, despite about 90% of people in the UK believing that the countryside is an important part of British heritage and should be protected at all costs (Countryside Commission, 1996), over 80% of tourist visits to the countryside are made by car, a proportion that has in more recent years remained constant. Thus, despite the large number of surveys suggesting widespread green consumerism in principle, it has been observed that up to one half of those who claim to embrace green values never transfer these beliefs into their consumer behaviour; ‘despite the earlier evidence of high levels of

366

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

environmental concern. . .the proportion of adults who behave in a consistently environmentally friendly consumerist fashion is very low. Fewer than one per cent of consumers behave in a consistently environmentally-friendly way’ (Witherspoon, 1994: 125; emphasis added). In the present context, this suggests that it cannot be assumed that there are increasing numbers of ‘good’ tourists simply because there has been an identified spread of general environmental awareness (or a growth in demand for ‘good’, responsible holidays). In other words, concern with issues such as global warming, nuclear waste or the ozone hole does not immediately imply that, at the individual level, tourists will be aware of or concerned about the destinational consequences of their consumer behaviour; it does not imply that they will adapt their behaviour to the developmental benefit of the destination’s environment and community. People choose different products according to factors such as cost, purpose, availability, ease of use, substitutability and expected benefits. Tourism is no exception and it is not surprising, therefore, that ‘relatively few tourists seem to make decisions based on environmental concerns’ (Swarbrooke & Horner, 1999: 204). Indeed, research has consistently demonstrated that tourism is relatively immune to environmental concerns (or that ‘responsible’ tourist behaviour is motivated by factors other than environmental concern). For example, in a relatively recent poll, just 1% of tourists stated that their carbon footprint was an important factor when deciding on a holiday purchase, whereas cost is the most important consideration for 43% of tourists (Skidmore, 2008). Even despite the growing awareness of climate change, research has shown that this is having little or no impact on travel behaviour (see Chapter 11). For example, another study found that the few people who expected to fly less frequently in the future would do so as a result of a change in personal circumstances rather than because of concerns over the environmental impacts of aviation (CAA, 2008: 49). Thus, despite the long-held belief that tourists are demanding ‘greener’ holidays, the evidence suggests that environmental concern remains low on their list of priorities when actually purchasing holiday or travel experiences. Moreover, as the following section argues, the nature of the consumption of tourism is such that the satisfaction of personal needs, utilitarian or otherwise, dominates the tourist-consumer behaviour process, limiting the extent to which tourists will adapt their behaviour to the needs of the destination.

The Consumption of Tourism Tourist-consumer behaviour is a complex process; it is ‘discretionary, episodic, future oriented, dynamic, socially influenced and evolving’ (Pearce, 1992: 114). Typically, it is seen as a process or ‘vacation sequence’ (van Raaij & Francken, 1984) comprising a number of interrelated stages, from the initial need identification/motivational stage through to the actual consumption

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

367

and evaluation of tourist experiences (Gilbert, 1991; Goodall, 1991). Each stage may be influenced by personal and external variables, such as time and money constraints, social stimuli, media influences and so on, whilst each consumption experience feeds into subsequent decision-making processes. At the same time, however, the consumption of tourism may also be considered a continual, cyclical and multi-dimensional process. That is, consuming tourism is, generally, neither a ‘one-off’ event nor just a simple, uni-directional purchasing sequence. As Pearce (1992) points out, tourism consumption occurs over a lifetime, during which tourists may progress up or climb a travel career ladder as they become more experienced tourists. As a result, travel needs and expectations may change and evolve, but these may also be framed and influenced by evolving social relationships, lifestyle factors and constraints, and emerging values and attitudes. Despite this complexity, however, two specific characteristics of the tourism consumption process deserve consideration here. First, it is generally accepted that the process begins with motivation, the ‘trigger that sets off all events in travel’ (Parrinello, 1993: 233). It is the motivational stage that pushes an individual from a condition of inertia into tourism-consumptive activity, that translates needs into goal-oriented consumer behaviour. Therefore, the motivation to consume tourism has a direct bearing on the nature of tourist-consumer behaviour. Second, tourism occurs in a world where the practice of consumption in general is playing an increasingly important role in people’s social and cultural lives. That is, most tourism-generating societies are becoming characterised by a dominant consumer culture which influences all forms of consumption, including tourism. Therefore, ‘consumption choices simply cannot be understood without considering the cultural context in which they are made’ (Solomon, 1994: 536).

Tourist motivation Tourist motivation represents one of the most important yet complex areas of tourism research. It is also a subject that has enjoyed widespread and diverse treatment in the tourism literature, although a generally accepted theory or understanding has yet to emerge (Jafari, 1987). Nevertheless, a brief review of the main contributions to the literature will reveal not only the complexity of the topic but also, more importantly, the fact that the primary motivational factors in tourism are likely to militate against tourists adopting destination appropriate consumer behaviour. The literature on tourist motivation encompasses ‘an amalgam of ideas and approaches’ (Dann, 1981: 189). Psychology provided one of the earlier disciplinary foundations, the notion of intrinsic need satisfaction being considered the primary arousal factor in motivated behaviour. Indeed, it has been argued that ‘motivation is purely a psychological concept, not a sociological one’ (Iso-Ahola, 1982: 257). Many papers and texts refer to Maslow’s

368

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

(1943) hierarchy of needs, linking specific needs with identified goal-oriented tourist behaviour, while others explicitly adapt it as, for example, in the case of the travel career concept mentioned above. Similarly, Crompton (1979) suggested that tourist motivation emanates from the need to restore an individual’s psychological equilibrium which may become unbalanced as a result of unsatisfied needs. These psychological motivational forces were subdivided by Iso-Ahola into two simultaneous influences. On the one hand, motivation results from the need to escape from personal or interpersonal environments while, on the other hand, there also exists the tendency to seek intrinsic psychological rewards from tourism. Similarly, Dann (1977) refers to ‘anomie and egoenhancement’ as primary motivational push factors, anomie being the sense of normlessness or meaninglessness to be escaped from and ego-enhancement representing the opportunity to address relative status deprivation. However, like a number of other commentators, Dann (1981: 199) adopts a more sociological perspective on tourist motivation. Needs are viewed ‘in terms of the (tourist) group of which the person deliberately or otherwise is a member’, rather than from the individual’s psychological condition. In this sense, tourist motivation is structured by the nature and characteristics of the society to which the tourist belongs. For example, Krippendorf (1986: 523) argues that ‘the need to travel is above all created by society and marked by the ordinary’ and that, functionally, tourism is ‘social therapy, a safety valve keeping the everyday world in good working order’. Tourism, therefore, represents non-routine time when the individual is ‘emancipated from the ordinary bounds into the unbounded realm of the non-ordinary’ (Jafari, 1987). In the new, unbounded world of the destination, the tourist has travelled beyond the margins of the ordinary (Shields, 1991) into a state of anti-structure where ludic or liminoid behaviour is sanctioned or even expected (Lett, 1983; Passariello, 1983). Moreover, tourists’ ‘normal’ roles may be inverted, playing king/queen for a day (Gottlieb, 1982) or regressing into a child-like existence (Dann, 1996). Thus, fantasy becomes the dominant motivational factor, the rewards of the tourism experience being the immersion into a dreamlike existence that is temporary escape from the real world. Conversely, for MacCannell (1989), the tourist is similarly motivated by the condition of modern society but, rather than seeking fantasy, it is the experience of reality or authenticity that is the desired outcome. Faced with the inauthenticity of modern society, the tourist becomes, in effect, a secular pilgrim on a quest for reality, tourism representing ‘a kind of collective striving for a transcendence of the modern totality, a way of attempting to overcome the discontinuity of modernity’ (MacCannell, 1989: 13). Indeed, whether a search for or an escape from reality, tourism may be considered a sacred journey, being ‘functionally and symbolically equivalent to other institutions that humans use to embellish and add meanings to their lives’

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

369

(Graburn, 1989: 22). Tourists are motivated, therefore, by the potentially spiritual experience of the journey (or pilgrimage), of witnessing or gazing upon particular attractions or sights, or the sense of ‘communitas’ shared with fellow tourists in the non-ordinary tourism culture of the destination (Sharpley, 2009c). Other commentators focus on more specific social factors as determinants of tourist motivation. Some explore the relationship between work and leisure/tourism experiences (Ryan, 2003), whilst Moutinho (1987) refers collectively to cultural and social factors, including social class, reference groups and family roles, as dominant social influences on tourist motivation and behaviour. These latter issues are also addressed individually by others, such as Gitelson and Kersetter (1994), who examine the extent of the influence of friends and relatives in tourism decision-making, and Howard and Madrigal (1990), who consider the decision-making roles of different family members. At the same time, other motivational studies have focused on particular destinational categories (Klenesky et al., 1993), on the measurement of tourist motivation (Fodness, 1994) and on the motivation of specific tourist groups (e.g. Cha et al., 1995). There is, then, enormous diversity in the treatment of tourist motivation. Nevertheless, a number of factors are commonly evident. First, tourist motivation is complex, dynamic and potentially determined by a variety of person-specific psychological factors and extrinsic social forces. That is, a number of different pressures and influences may shape the needs and wants of tourists at any one time. Therefore, identifying specific or dominant determinant factors may be a difficult, if not impossible, task, particularly given the fact that tourists may be unwilling or unable to express their real travel motives. Second, however, most commentators suggest either implicitly or explicitly that tourists are motivated primarily by the desire to escape, by ‘going away from rather than going towards something or somebody’ (Krippendorf, 1987: 29). As van Rekom (1994) suggests, ‘a central need which has been revealed time and time again in empirical research is the “escape” notion’, a view supported by Robie et al. (1993), who identify escape as one of the three most common motivating factors in tourism. Third, and related, tourists are motivated by the potential rewards of participating in tourism. Such rewards may be personal, interpersonal, psychological or physical and, collectively described as ‘ego-enhancement’, they compensate for the deficiencies or pressures and strains of everyday life. Finally, and again consequently, tourists’ motivations are markedly selforiented: ‘now I decide what. . .is good for me’ (Krippendorf, 1987: 29). In other words, tourism represents a form of self-reward or self-indulgence. The implications of this in the context of tourism and development is that it is highly unlikely that tourists will be motivated to ‘work’ at tourism, or to ensure that their tourist-consumer behaviour will be directed towards optimising the benefits of tourism to the destination. Not only are tourists

370

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

generally unaware of tourism-related consequences and tensions in destination areas but, as tourism is an essentially ego-centric, escapist activity, tourists ‘do not want to be burdened with the concerns of the normal world’ (McKerchera, 1993a). More bluntly, tourists pay significant sums of money in search of relaxation, fun and entertainment. They are, therefore, most likely to give priority to satisfying their personal needs rather than demonstrating and responding to a positive concern for the consequences of their actions – their focus will be inwards, on the satisfaction of personal needs and wants, rather than on the external tourism environment. Moreover, as we shall now see, this characteristic of tourist-consumer behaviour is reinforced by the culture of tourism consumption.

Tourism and consumer culture As suggested above, the consumption of tourism has long been viewed as a logical, rational process whereby particular needs or wants may be satisfied, in a utilitarian sense, through tourism. As a result, much of the associated research has been concerned with developing models of the tourism demand process, or with particular elements of or influences within that process, in order to explain why people participate in tourism. Conversely, only recently have researchers come to focus upon the broader role of tourism as a specific form of consumption. In other words, tourism has, by and large, been considered in isolation from other forms of consumption in general, and from the wider cultural framework within which it occurs in particular. As a result, although the practice of consumption has become a defining cultural element of many (allegedly postmodern) tourism-generating societies (Bocock, 1993: 4), the influence of a dominant consumer culture on tourism has been generally overlooked. In short, relatively little attention has been paid to not why, but how tourism is consumed in a world where consumption plays an increasingly vital role in social life.

The Tourism-Culture Relationship Despite this relative paucity of relevant research, the study of tourism consumption has not remained completely divorced from consumer culture theory. Since Urry (1990a) first considered the ‘consumption of tourism’, a number of commentators have explored the cultural context of touristconsumer behaviour, in particular the link between tourism and postmodern culture (for example, Munt, 1994; Pretes, 1995; Urry, 1990b). Indeed, it has long been recognised that an identifiable relationship exists between tourism and the cultural ‘condition’ of those societies within which it occurs or is generated. For example, the widespread adoption of sunbathing during the late 1920s, the popularity of the British holiday camp up to the 1960s and

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

371

the more recent trend towards adventurous, individualistic forms of tourism all reflect broader cultural change in society as a whole. However, the nature of the tourism-culture relationship has changed over time. During the 19th century, tourism and culture were largely in opposition. That is, contrasting with ‘the bourgeois culture with its concerts, museums, galleries, and so on’ (Urry, 1994), tourism for the masses was centred upon the rapid development of seaside resorts as places – separated in time and space from the tourist’s ‘normal’ existence – of ‘ritualised pleasure’ (Shields, 1991). Conversely, throughout the 20th century, up to the 1970s, tourism practices came to reflect cultural change more closely. In particular, the emergence of a modernist culture based upon Fordist mass production/ consumption (i.e. where consumption was production-led) was manifested in the development of mass forms of tourism and the ubiquitous mass package holiday. Nevertheless, tourism as a social activity remained separate or differentiated from other social activities and institutions, with specific times and places (the holiday, the resort) distinct from ‘normal’ time and place. More recently, however, this differentiation between tourism and other practices has, arguably, become less apparent. ‘Tourism is no longer a differentiated set of social practices with its own and distinct rules, times and spaces’ (Urry, 1994); rather, it has merged into other places (e.g. urban tourism) and other social activities, such as shopping or watching television, that were previously considered separate from tourist places and behaviour. Indeed, it has been suggested that people are tourists most of the time and that tourism has simply become cultural. Thus, the tourism-culture relationship has evolved through two distinct stages. First, throughout most of its development, tourism has been separated from other social activities and institutions, reflecting broader distinctions in social class, employment, gender roles and so on. Even tourism itself has been subject to differentiation with, for example, different resorts or activities becoming associated with different social groups. However, more recently, tourism has now entered a second, ‘dedifferentiated’ (Lash, 1990: 11) stage of development, reflecting the emergence of similarly de-differentiated economic, political, social and cultural processes that have been collectively referred to as the condition of postmodernity (Harvey, 1990). As a result, it is suggested by some that tourism practices in particular have also become postmodern. Not only has tourism fused with other social activities, representing the ‘marriage of different, often intellectual, spheres of activity with tourism’ (Munt, 1994: 104), but also a variety of ‘postmodern tourisms’ have also emerged – though no causal relationship between postmodern culture and tourism practices has been established. Nevertheless, such ‘postmodern tourisms’ include theme parks, heritage tourism and inland-resort/holiday village tourism whilst, in the extreme, it is claimed that tourists themselves have become postmodern – the ‘post-tourist’ (Urry, 1990b).

372

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Tourism and Postmodern Consumer Culture The important point here is the fact that, for many, postmodernity is epitomised by the emergence of a consumer society. That is, within postmodern societies the practice of consumption has assumed a dominant and significantly more complex role than simple utilitarian need satisfaction. People now consume goods and services, including tourism, for a variety of reasons and purposes, in particular as a means of compensating for the loss, through the process of de-differentiation, of traditional social markers. In other words, a fundamental feature of postmodern culture is that ‘consumption, rather than production, becomes dominant, and the commodity attains the total occupation of social life’ (Pretes, 1995: 2). The emergence of this dominant consumer culture has resulted, in part, from a variety of factors and transformations within the wider social and economic system in post-industrial societies. Such factors include the large, widely available and ever-increasing range of consumer goods and services, the popularity of leisure-shopping, easily accessible credit facilities, the emergence of consumer groups and consumer legislation, pervasive advertising, greater and faster access to goods and services through the internet, and ‘the impossibility of avoiding making choices in relation to consumer goods’ (Lury, 1996: 36). In short, the practice of consumption has been simplified and facilitated by socio-economic transformations – it has become easy to be a consumer. However, of equal, if not greater interest has been the increasing significance of consumption. It has long been recognised that commodities, whether goods or services, embrace a meaning beyond their economic exchange or use value (Douglas & Isherwood, 1979). ‘The utility of goods is always framed by a cultural context, that even the use of the most mundane objects in daily life has cultural meaning . . . material goods are not only used to do things, but they also have a meaning, and act as meaningful markers of social relationships’ (Lury, 1996: 11). Indeed, it has been argued that consumption results only from the inherent significance of goods and services, their use value being irrelevant (Baudrillard, 1988), although this is disputed by others (Warde, 1992: 6). Nevertheless, social lives are patterned or even created by the acquisition and use of things, including tourism. To put it another way, consumption in postmodern capitalist societies ‘must not be understood as the consumption of use-values, a material utility, but primarily as the consumption of signs’ (Featherstone, 1991: 85). Typically, this significance of consumption is related to status or identity messages or for establishing distinctions between different social groups (Bourdieu, 1986) and, not surprisingly, much contemporary consumer behaviour research is concerned with the symbolism of consumption, with how consumption conveys ‘information to us and others about who we are’ (Belk, 1995: 64).

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

373

At the same time, however, a variety of other topics, such as consumption festivals and rituals, the significance of possession, and gift-giving and exchange are all considered ways in which cultural meaning is transferred from goods/services to the individual. These all provide a valid theoretical framework for the analysis of the consumption of tourism in particular. For example, tourism has long been utilised as a status symbol, whilst the ritualistic elements of tourism consumption represent ‘a kind of social action devoted to the manipulation of cultural meaning for purposes of collective and individual communication’ (McCracken, 1986: 78). Such actions include the purchase of souvenirs (possession ritual), sending postcards, the taking and showing of holiday photographs or keeping a blog on social media on the internet. Importantly, this multitude of ways in which cultural meaning is transferred through consumption suggests that, generally, ‘the act of consuming is a varied and effortful accomplishment underdetermined by the characteristics of the object. A given consumption object. . .is typically consumed in a variety of ways by different groups of consumers’ (Holt, 1995: 1). Thus, although some individual’s consumption practices may be identity or status driven – in the case of tourism, a flight in first class or, perhaps, a holiday at an exclusive resort – the same consumption objects may be consumed by others in different ways. Holt suggests four different categories of consumption which, as we now consider, may be effectively applied to the specific context of tourist-consumer behaviour.

Categories of (Tourist) Consumer Behavior According to Holt (1995), consumer research has traditionally conceptualised consumption practices under two broad headings – the purpose of consumption and the structure of consumption. In terms of purpose, consumers’ actions may be ends in themselves (autotelic) or means to an end (instrumental). Structurally, consumption may be focused directly upon the object of consumption (object actions) or, conversely, the objects of consumption may serve as a focal point for interpersonal actions. Thus, within a combination of these two dimensions of consumption practices lie four possible ‘metaphors’ of consumption: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Autotelic/object actions: consuming as experience. Autotelic/interpersonal actions: consuming as play. Instrumental/object actions: consuming as integration. Instrumental/interpersonal actions: consuming as classification.

Each of these represent different ways in which an object of consumption (including tourism) may be consumed.

374

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Consuming tourism as experience The consumption-as-experience perspective, focusing upon the subjective or emotional reactions of consumers to particular consumption objects, draws attention to the ways in which consumers make sense of different objects. As Holbrook and Hirschman (1982: 132) explain, ‘this experiential perspective is phenomenological in spirit and regards consumption as a primarily subjective state of consciousness’. Moreover, ‘how consumers experience consumption objects is structured by the interpretative framework(s) that they apply to engage the object’ (Holt, 1995: 3); consumption objects are embedded in a social world which provides the framework for their definition or understanding. Tourism is no exception to this process. As a form of consumption it is firmly embedded in tourists’ social world and the ways in which people experience, or consume, tourism will depend very much on their interpretation of the meaning of tourism within that social world. For example, and following on from the earlier discussion of tourist motivation, tourism may be interpreted as a form of sacred consumption – it occurs outside normal (profane) times and places, a ‘festive, liminal time when behaviour is different from ordinary work time’ (Belk et al., 1989: 12) and is consumed as a sacred or spiritual experience. Tourists’ behaviour will, therefore, be framed by this sacralisation of tourism and may be manifested in different ways. Some for example, may seek the spiritual refreshment of solitary, natural places (Urry, 1990a); for others, the sacred nature of tourism may be reflected in the collective experience of sites and destinations. The consumption of tourism is also framed by the experiential aspect of modern consumption as a whole, namely, that ‘the consumption experience [is] a phenomenon directed towards the pursuit of fantasies, feelings and fun’ (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982: 132). In other words, modern consumption is directed towards the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure which results not from physical (utilitarian) satisfaction but, according to Campbell (1987), from romantic day-dreaming. Thus, tourism represents the consumption of dreams, again an escape to the non-ordinary, the sacred or novel ‘other’.

Consuming as play As a form of consumption that is autotelic and interpersonal, the consuming-as-play perspective suggests that people utilise objects as a resource or focus for interaction with other consumers rather than for the object’s experiential characteristics. In other words, from the play perspective, the object of consumption becomes a vehicle for the achievement of broader, interpersonal goals. Thus, in the context of tourism, consuming-as-play does not refer, for example, to the ludic or ‘tourist-as-child’ (Dann, 1996) character of certain tourist experiences, but to the fact that tourism is used as a means of socialising or sharing particular experiences with fellow consumers.

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

375

This highlights the fact that, frequently, tourism is a social experience, an element of which is ‘to be able to consume particular commodities in the company of others. Part of what people buy is in effect a particular social composition of other consumers’ (Urry, 1990a: 25). In this sense, tourism provides the focus for people to socialise or to fulfil a more ‘performative, reciprocal’ role in entertaining each other (Holt, 1995: 9). Thus, tourism in resorts such as Agia Napa in Cyprus may be consumed not primarily for the attraction of the clubs and bars in the town, but for the communal enjoyment of those facilities and the contribution to the social atmosphere of the resort. Equally, tourism may be a means of sharing unusual or extraordinary experiences; the communal interaction with the consumption object allows tourists to commune or experience communitas (Arnould & Price, 1993), the sense of which may be heightened by the collective sharing of challenging or dangerous experiences. In either case, however, the focus is on the communal, social nature of the consumption experience rather than the object of consumption. That is, the actual holiday or destination is of secondary importance to the shared experiences that such holidays or destinations provide.

Consuming as integration According to Holt (1995: 2), consuming-as-integration is an instrumental action through which consumers are able to ‘integrate self and object, thereby allowing themselves access to the object’s symbolic properties’. The object becomes a constituent element of their identity through a process of assimilation, either by merging external objects into their self-concept, or by adapting their self-concept to match the socially or institutionally defined identity of the object. In the tourism context, integration is automatic given the inevitability, as with all services, of tourists’ participation in the production of tourism experiences – the inseparability of the production/consumption of tourist services means that the tourist-consumer must integrate into the object of consumption. However, much depends upon the nature or direction of integration desired by the consumer. On the one hand, a tourist who wishes to be identified with a particular destinational culture or type of tourism may adapt his/her self-concept to ‘fit’ the identity of the destination or tourismtype through a process of assimilation into the local/tourist culture or through personalisation practices (Holt, 1995). This may be achieved by utilising local services or travelling independently, or adopting modes of behaviour that are deemed appropriate to particular forms of tourism or travel. On the other hand, certain types of tourism or tourist experience may be integrated into the individual’s self-concept in a process of self-extension; for example, Arnould and Price (1993) analyse white-water rafting as one such form of touristic activity that enables personal absorption and integration, providing communitas and personal growth/renewal.

376

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Consuming as classification As suggested above, consumption practices are most commonly considered a status/identity signifier, a means of achieving social distinction. That is, especially within de-differentiated, postmodern societies, consumers utilise consumption objects to create self-identity and to ‘classify themselves in relation to relevant others’ (Holt, 1995: 10). This process of consuming-asclassification is not, of course, new; in the 1920s, positional consumption (conspicuous consumption) was identified by Veblen (1925) whilst the socalled ‘aristocratic model’ (Thurot & Thurot, 1983) of tourism development points to the inherent and long-held role of tourism as a social classifier. The role of consumption in identity creation is widely considered in the literature (Bourdieu, 1986; Featherstone, 1991; Warde, 1992), as is its applicability to tourism (Sharpley, 2008; Voase, 1995). Generally, however, it is interesting to note that, although the consumption of tourism has become increasingly democratised, and ‘while travel has remained an expression of taste since the eighteenth century, it has never been so widely used as at present’ (Munt, 1994: 109). In response, the travel industry is developing more specialised, niche products which, though relatively affordable and available to the masses, nevertheless have the aura of status or luxury. Examples of such products include eco- (or ‘ego’) tourism, all-inclusives and package cruise holidays.

Tourism Consumption and Development As has already been suggested in this chapter, the ‘typical’ characteristics of tourist motivation indicate that, generally, tourists are unlikely to be positively disposed towards consuming tourism is a manner that is appropriate to the destination. That is, not only are tourists considered to be unaware of the consequences of tourism, in a developmental sense, for the destination, but also they are primarily motivated by ego-centric needs of escape and self-indulgence. This is not to say that all tourists fall into this category. Undoubtedly there are some who purposefully seek out integrated, balanced forms of tourism that make a positive developmental contribution, but, for the most part, tourists purchase holidays which are most likely to satisfy personal needs of escape, relaxation and fun. To a great extent, this position is both reflected and reinforced by the consumer culture of tourism outlined here. Tourists may initially be motivated by escape and ‘ego-enhancement’ but, at the same time, cultural meaning is transferred to the consumption of tourism in a variety of ways. That is, the consumption of tourism embraces a meaning and significance that goes beyond utilitarian need satisfaction and, importantly, the ways in which this meaning or significance is manifested in consumption practices

The Consumpt ion of Tour ism

377

supports the argument that the consumption of tourism represents a barrier to effective development through tourism. Indeed, of the four categories of consumption described here, only one – consumption as integration – allows for tourists to consume tourism (to both purchase specific types of tourist experience and to act in appropriate ways) in a manner which will contribute to development. Here, those tourists who wish, in particular, to integrate ‘self with object’ will purchase holidays that permit them to integrate into the destinational environment and culture and, more generally, will follow the code of tourist ethics shown in Figure 12.1. However, simply purchasing an ecotourism trip, for example, does not imply appropriate behaviour. Ecotourism tends to be expensive, individualistic, adventurous and relatively exotic. Consequently, it may be consumed for the purpose of classification (‘ego-tourism’), play (the communal sharing of adventure or the unusual), or experience as defined by the pursuit of fantasy or the sacred experience of nature framed by a normal, urban existence. In each case, the destination provides the foundation for the experience but the primary focus of consumption is on the self – the tourist, and his or her relationship with other tourists and the home environment and society – rather than on the tourist’s relationship with the destination. The same may be said for most, if not all, types of tourism. That is, tourists are simply consumers who, as in other forms of consumption, seek to satisfy personal needs and to enjoy personal experiences. It matters little whether the object of consumption is a holiday, a meal in a restaurant, a house, a car or an item of clothing. The consumer seeks to optimise the utilitarian and cultural benefits through the act of consumption and to single out tourism as somehow different (and to expect tourists to modify their behaviour as consumers) is both illogical and naïve. However, while this suggests that tourists, who play an integral role in the tourism production process, represent a barrier to effective and appropriate development through tourism, it does not imply that such development is unachievable. Rather, it points to the need to refocus the responsibility for tourism planning and development. It is all too easy to ‘blame’ the tourist, as in the blanket condemnation of mass tourism, for the challenges and problems facing tourism destinations, whereas the ultimate responsibility lies with the destination. Once the nature of tourism consumption it is both recognised and understood, then destinations can plan and develop tourism accordingly to optimise their developmental benefits. This may be through mass tourism or through localised, small-scale tourism, but the emphasis surely must be placed upon planning and providing products to suit the needs of both the consumer-tourist and the destination, rather than expecting tourists to modify their behaviour to suit the destination.

13 Human Rights Issues in Tourism Development Edward Nkyi and Atsuko Hashimoto

Introduction As a human activity, tourism is intimately intertwined with human rights. The tourism industry exists because of the existence of ‘human beings’. Every year, more than a billion of the world’s population travel either within or across countries for purposes of relaxation, sight-seeing, fun, adventure and more. As the industry continues to grow year after year, several human rights issues have emerged in the tourism and development discourse involving tourists, the industry and destination countries. However, much of what has been written has focused more on the impacts of tourism, with few studies specifically addressing human rights issues that affect tourism development. This chapter is written to help address this lack of literature, the purpose being to discuss human rights issues in tourism and how they affect tourism development. Against this backdrop, this chapter will first explore the concept of human rights from different angles: origin and evolution of concepts, contemporary definitions and examples, and the often-contested discourse of universalism versus relativism of human rights. The chapter then will focus on human rights issues in tourism development from various perspectives concerning host populations, before moving on to the concerns of human rights issues with respect to tourists and also the role of multinational corporations, which has been attracting significant attention in the last decade or so. The chapter will conclude with some examples of human rights violations in tourism development which are not impossible to control or alleviate, in the hope that further discussions will be generated as to how human rights issues can be addressed and promoted in tourism development. 378

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

379

The Concept of Human Rights Foundations and origins In comparative terms, the concept of human rights has a ‘recent origin’ (Davidson, 1993), though the substance of the concept has existed since antiquity. Two concepts frequently debated in international politics are human rights and democracy. In the case of human rights, the debate often originates from its foundations and origins, definition, classification and content. After first exploring the concept of human rights, this section will explain why this is the case. The foundation(s) of human rights is still a bone of contention in human rights discourse. Several theories have been advanced to address these disputes, but none of them has adequately resolved the foundational debates of the concept. In this section, three leading theories on the foundations of human rights, which have dominated human rights discourse, will be briefly outlined. These are: (i) divine/natural law theory; (ii) natural rights theory and (iii) positivism. Further, some definitions of human rights and types and examples of human rights will be considered, as well as the debate about the universal contents of international human rights. One of the earliest theories that explains the foundations and origins of human rights is divine/natural law theory. Proponents of this theory were mostly Western medieval theologians. According to these philosophers, human rights derive their foundations from divine/natural law. Medieval theologians considered all human beings as equal because they believed all human beings were created by one God (Shestack, 2000). This subsequently led them to believe in a common universal nature for mankind (Shestack, 2000). According to medieval philosophers, God created human beings to be free and autonomous. At the same time, however, God also created divine/ natural laws to regulate human life to ensure harmony. Thus, while every man was free to determine his actions concerning his life, he was, at the same time, obliged to ensure that he did not upset others in the pursuit of their freedoms. To further drive this point home, medieval philosophers often relied on ‘The Golden Rule’ in the Bible, which states that ‘in everything [you should] do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets’ (Matthew 7:12, The Holy Bible New Revised Standard Version). For medieval theologians, ‘The Golden Rule’ is the foundation of all natural (human) ‘rights’ and ‘duties’. Some modern secular scholars, such as Hugo Grotius and John Locke, made attempts to ‘refine’ natural law theory into natural rights theory by giving the former a ‘rationalistic identity’ (Davidson, 1993; Shestack, 2000). In his Two Treatises of Civil Government (1689), Locke argued that nature gave every individual the rights to life, liberty and property (Morgan, 2005; van der Vyver, 1979). In his state of nature, Locke argued that every man had the

380

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

liberty to determine his life. The state of nature was chaotic because of the lack of a common authority to enforce the laws of nature, which granted liberty to all individuals (van der Vyver, 1979). To avert chaos, Locke asserted that the individuals in the state of nature came together and devised a social contract through which they mutually agreed to form a political community and set up a government. Despite the establishment of government, Locke maintained that individuals in the political community retained their natural rights to life, liberty and property (Morgan, 2005; van der Vyver, 1979). He maintained that government was obliged to protect the natural rights of individuals in the political community (van der Vyver, 1979), and favoured the idea of limited government or separation of powers (Morgan, 2005). He further asserted that a revolution was sometimes necessary to remove a government if, and only if, a government neglected its obligations to protect the natural rights (life, liberty and property) of the individuals in the political community (van der Vyver, 1979). Locke’s natural rights theory became a major source of inspiration for the architects of the French Revolution (1789) and the American Declaration of Independence (1776). A major critique against natural law and natural rights theories was launched by a school of thought called ‘positivism’. Positivism sought to raise questions about the empirical basis of these theories solely grounded on moral reasoning and subsequently trashed them as ‘cognitively meaningless’ (Davidson, 1993). The positivist movement arose during the Enlightenment and was championed by scholars like David Hume and Jeremy Bentham. Positivism sought to deny any ‘a priori moral’ sources of rights and asserted that all rights derived their sources from state (positive) laws (Davidson, 1993). One of the success stories of positivist thinking may be attributed to the current international human rights regime, which provides legal systems and mechanisms to protect human rights (Davidson, 1993; Shestack, 2000). Like natural law and natural rights theories, positivism also flourished but not without criticism. Shestack (2000) criticises the view held by positivists that sought to separate legal systems from moral systems (more specifically, denying the latter in any attempts to theorise about human rights). In other words, he claims that positivism could encourage citizens to obey bad laws irrespective of their moral consequences. On that score, Davidson (1993) also makes a claim that, under positivism, a law to torture criminals may be deemed ‘right’, irrespective of its ethical implications. Amartya Sen’s ‘cultural critique’ cautions that human rights should not be confused with ‘legislated legal rights’, as some human rights issues are unknown or unfamiliar within some cultures (Clapham, 2007; Sen, 1999). Each of these theories, despite their shortfalls, has enormous influence over the emergence and development of rights (Davidson, 1993: 29). Davidson (1993) underscores the complementary roles each of these theories play in the demand and protection of human rights. As he observes, natural law and natural rights theories may be invoked by citizens as the basis of justification

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

381

for resisting arbitrary laws promulgated by states which infringe on their basic human rights. However, ‘it [takes] a system of positive law to provide a definite and systematic statement of the actual rights which people [possess]’ (Davidson, 1993: 29). Aside from these three theories, contemporary scholars like John Rawls, Alan Gewirth, Ronald Dworkin, Charles Taylor and others have also advanced theories of rights with the objective of broadening the theoretical and foundational discourse of human rights.

The Evolution of the Concept of Human Rights The idea of rights as espoused in the modern concept of human rights dates back to antiquity. For instance, in ancient Babylon, circa 1780 BCE, Hammurabi’s code recognised the need to protect human freedom and dignity (Clapham, 2007); in ancient Greece, what distinguished a citizen from a slave (either natural or artificial) was the former’s ability to enjoy personal liberties, while no such personal liberties were accorded to the latter. Since the era of Plato and Aristotle, the discourse on rights has evolved around politics, law and philosophy (Weinberg, 1996–1997). Other civilisations, such as Inca, Aztec, Hindu and the First Nations of North America, also demonstrated through written or oral codes of conduct the systems needed to protect people’s health, welfare and property rights (Flowers, 1999). In Europe, a major attempt to protect individual rights occurred in Britain in 1215. The Magna Charta Libertatum (or simply ‘Magna Carta’) was passed to limit the powers of the British monarchy and also to secure protection for the noble class and other citizens of England against arbitrary rule from the former (Ishay, 2004; Tremblay et al., 2008). In a similar fashion, ‘the Golden Bull (Aranybulla)’ of Hungary (1222), the Danish King Erik Klippings Håndfaestning of 1282, the Joyeuse Entrée (Charter of Liberties) of 1356 in Brabant (Brussels), the Union of Utrecht of 1579 (the Netherlands), the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (van Banning et al., 2004: 15), the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, and the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (van Banning et al., 2004) were also domestic attempts to secure protection for the rights and liberties of citizens in the aforementioned European and American nations. However, historically, human rights protection was meant for a group of people who could make rational judgements (i.e. free male citizens) (Clapham, 2007). Reflecting the social background of the time, women, children, slaves, heathens, barbarians, colonised people, indigenous populations, the impoverished and the insane were not even considered ‘bearers of human rights’ (Muchlinski, 2001). In 18th- and 19th-century Europe, Olympe de Gouge’s (1791) ‘Declaration of the Rights of Women’ and Mary Wollstonecraft’s (1792) ‘Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ challenged the principles of equality, but fell on deaf ears. John Stuart Mills’ suggestion to replace the

382

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

term ‘man’ with ‘person’ in the Reform Bill of 1867 was rejected even though this Bill acknowledged the wealthy female property owners’ rights to vote in British jurisdiction. Mill’s (1869) essay, ‘The Subjection of Women’, supported further women’s rights but was met with ridicule. Likewise, children’s rights were mentioned in Britain as early as 1798 by Thomas Spence (Spence, 2001; Thomas Spence.co.uk, n.d.), yet traditionally heads of the household exercised authority over children. Only in the 20th century were children’s rights and legal status seriously reviewed (Medina, n.d.). Slavery and human trafficking issues are continuing challenges around the world even today. The modern concept of human rights largely evolved as a result of attempts to expand domestic protection for individual rights within international arenas, including abolishing slavery. Although ineffective, the Spanish government issued the New Law (Leyes Nuevas) to protect indigenous people of the Americas from exploitation by Spanish conquistadors in 1542; the British Empire Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 continued this tradition, and French followed suit in 1848, while slavery was banished in the United States in 1865. Many other countries abolished slavery in the 19th and 20th centuries, yet human trafficking and slavery have continued conspicuously to date. Early international/intercontinental efforts to secure protection for human rights actually started with the formation of the League of Nations in 1919. Article 23(a), (b) and (c) of the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations, which established this international body, entreated state parties to: (a) . . . endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, . . . ; (b) undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under their control; (c) . . . entrust the League with the general supervision over the execution of agreements with regards to the traffic in women and children, . . . (cited in Ghandhi, 2006: 2) Critically viewed, Article 23(a), (b) and (c) did not grant rights and liberties to individual citizens from states in the League per se; however, they did impose obligations on state parties under the Covenant to secure protection for individual rights. In 1926, the Slavery Convention was adopted to prevent slavery. Similarly, the Convention Concerning Forced Labour was also adopted in 1930 to prevent forced/compulsory labour. These two latter documents actually granted rights to individuals and imposed obligations on state parties to secure protection for individual rights. The flagrant violation of human rights and widespread atrocities during World War II raised global consciousness of the need for protection of human rights. When world leaders finally decided to establish the United Nations

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

383

(UN) to promote global peace and prevent a third world war, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society groups mounted pressure on world leaders to include human rights in the UN Charter. Article 1(3) of the UN Charter (1945) requires signatory states to ‘co-operate’ to ensure ‘respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; . . .’ (cited in Ghandhi, 2006: 14). In this document, the term ‘human rights’ formally entered the vocabulary of international politics. Though the term ‘human rights’ is believed to have initially emerged after the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (van Banning et al., 2004: 15), the term only became popular after the formation of the UN in 1945. On 10 December 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNUDHR) and since then, 10 December has always been marked as World Human Rights Day (van Banning et al., 2004: 16). The UNUDHR (1948) is regarded as the ‘mother’ of all modern human rights documents. Almost all international human rights conventions, covenants and treaties adopted after 1948 make direct reference to the UNUDHR in their preambles and it is also the most cited human rights document in the world. The UNUDHR recognises human rights for all human persons irrespective of their race, sex, gender, religion, ethnicity and culture. In 1966, two other important human rights documents namely: (i) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and (ii) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) were adopted by state parties to the UN. The UNUDHR, ICESCR and ICCPR constitute the International Bill of Human Rights (van Banning et al., 2004: 16). Aside from these three documents, the UN has adopted several human rights documents that deal with specific subjects and issues (e.g. women’s rights, children’s rights, rights of refugees and rights of migrant workers). Other documents also seek to address issues such as discrimination, forced labour and torture and degrading treatment.

What are human rights? Having considered some of the foundations and origins of human rights, a definition of human rights is now in order. There is no standard definition for human rights and major debates in human rights discourse stem from what constitute human rights in the first place. Notwithstanding these competing claims, various attempts have been made by institutions and individual scholars to define human rights. In the preamble to the UNUDHR, the UN referred to human rights as the ‘inherent dignity’ of the ‘human family’ which constitutes the basis of human freedom (UNUDHR, 1948; see also Ghandhi, 2006: 21). For Orend (2002: 19), human rights constitute the ‘reasons to treat persons in certain respectful ways’. Human rights also refers to the ‘inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently

384

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

entitled simply because she or he is a human being’ (Icelandic Human Rights Centre, n.d). In general terms, however, human rights enable human beings to fulfill their life in a respectful and dignified manner. Human beings gain these rights by virtue of being humans (Tremblay et al., 2008). In contrast to the human rights ideology embraced in the Western world, stemming from Locke’s natural law, socialist and Asian traditions define human rights differently. For instance, both the former Soviet Union under Marxist doctrine and traditional Asian countries place emphasis on the society or state rather than individuals. For the Soviet Union, the right (i.e. the product of collective will of people) is granted by the state (i.e. the perfect embodiment of the Soviet people). The government will play a parental role in guiding, educating and controlling individuals in order to protect rights. And individuals are expected to prioritise the needs of the collective before the individual needs (Lambelet, 1989). Bell (1996) argues many East Asian nations share the belief expressed by Lee Kuan Yew, a Singaporean politician, that to save people from dire poverty or other devastating circumstances, a right must be temporarily compromised. East Asian nations claim certain rights are inevitably curtailed to secure more basic rights for survival. Generally, East Asian populations are willing to limit individual freedom to attain more general social goods. Measures for prevention and punishments are considered reasonable trade-offs for social safety and order. The concept of ‘filial piety under the influence of Confucianism’ endorses respect and individual duties to others and plays an important role in many East Asian nations (Bell, 1996). Although this chapter examines human rights discourses from more liberal Western perspectives, it is necessary to be mindful and sensitive to arguments from non-Western nations. These nations may not agree with Western views and many human rights violations in tourism are observed in such nations. More on this point will be discussed later in the chapter.

Types and examples of human rights Attempts to classify human rights have also attracted debate as to what (which categories of rights) and how (what order of hierarchy) they should be classified. Despite these debates, human rights have been classified under three categories (often referred to as ‘Generations’ representing the three ideals of the 1789 French Revolution): (i) liberty; (ii) equality and (iii) fraternity (Tremblay et al., 2008: 6). Karel Vasak, a renowned French legal luminary and one time secretary-general of the International Institute of Human Rights was the scholar whose work led to the widespread use of these classifications in rights discourses (Tremblay et al., 2008). Under Vasakian classifications, human rights fall under the ‘First Generation Rights’ (representing liberty) and are basic civil and political rights (e.g. rights to association, free speech and participation in government, and political processes)

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

385

(Tremblay et al., 2008: 6). Similarly, human rights under ‘Second Generation Rights’ (representing equality) are social and economic rights (e.g. rights to family, water, housing, employment, education and health care) (Tremblay et al., 2008: 6). And ‘Third Generation Rights’ (representing fraternity or solidarity) are collective rights (e.g. rights to development, a clean and safe environment, preservation of cultural identity and self-determination) (Tremblay et al., 2008: 6). Several debates have emerged after the classification of human rights into these three categories. From one perspective, there is debate as to which categories of rights constitute ‘inviolable’ rights that cannot be ‘derogated’, even in crisis situations (Davidson, 1993: 40). From another viewpoint, there is debate about which of these categories of rights may be derogated in crisis situations under specific conditions (Davidson, 1993: 40). For instance, while the right to life and freedom from torture may constitute ‘inviolable’ and ‘non-derogable’ rights (Davidson, 1993), in conditions of peace and war, the same could not be said about the right to education, or in conditions of war the right to association. Does this tell us that some human rights are more ‘fundamental’ than others? Again, which of these categories of rights is/are more likely to assume priority and under what conditions? The classification does not address these and other related issues/questions in any of the three categories/generations of human rights considered previously.

The universalists versus relativists debate about international human rights Following the adoption of the UNUDHR (1948), the ICESCR (1966) and the ICCPR (1966), there has been debate about the universal philosophies espoused in these international human rights documents. For instance, Article I of the UNUDHR (1948) states ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’. Thus, it is the universal content of the UNUDHR and other subsequent international human rights documents that has attracted contrary opinions from the philosophical camp based in cultural relativism. Those who accept the universal philosophy of human rights expressed in the UNUDHR, ICESCR and ICCPR (the universalists) argue that human rights are universal simply because they constitute our human nature (Tremblay et al., 2008), irrespective of the differences displayed by human societies in geographical location, race, ethnicity, beliefs, religion, culture and others. For the universalists, human beings have certain common universal values which they share together, despite the above-cited differences. They contend that human rights are rooted in universal values shared by all human societies and, as such, human rights are universal. Conversely, the cultural relativists assert the concept of human rights emerged as a result of historical circumstances (Tremblay et al., 2008). According to this school of thought, historical circumstances vary from

386

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

society to society and different societies have different histories, traditions, moral values, customs, religion and understandings of humanity, all of which shape overall cultural understandings of human rights (Parekh, 1999: 128– 129; Tremblay et al., 2008). Based on these assertions, cultural relativists reject any universal cultural values shared by human societies and instead contend the concept of human rights is relative from one society to another. To supplement this point, the 1993 Bangkok Regional Preparatory Meeting to the World Conference on Human Rights and the 1995 Carnegie Council project ‘The Growth of East Asia and Its Impact on Human Rights’, held in Hakone, Japan, identified Asian countries’ view on the universality of human rights. Many Asian nations do not embrace the UNUDHR, launched by the Americas, Western Europe and the British Commonwealth with little to no input from Asia (Bauer, 1995; Bell, 1996). George and Varghese (2007) point out that Islamic scholars view the UNUDHR as a reflection of primarily Judeo-Christian values. In the 1995 Hakone workshop, Onuma of Japan expressed that ‘universality is actually the Western approach in disguise’ (Bauer, 1995). Bell (1996) cautions that imposing universal human rights is seen as Western imperialism, a negation of non-Western cultures and religions and an expansion of capitalism in many Asian nations. While each of these philosophical camps may offer plausible reasons to support its position on human rights, the criticisms associated with them require examination. For instance, cultural relativists’ arguments that different societies have different cultural practices, making them immune to any criticisms (Weinberg, 1996–1997), have been rejected by some anthropologists. Edgerton (1992), as summarised by Weinberg (1996–1997), asserts that a society could be sick, especially when that society perpetuates and institutionalises social injustices (e.g. slavery or the suppression of women) and sees nothing wrong with those actions. Against this backdrop, some scholars have labeled relativism as an ‘immoral’ movement because of its rejection of universal standards (Weinberg, 1996–1997). Nevertheless, there is also a criticism that the application of universal standards allows governments to avoid safeguarding particular cultural values, often allowing these governments to ignore or fail to recognise the needs of minorities (Bell, 1996). Moreover, the decision by the American Anthropological Association to reject ‘the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole’ (Preis, n.d., cited in Weinberg, 1996–1997) also exposes a major defect of universalism. Despite the raging debate, the UNUDHR (1948), the ICESCR (1966) and ICCPR (1966) have been adopted and ratified by a majority of states across the world. By 21 October 2012, 167 states had officially ratified the ICCPR (Humanrights.ch, n.d.a) and 160 countries had also ratified the ICESCR as of 3 August 2012 (Humanrights.ch, n.d.b). This section has sought to clarify why human rights are such a controversial concept prone to competing viewpoints. Having made attempts to

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

387

explore the concept of human rights, we will now examine some human rights issues emerging with the development of tourism.

Human Rights Issues in Tourism Development There is ample evidence in the literature on tourism and development about growing incidences of human rights abuses in the tourism industry (Aaronowitz, 2009; Cebezas, 2009; Keefe & Wheat, 1998; Kempadoo, 2004; Khan, 1998; Ryan & Hall, 2001; Sanghera, 1998). However, the literature often gives more attention to human rights issues that affect tourists rather than those affecting people in host destinations and those working in the industry (Keefe & Wheat, 1998). This section will discuss human rights issues often occurring in the tourism sector and how they affect tourists, host countries/communities and the people engaged in the tourism industry. The most often reported human rights issues in the tourism sector include inhuman treatment of people (slavery; sexual exploitation of women, men and children; human trafficking; and child exploitation for labour), labour rights violations, restrictions on peoples’ freedom of settlement and movement, unwarranted security checks of tourists, lack of adequate security for tourists while on vacations, and unfair business competition between local small business entities and multi-national corporations (MNCs) in the production and provision of goods and services for tourists. Other issues also include environmental exploitation, slum tourism, political oppression of local groups and commodification of indigenous cultures. Some of these issues will be discussed along with examples from tourism destinations in both developing and developed nations.

Inhuman treatment of people Human exploitation and slavery are as old as the human race. Slavery existed in ancient civilisations (e.g. Ancient Greece and Egypt) and continues into modern times. Assuming slavery activities ended with the formal abolition of slavery in the 19th century in almost all parts of Europe and America (where slaves were extensively used) is naïve. Today, despite international efforts to address slavery, there are still an estimated 27 million people ‘forced to work without pay, under threat of violence, and unable to walk away’ (Free the Slaves, n.d.). This figure is the largest in the history of slavery (Abolition Media, n.d.), primarily as a result of the increase in the world’s population and expansion of socio-economic activities. As one of the world’s largest socio-economic industries, tourism plays a role in global human rights abuses and slavery. Discussions related to the influx of treatment of some workers, especially sex workers through the activities of pimps, and trafficking in persons, especially women, girls and children to render sex and produce goods and other services to satisfy the

388

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

demands of tourists have often occupied the centre stage of the literature and media coverage on tourism and development (Aaronowitz, 2009; Cebezas, 2009; Khan, 1998; Kempadoo, 2004; Ryan & Hall, 2001; Sanghera, 1998; Shelley, 2010). In these instances, the common human rights violations victims experience may include the perpetuation of violence and forced labour through acts of coercion (Khan, 1998), as well as sexual harassment and low wages. Slavery and human trafficking occur in both developing and developed nations. In the developing world, slavery and human trafficking in the tourism sector often occur in Thailand, India, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Nigeria, Mali and Ghana, among others. Similar practices also occur in developed nations (e.g. United States, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece and many other nations across Europe) as well as in emerging developing nations. However, these practices commonly appear more in the developing world. In many nations, prostitution and the sex trade is illegal, even though laws vary considerably from one nation to another. Some argue that prostitution is not a by-product of tourism development; nevertheless, the existence of sex tourism in various nations leads to more complex issues of human trafficking, slave labour and associated crimes. Today, in many Western European nations, Canada and some states in Australia, prostitution is legal, though organised activities like brothels are illegal. Many central European, Asian and African nations where prostitution is illegal have become sex tourism destinations. For instance, as considerable research has shown (e.g. Barry, 1995) both Thailand and the Philippines are known as sex tourist destinations, yet prostitution is illegal in both countries. Instead, ‘entertainment’ is legal and sex workers are registered as ‘entertainers’ and the owners of the ‘entertainment’ establishments pay permit/license fees to authorities. Sex workers are often coerced by deception, or trafficked into the sex trades. In some cases, extreme poverty forces parents and guardians of the young to sell them into sex trades. Some young people in extreme poverty, out of the sense of filial duty to their family, seek jobs in bars and nightclubs, thus becoming engaged in prostitution. Due to the high demand from clients, underage children are also found in sex trades. Women and children are trafficked across borders and once in brothels, they are frequently kept on the premises under deplorable conditions, physically restrained, controlled by fear and threats, or drugged so they cannot flee (Perrin, 2010; Skinner, 2008; UNFPA, 2002; UNODC, n.d.). Inhumane treatment is not only seen in sex trades in tourism. Workers toiling in sweatshop conditions (see www.tourismconcern.org.uk/campaigns. html) at hotels, shops and restaurants are largely unreported. Forced child labour, such as carrying out hazardous work without proper protection (e.g. working in quarries, building roads and tourist facilities), or working in the informal economy (e.g. souvenir production and peddling, shoe polishing and tending the shop) and sexual exploitation, is common in tourism

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

389

(Bliss, 2006; Noguchi, n.d.). Workers are forced to labour under debt bondage or from the pressure of poverty. Slavery, human trafficking and other forms of human exploitation in tourism and other sectors clearly violate the principles of several international human rights treaties and protocols. For instance, they violate the human rights principles of Article 1 of the Slavery Convention (1926), Article 2 of the Convention Concerning Forced Labour (1930), Articles 4, 23 and 24 of the UNUDHR (1948), Article 8 of the ICCPR (1966), and Article 7 of the ICESCR (1966), which together prohibit slavery practices, human exploitation, inhuman treatment at workplaces and forced or compulsory labour. Similarly, human trafficking activities (especially those involving sexual exploitation) also violate the human rights principles of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others (UN, 1949) as well as Articles 2(a) and 3 of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UN, 2000), which together prohibit human trafficking and sexual exploitation of persons. As a corollary, the economic exploitation (labour), sexual exploitation and trafficking of children also violate the human rights principles enshrined in Principle 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (UN, 1959), Articles 32, 34, 35 and 36 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989), Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (2000), as well as Article 3 of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (1999), which together prohibit trafficking, economic and sexual exploitation of children. As tourism keeps flourishing, so too has been the upsurge in cases of human rights abuses involving people who make their living through this socio-economic activity. Hence, if tourism is used as a tool for socio-economic development, then governments and all interested parties involved must find ways to address the human rights violations occurring within the tourism sector. Although the tourism sector may be well noted for some of the aforementioned cases, on the other hand, many of these cases also occur in other sectors with very little or no connection with tourism.

Employment Tourism employment is not always a form of slavery or exploitation. Nevertheless, tourists and the tourism industry welcome lower prices, and suppliers must make profits from their business by procuring cheap labour. According to the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) Annual Review Report on Travel and Tourism (2011a), tourism and travel provide direct and indirect jobs to nearly 260 million people globally (WTTC, 2011b). As one of the world’s largest employment sectors, tourism and travel is also bedevilled

390

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

by several labour issues. Some of these issues include employment equity, pay equity, equal pay for equal work, low wages, poor working conditions, inadequate or no severance and pension packages, underage employment and gendered roles. One major reason which helps to explain why these labour issues are common within the tourism sector is the absence of labour unions. Many jobs in the tourism sector are seasonal and informal. This situation makes it very difficult for workers to form labour unions to collectively ensure safe and fair working conditions and terms. The high prevalence of issues relating to employment equity, pay equity, equal pay for equal work, poor working conditions, underage employment, gendered roles, poor working conditions and low wages clearly violate the human rights principles enshrined in Article 7 of the ICESCR (1966), Articles 23 and 24 of the UNUDHR (1948), Article 1 of ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), Articles 1 and 2 of ILO Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), and Articles 1 and 2 of ILO Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138). Similarly, issues relating to inadequate or lack of severance and pension packages also violate Article 9 of ICESCR (1966). Employment creation is one of the critical components of development; hence, if tourism is to be used as a tool for development, governments, workers and tourism developers need to work conscientiously to address the common employment and labour issues affecting workers in the tourism sector.

Displacement In some instances, attempts by state officials to demarcate or designate certain places as tourist sites, especially in developing nations, have led to gross violation of indigenous peoples’ rights. More often than not, indigenous peoples’ livelihoods depend on farming, fishing, hunting and rearing of animals in certain places. These spaces often get demarcated or designated for tourism purposes and indigenous peoples are evicted to make way for the development of tourist sites. Sometimes, these evictions come with little or no compensation. Those who fail to comply with eviction orders may face forcible evictions. Keefe and Wheat (1998) recount how pastoralists from the Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania were forcibly evicted by the government in 1988 in an effort to develop the reserve for tourism. According to these authors, the homes of the pastoralists were destroyed during the process of the eviction while most of their livestock were seized and sold by the government to pay for the eviction costs. Elsewhere in Kenya, some coastal people whose livelihoods depended on fishing were barred from fishing along beaches privatised for tourism (Keefe & Wheat, 1998). Similarly, locals who lived along coastal areas of the Caribbean were also not permitted to visit beaches in their own localities because they were either privatised or

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

391

demarcated for tourism purposes (Keefe & Wheat, 1998). After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 locals were banned from staying in tourist resorts in Cuba. The ban lasted until 2008; however, many locals cannot afford to stay in these resorts (New York Times, 2008). Thus, attempts to develop tourism in certain parts of the world do not only restrict the rights of some local people to settlement and movement, but they also alter or destroy the livelihoods (daily life or survival activities) of people in such areas. The actions state officials and tourism developers take, which include forced evictions, restrictions of peoples’ rights to movement and settlement and destruction of property, clearly violate the human rights principles of Articles 13 and 17 of the UNUDHR (1948), and Article 12 of the ICCPR (1966).

Tourists: Security checks at the ports of entry and exit Further, travelling across the world shortly after the dawn of the millennium has become more of a challenge for both tourists and non-tourists. Airplanes, trains, ships and cars have become key targets for terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (9/11) in the United States; 7 July 2005 (7/7) in the United Kingdom; 24 January 2011 (1/24) in Russia; 15 April 2013 in Boston, USA, and several others in other parts of the world, claimed many lives (not excluding failed ones such as the 2009 Christmas Day attempted attack on a Northwest Airline). These events have created a general sense of insecurity among state officials and travellers. One of the effects is the establishment of a new global security regime, especially at airports and seaports, where all travellers undergo rigorous security checks before arrivals and departures. Some of the security checks include making travellers have full body scans, remove footwear, belts and other clothing to enable airport officials to check for explosives, liquids and other substances that may pose a threat to the safety of travellers. Other techniques include screening personal data to check against security wanted lists before issuing visas or granting permission to board flights and vessels. Similarly, various restrictions have been imposed on travellers after the events of 9/11. Some of the restrictions include items that travellers may not carry while on board a flight. For example, travellers are not permitted aerosols, gels and liquids over a certain amount (with medications as exceptions) in their carry-on baggage. Some of these security checks pose delays and discomfort to travellers, especially in relation to visas. On many occasions, visa applicants from some developing countries and other nations that have had a link in some manner to terrorism, sometimes referred to as ‘terrorist nations’, who want to travel to developed nations for tourism have been denied travelling visas or undergo overly long security checks. These situations frustrate many and some give up their travelling ambitions. The practice of deliberately denying people travelling visas or restricting their movement within and across national

392

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

frontiers infringes upon Article 13 of the UNUDHR (1948) and Article 12 of the ICCPR (1966) which give every person in the world the freedom to travel within and across national frontiers and to settle in any place. Nevertheless, government officials justify their actions under the name of security. Countries allow security screening officials to exercise powers over travellers including confiscating personal laptop computers and other electronic devices; detaining travellers of certain ethnicity (regardless of their nationalities) or people whose names happen to be similar to those on the ‘wanted’ list for many hours for ‘interviews’; and strip searching travellers for hidden items in body cavities, etc. Of course, states cannot allow the wholesale entry of persons into their territories because of security risks. However, state officials should always endeavour not to deny people the right to movement, especially when there is no evidence of risk. A balance needs to be struck between security and the freedom of travel. In recent times, some human rights concerns have been raised about some of the devices used for conducting security checks at airports. One such concern pertains to the use of body scanners at airports. Travellers who are uncomfortable with a body scan or the alternative ‘pat down’ often raise privacy issues as they believe these techniques amount to intrusive personal searches. Others cite health risks of exposure to radiation although the claim of radiation exposure from the scans has not been entirely denied. SmithBindman and Mehta (2011) focused on airport body scanners, radiation exposure and cancer risks and found radiation exposure from airport body scanners has very little chance of increasing cancer risks. Because of the longterm concerns for cancer risk of screening officials, as well as of travellers (Rabin, 2012), and concerns for privacy (Brown & Narain, 2012) the widely used full-body X-ray scanners will eventually be replaced. The use of biometric measures (i.e. face, fingerprints, hand geometry, handwriting, iris of the eye, retinal veins in the eye and voice) has become commonplace in technologically developed nations in the early 2000s. The technology has advanced to the point of new systems such as the Human Recognition System at Gatwick Airport, UK (Krowneva, 2013) or the ‘Non-stop’ Biometric Gate at Narita Airport, Japan (Future Travel Experience, 2013) becoming a reality. The instant recognition of the travellers by biometric information without being stopped gives the travellers the sense of non-invasive screening; however, the issue of privacy is far from resolved. The high rate of installation of scan technology at various entry and departure points across the globe and their mandatory use in many airports and seaports for travellers before entry and exit demonstrates the need to re-examine the human rights concerns raised by these devices. Article 12 of the UNUDHR (1948), and Article 17 of the ICCPR (1966) provide for noninterference of individual and group privacy which include the freedom from arbitrary checks. Hence, security checks that violate personal privacy should be re-examined. Since travelling within and across borders is constantly

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

393

rising, involving millions of the world’s population on a daily basis, governments and interested parties in the transportation industry need to work to streamline security checks at various entry and departure points to ensure the safety of travellers, while not compromising human rights.

Tourists: Safety while on holiday In a related development, tourists’ safety while on holiday is becoming a major human rights concern in some tourist destinations in the world. Lately, there have been several reported cases of tourist abductions and killings in different tourist destinations. Those tourists are often kidnapped for ransom, political negotiations, sexual assault, robbery, organ harvesting, human trafficking or prostitution. Some of these cases prompt governments to issue travel alerts and warnings to their citizens to take extreme safety measures when vacationing in some parts of the world. The abduction and killing of David Tebbutt and the kidnapping of his wife Judith Tebbutt from Britain while on vacation in Kenya (BBC News, 2011a), the kidnapping and subsequent killing of 20 male Mexican tourists while on vacation in Mexico (believed to have been mistaken for a rival drug cartel) (Fox News, 2011), and the 23 August 2010 Manila (Philippine) hostage taking of a tour bus that claimed the lives of at least seven foreign nationals and wounded many others (BBC News, 2010) are a few examples that illustrate the growing security threats both local and foreign tourists face while on vacation. Every state is obliged under international law to provide maximum security and protection for people within its territory, including nationals and nonnationals. Incidences such as kidnappings and killings are clear violations of Article 3 of the UNUDHR (1948), and Articles 6 (1) and 9 (1) of the ICCPR (1966), which enshrine the rights to life and protection. Similarly, child abduction while on holiday is another disquieting issue. Although many child abduction cases in holiday destinations are parental abductions, there are cases where children were abducted by strangers or disappeared while they were on holiday with family members. A notable case was the disappearance of a British girl named Madeleine McCann from a holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007, the investigation of which has been recently reviewed (Evans, 2013). Children are abducted for the same reasons as adults, as well as for illegal adoption, child labour, recruitment for criminal gangs or as child soldiers, or murder (ABP World Group Ltd., n.d.; Hague Conference on Private International Law, n.d.). Terrorist attacks on tourist establishments and transportation networks, as mentioned earlier, are an increasing concern. In many cases, terrorist attacks target tourism establishments, as targeting these sites causes the news to spread more easily worldwide. Having various tourist nationalities involved, their claims and demands will have a wider audience. To illustrate, terrorist attacks at luxurious hotels in Mumbai, India, in 2008 killed over

394

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

180 people and injured over 300 (Ramesh & Walker, 2008); the abduction and killing of tourists in Timbuktu, Mali in 2011 and subsequent Al-Qaida attacks in 2013 (BBC News, 2011b; CBC News, 2013). Attacks on tourists may not necessarily be terrorism attacks as civil unrest, aggressive political protests and industrial strikes can also impact tourist facilities. For example, famous hotels in Cairo, Egypt, were stormed and ransacked by the local population during the second anniversary of the uprising in 2013 (O’Reilly, 2013). Reports of bombings of heritage sites, museums and religious establishments where tourists visit are becoming more common. Moreover, deathly attacks on tourist facilities and tourist areas also mean threats to the safety and lives of local people who live and work in the areas. These incidents also illustrate some of the growing challenges states face in fulfilling their national and international obligations to protect people within their territories.

Multi-national corporations and business practices The human rights concerns in recent years regarding MNCs or multinational enterprises (MNEs) are rather complex. The problems often stem from alleged complicity between MNCs and their host nations. The popularity of MNCs as agents to provide ‘lifestyle’ and ‘identity’ has increased since the 1960s (Muchlinski, 2001) and this trend is obvious in tourism today. MNCs play a very important role in tourism development both in developed and developing countries. They control a substantial part of the capital, technology, labour and facilities that help to develop tourism. MNCs in tourism development are often accused of exploitative treatment of local employees, especially female and seasonal workers (George & Varghese, 2007). Globally, they either own or have strong working relationships with hotel chains, airlines, tour operators, tour agencies and companies that operate coach and car rental services, to mention a few (Keefe & Wheat, 1998: 14). The global political economy of tourism largely reflects a ‘metropolitan hegemonic’ structure in which developing states are more dependent on developed states for the supply of capital, technology and tourists (Bianchi, 2002: 269; Leheny, 1995) (see Chapter 10). Since the majority of MNCs operate from developed states and control vast resources, they dominate in all aspects of tourism development in developing countries. Local communities and entrepreneurs have the right to access to land, water, housing, education, health care, natural resources, information and access to tourism businesses without major legal and financial hindrances as the UNUDHR states. Nevertheless, numerous cases of MNCs’ monopoly of access to and control over land, water and natural resources are reported. This situation often puts small local entities in developing countries at uneven economic positions since they are unable to compete with MNCs in terms of capital investments and technology in tourism development. This

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

395

uneven business competition between MNCs and small local entities also facilitates economic leakages (Akama & Kieti, 2007; Sindiga, 1999). MNCs are more likely to repatriate their profits to developed countries where they are based. For instance, all-inclusive package tours are appealing to most tourists. Because tourists pay the fees through tour operators in the developed nations before departure, no real spending happens in the destination (George & Varghese, 2007). This situation often leaves local economies in debt, especially if the governments borrowed to develop certain infrastructure and social services with the view to opening up areas to attract tourism investments. Uneven competition between MNCs and small local business entities resulting from ownership and control of capital and technology or economic leakages do not constitute human rights violations per se since every person or organisation has the right to acquire wealth or invest in any venture and make a profit. However, they may constitute a human rights violation if the manner through which they occurred is linked to exploitation or international monopoly that denies the social progress of others. If this is the case, the MNCs have violated the human rights principles enshrined in Article 12(c) of the UN Declaration for Social Progress and Development (UN, 1969). In the era of globalisation and the internet, many MNCs have realised that they cannot thrive in an environment where human rights are denigrated. Therefore, the MNCs’ choices of location where they operate concern the human rights factors of the destination nations. MNCs are also becoming aware of how their own approach to the human rights of employees impacts their reputation. Unfortunately, MNCs with poor human rights records will likely not be impacted in terms of their share prices and they will not go out of business as they have high profiles and are large-scale businesses. However, most MNCs that take actions to improve their human rights records seem to care about public opinions and their place in the market (Muchlinski, 2001; see Chapter 4). MNCs affect the socio-economic welfare of the communities where they operate, which in turn impacts the economic and social rights of community members. Increasingly MNCs are producing corporate social responsibility documents outlining how their operations are positively contributing to local communities and environments; however there is a danger the documents are more about marketing. Muchlinski (2001) argues that assuming MNCs will self-govern to ensure the human rights of their local employees and community members will not work, instead legal duties must be introduced to legally mandate MNCs’ observation of fundamental human rights.

Tourism’s impacts on the environment Like any other human activity, tourism development may also have a significant impact on local environments. For instance, the construction of infrastructure and other recreational facilities such as hotels, restaurants,

396

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

roads, golf courses, parks, resorts, to list a few, may either positively or negatively affect people, animals, land, water bodies, plants and other elements of the environment. While tourism can be used as a tool to address some environmental problems and also improve the lives of people, animals and plants (Southgate & Sharpley, 2002), it can also lead to exploitation of the environment either through the development of tourism infrastructure and facilities or undue pressure on the environment by tourists (Keefe & Wheat, 1998; National Catholic Reporter, 2002; Sindiga, 1999; see Chapter 9). On the positive side, states, supranational organisations, the tourism industry and lobbying groups in partnership have made considerable progress towards sustainable tourism development. Considering that the International Union for Conservation of Nature brought the relationship between ecology, tourism and recreation to the attention to the public as early as 1967, it took nearly half a century for tourism to start seeing the results of its actions. Sustainable tourism so far has focused more on protection and sustainable use of the environment and natural resources; however, increases in the welfare of the host society have until recently been more of a spinoff from environmental efforts. Not all forms of tourism development are able to incorporate sustainable tourism development, even though UN and UN World Tourism Organization advocate that all forms of tourism must be ‘sustainable’. On the negative side, however, tourism’s role in development today has also become a major cause of concern for fragile environments and ecosystems. Over the past few decades, the massive development of infrastructure and facilities has occurred around the world to meet the needs of evergrowing numbers of tourists. As seen in Chapter 11, increasing demand for airline flights will further increase the contribution of tourism to greenhouse gas emissions as well as seeing the construction of more airports. As a result, corresponding pressure is placed on natural resources to meet the growing consumption needs of tourists. Exploitation of the environment and pressure on nature’s resources are increasingly becoming common issues in high demand tourism destination areas. These developments often affect the lives of local people in many ways. For example, local people whose lives depend on farming and fishing may encounter problems cultivating farmland and accessing fishing waters. This situation has the potential to worsen food security crises for people in impoverished regions. Any tourism development that exploits the environment and brings undue repercussions for the local population clearly violates the human rights principles enshrined in Articles 13(c) and 17(d) of the UN Declaration on Social Progress and Development (1969).

Slum tourism Slum tourism has attracted several debates in tourism and development discourse. Slum tourism occurs both in the developing and developed worlds. Across the developing world, slum tourism occurs in India, Kenya, Brazil, the

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

397

Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, South Africa and many other locations. Similarly, the practice also occurs in the US, Holland and a few other countries. Slums are characterised by high poverty and in some cases high crime rates. Several tour agencies and NGOs have been conducting tourists around poorer areas or slums. In some cases money is raised to help residents, while critics argue the practice of slum tourism amounts to human exploitation (McGuinness, 2012). Exploitation is likely to occur where there are no properly instituted accountability mechanisms to monitor tour agencies and NGOs in terms of delivering their promises to the poor residents after raising money from tourists who patronise slum tours. Slum tourism also raises many human rights concerns, particularly with regard to the violation of personal privacy. More often than not, residents in slums are the least consulted before tours are organised. Such practices amount to violation of personal privacy. Article 12 of the UNUDHR (1948) and Article 17 of the ICCPR (1966) disapprove on such practices.

Discussion and Conclusion As seen in other chapters in this book, tourism development is multifaceted and multi-dimensional. As a consequence, human rights issues in tourism are also intertwined with other issues and concerns. Any form of tourism development taking place in regions where urgent socio-economic development is needed, social, economic and environmental exploitation, as well as human rights violations can occur as a result. The impingement of human rights is not only a challenge for host populations and societies, but also for tourists and tourism businesses, including MNCs. Salient examples include: •

•

•

•

The safety and security of tourists while on holiday, the safety and security to conduct tourism business and the safety and security of host populations working in tourism businesses or acting as a host society must be protected. Access to natural resources must be available to host populations. Tourists, on the other hand, must not be denied access to the natural resources in the destination. Both local businesses and MNCs must be able to access necessary natural resources. Tourism development must not relocate the local residents without consent and/or appropriate compensation. Local populations must be allowed freedom of movement both in and outside of their country. Tourists must be allowed freedom of movement in the destination countries; however, to secure this freedom of movement, the state must guarantee a safe and secure society. The privacy of local populations must be protected (e.g. tourists must respect the local population’s private life). The privacy of tourists must

398

•

• •

• •

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

also be protected (e.g. local populations must respect tourists’ private time while on holiday) and security checks must not unduly violate the privacy of travellers. Both tourists and local populations are entitled to work and leisure. Most tourists are coming from countries where taking a holiday is no longer solely for a privileged few. However, a large number of people in developing nations are still unable to take holidays. Tourism developers and employers must ensure local employees the right to work and leisure. MNCs and other businesses must ensure equal treatment of employees, regardless of race, gender and age. Authorities in local communities where slum tourism occurs should devise proper legal accountability mechanisms to hold tour agencies and NGOs accountable for their promises towards the poor in slums. International and national laws governing slavery, inhuman treatment of people, human trafficking, employment and exploitation must be strictly enforced to curtail growing incidences of human rights abuses in the tourism sector. Effective state–society cooperation is needed to address many of the issues raised in this chapter. To effectively promote and advance human rights in the tourism sector, there should be concerted partnerships among all tourism players including states, local communities, tour operators, MNCs, tourists, service providers, NGOs and tourism workers to guard against possible human rights abuses. This can be achieved when there is human rights education to create awareness amongst all involved, as well as effective laws and institutions to address emergent situations. In the end, collaborating stakeholders will be protecting their own human rights.

Exercising one’s human rights, inevitably, has limits and generates many questions. Tourists should be provided the same level of safety the local people receive, but what if the protection local people receive from the state is less than what tourists receive at home? MNCs should provide fair wages to their local employees, but what if they are already paying higher than average salaries in the host communities? Tourists should not be denied the right to access certain areas within the destination, but what if there is no adequate infrastructure to guarantee tourists’ safety in the desired area? One party’s human rights cannot be imposed on the other at the cost of the other party’s human rights. Should tourists’ rights to natural resources for enjoyment (e.g. beach access and water use) be prioritised over local people’s rights to natural resources for livelihood? This chapter has also tried to show how the UNUDHR is not without criticism. Many developing nations feel their values are inadequately reflected in the UNUDHR. Criticising many developing nations for human rights violations is easy; however, the UN is sensitive to cultural relativities. Some

Human Right s Issues in Tour ism Development

399

critics argue it is irrelevant to impose the universality of human rights. Mapp (2008: 20) cites Ife and Fiske’s (2006) study to show that universality does not necessarily mean ‘sameness’ but, rather, that it is an emphasis of the ‘essential worth of every human being’. Each culture and social order must be respected, but should not be used as an excuse to impinge on human rights. Tourism must adopt human rights issues emerging from tourism development. MNCs must recognise that they are no longer simply an entity protected by private laws, but rather that they are expected to take proactive actions to protect human rights. Both the state and public sector actors in nations must recognise that allowing human rights abuses of citizens and tourists will have long-lasting negative impacts for their business and development interests. The fundamental rights of human beings are the foundation of any form of development. This chapter is far from a comprehensive discourse on human rights issues in tourism due to the complexity of the problems; however, it has attempted to illustrate major human rights issues in tourism development, to advance awareness and encourage discussion that results in the appropriate actions being taken to tackle these challenges.

14 Tourism, Development and International Studies David J. Telfer and Atsuko Hashimoto

Introduction The tourism development process needs to be understood within a broader context and international studies offers an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the complexity of an ever increasingly connected and globalised world (Anderson et al., 2013). Advances in information technology, media, transport and global finance instantly bring news of events from one side of the world to the other, and these events more readily impact other nations, corporations, tourists and destinations. The recent global financial crisis of 2008, for example, resulted in financial bailouts for several countries in Europe, including Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Cyprus, while the Arab Spring protests beginning in late 2010 in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and others have affected regional security. Until recently, the process of globalisation was thought to be facilitating a limitless expansion of the tourist industry. However, the proliferation and growing severity of ecological, political and, in particular, financial crises have posed new obstacles, encouraging counter trends to globalisation and impacting the global tourism system (Cohen, 2012). These events have the potential to influence the role of tourism in the development process. Kilby (2012) observes that there have been major shifts in development studies since 2000 as a result of fundamental changes in the global economy in general, and in development finance in particular. The first is increased security concerns after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. The second is the relative failure of the neoliberal project from the 1980s and 1990s, including the weakening of the Bretton Woods institutions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank as development drivers. The third is the rise of China as a global economic force, and with it, other large developing countries that have become major aid donors. The final change is the rapid rise in 400

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

401

remittances as a key source of financing for developing countries. All of these changes are taking place in a highly complex global security and environmental context (Kilby, 2012) and have the potential to impact significantly on the tourism development process. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to explore the interaction of tourist mobility and tourism development with current events and issues that are of global importance. It begins by examining the nature of some of the main contemporary global issues and risks. Current events quickly disappear within a 24-hour news cycle, replaced by the next news event. Thus, the chapter focuses on the issue-attention cycle to illustrate the immediacy of events but also longer-term implications. A range of theories of international studies, including realism, liberalism, cosmopolitanism, Marxism, social constructivism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, feminism and globalisation are examined for ways in which they can be used as a lens to investigate global events in the context of tourism development. There are numerous theories, frameworks and perspectives that can be used to examine global issues, and each of these perspectives points to different factors as being the most important while perhaps ignoring factors others may see as essential. As Mansbach and Rafferty (2008: 44) suggest, ‘realists, for example tend to focus on power; Marxists emphasize class and economic conditions; and liberals pay attention to normative factors and institutions’. How tourism development is interpreted in the context of global events under these various theories illustrates the value in taking an international studies approach. In addition, international studies adopt an interdisciplinary approach and, therefore, this chapter also examines selected disciplines applicable to international studies in the context of tourism development before concluding with some reflections on the barriers and challenges in the context of international studies that global issues can have on the tourism development process. Before considering global issues and threats, for the purposes of this chapter it is important first to include comments on the level of analysis, as not only do global events cascade down to affect states, regions, destinations, corporations and individuals (Mansbach & Rafferty, 2008) but also the cascade effect can operate in the reverse direction. Anderson et al. (2013), include in their book on international studies an analysis of various theoretical perspectives, historical backgrounds, geographical contexts, social-cultural interactions, economic structures and political systems, as well as an examination of regions such as Europe, Latin America and the Middle East while recognising the dangers of generalisations. International studies, therefore, embraces multiple levels of complexity ranging from understanding the impacts of global events to where and how they originated, and how those that are affected directly and indirectly react to these events. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to cover all aspects of international studies. Nevertheless, it will highlight how the approach of this area of study along with various

402

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

tourism-related examples in different locations around the world can be utilised to better understand the mobility of tourists and the tourism development process in the context of global issues.

Global Issues and Risks Smil (2008) warns against perils of predicating the future with respect to global prospects. Citing numerous examples, ranging from population to the environment, he states that ‘the principal reason that even the cleverest and most elaborate scenarios are ultimately so disappointing is that they may get some future realities approximately right, but they will inevitably miss other components whose dynamic interaction will create profoundly altered wholes’ (Smil, 2008: 3). Rather, he argues for the need to focus on understanding change, learning from the past, utilising a broad spectrum of knowledge while identifying major factors that will shape the global future and evaluating their probabilities and potential impacts. He states that fundamental shifts in human affairs come in two guises, one as low-probity events that can in an instant ‘change everything’ and the other as persistent, gradually unfolding trends which can have no less far reaching impacts over the long term. Catastrophic events include volcanic eruptions, terrorist attacks, wars and viral pandemics, while longer-term trends of global importance include key resource, economic, demographic, political, strategic and social shifts (Smil, 2008). In 2010, the closure of airspace across parts of Europe following the volcanic explosion in Iceland and the 2011 Great East earthquake in Japan and resulting tsunami and nuclear disaster illustrate the devastating effects of catastrophic events not only on the given location but also for tourism. The ongoing financial instability within the European Union (EU) has caused longer-term issues for financial markets whilst austerity measures implemented by governments have led to popular protests influencing the tourism industry. Whether the events are catastrophic or longerterm trends, these global affairs and risks will have significant implications for tourism and its potential to have a role in the development process. Others have put forward solutions to some of the complex problems facing the planet. For example, Lomborg (2007) compiled an edited volume entitled Solutions for the World’s Biggest Problems, addressing 23 of world’s biggest problems in the areas of environment, governance, economics and health and population. The World Economic Forum (2013a) publishes an annual global risks report based on a survey of over 1000 experts from industry, academia and civil society who are asked to review 50 global risks in the following categories: economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological (see Figure 14.1), and to indicate the likelihood that the risk will manifest over the next 10 years and the extent of the impact of the risk.

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

Economic

Environmental

Chronic fiscal imbalances Chronic labour market imbalances Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices Hard landing of an emerging economy Major systematic financial failure Prolonged infrastructure neglect Recurring liquidity crises Severe income disparity Unforeseen negative consequences of regulation Unmanageable inflation or deflation

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria Failure of climate change adaptation Irremediable pollution Land and waterway use mismanagement Mismanaged urbanisation Persistent extreme weather Rising greenhouse gas emissions Species overexploitation Unprecedented geophysical destruction Vulnerability to geomagnetic storms

Geopolitical

Societal

Critical fragile states Diffusion of weapons of mass destruction Entrenched organised crime Failure of diplomatic conflict resolution Global governance failure Militarisation of space Pervasive entrenched corruption Terrorism Unilateral resource nationalisation Widespread illicit trade (goods and people)

Backlash against globalisation Food shortage crises Ineffective illicit drug policies Mismanagement of population ageing Rising rates of chronic disease Rising religious fanaticism Unmanaged migration Unsustainable population growth Vulnerability to pandemics Water supply crisis

Technological Critical systems failure Cyber attacks Failure of intellectual property regime Massive digital misinformation (rapid and extensive deliberate misinformation) Massive incident of data fraud/theft Mineral resource supply vulnerability Proliferation of orbital debris Unforeseen consequences of climate change mitigation Unforeseen consequences of nanotechnology Unforeseen consequences of new life sciences technologies Figure 14.1 World Economic Forum‘s global risks (2013a) Source: World Economic Forum (2013a).

403

404

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

From the 2013 report, the top five risks by likelihood over the next 10 years include: • • • • •

Severe income disparity (widening gaps between the richest and poorest citizens): (economic). Chronic fiscal imbalances (failure to redress excessive government debt obligations): (economic). Rising greenhouse gas emissions (governments, businesses and consumers fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand carbon sinks): (environmental) (see Chapter 11). Water supply crises (decline in the quality and quantity of fresh water combine with increased competition among resource-intensive systems such as food and energy production): (societal). Mismanagement of population ageing (failure to address both the rising costs and social challenges associated with population ageing): (societal). (World Economic Forum, 2013a)

In addition, the report identifies the top five risks by impact, which are presented below. As can be seen, there is some overlap with the previous risks by likelihood list; however there are some differences. • • • • •

Major systemic financial failure (a financial institution or currency regime of systematic importance collapses with implications throughout the global financial system): (economic). Water supply crises (decline in the quality and quantity of fresh water combined with increased competition among resource-intensive systems such as food and energy production): (social). Chronic fiscal imbalances (failure to redress excessive government debt obligations): (economic). Diffusion of weapons of mass destruction (the availability of nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological technologies and materials leads to crises): (geopolitical). Failure of climate change adaptation (governments and businesses fail to endorse or enact effective measures to protect populations and transition businesses impacted by climate change): (environment). (World Economic Forum, 2013a)

Within each of the four main categories, respondents were asked to pick a centre of gravity or the one risk that they think is systematically the most important in that particular group. The top centres of gravity include: • • •

Major systemic financial failure: (economic). Failure of climate change adaptation: (environmental). Global governance failure: (geopolitical).

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

• •

405

Water supply crisis: (societal). Critical systems failure: (technological). (World Economic Forum, 2013a)

The list in Figure 14.1 is being used here as an example and it is not meant to be exhaustive. It should be noted that some of the issues, such as ‘unforeseen negative consequences of regulation’ and ‘backlash against globalisation’ do illustrate a bias towards being pro-globalisation, which many would argue has caused numerous difficulties (see de la Dehesa, 2006, on Winners and Losers in Globalisation). Each of these areas of the World Economic Forum global risks report (2013a) has a body of literature of its own and a detailed analysis of each is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, it is important to note how interconnected these issues are as reflected in the comment below by Ghani and Lockhart in the context of disparity: We have a collective problem: Forty to sixty states, home to nearly two billion people, are either sliding backward and teetering on the brink of implosion or have already collapsed. While one half of the globe has created an almost seamless web of political, financial and technological connections that underpin democratic states and market based economies, the other half is blocked from political stability and participation in global wealth. Within these countries, vicious networks of criminality, violence and drugs feed on disenfranchised populations and uncontrolled territory. In a period of unprecedented wealth and inventions, people throughout Africa, Central Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are locked into lives of misery, without a stake in their countries or any certainty about control over their own futures. (Ghani & Lockhart, 2009: 3) Many of the countries in the regions that Ghani and Lockhart (2009) refer to above have tourism in some form or are next to more stable countries where tourism is a major component of the economy. All of the global risks in Figure 14.1 have the potential to impact tourism and a few brief comments follow illustrating how global events in relation to the main categories of Figure 14.1 can influence tourism. In terms of economic issues, the current global financial crisis, with some Eurozone countries having to be bailed out, is having widespread economic implications. Greece, for example, experienced a drop in visitor numbers because of protests over government austerity measures, although recent reports point to a subsequent resurgence of the country’s tourism sector. Where once international aid or bailouts went primarily to developing countries, these are now occurring in developed economies. In fact, some developing economies are becoming very significant on the global scene. Brazil, Russia, India and China, known as BRICs (and some change the ‘s’ to ‘S’, adding South Africa), have been referred to as leading emerging economies

406

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

(Moyo, 2012). A decade after he coined the term BRICs in 2001, economist Jim O’Neil proposed MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey) as important markets to watch (Fillingham, 2012). It is clear that the economies of some of the emerging developing countries are gaining increased attention on the global scene. The G20, for example, comprises 20 of the major economies of the world (19 countries and the European Union) and includes South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It has led many to question whether the West is on the decline, to be replaced by a new international system shaped by the BRICs or a geographically defined entity known as Asia (Cox, 2012). In particular, the rise of China in global economic affairs is noted by Moyo (2012) who states that: China now funds foreign governments (providing loans and buying their bonds), underwrites schools and hospitals and pays for infrastructure projects such as roads and railways (particularly across the poorest parts of the world), catering to the needs of the host nations and making China an altogether more attractive investor than international bodies such as the World Bank, which often tie loans to harsh policy restrictions. . . . China’s increasing global influence has mirrored its economic rise and invariably, a concomitant rise in its demand for resources. Cox (2012), however, argues that while emerging states are playing a bigger role in the world economy, there are still continued structural advantages held by the United States (US) and its major Western allies and one needs to question the popular idea of a significant power shift with the West and US in steep decline. Nevertheless, as countries such as China and India continue to develop and have a growing middle class, there is intense global competition to attract Chinese and Indian visitors. Climate change, which is the focus of Chapter 11, has come to the forefront in environmental issues in tourism. Some countries, such as the Maldives and Kiribati, are under threat with rising seawater and there are pressures in the industry to reduce carbon emissions. Climate change is clearly one of the major global issues that will impact tourism. Under the geopolitical category, the impact that terrorism has had on security after 9/11 has been significant. Island territorial disputes between nations such as China and Japan over Diaoyu/Senkaku and between Korea and Japan over Dokdo/Takeshima have had an impact on tourist numbers as political tension increases. Chinese visitors to Japan, for example, fell from 1.43 million in 2012 to 980,000 in 2013 (Wen, 2014). The collapse of the state of Somalia has resulted in pirate attacks along the coastal waters on tourists. Under the societal category of Figure 14.1, the vulnerability of a pandemic was seen though the 2002–2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak, the 2001 United Kingdom (UK) Foot and Mouth disease, 2009 swine flu pandemic and recently the

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

407

2014 Ebola outbreak. Food and water shortages are often seen near all-inclusive resorts. In Bali, The Gambia and Goa, a study by Tourism Concern revealed that tourists use 16 times as much water as locals causing both conflict and disease (Hickman, 2012). The final category is technology. The tourism industry has readily incorporated the use of information technology on numerous fronts (Buhalis & Law, 2008). In the context of technology, one could argue that the availability of access to the internet can allow a small company in a developing country to develop a website to market their tourism product globally and, hence, contribute to the development process. However, as noted in Figure 14.1, critical systems failure, cyberattacks and massive digital misinformation are all potential risks that the tourism industry could face. With social media and visitors contributing reviews online to websites, the industry faces significant challenges about the accuracy of the information on the internet. Also, social media has allowed people to circumvent national media bans and, hence, to become broadcasters to the world, getting around state media.

Issue-attention Cycle With advances in communication technology, the typical news cycle has been drastically shortened as news items are often shared in real time. What is argued in this chapter is the potential value of using the various theories and disciplines linked to international studies to better understand what is going on and how the events may impact tourism. Downs (1972) refers to the issue-attention cycle, which is linked to the nature of the problem, but also to the way communications media interact with the public. The cycle has five stages and the duration depends on the particular issue that is involved. The first stage is the ‘pre-problem stage’, where there is a highly undesirable social condition that exists but the issue has not yet captured much public attention. Often the objective conditions of the problem are worse during this stage than by the time the public becomes interested. The second stage is ‘alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm’, where the public suddenly becomes aware of the evils of a problem as a result of a dramatic event(s). The alarmed discovery is accompanied by euphoric enthusiasm about society’s ability to solve the problem within a short period of time. The third stage is ‘realising the cost of significant progress’, which involves the gradual realisation of the cost of solving the problem. Solving the problem would not only require significant sums of money but would also require major sacrifices by large groups in the population. The fourth stage is ‘gradual decline of intense public interest’. As people become aware of the difficulty and the cost associated with solving a problem they can feel discouraged, threatened or even bored with the issue. As attention wanes, often another issue enters stage two of this model and the media takes the public’s attention to the new

408

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

issue. In the final ‘post-problem’ stage the issue moves into ‘a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest’ (Downs, 1972: 40). Having gone through the cycle, the issue has a different relation to public attention and there may be new institutions and/or programmes of policies that were put in place to help solve the issue. It is interesting to note that with improvements in technology, the public is no longer just in the local area; there is a global public who can react to issues online through the internet. Examining the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the US using the issue-attention cycle, Hall (2002: 462) states that the media played a key role. ‘Not only is the media significant in terms of the images that surround travel and specific destinations and which influence travel decisionmaking but the media also has a substantial impact on the policy measures which governments take with respect to tourists safety and security.’ Similarly Henderson (2003), examining the case of the Bali bombings in 2002, argues that tourism marketing and development agencies have a pivotal role in times of crisis and have to deal not only with the immediate consequences but also need to decide on future objectives. There was intense media coverage of the 2011 Great East earthquake in Japan with the resulting tsunami and nuclear accident. However, within about three weeks it had been largely displaced from the media by other events and in 2013 Tokyo was awarded the 2020 Olympics. It is certain that significant events can have a major impact on the tourism industry. For example, McKercher (2004) notes that, during the 2003 SARS outbreak, the World Travel and Tourism Council estimated that three million people lost their jobs in tourism across the affected regions of China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Vietnam. In addition, the crisis resulted in a loss of $20 billion in gross domestic product and tourism arrivals fell by 70% across the rest of Asia, including in areas that were totally or largely disease free. McKercher (2004) suggests that the SARS outbreak highlighted the need for integrated national and international tourism crises recovery strategies. Faulkner (2001) developed a tourism disaster management framework based on the following stages: pre-event, prodromal (apparent disaster is evident), emergency, intermediate, long-term (recovery) and resolution. The model includes disaster management responses as well as management strategies. As seen in Figure 14.1 there are significant global events/risks that can influence tourism. Similar to the work of Smil (2008), the purpose here is not to make predictions about the future of global events and their impact on tourism, rather it is to understand the range of global issues/risk and their implications for tourism. It is acknowledged that there has been a long tradition in the tourism literature to study the impacts of tourism; however, what is suggested here is the use of international studies as a lens to understand global events in the context of tourism. What follows next is an overview of some of the main theories of international studies.

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

409

Theories of International Studies One of the main purposes of this chapter is to bring to light various theories of international studies. ‘International studies offers an integrative, comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach to issues of global importance’ (Anderson et al., 2013: 3). This is wider in scope than the study of international relations that traditionally focused on the relationships between states. Importantly, international studies has come under criticism for being Westerncentric and for speaking at all times in a language of universals (Lizée, 2011). Lizée (2011) argues that global politics will be increasingly shaped by the non-Western world and, therefore, international studies needs to adapt. The theories outlined here represent some of the more traditional theories associated with the discipline, such as realism and liberalism, as well as more recent critical theories, such as post-structuralism. This section begins with an overview of some of the main theories as they apply to international studies as identified in part by Mansbach and Raffert (2008), including realism, liberalism, cosmopolitanism, Marxism, constructivism, post-structuralism, postcolonialism, feminism and globalisation. Global events examined under different theoretical perspectives will inevitably generate different perspectives/explanations of these events and generate a better understanding of challenges and barriers for tourism as an agent of development. The key elements of the various theories are outlined below. However, it is important to note that within each theory there are often various dimensions, variants and perspectives, although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to consider each theory in extensive detail. These selected theories cross multiple disciplines which are addressed later in the chapter. Brief examples and concepts linking tourism and global events/issues are presented in relation to the theories below, though it is important to note that the individual examples can actually be analysed under multiple theories.

Realism The study of realism, with an emphasis on security, competition and war among great powers, has dominated the study of international relations for over 50 years (Mearsheimer, 2002). Davenport (2011) suggests realism is the core theory of international relations. Baylis et al. (2011) identify the main component of realism as the way in which the world ‘really is’, suggesting that the world is not necessarily a very pleasant place as human nature is basically fixed and selfish. The main actors are states, and world politics is a struggle for power between states to maximise national interests. World politics is about bargaining and alliances through diplomacy, but military force can be used to implement foreign policies. All international actors, such as multinational corporations and international organisations, have to work within the state framework. More recently, a variant of realism – neo-realism – emerged.

410

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

It focuses on the changing nature of the international political system, from one based on the two main powers during the Cold War to a subsequent one of multipolarity that comes with very different rules (Baylis et al., 2011). Snyder (2004) argues that realism focuses on the shifting distribution of power among different states. It is often contrasted with cosmopolitanism which is linked to the writings of Immanuel Kant, while realism is linked to an updated version of Machiavellianism or Hobbesianism (Scheuerman, 2012). ‘Conventional scholarly wisdom dramatically juxtaposes “Realism” to “cosmopolitanism” with the former presumed to entail an amoral, antireformist, and historically static endorsement of realpolitik, and the latter a robust moral and political universalism in union with a muscular defence of a new and more unified global political and legal order’ (Scheuerman, 2012: 453–454). Historically, however, realism was contrasted with idealism (Scheuerman, 2012), which focuses on how the world ought to be from a normative perspective. Realism could be used to examine a 2010 trade dispute between Canada and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that clearly illustrated the linkages between tourism and international studies. An agreement between Canada and the UAE allowed for six flights a week to Toronto between Emirates Airline and Etihad Airways. When Canada refused to allow an increase in the number of flights to Toronto a trade dispute resulted. In response to this refusal of extra landing rights, the UAE evicted Canada from their Camp Mirage base outside Dubai, which was a Canadian troop-transiting base on their way to Kandahar and Kabul, Afghanistan. The UAE also imposed a visa requirement on Canadians visiting the UAE at the cost of $165 for a single-entry 30-day visa, $330 for a single-entry 60-day visa and $660 for a six-month multiple entry visa (The Canadian Press, 2013). At the time most Europeans, Australians and Americans were not required to have a visa to visit the country. The visa requirement remained in place until April of 2013 when relations between the two countries started to improve in terms of economic cooperation; however, the increased landing rights have yet to be settled. In addition to trade disputes, tourism has also been explored in relation to war and conflict. Butler and Suntikul’s (2013) edited volume entitled Tourism and War explores the relationships between tourism and war, including political, economic, ideological and spatial elements, and demonstrates how not only the location, but also political strategies, accidents of history, transportation linkages and political expedience played a role in the development and continuation of tourism before, during and after wartime (Butler & Suntikul, 2013). After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US and the War on Terror, issues of security came to the forefront, which have had major implications for tourism. Examined through the lens of realism, the response of states to terrorism and the implications for tourism illustrate the value of incorporating international studies. Realism also focuses on shifting distributions of power among states and in the context of tourism countries such as

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

411

China represents a new key market that states are strongly competing with each other to attract.

Liberalism Liberalism also has a long tradition, with many variants; idealism can be considered an extreme version of liberalism. The main themes in liberalism are that human beings are perfectible, that democracy is necessary for perfectibility to develop, and that ideas and the belief in progress are important (Baylis et al., 2011). Liberalists reject the view that war is a natural condition of world politics and that the state is the main actor on the world’s political stage. The state is not a united actor but a set of bureaucracies with differing interests and, therefore, there is no national interest as this only reflects the view of whatever domestic decision-making organisation is able to dominate. Multinational corporations and transnational stakeholders are considered to be the central actors in issue areas of world politics (Baylis et al., 2011). Liberalists focus attention and policy on poverty, education, human rights and economic development related to the welfare of people as opposed to the state (Mansbach & Rafferty, 2008). They stress cooperation between states over military action and believe world politics emerges not from a balance of power but rather from the interactions of government arrangements representing laws, agreed norms, international regimes and institutional rules (Baylis et al., 2011). Snyder (2004) suggests that liberals see trade and finance forging ties between nations as democratic norms spread. Mansbach & Rafferty (2008) note the different schools of thought within liberalism. Non-interventionist liberals hold that history will bring improvements in society without help from external actors, while interventionist liberals see it as a duty to intervene overseas in order to bring freedom, democracy and other liberal values to others. Neoliberalism holds that international organisations are critical for improving the prospects of order and peace. Liberalism can be examined from a variety of perspectives in tourism. The importance of international organisations is highlighted in liberalism and in tourism there are several organisations, including the UN World Tourism Organisation, the World Travel and Tourism Council, the Tourism Committee for the OECD, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation – Tourism Working Group, to name a few. A central element of liberalism is trade and finance between nations and tourism thrives in a free market economy (see Chapter 2) with multinational corporations free to operate across borders. One of the possible global threats in Figure 14.1 is systematic financial failure, and understanding liberal policies on trade may provide additional insight into the recent global economic crisis and how tourism has responded to it. In tourism, there is an increasing focus on poverty reduction and human rights linked to pro-poor tourism and volunteer tourism, which has links to the liberal ideas of welfare of the individual, poverty and human rights. Tourism Concern,

412

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

based in the UK, is well-known for its campaigns to end the injustices in tourism. Human rights and tourism as discussed in Chapter 13 have links to liberalism (see Snyder, 2004). Liberalism could also be used to examine the role of tourism in the emerging democracy of Tunisia. Tunisia was the first country to spark the uprisings that would lead to the Arab Spring in late 2010. In January of 2014, Tunisia signed a new constitution into law, enshrining freedom of religion and women’s rights (Associated Press, 2014). The tourism industry in Tunisia is incorporating the new democracy and constitution as part of its new image to attract tourists (Lynch, 2014).

Cosmopolitanism Cosmopolitanism is concerned with the equal moral status of every human being (Held, 2010). Held (2010: 69) outlines a set of eight principles of cosmopolitanism that can be universally shared and form the basis of the protection and nurturing of each person’s equal significance in the ‘moral realm of humanity’ as ‘(i) equal worth and dignity; (ii) active agency; (iii) personal responsibility and accountability; (iv) consent; (v) collective decisionmaking about public matters through voting procedures; (vi) inclusiveness and subsidiarity; (vii) avoidance of serious harm; and (viii) sustainability’. While Held (2010) does call for a universal approach, he does state that there is a need to recognise cultural specificity in interpreting and implementing cosmopolitan prescriptions and ideals. In a variety of countries there have been protest movements, from the Arab Spring to food riots in 2008 when global rice shortages coincided with dramatic increases in staple food prices resulting in food riots in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia (Ahmed, n.d.). Moynagh (2008: 7) examines political tourism within the context of cosmopolitanism. She argues that ‘political tourism can contribute to our understanding of what enables (or impedes) social justice work across transnational borders as well as radical inequalities and cultural differences between groups of people across the globe . . . If cosmopolitanism is an ethos to be embraced, then it is so by virtue of its proximity to the practices of solidarity that political tourists strive to engage in’. Solidarity tourism, justice tourism or tourism designed to assist those in need can be examined in volunteer tourism or the approaches offered through pro-poor tourism which again has links to liberalism. One company, Political Tours, is offering a trip to Ukraine in 2014 to investigate the recent crisis, and other excursions have been made to examine the US election, Scotland’s independence vote, Greece’s financial troubles, as well as North Korea and Libya (The Economist, 2014). Higgins-Desbiolles (2008) makes the argument that justice tourism not only tries to reform the inequalities and damage of contemporary tourism, it also attempts to chart a path to a more just global order. She also states that ‘various forms of alternative tourism including ecotourism, sustainability, peace through tourism and pro-poor

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

413

tourism have been co-opted by a defensive tourism industry in the face of widespread criticism and an active anti-capitalist globalisation movement’ (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008: 345). Justice tourism is presented as a singular model of difference within the various forms of alternative tourism as its products, services and agenda are radically different. The formation of the Tourism Interventions Group in association with the World Social Forum illustrates that justice tourism ‘aims for a fundamental transformation of the contemporary world order’ (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2008: 345). The World Social Forum is an annual meeting comprising grass-roots or civil society organisations set up in opposition to globalisation or neoliberalism and which typically meets at the same time as the World Economic Forum which is held in Davos, Switzerland (note this organisation is the source for Figure 14.1 above). At the 2009 World Social Forum, the ‘Declaration of Belem – Global Tourism Interventions Forum’ was developed, which calls for more just and sustainable practices by the industry and governments (Tourism Concern, 2009). In 2013 the World Social Forum met in Tunisia.

Marxism Marxism, or historical materialism as it is also referred to, stresses that it is the dominance of global capitalism and the conflict between classes and not the power of states that determines the main political patterns in the world (Baylis et al., 2011). Marx’s basic idea of dialectical materialism was that politics and historical change depended upon the relationships between the means of production and their relationship to those producing the goods, such as peasants and workers (Mansbach & Rafferty, 2008). In today’s world economic system, the dominant class interests are the states, multinational corporations and international organisations (Baylis et al., 2011). Marx believed that the oppressed classes (the proletariat) would rise up against their oppressors (the capitalists), thereby freeing the world from exploitation and class conflict (Mansbach & Rafferty, 2008). In looking at the challenges of realism to Marxism in international relations, Davenport (2011) highlights that realism focuses on the actions of the state while Marxism focuses on classes that stretch beyond borders. In Marxism, states have to play by the rules of the international capitalist economy, restricting the freedom of states’ manoeuvrability, while the world economy is divided into a core, semi-periphery and periphery and world politics is where class conflict is played out (Baylis et al., 2011). Contemporary or neo-Marxists focus on the relations of rich and poor countries and therefore focus on the global system (Mansbach & Rafferty, 2008). Marxism has been examined from a variety of perspectives in the context of tourism, especially related to power relations. Chapter 10 of this volume presents a discussion of the political economy of tourism. Questions have been raised as to whether the process of globalisation has led to a system of

414

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

exploitation whereby multinational tourism corporations take advantage of developing destinations. Marxism can be utilised to examine cruise lines that have been criticised for exploiting loopholes by employing people based on nationality so that they can be paid lower wages (Todd, 2012). One can also examine the political relationships between countries that have adopted a communist or Marxist type of government, such as Cuba or Vietnam, and other counties that have adopted a democratic and free market economy. Cuba is one country that after the Revolution installed a communist state. The US has had a 50-year embargo on the country which continues to impact on American travel to Cuba. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba increasingly turned to tourism as a source of income. However as Reid (2012) reports, the country is slowly undergoing a transformation towards capitalism.

Social constructivism Social constructivism emerged in the late 1980s. It argues that human agency has a much greater potential role, as was evident in the fall of the Berlin Wall, than is implied by realism and liberalism (Baylis et al., 2011). Although a more recent theory, its roots are traced back to social science and philosophical works disputing that the social world is external to those that live in it (Baylis et al., 2011). Wendt (1999) suggests that constructivist thinking on international relations was accelerated after the end of the Cold War as many in mainstream international relations were left with difficulty explaining this event. Constructionists argue that we make and remake the social world while other theories stress the regularities or certainties of political life, they are thereby underestimating the possibilities for human progress (Baylis et al., 2011). Schwandt (2000, cited in Ayikoru, 2009) stated that human beings do not find or discover knowledge so much as construct it. We invent models and schemes to make sense of experiences which are continually modified. These constructs are in turn linked to historical and social cultural influences occurring in a backdrop of shared understandings. The analysis of social construction of international politics is the analysis of the processes of interaction that ‘produce and reproduce the social structures – cooperative or conflictual – that shape actors’ identities and interests and the significance of their material contexts’ (Wendt, 1995: 81). Constructionists think that world politics are open to change as are the identities that other theories have taken as given (Baylis et al., 2011). Tourism is a social activity in multicultural environments and social constructivism has the potential to lead to a greater understanding of tourism (Paris, 2011). International travel is argued by some to create a better understanding between various peoples of the world. The International Institute for Peace Through Tourism is a non-profit organisation that fosters initiatives that contribute to international understanding and suggests ‘every traveller is potentially an “Ambassador for Peace”’ (IIPT, 2013). UNESCO (2013a)

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

415

launched the Silk Roads Project in 1988 as part of its mandate to ‘promote mutual understanding, tolerance, reconciliation and peace through dialogue’. The Silk Road linked East and West across Eurasia through trade. In 1994, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO)established the Silk Road Program through 25 countries and the tourism concept is set up to benefit the host communities and tourists. It focuses on marketing and promotion, capacity building and destination management and travel facilitation (UNWTO, n.d). UNESCO also links cities together through their Creative Cities Network, which aims to get cities to work ‘together towards a common mission for cultural diversity and sustainable urban development’ (UNESCO, 2013b). Social constructivism could also be utilised to examine different points of view from countries, destinations, host populations or tourists that are collaborating or competing or perhaps in conflict, which may have an impact on the tourism development process. Since early 2014, Venezuela has been the site of mass protests over the economy and crime, resulting in some airlines such as Air Canada suspending flights to the capital Caracas (Cripps, 2014). Airlines have also been unable to access funds earned through ticket sales as a result of tight currency controls in the country (Cripps, 2014). The Australian government (2014) updated its travel warnings to the country urging tourists to ‘exercise a high degree of caution’, warning about the protests but also stating ‘Venezuela has one of the world’s highest crime rates. Violent crime, including murder, armed robbery, kidnapping and carjacking, occurs throughout Venezuela.’ Social constructivism could be used to help illustrate different perspectives on civil unrest and poverty in Venezuela and its impact on tourism.

Post-structuralism Post-structuralism, also referred to as postmodernism, focuses on distrusting and exposing accounts of human life that claim to have direct access to the truth (Baylis et al., 2011). Post-structuralists reject meta-narratives which include other theories discussed in this chapter as they claim to have fundamental truths (Baylis et al., 2011). In writing on culture, Connor (1997: 8) states that postmodernism manifests itself in the ‘multiplication of centres of power and activity and the dissolution of every kind of totalizing narrative which claims to govern the whole complex field of social activity and representation’ (Connor, 1997: 8). Baylis et al. (2011) refer to the work of Foucault who argued that knowledge is not immune to the workings of power and that power produces knowledge. Power requires knowledge and all knowledge relies on and even reinforces existing power relations and so therefore there is no truth outside of power. The example given by Foucault on power influenced post-structuralists to examine the ‘truths’ in international relation theories and understand how dominant concepts in the various theories are based on power relationships (Baylis et al., 2011).

416

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

As Smith et al. (2010) indicate, the postmodern world is characterised by globalisation and hyper-consumerism, which is linked to the experience economy along with new developments in technology. A postmodern tourist then is one who embraces the increasingly inauthentic, commercialised and simulated experiences (Smith et al., 2010). In addition to simulated environments, there is also a dimension of postmodern tourism that is the search for the ‘real’ and linked to an appeal of natural or countryside tourism as part of postmodernism (Uriely, 1997). In the context of the Middle East, Steiner (2010) examines the development of hyper-realties in places such as Dubai and Bahrain. Mega-developments, such as the palm islands in Dubai, are elements of symbolic capital and ‘the accumulations of symbolic capital is necessary to succeed in the (global) competition for recognition and prestige’ (Steiner, 2010: 248). This symbolic capital has been driven in part by a booming demand to visit the ‘new orient of the twenty-first century’ (Steiner, 2010), but also has political value as the hyper-realities are also generating political legitimisation for neo-patrimonial and authoritarian regimes. Steiner (2010: 249) concludes that ‘the more hyper-real tourism spaces become the more they contribute to stabilisation of given structures and power’. Power relationships have also been examined in the context of postmodernism by Cheong and Miller (2000) who incorporated the work of Foucault by examining the relationship between tourists, locals and brokers. The increase in the number of protest movements against globalisation and financial corruption, such as the Occupy Wall Street movement, illustrate a growing frustration with the Washington Consensus. Similarly tourism non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as Tourism Concern, are also promoting campaigns to stop exploitation by multinational tourism corporations.

Post-colonialism Quayson (2000: 2) suggests post-colonialism involves ‘a studied engagement with the experience of colonialism and its past and present effects, both at the local level of ex-colonial societies as well as at the level of more general global developments thought to be the after-effects of empire’. It is becoming more recognised in international relations and examines how histories of the West and South are intertwined (Baylis et al., 2011). A central aspect of post-colonialism is that ‘global hierarchies of subordination and control, past and present, are made possible through the social construction of racial, gendered and class differences’ (Baylis et al., 2011: 6). Part of the subordination is linked to the notion that many theories, including realism, Marxism and liberalism, originated in the West and this may just help to continue the subordination of the global South (Baylis et al., 2011). One of the well-known writers in this field is Edward Said who wrote Orientalism in 1978. Orientalism is a term conceived in the West and

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

417

is the study of the people and the region and the West is portrayed as being culturally superior. The importance of incorporating indigenous knowledge in the development process has also been an area of study for post-colonial studies (Briggs & Sharp, 2004). In the context of tourism, Tucker and Akama (2009) indicate that postcolonialism has been used in the context of neo-colonialism as well as critical post-colonialism. In the context of neo-colonialism, the global tourism industry structure is such that it is dominated by corporations largely based in developed countries, which in turn exploit developing countries where tourists travel, setting up the conditions for dependency. Tourism as critical post-colonialism draws attention to the discursive aspects of power and control that exist in First World or Western/European representations as well as interest in developing countries (Tucker & Akama, 2009). Making reference to studies on Singapore, Malaysia and Fiji, Tucker and Akama (2009) highlight that there are governments struggling to know what to do with colonial heritage buildings that are tourist attractions generating revenue while at the same time they represent the colonial past for governments in their post-independence national mythmaking. Tourism scholars also focus on representations associated with indigenous tourism (Butler & Hinch, 2012), and indigenous peoples have faced numerous difficulties and challenges, placing their struggles within post-colonial discourse. Internationally, over the past three decades, the interaction between an emerging international indigenous movement along with a modern human rights regime has led to increasing recognition of indigenous peoples as distinct subjects of rights under international law (Rodríguez-Piñero, 2005; see Chapter 13). In September of 2014 there will be a UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. Johnston (2006) argues in her book Is the Sacred for Sale? Tourism and Indigenous Peoples that concerns have been raised over the level of consultation with indigenous peoples and the development of ecotourism as well as concerns over land rights (Johnston, 2006). She references the following statement by the Aga Khan who stated in 2004 that ‘[of] all the “isms”, tourism is the worst. It has in its path all the neo-colonial patterns’. In a more positive example, The Aboriginal Tourism Association of British Columbia, a non-profit membership organisation dedicated to developing a sustainable and culturally rich aboriginal tourism industry (Aboriginal Tourism BC, 2014) earned $45 million in 2013 up from $20 million in 2012 (Meissner, 2014).

Feminism Feminist thinkers argue that there has been a marginalisation of women in the arena of international relations and foreign policymaking through gender stereotyping (Tickner, 1992). Men have largely conducted foreign and military policymaking and, as a result, the study of international

418

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

relations is then bound to be primarily about men and masculinity (Tickner, 1992). Consequently, women have largely been absent from the accounts of international relations and international history (Mansbach & Rafferty, 2008). Feminist theory then views the world from the perspective of the disadvantaged, while taking greater account of inequality, ecological dangers and human rights in defining security than conventional or male international relations, which has tended to focus on the military (Mansbach & Rafferty, 2008; Sylvester, 1994). While there are many differences between the various theories in this chapter, some have common links, such as the links between feminism and post-colonial theory (see Lewis & Mills, 2003). Aitchison (2009) further differentiates between liberal feminists, Marxist feminists, radical feminists, social feminists and poststructural feminists. In the context of gender development, there have been various phases shifting from ‘women in development’ (WID) to ‘women and development’ (WID) to ‘gender and development’ (GAD) (Tucker & Boonabaana, 2012). In tourism, feminist studies have examined a range of issues including employment, sex inequality, sex tourism and gender-power relations in tourism (Aitchison, 2009; see Chapter 7). Numerous studies in tourism reflect that the relative benefits of the tourism development process are often controlled by a local elite and these groups usually comprise men (Tucker & Boonabaana, 2012). The third UN Millennium Development Goal is to promote gender equity and equality and empower women. Tucker and Boonabaana (2012) argue in a study on tourism that there is a need to move beyond instrumentalist approaches which are Eurocentric in approach to one that moves beyond simplistic notions of female empowerment, particularly in non-Western settings, to consider cultural complexity and shifting dynamics of how gender roles, norms and inequalities affect and are affected by development and the poverty reduction outcomes. Numerous development agencies and NGOs have programmes specifically targeting women and girls. ‘Plan’ is one of the oldest and largest development agencies and focuses on improving the lives of children. One of their current campaigns is ‘Because I am a Girl’ (Plan Canada, 2013). Linked to this campaign is a programme to stop child sex tourism. Their website states ‘[in] Colombia, where extreme poverty and tourism combine to make this country the sex tourism capital of the Americas, our programs are educating and empowering girls who are at risk to challenge local attitudes and call on officials to enforce the law and protect young people’ (Plan Canada, 2014). World Vision is another NGO that has a programme aimed at ending child trafficking. Understanding places of conflict from a feminist perspective is another example of the role of international studies in studying tourism. Dowler (2013) utilised feminist geopolitical analysis in the context of West Belfast in Northern Ireland in understanding the ‘politics of hospitality’ as a way to reframe an understanding of security.

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

419

Globalisation ‘Globalisation is a dynamic process of liberalization, openness, and international integration across a wide range of markets, from labour to goods and from services to capital and technology’ (de la Dehesa, 2006: 1). De la Dehesa (2006) also poses globalisation in the context of freedom. Freedom to trade globally and capitalise on competitive advantage, freedom to invest where it is favourable, freedom to open up shop where one chooses whether as a business seeking higher profit or an individual seeking better wages. The expansion of globalisation has also been facilitated thorough various institutions and agreement such as the G8, World Bank, IMF, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as well as the EU. With a greater integration in financial markets, however, financial globalisation has been held responsible for increasing frequency in financial crises (de la Dehesa, 2006). This has been evident in the global financial crisis that started in 2008 and the Eurozone crisis. There are also challenges to the nation-state in whether countries give up autonomy in opening up their borders. The challenges related to global complexity are reflected in the comments by Urry (2003), whereby at the same time there are tens of millions of refugees and asylum seekers roaming the globe, there are 3 billion people worldwide that have the same total income as the richest 300. He also states that globally branded companies that employ people all over the world have greater budgets than some individual countries. The tourism industry is highly reliant upon many of the forces at work in globalisation. From the free movement of tourists across global transportation networks to the movement of investment capital and technology, which all play a key role in the tourism development process. Global flows of foreign direct investment by multinational tourism corporations, air transport regulations and the operations of the growing cruise industry (Debbage & Gallaway, 2009), to name a few, all illustrate the links between international studies and tourism. Destinations face intense global competition and their respective development agencies offer attractive investment incentives while at the same time facing significant economic leakages and potential cultural erosion. Protests against the inequalities in globalisation have been growing against global institutions and at their meetings such as the World Social Forum. As de la Dehesa (2006: 189) argues ‘[the] greatest challenge for the twenty-first century is, undoubtedly, finding a way to use the extraordinary benefits that globalisation and the present technological revolutions are bringing, to create institutions that enhance international solidarity and enable us to overcome the comparatively harmful effects on some economies and some peoples’. Globalisation can be utilised as a lens to examine many of the global threats in Figure 14.1 that link to tourism, whether it be climate change, a financial crisis, spread of a disease or cyber-attacks.

420

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Tourism and the Interdisciplinarity of International Studies In addition to using the overriding theories discussed above to examine global issues, international studies also incorporates a range of interconnected disciplines to global problems. The Anderson et al. (2013) approach in international studies incorporates the integrated disciplines of history, geography, anthropology, economics and politics. They argue that never before has the world been so integrated and politics, markets, culture, the media and information are no longer local but global (Anderson et al., 2013: 1). In incorporating their selected disciplines, Anderson et al. (2013) offer the following explanations. History is important to understanding global events. Different memories or interpretations of historical events are at the heart of many international conflicts. The controversy between the UN and Iran over the nuclear issue has its roots in ‘Iran’s resentment of British imperialism and US interventions in Iran’s domestic affairs during the cold war’ (Anderson et al., 2013: 3). Geographic study is at the heart of many international problems including ‘population density, spread of disease, water shortages, environmental degradation, border conflicts, population flows, use of space and transportation networks’ (Anderson et al., 2013: 4). Political science examines power relationships and includes democratic development, international institutions, international relations and international conflict and conflict resolutions as they relate to international studies. Political relationships are becoming more complex as international human rights organisations and the media can disseminate information through the internet on government policies; consequently, countries such as China, North Korea and Iran have tried to regulate the internet. Anthropology examines global cultures, including similarities and differences of human environments, languages, ideologies, economic systems and political systems (Anderson et al., 2013: 5). There are global cultural transfers placing pressures on traditional life as well as the exploration of a ‘clash of civilizations’ (Hungtington, 1996), or others suggesting that integration is bringing people closer together (Anderson et al., 2013). Economists examine production, distribution and consumption of goods and services while international economic concerns focus on financial relationships, trade regimes and economic development (Anderson et al., 2013). A central economic argument being made is between economic nationalists and globalists. The globalists argue for free and open trade between states for economic growth while economic nationalists argue free trade lowers wages and generates increased economic disparity within and between countries (Anderson et al., 2013). In closing their rationale for advocating the use of their selected disciplines for international studies, Anderson et al. (2013) use the example of terrorism. A historian may cast this in a continuum of historical conflicts between the Middle East and Western

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

421

imperialists. A political scientist may view this through the lens of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. An economist may focus on the poverty in the Middle East, of the challenges with modernisation and economic development. Finally Anderson et al. (2013) suggest an anthropologist may examine the cultural symbols used to recruit people into terrorist organisations. Bringing these various disciplines together through international studies as a way to examine tourism will be illustrated below. Before examining the selected disciplines that Anderson et al., (2013) suggest are applicable to international studies, it is important to note that the list of disciplines here is far from exhaustive. Other disciplines such as psychology, sociology or business could be added and there is also a danger of generalisations within the selected disciplines presented below. However, the aim of this chapter is to explore the idea that the tourism development process needs to be understood within a broader context and, hence, these disciplines are used here as an example to demonstrate this potential. It is also important to recognise that tourism is very much an interdisciplinary field of study and the call for a greater link with international studies may help in investigating the challenges associated with using tourism as an agent of development in the context of global risks.

History History can be examined from several perspectives that inform international studies, including political and diplomatic history, economic history, cultural and social history and intellectual history (Anderson et al., 2013). Understanding the historical accounts of conflicts such as the Arab–Israeli conflict, the Yugoslav Civil War, or the history of the Korean Peninsula is key to understanding present-day realities in which tourism is trying to function. On the African continent, millions have died as a result of civil wars in Sudan, Somalia, Chad and Congo and the UN reports that Africa has the greatest number of states that are susceptible to economic and political collapse (Anderson et al., 2013). Eritrea, for example, faced a 30-year war for independence and ongoing conflict with Ethiopia over the border and the US (US Department of State, 2013) and Canada (Government of Canada, 2014) are just two of the countries that have issued travel warnings to the country. Sri Lanka faced civil war for decades and the government is now trying to develop the tourism industry. In Passekudah Bay, the government has established a special tourism development zone where there has been an allocation of leases for luxury hotels to build 800 rooms in order to bring in 2.5 million tourists by 2016 (BBC, 2013c).

Geography The study of geography brings many dimensions to international studies. Space, region and environment are three ways of geographic thinking

422

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

(Anderson et al., 2013). The spatial component includes location, spatial interactions with flows of people, resources and ideas and the final component is spatial organisation. With the liberalisation of air transportation services, there has been a rise in the number of low-cost carriers and in Europe secondary airports are being opened up by companies such as Ryanair, generating additional tourism-related opportunities (Fageda & Flores-Fillol, 2012). Political borders can also be a tourist attraction, such as the border between North and South Korea, but they can also be barriers (Timothy, 2001). In international studies, the dispute over territory between Israel and Palestine has significant implications for tourism. Regions can be classified as formal or uniform regions, where a selected physical or human characteristic is present throughout, or functional regions, where an area has an activity with a network, focal point or node (Anderson et al., 2013; see Chapter 5). The creation of parkland with safari tours to the exclusion of indigenous communities, such as the Maasai, has generated debate. International studies examines formal regions such as Latin America with their established language, culture, history and economy and functional regions with global cities such as Shanghai, Mumbai Mexico City, and Los Angeles as nodes representing opportunities for tourism (Anderson et al., 2013). One cannot understand tourism in Shanghai, for example, without an understanding of the geography of the area and combining it with knowledge from the other disciplines. However, one must be cautious about generalisations when discussing regions. The final aspect of geography relates to the environment and how humans modify and react to the natural environment (Anderson et al., 2013). One only has to look at the changes that have evolved with respect to the area of sustainability. Lipman (2013) suggests that the global policy agenda has shifted from planet through people and climate over the last decade and, since the Rio + 20 Summit in 2012, it has come down on the green growth path. The tourism industry sustainability agenda has gone from ecotourism and conservation though responsible, pro-poor and fair trade tourism. The industry greening programmes and supply chain extension programmes have moved from awareness to industry certification and global indicators for communities and over the last decade there has been a shift to climate and carbon reduction (Lipman, 2013). As noted in Chapter 11, climate change is becoming recognised as an issue that is going to have major impacts on the tourism development process.

Anthropology Anderson et al. (2013) indicate there are at least four dimensions that anthropology offers to international studies. The first is the importance of culture in explaining human actions at every level of society from interpersonal to international. Second, anthropology urges a more sophisticated approach to cultural boundaries and writes about cultures in the context of

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

423

communities and societies rather than being delimitated by lines on a map. Third, anthropology encourages us to recognise the unexpected outcomes of international actions on communities beyond the intended targets and so ‘dictators, presidents, ministers, ayatollahs and military commanders are not the only political actors who matter in the world’ (Anderson et al., 2013). Fourth, anthropology is about people and learning from them and not fear or dismissing difference. Within the context of tourism, travel involves the interactions of hosts and guests. It also is important in understanding past events and human behaviour. The Rwanda genocide, which took place in 1994, saw the deaths of hundreds of thousands and was the result of longstanding conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi peoples. Tours are now available that bring visitors to the memorial sites and international hotel chains have started to return (Sharpley, 2012). Plans are underway for a five-star Marriot and four-star Radisson to open in Kigali (Adams, 2012). The tourism industry also is responsible in part for creating the image of a destination. Thai hospitality is often seen to be embedded within Thai culture but recent political protests, including the 2008 takeover of the Bangkok airport by anti-government demonstrators and the threat of a farmers’ protest in February 2014, also at Bangkok airport, illustrate that tourism images do not always reflect reality. Wynne-Hughes (2012) argues that tourism industry discourses position destinations in a certain light. Examining guidebooks on Egypt she poses the question ‘who would go to Egypt?’ in the light of counterterrorism discourses. She argues ‘guidebooks not only account for terrorism but represent Egypt in a way that largely reinforces British and Egyptian “war on terror” strategies. These strategies similarly project subjects and spaces that uphold Western liberal democratic values’ (2012: 615). Her study illustrates the constitutive role of tourism in international politics and the ways in which the current Western liberal order is (re)produced. Since the start of the Arab Spring, Egypt has been the site of political uncertainty which has reduced tourism numbers significantly.

Economics Economics offers debates between major paradigms, including liberal economics, economic nationalism and Marxism (Anderson et al., 2013). Marxist policies have seen resurgence in some Latin American economies, including Bolivia and Venezuela (Anderson et al., 2013). In Venezuela, the government expropriated the Caracas Hilton hotel as part of a plan towards greater state control and it is now operating with socialist values (Carroll, 2009). Globalisation is largely built on neoliberalism and the easing of trade restrictions between countries as outlined in the Washington Consensus. However, critics suggest it also comes at the cost of consolidation and homogenisation of global social processes (Anderson et al., 2013). Sustainable

424

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

development, in part emphasised by the UN Brundtland Report, has encouraged economists to consider the future costs of controlling resource depletion and global warming as well as maintaining biodiversity (Anderson et al., 2013). Non-Western economics have also received attention in the context of tourism. The Himalayan state of Bhutan promotes its Gross National Happiness Index in the country, which incorporates non-economic aspects of well-being and tourism, and has focused on controlling the cultural and environmental impacts of Western tourism (Brunet et al., 2001). As discussed earlier in this chapter, of particular concern has been the global economic crisis of 2008 in the US that led to the collapse of financial institutions, bank bailouts by national governments, stock market and housing market slumps and the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis where entire countries had to be bailed out (Anderson et al., 2013). In Africa, countries which had been integrating into the global financial system saw demand for their products drop and this was accompanied by a decline in international aid (Anderson et al., 2013). International aid has been controversial and Moyo (2009) argues that, over the last 50 years, over $1 trillion in development aid has moved from rich countries to Africa with the recipients much worse off as a result. In terms of the global economic crisis for tourism, Papatheodorou et al. (2010) suggest that for destination choice, travellers will stay closer to home (staycation), increasing domestic tourism. Internationally there will be a decline in length of stay and expenditures, which will be more pronounced than a decline in the number of arrivals, and value-for-money destinations will be preferred. An emerging question coming out this crisis is whether there is a change in the global order as the West struggles financially and countries such as China, which has been investing heavily in Africa, are on the rise.

Politics Politics has been referred to as human interactions involving both power and conflict, and this incorporates not only government decisions but also those that take place outside government (Anderson et al., 2013). An important distinction needs to be made between international studies and international relations. International relations is a sub-field of political science, while international studies is an interdisciplinary approach to exploring the world (Anderson et al., 2013). The key fields of politics that pertain to international studies include comparative politics, political theory and public administration (Anderson et al., 2013). The theories discussed in this chapter, such as realism and liberalism, are key to understanding international politics, while understanding the type of government in a destination and their position along the political spectrum is key for tourism investors. The manner in which a society’s members choose their leaders and government and, hence, the influence on policy is key in a typology of political systems (Anderson et al., 2013). The actions of the military government in Myanmar

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

425

(Burma) raised human rights concerns with various groups advocating boycotting travelling to and investing in the country (Hudson, 2007). Recent limited reforms in the country have seen it emerge from isolation with the lifting of non-military sanctions (BBC, 2013a) and there are signs that the foreign tourism investors are interested in investing and the government of Norway along with the Asian Development Bank provided $500 million for a Tourism Master Plan in June 2013 (ADB, 2013). One sign of perceived stability in a country is visitor numbers. However, protests that start about a specific issue can quickly become more involved. In May 2013, in Turkey, protests erupted over the development of parkland in the city of Istanbul and quickly became a wider dispute over government policies and actions. In Brazil, also in May 2013, protests in Sao Paulo over the increase in bus fares by 10% grew into a nationwide movement over better education, health care and transport (BBC, 2013b). In 2014, the crisis in Ukraine has generated a great deal of uncertainty, as has the ongoing crisis in Syria. These types of events can raise concerns about safety for visitors not only to specific countries but also to surrounding regions. Countries post travel advisories to countries if they feel there is a danger or potential threat for their citizens who travel there. In the case of The Gambia, however, Sharpley et al. (1996) raise the question whether official travel advice provides an opportunity for tourism to be a political bargaining tool. In their edited volume, Butler and Suntikul (2010) explore significant developments, including the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of Apartheid and the break-up of the Soviet Union and their impacts on the tourism industry. Politics and global issues can also be seen through the lens of international alliances. As indicated above, tourism has been important as a way to instigate or enlarge the scope of cooperative alliances between nations, such as through ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), while other international organisations like the UNWTO and PATA (Pacific Area Travel Association), expressly focused on tourism, have been active in lobbying individual countries and international organisations (Richter, 1983). Having examined selected global events and tourism in the contexts of a variety of disciplines, it is important to note that international studies tries to bring all of these together in examining global issues. Referring back to Figure 14.1, those involved with the global risks study were asked to rate selected global issues in terms of centres of gravity or the one risk they thought was systematically the most important in that particular group (economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological). The top five centres of gravity included major systemic financial failure, failure of climate change adaptation, global governance failure, water supply crisis (societal) and critical systems failure (technological). These five issues were thought to have the most significant effect on other issues, thereby illustrating the nature of the complexity of global issues. Understanding these issues

426

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

within the context of a variety of disciplines as they relate to international studies would help provide a better understanding of their impact on tourism development. Paris (2011) argues that tourism is dynamic and influenced by greater social trends and events (e.g. terrorism, global economic crisis, technology change, climate change and pandemics) and tourism education needs to provide students with the abilities to understand the intersection of these trends and tourism.

Conclusions Having examined a range of global issues in the context of theories and disciplines linked to international studies and tourism, one can return to the question as to how global issues can be a barrier and challenge for the tourism development process. Certainly, when there is an event such as a natural disaster or open conflict in a destination, most tourists will initially stay away. This can be quickly seen in visitor numbers and occupancy rates. Within a 24-hour news cycle, things can change very quickly in a rapid information society. As evident in the issue-attention cycle, events can quickly pass from the public’s attention and are replaced by a different event/issue. Some of the events mentioned in this chapter will quickly become dated as this book goes to print; however, not all of these issues will be solved and will have longer term impacts for destinations, locals, operators and tourists to consider. Beyond the events that often quickly make the news and then disappear are the longer-term situations in destinations, such as crime, human rights violations, government suppression of individuals and groups. Often, these longer-term issues do not necessarily make the news on a regular basis. This leads to the question as to what is the awareness level of tourists or the tourism industry regarding these situations. Perhaps awareness is there, but does it stop tourists from travelling or stop the investment from the tourism industry? International tourism tends to be resilient as levels of international travel continue to rise and tend to rebound reasonably quickly after a negative event. However, where the event took place, there can be ongoing challenges for the destination and tourism to recover. An example of visitor number recovery can be seen in Chinese travel to Japan, which has recovered in 2014 despite the island territorial dispute due to a weak yen and a relaxation in visa policies (Wen, 2014). Snyder (2004) suggests that examining different theories, such as realism or liberalism, offers a filter for looking at a complicated picture and can help explain assumptions behind political rhetoric. Different theories of global politics and the different selected academic disciplines highlighted here in the context of international studies highlight different perspectives. Each differing viewpoint offers insights as to the nature of the global issue and what bearing it may have on tourism. As noted earlier, Smil (2008: 3) argues that

Tour ism, Development and Inter nat ional Studies

427

there is a need to focus on understanding change, learning from the past, using a broad spectrum of knowledge, while identifying major factors that will shape the global future and evaluating their probabilities and potential impacts. When a global issue comes to light through the media, it is not enough to simply ask a question like whether visitor numbers will increase or decrease. The tourism development process needs to be understood within a much broader context. It has been argued here that international studies offers an integrated perspective to examine the nature of tourism in the development process, in the context of our ever increasing connected global world.

15 Sustainability: A Barrier to Tourism Development? Richard Sharpley

Introduction As has been emphasised throughout this book, since international tourism first emerged as a major socio-economic phenomenon in the 1960s it has been almost universally adopted as a vehicle of development. Few, if any, countries do not now seek to attract tourists and, for most, tourism represents an integral element of their development policies. In some cases it may be the dominant economic sector, particularly in less developed countries or island economies, and is thus depended upon as the primary engine of economic growth and potential social development. In other cases, more commonly in the modern, industrialised world, tourism principally contributes to economic diversification and regeneration and, hence, is less fundamental to the broader development process. Nevertheless, irrespective of its role and importance, it is difficult to identify any nation that has not, to a greater or lesser extent, embraced tourism within its development policies. Even the oil-rich emirate of Abu Dhabi, with more oil reserves per hectare than anywhere else on earth, has for a number of years favoured the development of tourism as the basis for encouraging economic stability in the face of oil-price volatility (Camble, 1999; Davidson, 2009; Sharpley, 2002). However, it is not only for the extent to which it has been positively adopted as a development policy that tourism is remarkable. The rapid growth in tourism over the last half century has also been mirrored by an almost equally rapid increase in the number of commentators drawing attention to the potentially negative or destructive consequences of tourism development. Initially, concerns were voiced by the ‘Limits to Growth’ school who, reflecting the then contemporary criticism of unbridled economic growth (Andersen, 1991; Schumacher, 1974), called for restraint in the development of tourism (Mishan, 1969; Young, 1973). More specific studies of tourism’s consequences followed in the late 1970s and early 1980s (de Kadt, 1979b; 428

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

429

Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Smith, 1977; Turner & Ash, 1975) and, arguably, by the 1990s no subject concerned academics, journalists, pressure groups and certain sectors of the tourism industry more than the so-called ‘impacts of tourism’. To a great extent, criticism focused specifically on the phenomenon of mass tourism. In other words, problems associated with the development of tourism were widely considered to reflect, in particular, the alleged ‘crisis’ of mass tourism (Croall, 1995; Poon, 1993). It is not surprising, therefore, that the concept of ‘alternative’ (to mass) tourism gained support as a potential means of minimising the negative consequences of tourism while optimising the benefits both to the destination and to tourists (see Smith & Eadington, 1992). Proposing new, integrated and environmentally benign forms of tourism development, alternative tourism formed the foundation for the concept of sustainable tourism development which, throughout the last two decades, has remained the dominant approach to the promotion, management and practice of tourism. Reflecting and appropriating the principles and objectives of the broader sustainable development paradigm (see Chapter 2), sustainable tourism development addresses many (and often justifiable) concerns and criticisms of mass tourism and forms the basis of many tourism development policies at destinational and national levels. Many of the tourism development issues and challenges raised throughout this book are also embraced by the sustainable tourism concept. That is, sustainable tourism as, in principle, a vehicle for (sustainable) development, offers potential solutions to many of the problems and weaknesses of tourism-related development identified in the preceding chapters. For example, increasing and spreading the local retention of income from tourism (Chapter 3), addressing the global challenge of poverty reduction (Chapter 4) empowering local communities in tourism development (Chapter 6) and minimising negative environmental impacts both generally (Chapter 9) and in the context of climate change in particular (Chapter 11) are all, in addition to being desirable characteristics and outcomes of tourism, fundamental objectives of sustainable tourism development. However, despite widespread support for its aims and principles, sustainable tourism development remains, as does its parental paradigm, a contested concept (Liu, 2003; Redclift, 1987; Sharpley, 2000a). Indeed, not only has the validity of sustainable tourism as a practical or realistic model for the development of tourism long been questioned in many quarters but also, in more recent years, it has been argued that the concept of sustainable tourism development is based upon flawed foundations. Specifically, it is suggested that the age-old notion of (environmental) sustainability has been appropriated and misapplied to the contexts of economy and society, creating objectives – economic sustainability and social sustainability – that are at best ambiguous and at worst meaningless (Mundt, 2011). Consequently, it has been argued elsewhere (Sharpley, 2009b: 58) that ‘the time has come to “close the book” on sustainable tourism

430

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

development’. That is, there is a need to move beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism development as a dominant and prescriptive ‘meta-policy’ for tourism and to explore alternative and potentially more effective means of addressing the specific developmental needs of individual destinations through tourism. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to consider the extent to which the concept of sustainable tourism is an overly prescriptive and restrictive approach to tourism development, in effect acting as a barrier to development. In so doing, it does not seek to write off sustainable tourism (or the broader concept of sustainable development) as unworkable or inappropriate. Indeed, from a variety of viewpoints, such as environmental, business, ethical and so on, both the production and consumption of tourism can and does benefit in a general sense from the adoption of the inherent principles of sustainable development. At the same time, the sustainability of all human activities, including tourism, requires the maintenance of the ‘source and sink’ functions of the global ecosystem and, thus, environmental sustainability remains a prerequisite of tourism development. Nevertheless, as this chapter argues, the notion of sustainable tourism suffers from a theoretical fragility that not only calls into question its universal applicability – as one commentator has suggested, ‘it will be difficult to come up with useful principles for tourism development which are true for all places and all times’ (Wall, 1997: 47) – but which also has led to a specific focus on tourism resource conservation and protection. As a result, traditional, largescale tourism developments, which for some destinations remain the most effective means of achieving desired developmental outcomes, have come to be discredited.

Tourism, Development and Sustainability As considered in Chapter 2, the concept of sustainable tourism development had, by the mid-1990s ‘achieved virtual global endorsement as the new [tourism] industry paradigm’ (Godfrey, 1996: 60). Since then, it has maintained this position. At the international, national, local and industry sectoral levels, a plethora of policy documents, planning guidelines, statements of ‘good practice’, case studies, codes of conduct for tourists and other publications have been and continue to be produced, all broadly concerned with the issue of sustainable tourism development. Moreover, the concept of sustainable tourism continues to enjoy recognition and support in global development policy circles. For example, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg in 2002 (‘Rio +10’, following on from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992), called for the promotion of ‘sustainable tourism development . . . in order to increase the benefits from tourism resources for the population in host communities whilst

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

431

maintaining [their] cultural and environmental integrity’ (WSSD, 2002, IV, Para 43). More recently, the Outcome Statement of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (‘Rio +20’) similarly states: 130. We emphasize that well-designed and managed tourism can make a significant contribution to the three dimensions of sustainable development, has close linkages to other sectors, and can create decent jobs and generate trade opportunities . . . We call for enhanced support for sustainable tourism activities and relevant capacity-building in developing countries in order to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. (UN, 2013a) Such widespread and continued acceptance of the concept of sustainable tourism development is not surprising. The emergence of environmentalism as a dominant global political and social movement from the late 1960s meant that a new, environmental dimension has been added to most economic, political and social activities (Yearley, 1992). Subsequently, successive international conferences, from the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) to the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro referred to above, as well as various strategies, such as the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1980), the widely cited Brundtland Report, ‘Our Common Future’ (WCED, 1987), and the Rio ‘Agenda 21’, all served to place environmental concern high on the agenda of most public and private sector organisations by the end of the last century. Moreover, in some cases, such strategies directly informed global tourism development policies, as evidenced by, for example, the publication of ‘Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry’ (WTO/WTTC, 1996). More specifically, the tourism industry has long been obliged to respond to both the mounting criticism directed at certain forms of tourism development, in particular mass tourism development that is considered to pay little or no respect to the local physical and socio-cultural environment, and to the alleged demands on the part of tourists for more environmentally appropriate or benign tourism experiences (see Chapter 12). As a result, many destinational organisations have formulated strategies for the development of sustainable tourism. For example, during the 1990s the development of tourism in Australia was been guided by the National Ecotourism Strategy which, identifying eight key programmes addressing specific aspects of tourism development, such as planning, market research and sound environmental practice, resulted in a ‘heightened awareness among Australian tourism destinations of green issues and environmental management’ (Diamantis, 1999). Many other destinations, such as Costa Rica, have also adopted ecotourism policies, whilst yet others follow more general sustainable development principles. At the same time, there is increasing evidence that the tourism industry, at the level of the principals, such as airlines and accommodation providers,

432

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

are adopting environmentally sound policies (Diamantis, 1999; Middleton & Hawkins, 1993, 1994). Similarly, tour operators are increasingly developing products, in particular ‘eco-tours’, that at least appear to be based upon environmental principles whilst ‘responsible’ holidays appear to be an increasingly popular experience sought by tourists (Goodwin, 2011; responsibletravel. com). Nevertheless, it is also interesting to note that, as Forsyth (1995) identified in early research, there continues to be little evidence of a common development and business philosophy according to sustainable principles across the travel and tourism industry whilst, from a consumption point of view, recent years have witnessed little or no decrease in the demand for the traditional, summer-sun package holiday (see also Chapter 12). For example, in 2012 some 14.5 million overseas package holidays were sold in the UK, not surprisingly fewer than in the 1990s but, despite the internet-fuelled growth in independent travel, still representing over 40% of all outbound leisure travel from the UK (Mintel, 2013). Despite the apparent continuing support for and adoption of the principles of sustainable tourism development, however, they remain the subject of intense debate. That is, it remains unclear whether the concept of sustainable tourism represents, on the one hand, a viable and realistic set of guidelines for developing and managing tourism, based upon a solid theoretical understanding of the relationship between tourism and the broader development process, or, on the other hand, a politically attractive objective that is unachievable in practice. Certainly, as discussed in Chapter 2, the emergence of sustainable tourism development has mirrored, perhaps accidentally (although it has been argued that sustainable tourism represents the logical end of a journey from ‘idealism to realism’ (Dowling, 1992)), the advent of its parental concept, sustainable development, as the dominant paradigm of development. At the same time, as knowledge and understanding of the relationship between tourism, the environment and development has evolved, so too have new perspectives on tourism development theory and practice, suggesting that sustainable tourism is the logical outcome of increased knowledge of tourism theory and practice. This evolution of tourism theory has, according to Jafari (1989), passed through four identifiable stages, namely advocacy, caution, adaptancy and knowledge, and, as mentioned in Chapter 2, it is not coincidental that these stages parallel to a certain extent the evolution of development theory. This process can be reviewed and summarised as follows:

Advocacy During the 1960s, a period synchronous with its actual rapid growth, tourism was positively viewed as a vehicle for national and international development. Reflecting neo-classical modernisation ideology, the developmental potential of tourism was considered to lie in its contribution to

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

433

economic growth, its success measured by indicators such as income and employment generation and the multiplier effect. At the same time, tourism was seen as co-existing with its environment (Budowski, 1976; Dowling, 1992). That is, within the prevailing technocentrist environmental ideology, tourism and conservation were considered separate issues and the potential impacts were, for the most part, overlooked.

Cautionary From the late 1960s onwards, there was growing awareness of increasing conflict between tourism and its physical and socio-cultural environment. Such conflict was occurring not only as a result of the rapidly increasing scale and scope of international tourism, but also because tourism was evolving ‘in a way that closely matches historical patterns of colonialism and economic dependency’ (Lea, 1988: 10). A number of commentators drew parallels between tourism and the centre-periphery dependency model of development (Britton, 1982b; Høivik & Heiberg, 1980), arguing that tourism destinations were becoming dependent upon metropolitan centres for capital, technology, expertise and tourists themselves. In other words, tourism theory embraced the dependency paradigm of development, with tourism reflecting the neo-colonial dependence model and, in particular, the dualistic development model whereby development reinforces the dualistic, rich/poor dichotomy within and between underdeveloped and developed countries (Todaro, 2000).

Adaptancy During the 1980s, attempts were made to bridge the ideological gulf between the preceding antithetical positions in tourism theory. Alternatives (to mass tourism) were proposed in the form of ‘responsible’, ‘soft’, ‘appropriate’ or ‘green’ tourism, all of which attempted to transpose the concept of alternative development – an endogenous development process based upon the satisfaction of basic needs, self-reliance and environmental harmony – onto tourism. Thus, the concept of alternative tourism proposes, in direct contrast to mass, Fordist-type tourism production, locally controlled, appropriate small-scale developments with the community as the primary instigators and beneficiaries of tourism (Figure 15.1).

Knowledge Inevitably, the idealism (Dowling, 1992) of alternative tourism overlooked a number of ‘fundamental truths’ (McKercher, 1993a) of tourism, in particular both the exogenous factors that influence the scale, style and rate of tourism development and also the behaviour of tourists as consumers of the tourism product. Moreover, by definition, it represented an alternative,

434

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Conventional mass tourism

Alternative forms of tourism

General features Rapid development Maximises Socially/environmentally inconsiderate Uncontrolled Short term Uncontrolled Sectoral Remote control

Slow development Optimises Socially/environmentally considerate Controlled Long term Controlled Holistic Local control

Development strategies Development without planning Project-led schemes Tourism development everywhere Concentration on ‘honey-pots’ New building Development by outsiders Employees imported Urban architecture

First plan, then develop Concept-led schemes Development in suitable places Pressures and benefits diffused Re-use of existing buildings Local developers Local employment utilised Vernacular architecture

Tourist behaviour Large groups Fixed programme Little time ‘Sights’ Imported lifestyle Comfortable/passive Loud Shopping

Singles, families, friends Spontaneous decisions Much time ‘Experiences’ Local lifestyle Demanding/active Quiet Bring presents

Figure 15.1 Characteristics of mass versus alternative tourism Source: Adapted from Butler (1990); Lane (1990).

not a solution, to the alleged problems associated with mass tourism development. Therefore, it evolved into the broader perspective of sustainable tourism development which embodies, according to Jafari (1989), a greater knowledge and understanding of tourism’s developmental processes underpinned by contributions from a variety of disciplines. Questions remain, however, about the extent to which sustainable tourism development is achievable in practice. That is, although the last two decades have witnessed widespread support for and adherence to the principles of sustainable tourism, it remains the subject of intense debate,

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

435

reflecting, to a great extent, the ambiguity of both its inherent processes and its objectives. This may, of course, represent one of the strengths of the concept. As one commentator notes, the parental paradigm of sustainable development: struck a middle ground between more radical approaches which denounced all development, and the idea of development conceived as business as usual. The idea of Sustainable Development, although broad, loose and tinged with lots of ambiguity around its edges, turned out to be palatable to everybody. This may have been its greatest virtue: it is radical yet not offensive. (Skolimowski, 1995) The same may be said about its tourism offspring, sustainable tourism development. Its vague, ambiguous yet politically attractive principles and aims can be variously interpreted and appropriated to suit the needs of different organisations or interest groups and, as a result, it has become a catch-all phrase; ‘to some . . . [it is] all about new products or market segments, to others, it is a process of development, while still to others it represents a guiding principle to which all tourism should aspire’ (Godfrey, 1996: 61). On the one hand, this universality may be considered beneficial in that it encourages environmental awareness, in some form or another, throughout the tourism system. On the other hand, however, it also enables the misappropriation of the concept, hence the argument that sustainable tourism development represents little more than a convenient, attractive ‘green’ mantle behind which the tourism industry has been able to hide. What is certain is the fact that, as a consequence of its ambiguity, sustainable tourism development defies precise definition. Nevertheless, much of the literature remains concerned with definitional, as opposed to operational, issues, to the extent that ‘defining sustainable development in the context of tourism has become something of a cottage industry’ (Garrod & Fyall, 1998). Such definitions fall primarily into two broad categories, namely ‘tourism-centric’ definitions (Hunter, 1995), which focus upon the environmental sustainability of tourism as a specific economic activity, and those which view tourism as an integral element of wider sustainable development policies. At the same time, sustainable tourism development has also been referred to as an ‘adaptive paradigm’, or a set of meta-principles within which ‘several different development pathways may be legitimised according to circumstance’ (Hunter, 1997). Whilst this particular conceptualisation is undoubtedly attractive, however, it also neatly sidesteps the need for a concise definition, thereby failing to provide a yardstick against which the viability of the concept may be measured. It is not the purpose here to review the extensive literature on the ‘sustainable tourism debate’ (see, for example Butler, 1999a; France, 1997; Murphy & Price, 2005; Priestly et al., 1996; Ruhanen, 2008; Stabler, 1997),

436

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

though it is interesting that, reflecting the waning academic interest in the topic, the majority of papers critiquing the phenomenon were written prior to the publication of the first edition of this book in 2002. Nevertheless, both the justification for and a recurrent theme throughout this book is the failure within the literature to explore the relationship between the theoretical foundations of tourism studies and development studies. This is particularly so in the case of sustainable tourism development, where the lack of theoretical grounding has led to an apparently rigid acceptance that the principles and objectives of sustainable development can be easily transposed onto most tourism development contexts (Inskeep, 1991: xviii). As argued elsewhere, this is not necessarily the case (Sharpley, 2000b, 2009b) and, as a result, not only has sustainable tourism development frequently failed to live up to expectations but also it has arguably been most effective as a politically attractive red herring. In other words, as this chapter now argues, sustainable tourism has acted as a barrier to (sustainable) development owing to its theoretical weakness, its ambiguity and, in particular, its blueprint approach to developing tourism in diverse contexts.

What is Sustainable Tourism Development? As suggested above, it has proved difficult, if not impossible, to achieve consensus on a definition of sustainable tourism development. It has been described as a ‘positive approach intended to reduce tensions and friction created by the complex interactions between the tourism industry, visitors, the environment and the communities which are host to holidaymakers’ (Bramwell & Lane, 1993: 2), whilst, more ambiguously, the Brundland Report’s widely cited phrase is unashamedly paraphrased in defining sustainable tourism development as ‘development [which] meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future’ (WTO/WTTC, 1996: 30). Neither generalisation, however, reveals the objectives, in the developmental sense, of sustainable tourism or the processes by which such objectives might be achieved. To further complicate matters, a variety of other terms, such as rural tourism, green tourism, low impact tourism (Lillywhite & Lillywhite, 1991), alternative tourism (Eadington & Smith, 1992; Holden, 1984), soft tourism (Kariel, 1989; Krippendorf, 1991), responsible tourism (Harrison & Husbands, 1996) and nature tourism (Whelan, 1991) have frequently been employed, with ecotourism – itself subject to various definitions – being widely perceived as being synonymous with sustainable tourism development (Fennell, 2007). However, given the fact that the concept of sustainable tourism development is, in essence, a sector-specific application of sustainable development, it is logical to assert that ‘those who insert the word “tourism” between “sustainable” and “development” . . . [should] . . . ensure that, under all

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

437

circumstances, the resultant principles of sustainable tourism are also principles of sustainable development’ (Hunter, 1995: 163). Such an approach was indeed adopted by the Globe 90 Conference in Canada where, in recognition of tourism’s role in wider development, three fundamental principles to guide tourism planning and management were proposed (Figure 15.2). In short, sustainable tourism should be considered a potential means of achieving sustainable development; that is, any form of tourism should itself be (a) environmentally sustainable and (b) be able to contribute indefinitely to broader sustainable development policies and objectives. Evidently, (a) is also a prerequisite to (b). This logical definition of sustainable tourism development has a number of implications. First, by locating tourism within the wider developmental context, the effectiveness of tourism as a specific means of satisfying the goals of sustainable development is itself questioned. That is, for some communities or states, tourism (in any form) may not represent, either on its own or in tandem with other activities, an appropriate path to sustainable development when compared to other economic development policies. Second, and as a consequence, sustainable tourism is no longer synonymous with competing for the use of scarce resources (Jenner & Smith, 1992; McKercher, 1993a, 1993b) in order to sustain tourism in the longer term; rather, the emphasis is placed upon the most appropriate and efficient shared use of resources, on a global basis, within overall development goals. Third, the inherently divisive character of sustainable tourism as the ‘good’ alternative to traditional, mass tourism becomes irrelevant as the focus shifts to striving for developing all forms of tourism within the broader principles of sustainable development. Most typically, however, the principal concern of sustainable tourism development has become the sustainable development of tourism itself. In other words, where attempts have been made to implement sustainable tourism development policies in practice, they most closely reflect the tourismcentric approach referred to above. The aim has become to preserve the natural, built and socio-cultural resource base upon which tourism depends 1. 2. 3.

Tourism must be a recognised sustainable economic development option, considered equally with other economic activities when jurisdictions are making development decisions. There must be a relevant tourism information base to permit recognition, analysis and monitoring of the tourism industry in relation to other sectors of the economy. Tourism development must be carried out in a way that is compatible with the principles of sustainable development.

Figure 15.2 Principles for sustainable tourism development Source: Cronin (1990).

438

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

in a specific space/place in order to permit the long-term survival of tourism, rather than optimising the contribution of tourism to the wider sustainable development of the destination. As one commentator summarises, ‘sustainable tourism is essentially an exercise in sustainable resource management’ (Pigram, 1990). Moreover, even at the global policy level, ambiguity with respect to the objectives of sustainable tourism development persists; that is, it remains unclear whether it is the sustainability of tourism or the sustainability through tourism that is the objective. For example, the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) suggests that: Sustainable tourism development guidelines and management practices are applicable to all forms of tourism in all types of destinations, including mass tourism and the various niche tourism segments. Sustainability principles refer to the environmental, economic and socio-cultural aspects of tourism development, and a suitable balance must be established between these three dimensions to guarantee its long-term sustainability. (UNWTO, 2013a) Thus, the ‘triple bottom line’ of economic, environmental and sociocultural sustainability is explicit within definitions of sustainable tourism development, as detailed in the UNWTO’s statement that sustainable tourism should: • • •

Make optimal use of environmental resources that constitute a key element in tourism development, maintaining essential ecological processes and helping to conserve natural heritage and biodiversity. Respect the socio-cultural authenticity of host communities, conserve their built and living cultural heritage and traditional values, and contribute to inter-cultural understanding and tolerance. Ensure viable, long-term economic operations, providing socioeconomic benefits to all stakeholders that are fairly distributed, including stable employment and income-earning opportunities and social services to host communities, and contributing to poverty alleviation. (UNWTO, 2013a)

To an extent, of course, this makes good business sense. All businesses or industries strive to maintain their resource base for long-term survival and profit and it is widely recognised that sound environmental policies may significantly enhance profitability. However, the important point here is that this inward focus upon sustaining tourism itself (the only ‘outward’, developmental focus of the UNWTO’s statement above is the reference to poverty alleviation), concentrating on issues such as the rate and scale of development, the type of tourist targeted and the degree of local control, not only suggests that ‘true’ sustainable tourism development (i.e. consistent with the

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

439

tenets of its parental paradigm) is unachievable in practice, but also has resulted in a highly polarised and value-laden perspective on tourism development. It is necessary, therefore, to consider briefly the theoretical weaknesses of the concept of sustainable tourism development that underpin its role as a potential barrier, as opposed to contributor, to development.

The ‘Problem’ of Sustainable Tourism Development Despite the widespread adoption of its principles and objectives, there has been, as suggested earlier, a surprisingly consistent failure to explore the theoretical links between sustainable tourism and sustainable development. As a result, the concept of development as both the justification for and objective of tourism is rarely, if ever, considered; indeed, it is rarely questioned whether tourism, in whatever form, is a suitable or effective vehicle for the achievement of development. More specifically, only recently have attempts been made to transpose tourism onto the sustainable development template (see Figure 15.3). These have revealed a number of significant problems or factors which militate against the achievement of ‘true’ sustainable tourism development (Sharpley, 2000b, 2009b). In particular: •

•

As evident from Figure 15.3, a fundamental requirement of sustainable development is the adoption of a holistic approach which locates the developmental and environmental consequences of any activity or process within a global socio-economic, political and ecological context. For tourism, such a perspective is challenging, if not impossible, given the fragmented, multi-sectoral, private sector dominated and profit-motivated character of the tourism production system. That is, the scale, complexity and diversity of tourism and its interconnectedness with other sectors and activities, is such that a global approach to its development is in reality unachievable. Moreover, a specific problem in this context is the fact that tourism, by definition, involves transport, and most forms of powered transport are inherently unsustainable (Høyer, 2000). Thus, even if a particular local tourism project meets sustainability criteria, the travel component may render it unsustainable in a broader environmental context. Indeed, and as considered in Chapter 11, the environmental impact of air travel in particular (both aircraft emissions and infrastructural developments related to air transport) has not only emerged as a major contemporary concern, but is also a highly controversial topic (Becken & Simmons, 2005; Becken & Hay, 2007). The political-economy of tourism can frequently represent a barrier to development (Chapter 10). Thus, although dependency/under- development is by no means inevitable, the structure, ownership and control of the

440

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Sustainable development

Tourism compatibility

Fundamental principles:

• Holistic approach: Tourism is a diverse, multidevelopment and sectoral and fragmented sector, environmental issues comprising innumerable small integrated within a global business and organisations. social, economic and ecological Hence, limited possibilities for context. a holistic approach. • Futurity: focus on long-term Tourism businesses typically focus capacity for continuance of the on short-term profit objectives. global ecosystem, including the human sub-system. • Equity: development that is Access to tourism as a social fair and equitable and which activity and an economic provides opportunities for sector remains inequitable. access to and use of resources for all members of all societies, both in the present and future.

Development objectives:

• Millennium Development Goals. • 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

Tourism brings potential economic benefits; broader developmental benefits are not an inevitable outcome of tourism, and are dependent on local sociocultural and political-economic conditions. Ecotourism projects may contribute to basic needs and cultural sustainability. Low compatibility between tourism and development goals.

Sustainability objectives:

• Poverty reduction. • Sustainable population levels. • Minimal depletion of nonrenewable natural resources. • Sustainable use of renewable resources. • Pollution emissions within the assimilative capacity of the environment.

Specific programmes (pro-poor tourism) may be targeted at specific groups. Local projects may minimise resource depletion and enhance environmental conservation. Tourism (i.e. travel) will inevitably be a major contributor of greenhouse gases.

Figure 15.3 Sustainable development and tourism: Principles and objectives Source: Adapted from Telfer and Sharpley (2008: 36).

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

Requirements for sustainable development:

441

Limited evidence of • Sustainable consumption: ‘responsible’ tourism Adoption of a new social consumption in practice. paradigm relevant to ‘Tourists are consumers, not sustainable living. anthropologists’. • Sustainable production: Some evidence of ‘corporate Biodiversity conservation; social responsibility’ and technological systems that can environmental programmes search continuously for new within some organisations: solutions to environmental also benchmarking schemes. problems. Limited opportunities for • Sustainable distribution: global alliances’ or global International and national systems’ equitable access to political and economic and distribution of tourism systems dedicated to equitable resources. development and resource use. • Global alliance facilitating integrated development policies at local, national and international levels.

Figure 15.3 (Continued)

•

tourism industry and the related regionalised and polarised characteristics of international tourist flows highlight the significant degree of dependency inherent in the global tourism system. Thus, equitable inter- and intra-generational development is unlikely to be achieved through tourism. In terms of futurity, the focus of most plans/policies is primarily upon short-term profitability of tourism businesses and the longer term viability of tourism (i.e. sustaining tourism) rather than long-term sustainable development through tourism. More specifically, the tourism production system comprises innumerable, principally small, private sector, profitmotivated businesses. Therefore, although longer-term business success (or, in a narrow sense, sustainability) is an objective for most businesses, it is likely that, for most businesses, short-term profit or even survival remains the dominant concern for most tourism related businesses. Moreover, future tourism demand and flows, upon which the developmental contribution of tourism depends, cannot be accurately predicted. Despite forecasts of 1.6 billion international arrivals by 2020, such an estimate is just that, although based on historical data that would logically suggest continuing growth. However, this cannot be taken for granted, dependent as it would be on greater (and more equitable) prosperity and access to travel opportunities around the world, whilst the

442

•

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

fickle nature of tourism demand must also be taken into account. In short, futurity as defined by sustainable (tourism) development requires a predictability of demand growth and flows that cannot be taken for granted (see Chapter 14). As argued in Chapter 12, research has revealed that the adoption of a new social paradigm relevant to sustainable living, a fundamental requirement for sustainable development (IUCN, 1991), is unlikely to occur. More specifically, the emergence of the ‘green’ or responsible tourist, frequently cited as the justification for promoting sustainable forms of tourism, cannot be taken for granted given the characteristics of the consumption of tourism (Sharpley, 2006).

This is not to say that specific elements of the sustainable development template are not being addressed to the benefit of resources upon which tourism depends. For example, many organisations and sectors are implementing policies related to environmental sustainability objectives (see Chapter 9) whilst there is no doubt that, at the level of the destination, there are numerous examples of sustainability in practice. However, the broader principles of sustainable development and most of its development objectives do not, for the most part, fit easily into the tourism context. One exception, perhaps, is where tourism development is localised, small-scale, environmentally benign and based upon optimising the benefits to both host communities and tourists through meaningful, two-way experiences, such as in the case of so-called community-based tourism projects (Chapter 6). During the 1990s, for example, a number of local rural tourism projects in England were successfully developed according to sustainable principles although, supporting the argument in Chapter 12, all the projects suffered from a low level of interest on the part of visitors (Countryside Commission, 1995). Under such circumstances, greater opportunities may exist for meeting the objectives of satisfying basic needs and encouraging self-reliance through community involvement in tourism. However, not only do such small-scale, site-based developments fail to embrace the wider principles of sustainable development – for example, the relationship between the destinations or project with the rest of the tourism system is frequently overlooked – but also the inevitability, given the inherent weaknesses of the sustainable tourism concept, of the localised site-based perspective serves to amplify the distinction between ‘good’, small-scale tourism and traditional, large-scale or mass tourism. As a result, despite the UNWTO’s assertion, cited fully above, that ‘sustainable tourism development . . . practices are applicable to all forms of tourism in all types of destinations, including mass tourism’, sustainable tourism development continues to be associated primarily with local, small-scale tourism developments. Conversely, large-scale, mass tourism, typified by the package-tour experience, is seen as unsustainable (Milne, 1998). More

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

443

specifically, this inherently divisive characteristic of the sustainable tourism concept implies that: •

•

•

•

the development of traditional, large-scale tourism cannot contribute successfully (or sustainably) to broader socio-economic development in destination areas although, in practice, this is quite evidently not the case. There are numerous examples, from the Spanish ‘Costas’ and Balearic Islands, such as Mallorca, to many Caribbean island destinations, where a large-scale dominant tourism sector has underpinned the longer-term economic vitality of the country or region. localised developments, employing local people and utilising local products (and, by implication, reducing dependency-related consequences such as excessive leakages, expatriate labour, foreign ownership, profit repatriation, and so on) brings greater economic benefit to destinations. However, whilst ignoring commercial realities, the economic benefits of local, small-scale developments tend, of course, to be both localised and small. For example, although a recipient of British Airways’ ‘Tourism for Tomorrow’ awards in 1998, one of the greatest challenges subsequently facing the Central Region Project in Ghana was considered to be the need to increase and spread the benefits of tourism beyond the vicinity of the project (Ampadu-Agyei, 1999). tourism-related development occurs only in destinations. However, tourism generating regions also benefit significantly from the production of outgoing tourism through, for example, regional airports acting as developmental growth poles. At the same time, tourism has been described as a ‘social victory’ (Krippendorf, 1986); the ability of large sectors of the population in tourism generating countries to benefit from tourism experiences – whether ‘sustainable’ or mass package – is as much a part of the developmental process as is the contribution of tourism to destinational development. more generally, the path of sustainable development is the ‘best’ tourism development route to follow. However, sustainable development itself is often criticised for being a Western-centric development paradigm which maintains the existing, unbalanced world order (Mehmet, 1995). That is, a number of questions with respect to, for example, equity, freedom of choice, value judgements about acceptable environmental degradation and who benefits from development, challenge the global applicability of sustainable development. The same criticism may also be justifiably directed at sustainable tourism which can be viewed as a manifestation of Western hegemony or, a Western construct: ‘There is a lot to suggest that, because the origins of ecotourism lie in Western ideology and values, and its practice is frequently dominated by Western interests, the advocacy of ecotourism as a universal template arises from Western hegemony’ (Cater, 2006: 24). Though she focuses specifically on ecotourism,

444

•

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

the points Cater raises are of direct relevance to sustainable tourism development more generally. In particular, she cites the role and influence of the UNWTO and WTTC, their ‘blueprints’ for sustainable or ‘new’ tourism, and the funding of local ecotourism projects by organisations such as the World Bank’s Global Environmental Facility or Conservation International based upon an explicitly Western development agenda. At the same time, the design of ecotourism (and, implicitly, sustainable tourism) projects based upon the mainstream conservation-for-development perspective and Western notions of nature, fails to account for alternative natures or, more broadly, alternative environments and interpretations of conservation and guardianship. In other words, different natures and environments are, in essence, the product of socio-cultural, political and economic processes and, thus, sustainable tourism/ecotourism development constructed on Western-centric interpretations of nature may not match local constructs of nature, with the result that tourism may be seen as a form of eco-colonialism.

This final point reflects the more general criticism of sustainable tourism development that its principles and objectives are typically manifested in overarching sets of prescriptive guidelines, usually based upon managing the limits (according to Western criteria) of acceptable environmental and social change, that fail to account for the almost infinite diversity of tourism development contexts and, importantly, the meaning, knowledge and understanding of those environments amongst local communities. As discussed shortly, this suggests that an alternative, non-prescriptive approach to tourism development that both recognises and responds to the characteristics and needs of individual destinations may offer the opportunity for enhancing the developmental benefits of tourism.

Sustainability as a Barrier to Destinational Development Collectively, the above points reveal the way in which sustainability may be considered a barrier to development. In other words, the lack of ‘fit’ between tourism in general and the concept of sustainable development as outlined in the preceding section and the consequential primary focus of most sustainable tourism development policies on local, small-scale, ‘appropriate’ (from a Western-centric point of view) projects has resulted in sustainable tourism becoming both a prescriptive and a restrictive perspective on tourism development which limits the potential for development through tourism. Certainly, the emphasis on locally-controlled, small-scale, appropriate/traditional style operations, though most suitable and, as experience has demonstrated, successful in particular circumstances and according to

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

445

specific developmental objectives, has a number of ‘anti-development’ implications. For example: •

•

•

Relatively few people benefit. Indeed, an inherent contradiction of sustainable tourism is that it minimises, rather than optimises, the benefits to local people and restricts opportunities for tourists to participate in such forms of tourism. It also highlights the unresolved question as to how to satisfy both the desire of greater numbers of local people to become involved in and benefit from tourism development and to satisfy the alleged increasing demands for ‘sustainable’ tourism experiences on the part of tourists. Either tourism companies expand their operations or more businesses are permitted to develop, both of which may result in excessive pressure on natural and human resources. Ironically, the response of ecotourism operators in Australia to increasing use of tourism sites has been to relocate to previously untouched areas to maintain the quality of tourist experiences (Burton, 1998)! Beyond the obvious environmental implications, this also points to a second problem: Small-scale, traditional, eco/nature tourism developments, as a specific manifestation of sustainable tourism, are frequently justified on the basis of increasing demand for ‘authentic’, natural traditional tourism experiences. As a result, such tourism operations are designed to verify the expectations of tourists seeking to escape to the ‘Other’, to environments and cultures that are in opposition to the tourists’ modern, developed home environment. While indicative of ‘cultural dependency’ (Erisman, 1983), it also limits the potential for the development (as in progress from traditional to modern) of destination areas and societies. As Silver (1993: 310) states, ‘it seems that. . .indigenous peoples can only continue to be attractive to tourists as long as they remain undeveloped and, hence, in some way primitive’. Business development opportunities are restricted. Many local communities lack the necessary expertise or financial/technological resources to fully exploit tourism-related opportunities and so a necessary ingredient (and fundamental objective) of tourism development is traditionally considered to be the re-distribution of Western wealth to poorer, less developed destination areas through investment and ultimately, tourist spending. While this is indicative of the inevitable dependency inherent in the global tourism system, it is likely that, without financial, technological or business/marketing support, many small-scale, locally-controlled tourism projects could not survive. For example, one of the earliest attempts to develop sustainable village tourism was the Lower Casamance project in Senegal (Gnigue, 1992; Saglio, 1979). Though successful, however, the project primarily attracted, and was dependent upon, tourists leaving the confines of their Club-Med all-inclusive holiday on the coast for a short, ‘authentic’ experience in the Senegalese hinterland. Similarly, pro-poor tourism

446

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

initiatives not only function within but are dependent upon the continuation of the mainstream tourism system (Harrison, 2008). More significantly, perhaps, the inherent divisiveness of sustainable tourism principles which implicitly label more traditional, mass forms of tourism development as ‘bad’ or unsustainable also severely restricts the extent to which tourism can contribute to development. In other words, the increasingly ‘entrenched, doom-laden apocalyptic view’ (Middleton, 1998: 230) about the ‘crisis’ of mass tourism during the 1990s, referring to both the product of mass tourism as manifested in extensive and homogenous ‘Costa’-type developments and also its modes and patterns of consumption, firmly rejects the possibility that such forms of tourism cannot only contribute to development but may also do so more effectively than alternative or sustainable tourism. As noted above, however, not only does tourism occur in innumerable different destinational contexts (each destination seeking to address its own specific developmental challenges and needs through tourism), but in many cases destinations have purposefully, and successfully, turned to traditional, mass forms of tourism to underpin their social and economic development. This not only suggests that it is right and proper that destinations decide upon their own path to development rather than accepting policies (such as sustainable tourism development) that might be imposed upon them, but also it is the characteristics and needs of individual destinations that should determine the nature, scale and direction of tourism development. This, in turn, points to an alternative approach to developing tourism based upon the ‘capitals’ possessed by a destination.

A Destination Capitals Approach to Tourism Development The concept of ‘capital’, not only in the traditional sense of economic capital but also in a broader sense to include other capitals, such as social, cultural or natural capital, as a basis for sustainable development policy is not new. For example, the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA), which ‘centres on the objectives, scope and priorities for development from the perspective of poor people’ (Carney, 2002: 13), focuses upon five distinctive capitals – natural, social, human, physical and financial capital – as the basis for understanding and analysing the livelihoods of the poor. In a similar way, Forum for the Future (www.forumforthefuture.org) offers the ‘Five Capitals Model’ as a basis for sustainable development within a capitalist framework. In other words, it identifies five distinctive capitals that any organisation uses to deliver its products and services. These products and services contribute, in turn, to improvements in people’s quality of life but, in order to continue to do so, stocks of them must be sustained and enhanced (Figure 15.4).

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

447

Natural Capital is any stock or flow of energy and material that produces goods and services. It includes: • • •

Resources – renewable and non-renewable materials Sinks – that absorb, neutralise or recycle wastes Processes – such as climate regulation

Human Capital consists of people’s health, knowledge, skills and motivation. All these things are needed for productive work. Social Capital concerns the institutions that help us maintain and develop human capital in partnership with others; e.g. families, communities, businesses, trade unions, schools and voluntary organisations. Manufactured Capital comprises material goods or fixed assets which contribute to the production process rather than being the output itself – e.g. tools, machines and buildings. Financial Capital plays an important role in our economy, enabling the other types of capital to be owned and traded. But unlike the other types, it has no real value itself but is representative of natural, human, social or manufactured capital; e.g. shares, bonds or banknotes. Figure 15.4 The five capitals Source: Forum for the Future (2009).

In both the SLA and the Five Capitals Model, capitals are seen from the more traditional perspective as assets from which particular benefits can be derived. It can be similarly argued that all tourism destinations also possess a variety of capitals which, to varying degrees, have the potential to generate a flow of benefits to both the destination (or, more specifically, destination communities) as producers of goods and services and to tourists as consumers of those goods and services. These capitals may then form the basis of an alternative approach to tourism development. Although the selection and interpretation of capitals relevant to tourism destinations might appear to be somewhat arbitrary, the following capitals, listed in Figure 15.4, arguably reflect the productive assets of any tourism destination (for a more detailed discussion, see Sharpley, 2009b). •

•

Socio-cultural capital: in the context of tourism destinations, socio-cultural capital is used to refer to the structures, sociological institutions, cohesion, adaptability and openness of destination communities and their cultural characteristics and practices. Human capital: human capital refers to the supply and capabilities (knowledge, skills, motivation, innovative/entrepreneurial capacity) of individuals to contribute to the production and delivery of touristic services and experiences.

448

•

• •

•

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

Environmental capital: the environmental capital of destinations is defined broadly to include both the natural environment (that is, natural capital: resources, sinks and processes) and the built environment (facilities, attractions and infrastructure). Financial capital: the availability of financial capital (private and public sector) within destination economies determines the extent to which other capitals may be owned, developed and traded. Political capital: although a subset of social capital, the type and extent of political capital possessed by a destination determines its powerrelationship with external actors and, hence, its ability to self-determine its tourism development. Technological capital: tourism markets (the supply–demand interface) are increasingly dependent upon information and communication technology. Access to, ownership of and skill in the use of such technology is a key destination capital.

What these capitals represent are a set of assets that a destination, like any business that seeks to make a profit through the exploitation of capital, can draw on in the pursuit of ‘profit’, or developmental benefits. That is, destinations are in the business of tourism; they seek to generate benefits from producing and selling tourism products and services, the potential returns or ‘profit’ being income, employment and economic growth. However, ‘development’ is not an inevitable outcome of tourism; the extent to which the economic returns from tourism translate into wider development is dependent on a variety of local factors. Thus, in order to optimise those benefits, it is necessary, in turn, to make the most appropriate use of capitals to compete effectively in tourism markets whilst meeting local needs. Putting it another way, a tourism destination may be thought of, somewhat simplistically, as a sort of business or, more precisely, as a corporation comprising numerous business units. In other words, all the facilities, attractions and other organisations that collectively supply tourist services and experiences in the destination are, in a sense, different divisions within the overall destination business. There are, of course, significant differences between destinations and corporations, not least that, generally, there is no formal organisational structure, chain of command or common ownership within a destination. Nevertheless, corporations (including those in the travel and tourism sector) typically follow a strategic management process that seeks to achieve ‘fit’ between their resources and the external environment in order to remain competitive and profitable. In simple terms, organisations typically undertake an internal audit of their resources, capabilities, knowledge and core competencies, plus an external analysis of the competitive environment, as a basis for establishing their strategic direction (Evans et al., 2003). In the following model, a similar process is proposed with, in particular, the analysis of destination capitals

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

449

Local community/destination needs

External forces

Human

Political

Political Economic Environmental

Sociocultural

Markets

Destination Capitals

Economic

Products Investment

Legal Technological

Tourism development opportunities

Technological

Environmental

External agency support

Tourism development plans/processes

Figure 15.5 A destination capitals model of tourism development

providing the basis of the ‘internal audit’ of the destination (Figure 15.5). To a great extent, this model is self-explanatory. It depicts a logical process of need identification followed by an analysis of destination resources or capitals which, when related to market opportunities and external forces or restrictions, provides a basis for developing tourism development plans and processes. Central to the process is the identification and inter-relationship of destination capitals. This establishes what resources or assets should be exploited for tourism, the extent to which they might generate a flow of benefits to the destination and, through the analysis of political capital in particular, who has access to and control over the use of these capitals. It is also significant in that, when compared with other models and concepts of tourism development, it focuses the responsibility for resource or asset use on the destination. It is the destination that establishes, within the parameters of local knowledge, custom and culture, how resources, whether environmental, human or socio-cultural are utilised. As a consequence, sustainability, as defined by the destination, is inherent within the destination capital process as opposed to being an externally imposed ideological concept. Inevitably, this raises the question as to who is responsible for assessing destination capitals or for the process through which decisions are made with respect to resource use for tourism development. In other words, ‘the destination’ has been referred to here largely in abstract terms, but the destination capitals approach requires appropriate decision-making processes. Typically, the answer lies in the prevailing political systems, institutional structures and patterns of political capital in the destination, both generally and in relation to tourism in particular. In some instances, open democratic processes may be in evidence; in others, political capital and, to a great

450

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

extent, financial capital may be concentrated in the hands of the ruling elite. However, in both cases political and institutional structures are but one element of a destination’s capitals and, therefore, planning and decision-making processes are, just as sustainability is, inherent in the model. Considering the model in more detail, the first stage in the process is the identification of the goals and objectives of tourism development – in a sense, the destination’s mission statement. Typically, these are seen to embrace four distinct goals: enhanced visitor satisfaction; resource sustainability; improvements to the local economy and businesses; and, effective integration of tourism into the destination’s economy and communities. However, for destinations, tourism is a means to an end. The principal objective of developing tourism is to meet local or, in some cases, national needs and, therefore, the destination capitals approach commences with establishing what benefits are sought from tourism development with respect to these needs. Typically, such benefits are economic in character and frequently reflect regional or national development policy. Consequently, the analysis of destination capitals, or the ‘internal audit’ of the destination, is framed and guided by the objectives of tourism development. That is, the potential contribution of destination capitals, both individually and collectively, to generate a flow of benefits to the destination is assessed according to the desired outcomes of tourism development. In other words, it is those assets which, when exploited through tourism, have the potential to optimise the returns to the destination that should form the basis of tourism development. At the same time, however, the exploitation of those assets should evidently also reflect what are referred to in Figure 15.5 as tourism development opportunities. These include particular markets (that is, particular countries or tourist generating areas, or particular segments within markets, such as the family market or the youth market) and particular products, such as adventure tourism, ecotourism, sun-sea-sand tourism or cultural/heritage tourism, or even more specialised products, such as medical tourism. Other opportunities include international investment by multinational corporations and the support of international agencies, nongovernmental organisations and other organisations. For example, for those destinations with significant human capital that, for one reason or another, remains excluded from the formal economy, pro-poor tourism initiatives supported by the UNWTO and other agencies represent a vital opportunity for enhancing income and employment amongst the local community. It is also important to recognise external factors that may restrict or otherwise influence the nature and extent of resource exploitation in destinations. Such factors may emanate from the national context within which destinations are located – for example, land-use planning laws or employment regulations and other legislative controls, such as licensing or gaming laws, may all facilitate or hinder the destination’s ability to utilise fully its capitals for tourism development. Equally, more general political, economic

Sust ainabilit y : A Bar r ier to Tour ism Development?

451

and environmental policies at the national level also need to be taken into consideration whilst a variety of international factors, such as air transport regulations, environmental accords, trade agreements, bilateral visa arrangements and so on may also be relevant. Nevertheless, the destination capitals framework allows destinations to plan for and develop tourism of a nature and scale that meets local needs and makes best use of local resources to optimise the flow of benefits from tourism. In other words, destinations may follow significantly different tourism development paths dependent upon their needs/objectives and capitals.

Conclusions It has long been recognised that sustainable tourism development requires a global, holistic perspective. That is, sustainable tourism development is, in theory, but one of innumerable socio-economic processes and institutions that potentially contribute to broader sustainable development policies. Implicitly, therefore, the principles of sustainable development should also be applicable to tourism on a holistic, global scale, rather than manifested in discreet, ‘alternative’ developments. However, as argued here, tourism, as a specific economic sector and social institution, does not fit easily onto the sustainable development template. Issues of ownership and control, scale, political-economy and tourism consumption all serve to challenge the fundamental principles of, and requirements for, the achievement of sustainable development and, as a consequence, ‘sustainable tourism’ has become defined by the local rather than global. Therefore, it is not surprising that, although making reference in particular to a report on Scottish tourism, it has been observed that in general ‘no example of the successful application of sustainable development of tourism has been found’ (Butler, 1998a: 31). The conclusion must be, therefore, that there is a need to divorce tourism, as a development agent, from what has proved to be the restrictive paradigm of sustainable development. This is not to say, however, that the principles of sustainable development are of no relevance to tourism as a specific socio-economic activity. As stated above, in particular circumstances small-scale, ‘ecotourism’ developments may in fact represent the optimal development option, at least on a local basis. Moreover, there are a number of lessons that are applicable to all forms of tourism development. For example, it is essential to view tourism as an integral element of broader development policy, and one of a variety of potential developmental vehicles, in order to achieve optimal resource allocation. Similarly, environmentally sound production and consumption practices should be encouraged on both ethical and commercial grounds although, at the same time, a degree of pragmatism is required to counterbalance the inherent idealism of ‘sustainable tourism’, in particular with respect to the consumption of tourism services (Chapter 12).

452

Par t 3: Bar r iers and Challenges to Tour ism Development

However, it is also important to recognise that different countries or societies are not only more or less developed, but also have differing developmental needs and objectives. Therefore, different paths to development are, of course, more or less appropriate in different contexts. As this chapter has argued, tourism – though inherently and unavoidably dependent – has frequently proved to be an effective growth pole; indeed, there are many examples where mass tourism has brought about rapid economic and social progress (albeit frequently accompanied by significant social and environmental consequences). It is important to recognise, therefore, that sustainable tourism is not a universally appropriate vehicle of development. It may, in fact, retard progress or, as Wall (1997) suggests, result in unsustainable development and, thus, destinations must be ‘allowed’ to choose the form of tourism development best suited to their resources, potential markets and developmental needs.

16 Conclusion: Tourism and Development David J. Telfer and Richard Sharpley

A great deal has changed since this first edition of this book was published in 2002. The tourism industry shows no signs of slowing down with the number of international visitor arrivals surpassing the 1 billion mark in 2012. Moreover, there is every indication that arrival figures will continue to increase. Chinese travellers have not only risen to first place in terms of international tourism expenditure, setting a record of US$102 billion in 2012, an increase of 37% from 2011; in 2013, China finally overtook Germany as the country generating the highest number of international tourists. Driven by rising disposable incomes, the relaxation of restrictions on foreign travel as well as an appreciating currency (UNWTO, 2013a), the increasing dominance of China in international tourism is a reflection of the shifts occurring in the global economy, with a number of countries possessing a growing middle class that is increasingly travelling abroad. The continued development of low-cost airlines has allowed more people to travel much greater distances, opening up new destinations that have never before experienced tourism. The market share of international tourist arrivals in emerging economies has increased from 30% in 1980 to 47% in 2012 and is forecasted to reach 57% by 2030, equivalent to over 1 billion international arrivals (UNWTO, 2013a). Increasing numbers of these travellers are booking their tickets online and posting their pictures, comments and reviews on social media on devices that have multiple functions, including cameras and internet access with global positioning systems (GPS). Advances in technology have also witnessed the introduction of the first flight of the double-decker airliner A380 in 2005 and cruise ships that can now accommodate in excess of 6000 passengers. At the same time, however, the tourism industry is under increasing pressure to adopt green technologies and participate in the ‘Green Economy’ (UNEP & UNWTO, 2012). During the last decade, of course, the global economy suffered a significant shock when the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 shook the foundations of the global market economy, subsequently leading to greater state involvement. Developed countries in the European Union have been receiving 453

454

Tour ism and Development

significant amounts of financial aid from the International Monetary Fund which, in the past, would have typically been directed at developing countries. The pendulum continues to swing between state intervention and the free market. The impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States continues to have implications for the tourism industry and tourists continue to be targets. The Arab Spring, which began in December 2010, spread to numerous countries in the region and led to regime changes but also an uncertain future in what Connolly (2013) refers to as ‘unpredicted outcomes’. Successive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) illustrate the growing recognition of the dangers faced by the planet and humanity, whilst the tourism industry in particular is beginning to acknowledge its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and the potential impacts. Poverty reduction has come to the forefront of development thought with the first goal of the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals being to ‘eradicate extreme poverty and hunger’. A key point to raise here is that the UN Millennium Development Goals have a target date of 2015 and there is a need to look beyond this date. Collier (2007) argues that by 2015, the way of thinking that formulated the UN Millennium Development Goals will be outdated. Consequently, the UN has set up a task team to establish the post-2015 development agenda, whilst, in the specific context of tourism, African experts met in March 2014 to develop a tourism strategy for the African Union Agenda 2063, a 50-year development plan for Africa. The following was a list of the questions the experts were addressing in their meeting that had the theme ‘Tourism a Transformative Force for Africa’: • • • • •

What goals should African tourism set itself in order to contribute to higher levels of incomes, employment and longevity? How can the tourism sector contribute to the transformation of African economies, including the small island states, as envisaged in the people’s aspiration for prosperity? How can tourism contribute to the envisaged increase in the intra-Africa trade in goods and services? What goals and targets should tourism 2063 set itself to contribute to a peaceful and secure Africa? How can tourism 2063 promote Africa’s cultural identity, values and ethics? (eTN, 2014)

Three new paradigms have been added to Table 2.2 ‘Evolution of Development Theory’ from the first edition of this book, namely: post development, human development and global development (see Chapter 2). Tourism has mirrored the changes in development thought with the rise of pro-poor tourism strategies (Chapter 4) and human rights in tourism (Chapter 13), both evident in the human development paradigm. The recognition of the impact of climate change in tourism (Chapter 11) is central to

Conclusion : Tour ism and Development

455

global development. Global development is still evolving and focuses on new emerging multilateral global governance structures. The efforts in promoting a continental approach to tourism in Africa for 2063, noted above, reflect the dynamic in global development of constructing new partnerships. At the same time, however, modernisation remains a driving force in the tourism industry as economic growth still is at the heart of the rationale for tourism’s role as a development tool. The sustainable development paradigm also continues to hold a dominant place in tourism (although challenged in this book), as is evident by the innumerable codes of conduct, guidelines and certifications developed both for the industry and tourists. All development paradigms continue to play a role and as Hettne (2009) argues, development paradigms need to be viewed in historical context and should not be viewed as an evolution towards a universal theory of development. As the nature of development continues to evolve and expand, it is important to keep in mind that tourism is just one industry. Are we asking too much from this industry to contribute to all the expanded dimensions of development? Yet in many destinations, tourism is the primary strategy for development, whilst in others it plays a significant role in regional development plans. Tourism development projects are not necessarily a universal development option and what works in one country will not necessarily work in another. As noted in Chapter 14, each country or region has its own history, geography, anthropology, economics and so on that must be understood as the destination comes to interact with the globalised tourism industry, itself also impacted by a range of global risks. In the broader development literature, various commentators have attempted to identify what makes some countries successful and others not. Collier (2007) argues that while many countries have developed remarkably quickly, the real challenge is the countries at the bottom that are falling behind and often falling apart. Sharma’s (2013) Breakout Nations, Acemoglu and Robinson’s (2012) Why Nations Fail and Ghani and Lockhart’s (2009) Fixing Failed States are three books that attempt to document the challenges these nations face and the potential strategies needed to move forward. Any prescription for change (endogenous, exogenous or a combination) must, however, be viewed within the values and ideology driving the change. Acemoglu and Robinson (2012), for example, argue there is a link between what they refer to as inclusive economic and political institutions and prosperity. What role, then, can tourism play in contributing to development in these countries? It is important to note that many developed countries also have many citizens that face issues of poverty as well. The first edition of this book, published in 2002, was compiled in response to the then lack of literature in tourism studies providing a theoretical underpinning of tourism as a vehicle for development. This second edition attempts to further build stronger links between development theory and the processes of tourism development. Therefore, this edition continues

456

Tour ism and Development

to explore and challenge the popular assumption that tourism is an effective tool of development. A central question in the book is, however, ‘what is development?’ The definition of development has expanded over time from simply economic growth to a more holistic definition that includes economic, social, cultural, political and environmental aspects. Similarly, development theory has also evolved since World War II, moving through the seven paradigms, from modernisation to global development, presented in Chapter 2. Importantly, development theory can be divided into development ideology (the ends) and development strategy (the means) (Hettne, 1995). Development strategy is the means of implementing the development process guided by a specific ideology, yet as has been discussed in this book, development is a value-laden concept. Indeed, those in the post-development camp, such as Sachs (1996: 1), argue that ‘development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape’ as problems such as global poverty still exist. If, however, tourism is to be an agent of development, it is important to understand the theoretical concepts behind the term development and what the ideology is behind the strategy driving tourism development. As Burns (1999a) suggests, it is important to know whether the policy taken on tourism is one of ‘tourism first’, which focuses on the industry, or ‘development first’, whereby planning is framed by national development needs. The organisation in control of the tourism development process, whether public or private, can yield a great deal of power. Questions raised in the introduction of the book include whether tourism is a universally applicable development option or are different forms and scales of development more or less suitable to different destinations? Can tourism contribute to development on its own or should it be considered within larger development schemes? These and other related questions are discussed throughout the book. However, what is important, and where this book has tried to contribute to the body of literature, is to focus on the concept of development itself. The purpose of this concluding chapter, as in the first edition, is to highlight the various concepts, themes and issues raised within the chapters. Selected questions will be presented after each chapter summary to stimulate further ideas, debates and research topics surrounding the role of tourism in development for students, researchers and practitioners. Finally, consideration will be given to the nature of tourism and development.

Part 1 In Part 1 of the book, the concepts of development and the relationship between tourism and development are addressed. The chapters attempt to answer the question of what ‘development’ is and how it relates to the processes within tourism. In any form of development, it is prudent to understand it in

Conclusion : Tour ism and Development

457

terms of development by whom and for whom and who it is that ultimately benefits. Many reports extol the benefits of using tourism as an agent of development; however, it is often the economic benefits which receive the most attention. Chapter 1 examines the reasons why tourism is selected for development as well as exploring the changing definition of development. While the contribution of tourism can be more easily identified in a definition of development centring on economic growth, it becomes more complex to identify the role of tourism in a more holistic definition of development that encompasses social, cultural, political, environmental and economic aims and processes. If tourism is used as an agent of development, it is important to consider what represents under-development and to what extent tourism can address the characteristics of under-development. Tourism creates wealth but to what extent does it contribute to the broader concept of development for the individual, the community, the region or the nation? Having examined the definition of development in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 examines the changes in development paradigms, which have occurred since the end of World War II. While it is acknowledged that the topic is broad and complex and there are a variety of ways to categorise development, the seven categories presented and critiqued are modernisation, dependency, economic neoliberalsm, alternative development, post-development, human development and global development. The chapter highlights the fact that development is a highly contested notion influenced from a wide range of social, political, economic and environmental perspectives, each with their own set of values. Questions need to be asked as to what organisation dictates the ideology behind the strategies of tourism development. Does tourism development under a particular development paradigm have the potential to contribute more to development than any of the other development paradigms outlined in Table 2.2? The purpose of Part 1 is to bridge the gap between development studies and tourism, thereby providing a theoretical underpinning for the remainder of the book. If tourism is to be used as means of achieving development, it needs to be understood in the context of a broader definition of development. Sustainable tourism development, still prevalent in the tourism literature (although questioned in Chapters 9 and 15), along with the more recent literature on pro-poor tourism, focuses on local control and empowerment; however tourism developed under these concepts may be in conflict with the goals of profit maximisation.

Part 2 Having examined the fundamental links between development theory and tourism development, Part 2 of the book examines specific themes of development in relation to tourism. Chapter 3 begins by examining the relationship between tourism and economic development. Economic indicators

458

Tour ism and Development

are the ones often cited to support tourism development. The other issues covered in this part of the book include tourism and poverty reduction; regional development; community development; socio-cultural development; heritage and development; and the environment. While there is little doubt that tourism has various potentially beneficial economic impacts which may positively influence the process of economic development in a destination, the magnitude of these economic benefits can be highly variable. As indicated in Chapter 3, factors such as the level of economic development in the host country or region, its diversification, the propensity to import, availability of resources and rates of leakage can all mitigate the economic benefits of tourism. In addition, it is often the developed economies that can earn more per visitor. The assertion that tourism development projects in developing countries can contribute to the establishment of a new world order through reducing the gap between developed and less developed countries often overlooks these mitigating factors. This questions the convergence in economic tourism growth, which is the basis of decreasing the gap between developing and developed nations. Key questions in terms of the economic contribution of tourism include: what are the impacts of tourism on economic development in terms of economic convergence? What is the impact on the balance of payments, inflation/deflation and employment? Can a valuation be placed on environmental goods? Poverty reduction, which is the focus of Chapter 4, has come to the forefront of the development agenda; the aim of the UN Millennium Development Goals is to ‘eradicate extreme poverty and hunger’. That the shift to poverty reduction has been incorporated into tourism is evident by the growing literature on pro-poor tourism (PPT). Chapter 4 examines a range of initiatives including UNWTO ‘ST-EP’ (Sustainable Tourism – Eliminating Poverty), Fair Trade in Tourism and corporate social responsibility (CSR) as adopted in the private sector. A central concept to pro-poor tourism is that it is not a particular type of tourism but, rather, an approach that can be applied to all forms of tourism. Therefore, ways need to be found to make not only small-scale projects more pro-poor but also large-scale tourism development projects or mass tourism more pro-poor. The chapter presents a range of pro-poor strategies that not only provide economic benefits but also other benefits that will contribute to the local community. There are some significant questions that need to be asked, including whether pro-poor tourism may be similarly criticised as green-washing is in the context of sustainable tourism. What are the barriers to implementing pro-poor tourism? Will an industry whose objective is profitability undertake pro-poor initiatives that become institutionalised over time, that are not just part of a short-term CSR project? What pro-poor strategies have the potential for working the best and in what situations? What role can the government play in establishing the framework for pro-poor tourism? While pro-poor tourism is typically aimed at developing countries, should a pro-poor tourism

Conclusion : Tour ism and Development

459

approach also be adopted in developed countries where there are sections of the population in poverty? One of the strategies used by governments to help reduce regional imbalances and create employment and income within a country is to use tourism as a regional development tool. Chapter 5 examines the concepts and models of regional development such as growth poles, agglomeration economies and competitive clusters in a variety of tourism regions. Tourism has been used for urban revitalisation, rural regeneration, island development, peripheral development and the development of international regions. As tourism continues to become more competitive, governments are taking on a more entrepreneurial role in attracting not only tourists but also investors to their region. The questions raised surrounding tourism as a regional development tool deal with whether or not there is real regional economic dispersion of the benefits of tourism. As indicated in Chapter 3, there are a series of factors which can reduce the economic benefits of tourism development. Tourism development projects which do not build strong linkages to the surrounding community will have little impact on the citizens who live nearby. Questions need to be asked about the most appropriate forms of tourism development growth poles so that the trickle down effect can be maximised. What are the changing roles for regional tourism organisations? Does place branding work? While tourism may help to modernise a region, it may also cause the region to become dependent on external organisations. How has new regionalism affected tourism development? What are the strengths and weaknesses of international growth triangles? Chapter 6 focuses on the central question: to what extent can tourism contribute to community development? The chapter explores the debates, issues and challenges of community-based tourism, investigating the changing nature of communities and whether using tourism as a tool for community development is naïve. Various approaches to, and forms of, tourism are examined, including pro-poor tourism, ecotourism and community-based conservation, indigenous tourism and cultural empowerment, and rural tourism. The chapter also includes a discussion of the planning and policy support needed for community-based tourism. Key questions include how can community-based tourism address the inequalities in distribution of economic, environmental and socio-cultural costs? How can pro-poor tourism and sustainable tourism address issues such as climate change in the context of community development? What are the roles of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in community-based tourism? If community-based tourism becomes successful will the community be able to maintain control once outside interests see the potential for profitability? To what extent are communities receptive of tourists and to what extent is this feeling shared within the community? How can existing power structures be changed to facilitate true community involvement? How long can a community maintain control over the tourism project before a local elite develops? What are the long-term challenges with community-based tourism?

460

Tour ism and Development

Chapter 7 addresses tourism and socio-cultural development issues and presents challenges to Western-based development concepts. Many dominant theories of development have emerged from Western schools of thought and classifications of the major indices for social and economic development are therefore also based within a Western or modernisation framework. The chapter examines four indices of development, including the Quality of Life Indicator, Human Development Index, Better Life Index and Social Progress Index, and illustrates the difficulty in measuring social progress. A range of both positive and negative social and cultural impacts of tourism development are examined and it is noted that social changes – including gender empowerment, family structure and traditional values – are inevitable if developing nations try to copy Western lifestyles. This chapter raises a number of interesting questions. How can socio-cultural change associated with tourism be accurately measured? Are traditional indices of socio-economic development of value when examining the socio-cultural changes associated with tourism? How can tourism be singled out among many industries in an age of globalisation to determine its impact on the host’s society? Is it necessary to divorce the assessment of tourism’s socio-economic development outcomes from Western development theories and, if so, what framework should be used? How can non-Western cultures best maintain their culture by as they develop tourism? How do various groups in the host destination view socio-cultural change over time? Chapter 8 explores cultural heritage, tourism and socio-economic development. Heritage tourism is one of the most universal forms of tourism today with most destinations offering some form of cultural heritage attraction or product, ranging from ancient buildings and ruins to cultural related products such as foodways, art, dance and more. Cultural heritage does not have to be old and the intangible side to cultural heritage is also a significant component. The chapter explores emerging trends, including scales and branding, intangible heritage, heritage democratisation, religious tourism and spiritual travel and heritage trails. Potential development possibilities include improvements to quality of life, social solidarity, strengthening identity, community empowerment and economic benefits. In a link to Chapters 4 and 6, questions are asked whether heritage tourism can adopt the strategies of pro-poor tourism. Sites and artefacts can have multiple meanings for different groups, be covered by international treaties, have a dark past, involve political disputes, be part of a colonial past, attract thieves and be destinations for pilgrimages and religious tourism. How are cultural attractions conserved and managed and who has control over how they are developed for tourism? How can a destination develop if there is a desire from the tourism industry for it to remain undeveloped so as to attract tourists? How can locals be involved if an international treaty, such as the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, governs the site? What will be the impact of climate change on fragile heritage sites?

Conclusion : Tour ism and Development

461

The final chapter in the second part of the book (Chapter 9) addresses the relationship between tourism, development and the environment. The chapter begins by presenting a framework of the tourism environment relationship before tracing the evolution of the environmental crisis. A critique of sustainable development is presented arguing that sustainable tourism development has failed as a result of environmental managerialism inherent in sustainable development principles. Environmental managerialism, which has underpinned tourism development planning in the Western world, holds little relevance for developing countries. It is argued that there is a need to go beyond the blueprint approach focusing on issues of environmental governance and ecological sustainability in order to provide a new interpretation of the tourism environment relationship. The concepts related to sustainable development are further examined in Chapter 15. However, the approach taken here raises some intriguing questions. Has the debate on sustainable tourism development reached a saturation point? As development thinking continues to evolve, is there a successor to sustainable development? Can sustainable development be defined differently in different country contexts or is that just a way of simplifying the term? What has been the impact of the blueprint approach of sustainable tourism development? The second part of this book is meant to examine a variety of different issues facing tourism development. One of the commonalties of the chapters in this section is the need to rethink traditional notions of development while considering the resulting implications to tourism development. Economic growth plays a central role in most development theory and tourism has become a favoured growth engine with the potential to increase jobs, income, foreign exchange, domestic and international investment, promote regional and community development and, more recently, reduce poverty. While examples were presented to highlight cases where tourism has been extremely effective, other instances were presented where tourism may not have lived up to expectations. At the centre of many of the issues raised is the question ‘who really benefits from tourism development?’ Different forms of tourism in different country contexts can yield different results. Western-based development theory and how development has traditionally been measured is questioned. Even the concept of sustainable development, which continues to be the focus of much of the tourism literature is criticised for its deterministic and managerial approaches to planning.

Part 3 Part 3 of the book examines the issues that are considered to be barriers or challenges to tourism development. These barriers and challenges limit the potential for tourism to contribute to overall development of a destination and it is the characteristics of tourism itself that present some of these

462

Tour ism and Development

barriers. The first of these barriers, covered in Chapter 10, relates to the structure of the global tourism industry, which is discussed in the context of the political economy of tourism. It is argued that capitalist restructuring and economic globalisation has led to a change in power relations that challenges the validity of state-centric approaches to the political economy of tourism, characterised by the neo-colonial dependency model. The reason behind these changes relates to the increasing dominance of transnational tourism corporations and the growing structural power of global and regional market forces. In the context of the political economy of tourism, it is important to not only understand if incomes are rising due to tourism but also to know whether or not the move to global tourism is increasing or decreasing the access to power and resources. Central to the political economy is the question ‘who has the power in tourism development?’ How does the study of the political economy of tourism help to understand the process of development in the tourism industry? Will those who have the power in the tourism industry be willing to share this power with local communities in destinations and will the sharing of power represent a meaningful partnership? Chapter 11 argues that climate change may be one of the most critical issues related to the tourism development process. Climatic shifts and highermagnitude weather events are going to have major impacts on tourism. A report by the IPCC released on 30 March 2014 clearly indicates that climate change is a threat to security, food and humankind and that climate change linked with economic shocks could lead to war and drive people from their homes (Goldenberg, 2014; see also Dyer, 2008, on Climate Wars). This chapter presents some of the major risks that climate policy and climate change pose to tourism and for the prospects of using tourism as an agent for development in developing countries. Many developing countries and, in particular, islandbased countries rely on tourists arriving by airplane and so while these tourists may generate economic benefits, their arrival by airplane is simultaneously contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, thereby threatening the destination they are visiting. Similarly, cruise ship tourism continues to grow and some Caribbean island destinations already have per capita emissions that exceed the world average. The rising profile of the IPCC is acknowledged in the shift towards the most recent development paradigm, which is global development, as indicated in Chapter 2. How will climate change impact destinations and travel patterns? Just as international travel has crossed the one billion arrival threshold, are travellers prepared to restrict their travel? Are tourists prepared to pay higher ticket prices that incorporate a required carbon offset? What steps are governments and the industry prepared to take to regulate greenhouse gas emissions? Will advertisements for staycation holidays convince people to travel closer to home? If we travel now will we pay later? Chapter 12 argues that tourism is a form of consumption which militates against the development process. Tourists are an integral part of the tourism

Conclusion : Tour ism and Development

463

production process and, as a result, tourism is not only influenced by the industry but it is also a product of the needs, motivations, expectations and consequent behaviour of tourists. Tourism is an ego-centric social activity motivated by avoidance/escape and ego-enhancement/reward. Within sustainable tourism, codes of appropriate behaviour and forms of tourism such as ecotourism are often presented to illustrate the shift towards more responsible tourism. However, one of the key assumptions is that tourists are responsive to the messages within sustainable tourism development and that they will adapt their behaviour as consumers in order to optimise their contribution of tourism to local development. This chapter argues that this is not the case and that tourism is largely untouched by green consumerism. The manner in which tourism is consumed contributes little to the development process beyond financial considerations. All is not lost, however, as once the nature of consumption is understood, then destinations can plan and develop accordingly to optimise the benefits of the industry. The question arises as to how destinations and the industry can better adapt to understand the nature of tourism consumption for their benefit? Do tourists pay much attention to issues related to green consumerism or sustainable development if it is going to require a major effort on their part? Do forms of tourism such as ecotourism represent more sustainable forms of tourism or do they represent forms of ego-tourism? Chapter 13 explores the evolution of the concept of human rights as well as some of the key debates, including that between universalists and relativists. The chapter then explores a range of human rights issues in tourism, including the inhuman treatment of people, employment, displacement, security checks, tourist safety while on holiday, multinational corporations and business practices, impacts on the environment and slum tourism. The increasing recognition of human rights is evident in development studies as identified in Chapter 2 with the shift towards the human development paradigm. Key questions include what actions can international organisations, NGOs, governments and corporations take to ensure that human rights are protected? Travellers expect low-cost, high-value trips and that can come at the cost of lower wages and poor working conditions for those employed in the industry. Will tourists be willing to pay more for their holiday so that those working in the industry will receive a fair wage? How can human rights be better connected to the strategies of pro-poor tourism and fair trade in tourism? How can host governments ensure human rights are protected in the tourism destination? How can human rights be advocated for in destinations with historically poor human rights records? What legislation is needed in the tourist’s home country to prosecute those tourists who go abroad and violate human rights in terms of inhumane treatment of people and break the law? To what extent do travellers have to give up some of their human rights (as they apply to privacy) so that the safety and security for all those involved in tourism can be protected?

464

Tour ism and Development

Tourism operates in an increasing complex and connected world. Chapter 14 argues that the tourism development process could be better informed by an examination through the lens of international studies. The chapter begins with an overview of global issues and risks (economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological) that can limit the role of tourism in the development process. These events often quickly go through the issueattention cycle, which rapidly cycles news out of the front pages; however these issues can have long-term impacts. The chapter argues that to better understand these events, various theories associated with international studies such as realism, liberalism, cosmopolitanism, Marxism, social constructivism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, feminism and globalisation can be utilised to examine the challenges to tourism development. Combining the perspectives of history, geography, anthropology, economics, politics and others, to take an interdisciplinary approach, along with the various theories of international studies, one can take a global issue or threat and better understand the implications this event can have on tourism. It highlights that tourism should not be studied in isolation but with a greater knowledge of the background of the destination and the actors involved. Key questions include how do global events impact tourism? What insights do theories of international studies offer to understanding the impact of global events on tourism? What background information should a tourism investor have before making investment decisions in a destination? How do global issues impact the locals in the tourism destination? The concept of sustainable tourism is further put under the microscope in Chapter 15 and it is argued that although it has become one of the dominant tourism paradigms, it can also be seen as a barrier to development. The concept of sustainable development has been covered in many of the chapters in this book in terms of empowerment, economic development, backward economic linkages, small-scale development and environmental protection. It is argued that while there is widespread support for the aims and principles for sustainable tourism development, it remains a contested notion, as does its parental paradigm: sustainable development. It is argued that tourism does not fit within a sustainable development template. Sustainable tourism development has evolved into a prescriptive and restrictive set of guidelines for tourism development. While it offers environmentally appropriate and ethically sound principles for optimising the role of tourism, it draws attention away from the potential benefits of other forms of tourism and other development agents. It is argued that large-scale tourism can also contribute to socioeconomic development in a destination and it is not necessarily a bad form of tourism development. The chapter offers a Destination Capitals Model of tourism development as a way forward, as sustainable tourism is not a universally appropriate vehicle for development. This raises questions regarding the nature of tourism development and what form and function it should take in different country contexts. Should Western development concepts be

Conclusion : Tour ism and Development

465

utilised in non-Western settings? How does sustainability act as a barrier to tourism development? Is it time to move beyond sustainability? Part 3 of the book identifies barriers and challenges to using tourism as an agent of development. While tourism has the potential to contribute to the economic and social development of a destination, there are characteristics of the industry which limit its potential as a development tool. The emerging global power structures of the tourism industry can take control out of the hands of the destination leaving only the local elites and multinational corporations to benefit. Climate change will have a significant impact on the entire planet, impacting destinations, tourists and the industry. It was also argued that tourists themselves are more generally interested in themselves and their needs as opposed to altering their form of consumption to maximise the benefits of tourism for the destination. Is there really a growing segment among the tourist population who is becoming more environmentally friendly and concerned that the money they spend circulates throughout the local economy? Human rights violations in tourism are increasingly coming to the forefront and those destinations which attract tourists yet violate human rights will not move forward on development indicators. A range of global risks can also challenge tourism development and utilising international studies as a lens may help to better understand these barriers and challenges. Finally, the last chapter challenges the concept of sustainable development. The use of a set of restrictive guidelines may actually prevent other forms of development such as large-scale mass tourism from potentially being a very good source of foreign exchange and an alternative model is put forward.

The Nature of Tourism and Development To conclude the book, four concepts will be considered: the nature of development, the nature of the tourism industry, the nature of tourists and the nature of the destination. The nature of development and how it is measured has become more complex over time. Knutsson (2009) refers to this increasing complexity by stating there is widening potential repertoire in the intellectual history of development. The question of how a region or a nation moves towards becoming more developed is just as complex. Development has moved from a focus on economic growth to a more holistic approach taking in a wider range of variables, so what is the goal of development? It is important to ask the questions: development for whom and development by whom? Many of the development paradigms are based in Western thought and consideration needs to be given as to how appropriate they are in a global context. It is also important to keep in mind that real problems of underdevelopment in the world exist and for the individual experiencing problems of day-to-day survival, theoretical debates may not hold much meaning. As

466

Tour ism and Development

Sen (1999) reminds us, at a global level, problems of persistent poverty and unfulfilled elementary needs, famines and widespread hunger, violations of political freedoms and basic liberties, neglect of the interests and agency of women, and increasing threats to the environment and the sustainability of economic and social welfare continue to face both rich and poor nations. Collier (2007: 3) refers to The Bottom Billion, stating that ‘the countries at the bottom coexist with the twenty-first century but their reality is the fourteenth century: civil war, plague, ignorance’. He goes on to state that the challenges for the bottom billion are critical to those who are better off. ‘It matters to us. The twenty-first-century world of material comfort, global travel, and economic interdependence will become increasingly vulnerable to these large islands of chaos. And it matters now. As the bottom billion diverges from an increasingly sophisticated world economy, integration will become harder, not easier’ (Collier, 2007: 3–4). The question posed in this book is what role can tourism play in trying to bring development to a region? While no single industry can be expected to bring a solution to the development problems identified by Sen (1999) or Collier (2007), tourism has been selected by many governments to help generate income. In order to understand the role of tourism, it is important to understand the nature of the tourism industry. Whether the public or the private sector or NGOs control the industry, it is fundamentally an industry which seeks to make a profit. From large multinational corporations to small agritourism operators, all businesses seek to make a profit. The industry is defined by a series of power structures which can extend across local, regional and national boundaries. The industry is increasingly being asked to incorporate CSR into their operations as well as being pro-poor. Human rights violations in tourism have been the focus of NGO campaigns and the industry is under increasing scrutiny in this area. Those who are in control of the industry can dictate what happens to the benefits of the industry. The scale, type of tourism selected and speed of development will also have an impact on the degree to which tourism can be a successful agent of development. From large-scale resort complexes to remote ecotourism lodges, a diversity of tourism initiatives has the potential to contribute to the development of the destination. What forms and scales of tourism development are more suitable to different destinations and development objectives is open for debate. The tourism literature has moved well beyond the argument that small-scale tourism was seen as somehow being more sustainable or able to provide greater linkages to the local community than large-scale or mass tourism. The focus now is on how to make all types of tourism contribute to broader notions of development (social, economic and environmental). How the industry operates, however, can either enhance or exploit the region. If the industry is successfully integrated into the local economy with strong partnerships and backward economic linkages, more people will benefit from tourism. Both the formal and informal tourism sectors will respond to

Conclusion : Tour ism and Development

467

tourism developments in order to meet the demands of the tourists. The tourism industry must not be viewed in isolation but needs to be integrated into wider development plans. Tourists themselves also have a role to play in the development process. As Urry (1995) suggests, central to the idea of modernity is that of movement. It is argued in Chapter 12 that in travelling, tourists are more interested in satisfying their own needs and desires and therefore they contribute very little in terms of development except in the case of financial gains. In the context of climate change, the increase in consumer demand for airplane and cruise travel is having a negative impact on the destinations tourists are travelling to. Tourists are also coming under scrutiny for consuming tourism products that may involve human rights violations, whether they are aware of this or not. Inexpensive holidays, for example, often mean that wages are low. It is important to consider what the aim of development is and how it is defined. Financial gain may be all a destination or a region seeks. On the other hand, are there alternative types of tourists with different demands? Can we expect tourists to become green consumers and adopt the philosophies of sustainable tourism? Are tourists engaged in volunteer tourism or undertaking activities that fall within pro-poor tourism doing this to help those in need or are they engaged in ego-tourism where their motivations for the trip are centred on themselves? In Chapter 7, the positive socio-cultural impacts of tourism development are considered and it is suggested that tourism can promote cultural exchange and understanding between hosts and guests. One of the requirements for successful tourism is political and economic stability and this suggests that tourists may help contribute to other areas of development besides economic contributions. It is in the destination that the interaction between hosts and guests occurs and where many of the physical manifestations of the industry are constructed. Policies are formed and plans are initiated. In the context of government selecting certain tourism development policies, the government is also choosing between different sets of values and these decisions are made within a complex policy arena (Hall, 1994c). The appropriateness of tourism development must, however, be considered within the parameters of socioeconomic, geographic and political considerations in the destination and the destination must be able to choose the type of tourism development that it wants to pursue. It is important to stress that no one sector such as tourism can be viewed in isolation in terms of development, but needs to be placed within the wider context of the local economy. How different levels of government in the destination formulate tourism policy may illustrate decentralisation of power or the formulation of a wider regional development plan. Community-based tourism can help to empower the residents of a destination and help enhance self-determination, yet even it is fraught with conflicting results as often it is only the local elite that benefit. With tourism creating income and jobs, it has been suggested that tourism can promote a

468

Tour ism and Development

level of economic development conducive to increased social well-being and stability (Weaver & Opperman, 2000). At the same time, tourism also has the ability to contribute to the protection and enhancement of traditions, customs, heritage and environment in a destination, although the demonstration effect can have negative implications on society. However, if the protection of these resources is undertaken to such a degree that a society cannot move forward, or the culture is turned into a commodity, then the process of development may be halted. The concept of sustainable development is replete with contradictions (Redclift, 1987) and environmentally friendly practices by the industry or the destination can soon be turned into a marketing ploy. Tourism development should not be viewed as a plan for a set of isolated host communities, coordination and collaboration is required at the local, regional, national and international levels. New regionalism is driving more collaborative planning with local participation. Destinations are focusing on being creative destinations that are branded and ranked on competitive indices. As competition between destinations becomes more intense, consideration also needs to be given to those destinations which go into decline, such as the seaside resorts in the United Kingdom. Is there much of a chance at rejuvenation or has tourism run its course and should the destination look to get out of the industry? Over a decade has passed since the publication of the first edition of this book. The aim of this second edition has been to continue to raise questions surrounding the nature of tourism in the development process. The concept of what is development, how it is measured and how it should or can be achieved through tourism continues to increase in complexity. The new chapters in this edition and the revisions to existing chapters serve to illustrate the expanding notions of the role of tourism in the development process. It is hoped that this second edition will continue to contribute to a greater understanding and knowledge of the processes, debates, challenges and benefits of using tourism as a development tool. At the same time, however, development thinking has expanded tremendously since the publication of the first edition of this book, leaving one to wonder what direction it will take in the future and how this will continue to be reflected in tourism.

References

Aaronowitz, A. (2009) Human Trafficking, Human Misery: The Global Trade in Human Beings. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Abolition Media (n.d.) About us. See www.abolitionmedia.org (accessed October 2011). Aboriginal Tourism BC (2014) Preserving Secwepemc traditions and history. See www. aboriginalbc.com/blog/preserving-secwepemc-traditions-history/ (accessed April 2014). ABP World Group Ltd (n.d.) ABP International Child Recovery Service. Blog. See http:// abpworld.wordpress.com/ (accessed May 2013). Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2012) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. New York: Crown Business. Acharya, A. (2012) The Making of Southeast Asia International Relations of a Region. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Acott, T., La Trobe, H. and Howard, S. (1998) An evaluation of deep ecotourism and shallow ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6 (3), 238–253. Adams, P. (2012) Rebranding ‘Hotel Rwanda’ into tourist destination. The Christian Science Monitor. See www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2012/0127/RebrandingHotel-Rwanda-into-tourist-destination (accessed 2 July 2013). Adams, W. (1992) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World. London: Routledge. Adams, J. and McShane, T. (1992) The Myth of Wild Africa: Conservation without Illusions. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Adams, W. and Hulme, D. (1992) Conservation and Communities: Changing Narratives, Policies and Practices in African Conservation. Manchester: IDPM. ADB (2013) Myanmar unveils $500 million tourism plan. See www.adb.org/news/myanmar-unveils-500-million-tourism-plan?ref=countries/myanmar/news (accessed 2 July 2013). Advisory Body, Evaluation, UNESCO (2008) Protective town of San Miguel and the Sanctuary of Jesús Nazareno de Atotonilco. See www.whc.unesco.org/en/list/1274 (accessed 23 February 2012). Agrawal, A. (1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change 26 (3), 413–439. Ahmed, N. (n.d.) Why food riots are likely to become the new normal. EarthInsight blog hosted by The Guardian. See www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/mar/06/ food-riots-new-normal (accessed 28 June 2013). Airbus (2012) Global market forecast 2012–2031. See www.airbus.com/company/ market/forecast (accessed 23 November 2012). Aitchison, C. (2006) The critical and the cultural: Explaining the divergent paths of leisure studies and tourisms studies. Leisure Studies 25 (4), 417–422. 469

470

Tour ism and Development

Aitchison, C. (2009) Gender and tourism discourses: Advancing the gender project in tourism studies. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 631–644). London: Routledge. Akama, J. (2004) Neocolonialism, dependency and external control of African’s tourism industry: A case study of wildlife safari tourism in Kenya. In C.M. Hall and H. Tucker (eds) Tourism and Postcolonialism: Contested Discourses, Identities and Representations (pp. 140–152). London: Routledge. Akama, J. and Kieti, D. (2007) Tourism and socio-economic development in developing countries: A case study of Mombasa Resort in Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15 (6), 735–748. Alamgir, M. (1988) Poverty alleviation through participatory development. Development Journal of SID 2 (3), 97–102. Albrecht, J. (2011) Negotiating business interests and a community’s ‘Greater Good’: Community-based tourism planning and stakeholder involvement in the Catlins, New Zealand. In J. Mosedale (ed.) Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective (pp. 191–205). London: Routledge. Alexander, J. (1998) Real Civil Societies: Dilemmas for Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Allen, T. (1996) Tourism in Barbados: The bittersweet alternative. In A. Badger et al. (ed.) Trading Places: Tourism as Trade (pp. 63–68). London: Tourism Concern. Alonso, A., O’Neill, M. and Kim, K. (2010) In search of authenticity: A case examination of the transformation of Alabama’s Langdale Cotton Mill into an industrial heritage tourism attraction. Journal of Heritage Tourism 5 (1), 33–48. Amelung, B., Nicholls, S. and Viner, D. (2007) Implications of global climate change for tourism flows and seasonality. Journal of Travel Research 45 (3), 285–296. Ampadu-Agyei, O. (1999) Central region project, Ghana: A case study. Conference Paper, ‘Changing Tastes, Changing Places’ Conference. London: Royal Geographical Society. Andersen, V. (1991) Alternative Economic Indicators. London: Routledge. Anderson, S., Hey, J., Peterson, M. and Toops, S. (2013) International Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Global Issues (2nd edn). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Anderson, T. (1988) The socio-economic ‘worlds’ of the Caribbean Basin. In J. Norwine and A. Gonzalez (eds) The Third World: States of Mind and Being (pp. 172–182). Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Andrews, A. (1988) The state of women in the Third World. In J. Norwine and A. Gonzalez (eds) The Third World: States of Mind and Being (pp. 125–137). Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Andriotis, K. (2004) Dependency on tour operators. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 4 (3), 23–47. Apo, P. (2004) Community Tourism: Empowering Communities To Tell Their Own Stories. By Peter Apo, former Director of the Hawaiian Hospitality Institute, a branch of The Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association, 1244 N. School Street, Honolulu, HI 96817. See www.NaHHA.com (accessed 23 February 2012). Apostolopoulos, Y., Sönmez, S. and Timothy, D. (2001) Women as Producers and Consumers in Developing Regions. Westport, CT: Praeger. Apoyo a Gente Emprendedora A.C. (n.d.) Creating a better future for Mexican entrepreneurs. See www.apoyoemprendedores.weebly.com/ (accessed 23 February 2012). Araujo, L. and Bramwell, B. (2002) Partnership and regional tourism in Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (4), 1138–1164. Archer, B. (1977) Tourism Multipliers: The State of the Art (2nd edn). Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Archer, B. (1978) Domestic tourism as a development factor. Annals of Tourism Research 5 (1), 126–140.

References

471

Archer, B. (1982) The value of multipliers and the policy implications. Tourism Management 3 (4), 236–241. Archer, B. (1983) Economic impact: Misleading multiplier. Annals of Tourism Research 11 (3), 517–522. Archer, B. and Cooper, C. (1994) The positive and negative impacts of tourism. In W. Theobald (ed.) Global Tourism: The Next Decade (pp. 73–91). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Arnold, S. (1989) Sustainable development: A solution to the development puzzle? Development Journal of SID 2–3, 21–25. Arnould, E. and Price, L. (1993) River magic: Extraordinary experience and extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (June), 24–45. Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4), 216–224. Arntzen, J., Molokomme, K., Tshosa, O., Moleele, N., Mazambani, D. and Terry, B. (2003a) Main Findings of the Review of CBNRM in Botswana. CBNRM Support Programme Occasional Paper No. 14. Gaborone, Botswana: IUCN. Arntzen, J., Molokomme, K., Tshosa, O., Moleele, N., Mazambani, D. and Terry, B. (2003b) Review of CBNRM in Botswana. Gaborone: Centre for Applied Research. Arrighi, G. (1998) Globalization and the rise of East Asia. International Sociology 13 (1), 59–77. Arrighi, G. (2002) The African crisis: World systemic and regional aspects. New Left Review 15 (May–June), 5–36. Ashley, C. and Ashton, J. (2006) Can the private sector mainstream pro-poor tourism? id21insights 62, 3. Ashley, C., Goodwin, H., McNab, D., Scott, M. and Chavos, L. (2006) Making Tourism Count for the Local Economy in the Caribbean: Guidelines for Good Practice. Barbados: ProPoor Tourism Partnership and the Caribbean Tourism Association. Ashley, C. and Haysom, G. (2006) From philanthropy to a different way of doing business: Strategies and challenges in integrating pro-poor approaches into tourism business. Pro-Poor Tourism. See http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/ odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3806.pdf (accessed December 2012). Ashley, C. and Roe, D. (1998) Enhancing Community Involvement in Wildlife Tourism: Issues and Challenges. IIED Wildlife and Development Series No.11. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Ashley, C. and Roe, D. (2002) Making tourism work for the poor: Strategies and challenges in southern Africa. Development Southern Africa 19 (1), 61–82. Ashley, C., Roe, D. and Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro-poor Tourism: Putting Poverty at the Heart of the Tourism Agenda. Natural Resource Perspectives, Number 51. London: Overseas Development Institute. Ashworth, G., Graham, B. and Tunbridge, J. (2007) Pluralising Pasts: Heritage, Identity and Place in Multicultural Societies. London: Pluto. Ashworth, G. and Tunbridge, J. (2012) Heritage, tourism and quality-of-life. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue and M.J. Sirgy (eds) Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research: Enhancing the Lives of Tourists and Residents of Host Communities (pp. 359–372). London: Springer. Asia Travel Tips (2005) Use tourism on war on poverty. See www.asiatraveltips.com/ news05/159-Tourism.shtml (accessed December 2012). Asimakopulos, A. (1991) Keynes’s General Theory and Accumulation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Associated Press (2014) Tunisia signs new constitution. The Guardian, 27 January. See www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/tunisia-signs-new-constitution-progres sive (accessed April 2014).

472

Tour ism and Development

Ateljevic, I. and Doorne, S. (2003) Culture, economy and tourism commodities: Social relations of production and consumption. Tourist Studies 3 (2), 123–141. Ateljevic, I., Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (2007) The Critical Turn in Tourism Studies: Innovative Research Methodologies. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Australia Government (2013) Tourism industry regional development fund fact sheet. Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. See www.ret.gov.au/tourism/ Documents/tirf/2012-tirf-grants-fact-sheet.pdf Australian Government (2014) Venezuela. Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. See http://smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/ Venezuela (accessed April 2014). Awa, N. (1989) Underutilization of women’s indigenous knowledge in agricultural and rural development programs: The effects of stereotypes. In D. Warren, L. Slikkerveer and S. Titilola (eds) Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development (pp. 3–9). Iowa State University, Technology and Social Change Program with the Academy for Educational Development. Ayers, J. and Huq, S. (2009) Supporting adaptation to climate change: What role for official development assistance? Development Policy Review 27 (6), 675–692. Ayikoru, M. (2009) Epistemology and ontology and tourism. In J. Tribe (ed.) Philosophical Issues in Tourism (pp. 62–79). Bristol: Channel View Publications. Azcárate, M. (2006) Between local and global, discourses and practices: Rethinking ecotourism in Celestún (Yucatán, México). Journal of Ecotourism 5 (1–2), 97–111. Babu, S., Mishra, S. and Parida, B. (eds) (2008) Tourism Development Revisited, Concepts Issues and Paradigms. London: Sage. Badger, A. (1996) Tourism as trade. In A. Badger et al. (eds) Trading Places: Tourism as Trade (pp. 9–23). London: Tourism Concern. Bagguley, P. (1990) Gender and labour flexibility in hotel and catering. Service Industries Journal 10 (4), 737–747. Balaguer, J., and Cantavella-Jorda, M. (2002) Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: The Spanish case. Applied Economics 34 (7), 877–884. Balanyá, B., Doherty, A., Hoedeman, O., Ma’Anit, A. and Wesselius, E. (2000) Europe Inc. Regional Restructuring and the Rise of Corporate Power. London: Pluto Press. Balas, C. (2013) Gaming anyone? A comparative study of recent urban development trends in Las Vegans and Macau. Cities 31 (2013), 298–307. Balmer, D. (1999) Thomson’s tentacles. The Observer (Escape Supplement), Sunday, 9 February. Barbier, E. (1989) The contribution of environmental and resource economics to an economics of sustainable development. Development and Change 20 (3), 429–459. Baretje, R. (1982) Tourism’s external account and the balance of payments. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (1), 57. Barnett, J. and Adger, W. (2007) Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Political Geography 26 (6), 639–655. Barnett, T. (2008) Influencing tourism at the grassroots level: The role of NGO Tourism Concern. Third World Quarterly 29 (5), 995–1002. Bar-On, R. (2000) Databank – Europe. Tourism Economics 6 (4), 371–391. Barratt Brown, M. (1995) Models in Political Economy (2nd edn). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Barrowclough, D. (2007) Foreign investment in tourism and small island developing states. Tourism Economics 13 (4), 615–638. Barry, K. (1995) The Prostitution of Sexuality: The Global Exploitation of Women. New York: New York University Press. Basu, R.L. (2005) Why the Human Development Index does not measure up to ancient Indian standards. Culture Mandala: The Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies 6 (2), Article 5. See http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cm/vol6/iss2/5 (accessed August 2012).

References

473

Bately, R. (2002) The changing role of the state in development. In V. Desai and R. Potter (eds) The Companion to Development Studies (pp. 135–139). New York: Oxford University Press. Baudrillard, J. (1988) Selected Writings. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauer, J. (1995) International human rights and Asian commitment. Human Rights Dialogue 1.3 (Winter). Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs Post, 4 December 1995. See www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/dialogue/1_03/ articles/514.html (accessed May 2013). Baum, T. (1996) Unskilled work and the hospitality industry: Myth or reality? International Journal of Hospitality Management 15 (3), 207–209. Bauman, Z. (1996) From pilgrim to tourist – Or a short history of identity. In S. Hall and P. DuGay (eds) Questions of Cultural Identity (pp. 18–36). London: Sage Publications. Baumberg, B. (2013) Social progress – A league table. Inequalities: Research and Reflection from Both Sides of the Atlantic, 12 April. See http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress. com/2013/04/12/3185/ (accessed May 2013). Bayfield, N. (1971) Some effects of walking and skiing on vegetation at Cairngorm. In E. Duffey and A. Watt (eds) The Scientific Management of Animal and Plant Communities for Conservation (pp. 469–485). Oxford: Blackwell. Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds) (2011) Introduction. The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (5th edn) (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Oxford University Press. BBC (2013a) Myanmar profile. See www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12990563 (accessed 2 July 2013). BBC (2013b) Protest-hit Brazil ‘missed chance’ to improve services, 17 June 2013. http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23093630 (accessed 28 June 2013). BBC (2013c) Sri Lanka in drive to boost tourism in Passekudaah Bay, 28 June 2013. See www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23093598 (accessed 28 June 2013). BBC News (2010) Seven dead after former policeman hijacks Manila bus. BBC Video online, 23 August. See www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11063160 (accessed October 2011). BBC News (2011a) Kenya-Somalia abductions: Profiles. BBC News online, 19 October 2011. See www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15332410 (accessed October 2011). BBC News (2011b) Mali kidnapping: One dead and three seized in Timbuktu. BBC News online, 25 November 2012. See www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15895908 (accessed 2012). Beauregard, R. (1998) Tourism and economic development policy in US urban areas. In D. Ioannides and K.G. Debbage (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry: A Supply Side Analysis (pp. 220–234). London: Routledge. Becheri, E. (1991) Rimini and Co – The end of a legend? Dealing with the algae effect. Tourism Management 12 (3), 229–235. Becken, S. and Hay, J. (2007) Tourism and Climate Change: Risks and Opportunities. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Becken, S. and Simmons, D. (2005) Tourism, fossil fuel consumption and the impact on the global climate. In C.M. Hall and J. Higham (eds) Tourism, Recreation and Climate Change (pp. 192–206). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Beckerman, W. (1992) Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose environment? World Development 24 (4), 481–496. Beckford, G. (1972) Persistent Poverty: Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World. New York: Oxford University Press. Beeton, S. (2006) Community Development through Tourism. Canberra: Landlinks Press. Bell, D. (1996) The East Asian challenge to human rights: Reflections on an East West dialogue. Human Rights Quarterly 18 (3), 641–667.

474

Tour ism and Development

Belk, R. (1995) Studies in the new consumer behaviour. In D. Miller (ed.) Acknowledging Consumption (pp. 58–95). London: Routledge. Belk, R., Wallendorf, M. and Sherry, J. (1989) The sacred and the profane in consumer behaviour: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research 16 (1), 1–38. Beniston, M. (2003) Climatic change in mountain regions: A review of possible impacts. Climatic Change 59, 5–31. Ben Magec (2000) Boletín Informativo Trimestral, No. 4, otoño (published in association with Ecologista magazine, No. 22, otoño). Benson, A. (ed.) (2011) Volunteer Tourism: Theoretical Frameworks and Practical Application. Abingdon: Routledge. Berkes, F. (1989) Co-operation from the perspective of human ecology. In F. Berkes (ed.) Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable Development (pp. 70–88). London: Bellhaven Press. Bernstein, H., Crow, B. and Johnson, H. (1995) Rural Livelihoods: Crises and Responses. Milton Keynes: Oxford University Press and Open University. Bertram, G. (1986) Sustainable development in Pacific micro-economies. World Development 14 (7), 809–822. Beswick, D. and Jackson, P. (2011) Conflict, Security and Development. London: Routledge. Bianchi, R. (1999) A critical ethnography of tourism entrepreneurship and social change in a fishing community in Gran Canaria. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of North London. Bianchi, R. (2002) Towards a new political economy of global tourism. In R. Sharpley and D. Telfer (eds) Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues (pp. 265–297). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Bianchi, R. (2004) Tourism restructuring and the politics of sustainability: A critical view from the European periphery (The Canary Islands). Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12 (6), 495–529. Bianchi, R. (2009) The ‘critical turn’ in tourism studies: A radical critique. Tourism Geographies 11 (4), 484–504. Bigano, A., Hamilton, J., Lau, M., Tol, R. and Zhou, Y. (2007) A global database of domestic and international tourist numbers at national and subnational level. International Journal of Tourism Research 9 (3), 147–174. Biggs, D., Hall, C.M. and Stoeckl, N. (2012) The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises to disasters: Reef tourism in Phuket. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20 (5), 645–665. Binns, T. and Nel, E. (1999) Beyond the development impasse: The role of local economic development and community self-reliance in rural South Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies 37 (3), 389–408. Biosphere Institute of the Bow Valley (2011) www.biosphereinstitute.org/ (accessed 23 February 2012). Bird, L. (2000) All-inclusives are back in the Gambia. The Times, 2 December. Blackstock, K. (2005) A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal 40 (1), 39–49. Blair, J. (1995) Local Economic Development: Analysis and Practice. London: Sage Publications. Blake, A. (2008) Tourism and income distribution in East Africa. International Journal of Tourism Research 10 (6), 511–524. Blake, A., Arbache, J., Sinclair, M. and Teles, V. (2008) Tourism and poverty relief. Annals of Tourism Research 35 (1), 107–126. Blake, J. (2009) UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage: The implications of community involvement in ‘safeguarding’. In L. Smith and N. Akagawa (eds) Intangible Heritage (pp. 45–73). London: Routledge.

References

475

Bliss, S. (2006) Child labour in tourism industry in developing countries. Paper presented at Social Educators’ Association of Australia Biennial National Conference, Brisbane, 12 January 2006. See www.ptc.nsw.edu.au/SiteMedia/w3svc361/Uploads/Documents/ 25.CHILD%20LABOUR%20TOURISM%20DEVELOPING%20COUNTRIES.pdf Blyton, P., Lucio, M., McGurk, J. and Turnbull, P. (1998) Contesting Globalisation: Airline Restructuring and Trade Union Strategies. University of Cardiff and International Transport Workers Federation. See www.itf.org.uk/PRESS/conglob.html Bock, G. (1989) Learning from the poor. Development and Cooperation 1, 7–8. Bocock, R. (1993) Consumption. London: Routledge. Boeing (2012) Current market outlook 2012–2031. See www.boeing.com/commercial/ cmo (accessed 23 October 2012). Boersma, F. (2009) The urgency and necessity of a different type of market: The perspective of producers organized within the Fair Trade market. Journal of Business Ethics 86, 51–61. Boissevain, J. (1977) Tourism development in Malta. Development and Change 8 (4), 523–588. Boissevain, J. (1979) The impact of tourism on a dependent Island Gozo, Malta. Annals of Tourism Research 6 (1), 76–90. Bond, M. (1991) Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Bond, M. and Ladman, J. (1980) International tourism: An instrument for Third World development. In I. Vogeler and A. de Souza (eds) Dialectics of Third World Development (pp. 231–240). New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun & Co. Booth, D. (1985) Marxism and development sociology: Interpreting the impasse. World Development 13 (7), 761–787. Booth, D. (1993) Development research: From impasse to a new agenda. In F. Schuurman (ed.) Beyond the Impasse New Directions in Development Theory (pp. 49–76). London: Zed Books. Boserüp, E. (1965) The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure. London: Allen and Unwin. Botterill, D., Owen, R., Emanuel, L., Foster, T., Gale, T., Nelson, C. and Selby, M. (2000) Perceptions from the periphery: The experience of Wales. In F. Brown and D. Hall (eds) Tourism in Peripheral Areas (pp. 7–38). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Boulding, K. (1992) The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In A. Markandya and J. Richardson (eds) The Earthscan Reader in Environmental Economics (pp. 27–35). London: Earthscan. Bourdieu, P. (1986) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge. Bowcott, O., Traynor, I., Webster, P. and Walker, D. (1999) Analysis: Green politics. The Guardian, 11 March, p. 17. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 1–5. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2000) Collaboration and partnerships in tourism planning. In B. Bramwell and B. Lane (eds) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Bramwell, B. and Sharman, A. (1999) Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2), 392–415. Brandt Commission (1983) Common Crisis North South. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bras, K. (1997) Small-scale entrepreneurship: Strategies of local guides on the island of Lombok. In H. Dahlas (ed.) Tourism, Small Entrepreneurs, and Sustainable Development: Cases from Developing Countries (pp. 49–63). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University, ATLAS. Brenner, L. and Aguilar, A. (2010) Luxury tourism and regional economic development in Mexico. The Professional Geographer 54 (4), 500–520.

476

Tour ism and Development

Bresson, G. and Logossah, K. (2011) Crowding-out effects of cruise tourism on stay-over tourism in the Caribbean: Non-parametric panel data evidence. Tourism Economics 17 (1), 127–158. Briedenhann, J. and Wickens, E. (2004) Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of rural areas: Vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management 25 (1), 71–79. Briggs, J. and Sharp, J. (2004) Indigenous knowledge and development: A postcolonial caution. Third World Quarterly 25 (4), 661–676. Brinkerhoff, D. and Ingle, M. (1989) Integrating blueprint and process: A structured flexibility approach to development management. Public Administration and Development 9 (5), 487–503. British Antarctic Survey (2011) Antarctic tourism. See http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/ about_antarctica/tourism/faq.php (accessed 5 October 2011). Britton, R. (1980a) Shortcomings of third world tourism. In I. Volger and A. De Souza (eds) Dialectics of Third World Development (pp. 241–248). Montclair: Allanheld, Osmun. Britton, S. (1980b) The evolution of a colonial space economy. Journal of Historical Geography 6 (3), 251–274. Britton, S. (1982a) International tourism and multinational corporations in the Pacific: The case of Fiji. In M. Taylor and N. Thrift (eds) The Geography of Multinationals (pp. 252–274). London: Croom Helm. Britton, S. (1982b) The political economy of tourism in the third world. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (3), 331–358. Britton, S. (1987a) Tourism in Pacific-Islands States constraints and opportunities. In S. Britton and W. Clark (eds) Ambiguous Alternative Tourism in Small Developing Countries (pp. 113–140). Suva: The University of the South Pacific. Britton, S. (1987b) Tourism in small developing countries development issues and research needs. In S. Britton and W. Clark (eds) Ambiguous Alternative Tourism in Small Developing Countries (pp. 167–187). Suva: The University of the South Pacific. Britton, S. (1989) Tourism, dependency and development: A mode of analysis. In T.V. Singh, H.L. Theuns and F.M. Go (eds) Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries (pp. 93–116). Frankfurt: Peter Long. Britton, S. (1991) Tourism, capital, and place: Towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9 (4), 451–478. Britton, S. and Clarke, W. (eds) (1987) Ambiguous Alternative: Tourism in Small Developing Countries. Suva: University of the South Pacific. Brohman, J. (1995) Economism and critical silences in development studies: A theoretical critique of neoliberalism. Third World Quarterly 16 (2), 297–318. Brohman, J. (1996a) New directions in tourism for third world development. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (1), 48–70. Brohman, J. (1996b) Popular Development Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Development. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Browett, J. (1980) Development, the diffusionist paradigm and geography. Progress in Human Geography 4 (1), 57–79. Brown, A. (1995) Caribbean cultures and mass communication technology: Re-examining the cultural dependency thesis. In H. Dunn (ed.) Globalization, Communications and Caribbean Identity (pp. 40–54). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Brown, D. (1998) The search for an appropriate form of tourism for Africa: Lessons from the past and suggestions for the future. Tourism Management 19 (3), 237–245. Brown, F. (1998) Tourism Reassessed: Blight or Blessing? Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Brown, F. and Hall, D. (2000) Tourism in Peripheral Areas. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Brown, F. and Hall, D. (2008) Tourism and development in the global South: The issues. Third World Quarterly 29 (5), 839–849.

References

477

Brown, L. (1992) Economics versus ecology: Two contrasting views of the world. Ecodecision June, 19–22. Brown, L. and Narain, J. (2012) Controversial ‘naked’ airport body scanners to be scrapped after failing to receive European approval. Daily Mail Online, 17 September. See www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204422/Controversial-naked-airportbody-scanners-scrapped-failing-receive-European-approval.html#ixzz2WDG06jav (accessed May 2013). Brown, S. and Lehto, X. (2005) Traveling with a purpose: Understanding the motives and benefits of volunteer vacationers. Current Issues in Tourism 8 (6), 479–496. Brown, T. (1999) Antecedents of culturally significant tourist behaviour. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (3), 676–700. Bruner, E. (1995) The ethnographer/tourist in Indonesia. In M.-F. Lanfant, J. Allcock and E. Bruner (eds) International Tourism: Identity and Change (pp. 224–241). London: Sage Publications. Bruner, E.M. and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1994) Maasai on the lawn: Tourist realism in East Africa. Cultural Anthropology 9 (4), 435–470. Brunet, S., Bauer, J., De Lacy, T. and Tshering, K. (2001) Tourism development in Bhutan: Tensions between tradition and modernity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 (1), 243–263. Bryant, R. and Bailey, S. (1997) Third World Political Ecology. London: Routledge. Bryden, J. (1973) Tourism and Underdevelopment: A Case Study of the Commonwealth Caribbean. Rowbridge: Redwood Press Ltd. Buck, R. (1978) Towards a synthesis in tourism theory. Annals of Tourism Research 5 (1), 110–111. Buckley, R. (2004) The effects of World Heritage listing on tourism to Australian national parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12 (1), 70–84. Budowski, G. (1976) Tourism and conservation: Conflict, co-existence or symbiosis? Environmental Conservation 3 (1), 27–31. Buhalis, D. (2000) Relationships in the distribution channel of tourism: Conflicts between hoteliers and tour operators in the Mediterranean Region. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 1 (1), 113–139. Buhalis, D. and Law, R. (2008) Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the internet – The state of etourism research. Tourism Management 29 (4), 609–623. Bull, A. (1995) The Economics of Travel and Tourism (2nd edn). Melbourne: Longman. Burkhart, A.J. and Medlik, S. (1981) Tourism: Past, Present and Future (2nd edn). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Burns, P. (1996) Japan’s Ten Million Program: The paradox of statistical success. International Journal of Tourism Research 2 (2), 181–192. Burns, P. (1999a) An Introduction to Tourism and Anthropology. London: Routledge. Burns, P. (1999b) Paradoxes in planning tourism: Elitism or brutalism? Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2), 329–348. Burns, P. (2004) Tourism planning a Third Way? Annals of Tourism Research 31 (1), 24–43. Burns, P. and Holden, A. (1995) Tourism: A New Perspective. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Burns, P. and Novelli, M. (2008a) Introduction: The Majority World development and tourism. In P. Burns and M. Novelli (eds) Tourism Development. Growth, Myths and Inequalities (pp. xvi–xxx) Wallingford: CAB International. Burns, P. and Novelli, M. (eds) (2008b) Tourism Development, Growth, Myths and Inequalities. Wallingford: CABI. Burton, R. (1998) Maintaining the quality of ecotourism: Ecotour operators’ responses to tourism growth. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6 (2), 117–142.

478

Tour ism and Development

Butcher, J. (2010) The mantra of ‘community participation’ in context. Tourism Recreation Research 35 (2), 201–205. Butcher, J. and Smith, P. (2010) ‘Making a difference’: Volunteer tourism and development. Tourism Recreation Research 35 (1), 27–36. Butler, R.W. (1980) The concept of the tourism area cycle of evolution. Canadian Gegographer 24, 5–12. Butler, R. (1990) Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of Travel Research 28 (3), 40–45. Butler, R. (1991) Tourism, environment and sustainable development. Environmental Conservation 18 (3), 201–209. Butler, R. (1992) Alternative tourism: The thin edge of the wedge. In V. Smith and W. Eadington (eds) Tourism Alternatives Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism (pp. 31–46). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Butler, R.W. (1993a) Tourism: An evolutionary perspective. In J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler and G. Wall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing (pp. 27–44). Heritage Resources Centre Joint Publication #1. University of Waterloo. Butler, R. (1993b) Tourism development in small islands: Past influences and future directions. In D. Lockhart, D. Drakakis-Smith and J. Schembri (eds) The Development Process in Small Island States (pp. 71–91). London: Routledge. Butler, R.W. (1996) Problems and possibilities of sustainable tourism: The case of the Shetland Islands. In L. Briguglio, R. Butler, D. Harrison and W. Fiho (eds) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States, Case Studies (pp. 11–49). London: Pinter. Butler, R. (1998a) Sustainable tourism – Looking backwards in order to progress? In C.M. Hall and A. Lew (eds) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 25–34). Harlow: Longman. Butler, R. (1998b) Tartan mythology: The traditional tourist image of Scotland. In G. Ringer (ed.) Destinations: Cultural Landscape of (pp. 121–139). London: Routledge. Butler, R. (1999a) Problems and issues of integrating tourism development. In D. Pearce and R. Butler (eds) Contemporary Issues in Tourism Development (pp. 65–80). London: Routledge. Butler, R. (1999b) Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies 1 (1), 7–25. Butler, R. and Hall, C.M. (1998) Image and reimaging of rural areas. In R. Butler, C.M. Hall and J. Jenkins (eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas (pp. 115–122). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Butler, R. and Hinch, T. (eds) (1996) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. London: International Thomson Business Press. Butler, R. and Hinch T. (2012) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis. Butler, R. and Suntikul, W. (eds) (2010) Tourism and Political Change. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers. Butler, R. and Suntikul, W. (2013) Tourism and war an ill wind? In R. Butler and W. Suntikul (eds) Tourism and War (pp. 1–11). London: Routledge. Buzard, J. (1993) The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature and the Ways to ‘Culture’ 1800–1918. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Byrne-Swain, M. (1989) Gender roles in indigenous tourism: Kuna Mola, Kuna Yala and cultural survival. In V. Smith (ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. (2nd edn; pp. 83–104). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bywater, M. (1998) Who owns whom in the European travel industry? Travel & Tourism Analyst (3), 41–59. CAA (2008) Recent Trends in Growth of UK Air Passenger Demand. London: Civil Aviation Authority. See www.caa.co.uk/docs/589/erg_recent_trends_final_v2.pdf (accessed 21 September 2009).

References

479

Caalders, J. (2000) Tourism in Friesland: A network approach. In G. Richards and D. Hall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development (pp. 185–204). London: Routledge. Calatrava Requena, J. and Avilés, P. (1993) Tourism: An opportunity for disadvantaged rural areas? Leader Magazine 4, 6–9. Calhoun, C. (1995) Critical Social Theory: Culture, History and the Challenge of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell. Camble, P. (1999) Oil is dead? Long liver tourism! Middle East Insight 14 (5), 38–42. Cameron, C. and Gateway, J. (2008) Beyond sun, sand and sea: The emergent tourism programme in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Journal of Heritage Tourism 3 (1), 55–73. Campbell, C. (1987) The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism. Oxford: Blackwell. Campfire (2013) Campfire Association of Zimbabwe. See www.campfirezimbabwe.org/ Canadian Badlands (2013) Overview. See www.canadianbadlands.com/cbl/corporate/ (accessed 15 April 2013). Cannon, T. and Müller-Mahn, D. (2010) Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change. Natural Hazards 55 (3), 621–635. Caplan, B. (2009) Against the Human Development Index. Library of Economics and Liberty Econlog. See http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/05/against_the_hum. html (accessed August 2012). Cardoso, F. (1979) The originality of the copy: The Economic Commission for Latin America and the idea of development. In K. Hill (ed.) Toward a New Strategy for Development (pp. 53–72). Toronto: Pergamon Press. Cardoso, F. and. Faletto, E. (1979) Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Caribbean Hotel Association and Caribbean Tourism Organization (2007) CHA-CTO Position Paper of Global Climate Change and the Caribbean Tourism Industry. San Juan, PR, and Barbados. Caribbean Tourism and Hotel Association (2007) Private Sector Positions on Tourism Services in Trade Negotiations. See www.caribbeanhotelassociation.com/AdvocacyCarib.php (accessed 21 September 2009). Caribbean Tourism Organisation (2012) International and Caribbean Tourist Receipts: 1980– 2004 (US$ Billions). See www.onecaribbean.org/content/files/intlcbbntouristreceipts1980to2004.pdf (accessed 11 June 2012). Carlisle, S. and Jones, E. (2012) The beach enclave: A landscape of power. Tourism Management Perspectives 1 (1), 9–16. Carlsen, J. and Butler, R. (2011) Introducing sustainable perspectives of island tourism. In J. Carlsen and R. Butler (eds) Island Tourism Sustainable Perspectives (pp. 1–7). Wallingford: CABI. Carney, D. (2002) Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and Possibilities for Change. London: Department for International Development. Carroll, R. (2009) Workers of the world, relax! Chávez takes over Hilton. The Guardian. See www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/22/chavez-seizes-hilton-caracas (accessed 2 July 2013). Carruthers, J. (1997) Nationhood and national parks: Comparative examples from the post-imperial experience. In T. Griffiths and L. Robin (eds) Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies (pp. 125–138). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Carter, A. (1995) The nation-state and underdevelopment. Third World Quarterly 16 (4), 595–618.

480

Tour ism and Development

Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Castells, M. (2000) Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology 51 (1), 5–24. Catalani, A. and Ackroyd, T. (2013) Inheriting slavery: Making sense of a difficult heritage. Journal of Heritage Tourism 8 (4), 337–436. Cater, E. (1987) Tourism in the least developed countries. Annals of Tourism Research 14 (2), 202–226. Cater, E. (1993) Ecotourism in the Third World. Problems for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management 14 (2), 85–93. Cater, E. (1995) Environmental contradictions in sustainable tourism. The Geographical Journal 161 (1), 211–228. Cater, E. (2006) Ecotourism as a western construct. Journal of Ecotourism 5 (1–2), 23–39. Cater, E. and Goodall, B. (1992) Must tourism destroy its resource base? In A. Mannion and S. Bowlby (eds) Environmental Issues in the 1990s (pp. 309–323). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Causevic, S. and Lynch, P. (2013) Political (in)stability and its influence on tourism development. Tourism Management 34, 145–157. Cavaco, C. (1995a) Rural tourism: The creation of new tourist spaces. In A. Montanari and A. Williams (eds) European Tourism: Regions, Spaces and Restructuring (pp. 129–149). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Cavaco, C. (1995b) Tourism in Portugal: Diversity, diffusion and regional and local development. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 86 (1), 64–71. CBC News (2013) Islamic extremists in Mali launch assault on Timbuktu. CBC News online, 31 March 2013. See www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/03/31/wrd-malitimbuktu-islamic-extremists-aqim.html (accessed March 2013). Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1991) Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas. In K. Lindberg and D.E. Hawkins (eds) Ecotourism A Guide For Planners and Managers (pp. 24–30). North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Society. Cebezas, A. (2009) Economies of Desire: Sex and Tourism in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Çela, A., Lankford, S. and Knowles-Lankford, J. (2009) Visitor spending and economic impacts of heritage tourism: A case study of the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area. Journal of Heritage Tourism 4 (3), 245–256. Cellini, R. (2010) Is UNESCO recognition effective in fostering tourism? A comment on Yang, Lin and Han. Tourism Management 32 (2), 452–454. Centre for Aviation (2012) LCC Capacity Share (%) of Total Seats: 2001–2012. See www. centreforaviation.com/profiles/hot-issues/low-cost-carriers-lccs#lcc (accessed 28 May 2012). Cha, S., McCleary, K. and Uysal, M. (1995) Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travellers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel Research 34 (1), 33–39. Chakravarti, I. (2008) Heritage tourism and community participation: A case study of the Sindhudurg Fort, India. In B. Prideaux, D. Timothy and K. Chon (eds) Cultural and Heritage Tourism in Asia and the Pacific (pp. 189–203). London: Routledge. Chambers English Dictionary (1988) Edinburgh: W & R Chambers Ltd. Chambers, R. (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22 (7), 953–969. Chaperon, S. and Bramwell, B. (2013) Dependency and agency in peripheral tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 40 (1), 132–154. Chase, A. (1995) In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Environmentalism. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Cheer, J. and Peel, V. (2011) The tourism–foreign aid nexus in Vanuatu: Future directions. Tourism Planning & Development 8 (3), 253–264.

References

481

Chenery, H. and Syrquin, M. (1975) Patterns of Development 1950–1970. New York: World Bank by Oxford University Press. Cheong, S. and Miller, M. (2000) Power and tourism: A Foucauldian observation. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (2), 371–390. Chin, C. (2008) Labour flexibilisation at sea: The ‘mini’ United Nations crew on cruise ships. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (1), 1–18. Chipeta, C. (1981) Indigenous Economics: A Cultural Approach. Smithtown, NY: Exposition Press. Choi, H.C. and Sirakaya, E. (2005) Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research 43 (4), 380–394. Chok, S., Macbeth, J. and Warren, C. (2007) Tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation: A critical analysis of ‘pro-poor tourism’ and implications for sustainability. In C.M. Hall (ed.) Pro-poor Tourism: Who Benefits? (pp. 34–55). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Chomsky, N. (1999) Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order. Toronto: Turnaround Publisher. Choo, H. and Jamal, T. (2009) Tourism on organic farms in South Korea: A new form of ecotourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (4), 431–454. Christaler, W. (1963) Some considerations of tourism location in Europe: The peripheral regions – Underdeveloped countries – Recreation areas. Regional Science Association; Papers XII, Lund Congress, 95–105. Christie, I. and Sharma, A. (2008) Research note: Millennium Development Goals – What is tourism’s place? Tourism Economics 14 (2), 427–430. Church, A. and Frost, M. (2004) Tourism, the global city and the labour market in London. Tourism Geographies 6 (2), 208–228. Císarˇ, O. and Vrábliková, K. (2012) Transnational activism of social movement organizations: The effect of European Union funding on local groups in the Czech Republic. European Union Politics 14 (1), 140–160. Clancy, M. (1998) Commodity chains, services and development: Theory and preliminary evidence from the tourism industry. Review of International Political Economy 5 (1), 122–148. Clancy, M. (1999) Tourism and development: Evidence from Mexico. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (1), 1–20. Clancy, M. (2001) Exporting Paradise: Tourism Development in Mexico. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Clancy, M. (2008) Cruisin’ to exclusion: Commodity chains, the cruise industry, and development in the Caribbean. Globalizations 5 (3), 405–418. Clancy, M. (2011) Global commodity chains and tourism: Past research and future directions. In J. Mosedale (ed.) Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective (pp. 75–92). London: Routledge. Clapham, A. (2007) Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cleverdon, R. (1979) The Economic and Social Impact of Tourism in Developing Countries. London: Economist Intelligence Unit. CLIA (2014) The state of the cruise industry in 2014: Global growth in passenger numbers and product offerings. See www.cruising.org/vacation/news/press_releases/ 2014/01/state-cruise-industry-2014-global-growth-passenger-numbers-and-prod uct-o (accessed 26 February 2014). Cling, J. (2003) A critical review of the World Bank’s stance on poverty reduction. In J. Cling, M. Razafindrakoto and F. Roubaud (eds) New International Poverty Reduction Strategies (pp. 21–50). London: Routledge. CNN Money (2012) Global 500. See http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ global500/2011/full_list/index.html (accessed 15 June 2012).

482

Tour ism and Development

CNN Money (2013) Global 500. Fortune, 23 July 2012. See http://money.cnn.com/maga zines/fortune/global500/2012/full_list/ (accessed May 2013). Coe, N., Hess, M., Yeng, H., Dicken, P. and Henderson, J. (2004) ‘Globalising’ regional development: A global production networks perspective. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29 (4), 468–484. Cohen, E. (1974) Who is a tourist? A conceptual clarification. Sociological Review 22 (4), 527–555. Cohen, E. (1978) The impact of tourism on the physical environment. Annals of Tourism Research 5 (2), 215–237. Cohen, E. (1982) Marginal paradises: Bungalow tourism on the islands of southern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (2), 189–228. Cohen, E. (2012) Globalization, global crises and tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 37 (2), 103–111. Cole, S. (2006) Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14 (6), 629–644. Cole, S. (2007) Implementing and evaluating a code of conduct for visitors. Tourism Management 28 (2), 443–451. Coles, T. and Hall, C.M. (eds) (2008) Tourism and International Business. London: Routledge. Collier, P. (2007) The Bottom Billion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Commission of the European Communities (1993) Growth, Competitiveness and Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century. White Paper. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities. Commission of the European Communities (1999) Competitiveness and Cohesion: Trends in the Regions. Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions in the Community. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Connolly, K. (2013) Arab Spring: 10 unpredicted outcomes. BBC NEWS Middle East. See www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25212247 (accessed April 2014). Connor, S. (1997) Postmodernist Culture: An Introduction to the Theories of the Contemporary (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Constanza, R. (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., Shepherd, R. and Wanhill, S. (1998) Tourism: Principles and Practice (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman. Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D. and Wanhill, S. (1993) Tourism: Principles and Practice. London: Pitman Publishing. Cooper, C. and Hall, C.M. (2013) Contemporary Tourism: An International Approach (2nd edn). Oxford: Goodfellow. Corbridge, S. (1995) Development Studies: A Reader. London: Arnold. Countryside Commission (1995) Sustainable Rural Tourism: Opportunities for Local Action. CCP 483. Cheltenham: Countryside Commission. Countryside Commission (1996) Public Attitudes to the Countryside. CCP481. Cheltenham: Countryside Commission. Cowell, D. (1984) The Marketing of Services. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Cowen, M. and Shenton, R. (1996) Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge. Cox, K. and Negri, R. (2010) The state and the question of development in sub-Saharan Africa. Review of African Political Economy 37 (123), 71–85. Cox, M. (2012) Power shifts, economic change and the decline of the West? International Relations 26 (4), 369–388. Cox, R. (1981) Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10 (2), 126–155. Cox, R. (1987) Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York: Columbia University Press.

References

483

Cox, R. (2002) The Political Economy of a Plural World: Critical Reflections on Power, Morals and Civilization. London: Routledge. Craik, J. (1995) Are there cultural limits to tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3 (2), 87–98. Crick, M. (1989) Representations of international tourism in the social sciences: Sun, sex, sights, savings and servility. Annual Review of Anthropology 18, 307–344. Cripps, K. (2014) Air Canada suspends flights to Venezuela. CNN Travel. See www.cnn. com/2014/03/18/travel/air-canada-venezuela-flights/ (accessed April 2014). Croall, J. (1995) Preserve or Destroy: Tourism and the Environment. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Crompton, J. (1979) Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6 (4), 408–424. Cronin, L. (1990) A strategy for tourism and sustainable developments. World Leisure and Recreation 32 (3), 12–18. Cruise Market Watch (2014) 2014 world wide market share. See www.cruisemarketwatch.com/market-share/ Crush, J. and Wellings, P. (1983) The southern African pleasure periphery, 1966–83. The Journal of Modern African Studies 21 (4), 673–698. CSLS (2012) Introduction and Methodology (Last Update: Tuesday, 6 March 2012). Index of Economic Well-being. The Centre for the Study of Living Standards. See www.csls. ca/iwb.asp (accessed December 2012). CTO (1992) Annual Report 1991. Nicosia: Cyprus Tourism Organisation. CTO (2014) Caribbean Tourism Organisation. www.onecaribbean.org/ (accessed April 2014). Cubie, R. (2000) The nuts & bolts of building the village. In B. Barnet (ed.) Whistler, History in the Making. Whistler: Pique Publishing Inc. Cukier, J. (2002) Tourism employment issues in developing countries: Examples from Indonesia. In R. Sharpley and D. Telfer (eds) Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues (pp. 202–230). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Curry, S. (1982) The terms of trade and real import capacity of the tourism sector in Tanzania. Journal of Development Studies 18 (4), 479–496. Curry, S. (1990) Tourism development in Tanzania. Annals of Tourism Research 17 (1), 133–149. Curry, S. and Morvaridi, B. (1992) Sustainable tourism: Illustrations from Kenya, Nepal and Jamaica. In C. Cooper and A. Lockwood (eds) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management (Vol. 4, pp. 131–139). London: Bellhaven Press. Dahles, H. (1997) Tourism, petty entrepreneurs and sustainable development. In H. Dahles (ed.) Tourism, Small Entrepreneurs, and Sustainable Development: Cases from Developing Countries (pp. 23–33). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University, ATLAS. Dahles, H. (2000) Tourism, small enterprises and community development. In G. Richards and D. Hall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development (pp. 154– 169). London: Routledge. Dahles, H. and Bras, K. (1997) The state, the market, and the role of NGOs in the establishment of sustainable tourism development: A discussion. In H. Dahles (ed.) Tourism, Small Entrepreneurs, and Sustainable Development: Cases from Developing Countries (pp. 65–73). The Netherlands: Tilburg University, ATLAS. Daley, B. (2009) Is air transport an effective tool for sustainable development? Sustainable Development 17 (4), 210–219. Daly, H. (1991) Steady-state Economics (2nd edn). Washington, DC: Island Press. Daly, H. and Cobb, C. (1989) For the Common Good. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Daniels, S. and Walker, G. (2001) Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, CT: Prager.

484

Tour ism and Development

Dann, G. (1977) Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 4 (4), 184–194. Dann, G. (1981) Tourist motivation: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8 (2), 187–219. Dann, G. (1996) The Language of Tourism: A Socio-Linguistic Perspective. Wallingford: CAB International. Daoudi, A. and Mihalic, T. (1999) Strategic importance of tourism as a part of an integrated development strategy of countries and places. Revue de Tourisme 12 (3), 18. Dasgupta, B. (1998) Structural Adjustment, Global Trade and the New Political Economy of Development. London: Zed Books. Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Meisner, C., Wheeler, D. and Jianping, Y. (2007) The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Report Number WPS4136. New York: World Bank. Dasgupta, P. and Weale, M. (1992) On measuring the quality of life. World Development 20 (1), 119–131. Davenport, A. (2011) Marxism in IR: Condemned to a Realist fate? International Journal of International Relations 19 (1), 27–48. Davidson, C. (2009) Abu Dhabi’s new economy: Oil, investment and domestic development. Middle East Policy 16 (2). See http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-eastpolicy-archives/abu-dhabis-new-economy-oil-investment-and-domestic-development (accessed November 2012). Davidson, R. and Maitland, R. (1997) Tourism Destinations. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Davidson, S. (1993) Human Rights. Buckingham: Open University Press. Davis, D. (1978) Development and the tourist industry in third world countries. Society and Leisure 1, 301–322. Davis, H. (1968) Potentials for tourism in developing countries. Finance and Development 5 (4), 34–39. Davis, M. (1993) Who killed Los Angeles? Part two: The verdict is given. New Left Review 199, 29–54. Davis, M. (2004) Planet of slums: Urban involution and informal proletariat. New Left Review 26 (March–April), 5–34. Davis, P. (2004) Ecomuseums and the democratization of cultural tourism. Tourism, Culture & Communication 5 (1), 45–58. Debbage, K. and Gallaway, S. (2009) Global tourism business operations – Theoretical frameworks and key issues. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 581–554). London: Sage. DEFRA (2013) Stimulating economic growth in rural areas. See www.gov.uk/ government/policies/stimulating-economic-growth-in-rural-areas de Kadt, E. (1979a) Social planning for tourism in the developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 6 (2), 36–48. de Kadt, E. (1979b) Tourism: Passport to Development? New York: Oxford University Press. de Kadt, E. (1990) Making the Alternative Sustainable: Lessons from Development for Tourism. DP 272. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. de la Dehesa, G. (2006) Winners and Losers in Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Deloitte and Touche (1999) Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Elimination: A Report for the Department of International Development. London: IIED and ODI. Demeritt, D. (2001) The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (2), 307–337. Demeritt, D. (2006) Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique. Economy and Society 35 (3), 453–479. Demissie, F. (2008) Situated neoliberalism and urban crisis in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. African Identities 6 (4), 505–527.

References

485

Demunter, C. (2008) The Tourist Accommodation Sector Employs 2.3 Million in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Dernoi, L. (1981) Alternative tourism: Towards a new style in North–South relations. International Journal of Tourism Management 2 (4), 253–264. Derrett, R. and St Vincent Welch, J. (2008) 40 sheds and 40 kilometers: Agricultural sheds as heritage tourism opportunities. In B. Prideaux, D. Timothy and K. Chon (eds) Cultural and Heritage Tourism in Asia and the Pacific (pp. 73–83). London: Routledge. Desforges, L. (2000) State tourism institutions and neo-liberal development: A case study of Peru. Tourism Geographies 2 (2), 177–192. Desjeux, D. (1981) Development as an acculturation process. Development: Seeds of Change 3 (4), 33–38. Deutsche Bank Research (2008) Climate Change and Tourism: Where Will the Journey Take Us? Berlin: Deutsche Bank Research. Diamantis, D. (1999) Green strategies for tourism worldwide. Travel & Tourism Analyst (4), 89–112. Diamond, J. (1977) Tourism’s role in economic development: The case re-examined. Economic Development and Cultural Change 25 (3), 539–553. Dickenson, J., Clarke, C., Gould, W., Prothero, R., Siddle, D., Smith, C., Thomas-Hope, E., and Hodgkiss, A. (1983) A Geography of the Third World. New York Methuen. Dicks, B. (1999) The view of our town from the hill: Communities on display as local heritage. International Journal of Cultural Studies 2 (3), 349–368. Dieke, P. (1989) Fundamentals of tourism development: A Third World perspective. Hospitality Education and Research Journal 13, 7–22. Dieke, P. (1993) Tourism in the Gambia: Some issues in development policy. World Development 21 (2), 277–289. Dieke, P. (1995) Tourism and structural adjustment programmes in the African economy. Tourism Economics 1 (1), 71–93. Dieke, P. (2000) The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Di John, J. (2010) The concept, causes and consequences of failed states: A critical review of the literature and agenda for research with specific reference to sub-Saharan Africa. European Journal of Development Research 22 (1), 10–30. Din, K. (1982) Tourism in Malaysia: Competing needs in a plural society. Annals of Tourism Research 9, 453–480. Dixey, L. (2008) The unsustainability of community tourism donor projects: Lessons from Zambia. In A. Spenceley (ed.) Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development (pp. 323–340). London: Earthscan. Dixey, L. (2009) Government of Botswana – Evaluation of community-based tourism through the Community Resilience Programme. Report 5: Review of CBT in Botswana and Sub-Saharan Africa: Inventory, Lessons Learnt and Best Practice. UNDP, UNWTO, OMT, IOHBTO. Dodman, D. (2009) Globalization, tourism and local living conditions on Jamaica’s north coast. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 30 (2), 189–203. DoE (1990) Department of Environment: Planning Policy Guidelines: Tourism. PPG 21. London: HMSO. Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. (1979) The World of Goods. London: Allen Lane. Dowler, L. (2013) Waging hospitality: Feminist geopolitics and tourism in West Belfast Northern Ireland. Geopolitics 18 (4), 779–799. Dowling, R. (1992) Tourism and environmental integration: The journey from idealism to realism. In C. Cooper and A. Lockwood (eds) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management (Vol. 4, pp. 33–46). London: Bellhaven Press. Downs, A. (1972) Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. Public Interest 28 (1), 211–216.

486

Tour ism and Development

Doxey, G. (1976) When enough’s enough, the natives are restless in old Niagara. Heritage Canada 2 (2), 26–29. Doyle, T. (1998) Sustainable development and Agenda 21: A secular bible of global free markets and pluralist democracy. Third World Quarterly 19 (4), 771–786. Doyle, T. and Mceachern, D. (1998) Environment and Politics. London: Routledge. Dredge, D. (2006) Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14 (6), 562–581. Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (2003) Destination place identity and regional tourism policy. Tourism Geographies 5 (4), 383–407. Dredge, D. and Whitford, M. (2011) Event tourism governance and the public sphere. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19 (4–5), 479–499. Drouin, M. (1995) The role of the institution is problematic: Mexican peso crisis raises questions about the IMF. The Financial Post, 15 March. Dubai Department of Tourism and Commence Marketing (2014) Dubai for Business. See www.dubaitourism.ae/definitely-dubai/dubai-business (accessed April 2014). Dubois, G., Ceron, J.-P., Peeters, P. and Gössling, S. (2011) The future tourism mobility of the world population: Emission growth versus climate policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45 (10), 1031–1042. Duffy, R. (2002) A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation. London: Earthscan. Duffy, R. (2006) Global environmental governance and the politics of ecotourism in Madagascar. Journal of Ecotourism 5 (1–2), 128–144. Dulal, H., Shah, K. and Ahmad, N. (2009) Social equity considerations in the implementation of Caribbean climate change adaptation policies. Sustainability 1 (3), 363–383. Dunford, M. (1994) Winners and losers: The new map of economic inequality in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies 1 (2), 95–114. Dunn, B. (2009) Global Political Economy: A Marxist Critique. London: Pluto Press. Dunning, J. and McQueen, G. (1982) Multinational corporations in the international hotel industry. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (1), 69–90. Durning, A. (1993) Supporting indigenous peoples. In L. Brown et al. (eds) The State of the World. New York: W.W. Norton. Dussel, E. (1988) Beyond Eurocentrism: The world-system and the limits of modernity. In F. Jameson and M. Miyoshi (eds) The Culture of Globalization (pp. 3–31). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P. and Dwyer, W. (2010) Tourism Economics and Policy. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Dyer, G. (2008) Climate Wars. Toronto: Random House Canada. Dyer, P., Aberdeen, L. and Schuler, S. (2003) Tourism impacts on an Australian indigenous community: A Djabugay case study. Tourism Management 24 (1), 83–95. Eadington, W. and Redman, M. (1991) Economics and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18 (1), 41–56. Eadington, W. and Smith, V. (1992) Introduction: The emergence of alternative forms of tourism. In V. Smith and W. Eadington (eds) Tourism Alternatives Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism (pp. 1–13). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Eagles, P. (1992) The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research 32 (2), 3–13. Eagles, P. and Cascagnette, J. (1995) Canadian ecotourists: Who are they? Tourism Recreation Research 20 (1), 22–28. East, P., Luger, K. and Inmann, K. (1998a) Himalayan tourism on the sustainable trail? In P. East, K. Luger and K. Inmann (eds) Sustainability in Mountain Tourism: Perspectives for the Himalayan Countries (pp. 1–14). Delhi: Book Faith India. East, P., Luger, K. and Inmann, K. (eds) (1998b) Sustainability in Mountain Tourism: Perspectives for the Himalayan Countries. New Delhi/Innsbruck: Book Faith India.

References

487

Eber, S. (1992) Beyond the Green Horizon: Principles for Sustainable Tourism. Godalming: WWF. EC (1993) Taking Account of Environment in Tourism Development. Luxembourg: Commission of European Communities, DGXXIII Tourism Unit. Eckersley, R. (1992) Environmentalism and Political Theory: Towards an Ecocentric Approach. London: University College London Press. EcoHimal (n.d.) EcoHimal, Development Projects. See www.ecohimal.org/index. php?id=5&L=1 (accessed 6 April 2014). Edensor, T. (2004) Reconstituting the Taj Mahal: Tourist flows and globalization. In M. Sheller and J. Urry (eds) Tourism Mobilities: Places to Play, Places in Play (pp. 103–115). London: Routledge. Edgerton, R. (1992) Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony. New York: Free Press. Edwards, M. (1989) The irrelevance of development studies. Third World Quarterly 11 (1), 116–135. EESC (2000) European Economic and Social Committee Bulletin, No. 1. Egresi, I., Bayram, B. and Kara, F. (2012) Economic impact of religious tourism in Mardin, Turkey. Journal of Economics and Business Research 18 (2), 7–22. Ehrlich, P. (1968) The Population Bomb. London: Ballantine. Eide, A. (2006) 11: Human rights-based development in the age of economic globalization: Background and prospects. In B. Andreassen and S Marks (eds) Development as a Human Right: Legal, Political, and Economic Dimensions) (pp. 220–253). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Eijgelaar, E., Thaper, C. and Peeters, P.M. (2010) Antarctic cruise tourism: The paradoxes of ambassadorship, ‘last chance tourism’ and greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (3), 337–354. EIU (1992) Cyprus. International Tourism Reports 2, 43–64. EIU (2005) The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index: The world in 2005 (online report). See www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf ELISAN (2012) An illustration of alternative index to the GDP: The Human Development Indices (Online Synthesis Paper – European Local Inclusion and Social Action Network). See www.elisan.eu/docs/positionnements/100812-IDH-EN.pdf Elkington, J. and Hailes, J. (1988) The Green Consumer Guide: From Shampoo to Champagne – Shopping for a Better Environment. London: Victor Gollancz. Elliott, J. (1997) Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge. Elliott, J. (1999) An Introduction to Sustainable Development. London: Routledge. Endo, K. (2006) Foreign direct investment in tourism – Flows and volumes. Tourism Management 27 (4), 600–614. Erbelei, W. (2000) Taking the lead in the fight against poverty: World Bank and IMF speed implementation of their new strategy. Development and Cooperation 3, 23–24. Erisman, H. (1983) Tourism and cultural dependency in the West Indies. Annals of Tourism Research 10 (3), 337–361. ESCAP (2003) Poverty Alleviation through Sustainable Tourism Development. New York: United Nations. ESCAP (2007) Regional study of the role of tourism in socioeconomic development. 63rd Session, 22–27 May, Almaty, Kazakhstan. Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Escobar, A. (1997) The making and unmaking of the Third World through development. In M. Rahnema and V. Bawtree (eds) The Post Development Reader (pp. 85–93). London: Zed Books. Escobar, A. (2000) Beyond the search for a paradigm? Post-development and beyond. Development 43 (4), 11–14.

488

Tour ism and Development

ETB (1991) Tourism and the Environment: Maintaining the Balance. London: English Tourist Board. eTN (2013) Building airports China style. See www.eturbonews.com/35116/ building-airports-china-style. eTN (2014) Agenda 2063 at the Center of Ministerial Working Group on Tourism Sector development strategy for Africa. See www.eturbonews.com/43639/agenda2063-center-ministerial-working-group-tourism-sector-dev (accessed 15 April 2014). eTurboNews (2009) Re-engineering UNWTO is the way forward, Rifai says, 6 March. See www.eturbonews.com/9595 (accessed 4 June 2009). European Commission (n.d.) Leader+, Introduction. See www.ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/ leaderplus/index_en.htm (accessed 29 February 2012). European Commission (2012) Climate action. See http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ transport/aviation/index_en.htm (accessed 17 December 2012). European Commission (2013a) Geographical – Indications. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/ policy/accessing-markets/intellectual-property/geographical-indications/ European Commission (2013b) Regional policy – Tourism. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_ policy/activity/tourism/index_en.cfm European Parliament and Council (2009) Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community. Official Journal of the European Union, 13 January. Eurostat (2009) Tourism Satellite Accounts in the European Union. Report on the Implementation of TSA in 27 EU Member States. Brussels: Eurostat. Evans, G. (1999) Fair trade in tourism and local economic strategies. Paper presented to the Conference on Fairly Traded Tourism, University of North London, 9 June. Evans, M. (2013) Police identify new Madeleine McCann suspects. The Telegraph online, 17 May. See www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10064372/ Police-identify-new-Madeleine-McCann-suspects.html (accessed May 2013). Evans, N., Campbell, D. and Stonehouse, G. (2003) Strategic Management for Travel and Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Fageda, X. and Flores-Fillol, R. (2012) Air services on thin routes: Regional versus lowcost carriers. Regional Science and Urban Economics 42 (4), 707–714. Fainstein, D. and Judd, D. (1999) Global forces, local strategies, and urban tourism. In D. Judd and S. Fainstein (eds) The Tourist City (pp. 1–20). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fairbairn-Dunlop, P. (1994) Gender, culture and tourism development in Western Samoa. In V. Kinnaird and D. Hall (eds) Tourism: A Gender Analysis (pp. 121–141). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Farrington, P. (1999) All-inclusives: A new apartheid. Tourism Concern: In Focus 33, 10–12. Farver, J. (1984) Tourism and employment in the Gambia. Annals of Tourism Research 11 (2), 249–265. Faulkner, B. (2001) Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management 22 (2001), 135–147. Featherstone, M. (1991) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage Publications. Fehder, D. and Stern, S. (2013) Appendix: The Social Progress Index Methodology. Washington, DC: Social Progress Imperative. Feifer, M. (1985) Going Places. London: Macmillan. Fennell, D. (1999) Ecotourism: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Fennell, D. (2003) Ecotourism: An Introduction (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Fennell, D. (2006) Tourism Ethics. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Fennell, D. (2007) Ecotourism (3rd edn). London: Routledge. Ferguson, L. (2007) Funding inequality: How socially conservative development projects limit the potential for gender equitable development. Political Perspectives 1 (1), 1–31.

References

489

http://www.politicalperspectives.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/CIP-200701-09.pdf Ferguson, L. (2010) Tourism development and the restructuring of social reproduction in Central America. Review of International Political Economy 17 (5), 860–888. Fernandes, C., Pimenta, E., Gonçalves, F. and Rachão, S. (2012) A new research approach for religious tourism: The case of the Portuguese route to Santiago. International Journal of Tourism Policy 4 (2), 83–94. Fidalgo, L. (1996) El túnel que acabó con el cañellismo. Anuario El Mundo 1996, 132. Fiertz, G. (1996) Tourism development in Turkey. In A. Badger et al. (eds) Trading Places: Tourism as Trade (pp. 43–47). London: Tourism Concern. Fillingham, Z. (2012) Turkey in the MIST. Goepolitical Monitor, 9 May. See www.geopo liticalmonitor.com/turkey-in-the-mist-4675 (accessed 14 June 2012). Finney, B. and Watson, A. (1975) A New Kind of Sugar: Tourism in the Pacific. Honolulu: East-West Culture Learning Institute. Fioramonti, L. (ed.) (2012) Regions and Crises, New Challenges for Contemporary Regionalisms. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Fisher, H. (1988) Development in sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and prospects. In J. Norwine and A. Gonzalez (eds) The Third World: States of Mind and Being (pp. 231– 242). Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Fletcher, J. (1994) Economic impacts. In S. Witt and L. Moutinho (eds) Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook (2nd edn) (pp. 476–479). New York: Prentice Hall. Fletcher, J. (2000) Dependency theory. In J. Jafari (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Tourism (pp. 142– 143). London: Routledge. Flowers, N. (1999) Human Rights Here and Now: Celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Minneapolis: Human Rights Resource Center. Fodness, D. (1994) Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research 21 (3), 555–581. Font, X. (2001) Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Wallingford: CABI. Forbes (2013) Global 2000: The world’s biggest public companies (values calculated May 2013). See www.forbes.com/global2000/list/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:_ filter:All%20industries_filter:All%20countries_filter:All%20states (accessed June 2013). Forrester, J. (1971) World Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen. Forsyth, T. (1995) Business attitudes to sustainable tourism: Self-regulation in the UK outgoing tourism industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3 (4), 210–231. Forum for the Future (2009) The Five Capitals Framework. See www.forumforthefuture. org/our-approach/tools-and-methodologies/5capitals (accessed 20 January 2009). Fox News (2011) Man suspected in tourist deaths arrested in Mexico. Fox News online posted 2 August 2011. See www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/02/man-suspected-intourist-deaths-arrested-in-mexico/#ixzz2YIkPKlCl (accessed October 2011). France, L. (ed.) (1997) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London: Earthscan. France, L. (1998) Local participation in tourism in the West Indian islands. In E. Laws, B. Faulkner and G. Moscardo (eds) Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism: International Case Studies (pp. 222–234). London: Routledge. Francisco, R. (1983) The political impact of tourism dependence in Latin America. Annals of Tourism Research 10 (3), 363–376. Frangialli, F. (2003) Statement circulated at the 5th World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference, Cancún, 10–14 September. See www.unwto.org/newsroom/ speeches/2003/Cancun%20Mexico%2010%20September%202003.pdf (accessed 1 July 2010). Frank, A.G. (1966) The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review (September), 17–30.

490

Tour ism and Development

Fraser, A. (n.d.) Poverty reduction strategy papers: Now who calls the shots? Review of African Political Economy 32 (104–105), 317–340. Free the Slaves (n.d.) About slavery: First the bad news. See www.freetheslaves.net (accessed October 2011). Freitag, T. (1994) Enclave tourism development: For whom the benefits roll? Annals of Tourism Research 21 (3), 538–554. Frey, B. and Steiner, L. (2011) World Heritage List: Does it make sense? International Journal of Cultural Policy 17 (5), 555–573. Friedmann, J. (1966) Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela. London: The MIT Press. Friedmann, J. (1978) The role of cities in national development. In L. Bourne and J. Simmons (eds) Systems of Cities Readings on Structure, Growth, and Policy (pp. 70–81). New York: Oxford University Press. Friedmann, J. and Douglas, M. (1978) Agropolitian development: Towards a new strategy for regional planning in Asia. In Fu-Chen Lo and K. Salih (eds) Growth Pole Strategy and Regional Development Policy Asian Experience and Alternative Approaches (pp. 163– 192). Toronto: Pergamon Press. Friedmann, J. and Forest, Y. (1988) The politics of place: Toward a political economy of territorial planning. In B. Higgins and D. Savoie (eds) Regional Economic Development – Essays in Honour of Francois Perroux (pp. 115–130). Boston, MA: Hyman. Frobel, F., Heinrichs, J. and. Kreye, O. (1980) The New International Division of Labour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Future Travel Experience (2013) ‘Non-stop’ biometric gates trial at Japan’s Narita Airport. Future Travel Experience News online, 21 March. See www.futuretravelexperience. com/2013/03/non-stop-biometric-gates-trial-at-japans-narita-airport/ (accessed May 2013). Galaní-Moutafí, V. (1993) From agriculture to tourism: Property, labour, gender and kinship in a Greek island village (part one). Journal of Modern Greek Studies 11, 241–270. Galla, A. (2012) World heritage in poverty alleviation: Hoi An Ancient Town, Viet Nam. In A. Galla (ed.) World Heritage: Benefits Beyond Borders (pp. 107–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galli, R. (1992) Winners and losers in development and antidevelopment theory. In R. Galli (ed.) Rethinking the Third World: Contributions Towards a New Conceptualization (pp. 1–27). New York: Crane Russak. Garrod, B. and Fennell, D. (2004) An analysis of whalewatching codes of conduct. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (2), 334–352. Garrod, B. and Fyall, A. (1998) Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism Management 19 (3), 199–212. Gartner, W. (1996) Tourism Development: Principles, Processes, and Policies. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons. Gaviria, M. (1974) España a Go-Go: Turismo Charter y Neo-Colonialismo del Espacio. Madrid: Ediciones Turner. George, B. and Varghese, V. (2007) Human rights in tourism: Conceptualization and stakeholder perspectives. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies 12 (2), 40–48. See http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol12_no2_pages_40-48.pdf George. S. (1992) The Debt Boomerang: How Third World Debt Harms Us All. London: Pluto Press. Ghandhi, P. (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ghani, A. and Lockhart, C. (2009) Fixing Failed States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giampiccoli, A. (2007) 2007 hegemony, globalization and tourism policies in developing countries. In P. Burns and M. Novelli (eds) Tourism and Politics. Global Frameworks and Local Realities (pp. 175–191). Oxford: Pergamon.

References

491

Gilbert, D. (1990) Conceptual issues in the meaning of tourism. In C. Cooper (ed.) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management (Vol. 2) (pp. 4–27). London: Bellhaven Press. Gilbert, D. (1991) An examination of the consumer behaviour process related to tourism. In C. Cooper (ed.) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management (Vol. 3, pp. 78–105). London: Bellhaven Press. Gill, A. (1998) Local and resort development. In R. Butler, C.M. Hall and J. Jenkins (eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas (pp. 97–111). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Gill, A. and Williams, P. (1994) Managing growth in mountain tourism communities. Tourism Management 15 (3), 212–220. Girard, L. and Nijkamp, P. (eds) (2009) Cultural Tourism and Local Sustainable Development. Farnham: Ashgate. Gitelson, R. and Kerstetter, D. (1994) The influence of friends and relatives in travel decision-making. In J. Crotts and W. van Raaij (eds) Economic Psychology of Travel and Tourism (pp. 59–68). New York: Haworth Press. Gladstone, D.L. (2005) From Pilgrimage to Package Tour: Travel and Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge. Gladwin, H. (1980) Indigenous knowledge of fish processing and marketing utilization by women traders of Cape Coast Ghana. In D. Brokensha, D. Warren and O. Werner. (eds) Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development (pp. 131–150). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Glennie, J. (2012) Dependency theory – Is it all over now? The Guardian Poverty Matters Blog, 1 March. See www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/ mar/01/do-not-drop-dependency-theory (accessed 24 May 2012). Global Humanitarian Forum (2009) The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis. London: Global Humanitarian Forum. Gmelch, G. (2012) Behind the Smile: The Working Lives of Caribbean Tourism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Gnigue, A. (1992) Integrated rural tourism, Lower Casamance, Senegal. In S. Eber (ed.) Beyond the Green Horizon (pp. 40–42). Godalming: WWF. Go, F. (1997) Entrepreneurs and the tourism industry in developing countries. In H. Dahles (ed.) Tourism, Small Entrepreneurs and Sustainable Development: Cases from Developing Countries (pp. 5–21). Netherlands: Tilburg University, ATLAS. Godfrey, K. (1996) Towards sustainability? Tourism in the Republic of Cyprus. In L. Harrison and W. Husbands (eds) Practising Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development (pp. 58–79). Chichester: John Wiley & Son. Goeldner, C., Ritchie, J.R.B. and McIntosh, R. (2000) Tourism: Principles, Practices (8th edn). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Goldenberg, S. (2014) Climate change a threat to security, food and humankind – IPPC report. The Guardian, 31 March. See www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/ mar/31/climate-change-threat-food-security-humankind Goldsmith, E., Allen, R., Allaby, M., Davoll, J. and Lawrence, S. (1972) Blueprint for survival. The Ecologist 2, 1–50. Goldsmith, F., Munton, R. and Warren, A. (1970) The impact of recreation on the ecology and amenity of semi-natural areas: Methods of investigation used in the Isles of Scilly. Biological Journal, Linnean Society 2, 287–306. Goldsworthy, D. (1988) Thinking politically about development. Development and Change 19 (3), 505–530. Goodall, B. (1991) Understanding holiday choice. In C. Cooper (ed.) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management (Vol. 3, pp. 58–77). London: Bellhaven Press. Goodwin, H. (1998) Background paper for the workshop on Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Elimination in preparation for the 1999 session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. London: DFID and DTER.

492

Tour ism and Development

Goodwin, H. (2007) Advances in Responsible Tourism. ICRT Occasional Paper No. 8. Leeds Metropolitan University, International Centre for Responsible Tourism. Goodwin, H. (2011) Taking Responsibility in Tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Ltd. Goodwin, H. and Francis, J. (2003) Ethical and responsible tourism: Consumer trends in the UK. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9 (3), 271–284. Goodwin, H., Kent, I., Parker, K. and Walpole, M. (1998) Tourism, Conservation and Sustainable Development: Case Studies from Asia and Africa. Wildlife and Development Series No. 12. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Gössling, S. (2003) The political ecology of tourism in Zanzibar. In S. Gössling (ed.) Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands: Political Ecology Perspectives (pp. 178–202). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Gössling, S., Haglund, L., Kallgren, H., Revahl, M. and Hultman, J. (2009) Swedish air travellers and voluntary carbon offsets: Towards the co-creation of environmental value? Current Issues in Tourism 12 (1), 1–19. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. (ed.) (2006a) Tourism and Global Environmental Change. London: Routledge. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. (2006b) Uncertainties in predicting tourist flows under scenarios of climate change. Climatic Change 79 (3–4), 163–173. Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. (2008) Swedish tourism and climate change mitigation: An emerging conflict? Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 8 (2), 141–158. Gössling, S., Hall, C.M., Peeters, P. and 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), 119–130. Gössling, S., Hall, C.M. and Scott, D. (2009) The challenges of tourism as a development strategy in an era of global climate change. In E. Palosou (ed.) Rethinking Development in a Carbon-Constrained World (pp. 100–119). Helsinki: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Gössling, S., Peeters, P., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Pattersson, T. and Richardson, R. (2005) The eco-efficiency of tourism. Ecological Economics 54 (4), 417–434. Gössling, S., Peeters, P. and Scott, D. (2008) Consequences of climate policy for international tourist arrivals in developing countries. Third World Quarterly 29 (5), 873–901. Gössling, S., Schumacher, K., Morelle, M., Berger, R. and Heck, N. (2004) Tourism and street children in Antananarivo, Madagascar. Hospitality & Tourism Research 5 (2), 131–149. Gössling, S., Scott, D. and Hall, C.M. (2013) Challenges of tourism in a low-carbon economy. WIRES Climate Change, DOI:10.1002/wcc.243 Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M., Ceron, J.-P. and Dubois, G. (2012) Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1), 36–58. Gottlieb, A. (1982) American’s vacations. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (2), 165–187. Goulet, D. (1968) On the goals of development. Cross Currents 18, 387–405. Goulet, D. (1992) Participation in development: New avenues. World Development 17 (2), 165–178. Government of Canada (2014) Eritrea. Advisories: Eritrea – Avoid non-essential travel. See http://travel.gc.ca/destinations/eritrea (accessed 23 April 2014). Goytia Prat, A. and de la Rica Aspiunza, A. (2012) Personal experience tourism: A postmodern understanding. In R. Sharpley and P.R. Stone (eds) The Contemporary Tourist Experience: Concepts and Consequences (pp. 11–24). Abingdon: Routledge. Graburn, N. (1983) The anthropology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 10 (1), 9–33. Graburn, N. (1989) Tourism: The sacred journey. In V. Smith (ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (2nd edn) (pp. 21–36). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

References

493

Graburn, N. and Jafari, J. (1991) Introduction tourism social science. Annals of Tourism Research 18 (1), 1–11. Graci, S. (2013) Collaboration and Partnership Development for Sustainable Tourism. Tourism Geographies 15 (1), 25–42. Graf, W. (1992) Sustainable ideologies and interests: Beyond Brundtland. Third World Quarterly 13 (3), 553–559. Green, H. (1995) Planning for sustainable tourism development. In C. Hunter and H. Green (eds) Tourism and the Environment: A Sustainable Relationship? (pp. 93–121). London: Routledge. Green, M. and Hulme, D. (2005) From correlates and characteristics to causes: Thinking about poverty from a chronic poverty perspective. World Development 33 (6), 867–879. Griffin, R. (2000) Bass plays £4bn waiting game. The Guardian, 8 December, p. 27. Grist, N. (2008) Positioning climate change in sustainable development discourse. Journal of International Development 20 (6), 783–803. Grolleau, H. (1994) Putting feelings first. In Marketing Quality Rural Tourism. LEADER Dossiers. Grünewald, R. (2002) Tourism and cultural revival. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (4), 1004–21. Grünewald, R. (2012) Staged indigeneity and the Pataxó. In G. Lohmann and D. Dredge (eds) Tourism in Brazil (pp. 158–172). London: Routledge. Gu, K. and Wall, G. (2007) Rapid urbanisation in a transitional economy in China: The case of Hainan Island. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28 (2), 158–170. Gunn, C.A. (1979) Tourism Planning. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis. Gunn, C.A. (1994) Tourism Planning (3rd edn). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis. Gupta, V. (1999) Sustainable tourism: Learning from Indian religious traditions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11 (2–3), 91–95. Haaland, H. and Aas, Ø. (2010) Eco-tourism certification – Does it make a difference? A comparison of systems from Australia, Costa Rica and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 10 (3), 375–385. Haggett, P. (1975) Geography: A Modern Synthesis. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Hague Conference on Private International Law (n.d.) http://www.hcch.net/index_ en.php (accessed May 2013). Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (n.d.). See www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=24 (accessed May 2013). Hale, D. (1998) The Asian crisis and the IMF’s new role as financial peacekeeper. World Economic Affairs 2 (2), 35–39. Hall, C.M. (1994a) Gender and economic interests in tourism prostitution: The nature, development and implications of sex tourism in South-east Asia. In V. Kinnard and D. Hall (eds) Tourism: A Gender Analysis (pp. 142–163). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Hall, C.M. (1994b) Is tourism still the plantation economy of the South Pacific? The case of Fiji. Tourism Recreation Research 19 (1), 41–48. Hall, C.M. (1994c) Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Chichester: John Wiley. Hall, C.M. (1998) The institutional setting – Tourism and the state. In D. Ioannides and K. Debbage (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry (pp. 199–219). London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. (2000) Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Hall, C.M. (2002) Travel safety, terrorism and the media: The significance of the issueattention cycle. Current Issues in Tourism 5 (5), 458–466. Hall, C.M. (2005) Tourism: Rethinking the Science of Mobility. Harlow: Pearson Education. Hall, C.M. (2007a) Pro-Poor Tourism: Who Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Alleviation. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

494

Tour ism and Development

Hall, C.M. (2007b) Pro-poor tourism: Do ‘tourism exchanges benefit primarily the countries of the South’? Current Issues in Tourism 10 (2–3), 111–118. Hall, C.M. (2008a) Tourism and climate change: Knowledge gaps and issues. Tourism Recreation Research 33, 339–350. Hall, C.M. (2008b) Tourism Planning, Policies, Processes and Relationships (2nd edn). Harlow: Prentice Hall. Hall, C.M. (2010a) An island biogeographical approach to island tourism and biodiversity: An exploratory study of the Caribbean and Pacific Islands. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 15 (3), 383–399. Hall, C.M. (2010b) Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to steadystate tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 35, 131–145. Hall, C.M. (2010c) Tourism and biodiversity: More significant than climate change? Journal of Heritage Tourism 5 (4), 253–266. Hall, C.M. (2011) Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: From first and second to third order change? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19 (4–5), 649–671. Hall, C.M. (2012) Boosting food and tourism-related regional economic development. In OECD Food and the Tourism Experience: The OECD-Korea Workshop. OECD Publishing. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264171923-4-en Hall, C.M. (2013) Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable tourism consumption: Beyond neoliberalism, ‘nudging’ and ‘green growth’? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI:10.1080/09669582.2013.815764 Hall, C.M. (2014) Tourism and Social Marketing. Abingdon: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (1995) Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (1998) The policy dimensions of rural tourism and recreation. In R. Butler, C.M. Hall and J. Jenkins (eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas (pp. 19–42). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Hall, C.M. and Lew, A. (1998) Sustainable Tourism A Geographic Perspective. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Hall, C.M. and Lew, A. (2009) Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated Approach. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Saarinen, J. (2010) Tourism and Change in Polar Regions. London: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Tucker, H. (eds) (2004) Tourism and Postcolonialism: Contested Discourses, Identities and Representations. London: Routledge. Hall, D. (1991) Tourism & Economic Development in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. London: Belhaven Press. Hall, D. (1998) Tourism development and sustainability issues in Central and Southeastern Europe. Tourism Management 19 (5), 423–431. Hall, D. (2004) Introduction. In D. Hall (ed.) Tourism and Transition: Governance, Transformation and Development (pp. 1–24). Wallingford: CABI. Halpern, C. and Mitchell, C. (2011) Can a preservationist ideology halt the process of creative destruction? Evidence for Salt Spring Island, British Columbia. Canadian Geographer 55 (2), 208–225. Hamilton, J., Maddison, D. and Tol, R.S. (2005) Effects of climate change on international tourism. Climate Research 29, 245–254. Hannam, K. and Diekmann, A. (2011) Tourism in India: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge. Hannigan, J. (1998) Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis. London: Routledge. Hannigan, J. (2007) From fantasy city to creative city. In G. Richards and J. Wilson (eds) Tourism, Creativity and Development (pp. 48–56). London: Routledge. Hannigan, K. (1994) National policy, European structural funds and sustainable tourism: The case of Ireland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (4), 179–192.

References

495

Haq, M. (1988) People in development. Development Journal of SID 2 (3), 41–45. Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248. Harlan, J.R. (1995) The Living Fields: Our Agricultural Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harrell-Bond, B. and Harrell-Bond, D. (1979) Tourism in the Gambia. Review of African Political Economy 14, 78–90. Harris, C. and Burns, M. (2004) Seven Reports on the Identification of Rural Indicators for Rural Communities: 3. Social Progress. Prepared for the Rural Secretariat of Agriculture and AgriFood Canada. New Rural Economy Project, Phase 2 (NRE2) September 2004. http://nre. concordia.ca/__ftp2004/reports/rural_secretariat/RS_Final_Reports/Report3_Social Progress.pdf Harris, N. (1996) The New Untouchables: Immigration and the New World Worker. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Harrison, D. (1988) The Sociology of Modernisation and Development. London: Routledge. Harrison, D. (1992a) International tourism and the less developed countries: The background. In D. Harrison (ed.) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries (pp. 1–18). Toronto: Belhaven. Harrison, D. (ed.) (1992b) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries. London: Bellhaven Press. Harrison, D. (1992c) Tradition, modernity and tourism in Swaziland. In D. Harrison (ed.) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries (pp. 148–162). Toronto: Bellhaven. Harrison, D. (1994) Learning from the old south by the new south? The case of tourism. Third World Quarterly 15 (4), 707–721. Harrison, D. (1995a) Development of tourism in Swaziland. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1), 135–156. Harrison, D. (1995b) International tourism and the less developed countries: A background. In D. Harrison (ed.) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries (pp. 1–18). Chichester: John Wiley. Harrison, D. (2000a) Developing country. In J. Jafari (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Tourism (pp. 147–148). London: Routledge. Harrison, D. (2000b) Tourism in Africa: The social and cultural framework. In P. Dieke (ed.) The Political Economy of Tourism in Africa (pp. 37–51). Cognizant: New York. Harrison, D. (2001a) Less developed countries and tourism: The overall pattern. In D. Harrison (ed.) Tourism and the Less Developed World: Issues and Case Studies (pp. 1–22). Wallingford: CAB International. Harrison, D. (2001b) Tourism and less developed countries: Key issues. In D. Harrison (ed.) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries: Issues and Case Studies (pp. 23–46). New York: Cognizant. Harrison, D. (ed.) (2001c) Tourism and the Less Developed World: Issues and Case Studies. Wallingford: CABI. Harrison, D. (2008) Pro-poor tourism: A critique. Third World Quarterly 29 (5), 851–868. Harrison, G. (2005) Economic faith, social project and a misreading of African society: The travails of neoliberalism in Africa. Third World Quarterly 26 (8), 1303–1320. Harrison, L. and Husbands, W. (eds) (1996) Practising Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies in Tourism Planning, Policy and Development. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Hartwick, E. (2005) Modernisation theory. In T. Forsyth (ed.) Encyclopaedia of International Development (pp. 453–455). London: Routledge. Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Hashimoto, A. (2000) Young Japanese female tourists: An in-depth understanding of a market segment. Current Issues in Tourism 3 (1), 35–50. Hashimoto, A. and Telfer, D.J. (1999) Marketing icewine to Japanese tourists in Niagara: The case of Inniskillin Winery. International Journal of Wine Marketing 11 (2), 29–41.

496

Tour ism and Development

Hashimoto, A. and Telfer, D.J. (2004) Canadian aboriginal ecotourism in the North. In D. Diamantis (ed.) Ecotourism Management and Assessment (pp. 204–225). London: Thomson. Hashimoto, A. and Telfer, D.J. (2011) Female empowerment through agritourism in rural Japan. In R. Torres and J. Momsen (eds) Tourism and Agriculture: New Geographies of Consumption, Production and Rural Restructuring (pp. 72–83). London: Routledge. Hashimoto, A. and Telfer, D. (2013) Green tourism souvenirs in rural Japan: Challenges and opportunities. In J. Cave, L. Jolliffe and T. Baum (eds) Tourism and Souvenirs: Glocal Perspectives from the Margins (pp. 119–131). Bristol: Channel View Publications. Hatton, M. (1999) Community-Based Tourism in the Asia-Pacific. Toronto: Canadian Tourism Commission, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and Canadian. Hawkins, D. and Mann, S. (2007) The World Bank’s role in tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 34 (2), 348–363. Hazbun, W. (2000) Enclave orientalism: The state, tourism and the politics of postnational development in the Arab world. In M. Robinson et al. (eds) Management, Marketing and the Political Economy of Travel and Tourism (pp. 191–205). Sunderland: Business Education Publishers. Hazbun, W. (2008) Beaches, Ruins, Resorts: The Politics of Tourism in the Arab World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Held, D. (1995) Democracy and the Global Order. Cambridge: Polity Press. Held, D. (2010) Cosmopolitanism Ideas and Realities. Cambridge: Polity Press. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations: Politics, Economic and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press. Henderson, J. (2003) Terrorism and tourism: Management the consequences of the Bali bombings. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 15 (1), 41–58. Henning, G. (2012) The habit of tourism: Experiences and their ontological meaning. In R. Sharpley and P.R. Stone (eds) The Contemporary Tourist Experience: Concepts and Consequences (pp. 25–37). Abingdon: Routledge. Henrici, J. (1999) Trading culture: Tourism and tourist art in Pisac, Peru. In M. Robinson and P. Boniface (eds) Tourism and Cultural Conflicts (pp. 161–180). Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Henwood, D. (1998) The Americanization of global finance. NACLA Report on the Americas. Hettne, B. (1990) Development Theory and the Three Worlds. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical. Hettne, B. (1995) Development Theory and the Three Worlds (2nd edn). New York: Longman. Hettne, B. (2001) Discourses on peace and development. Progress in Development Studies 1 (1), 21–36. Hettne, B. (2002) Current trends and future options in development studies. In V. Desai and R. Potter (eds) The Companion to Development Studies (pp. 7–12). Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Hettne, B. (2003) The new regionalism revisited. In F. Söderbaum and T. Shaw (eds) Theories of New Regionalism: A Palgrave Reader (pp. 22–42). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hettne, B. (2009) Thinking About Development (electronic version). London: Zed Books. Hettne, B. (2010a) Development and security: Origins and future. Security and Dialogue 41 (1), 31–52. Hettne, B. (2010b) Development beyond market-led globalisation. Development, suppl. New Institutions for Development 53 (1), 37–41. Hewitt, T. (2000) Half a century of development. In T. Allen and A. Thomas (eds) Poverty and Development into the 21st Century (pp. 289–308). Oxford: OUP. Hickey, S. (2008) The return of politics in development studies I: Getting lost within the poverty agenda? Progress in Development Studies 8 (4), 349–358.

References

497

Hickman, L. (2007) The Final Call: In Search of the True Cost of our Holidays. London: Transworld Publishers. Hickman, L. (2012) Charity condemns tourists’ use of fresh water in developing countries. The Guardian, 8 July. See www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/ jul/08/fresh-water-tourist-developing Hiernaux-Nicolas, D. (1999) Cancún bliss. In D. Judd and S. Fainstein (eds) The Tourist City (pp. 124–139). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Higgins, B and Higgins, J. (1979) Economic Development of a Small Planet. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. Higgins, B. and Savoie, D. (1988) Introduction: The economics and politics of regional development. In B. Higgins and D. Savoie (eds) Regional Economic Development Essays in Honour of François Perroux (pp. 1–27). Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2003) Globalisation and indigenous tourism: Sites of engagement and resistance. In M. Shanahan and G. Truren (eds) Globalisation: Australian Regional Perspectives (pp. 240–262). Kent Town: Wakefield Press. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006) More than an ‘industry’: The forgotten power of tourism as a social force. Tourism Management 27 (6), 1192–1208. Higgins-Desbiolles F. (2007) Reconciliation tourism: On crossing bridges and funding ferries. In P. Burns and M. Novelli (eds) Tourism and Social Identities: Global Frameworks and Local Realities (pp. 137–154). Oxford: Elsevier. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2008) Justice tourism and alternative globalisation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16 (3), 345–364. Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Schmiechen, J. and Trevorrow, G. (2010) A Case Study in the Development of an Aboriginal Tourism Enterprise: The Coorong Wilderness Lodge of South Australia – An Emic Perspective. Gold Coast: CRC-Sustainable Tourism. Hiller, H. (1976) Escapism, penetration and response: Industrial tourism and the Caribbean. Caribbean Studies 16 (2), 92–116. Hillery, M., Nancarrow, B., Griffin, G. and Syme, G. (2001) Tourist perception of environmental impact. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (4), 853–867. Hills, T. and Lundgren, L. (1977) The impact of tourism in the Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research 4 (5), 248–267. Himberg, N. (2006) Community-based ecotourism as a sustainable development option in the Taita Hills, Kenya. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Geography, University of Helsinki, Finland. Hindness, B. and Hirst, P. (1975) Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hirschman, A. (1958) The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hirschman, A. (1968) Development Projects Observed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996) Globalization in Question. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hitchcock, M., King, V. and Parnwell, M. (1993) Tourism in South-East Asia: Introduction. In M. Hitchcock, V. King and M. Parnwell (eds) Tourism in South-East Asia (pp. 1–31). London: Routledge. Hjalager, A.-M. (2007) Stages in the economic globalization of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 34 (2), 437–457. Hoggart, K., Buller, H. and Black, R. (1995) Rural Europe: Identity and Change. London: Arnold. Høivik, T. and Heiberg, T. (1980) Centre-periphery tourism and self-reliance. International Social Science Journal 32 (1), 69–98. Holbrook, M. and Hirschman, E. (1992) The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2), 132–140. Holcomb, B. (1999) Marketing cities for tourism. In D. Judd and S. Fainstein (eds) The Tourist City (pp. 54–70). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

498

Tour ism and Development

Holden, A. (2000) Environment and Tourism. London: Routledge. Holden, A. (2013) Tourism, Poverty and Development. London: Routledge. Holden, A., Sonne, J. and Novelli, M. (2011) Tourism and poverty reduction: An interpretation by the poor of Elmina, Ghana. Tourism Planning & Development 8 (3), 317–334. Holden, P. (1984) Alternative Tourism with a Focus on Asia. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism. Holling, C., Schindler, D., Walker, B. and Roughgarden, J. (1995) Biodiversity in the functioning of ecosystems: An ecological synthesis. In C. Perrings, K. Maler, C. Folke, C., C. Holling and B. Jansson (eds) Biodiversity Loss: Economic and Ecological Issues (pp. 44–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holt (1995) How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research 22 (1), 1–16. Holtzman, J. (2006) Food and memory. Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 361–378. Holzner, M. (2011) Tourism and economic development: The beach disease? Tourism Management 32 (4), 922–933. Honey, M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington, DC: Island Press. Hoogvelt, A. (1997) Globalisation and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of Development. London: Macmillan. Horochowski, K. and Moisey, R. (1999) The role of environmental NGOs in sustainable tourism development: A case study in Northern Honduras. Tourism Recreation Research 24 (2), 19–29. Hotels (2011) Hotels’ 325, September 2011. See www.hotelsmag.com (accessed 17 July 2012). Howard, D. and Madrigal, R. (1990) Who makes the decision: The parent or the child? The perceived influence of parents and children on the purchase of recreation services. Journal of Leisure Research 22 (3), 244–258. Høyer, K. (2000) Sustainable tourism or sustainable mobility? The Norwegian case. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8 (2), 147–160. Hudson, R. (1999) The new economy of the new Europe: Eradicating divisions or creating new forms of uneven development? In R. Hudson and A. Williams (eds) Divided Europe: Society and Territory (pp. 29–62). London: Sage. Hudson, R. (2003) European integration and new forms of uneven development. European Urban and Regional Studies 10 (1), 49–67. Hudson, R. and Williams, A. (1999) Re-shaping Europe: The challenge of new divisions within a homogenized political-economic space. In R. Hudson and A. Williams (eds) Divided Europe: Society and Territory (pp. 1–28). London: Sage. Hudson, S. (2007) To go or not to go? Ethical perspectives on tourism in an ‘outpost of tyranny’. Journal of Business Ethics 76 (2007), 385–396. Hughes, G. (1996) Tourism and the environment: A sustainable partnership. Scottish Geographical Magazine 112 (2), 107–113. Hughes, P. (1994) Planning for Sustainable Tourism: The ECOMOST Project. Sussex: International Federation of Tour Operators. Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (1999) The ‘new conservation’ in Africa: An introduction to this book. In D. Hulme and M. Murphree (eds) African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation (pp. 1–15). London: James Currey. Hulme, D. and Woodhouse, P. (2001) Governance and the environment: Politics and policy. In P. Woodhouse, H. Bernstein and D. Hulme (eds) African Enclosures? The Social Dynamics of Land and Water (pp. 215–32). London: James Currey. Humanrights.ch (n.d.a) UN-Human Rights Treaties: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. See www.humanrights.ch/en/Standards/UN-Treaties/CCPR/index. html (accessed July 2013).

References

499

Humanrights.ch (n.d.b) UN-Human Rights Treaties: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. www.humanrights.ch/en/Standards/ UN-Treaties/CECSR/index.html (accessed July 2013). Hungtington, S. (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hunt, C. (2011) Passport to development: Local perceptions of the outcomes of postsocialist tourism policy and growth in Nicaragua. Tourism Planning & Development 8 (3), 265–279. 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. Hunziker, W. and Krapf, K. (1942) Grundriss der allgemeinen Fremdenverkehrslehre (Outline of general tourism science). Zurich: Polygraphischer Verlag. Hurley, A., Archer, B. and Fletcher, J. (1994) The economic impact of European Community grants for tourism in the Republic of Ireland. Tourism Management 15 (3), 203–211. Husbands, W. (1981) Centres, peripheries, tourism and socio-spatial development. Ontario Geography 17, 37–60. Husbands, W. (1983) The genesis of tourism in Barbados: Further notes on the welcoming society. Caribbean Geographer 2, 107–120. Huybers, T. (ed.) (2007) Tourism in Developing Countries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Huybers, T. and Bennett, J. (2000) Impact of the environment on holiday destination choices of prospective UK tourists: Implications for Tropical North Queensland. Tourism Economics 6 (1), 21–46. Hvenegaard, G. (1994) Ecotourism: A status report and conceptual framework. Journal of Tourism Studies 5 (2), 24–35. IATA (2012) Aviation industry leaders gather in Beijing. 7 June. See www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2012-06-07-01.aspx. ICCPR (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In Ghandhi, P.R. (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn) (pp. 62–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Icelandic Human Rights Centre (n.d.) The Concepts of Human Rights: An Introduction. See www.humanrights.is/the-human-rights-project/humanrightscasesandmaterials/humanrightsconceptsideasandfora/theconceptsofhumanrightsanintroduction/ definitionsandclassifications/ (accessed October 2011). ICESCR (1966) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). In Ghandhi, P.R. (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn) (pp. 79–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ICIDI (1980) North–South: A Programme for Survival. London: Pan Books. Ife, J. and Fiske, L. (2006) Human rights and community work. International Social Work 49 (3), 297–308. IIPT (2013) Mission statement. See www.iipt.org/AboutUs.html (accessed 28 June 2013). ILO (2010) Developments and Challenges in the Hospitality and Tourism Sector. Geneva: International Labour Office. ILO (2011) Poverty Reduction Through Tourism (Pamphlet). Geneva: International Labour Office. IMF (2011a) Advanced Economies. See www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/groups.htm#ae (accessed 15 December 2011). IMF (2011b) Country Composition of WEO Groups. See www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/ weo/2008/02/weodata/groups.htm (accessed 15 June 2011). Ingham, B. (1993) The meaning of development: Interactions between new and old ideas. World Development 21 (11), 1803–1821.

500

Tour ism and Development

Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Inskeep, E. and Kallenberger, M. (1992) An Integrated Approach to Resort Development: Six Case Studies, A Tourism And the Environment Publication. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis. Headline Statements form the Summary of Policy Makers. See www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf (accessed April 2014). International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (1997) Kyoto Protocol emphasizes ICAO’s role in addressing greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation. News Release, 12 December. Montreal: ICAO. International Civil Aviation Organization (2009) A Global Sectoral Approach for Aviation. Working paper. Montreal: ICAO. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2009) Transport, Energy and CO2: Moving Towards Sustainability. Paris: IEA. International Energy Agency (2012) World Energy Outlook 2012. Paris: IEA. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (2001) Pro-poor Tourism: Harnessing the World’s Largest Industry for the World’s Poor. See www.iied.org/docs/ wssd/bp_tourism_eng.pdf (accessed 20 March 2008). International Labour Organization (1930) Convention Concerning Forced Labour. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn) (pp. 6–14). Oxford: Oxford University Press. International Labour Organization (1951) Equal Remuneration Convention (No.100). See www.ilo.org/declaration/info/factsheets/WCMS_DECL_FS_84_EN/lang—en/index. htm (accessed October 2012). International Labour Organization (1958) Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No. 111). See www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p = 1000:12100:0::NO::P 12100_ILO_CODE:C111 (accessed October 2012). International Labour Organization (1973) Minimum Age Convention (No.138). See www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_ INSTRUMENT_ID:312283:NO (accessed October 2012). International Labour Organization (1999) Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn; pp. 246– 249). Oxford: Oxford University Press. International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2009) Climate Change: A Challenge for IMO Too! London: IMO. International Transport Worker’s Federation (1999) Lufthansa’s union busting in Britain. See www.itf.org.uk/SECTIONS/Ca/LSGpress.html (accessed 4 August 2000). Ioannides, D. (1992) Tourism development agents: The Cypriot resort cycle. Annals of Tourism Research 19 (4), 711–731. Ioannides, D. (1995) Strengthening the ties between tourism and economic geography: A theoretical agenda. Professional Geographer 47 (1), 49–60. Ioannides, D. (1998) Tour operators: The gatekeepers of tourism. In D. Ioannides and K. Debbage (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry (pp. 139–158). London: Routledge. Ioannides, D. and Debbage, K. (1998) Neo-Fordism and flexible specialization in the travel industry: Dissecting the polyglot. In D. Ioannides and K. Debbage (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry (pp. 99–122). London: Routledge. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, In M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden and C. Hanson (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

501

IPCC (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, In C. Field, V. Barros, T. Stocker, D. Qin, D. Dokken, K. Ebi, M. Mastrandrea, K. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. Allen, M. Tignor and P. Midgley (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Isard, W. (1956) Location and Space Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ishay, M.R. (2004) The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Iso-Ahola, S. (1982) Towards a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (2), 256–262. ISOQOL (2013) International Society of Quality-of-Life Studies Website. See www. isoqol.org/ IUCN (1980) World Conservation Strategy: Living Resources Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. IUCN (1991) Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union. Ivakhiv, A. (2003) Nature and self in New Age pilgrimage. Culture and Religion 4 (1), 93–118. Jaakson, R. (2000) Supra-national spatial planning of the Baltic Sea region and competing narratives for tourism. European Planning Studies 8 (5), 565–579. Jaakson, R. (2004) Globalisation and neo-colonialist tourism. In C.M. Hall and H. Tucker (eds) Tourism and Postcolonialism: Contested Discourses, Identities and Representations (pp. 169–183). London: Routledge. Jackson, J. (2006) Developing regional tourism in China: The potentials for activating busi ness clusters in a socialist market economy. Tourism Management 27 (4), 695–706. Jackson, T. and McBride, N. (2005) Measuring Progress? A Review of ‘Adjusted’ Measures of Economic Welfare in Europe. Guildford: Centre for Environmental Strategy, Surrey University. Jacob, M. and Groizard, J. (2007) Technology transfer and multinationals: The case of Balearic hotel chains’ investments in two developing economies. Tourism Management 28 (4), 972–996. Jacobs, M. (1994) The limits of neoclassicism: Towards an institutional environmental economics. In M. Redclift and T. Benton (eds) Social Theory and the Global Environment (pp. 67–91). London: Routledge. Jacques, M. (2012) When China Rules the World. London: Penguin. Jafari, J. (1977) Editor’s page. Annals of Tourism Research 5 (1), 8. Jafari, J. (1987) Tourism models: The sociocultural aspects. Tourism Management 8 (2), 151–159. Jafari, J. (1989) Sociocultural dimensions of tourism: An English language literature review. In J. Bystrzanowski (ed.) Tourism as a Factor of Change: A Sociocultural Study (pp. 17–60). Vienna: Vienna Centre. Jamal, T. and Dredge, D. (2011) Special Issue of Tourism Recreation Research on Certification and Indicators, 36 (3). Jamal, T. and Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1), 186–204. Jamal, T. and Watt, M. (2011) Climate change pedagogy and performative action: Toward community-based destination governance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19 (4–5), 571–588. James, C. (2000) Caribbean braced for rush of competition in tourism sector. Financial Times, Tuesday, 19 October. Jamieson, W. (ed.) (1997) Sustainable Tourism Workbook. Centre for Environmental Design Research and Outreach, The Faculty of Environmental Design, The University of Calgary, Canada.

502

Tour ism and Development

Jamieson, W. and Nadkarni, S. (2009) Editorial: A reality check of tourism’s potential as a development tool. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 14 (2), 111–123. Jenkins, C. (1980) Tourism policies in developing countries: A critique. International Journal of Tourism Management 1 (1), 22–29. Jenkins, C. (1982a) The effects of scale in tourism projects in developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (2), 229–249. Jenkins, C. (1982b) The use of investment incentives for tourism projects in developing countries. Tourism Management 3 (2), 91–97. Jenkins, C. (1991) Tourism development strategies. In L. Lickorish (ed.) Developing Tourism Destinations (pp. 61–77). Harlow: Longman. Jenner, P. and Smith, C. (1992) The Tourism Industry and the Environment. Special Report No.2453. London: Economist Intelligence Unit. Jennings, S. (2007) South Africa’s finest. In Vista: The Volunteer View on International Development. Wellington: Volunteer Service Abroad. Jansen-Verbeke, M. and Lievois, E. (1999) Analysing heritage resources for urban tourism in European cities. In D. Pearce and R. Butler (eds) Contemporary Issues in Tourism Development (pp. 81–107). London: Routledge. Johnston, A. (2006) Is the Sacred for Sale? Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. London: Earthscan. Jones Lang LaSalle Hotels (2010) Hotel Investment Highlights, March 2010. London: Jones Lang LaSalle. Joppe, M. (2012) Migrant workers: Challenges and opportunities in addressing tourism labour shortages. Tourism Management 33 (3), 662–667. Jotzo, F. (2010) Prerequisites and limits for economic modelling of climate change impacts and adaptation. Research Reports 94951. Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub. Jurdao, F.A. (1990) España en Venta (2nd edn). Madrid: Ediciones Endymion. Kaftanoglu, B. and Timothy, D. (2013) Return travel, assimilation and cultural maintenance: An example of Turkish-Americans in Arizona. Tourism Analysis 18 (3), 273–284. Kaltenborn, B., Thomassen, J., Wold, L., Linnell, J. and Skar, B. (2013) World Heritage status as a foundation for building local futures? A case study from Vega in Central Norway. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21 (1), 99–116. Kamal, R. and Fisher, H. (1988) Change and development in the Arab world – Advance amid diversity: An economic and social analysis. In J. Norwine and A. Gonzalez (eds) The Third World: States of Mind and Being (pp. 196–208). Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Kamsma, T. and Bras, K. (2000) Gili Trawangan – From desert island to marginal paradise: Local participation, small-scale entrepreneurs and outside investors in an Indonesian tourist destination. In D. Hall and G. Richards (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development (pp. 170–184). London: Routledge. Kappert, J. (2000) Community and rural development in Northern Portugal. In G. Richards and D. Hall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development (pp. 258–267). London: Routledge. Karammel, S. and Lengefeld, K. (2006) Can all-inclusive tourism be pro-poor? id21insights 62, 5. Kariel, H. (1989) Tourism and development: Perplexity or panacea? Journal of Travel Research 28 (1), 2–6. Karyadi, N. (2000) Views from round the world. In Focus, 37, 9. Kasarda, J. and Lindsay, G. (2011) Aerotropolis: The Way we’ll Live Next. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Katzenstein, P. (2005) A World of Regions Asia and Europe in the American Imperium. New York: Cornell University Press.

References

503

Kauppila, P., Saarinen, J. and Leinonen, R. (2009) Sustainable tourism planning and regional development in peripheries: A Nordic view. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 9 (4), 424–435. Keating, M. (1994) The Earth Summit’s Agenda For Change: A Plan Language Version of Agenda 21 and the Other Rio Agreements. Geneva: Centre for our Common Future. Keefe, J. (1995) Whose home is it anyway? Tourism in Focus 15, 4–5. Keefe, J. and Wheat, S. (1998) Tourism and Human Rights. A Report Researched for Tourism Concern. London: Tourism Concern. Keller, C. (1984) Centre-periphery tourism development and control. In J. Long and R. Heacock (eds) Leisure, Tourism and Social Chang (pp. 77–84). Dunfermline: Centre for Leisure Research, Dunfermline College of Physical Education, University of Edinburgh. Kempadoo, K. (2004) Sexing the Caribbean: Gender, Race, and Sexual Labour. London: Routledge. Kemper, R. (1979) Tourism in Taos and Patzcuaro: A comparison of two approaches to regional development. Annals of Tourism Research 6 (1), 91–110. Kendie, S.B. (1995) The environmental dimensions of structural adjustment programmes: Missing links to sustaining development. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 16 (1), 42–57. Kennedy, K. (2008) Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Tourism: A Partnership for Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries. Unpublished MSc thesis in Geography. New Britain, CT: Central Connecticut State University. Kennedy, K. and Dornan, D. (2009) An overview: Tourism non-governmental organisations and poverty reduction in developing countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 14 (2), 183–200. Kermath, B. and Thomas, R. (1992) Spatial dynamics of resorts: Sosúa, Dominican Republic. Annals of Tourism Research 19 (3), 173–190. Kester, J. and Croce, V. (2011) Tourism development in advanced and emerging economies: What does the Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index tell us? In WTTC (ed.) The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011 (pp. 35–43). Geneva: World Economic Forum. Khan, S. (1998) Introduction: A synopsis of the problem. In H. Johnston and S. Khan (eds) Trafficking in Persons in South Asia (pp. 1–6). Calgary: Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute. Kiely, R. (1995) Sociology and Development: The Impasse and Beyond. London: UCL Press. Kiely, R. (1998) Globalization, post-Fordism and the contemporary context of development. International Sociology 13 (1), 95–115. Kilby, P. (2012) The changing development landscape in the first decade of the 21st century and its implications for development studies. Third World Quarterly 33 (6), 1001–1017. Kim, H., Chen, M. and Jang, S. (2006) Tourism expansion and economic development: The case of Taiwan. Tourism Management 27 (5), 925–933. King, D. and Stewart, W. (1996) Ecotourism and commodification: Protecting people and places. Biodiversity and Conservation 5 (3), 293–305. King, R. (1995) Tourism, labour and international migration. In A. Montanarai and A. Williams (eds) European Tourism: Regions, Spaces and Restructuring (pp. 177–190). Chichester: John Wiley. Kinnaird, V. and Hall, D. (eds) (1994) Tourism: A Gender Analysis. Chichester: Wiley. Kinnaird, V., Kothari, U. and Hall, D. (1994) Tourism: Gender perspectives. In V. Kinnaird and D. Hall (eds) Tourism: A Gender Analysis (pp. 1–34). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2004) Intangible heritage as metacultural production. Museum International 56 (1–2), 52–65. Klak, T. (1998) Thirteen theses on globalisation and neoliberalism. In T. Klak (ed.) Globalization and Neoliberal Development (pp. 3–24). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

504

Tour ism and Development

Klenesky, D., Gengler, C. and Mulvey, M. (1993) Understanding the factors influencing ski destination choice: A means-end analytic approach. Journal of Leisure Research 25, 362–379. Knutsson, B. (2009) The intellectual history of development towards a widening potential repertoire. Perspectives No. 13, April 2009. See www.gu.se/digitalAssets/ 1272/1272997_Perspectives_13.pdf (accessed 2 July 2013). Kok, M., Metz, B., Verhagen, J. and van Rooijen, S. (2008) Integrating development and climate policies: National and international benefits. Climate Policy 8, 103–18. Konadu-Agyemang, K. (2000) The best of times and the worst of times: Structural adjustment programs and uneven development in Africa: The case of Ghana. The Professional Geographer 52 (3), 469–483. Kondadu-Agyemang (2001) Structural adjustment programmes and the international tourism trade in Ghana, 1983–99: Some socio-spatial implications. Tourism Geographies 3 (2), 187–206. Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (1999) Sustainable tourism or sustainable development? Financial crisis, ecotourism, and the ‘Amazing Thailand’ campaign. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (4), 316–332. Korten, D. (1980) Community organisation and rural development: A learning process approach. Public Administration Review 40 (5), 480–451. Kotler, P., Haider, D. and Rein, I. (1993) Marketing Places. Attracting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations. New York: The Free Press. Kousis, M. (2000) Tourism and the environment: A social movements perspective. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (2), 468–489. Koutra, C. (2010) Rapid situation analysis: A hybrid, multi-methods, qualitative, participatory approach to researching tourism development phenomena. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (8), 1015–1033. Krapf, K. (1961) Les pays en voie de développment face au tourisme: Introduction méthodologique. Revue de Tourisme 16 (3), 82–89. Krippendorf, J. (1986) Tourism in the system of industrial society. Annals of Tourism Research 13 (4), 517–532. Krippendorf, J. (1987) The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Oxford: Heinemann. Krippendorf, J. (1991) Towards new tourism policies. In S. Medlik (ed.) Managing Tourism (pp. 307–317). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Krowneva (2013) Gatwick Airport tests the future of identity management with biometric mobile app trial. The Silicon Trust online, 11 March. See http://silicontrust. wordpress.com/2013/03/11/gatwick-airport-tests-the-future-of-identity-managementwith-biometric-mobile-app-trial/ (accessed May 2013). Kruhse-MountBurton, S. (1995) Sex tourism and traditional Australian male identity. In M.-F. Lanfant, J. Allcock and E. Bruner (eds) International Tourism: Identity and Change (pp. 192–204). London: Sage Publications. Lacher, R. and Nepal, S. (2010) Dependency and development in Northern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 37 (4), 947–968. Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Social Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso. Lai, P., Soltani, E. and Baum, T. (2008) Distancing flexibility in the hotel industry: The role of employment agencies as labour suppliers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19 (1), 132–152. Lal, D. (1985) The misconceptions of ‘development economics’. Finance and Development 22, reprinted in K. Wilber (ed.) (1988) The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment Fourth Edition (pp. 28–36). Toronto: McGraw-Hill.

References

505

Lambelet, D. (1989) The contradiction between Soviet and American human rights doctrine: Reconciliation through perestroika and pragmatism. Boston University International Law Journal 7, 61–83. Land, K., Michalos, A. and Sirgy, M. (2012) Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research. New York: Springer. Lane, B. (1990) Sustaining host areas, holiday makers and operators alike. Conference Proceedings, Sustainable Tourism Development Conference, Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh, November 1990. Lane, B. (1994) What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (1–2), 7–12. Lane, B. (2009) Rural tourism: An overview. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 354–370). London: Sage Larrain, J. (1989) Theories of Development. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lash, S. (1990) Sociology of Postmodernism. London: Routledge. Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lazrus, H. (2005) The role of knowledge in global climate change governance: Modes of legitimation in Tuvalu. University of California International and Area Studies, Breslauer Symposium, Paper 10, University of California. See repositories.cdlib.org/ ucias/breslauer/10. Lea, J. (1988) Tourism and Development in the Third World. London: Routledge. Leach, M. and Mearns, R. (1996) The Lie of the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environment. London: James Currey. League of Nations (1919) Covenant of the League of Nations. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn; pp. 1–2). Oxford: Oxford University Press. League of Nations (1926) Slavery Convention. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn; pp. 2–5). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, C. and Chang, C. (2008) Tourism development and economic growth: A closer look at panels. Tourism Management 29 (1), 180–192. Lee, G. (1987) Tourism as a factor in development cooperation. Tourism Management 8 (1), 2–19. Lee, S. and Ramdeen, C. (2013) Cruise ship itineraries and occupancy rates. Tourism Management 34, 236–237. Leheny, D. (1995) The political economy of sex tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (2), 367–384. Leiper, N. (2008) Why the ‘tourism industry’ is misleading as a generic expression. Tourism Management 29 (2), 237–251, Lélé, S. (1991) Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development 19 (6), 607–621. Leontidou, L. (1994) Gender dimensions of tourism in Greece: Employment, sub-cultures and restructuring. In V. Kinnard and D. Hall (eds) Tourism: A Gender Analysis (pp. 74–105). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Lett, J. (1983) Ludic and liminoid aspects of charter yacht tourism in the Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research 10 (1), 35–56. Lett, J. (1989) Epilogue to touristic studies in anthropological perspective. In V. Smith (ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (2nd edn) (pp. 265–279). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Levine, D. (1988) Arguing for Socialism: Theoretical Considerations. London: Verso. Levy, A. and Scott-Clark, C. (2008) Country for sale. The Guardian Weekend Magazine, 26 April, 30–41. Lewis, D., Rogers, D. and Woolcock, M. (2014) The fiction of development: Literary representation as a source of authoritative knowledge. In D. Lewis, D. Rogers and

506

Tour ism and Development

M. Woolcock (eds) Popular Representations of Development, Insights from Novels, Films, Television and Social Media (pp. 19–37). London: Routledge. Lewis, R. and Mills, S. (eds) (2003) Feminist Postcolonial Theory A Reader. London: Routledge. Lewis, W. (1954) Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. The Manchester School 26 (2), reprinted in M. Gersovitz (ed.) (1983) Selected Economic Writings of W. Arthur Lewis (pp. 311–363). New York: New York University Press. Lillywhite, M. and Lillywhite, L. (1991) Low impact tourism. In D. Hawkins and J. Brent Ritchie (eds) World Travel & Tourism Review: Indicators, Trends and Forecasts (pp. 162– 169). Wallingford: CAB International. Lipman, G. (2013) Green growth and travelism. Tourism: The Journal for the Tourism Industry 154 (Summer), 6–7. Lipman, G. and Vorster, S. (2011) Green growth, travelism and the pursuit of happiness. In WEF (ed.) The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011 (pp. 77–80). Geneva: World Economic Forum. Lin, N. (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liu, Z. (2003) Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11 (3), 459–475. Lizée, P. (2011) A Whole New World Reinventing International Studies for the Post-Western World. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Llorca-Vivero, R. (2008) Terrorism and international tourism: New evidence. Defence and Peace Economics 19 (2), 169–188. Lloyd, P. and Dicken, P. (1977) Location in Space: A Theoretical Approach to Economic Geography (2nd edn). London: Harper and Row Publishers. Locke, J. (1689) Two Treatise of Civil Government. Cited in M. Morgan (ed.) (2005) Classics of Moral and Political Theory (4th edn). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Loening, U. (1990) The ecological challenges to growth. Development Journal of SID 3–4: 48–54. Lomborg, B. (ed.) (2007) Solutions for the World’s Biggest Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, V. and Wall, G. (1993) Balinese ‘homestays’: An indigenous response to tourism opportunities. In R. Butler and T. Hinch (eds) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples (pp. 27–48). Wallingford: CABI. Longhurst, C. (1993) Regionalism and economic disparities: Three perspectives. Journal of the Association of Iberian Studies 6 (1), 32–41. López, I. and Rodríguez, E. (2011) The Spanish model. New Left Review 69 (May–June), 5–29. Lord, J. (1998) Building genuine partnerships: Potential, principles and problems. Journal of Leisureability 25, 3–10. Lovatt-Smith, D. (1993) Amboseli: Nothing Short of a Miracle. Nairobi: Kenway. Lovelock, J. (1979) Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lowe, P. and Rüdig, W. (1986) Review article: Political ecology and the social sciences – The state of the art. British Journal of Political Science 16 (4), 513–550. Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R. and Walters, C. (1993) Uncertainty, resource exploitation and conservation: Lessons from history. Science 269 (5104), 17 and 36. Lummis, C. (1991) Development against democracy. Alternatives 16, 31–66. Lund, C. (2010) Approaching development: As opinionated review. Progress in Development Studies 1 (1), 19–34. Lundgren, J. (1975) Tourist penetration/the tourist product/entrepreneurial response. In F.M. Helleiner (ed.) Proceedings of The International Geographical Union’s Group, Tourism

References

507

as a Factor in National and Regional Development, Occasional Paper 4. Department of Geography, Trent University. Lury, C. (1996) Consumer Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press. LVCVA (2013) Historical Las Vegas visitor statistics (1970–2011). See www.lvcva.com/ includes/content/images/media/docs/Historical-1970-to-2011.pdf Lynch, S. (2014) Could Tunisia be the next big travel destination? USA Today, 22 April. See www.usatoday.com/story/dispatches/2014/04/22/tunisia-tourism/7086801/ (accessed April 2014). Lyth, P. (2009) Flying visits: The growth of British air package tours 1945–1975. In L. Segreto, C. Manera and M. Pohl (eds) Europe at the Seaside: The Economic History of Mass Tourism in the Mediterranean (pp. 11–30). Oxford: Berghahn. Mabogunje, A. (1980) The Development Process: A Spatial Perspective. London: Hutchinson. Macbeth, J., Carson, D. and Northcote, J. (2004) Social capital, tourism and regional development: SPCC as a basis for innovation and sustainability. Current Issues in Tourism 7 (6), 502–523. MacCannell, D. (1989) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (2nd edn). New York: Schocken Books. Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J. (1998) Contested Nature. London: Sage Publications. Macnaught, T. (1982) Mass tourism and the dilemmas of modernisation in Pacific Islands communities. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (3), 359–381. Macpherson, C. (2008) Golden goose or Trojan horse? Cruise ship tourism in Pacific tourism. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 49 (2), 185–197. Madden, M. and Shipley, R. (2012) An analysis of the literature at the nexus of heritage, tourism, and local economic development. Journal of Heritage Tourism 7 (2), 103–112. Madeley, J. (1996) Foreign exploits: Transnationals and tourism. CIIR Briefing. London: Catholic Institute for International Relations. Madsen Camacho, M.E. (1996) Dissenting workers and social control: A case study of the hotel industry in Huatulco, Oaxaca. Human Organization 55 (1), 33–40. Malecki, E. (1997) Technology and Economic Development (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman. Mander, J. (1999) How cyber culture deletes nature. The Ecologist 29 (3), 171. Mann, S. (2005) Tourism and the World Bank. Paper presented at the Development Studies Association Conference, Milton Keynes, 7–9 September. Manresa, A. (2012) Miles de personas, contra el macro hotel junto a una playa virgen en Baleares. El País, 29 April. See http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2012/04/29/actualidad/1335714644_574505.html Mansbach, R. and Rafferty, K. (2008) Introduction to Global Politics. London: Routledge. Mantećon, A. (2010) Tourist modernisation and social legitimation in Spain. International Journal of Tourism Research 12 (5), 617–666. Manuel-Navarrete, D., Pelling, M. and Redclift, M. (2010) Governance as process: Powerspheres and climate change response. Environment, Politics and Development Working Paper Series, Paper #10. Department of Geography, Kings College London. See www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/geography/research/epd/working.html Manyara, G. and Jones, E. (2007) Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15 (6), 628–644. Mapp, S. (2008) Human Rights and Social Justice in a Global Perspective: An Introduction to International Social Work. New York: Oxford University Press. Marchena Gómez, M. (1995) New spatial trends and the future of Mediterranean Europe. Tidschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 86 (1), 21–31. Marcotte, P. and Bourdeau, L. (2012) Is the World Heritage label used as a promotional argument for sustainable tourism? Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 2 (1), 80–91.

508

Tour ism and Development

Marcouiller, D., Kim, K. and Deller, S. (2004) Natural amenities tourism and income distribution. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4), 1031–1050. Mark, M. (2012) Full speed ahead for Africa’s super-rich. The Guardian, 24 March. Marshment, M. (1997) Gender takes a holiday: Representation in holiday brochures. In M.T. Sinclair (ed.) Gender, Work and Tourism (pp. 16–34). London: Routledge. Martin, C. and Witt, S. (1988) Substitute prices in models of tourism demand. Annals of Tourism Research 15 (2), 255–268. Maslow, A. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50, 370–396. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Mason, P. and Mowforth, M. (1995) Codes of Conduct in Tourism. Occasional Papers in Geography No.1. University of Plymouth, Department of Geographical Sciences. Matarrita-Cascante, D., Brennan, M. and Luloff, A. (2010) Community agency and sustainable tourism development: The case of La Fortuna, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (6), 735–756. Mathews, H. (1978) International Tourism: A Political and Social Analysis. Cambridge MA: Schenkman Publishing Company. Mathews, H. and Richter, L. (1991) Political science and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18 (1), 120–135. Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Harlow: Longman. Maxwell, S. (2005) The Washington Consensus is Dead! Long Live the Meta-narrative! Working Paper 243. London: Overseas Development Institute. Mayor, K. and Tol, R. (2007) The impact of the UK aviation tax on carbon dioxide emissions and visitor numbers. Transport Policy 14 (6), 507–513. Mazar, N. and Zhong, C. (2010) Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science (online). See http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/01/09567976103 63538 (accessed October 2010). Mbaiwa, J. (2005a) Community-based tourism and the marginalized communities in Botswana: The case of the Basarwa in the Okavango Delta. In C. Ryan and M. Aicken (eds) Indigenous Tourism: The Commodification and Management of Culture (pp. 87–110). Oxford: Elsevier. Mbaiwa, J. (2005b) Enclave tourism and its socio-economic impacts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management 26 (2), 157–172. Mbaiwa, J. and Stronza, A. (2010) The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (5), 635–656. McCarthy, J. (1994) Are Sweet Dreams Made of This? Tourism in Bali and Eastern Indonesia. Northcote, Australia: Indonesia Resources and Information Program Inc. McCormick, J. (1995) The Global Environmental Movement, 2nd Edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. McCracken, G. (1986) Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (1), 71–84. McDonnell, I. and Darcy, S. (1998) Tourism precincts: A factor in Bali’s rise in fortune and Fiji’s fall from favour: An Australian perspective. Journal of Vacation Marketing 4 (4), 353–367. McElroy, J. (2003) Tourism development in small islands across the world. Geografiska Annaler 85B (4), 231–242. McGehee, N. (2012) Oppression, emancipation, and volunteer tourism: Research propositions. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1), 84–107. McGehee, N. and Santos, C. (2005) Social change, discourse, and volunteer tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 32 (3), 760–779.

References

509

McGillivray, M. (2008) What is development? In D. Kingsbury, J. McKay, J. Hunt, M. McGillivray and M. Clarke (eds) International Development: Issues and Challenges (pp. 21–50). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. McGuinness, J. (2012) Spectacularizing Fez. In H. Anheier and Y. Isar (eds) Cultures and Globalization: Cities, Cultural Policy and Governance (pp. 176–183). London: Sage. McKay, J. (1990) The development model. Development Journal of SID 3, 55–59. McKean, M. and Ostrom, E. (1995) Common property regimes in the forest: Just a relic from the past? Unasylva 180, 3–15. 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 unrecognised threat to tourism: Can tourism survive sustainability? Tourism Management 14 (2), 131–136. McKercher, B. (2004) The over-reaction to SARS and the collapse of Asian tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3), 716–719. McKercher, B. and Chon, K. (2004) The over-reaction to SARS and the collapse of Asian tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3), 716–719. McKercher, B. and Ho, P. (2012) Cultural tourism and the enhancement of quality-of-life. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue and M. Sirgy (eds) Handbook of Tourism and Quality-of-Life Research: Enhancing the Lives of Tourists and Residents of Host Communities (pp. 341–358). London: Springer. McLaren, D. (1998) Rethinking Tourism and Ecotravel. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. McMullen, C. and Jabbour, J. (2009) Climate Change Science Compendium 2009. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W. (1972) Limits to Growth. London: Pan Books. Mearsheimer, J. (2002) Realism, the real world and the academy. In M. Brecher and F. Harvey (eds) Millennial Reflections on International Studies (pp. 57–63). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Medina, R. (n.d.) Introduction by Dr. Rubens Medina. Children’s Rights: International and National Laws and Practices. The Library of Congress. See www.loc.gov/law/help/ child-rights/ (accessed May 2013). Mehmet, O. (1995) Westernising the Third World: The Eurocentricity of Economic Development Theories. London: Routledge. Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., Frame, D. and Allen, M. (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458, 1158–1162. Meissner, D. (2014) Aboriginal tourism in BC: Offering an authentic experience. Toronto Star, 23 April. See www.thestar.com/life/travel/2014/03/28/aboriginal_tourism_in_ bc_offering_an_authentic_experience.html (accessed April 2014). Mellor, M. (1997) Feminism and Ecology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Meyer, D. (2003) The UK Outbound Tour Operating Industry and Implications for Pro-Poor Tourism. London: Overseas Development Institute. Meyer, D. (2007) Pro-poor tourism: From leakages to linkages. A conceptual framework for creating linkages between the accommodation sector and ‘poor’ neighbouring communities. Current Issues in Tourism 10 (6), 558–583. Meyer, D. (2011) Changing power relations: Foreign direct investment in Zanzibar. In J. Mosedale (ed.) The Political Economy of Tourism: Critical Perspectives (pp. 161–174) London: Routledge. Micco, A. and Serebrisky, T. (2006) Competition regimes and air transport costs: The effects of open skies agreements. Journal of International Economics 70 (1), 25–51.

510

Tour ism and Development

Michaelidou, M., Decker, D. and Lassoie, J. (2002) The interdependence of ecosystem and community viability: A theoretical framework to guide research and application. Society and Natural Resources 15 (7), 599–616. Michaud, J. (1991) A social anthropology of tourism in Ladakh (India). Annals of Tourism Research 18 (4), 605–621. Michaud, J. (1997) A portrait of cultural resistance: The confinement of tourism in a Hmong village in Thailand. In M. Picard and R. Wood (eds) Tourism, Ethnicity and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies (pp. 124–158). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Middleton, V. (1998) Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Approach. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann. 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. Middleton, V. and Hawkins, R. (1994) Practical environmental policies in travel and tourism – Part II: Airlines, tour operators and destinations. Travel and Tourism Analyst 1, 83–97. Middleton, V. and Hawkins, R. (1998) Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Perspective. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Midgeley, J. (1995) Social Development: The Developmental Perspective in Social Welfare. London: Sage Publications. Mieczkowski, Z. (1995) Environmental Issues of Tourism and Recreation. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Mielke, E. (2012) Community based tourism: Sustainability as a matter of result management. In G. Lohmann and D. Dredge (eds) Tourism in Brazil: Environment, Management and Segments (pp. 30–43). London: Routledge. Mignolo, W. (1988) Globalization, civilization processes, and the relocation of languages and culture. In F. Jameson and M. Miyoshi (eds) The Culture of Globalization (pp. 32–53). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Mihalič, T. (1999) Equity in outgoing tourism through tourist certificates. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11, 128–131. Mihalič, T. (2000) Increasing tourism competitiveness through granting tourism concessions to natural goods in transition countries. In M. Robinson, J. Swarbrooke, N. Evans, P. Long and R. Sharpley (eds) Reflections on International Tourism: Environmental Management and Pathways to Sustainable Tourism (pp. 133–151). Sunderland: Business Education Press. Mihalič, T. (2002a) Ekonomske funkcije turizma (Tourism Economic Functions). Ljubljana: Ekonomska fakulteta. Mihalič, T. (2002b) Ekonomske funkcije turizma, (EF, Učbenik). 1. Natis. Ljubljana: Ekonomska fakulteta. Mihalič, T. (2002c) Tourism and economic development issues. In R. Sharpley and D.J. Telfer (eds) Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues (pp. 81–111). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Mihalič, T. (2012) Economic impacts of tourism, particularly its potential contribution to economic development. In C. Tisdell (ed.) Handbook on Tourism Economics. Analysis, New Applicaations and Case Studies (pp. 645–682). London: World Scientific Publishing Co. Milmo, D. (2012) EasyJet founder Sir Stelios moves closer to low-cost African airline. The Guardian, 13 June. See www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/13/sir-stelios-lowcost-african-airline-fastjet (accessed 14 June 2012). Milne, S. (1987) Differential multipliers. Annals of Tourism Research 14 (4), 499–515. Milne, S. (1992) Tourism and development in South Pacific microstates. Annals of Tourism Research 19 (2), 191–212. Milne, S. (1998) Tourism and sustainable development: The global-local nexus. In C.M. Hall and A. Lew (eds) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 35–48). Harlow: Longman.

References

511

Milne, S. and Gill, K. (1998) Distribution technologies and destination development: Myths and realities. In D. Ioannides and K. Debbage (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry (pp. 123–138). London: Routledge. Mimura, N., Nurse, L., Mclean, R., Agard, J., Briguglio, L., Lefale, P., Payet, R. and Sem, G. (2007) Small islands. In M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden and C. Hanson (eds) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (pp. 688– 716). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mintel (1994) The Green Consumer I: The Green Conscience. London: Mintel International. Mintel (2007) Green and Ethical Consumers. London: Mintel International. Mintel (2013) Package vs. Independent Holidays. London: Mintel International. Mishan, E. (1969) The Costs of Economic Growth. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Mitchell, B. (1989) Geography and Resource Analysis (2nd edn). New York: Longman Scientific & Technical. Mitchell, J. and Ashley, C. (2007) Pathways to Prosperity: How Can Tourism Reduce Poverty? A Review of Pathways, Evidence and Methods. London: Overseas Development Institute. Mitchell, J. and Ashley, C. (2010) Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity. London: Earthscan. Mohan, G., Brown, E., Milward, B. and Zack-Williams, A. (2000) Structural Adjustment Theory, Practice and Impacts. Routledge: London. Momsen, J. (1991) Women and Development in the Third World. London: Routledge. Momsen, J. (1994) Tourism, gender and development in the Caribbean. In V. Kinnaird and D. Hall (eds) Tourism: A Gender Analysis (pp. 106–120). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Momsen, J. (2004) Gender and Development. London: Routledge. Morell, M. (2001) The eco-tax in the Balearics: Where politics and the environment meet tourism. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of North London. Morgan, H. (2000) A taxing time. Tourism in Focus 37, 6–7. Morgan, M. (ed.) (2005) Classics of Moral and Political Theory (4th edn). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (1998) Tourism Promotion and Power: Creating Images, Creating Identities. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Mosedale, J. (2006) Tourism commodity chains: Market entry and their effects on St. Lucia. Current Issues in Tourism 9 (4–5), 436–58. Mosedale, J. (ed.) (2011) Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective. London: Routledge. Mosedale, J. and Albrecht, J. (2011) Tourism regulation and relational geography: The global, local and everything in between. In J. Mosedale (ed.) Political Economy of Tourism: A Critical Perspective (pp. 243–255). London: Routledge. Moser, C. (1989) Gender planning in the third world: Meeting strategic and practical gender needs. World Development 17 (11), 1799–1825. Mosley, P. and Toye, J. (1988) The design of structural adjustment programs. Development Policy Review 6 (4), 395–413. Moutinho, L. (1987) Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing 21 (10), 5–44. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability New Tourism in the Third World. New York: Routledge. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (2009) Tourism and Sustainability: Development, Globalisation and New Tourism in the Third World (3rd edn). Abingdon: Routledge. Moya, E. (2010) Greece starts putting island land up for sale to save economy. The Guardian online, 24 June. See www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/24/greece-islands-salesave-economy (accessed 1 June 2010).

512

Tour ism and Development

Moynagh, M. (2008) Political Tourism and Its Texts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Moyo, D. (2009) Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Moyo, D. (2012) Winner Take All, China’s Race for Resources and What it Means for the Rest of the World. Toronto: HarperCollins. MTCO, Mekong Tourism Coordinating Office (2014) GMS Tourism Sector Strategy 2005–2015. See http://mekongtourism.org/website/development-projects/gmstourism-strategy/ (accessed April 2014). Muchlinski, P. (2001) Human rights and multinationals: Is there a problem? International Affairs 77 (1), 31–48. Müller, H. (1994) The thorny path to sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2 (3), 131–136. Muller, R. (1979) The multinational corporation and the underdevelopment of the third world. In C. Wilber (ed.) The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment First Edition (pp. 124–151). New York: Random House (Originally published in 1973). Mun, T. (1664) England’s treasure by forraign trade or the balance of our forraign trade is the rule of our treasure. In Reprints of Economics Classics. London: A.M. Kelley. Munar, A. and Jacobsen, S. (2013) Trust and involvement in tourism social media and web-based travel information sources. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 13 (1), 1–19. Mundt, J. (2011) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Reconsidering a Concept of Vague Policies. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Munro, D. (1995) Sustainability: Rhetoric or reality? In T. Trzyna and J. Osborn (eds) A Sustainable World: Defining and Measuring Sustainable Development (pp. 27–35). Sacramento: International Center for the Environment and Public Policy for the World Conservation Union. Munt, I. (1994) The ‘other’ postmodern tourism: Culture, travel and the new middle classes. Theory, Culture and Society 11 (3), 101–123. Murphree, M. and Hulme, D. (1998) Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa. Journal of International Development 11 (2), 277–285. Murphy, P. (1983) Tourism as a community industry: An ecological model of tourism development. Tourism Management 14 (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. Murphy, P. and Price, G. (2005) Tourism and sustainable development. In W. Theobald (ed.) Global Tourism (3rd edn) (pp. 167–193). New York: Elsevier. Murray, G. (2007) Constructing paradise: The impacts of big tourism in the Mexican coastal zone. Coastal Management 35 (2–3), 339–355. Mustafa, M.H. (2014) Tourism development at the Baptism Site of Jesus Christ, Jordan: Residents’ perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism 9 (1), 75–83. Myrdal, G. (1963) Economic Theory and Under-Developed Regions. London: University Paperbacks. Naím, M. (2001) Don’t trash McDonalds. New Perspectives Quarterly 18 (4), 12–13. Narotzky, S. (1997) New Directions in Economic Anthropology. London: Pluto Press. Nash, D. (1981) Tourism as an anthropological subject. Current Anthropology 22 (5), 461–481. 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. Nash, D. and Smith, V. (1991) Anthropology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18 (4), 12–25.

References

513

National Catholic Reporter (2002) ‘Ecotourism’ shouldn’t lead to exploitation, Pope says. 5 July. See www.thefreelibrary.com/Ecotourism’+shouldn’t+lead+to+exploitation% 2c+pope+says.+(World).-a089388361 (accessed October 2012). National Park Service (2013) National register of historic places. See www.nps.gov/nr/ (accessed 30 August 2013). Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1998) My paradigm or yours? Alternative development, post development, reflexive development. Development and Change 29, 343–73. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2000) After post-development. Third World Quarterly 21 (2), 175–191. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2001) Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. London: Sage Publications. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2010) Development Theory. London: Sage Publications. Nesterko, S. (2013) How’s life? Critique of an interactive visualization: ‘OECD Better Life Index’, competition entry by Lo-Hua Yuan, Harvard Data Science: Thoughts on Statistical Computing and Visualization, 5 March. See http://harvarddatascience. com/2013/03/05/hows-life-critique-of-an-interactive-visualization-oecd-better-lifeindex/ (accessed May 2013). New York Times (2008) Cuba lets it people stay in hotels. New York Times, 31 March. See www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/world/americas/31iht-cuba.4.11559680.html (accessed April 2014). Nicholls, R., Wong, P., Burkett, V., Codignotto, J., Hay, J., Mclean, R., Ragoonaden, S. and Woodroffe, C. (2007) Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In M. Parry, O. Canziani, P. Palutikof, P. van der Linden and C. Hanson (eds) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (pp. 315–356). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nielsen, J.Ø. and Sejersen, F. (2012) Earth system science, the IPCC and the problem of downward causation in human geographies of global climate change. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 112 (2), 194–202. Noguchi, Y. (n.d.) Accelerating Action against Child Labour in Tourism. International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour. See http://ethics.unwto.org/sites/ all/files/docpdf/presentationofmsnoguchi.pdf Nolan, P. and Zhang, J. (2010) Global competition after the financial crisis. New Left Review 64 (July–August), 97–108. Norem, R., Yoder, H. and Martin, Y. (1989) Indigenous agricultural knowledge and gender Issues in third world agricultural development. In D. Warren, L.J. Slikkerveer and S. Titilola (eds) Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development (pp. 91–100). Iowa State University, Technology and Social Change Program with the Academy for Educational Development. Novelli, M. (ed.) (2005) Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues, Trends and Cases. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Novelli, M. and Hellwig, A. (2011) The UN Millennium Development Goals, tourism and development: The tour operators’ perspective. Current Issues in Tourism 14 (3), 205–220. Nowak, J., Petit, S. and Sahli, M. (2010) Tourism and globalization: The international division of tourism production. Journal of Travel Research 49 (2), 228–245. Nuryanti, W. (1998) Tourism and regional imbalances: The case of Java, Indonesia and the Malay World 26 (75), 136–144. O’Brien, K., St Clair, A. and Kristoffersen, B. (eds) (2010) Climate Change, Ethics, and Human Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Brien, K., Sygna, L., Leichenko, R., Adger, W., Barnett, J., Mitchell, T., Schipper, L., Tanner, T., Vogel, C. and Mortreux, C. (2008) Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Human Security. Report prepared for the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Global Environmental Change and Human Security (GECHS) Project, GECHS Report 2008:3. Oslo, Norway: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

514

Tour ism and Development

O’Connor, J. (2000) The big squeeze. Tourism In Focus, Summer, 4–5. OECD (2011) OECD launches Your Better Life Index. News Release, 24 May. See www. oecd.org/general/oecdlaunchesyourbetterlifeindex.htm (accessed May 2013). OECD (2012) OECD executive summary. See www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/wpsystem/ wp-content/uploads/2012/05/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.pdf (accessed May 2013). OECD (2013) Dataset: Better Life Index. See http://stats.oecd.org (accessed May 2013). OECD and UNEP (2011) Climate Change and Tourism Policy in OECD Countries. Paris: Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development and United Nations Environment Programme. Oglethorpe, M. (1984) Tourism in Malta: A crisis of dependence. Leisure Studies 3, 147–161. O’Grady, R. (1980) Code of Ethics for Tourists. Geneva: World Council of Churches. Oh, C. (2005) The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tourism Management 26 (1), 39–44. Olsen, D. and Timothy, D. (2006) Tourism and religious journeys. In D. Timothy and D. Olsen (eds) Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys (pp. 1–21). Abingdon: Routledge. Oman, C. and Wignaraja, G. (1991) The Postwar Evolution of Development Thinking. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Öniş, Z. and Şenses, F. (2005) Rethinking the emerging post-Washington consensus. Development and Change 36 (2), 263–290. Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (2013) Regional tourism organisations. See www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/regions/regions_q_a.shtml (accessed 15 April 2013). Oppermann, M. (1992) International tourism and regional development in Malaysia Tijdschrift voor Econ. en Soc. Geographie 83 (3), 226–233. Oppermann, M. (1993) Tourism space in developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 20 (3), 535–556. Oppermann, M. and Chon, K. (1997) Tourism in Developing Countries. London: International Thomson Business Press. O’Reilly, B. (2013) Egypt tourism under attack as hotel tweets SOSes. USA Today online, 30 January. See www.usatoday.com/story/dispatches/2013/01/30/egypt-cairotourism-hotel-protests/1876563/ (accessed May 2013). O’Reilly, T. (1986) Tourism carrying capacity: Concepts and issues. Tourism Management 8 (2), 254–258. Orend, B. (2002) Human Rights: Concepts and Context. Peterborough: Broadview Press. Osberg, L. (2001) Needs and wants: What is social progress and how should it be measured? In K. Banting, A. Sharpe and F. St. Hilaire (eds) The Review of Economic Performance and Social Progress (pp. 23–41). Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Osmani, S. (2006) 12: Globalization and the human rights approach to development. In B. Andreassen and S. Marks (eds) Development as a Human Right: Legal, Political, and Economic Dimensions (pp. 254–273). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Otgaar, A., van den Berg, L., Berger, C. and Feng, R. (2010) Industrial Tourism: Opportunities for City and Enterprise. Farnham: Ashgate. Ousby, I. (1990) The Englishman’s England: Taste, Travel and the Rise of Tourism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Overholt, C. (1991) Case 4: Indonesia: The P2WIK-UNDP Batik Project. In A. Rao, M. Anderson and C. Overholt (eds) Gender Analysis in Development Planning: A Case Book (pp. 55–70). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Paavola, J. and Adger, W. (2006) Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecological Economics 56 (4), 594–609. Page, S. and Getz, D. (1997) The business of rural tourism. In S. Page and D. Getz The Business of Rural Tourism (pp. 3–37). London: International Thomson Business Press.

References

515

Palacios, C. (2010) Volunteer tourism, development and education in a postcolonial world: Conceiving global connections and beyond. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (7), 861–878. Palmer, C. (1994) Tourism and colonialism: The experience of the Bahamas. Annals of Tourism Research 21 (4), 792–811. Papatheodorou, A., Rossello, J. and Xiao, H. (2010) Global economic crisis and tourism: Consequences and perspectives. Journal of Travel Research 49 (1), 39–45. Parekh, B. (1999) Non-ethnocentric universalism: Response to moral diversity. In T. Dunne and N.J. Wheeler (eds) Human Rights in Global Politics (pp. 128–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paris, C. (2011) Social constructivism and tourism education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 10 (2), 103–108. Parker, R. (1999) Las Vegas – Casino gambling and local culture. In D. Judd and S. Fainstein (eds) The Tourist City (pp. 107–123). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Parrilla, J., Font, A. and Nadal, J. (2007) Tourism and long-term growth: A Spanish perspective. Annals of Tourism Research 34 (3), 709–726. Parrinello, G. (1993) Motivation and anticipation in post-industrial tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 20 (2), 233–249. Pass, C., Lowes, B. and Davies, L. (1993) Collins Dictionary of Economics (2nd edn). Glasgow: Harper Collins. Passariello, P. (1983) Never on a Sunday? Mexican tourists at the beach. Annals of Tourism Research 10 (1), 109–122. Patterson, K. (1993) Aloha! ‘Welcome to Paradise’. New Internationalist July (245), 13–15. Pattullo, P. (1996) Last Resorts: The Cost of Tourism in the Caribbean. London: Cassell/Latin American Bureau. Paulson, T. (2013) Philanthrocapitalists propose a Social Progress Index. Humanosphere: News and Analysis of Global Health and the Fight against Poverty, 15 April. See www. humanosphere.org/2013/04/philanthrocapitalists-propose-a-social-progress-index/ (accessed May 2013). Pearce, D. (1989) Tourist Development (2nd edn). New York: Longman. Pearce, D. (1992) Towards Sustainable Development through Environmental Assessment. CSERGE Working Paper PA92-11. Norwich: CSERGE. Pearce, D. (1993) Introduction. In D. Pearce and R. Butler (eds) Tourism Research Critiques and Challenges. New York: Routledge. Pearce, D. (1997) Tourism and the autonomous communities in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (1), 156–177. Pearce, D., Barbier, E. and Markandya, A. (1990) Sustainable Development: Economics and the Environment in the Third World. London: Earthscan. Pearce, P. (1992) Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In D. Pearce and R. Butler (eds) Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges (pp. 113–134). London: Routledge. Peet, R. (1999) Theories of Development. New York: The Guildford Press. Peeters, P., Gössling, S. and Becken, S. (2007) Innovation towards tourism sustainability: climate change and aviation. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 1 (3), 184–200. Peeters, P., Williams, V. and de Haan, A. (2009) Technical and management reduction potentials. In S. Gössling and P. Upham (eds) Climate Change and Aviation. Issues, Challenges and Solutions (pp. 293–307). London: Earthscan. Pegas, F. and Stronza, A. (2010) Ecotourism and sea turtles harvesting in a fishing village of Bahia, Brazil. Conservation and Society 8 (1), 15–25. Pentelow, L. and Scott, D. (2010) The implications of climate change mitigation policy: Volatility for tourism arrivals to the Caribbean. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development 7 (3), 301–315.

516

Tour ism and Development

Pentelow, L. and Scott, D. (2011) Aviation’s inclusion in international climate policy regimes: Implications for the Caribbean tourism industry. Journal of Air Transport Management 17 (3), 199–205. Peppelenbosch, P. and Templeman, G. (1973) Tourism and the developing countries. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 64 (1), 52–58. Pérez, L. (1980) How tourism underdevelops tropical islands. In I. Vogeler and A. de Souza (eds) Dialectics of Third World Development (pp. 249–255). New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun & Co. Perrin, B. (2010) Invisible Chains: Canada’s Underground World of Human Trafficking. Toronto: Penguin Group (Canada) Press. Perrons, D. (1999) Deconstructing the Maastricht myth? Economic and social cohesion in Europe: Regional and gender dimensions of inequality. In R. Hudson and A. Williams (eds) Divided Europe: Society and Territory (pp. 186–209). London: Sage. Perroux, F. (1955) Note sur la notion de poles croissance. Economic Appliquee, 1 & 2, 307–320. Perroux, F. (1988) The pole of development’s new place in a general theory of economic activity. In B. Higgins and D. Savoie (eds) Regional Economic Development – Essays in Honour of Francois Perroux (pp. 48–76). Boston, MA: Hyman. Pessis, A.-M., Guidon, N. and Martin, G. (2012) World heritage in poverty alleviation: Serra da Capivara National Park, Brazil. In A. Galla (ed.) World Heritage: Benefits Beyond Borders (pp. 301–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters, M. (1969) International Tourism: The Economics and Development of the International Tourist Trade. London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd. Phelan, C. and Sharpley, R. (2011) Exploring agritourism entrepreneurship in the UK. Tourism Planning & Development 8 (2), 121–136. Phillips, R. and Budruk, M. (2011) Introduction. In M. Budruk and R. Phillips (eds) Quality-of-Life Community Indicators for Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management (pp. 1–10). London: Springer. Picard, M. (1995) Cultural tourism in Bali. In M.-F. Lanfant, J. Allcock and E. Bruner (eds) International Tourism: Identity and Change (pp. 44–66). London: Sage Publications. Picard, M. (1997) Cultural tourism in Bali: The construction of a cultural heritage. In W. Nuryanti (ed.) Tourism and Heritage Management (pp. 147–164). Yogyakarta: Gadja Mada University Press. Pick, A. and Pick Jr., H. (1978) Culture and perception. In E. Carterette and M. Friedman (eds) Handbook of Perception Volume X: Perceptual Ecology (pp. 19–39). London: Academic Press. Pierret, F. (2012) L’avenir du tourisme en Mediterranee. Keynote Speech, 6th International Conference on Destination Management, Djerba, 16–17 April. See www.unwto.org (accessed 17 April 2012). Pigram, J. (1990) Sustainable tourism: Policy considerations. Journal of Tourism Studies 1 (2), 2–9. Pillay, N. (2011) No real development without human rights: The Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-IV), Istanbul, Turkey, 9–13 May. See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID= 11027&LangID=E Pirnar, I. (2009) Tourism development revisited: Concepts, issues, and paradigms. Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2), 357–358. Pi-Sunyer, O. (1989) Changing perceptions of tourism and tourists in a Catalan resort town. In V. Smith (ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (2nd edn) (pp. 187–199). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Place, S. (1995) Ecotourism for sustainable development: Oxymoron or plausible strategy? Geojournal 35 (2), 161–173. Place, S. (1998) Ecotourism: Viable route to rural development? In C.M. Hall and A. Lew (eds) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 107–118). Harlow: Longman.

References

517

Plan Canada (2013) Because I am a girl. See http://plancanada.ca/BecauseIamaGirlOverview Plan Canada (2014) Stopping child sex tourism. See http://plancanada.ca/page. aspx?pid=5555 (accessed April 2014). Planina, J. (1997) Ekonomika turizma. (Tourism Economics). Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Ekonomska fakulteta. Planina, J. and Mihalic, T. (2002) Ekonomika turizma (Tourism Economics). Ljubljana: Ekonomska fakulteta. Pleumarom, A. (1994) The political economy of tourism. The Ecologist 24 (4), 142–148. Plog, S. (1977) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. In E. Kell (ed.) Domestic and International Tourism (pp. 26–28). Wellesley MA: Institute of Certified Travel Agents. Plummer, R. and Fennell, D.A. (2009) Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospects for adaptive co-management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (2), 149–168. Poirier, R.A. (1995) Tourism and development in Tunisia. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1), 157–171. Polanyi, K. ([1944] 2001) The Great Transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Polimeni, J., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M. and Alcott, B. (2008) The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements. London: Earthscan. Pollin, R. (2005) Contours of Descent: US Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity. London: Verso. Polunin, I. (1989) Japanese travel boom. Tourism Management 10 (1), 4–8. Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Wallingford: CAB International. Popescu, L. (2008) The Good Tourist: An Ethical Traveller’s Guide. London: Arcadia Books. Popper, K. (1990) The Open Society and its Enemies, Volume 2, Hegel and Marx. London: Routledge (first published in 1945). Porter, M. (1998) On Competition A Harvard Business Review Book. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Porter, M., Stern, S. and Artavia Loría, R. (2013) Social Progress Index 2013. Washington, DC: Social Progress Imperative. Potter, D. (2000) Democratisation, ‘good governance’ and development. In T. Allen and A. Thomas (eds) Poverty and Development into the 21st Century (pp. 365–382). Oxford: OUP. Potts, F., Goodwin, H. and Walpole, M. (1996) People, wildlife and tourism in and around Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe. In M. Price (ed.) People and Tourism in Fragile Environments (pp. 199–219). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Prahalad, C. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Preis, A. (n.d.) Human rights as cultural practice: An anthropological critique. Human Rights Quarterly, 18, 286–315. Cited in M. Weinberg (1996–97) The Human Rights Discourse: A Bahá’í Perspective. http://info.bahai.org/article-1-8-3-2.html (accessed June 2012). Preister, K. (1989) The theory and management of tourism impacts. Tourism Recreation Research 14 (1), 15–22. Preston, P. (1996) Development Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Preston, R. (1984) Relationships between classical central place theory and growth-centre based regional development strategies. In C. Bryant (ed.) Waterloo Lectures in Geography Volume 1, Regional Economic Development (pp. 73–115). Department of Geography, University of Waterloo. Pretes, M. (1995) Postmodern tourism: The Santa Claus industry. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1), 1–15. Pretty, J. (1994) Alternative systems of inquiry for a sustainable agriculture. The Institute of Development Studies Bulletin 25 (2), 37–48.

518

Tour ism and Development

Pretty, J. (1995) The many interpretations of participation. Focus 16 (Summer), 4–5. Price, M. (1996a) Fragile environments, fragile communities? An introduction. In M. Price (ed.) People and Tourism in Fragile Environments (pp. 1–18). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Price, M. (ed.) (1996b) People and Tourism in Fragile Environments. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Prideaux, B. (1999) Tourism perspectives of the Asian financial crisis: Lessons for the future. Current Issues in Tourism 2 (4), 279–293. Priestly, G., Edwards, J. and Cocossis, H. (eds) (1996) Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences. Wallingford: CAB International. Prigent, L. (2013) L’inscription au patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco, les promesses d’un label? Revue Internationale et Stratégique 2, 127–135. Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership (2005a) Key Principles and Strategies of Pro-Poor Tourism. London: Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership. Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership (2005b), Pro-Poor Tourism: Annual Register 2005. London: Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership. Pryce, A. (1998) The World Bank group and tourism. Travel and Tourism Analyst 5, 75–90. Puchala, D. (1995) The ethics of globalism. The 1995 John W. Holmes Memorial Lecture: Reports and Papers. Academic Council on the United Nations System, No. 3. http:// dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/17342/1/The%20Ethics%20of%20 Globalism.pdf?1 (accessed June 2012). Putnam, R. (1995) Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics 28 (4), 664–683. Quayson, A. (2000) Postcolonialism, Theory, Practice or Process. Cambridge: Polity Press. Queensland Government (2013) New energy supply options for the Daintree. See http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2012/12/6/new-energy-supply-options-forthe-daintree Rabin, R.C. (2012) X-ray scans at airports leave lingering worries. The New York Times ‘Well’ blog, 6 August. See http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/x-ray-scans-atairports-leave-lingering-worries/ (accessed May 2013). Racliffe, S. (2006) Culture in development thinking: Geographies, actors and paradigms. In S. Radcliffe (ed.) Culture and Development in a Globailsing World (pp. 1–29). London: Routledge. Radiven, N. and Lucas, R. (1997) Minimum wages and pay policy in the British hospitality industry: Past impact and future implications. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3, 149–163. Rahnema, M. (1992) Poverty. In W. Sachs (ed.) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power (pp. 158–176). London: Zed Books. Rahnema, M. (1997) Towards post-development: Searching for signposts, a new language and new paradigms. In M. Rahnema and V. Bawtree (eds) The Post-Development Reader (pp. 377–403). London: Zed Books. Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (1997) The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Rajotte, F. (1987) Safari and beach-resort tourism: The costs to Kenya. In S. Britton and W. Clarke (eds) Ambiguous Alternatives: Tourism in Small Developing Countries (pp. 78–90). Fiji: University of the South Pacific. Ramesh, R. and Walker, P. (2008) Gunmen run amok in Mumbai terror attack killing and injuring hundreds. The Guardian online, 27 November. See www.guardian.co.uk/ world/2008/nov/27/india-terrorist-attacks-mumbai (accessed 2008). Ranck, S. (1987) An attempt at autonomous development the case of the Tufi guest houses, Papua New Guinea. In S. Britton and W. Clark (eds) Ambiguous Alternatives: Tourism in Small Developing Countries (pp. 154–166). Suva: The University of the South Pacific.

References

519

Rangan, H. (1996) From Chipko to Uttaranchal. In R. Peets and M. Watts (eds) Liberation Ecologies: Environmental Development, Social Movements (pp. 205–226). New York: Routledge. Rao, N. (2000) Invisible hands, invisible bodies. Tourism in Focus, Summer, 16. Rapley, J. (2002) Understanding Development Theory and Practice in the Third World. London: Lynne Reinner Publishers. Ray, D. (1998) Development Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Redclift, M. (1984) Development and the Environmental Crisis: Red or Green Alternatives? London: Methuen. Redclift, M. (1987) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London: Routledge. Redclift, M. (1992) The meaning of sustainable development. Geoforum 23 (3), 395–403. Redclift, M. (2000) Sustainablity Life Chances and Livelihoods. London: Routledge. Rees, W. (1990) The ecology of sustainable development. The Ecologist 20 (1), 370–392. Reid, D. (1995) Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide. London: Earthscan. Reid, D. (2003) Tourism, Globalization and Development: Responsible Tourism Planning. London: Pluto Books. Reid, M. (2012) Revolution in retreat, a special report on Cuba. The Economist, 24 March. www.economist.com/node/21550418 (accessed 28 June 2013). Renton, A. (2009) Tourism is a curse to us. The Guardian (The Observer), 6 September. See www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/06/masai-tribesman-tanzania-tourism (accessed April 2014). Rettie, K., Clevenger, A. and Ford, A. (2009) Innovative approaches for managing conservation and use challenges in the National Parks: Insights from Canada. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 396–415). London: Sage. Richards, G. (2000) Tourism and mobility in the European Union: Crossing the NorthSouth divide. Paper presented to the 7th ATLAS International Conference, Savonlinna, Finland, 18–21 June. Richards, G. (2001) The development of cultural tourism in Europe. In G. Richards (ed.) Cultural Attractions and European Tourism (pp. 3–29). Wallingford: CABI. Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2007) Tourism development trajectories from culture to creativity? In G. Richards and J. Wilson (eds) Tourism, Creativity and Development (1–33). London: Routledge. Richez, G. (1994) Le tourisme dans une région périphérique: L’exemple de l’île de Corse (Fraance). Téoros 13 (1), 34–37. Richter, L. (1983) Tourism politics and political science a case of not so benign neglect. Annals of Tourism Research 10 (3), 313–335. Rist, G. (1997) The History of Development from Western Origins to Global Faith. London: Zed Books. Ritchie, J. and Crouch, G. (1993) Competitiveness in international tourism – A framework for understanding and analysis. Competitiveness of Long Haul Destinations (pp. 23–71). St. Gallen: AIEST. Roberts, L. and Hall, D. (2001) Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principles to Practice. Wallingford: CABI. Roberts, M. (1998) Travel and tourism survey. The Economist, 10 January. Robertson, R. and. Khondker, H. (1998) Discourses of globalization: Preliminary considerations. International Sociology 13 (1), 25–40. Robie, C., Bateson, A., Ellison, P. and Figler, M. (1993) An analysis of the tourism motivation construct. Annals of Tourism Research 20 (4), 773–776. Roche, M. (1992) Mega-events and micro-modernisation: On the sociology of new urban tourism. British Journal of Sociology 43 (4), 563–600. Rodenburg, E. (1980) The effects of scale in economic development: Tourism in Bali. Annals of Tourism Research 7 (2), 177–196.

520

Tour ism and Development

Rodríguez, M. and J. Portales (1994) Tourism and NAFTA: Towards a regional tourism policy. Tourism Management 15 (5), 319–322. Rodríguez-Piñero, L. (2005) Indigenous Peoples, Postcolonialism and International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roe, D., Goodwin, H. and Ashley, C. (2002) The tourism industry and poverty reduction: A business primer. PPT Briefing No. 2. London: Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership. Ron, A.S. (2009) Towards a typological model of contemporary Christian travel. Journal of Heritage Tourism 4 (4), 287–297. Rosentraub, M. and Joo, M. (2009) Tourism and economic development: Which investments produce gains for regions? Tourism Management 30 (5), 759–770. Rosling, H. (2013) The river of myths (video). See www.gapminder.org/videos/the-riverof-myths/ (accessed March 2014). Rostow, W. (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rostow, W. (1967) The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist (2nd edn). Cambridge: University Press. Rowbotham, M. (1998) The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery and Destructive Economics. Charlbury: Jon Carpenter. Rowden, R. (2010) Poverty reduction is not development. Review of African Political Economy 37 (126), 503–516. Rowell, A. (1996) Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement. London: Routledge. Rozemeijer, N. (2000) Community-Based Tourism in Botswana: The SNV Experience in Three Community Tourism Projects. Botswana: SNV/IUCN CBNRM Support Programme. Rozemeijer, N. (2003) CBNRM in Botswana: Revisiting the Assumptions 10 Years of Implementation. Botswana: IUCN/SNV CBNRM Support Program. Ruggles, D.F. and Silverman, H. (eds) (2009) Intangible Heritage Embodied. Dordrecht: Springer. Ruhanen, L. (2008) Progressing the sustainability debate: A knowledge management approach to sustainable tourism planning. Current Issues in Tourism 11 (5), 429–455. Rupert, M. and Smith, H. (eds) (2002) Historical Materialism and Globalization. London: Routledge. Russell, E. (1953) World Population and World Food Supplies. London: Allen and Unwin. Rutherford, P. (1999) Ecological modernization and environmental risk. In E. Darier (ed.) Discourses of the Environment (pp. 95–118). Oxford: Blackwell. Ryan, C. (1997) The chase of a dream, the end of a play. In C. Ryan (ed.) Tourist Experience: A New Introduction (pp. 1–24). London: Cassell. Ryan, C. (2003) Recreational Tourism: Demand and Impacts. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Ryan, C. and Hall, M. (2001) Sex Tourism: Marginal People and Liminalities. London: Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group. Ryan, C., Hughes, K. and Chirgwin, S. (2000) The gaze, spectacle and ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (1), 148–163. Saarinen, J. (2006) Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (4), 1121–1140. Sachs, W. (1992) Introduction. In W. Sachs (ed.) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power (pp. 1–6). London: Zed Books. Sachs, W. (ed.) (1996) Introduction. The Development Dictionary A Guide to Knowledge as Power (pp. 1–6). London: Zed Books. Saglio, C. (1979) Tourism for discovery: A project in Lower Casamance, Senegal. In E. de Kadt (ed.) Tourism: Passport to Development? (pp. 321–335). New York: OUP. Sahle (2009) Post-development and alternatives to development. In P. Haslam, J. Schafer and P. Beaudet (eds) Introduction to International Development: Approaches, Actors and Issues (pp. 68–85). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

References

521

Sahlins, M. (1997) The original affluent society. In M. Rahnema and V. Bawtree (eds) The Post-Development Reader (pp. 3–21). London: Zed Books. Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Said, E. (1993) Culture and Imperialism. Toronto: Random House of Canada Limited. Sainz, J. (2013) Disfigured fresco is hit for artist, town. Denver Post, 14 August. See www.denverpost.com/news/ci_23860392/disfigured-spanish-fresco-is-hit-artisttown (accessed 15 September 2013). Salazar, N. (2012) Community-based cultural tourism: Issues, threats and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20 (1), 9–22. Salem, N. (1995) Water rights. Tourism in Focus 17, 4–5. Samatas, M. (2003) Greece in ‘Schengenland’: Blessing or anathema for citizens’ and foreigners’ rights. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 29 (1), 141–156. Samy, J. (1980) Crumbs from the table: The workers’ share in tourism? In F. Rajotte and R. Crocombe (eds) Pacific Tourism: As Islanders See It (pp. 67–82). Fiji: University of the South Pacific. Sandford, D. and Dong, H. (2000) Investment in familiar territory: Tourism and new foreign direct investment. Tourism Economics 6 (3), 205–219. Sanghera, J. (1998) Trafficking and prostitution in South Asia from a Third World perspective. In H. Johnston and S. Khan (eds) Trafficking in Persons in South Asia (pp. 120–153). Calgary: Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute. Santarius, T. (2012) Green Growth Unravelled – How Rebound Effects Baffle Sustainability Targets When the Economy Keeps Growing. Berlin: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. SATC (2007) Design Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism Development. Adelaide: South Australian Tourism Commission. Satria, A., Matsuda, Y. and Sano, M. (2006) Questioning community based coral reef management systems: Case study of Awig-Awig in Gili Indah, Indonesia. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8 (1), 99–18. Saul, J. (2005) The Collapse of Globalisation and the Reinvention of the World. Toronto: Penguin Book. Schafer, J. (1989) Utilizing indigenous agricultural knowledge in the planning of agricultural research projects designed to aid small-scale farmers. In D. Warren, L. Slikkerveer and S. Titilola (eds) Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Development (pp. 116–120). Iowa State University, Technology and Social Change Program with the Academy for Educational Development. Schellhorn, M. (2007) Rural tourism in the ‘Third World’: The dialectic of development – The case of Desa Senaru at Gunung Rinjani National Park in Lombok Island. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lincoln University, Christchurch. Scheuerman, W. (2012) Realism and the Kantian tradition. A Revisionist account. International Relations 26 (4), 453–477. Scheyvens, R. (1999) Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management 20 (2), 245–249. Scheyvens, R. (2002a) Backpacker tourism and third world development. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1), 144–164. Scheyvens, R. (2002b) Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Scheyvens, R. (2005) Growth of beach Fale tourism in Samoa: The high value of lowcost tourism. In C.M. Hall and S. Boyd (eds) Nature-Based Tourism in Peripheral Areas: Development or Disaster? (pp. 188–202). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Scheyvens, R. (2007a) Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. Current Issues in Tourism 10 (2–3), 231–254. Scheyvens, R. (2007b) Poor cousins no more: Valuing the development potential of domestic and diaspora tourism. Progress in Development Studies 7 (4), 307–325.

522

Tour ism and Development

Scheyvens, R. (2011) Tourism and Poverty. New York: Routledge. Scheyvens, R. (2012) Pro-poor tourism: Is there value beyond the rhetoric? In T. Singh (ed.) Critical Debates in Tourism (pp. 124–132). Bristol: Channel View Publications. Scheyvens, R. and Momsen, J. (2008a) Tourism and poverty reduction: Issues for small island states. Tourism Geographies 10 (1), 22–41. Scheyvens, R. and Momsen, J. (2008b) Tourism in small island states: From vulnerability to strengths. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16 (5), 491–510. Schilcher, D. (2007) Growth versus equity: The continuum of pro-poor tourism and neoliberal governance. Current Issues in Tourism 10 (2–3), 166–193. Schipper, L. and Pelling, M. (2006) Disaster risk, climate change and international development: Scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 30 (1), 19–38. Schmidt, H. (1989) What makes development. Development and Cooperation 6, 19–26. Schnell, P. (1998) Germany: Still a growing international deficit? In A. Williams and G. Shaw (eds) Tourism and Economic Development. European Experiences (3rd edn) (pp. 269–300). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Schubert, S., Brida, J. and Risso, W. (2011) The impacts of international tourism demand on economic growth of small economies dependent on tourism. Tourism Management 32 (2), 377–385. Schumacher, E. (1974) Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Abacus. Schumpeter, J. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. In B. Higgins and J. Higgins (eds) (1979) Economic Development of a Small Planet. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. Schumpeter, J. (1949) The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J. (1961) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schuurman, F. (1993) Introduction: Development theory in the 1990s. In F. Schuurman (ed.) Beyond the Impasse New Directions in Development Theory (pp. 1–48). London: Zed Books. Schuurman, F. (2000) Paradigms lost, paradigms regained? Development studies in the twenty-first century. Third World Quarterly 21 (1), 7–20. Science Daily (2010) Does slum tourism make us better people? See www.sciencedaily. com/releases/2010/01/100128142349.htm (accessed 29 February 2012). Scoones, I. (ed.) (1995) Living with Uncertainty: New Directions in Pastoral Development in Africa. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Sotto, H. (1993) The missing ingredient. The Economist (11 November), 8–10. Scott, A. (2001) Introduction. In A. Scott (ed.) Global City-Regions Trends, Theory, Policy (pp. 1–8). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scott, C. (2008) Creating a buffer fund to help farmers access the hotel trade in St Lucia. See www.unctad.info/upload/SUC/SCFBarbadosWorkshop/ScottDoc.PDF (accessed 14 March 2010). Scott, D., Amelung, B., Becken, S., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Gössling, S., Peeters, P. and Simpson, M. (2008) Technical Report. In Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organization; Paris: United Nations Environment Program; Geneva: World Meteorological Organization. Scott, D., Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. (2012a) International tourism and climate change. WIRES Climate Change 3 (3), 213–232. Scott, D., Gössling, S. and Hall, C.M. (2012b) Tourism and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation. London: Routledge. Scott, D. and Lemieux, C. (2009) Weather and Climate Information for Tourism. White Paper commissioned for World Climate Conference 3. Geneva and Madrid: World Meteorological Organization and United Nations World Tourism Organization.

References

523

Scott, D. and Lemieux, C. (2010) Weather and climate information for tourism. Procedia Environmental Sciences 1, 146–183. Scott, D., McBoyle, G. and Schwartzentruber, M. (2004) Climate change and the distribution of climatic resources for tourism in North America. Climate Research 27 (2), 105–117. Scott, D., Peeters, P. and Gössling, S. (2010) Can tourism deliver its ‘aspirational’ emission reduction targets? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (3), 393–408. Scott, J. (1999) Peripheries, artificial peripheries and centres. In F. Brown and D. Hall (eds) Tourism in the Peripheral Areas of Europe: Case Studies of Tourism in Peripheral Areas (pp. 73–90). Report 15. Bornholm, Denmark: Unit of Tourism Research. Seabrook, J. (1996) Travels in Skin Trade: Tourism and the Sex Industry. London: Pluto Press. Seckelman, A. (2002) Domestic tourism: A chance for regional development in Turkey. Tourism Management 23 (1), 85–92. Seers, D. (1969) The meaning of development. International Development Review 11 (4), 22–26. Seers, D. (1977) The new meaning of development. International Development Review 19 (3), 2–7. Seetanah, B. (2011) Assessing the dynamic economic impact of tourism for island economies. Annals of Tourism Research 38 (1), 291–308. Seifert-Granzin, J. and Jesupatham, D.S. (1999) Tourism at the Crossroads: Challenges to Developing Countries by the New World Trade Order. Frankfurt am Main: epd-Entwicklungspolitik, Equations, Tourism Watch. Selwyn, T. (1993) Peter Pan in South-East Asia: Views from the brochures. In M. Hitchcock, V. King and M. Parnwell (eds) Tourism in South-East Asia (pp. 117–137). London: Routledge. Selwyn, T. (2000) De-Mediterraneanisation of the Mediterranean? Current Issues in Tourism 3 (3), 226–245. Sen, A. (1983) Development: Which way now? Economic Journal 93, 745–762. Sen, A. (1994) Development: which way now? In R. Kanth (ed.) Paradigms of Economic Development (pp. 211–231). New York: M.E. Sharpe. Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books. Sen, A. (2010) A decade of human development. Journal of Human Development 1 (1), 17–23. Sengupta, A. (2007) Extreme Poverty and Human Rights – A Mission Report on the United States. New Dehli: UN Human Rights Council, Centre for Development and Human Rights. Sharma, R. (2013) Breakout Nations. London: W.W. Norton & Company. Sharpe, A. (1999) A survey of indicators of economic and social well-being: Background paper prepared for Canadian Policy Research Networks. Ottawa: Centre for the Study of Living Standards. See www.cprn.org/documents/ACFrW6lmY.PDF Sharpley, R. (1998) Island Tourism Development: The Case of Cyprus. Sunderland: Business Education Publishers. Sharpley, R. (2000a) In defence of (mass) tourism. In M. Robinson et al. (eds) Reflections on International Tourism: Environmental Management and Pathways to Sustainable Tourism (pp. 269–284). Sunderland: Business Education Publishers. Sharpley, R. (2000b) Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8 (1), 1–19. Sharpley, R. (2001) Tourism in Cyprus: Challenges and opportunities. Tourism Geographies 3 (1), 64–85. Sharpley, R. (2002) The challenges of economic diversification through tourism: The case of Abu Dhabi. International Journal of Tourism Research 4(2), 221–235. Sharpley, R. (2003) Tourism, modernisation and development on the island of Cyprus: Challenges and policy responses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11 (2–3), 246–265.

524

Tour ism and Development

Sharpley, R. (2004) The impacts of tourism in the Lake District. In D. Hind and J. Mitchell (eds) Sustainable Tourism in the English Lake District (pp. 208–242). Sunderland: Business Education Publishers. Sharpley, R. (2006) Ecotourism: A consumption perspective. Journal of Ecotourism 5 (1–2), 7–22. Sharpley, R. (2007) A tale of two islands: Sustainable resort development in Cyprus and Tenerife. In S. Agarwal and G. Shaw (eds) Coastal Tourism Resorts: A Global Perspective (pp. 112–113). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Sharpley, R. (2008) Tourism, Tourists and Society (4th edn). Huntingdon: Elm Publications. Sharpley, R. (2009a) Tourism and development challenges in the least developed countries: The case of The Gambia. Current Issues in Tourism 12 (4), 337–358. Sharpley, R. (2009b) Tourism, Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability? London: Earthscan. Sharpley, R. (2009c) Tourism, religion and spirituality. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 237–253). London: Sage Publications. Sharpley, R. (2012) Towards an understanding ‘genocide tourism’: An analysis of visitors’ accounts of their experience of recent genocide sites. In R. Sharpley and P. Stone (eds) The Contemporary Tourist Experience: Concepts & Consequences (pp. 95–109). Abingdon: Routledge. Sharpley, R. and Craven, B. (2001) The 2001 foot and mouth crisis: Rural economy and tourism policy implications. Current Issues in Tourism 4 (6), 527–538. Sharpley, R. and Sharpley, J. (1996) Tourism in West Africa: The Gambian experience. In A. Badger et al. (eds) Trading Places: Tourism as Trade (pp. 27–33). London: Tourism Concern. Sharpley, R. and Sharpley, J. (1997) Rural Tourism: An Introduction. London: International Thomson Business Press. Sharpley, R., Sharpley, J. and Adams, J. (1996) Travel advice or trade embargo? The impacts and implications of official travel advice. Tourism Management 17 (1), 1–7. Sharpley, R. and Stone, P.R. (eds) (2011) Tourist Experience: Contemporary Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge. Shaw, G. and Williams, A. (1990) Tourism, economic development and the role of entrepreneurial activity. In Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management (Vol. 2, pp. 67–81). London: Bellhaven Press. Shaw, G. and Williams, A. (1994) Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Shaw, G. and Williams, A. (1998) Entrepreneurship, small business culture and tourism development. In D. Ioannides and K. Debbage (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry (pp. 235–255). London: Routledge. Sheikh, A. (2009) Outsourcing of employers’ responsibilities in the false name of flexibility. Employee Relations 32 (5), 495–508. Sheller, M. (2009) The new Caribbean complexity: Mobility systems, tourism and spatial rescaling. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 30 (2), 189–203. Shelley, L. (2010) Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sherman, H. (1987) Foundations of Radical Political Economy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Inc. Shestack, J. (2000) The philosophical foundations of Human Rights. In J. Symonides (ed.) Human Rights: Concepts and Standards (pp. 31–66). Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd. Shields, R. (1991) Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. London: Routledge. Shipley, R. and Snyder, M. (2013) The role of heritage conservation districts in achieving community economic development goals. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19 (3), 304–321.

References

525

Shivji, I. (1975) Tourism and Socialist Development. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Publishing House. Shone, M. and Memon, A. (2008) Tourism, public policy and regional development: A turn from neo-liberal to new regionalism. Local Economy 23 (4), 290–304. Sidaway, J. (2007) Spaces of post-development. Progress in Human Geography 31 (3), 345–361. Silver, I. (1993) Marketing authenticity in Third World countries. Annals of Tourism Research 20 (2), 302–318. Simmons, D.G. (1994) Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management 15 (2), 98–108. Simpson, M. (2008) Community benefit tourism initiatives: A conceptual oxymoron? Tourism Management 29 (1), 1–18. Simpson, M.C., Gössling, S. and Scott, D. (2008a) Report on the International Policy and Market Response to Global Warming and the Challenges and Opportunities that Climate Change Issues Present for the Caribbean Tourism Sector. Copenhagen: Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO), European Union (EU), Caribbean Regional Sustainable Tourism Development Programme, Carl Bro. Simpson, M.C., Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M. and Gladin, E. (2008b) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in the Tourism Sector: Frameworks, Tools and Practices. Paris: UNEP, University of Oxford, UNWTO, WMO. Sinclair, M.T. (1997) Gender, Work and Tourism. London: Routledge. Sinclair, M.T. (1991) The economics of tourism. In C. Cooper (ed.) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management (Vol. 3, pp. 1–27). London: Bellhaven Press. Sinclair, M.T., Alizadeh, P. and Atieno Adero Onunga, E. (1995) The structure of international tourism and tourism development in Kenya. In D. Harrison (ed.) Tourism in the Less Developed Countries (pp. 47–63). Chichester: John Wiley. Sinclair, M.T. and Pack, A. (2000) Tourism and conservation: The application of economic policy instruments to wildlife tourism in Zimbabwe. In P. Dieke (ed.) The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa (pp. 181–192). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. Sinclair, M.T. and Stabler, M. (1997) The Economics of Tourism. London: Routledge. Sindiga, I. (1999) Tourism and African Development: Change and Challenge of Tourism in Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate. Singer, H. and Ansari, J. (1992) Rich and Poor Countries. Consequences of International Disorder (4th edn). New York: Routledge. Singh, S. (2010) Community participation: In need of a fresh perspective. Tourism Recreation Research 35 (2), 209–211. Singh, T., Theuns, H. and Go, F. (eds) (1989) Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Skidmore, J. (2008) Britons: More mean than green. Daily Telegraph (Telegraph Travel), 14 June, T4. Skinner, E. (2008) A Crime So Monstrous Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery. New York: Free Press. Sklair, L. (1991) Sociology of the Global System. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Sklair, L. (1995) Sociology of the Global System (2nd edn). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Sklair, L. (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell. Skrobanek, S., Boonpakdi, B. and Janthakeero, C. (1997) The Traffic in Women: Human Realities of the International Sex Trade. London: Zed Books. Skolimowski, H. (1995) In defence of sustainable development. Environmental Values 4 (1), 69–70. Smeral, E. (1994) Economic models. In S. Witt and L. Moutinho (eds) Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook (2nd edn) (pp. 497–503). New York: Prentice Hall.

526

Tour ism and Development

Smeral, E. (1998) The impact of globalization on small and medium enterprises: New challenges for tourism policies in European countries. Tourism Management 19 (4), 371–380. Smeral, E. (2001) Beyond the myth of growth in tourism. In P. Keller and T. Bieger (eds) Tourism Growth and Global Competition. St. Gallen: AIEST. Smil, V. (1993) Global Ecology: Environmental Change and Social Flexibility. London: Routledge. Smil, V. (2008) Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years. Cambridge: MIT Press. Smith, H. and Connolly, K. (2012) Fearful German tourists add to woes of Greece by staying away in droves. The Observer, 27 May. See www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ may/26/greece-crisis-tourism-germany (accessed 27 May 2012). Smith, M., Macleod, N. and Hart Robinson, M. (2010) Key Concepts in Tourist Studies. Los Angeles: Sage. Smith, S. (1989) Tourism Analysis: A Handbook. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical. Smith, S. (1994) The tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research 21 (3), 582–595. Smith, S. (1995) Tourism Analysis: A Handbook (2nd edn). New York: Longman. Smith, S. (1998) Tourism as an industry, debates and concepts. In D. Ioannides and K. Debbage (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Industry (pp. 31–52). London: Routledge. Smith, V. (ed.) (1977) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (1st edn). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith, V. (ed.) (1989) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (2nd edn). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith, V. (1990) Responsible tourism some anthropological issues. Tourism Recreation Research 18 (1), 45–49. Smith, V. and Eadington, W. (1992) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith-Bindman, R. and Mehta, P. (2011) Are full-body airport scanners safe? The radiation exposure is extremely small, and the cancer risk has been called ‘truly trivial’. Harvard Health Letter 36 (8), 1–3. Sneddon, C. (2000) ‘Sustainability’ in ecological economics, ecology and livelihoods: A review. Progress in Human Geography 24 (4), 521–549. Snyder, J. (2004) One world, rival theories. Foreign Policy (November–December), 52–62. So, A. (1990) Social Change and Development Modernisation, Dependency, and World-System Theory. London: Sage Publications. Söderbaum, F. (2003) Introduction: Theories of new regionalism. In F. Söderbaum and T. Shaw (eds) Theories of New Regionalism: A Palgrave Reader (pp. 1–21). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Sofield, T. (1993) Indigenous tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 20 (4), 12–24. Sofield, T. (2003) Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development. Oxford: Pergamon. Solomon, M. (1994) Consumer Behaviour: Having, Buying and Being (2nd edn). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Sommerfeldt, E. (2013) Networks of social capital: Extending a public relations model of civil society in Peru. Public Relations Review 39 (1), 1–12. Soshiroda, A. (2005) Inbound tourism policies in Japan from 1859 to 2003. Annals of Tourism Research 32 (4), 1100–1120. South Commission (1990) The Challenge To The South The Report of the South Commission. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Southgate, C. and Hulme, D. (2001) Uncommon property: The scramble for wetland in southern Kenya. In P. Woodhouse, H. Bernstein and D. Hulme (eds) African

References

527

Enclosures? The Social Dynamics of Wetlands in Drylands (pp. 73–118). London: James Currey. Southgate, C. and Sharpley, R. (2002) Tourism, development and the environment. In R. Sharpley and D.J. Telfer (eds) Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues (pp. 231–262). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Spence, T. (2001) The Rights of Infants. Written in the latter End of the Year 1796. Eighteen Century Collections Online, University of Michigan Library. See http://quod.lib. umich.edu/e/ecco/004843040.0001.000?view=toc (accessed May 2013). Stabler, M. (ed.) (1997) Tourism & Sustainability: Principles to Practice. Wallingford: CABI. Stabler, M., Papatheodorou, A. and Sinclair, M.T. (2010) The Economics of Tourism (2nd edn). New York: Routledge. Stalker, P. (2000) Workers without Frontiers: The Impact of Globalization on International Migration. Geneva/London: ILO/Lynne Rienner. Stamp, L. (1953) Our Undeveloped World. London: Faber & Faber. Stanley, N. (1998) Being Ourselves for You: the Global Display of Cultures. London: Middlesex University Press. Star Alliance (2012) Star Alliance Facts and Figures. See www.staralliance.com/assets/doc/ en/about/member-airlines/pdf/Star%20Alliance%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20 April%202012.pdf Star Alliance (2014) Travel the world with the Star Alliance Network. See www.staralliance.com/en/about/member_airlines/ Statistics Canada (2011) Human Resource Model of the Tourism Satellite Account, 2010. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Staudt, K. (1998) Policy, Politics & Gender: Women Gaining Ground. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Steer, A. and Wade-Gery, W. (1993) Sustainable development: Theory and practice for a sustainable future. Sustainable Development 1 (3), 23–35. Steiner, C. (2006) Tourism, poverty reduction and the political economy: Egyptian perspectives on tourism’s economic benefits in a semi-rentier state. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development 3 (3), 161–177. Steiner, C. (2010) From heritage to hyper-reality? Tourism destinations development in the Middle East between Petra and the Palm. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 8 (4), 240–253. Sterner, T. (2007) Fuel taxes: An important instrument for climate policy. Energy Policy 35, 3194–3202. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A. and Fitoussi, J.-P. (2010) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Brussels: EC. Stonich, S.C. (1998) Political ecology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 25 (1), 25–54. Storey, D. (2005) Washington Consensus. In T. Forsyth (ed.) Encyclopaedia of International Development (pp. 746–747). London: Routledge. Storey, D., Bulloch, H. and Overton, J. (2005) The poverty consensus: Some limitations of the ‘popular agenda’. Progress in Development Studies 5 (1), 30–44. Standing, G. (2007) Decent workplaces, self-regulation and CSR: From puff to stuff? Working Paper 62. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. See www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2007/wp62_2007.pdf (accessed 10 May 2010). Strange, S. (1988) States and Markets. An Introduction for International Political Economy. London: Pinter. Strange, S. (1994a) Wake up Krasner, the world has changed! Review of International Political Economy 1 (2), 210–219. Strange, S. (1994b) States and Markets (2nd edn). London: Pinter.

528

Tour ism and Development

Strange, S. (1996) The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge Studies in International Relations (Vol. 49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Streeten, P. (1977) The basic features of a basic needs approach to development. International Development Review 3, 8–16. Su, Y.-P., Hall, C.M., and Ozanne, L. (2013) Hospitality industry responses to climate change: A benchmark study of Taiwanese tourist hotels. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 18 (1–2), 92–107. Sungupta, A. (2006) 2: The human right to development. In B. Andreassen and S. Marks (eds) Development as a Human Right: Legal, Political, and Economic Dimensions (pp. 9–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Svenson, T. (1991) Theories and mythologies of the third world. In M. Morner (ed.) The Transformation of Rural Society in the Third World. New York: Routledge. Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Swarbrooke, J. (2000) Tourism, economic development and urban regeneration: A critical evaluation. In M. Robinson, R. Sharpley, N. Evans, P. Long and J. Swarbrooke (eds) Developments in Urban and Rural Tourism. Reflections on International Tourism (pp. 269– 285). Sunderland: Business Education Press. Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (1999) Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Sylvester, C. (1994) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szivas, E. and Riley, M. (1999) Tourism employment during economic transition. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (4), 747–771. Telfer, D.J. (1996a) Development Through Economic Linkages: Tourism and Agriculture in Indonesia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Waterloo. Telfer, D.J. (1996b) Food purchases in a five-star hotel: A case study of the Aquila Prambanan Hotel, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Tourism Economics 2 (4), 321–338. Telfer, D.J. (2000a) Agritourism – A path to community development? The case of Bangunkerto, Indonesia. In G. Richards and D. Hall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development (pp. 242–257). London: Routledge. Telfer, D.J. (2000b) Tastes of Niagara: Building strategic alliances between tourism and agriculture. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 1 (1), 71–88. Telfer, D.J. (2000c) The Northeast Wine Route: Wine tourism in Ontario, Canada and New York State. In C.M. Hall et al. (eds) Wine and Tourism From Around the World (pp. 253–271). London: Butterworth Heinemann. Telfer, D.J. (2001a) From a wine tourism village to a regional wine route: An investigation of the competitive advantage of embedded clusters in Niagara, Canada. Tourism Recreation Research 26 (2), 23–33. Telfer, D.J. (2001b) Strategic alliances along the Niagara wine route. Tourism Management 22 (1), 21–30. Telfer, D.J. (2002) The evolution of tourism and development theory. In R. Sharpley and D.J. Telfer (eds) Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues (pp. 35–78). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Telfer, D.J. (2003) Development issues in destination communities. In S. Sing, D.J. Timothy and R.K. Dowling (eds) Tourism and Destination Communities (pp. 155–180). Wallingford: CAB International. Telfer, D.J. (2009) Development studies and tourism. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 146–165). London: Sage. Telfer, D.J. (2013) The Brundtland Report (Our Common Future) and tourism. In A. Holden and D. Fennell (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment (pp. 213–226). London: Routledge.

References

529

Telfer, D. and Hashimoto, A. (1999) Resident Attitudes Towards Tourism Development in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Prepared for TEMCO. St Catharines, ON: Brock University, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies (Unpublished report). Telfer, D.J. and Hashimoto, A. (2000) Niagara icewine tourism: Japanese souvenir purchases at Inniskillin Winery. Tourism and Hospitality Research: The Surrey Quarterly Review 2 (4), 343–356. Telfer, D.J. and Hashimoto, A. (2012) Raising awareness of local food through tourism as sustainable development, lessons from Japan and Canada. In C.M. Hall and S. Gössling (eds) Sustainable Culinary Systems, Local Foods, Innovation, Tourism and Hospitality (pp. 169–186). London: Routledge. Telfer, D.J. and Hashimoto, A. (2013a) Regional Canada. Goodfellow Publishers. See www.goodfellowpublishers.com/academic-publishing.php?promoCode=&partnerI D=&content=story&storyID=221&fixedmetadataID=214 Telfer, D.J. and Hashimoto, A. (2013b) Wine and culinary tourism in Niagara. In M. Ripmeester, P. Mackintosh and C. Fullerton (eds) The World of Niagara Wine. Waterloo (pp. 281–299). Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Telfer, D.J. and Sharpley, R. (2008) Tourism and Development in the Developing World. London: Routledge. Telfer, D.J. and Wall, G. (1996) Linkages between tourism and food production. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (3), 635–653. Telfer, D.J. and Wall, G. (2000) Strengthening backward economic linkages: Local food purchasing by three Indonesian hotels. Tourism Geographies 2 (4), 421–447. Tervo-Kankare, K., Hall, C.M. and Saarinen, J. (2013) Christmas tourists’ perceptions of climate change in Rovaniemi, Finnish Lapland. Tourism Geographies 15 (2), 292–317. Teye, V. (1986) Liberation wars and tourism development in Africa: The case of Zambia. Annals of Tourism Research 13 (4), 589–608. Teye, V. (2000) Regional cooperation and tourism development in Africa. In P. Dieke (ed.) The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa (pp. 217–227). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. The Canadian Press (2013) Canadian visitors to U.A.E. no longer need visas. See www.cbc. ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/02/pol-cp-baird-emirates.html (accessed 12 June 2013). The Economist (2011) Well-being and wealth: The pursuit of happiness, The Economist Online, 24 May. See www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/05/well-being_and_wealth The Economist (2014) Political tourism, access all areas. The Economist, 21 March. See www. economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2014/03/political-tourism The Holy Bible New Revised Standard Version (1989) Matthew 7:12: The Golden Rule. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. Theobald, W. (1994) The context, meaning and scope of tourism. In W. Theobald (ed.) Global Tourism: The Next Decade (pp. 3–19). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Thomas, W. (1955) Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thomas, A. (2000) Meaning and views of development. In T. Allen and A. Thomas (eds) Poverty and Development into the 21st Century (pp. 23–48). Oxford: OUP. Thomas, R. (1996) Cheap labourers pawns in the takeover game. The Guardian, 19 January. Thomas Spence.co.uk (n.d.) The rights of infants. See http://thomas-spence-society. co.uk/4.html (accessed May 2013). Thomson, C., O’Hare, G. and Evans, K. (1995) Tourism in The Gambia: Problems and proposals. Tourism Management 16 (8), 571–581. Thompson, W. (1973) The regional subsystem a conceptual explication and propositional inventory. International Studies Quarterly 17 (1), 89–117. Thurot, J. and Thurot, G. (1983) The ideology of class and tourism: Confronting the discourse of advertising. Annals of Tourism Research 10 (1), 173–189.

530

Tour ism and Development

Tickner, J.A. (1992) Gender in International Relations Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press. TIES (2006) Global Ecotourism Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: The International Ecotourism Society. Timothy, D. (1995) Political boundaries and tourism: Borders as tourist attractions. Tourism Management 16 (7), 525–532. Timothy, D. (1997) Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (3), 751–754. Timothy, D. (1999) Participatory planning: A view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (2), 371–391. Timothy, D. (2000a) Cross-border partnership in tourism resource management: International parks along the US-Canada border. In B. Bramwell and B. Lane (eds) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability (pp. 20–43). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Timothy, D. (2000b) Tourism planning in Southeast Asia: Bringing down borders through cooperation. In K. Chon (ed.) Tourism in Southeast Asia: A New Direction (pp. 21–38). New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press. Timothy, D. (2001) Tourism and Political Boundaries. London: Routledge. Timothy, D. (2002) Tourism and community development issues. In R. Sharpley and D.J. Telfer (eds) Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues (pp. 149–64). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Timothy, D. (2007) Empowerment and stakeholder participation in tourism destination communities. In A. Church and T. Coles (eds) Tourism, Power and Space (pp. 203–216). London: Routledge. Timothy, D. (2008) Genealogical mobility: Tourism and the search for a personal past. In D.J. Timothy and J. Kay Guelke (eds) Geography and Genealogy: Locating Personal Pasts (pp. 115–135). Aldershot: Ashgate. Timothy, D. (2011) Cultural Heritage and Tourism: An Introduction. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Timothy, D. (2014) Views of the vernacular: Tourism and heritage of the ordinary. In J. Kaminski, A. Benson, and D. Arnold (eds) Contemporary Issues in Cultural Heritage Tourism (pp. 32–44). London: Routledge. Timothy, D. and Boyd, S. (2015) Tourism and Trails: Cultural, Ecological and Management Issues. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Timothy, D. and Iverson, T. (2006) Tourism and Islam: Considerations of culture and duty. In D.J. Timothy and D.H. Olsen (eds) Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys (pp. 186–205). London: Routledge. Timothy, D. and Nyaupane, G. (eds) (2009) Cultural Heritage and Tourism in the Developing World: A Regional Perspective. London: Routledge. Timothy, D. and Ron, A.S. (2013) Heritage cuisines, regional identity and sustainable tourism. In C.M. Hall and S. Gössling (eds) Sustainable Culinary Systems: Local Foods, Innovation, and Tourism & Hospitality (pp. 275–290). London: Routledge. Timothy, D. and Tosun, C. (2003) Appropriate planning for tourism in destination communities: Participation, incremental growth and collaboration. In S. Singh, D. Timothy and R. Dowling (eds) Tourism in Destination Communities (pp. 181–204). Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Tisdell, C. (2005) Economics of Environmental Conservation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Todaro, M. (1994) Economic Development (5th edn) New York: Longman. Todaro, M. (1997) Economic Development (6th edn). New York: Longman. Todaro, M. (2000) Economic Development (7th edn). Harlow: Addison-Wesley. Todd, S. (2012) Paying staff on cruise ships a pittance shames the industry. The Guardian, 1 May. See www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/01/paying-staffcruise-ships-pittance (accessed April 2014).

References

531

Tomljenovic, R. and Faulkner, B. (2000) Tourism and older residents in a sunbelt resort. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (1), 93–114. Tömöri, M. (2011) The role of the ‘DebOra’ cross-border Eurometropolis in the HungarianRomanian CBC relations: A case study of shopping tourism in Debrecen and Oradea. Eurolimes 11, 170–178. Tooman, L. (1997) Applications of the life-cycle model in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (1), 214–234. Torres, R. and Momsen, J.H. (2004) Challenges and potential for linking tourism and agriculture to achieve pro-poor tourism objectives. Progress in Development Studies 4 (4), 294–319. Tosun, C. (2000) Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management 21 (6), 613–633. Tosun, C. and Jenkins, C. (1996) Regional planning approaches to tourism development: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management 17 (7), 519–531. Tosun, C. and Jenkins, C. (1998) The evolution of tourism planning in Third World countries: A critique. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 4, 101–114. Tourism Australia (2006) Kooljaman at Cape Leveque. See www.indigenoustourism. australia.com/casestudies.asp?sub=0622 (accessed 27 February 2012). Tourism Concern (2009) World Social Forum calls for truly sustainable tourism. See www.tourismconcern.org.uk/index.php?page=news/105/154/World-Social-Forumcalls-for-truly-sustainable-tourism.html (accessed April 2014). Trau, A. (2012) Beyond pro-poor tourism: (Re)interpreting tourism-based approaches to poverty alleviation in Vanuatu. Tourism Planning and Development 9 (2), 149–164. Travel Mole (2007) Acquisitions remain a priority for TUI Travel – Updated. See www. travelmole.com (accessed 26 September 2007). Tremblay, R., Kelly, J., Lipson, M. and Mayer, J. (2008) Understanding Human Rights: Origins, Currents, and Critiques. Nashville: Thomson Nelson. Tribe, J. (2005) The Economics of Recreation, Leisure and Tourism. Oxford: Elsevier. Tschurtschenthaler, P. (1986) Das Landscfatsproblem in Fremdenverkehr dargestellt anhand der Situation des Alperaums. Bern: Haupt. Tucker, H. and Akama, J. (2009) Tourism as postcolonialism. In T. Jamal and M. Robinson (eds) The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies (pp. 504–520). London: Sage. Tucker, H. and Boonabaana, B. (2012) A critical analysis of tourism, gender and poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20 (3), 437–455. Turner, L. (1976a) The international division of leisure: Tourism and the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research 4 (1), 12–24. Turner, L. (1976b) The international division of leisure: Tourism and the Third World. World Development 4 (3), 253–260. Turner, L. and Ash, J. (1975) The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery. London: Constable. Turner, V. (1973) The center out there: Pilgrim’s goal. History of Religions 12 (3), 191–230. Tyler, D. and Dangerfield, J.M. (1999) Ecosystem tourism: A resource-based philosophy for ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7 (2), 146–158. Ullman-Magalit, E. (1977) Co-ordination norms and social choice. Erkenntnis 11, 143–155. UN (1949) Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn) (pp. 25–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press. UN (1959) Declaration of the Rights of the Child. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn) (pp. 49–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press. UN (1963) Recommendations on International Travel and Tourism. Geneva: United Nations. UN (1969) Declaration for Social Progress and Development. See http://daccessddsny. un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/256/76/IMG/NR025676.pdf?OpenElement (accessed November 2011).

532

Tour ism and Development

UN (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn) (pp. 128–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press. UN (2000) Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn) (pp. 249–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press. United Nations (2000) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn) (pp. 145–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press. UN (2011) Criteria for identification and graduation of LDCs. UN-OHRLLS. See www. unohrlls.org/en/ldc/related/59/ (accessed 7 October 2011). UN (2013a) Future We Want: Outcome Document. UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. See http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html (accessed 9 May 2013). UN (2013b) List of Least Developed Countries Report 2013. See http://unctad.org/en/ PublicationsLibrary/ldc2013_en.pdf (accessed 7 March 2014). UN (2013c) United Nations Millennium Development Goals. See www.un.org/ millenniumgoals/ (accessed 14 July 2013). UN and WTO (2010) International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. New York: United Nations. UN Charter (1945) Charter of the United Nations. In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn) (pp. 14–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press. UNCTAD (1997) World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations, Market Structure and Competition Policy. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UNCTAD (1998) International Trade in Tourism-Related Services: Issues and Options for Developing Countries. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UNCTAD (1999) Top 50 transnational corporations in developing countries, 1996. See www.unctad.org/en/subsites/dite/1_itncs/1_top50.htm UNCTAD (2002) World Investment Report. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UNCTAD (2007) FDI in Tourism: The Development Dimension. UNCTAD Current Studies on FDI and Development No. 4. New York: United Nations. UNCTAD (2008) UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics 2008. New York & Geneva: UN. UNCTAD (2011) The Least Developed Countries Report. 2011: The Potential Role of South– South Cooperation for Inclusive and Sustainable Development. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. See http://unctad.org/en/docs/ldc2011_ en.pdf (accessed 23 May 2012). UNCTAD (2012) UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics 2012. New York & Geneva: UN. UNDP (1990) Human Development Report 1990. See http://hdrnet.org/422/1/hdr_1990_ en.pdf (accessed 8 July 2013). UNDP (1995) Human Development Report 1995. New York: OUP. UNDP (1998) Human Development Report 1998. New York: OUP. UNDP (1999) Human Development Report 1999. New York: OUP. UNDP (2010a) History of the Human Development Report. See http://hdr.undp.org/en/ reports/ (accessed August 2012). UNDP (2010b) Human Development Report 2010. New York: OUP. UNDP (2011a) Composite indices — HDI and beyond. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ indices/ (accessed August 2012). UNDP (2011b) Frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the Human Development Index (HDI). See http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/FAQs_2011_HDI.pdf UNDP (2011c) Human Development Report 2011. New York: OUP. See http://hdr.undp.org/ en/reports/ (accessed 15 May 2011).

References

533

UNDP (2013) Human Development Report 2013: The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. See http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR2013_EN_Summary.pdf (accessed 8 July 2013). UNDP (2014) What is the green economy? See www.unep.org/greeneconomy/AboutGEI/ WhatisGEI/tabid/29784/Default.aspx. (accessed April 2014). UNEP (2011) Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Geneva & Nairobi: UNEP. UNEP and UNWTO (2012) Tourism in the Green Economy. Madrid: UNEP and UNWTO. See www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/ger_final_dec_2011/ Tourism%20in%20the%20green_economy%20unwto_unep.pdf (accessed April 2014). UNESCAP (2011) Rio + 20 Pacific Preparatory Meeting, Joint Ministerial Meeting, Apia, Samoa, 21–22 July, Partnerships. See www.unescap.org/epoc/pdf/Rio+20-PacificPaper-3-3-Partnerships.pdf (accessed 11 July 2013). UNESCO (2008) Policy Document on the Impact of Climate Change on World Heritage Properties. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2013a) Reviving the historic silk roads: UNESCOs new online platform. See www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/dialogue/routes-of-dialogue/silk-road/ (accessed 28 June 2013). UNESCO (2013b) What is the Creative Cities Network? See www.unesco.org/new/en/ culture/themes/creativity/creative-cities-network/about-creative-cities/ (accessed April 2014). UNFPA (2002) UNFPA Consultative Meeting on Trafficking in Women and Children: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2–4 October 2002. New York: United Nations Population Fund. United Nations Environment UNFCCC (2008) Physical and socio-economic trends in climate-related risks and extreme events, and their implications for sustainable development. Technical Paper FCCC/TP/2008/3 20 November 2008. Geneva: UNFCCC. Unkovic, S. (1985) Ekonomika turizma. Beograd: Savremena Administracija. UNODC (n.d.) Human trafficking. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. See www. unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/what-is-human-trafficking.html (accessed May 2013). UNSD (2009) Environment data. See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_co2_ emissions.htm (accessed 8 September 2009). UNUDHR (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHR). In P.R. Ghandhi (ed.) (2006) International Human Rights Documents (5th edn; pp. 21–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Unwin, T. (2009) Introduction. In T. Unwin (ed.) Information and Communication Technology for Development (pp. 1–3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UNWTO (1997) Global Code of Ethics for Tourism. See http://ethics.unwto.org/en/content/ global-code-ethics-tourism UNWTO (2006a) Report of the World Tourism Organization to the United Nations Secretary-General in preparation for the High Level Meeting on the Mid-Term Comprehensive Global Review of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001–2010. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO (2006b) Tourism and Least Developed Countries: A Sustainable Opportunity to Reduce Poverty. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO (2007a) Tourism will contribute to solutions for global climate change and poverty challenges. Press release, UNWTO Press and Communications Department, 8 March, Berlin/Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO (2007b) UNWTO ST-EP Programme: An Initiative of the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) in conjunction with the UNWTO ST-EP Foundation. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO (2008a) Emerging tourism markets – The coming economic boom. Press release, 24 June. Madrid: UNWTO.

534

Tour ism and Development

UNWTO (2008b) Tourism Highlights 2008 Edition. See www.unwto.org (Facts & Figures Section) (accessed 16 October 2008). UNWTO (2009) World Tourism Barometer – June 2009. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO (2010) Tourism and the Millennium Development Goals. Madrid: UN World Tourism Organisation. See www.unwto.org/tourism&mdgsezine/ (accessed 10 July 2013). UNWTO (2011a) National Tourism Statistics 1995–2010. CD Rom. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO (2011b) Tourism factbook. See www.wtoelibrary.org/content/v486k6/ ?v=search (accessed 16 June 2011). UNWTO (2011c) Tourism for a Sustainable Future, Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. See www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view& type=1000&nr=108&menu=126 (accessed April 2014). UNWTO (2011d) Tourism has enormous potential to contribute to achieving the MDG’s goals, it can help to alleviate poverty, create jobs and empower women. See www. eclac.cl/cg-bin/getProd.asp?xml=%2FMDG%2Fnoticias%2Fnoticias%2F0%2F4473 0%2FP44730.xml&xsl=%2FMDG%2Ftpl-i%2Fp1f.xsl&base=%2FMDG%2Ftpl-i%2 Ftop-bottom.xsl UNWTO (2011e) Tourism highlights, 2011 edition. See http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/ files/docpdf/unwtohighlights11enhr_1.pdf (accessed 21 September 2011). UNWTO (2011f) Tourism Towards 2030: Global Overview. UNWTO General Assembly, 19th Session, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, 10 October. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO (2011g) UNWTO World Tourism Barometer. Advanced Release, January 2011. Madrid: United Nation World Tourism Organisation. UNWTO (2011 h) UNWTO World Tourism Barometer. Interim Update August 2011. Madrid: United Nation World Tourism Organisation. UNWTO (2012) Tourism Highlights. 2012 Edition. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO (2013a) Sustainable development of tourism. UN World Tourism Organisation. See http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/about-us-5 (accessed 9 May 2013). UNWTO (2013b) Tourism highlights, 2013 edition. See http://dtxtq4w60xqpw. cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights13_en_hr.pdf (accessed 12 February 2014). UNWTO (2013c) Understanding tourism: Basic glossary. See http://media.unwto.org/en/ content/understanding-tourism-basic-glossary (accessed 1 September 2013). UNWTO (2014) International tourism exceeds expectations with arrivals up by 52 million in 2013. Press release, January 2014. See http://media.unwto.org/press-release/ 2014-01-20/international-tourism-exceeds-expectations-arrivals-52-million-2013 (accessed 7 March 2014). UNWTO (n.d.) UNWTO Silk Road Programme. See http://silkroad.unwto.org/sites/all/ files/docpdf/bannerhistorywebsite.pdf (accessed April 2014). UNWTO, UNEP and WMO (2008) Davos Declaration. In Climate Change and Tourism: Responding to Global Challenges. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organi zation; Paris: United Nations Environment Program; Geneva: World Meteorological Organization. Ura, K., Alkrie, S., Zangmo, T. and Wangdi, K. (2012) A short guide to Gross Happiness Index. See www.grossnationalhappiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ShortGNH-Index-edited.pdf (accessed April 2014). Uriely, N. (1997) Theories of modern and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (4), 982–984. Urry, J. (1990a) The consumption of tourism. Sociology 24 (1), 32–35. Urry, J. (1990b) The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage Publications. Urry, J. (1994) Cultural change and contemporary tourism. Leisure Studies 13 (4), 233–238. Urry, J. (1995) Consuming Places. London: Routledge. Urry, J. (2000) Sociology Beyond Societies. London: Routledge. Urry, J. (2003) Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

References

535

Urry, J. and Larsen, J. (2011) The Tourist Gaze 3.0. London: Sage Publications. US Department of State (2013) Eritrea travel warning. See http://travel.state.gov/content/ passports/english/alertswarnings/eritrea-travel-warning.html (accessed 23 April 2014). van Banning, T. et al. (2004) Human Rights Reference Handbook. Document prepared for the University for Peace Africa Programme Curriculum Development Workshop for the Western African Region, Abuja, Nigeria, 8–12 March. See www.africa.upeace.org/ documents/HRReference%20Handbook_r.pdf (accessed August 2012) Van der Duim, V.R. and Caalders, J. (2008) Tourism chains and pro-poor tourism development: An actor-network analysis of a pilot project in Costa Rica. Current Issues in Tourism 11 (2), 109–125. Van der Hoeven, R. (1988) Planning for Basic Needs: A Soft Option or a Solid Policy? A Basic Needs Simulation Model Applied to Kenya. Brookfield, VT: Gower. Van der Straaten, J. (2000) Can sustainable tourism positively influence rural regions? In G. Rechards and D. Hall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development (pp. 221–232). London: Routledge. van der Vyver, J.D. (1979) The concept of human rights: Its history, contents and meaning. In C. Forsyth and J. Schiller (eds) Human Rights: The Cape Town Conference: Proceedings of the First International Human Rights Conference on Human Rights in South Africa, 22–26 January 1979 (pp. 10–32). Cape Town: Juta & Company Ltd. Van der Werff, P. (1980) Polarizing implications of the Pescaia tourists industry. Annals of Tourism Research 7 (2), 197–223. van Raaij, W. and Francken, D. (1984) Vacation decisions, activities and satisfactions. Annals of Tourism Research 11 (1), 101–112. van Rekom, J. (1994) Adding psychological value to tourism products. In J. Crotts and W. van Raaij (eds) Economic Psychology of Travel and Tourism (pp. 21–36). New York: Haworth Press. Vanhove, N. (2005) The Economics of Tourism Destinations. London: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Vanhove, N. (2011) Tourism as a vehicle for development? A Regional Approach. In P. Keller and T. Bieger (eds) Tourism Development after the Crises. Global Imbalances: Poverty Alleviation (pp. 165–192). Berlin: Erlich Smidt Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. Veblen, T. (1925) The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. London: Allen and Unwin. Vellas, F. and Bécherel, L. (1995) International Tourism: An Economic Perspective. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Vermeulen, S.J. (2009) Sustainable consumption: A fairer deal for poor consumers. Environment and Poverty Times, No. 6, September. Arendal: UNEP and GRID. VisitBritain (2011) Visitor economy facts. See www.visitbritain.org/insightsandstatistics/ visitoreconomyfacts/index.aspx (accessed 5 October 2011). VisitBritian (2013a) Britain tourism strategy. See www.visitbritain.org/tourism_2012_ legacy/britain_tourism_strategy/ VisitBritain (2013b) Monthly inbound update: December 2013. See www.visitbritain.org/ Images/December%202013%20IPS%20Memo%20with%20charts_tcm29-40637.pdf (accessed 7 March 2014). Voase, R. (1995) Tourism: The Human Perspective. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Vrasti, W. (2013) Volunteer Tourism in the Global South: Giving Back in Neoliberal Times. London: Routledge. Wade, R. (1990) Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of the State in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wade, R. and Veneroso, F. (1998) The Asian crisis: The high debt model versus the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF complex. New Left Review 228, 3–22. Wahnschafft, R. (1982) Formal and informal tourism sectors: A case study in Pattaya, Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (3), 429–451.

536

Tour ism and Development

Wainwright, J. (2010) Climate change, capitalism, and the challenge of transdisciplinarity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (4), 983–991. Walker, A. (1989) Marx: His Theory and its Content. London: Rivers Oram Press. Walker, S. and Cook, M. (2009) The contested concept of sustainable aviation. Sustainable Development 17 (6), 378–390. Wall, G. (1993a) International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism in Bali, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 38–47. Wall, G. (1993b) Towards a tourism typology. In J. Nelson, R.W. Butler, G. Wall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing (pp. 45–58). Heritage Resources Centre Joint Publication #1. University of Waterloo. Wall, G. (1995) Change, impacts and opportunities: Turning victims into victors. Paper presented at Tilbury University, the Netherlands. Wall, G. (1997) Sustainable tourism – Unsustainable development. In S. Wahab and J. Pigram (eds) Tourism, Development and Growth: the Challenge of Sustainability (pp. 33–49). London: Routledge. Wall, G. and Mathieson, A. (2006) Tourism: Change, Impacts and Opportunities. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall. Wallerstein, I. (1979) The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walters, J. (2000) Chaos on the Costas. The Observer (Business Supplement), Sunday 20 February. Wang, N. (2000) Tourism and Modernity: A Sociological Analysis. New York: Pergamon. Wang, W. (2012) Chinese airlines stand firm against EU’s emissions trading scheme. China Daily, 18 May. See www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-05/18/content_15325506.htm (accessed 18 July 2012). Wang, Y. and Bramwell, B. (2012) Heritage protection and tourism development priorities in Hangzhou, China: A political economy and governance perspective. Tourism Management 33 (4), 988–998. Wanhill, S. (1997) Peripheral area tourism. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 3, 47–70. Ward, B. and Dubos, R. (1972) Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. London: Penguin. Warde, A. (1992) Notes on the relationship between production and consumption. In R. Burrows and C. Marsh (eds) (1992) Consumption and Class (pp. 15–31). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Wattanakuljarus, A. and Coxhead, I. (2008) Is tourism-based development good for the poor? A general equilibrium analysis for Thailand. Journal of Policy Modeling 30 (6), 929–955. WCED (1987) Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press. Wearing, S. (2001) Volunteer Tourism: Experiences That Make a Difference. New York: CABI. Wearing, S., McDonald, M. and Pointing, J. (2005) Building a decommodified research paradigm in tourism: The contribution of NGOs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13 (5), 424–439. Weaver, D. (1988) The evolution of a ‘plantation’ tourism landscape on the Caribbean island of Antigua. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 79 (5), 319–331. Weaver, D. (1998a) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. Wallingford: CABI. Weaver, D. (1998b) Peripheries of the periphery: Tourism in Tobago and Barbuda. Annals of Tourism Research 25 (2), 292–313. Weaver, D. (1999) Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (4), 792–816. Weaver, D. (2010) Community-based tourism as strategic dead-end. Tourism Recreation Research 35 (2), 206–208.

References

537

Weaver, D. and Fennell, D. (1997) Rural tourism in Canada: The Saskatchewan vacation farm operator as entrepreneur. In S. Page and D. Getz (eds) The Business of Rural Tourism (pp. 77–92). London: International Thomson Business Press. Weaver, D. and Oppermann, M. (2000) Tourism Management. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. Webber, A. (2001) Exchange rate volatility and co-integration in tourism demand. Journal of Travel Research 39, 398–405. Weber, A. (1909) Theory of the Location of Industries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Webster, A. (1990) Introduction to the Sociology of Development (2nd edn). Basingstoke: Macmillan. WEF (2009) Towards a Low Carbon Travel & Tourism Sector. Davos: World Economic Forum. WEF (2011) The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report. Beyond the Downturn. Davos: World Economic Forum. Wei, L. and Hudson, K. (2008) Blackstone’s inauspicious timing: Hilton buyout. Wall Street Journal. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122583316469798241.html (accessed 1 June 2012. Weiler, B. and Hall, C.M. (eds) (1992) Special Interest Tourism. London: Belhaven. Weinberg, M. (1996–1997) The Human Rights Discourse: A Bahá’í Perspective. See www.info. bahai.org/article-1-8-3-2.html (accessed June 2012). Weiner, E. (2008) Slum visits: Tourism or voyeurism? New York Times, 9 March, p. TR3. Welch, R. (1984) The meaning of development: Traditional views and more recent ideas. New Zealand Journal of Geography 76, 2–4. Wellings, P. and Crush, J. (1983) Tourism and dependency in Southern Africa: The prospects and planning of tourism in Lesotho. Applied Geography 3 (3), 205–223. Wels, H. (2004) About romance and reality: Popular European imagery in postcolonial tourism in southern Africa. In C.M. Hall and H. Tucker (eds) Tourism and Postcolonialism: Contested Discourses, Identities and Representations (pp. 76–94). London: Routledge. Wen, J. (2014) Chinese tourists return to Japan. China Daily USA, 3 March. See http:// usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2014-03/03/content_17318237.htm (accessed April 2014). Wen, J. and Tisdell, C. (2001) Tourism and China’s Development: Policies, Regional Economic Growth and Ecotourism. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing. Wendt, A. (1995) Constructing international politics. International Security 20 (1), 71–81. Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whelan, T. (ed.) (1991) Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. Whitelegg, D. (2003) Touching down: Globalisation, labour and the airline industry. Antipode 3 (2), 244–263. Wiarda, H. (1983) Toward a nonethnocentric theory of development: Alternative conceptions from the third world, Journal of Developing Areas, 17. Reprinted in C. Wilber (ed.) (1988) The Political Economy of Development and Underdevelopment (4th edn) (pp. 59–82). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Widfelt, A. (1996) Alternative development strategies and tourism in the Caribbean microstates. In L. Briguglio, R. Butler, D. Harrison and W. Fiho (eds) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Case Studies (pp. 147–161). London: Pinter. Wiedmann, T.O., Schandl, H., Lenzenc, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J. and Kanemoto, K. (2013) The material footprint of nations. PNAS. See www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/ 10.1073/pnas.1220362110 Wight, P. (1988) Tools for sustainability analysis in planning and managing tourism and recreation in the destination. In C.M. Hall and A. Lew (eds) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 75–91). Harlow: Longman.

538

Tour ism and Development

Wilbanks, T. (2003) Integrating climate change and sustainable development in a placebased context. Climate Policy 3 (Suppl. 1), S147–S154. Wilbanks, T. (2007) Scale and sustainability. Climate Policy 7 (4), 278–87. Wilkinson, P. (1987) Tourism in small island nations: A fragile dependence. Leisure Studies 6 (2), 128–146. Wilkinson, P. (1989) Strategies for island micro-states. Annals of Tourism Research 16 (2), 153–177. Wilkinson, P. and Pratiwi, W. (1995) Gender and tourism in an Indonesian village. Annals of Tourism Research 22 (2), 238–299. Williams, A. (1995) Capital and the transnationalisation of tourism. In A. Montanari and A. M. Williams (eds) European Tourism: Regions, Spaces and Restructuring (pp. 163–176). Chichester: John Wiley. Williams, A. and Shaw, G. (eds) (1991) Tourism and Economic Development: Western European Experiences. London: Belhaven Press. Williams, A. and Shaw, G. (1995) Tourism and regional development: Polarization and new forms of production in the United Kingdom. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 86 (1), 50–63. Williams, A. and Shaw, G. (1998) Tourism and uneven economic development. In A. Williams and G. Shaw (eds) Tourism and Economic Development: European Experiences. 3rd Edition (pp. 1–16). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Williams, A. and Shaw, G. (2011) Internationalization and innovation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 38 (1), 27–51. Williams, S. (1998) Tourism Geography. London: Routledge. Williamson, J. (1978) Decoding Advertisements. London: Marion Boyars. Willis, K. (2011) Theories and Practices of Development (2nd edn). Abingdon: Routledge. Wilson, D. (1996) Glimpses of Caribbean tourism and the question of sustainability in Barbados and St Lucia. In L. Briguglio, R. Butler, D. Harrison and W. Fiho (eds) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States, Case Studies (pp. 75–102). London: Pinter. Witherspoon, S. (1994) The greening of Britain: Romance and rationality. In R. Jowell et al. (eds) British Social Attitudes: The 11th Report (pp. 107–39). Aldershot: Dartmouth. Witt, C. and Witt, S. (1994) Demand elasticities. In S. Witt and L. Moutinho (eds) Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook (2nd edn) (pp. 497–503). New York: Prentice Hall. Witt, S. (1989) Receipts/expenditures balance analysis. In S. Witt and L. Moutinho (eds) Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook (2nd edn) (pp. 485–487). New York: Prentice Hall. Wolf, E. (1982) Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wood, K. and House, S. (1991) The Good Tourist: A Worldwide Guide for the Green Traveller. London: Mandarin. Wood, R. (1979) Tourism and underdevelopment in Southeast Asia. Journal of Contemporary Asia 9, 274–287. Wood, R. (2000) Caribbean cruise tourism: Globalization at sea. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (2), 345–370. Woodcock, K. and France, L. (1994) Development theory applied to tourism in Jamaica. In A. Seaton (ed.) Tourism the State of the Art (pp. 110–119). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. World Bank (1991) World Development Report 1991: The Challenge of Development. New York: Oxford University Press. World Bank (2005) Classification of economies. See www.worldbank.org/data/aboutdata/ errata03/ Class.htm World Bank (2011) GDP per capita (current US$). See http://data.worldbank.org/ indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

References

539

World Bank (2012) Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security in Tanzania. Policy Research Working Paper 6188. See http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/18139450-6188 World Bank (2013) 4° Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience. A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics. Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. World Economic Forum (WEF) (2008) The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2008: Balancing Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability. Geneva: World Economic Forum. World Economic Forum (2011) The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011: Beyond the Downturn. Geneva: World Economic Forum. See www.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ TravelTourismCompetitiveness_Report_2011.pdf (accessed 7 May 2012). World Economic Forum (2013a) Global risks eighth edition. Geneva: World Economic Forum. See www.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalRisks_Report_2013.pdf (accessed 16 June 2013). World Economic Forum (2013b). Travel Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013. See http:// reports.weforum.org/travel-and-tourism-competitiveness-report-2013/ World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2004) The Caribbean. The Impact of Travel & Tourism on Jobs and the Economy. London: WTTC. WSSD (2002) Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations. WTO (1980) Manila Declaration on World Tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (1983) New Concepts of Tourism’s Role in Modern Society: Possible Development Models. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. WTO (1992) Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (1993) Sustainable Tourism Development: A Guide for Local Planners. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (1994) Recommendations on Tourism Statistics. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (1995) GATS: Implications for Tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (1997) Tourism Market Trends: Americas. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (1998a) The Euro Impact on Tourism 1998. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (1998b) Tourism Economic Report (1st edn). Madrid: WTO. WTO (1998c) Tourism 2020 Vision – Influences, Directional Flows and Key Trends. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. WTO (1999a) Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSA): The Conceptual Framework. Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (1999b) Yearbook of Statistics (52nd edn). Madrid: World Tourism Organisation. WTO (2000) See www.world-tourism.org/pressrel/00_5_11I.htm WTO/WTTC (1996) Agenda 21 for the Travel & Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. World Tourism Organisation/World Travel and Tourism Council. WTTC (1993) World Travel and Tourism Review: Environment and Development. Belgium: WTTC. WTTC (2009) Leading the Challenge on Climate Change. London: WTTC. WTTC (2010) World Travel and Tourism Council: Progress and Priorities 2009–10. London: WTTC WTTC (2011a) Economic data search tool. See www.wttc.org/eng/Tourism_Research/ Economic_Data_Search_Tool/ (accessed 16 June 2011). WTTC (2011b) Travel and Tourism 2011. See www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/ downloads/traveltourism2011.pdf (accessed December 2012). WTTC (2012) Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2012. London: World Travel and Tourism Council. See www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/world2012.pdf

540

Tour ism and Development

WTTC (2013) Benchmarking travel and tourism – Global summary. See www.wttc.org/ site_media/uploads/downloads/2013_Global_summary_1.pdf (accessed 17 March 2014). Wu, C. (1982) Issues of tourism and socioeconomic development. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (3), 317–330. Wuelker, G. (1993) Questionnaires in Asia. In M. Bulmer and D. Warwick (eds) Social Research in Developing Countries: Surveys and Censuses in the Third World (pp. 161–166). London: UCL Press (Originally published in 1983 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd). Wunder, S. (2003) Native tourism, natural forests and local incomes on Ilha Grande, Brazil. In S. Gössling (ed.) Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands: Political Ecology Perspectives (pp. 148–177) Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Wynne-Hughes, E. (2012) ‘Who would go to Egypt?’ How tourism accounts for ‘terrorism’. Review of International Studies 2012 (38), 615–640. Yang, C.-H., Lin, H.-L. and Han, C.-C. (2009) Analysis of international tourist arrivals in China: The role of World Heritage Sites. Tourism Management 31 (6), 827–837. Yearley, S. (1992) The Green Case: A Sociology of Environmental Issues, Arguments and Politics. London: Routledge. Yeung, O. and Mathieson, J. (1998) Global Benchmarks, Comprehensive Measures of Development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Yohe, G., Lasco, R., Ahmad, Q., Arnell, N., Cohen, S., Hope, C., Janetos, A. and Perez, R. (2007) Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. In M. Parry, O. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. van der Linden and C. Hanson (eds) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 811–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Young, G. (1973) Tourism: Blessing or Blight? Harmondsworth: Penguin. Young, K. (1991) Shades of green. In R. Jowell, L. Brook and B. Taylor (eds) British Social Attitudes: The 8th Report. Aldershot: Dartmouth. Yunis, E. (2000) Tourism sustainability and market competitiveness in the coastal areas and islands of the Mediterranean. In A. Pink (ed.) Sustainable Travel and Tourism (pp. 65–68). London: Green Globe 21/IGC Publishing (see www.sustravel.com). Zampoukos, K. and Ioannides, D. (2010) The tourism labour conundrum: Agenda for new research in the geography of hospitality workers. Hospitality and Society 1 (1), 25–45. Zapata, M., Hall, C.M., Lindo, P. and Vanderschaeghen, M. (2011) Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Current Issues in Tourism 14 (8), 725–749. Zarkia, C. (1996) Philoxenia: Receiving tourists – But not guests – On a Greek island. In J. Boissevain (ed.) Coping with Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism (pp. 143– 173). Oxford: Berghahn. Zimmer, M., Stafford, T. and Stafford, M. (1994) Green issues: Dimensions of environmental concern. Journal of Business Research 30 (1), 63–74. Zimmerman, F. (1998) Austria: Contrasting seasons and contrasting regions. In A. Williams and G. Shaw (eds) Tourism and Economic Development: European Experiences (3rd edn; pp. 175–197). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Index

Abu Dhabi 428 acculturation 235 advanced economies 10, 77, 81, 85, 86, 89, 90, 103, 356 advocacy 39, 128, 129, 138, 250, 258, 432–433, 443 ‘Agenda 21’ 55, 59, 64, 254, 262, 431 agglomeration economies xx, 146, 147, 148, 176, 459 agriculture 24, 25, 40, 50, 81, 89, 99, 114, 129, 130, 167, 189, 191, 200, 223, 224, 228, 234, 239, 274, 293, 349, 350 agritourism 165, 190, 191, 244, 466 alliances 46, 153, 168, 189, 190, 302, 305, 312, 409, 425, 441 alternative development xix, 32, 39, 54–59, 61, 62, 63, 72, 120, 23,4, 433, 451, 457 alternative tourism 39, 57–59, 120, 131, 182, 184, 257, 279, 305, 412, 413, 429, 433, 434, 436 Amboseli National Park, Kenya 279 Arab Spring xvi, 400, 412, 423, 454 Asia Pacific xv, 11, 336, 411 Asian financial crisis 303 assimilation 218, 225, 226, 235, 375 Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) 142, 174, 425 Australia 28, 84, 85, 109, 158, 164, 169, 173, 180, 186, 194, 212, 234, 252, 265, 312, 323, 364, 388, 410, 415, 431, 445 authenticity 18, 162, 226, 227, 266, 368, 438

Bali, Indonesia 53, 58, 154, 169, 170, 226, 227, 228, 229, 302, 407, 408 barriers xxi, 12, 49, 51, 56, 73, 135–137, 150, 174, 192, 202, 213, 295, 340, 356, 401, 409, 458, 461–465 Better Life Index 210, 212–214, 216, 235, 460 biodiversity 68, 174, 185, 265, 276, 325, 343, 348, 350, 351, 424, 438 Brandt Commission 260, 261 Bretton Woods 68, 122, 400 Brundtland Report 20, 57, 267, 424, 431 bureaucracy 136, 272 Burma (see also Myanmar) 258, 425 Cambodia xv, 3, 26, 175, 296, 338 Campfire Programme 173, 187, 280 Canada 11, 49, 59, 82, 84, 100, 102, 113, 158, 159, 161, 166, 174, 181, 182, 186, 196, 199, 222, 301, 323, 347, 388, 410, 418, 421, 437 Canadian Tourism Commission 159 Canary Islands 89, 99, 326, 330 Canmore, Canada 181–182 Cancún 152, 189 capital investment xvi, 58, 86, 87, 88, 323, 327, 394 capitalism xvii, 32, 44, 49, 55, 180, 183, 232, 234, 235, 236, 288, 298, 318, 324, 325, 386, 413 capital-output ratio 86, 87, 88, 95, 98, 105, 106, 116–117 carbon footprint xviii, 343, 366 Caribbean 11, 14, 52, 129, 167, 168, 170, 174, 182, 223, 224, 229, 240, 279, 293, 294, 296, 301, 305, 312, 313, 317, 322, 331, 336, 345, 348–351, 354 carrying capacity 259, 265, 267, 275, 276, 277, 291

backward linkages 13, 148 backwash effects 45, 47, 146, 147 balance of payments 7, 27, 42, 94, 99, 100–103, 114, 158, 458 Balearic Islands 171, 309, 326, 443 541

542

Tour ism and Development

casino 150, 155, 160, 162, 361 centre-periphery xvi, 45, 47, 55, 146, 147, 433 child labour 388, 389, 393 China xv, 10, 69, 77, 82, 83, 90, 96, 106, 112, 140, 157, 159, 190, 212, 232, 303, 307, 311, 312, 323, 327, 329, 400, 406, 411, 424, 453 climate change xiv, xvii, xviii, 31, 33, 39, 64, 68, 70, 71, 162, 168, 179, 181, 188, 189, 262, 332–357, 366, 404, 406, 425, 429, 454, 462 clusters xx, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 159, 163, 166, 167, 178, 459 codes of practice 264, 265 collaboration 124, 130, 140, 141, 144, 152, 153, 174, 175, 177, 186, 188, 196, 201, 468 colonialism 38, 62, 64, 67, 72, 96, 105, 292, 293, 302, 401, 409, 417, 419–427, 433, 464 colonisation 226, 232 commercialisation of culture 220 of human relationships 230–231 common pool resource (CPR) 273 communist 234, 236, 414 community-based conservation (CBC) 185–188, 459 community-based natural resource management (CBNRC) 186 community-based tourism 57, 59, 63, 125, 133, 150, 179, 184, 239, 442, 459, 467 comparative advantage 49, 96, 104, 290, 340 competitive advantage 105, 148, 149, 176, 293, 419 consumer behaviour 360, 362, 364, 365, 366, 367, 373–377 consumerism xxi, 360, 363–366, 416, 463 consumption of tourism 366–370 convergence theory 94–100 corporate social responsibility ix, xx, 59, 127, 129–132, 201, 395, 441, 458 cosmopolitanism 401, 409, 410, 412–413, 464 Costa Rica xv, 3, 301, 431 Countryside 104, 106, 163, 165, 171, 268, 365, 416 Crafts 13, 89, 131, 164, 184, 192, 218, 221, 224, 227, 238, 302 cross-border 96, 174, 307, 316, 324, 328

cruise ship xxi, 46, 51, 151, 176, 317, 324, 343, 353, 354, 453, 462 Cuba xv, 3, 12, 113, 346, 347, 348, 391, 414 cultural imperialism 218, 225, 226, 293 Cyprus 10, 14, 41, 85, 90, 91, 102, 245, 306, 314, 319, 331, 375 debt 23, 27, 29, 37, 50, 60, 63, 183, 296, 297, 300, 301, 303, 306, 310, 327, 389, 395, 404, 424 decentralise 274 deflation 94, 107–111, 403, 458 democracy 57, 63, 72, 209, 223, 272, 379, 411 demonstration effect 43, 48, 93, 103, 218, 226, 468 dependency theory/model xvi, xix, xxi, 12, 32, 39, 41, 43–48, 49, 50, 62, 72, 79, 96, 98, 111, 177, 182, 231, 232, 263, 288, 292, 294, 304, 305, 306, 328, 355, 417, 433 deregulation (liberalisation) xvi, 49, 50, 51, 63, 144, 298, 300, 301, 307, 312, 314, 315, 320, 321, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328, 356, 422 destination capitals 59, 446–451, 464 development, economic 239–240 displacement xxii, 137, 228, 229, 240, 301, 390–391, 463 distribution of wealth 5, 11, 156, 327 domestic tourism xiv, 3, 4, 7, 58, 77, 80, 109, 299, 301, 305, 341, 347, 424 Dominican Republic 53, 170, 338 dualism 36, 146 Dubai 52, 160, 162, 316, 410, 416 Earth Summit (see also Rio Conference) 33, 64, 254, 261, 284, 430, 431 East Africa 336 ecocentric 250 eco-feminism 258 ecological sustainability xxi, 79, 251, 274–277, 284, 461 Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) 44 economic impacts xix, 79, 80, 91–94, 101, 102, 115, 171, 199, 458 economic neoliberalism xix, 32, 36, 41, 48–54, 63, 72, 231 ecotourism 39, 46, 53, 57, 59, 62, 125, 133, 137, 150, 155, 163, 172, 173, 174, 183, 185–188, 190, 196, 201, 224, 264, 282, 284, 325, 329, 341, 348, 360, 363, 364,

Inde x

377, 412, 417, 422, 431, 436, 443, 444, 451, 459, 461, 463 emissions xvii, 21, 71, 168, 312, 332, 333, 335, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346–348, 349, 353–354, 396, 404, 406, 439, 454, 462 empowerment community 184, 187, 197, 198, 249, 262, 284, 460 cultural 185, 188–190, 196, 459 women 175, 223–225 entrepreneurial: 43, 58, 126, 149, 150, 154, 161, 162, 166, 176, 220, 302, 303, 324, 447 environmental crisis 251, 254–259, 461 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 267 environmental management 57, 251, 257, 273, 275, 431 equity 23, 55, 89, 115, 116, 120, 128, 138, 183, 184, 188, 189, 202, 222, 258, 262, 263, 277, 289, 299, 308, 390, 418, 440, 443 ethnicity 64, 199, 283, 302, 317, 383, 385, 392 Euro 325, 326, 331 European Union 6, 52, 93, 142, 191, 301, 345, 402, 406, 453 Exxon Valdez 255 failing state 18, 28, 65 fair trade xx, 67, 127–128, 130, 184, 191, 201, 298, 422, 458, 463 feminism 401, 409, 417–418, 464 Fiji 167, 169, 170, 234, 293, 299, 417 Five Capitals Model 446–447 foreign exchange 7, 8, 14, 25, 28, 31, 38, 41, 52, 54, 91, 92, 102, 119, 140, 141, 149, 152, 172, 205, 230, 232, 239, 305, 336, 353, 461, 465 foreign investment 29, 42, 49, 52, 53, 97, 136, 159, 169, 173, 297, 300 freedom, choice 21, 22, 27, 29, 33, 63, 65, 100, 134, 205, 208, 209, 211, 215, 381, 383, 384, 443 Friends of the Earth 258 Galapagos, The 281 Gambia, The 8, 13, 90, 220, 297, 298, 301, 318, 359, 362, 407, 425 gender 23, 28, 34, 55, 58, 61, 64, 72, 120, 122, 175, 184, 190, 199, 210, 234, 258, 283, 302, 371, 383, 390, 398, 417, 418, 460

543

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 12 Germany 49, 88, 90, 91, 98, 102, 112, 189, 255, 258, 300, 388, 453 Ghana 54, 126, 224, 320, 338, 388, 443 global development xiii, xiv, xix, 29, 32, 37, 39, 56, 59, 67–71, 72, 183, 236, 416, 430, 454, 455, 456, 457 global economic crisis xvii, 39, 411, 424 global risks 402, 403, 405, 421, 425, 455, 465 global warming xvii, xviii, 258, 334, 343, 349, 366, 424 grass roots 55, 61, 120, 129, 184, 188–190, 192, 193, 200, 222, 262 Greece 109, 112, 113, 245, 246, 310, 326, 327, 381, 387, 388, 400, 405, 412 green consumerism xxi, 363–366, 463 greenhouse gas xvii, 71, 168, 333, 350, 396, 403, 404, 440, 454, 462 Greenpeace 258 growth poles xx, 72, 146, 147, 151, 152, 176, 443, 459 growth triangle 174, 175, 328, 459 heritage democratisation 244 intangible 243–244 scales 241–243 trails 166, 167, 241, 246–247 HIV 23, 34, 122, 225, 230 homestay 58, 170, 221 hospitality 155, 195, 221, 224, 255, 281, 293, 301, 310, 311, 315, 316, 318, 324, 361, 418, 423 host community 170, 217, 218, 220, 222, 223, 226, 233, 266, 267 human development xix, 14, 22, 28, 32, 33, 39, 55, 63–67, 72, 89, 208, 211, 212, 235, 330, 339, 354, 454, 457, 463 Human Development Index (HDI) 33, 63, 89, 90, 179, 210, 211–212, 339, 460 impasse (in development) 37, 39, 59, 60–63, 72, 263 International Labour Organisation (ILO) 307, 308 Imperialism 96, 218, 225, 226, 232, 293, 386, 420 Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare 28, 33 India xv, 14, 69, 77, 84, 90, 123, 212, 213, 228, 257, 299, 306, 315, 323, 347, 388, 393, 396, 405, 406

544

Tour ism and Development

infant mortality 26, 54, 209, 239 inflation 49, 50, 78, 79, 93, 94, 97, 107–111, 173, 325, 403, 458 innovation 51, 87, 146, 148, 149, 156, 176, 224, 291, 309, 325, 329 International Energy Agency (IEA) 333 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 45, 49, 50, 51, 53, 89, 121, 209, 297, 300, 301, 303, 327, 400, 419 international trade 12, 100, 101, 320, 356, 357 Internet 18, 70, 176, 221, 227, 246, 311, 372, 373, 395, 407, 408, 420, 432, 453 Iraq 3 Ireland 11, 85, 132, 400, 418 Islam 234, 386 issue-attention cycle xxii, 401, 407–408, 426, 464 Japan 78, 85, 100, 101, 102, 166, 221, 224, 230, 232, 303, 322, 386, 392, 402, 406, 408, 426 Java, Indonesia 168, 169, 224 Jordan xv, 222, 298, 338 Kyoto 64, 344, 345, 348 labour child 388, 389, 393 formal sector 154, 192, 202, 317 informal sector 154, 192, 199, 202, 223, 314, 317, 331 migration 217, 229 ladder of participation 194 Lake District, English 7, 14 Least Developed Country (LDC) xv, 25, 26, 132, 294, 295, 296, 330, 333, 337, 339, 353 LEADER 6, 52, 164, 191 Liberalism 401, 409, 411–412, 414, 416, 424, 464 life expectancy 24, 26, 63, 65, 89, 209, 211, 219, 231, 295 Limits to Acceptable Change (LAC) 277 Limits to Growth 256, 257, 263, 428 literacy rate 24, 25, 26, 40, 54, 205, 209, 219, 233, 239 local involvement 54, 132, 177 local products 169, 443 Lombok, Indonesia 58, 169, 220, 228, 298 low cost airline xvi, 320, 453

Maasai 184, 280, 422 Macau 83, 111, 162 Madagascar 281, 338, 347 Malaysia 43, 77, 83, 109, 112, 151, 174, 175, 303, 323, 417 Malta 48, 85, 167, 245, 246, 331 Manila Declaration 5, 138 marginalisation 234, 417 Marxism 44, 46, 401, 409, 413–414, 416, 423, 464 metropolitan 44, 46, 47, 95, 96, 97, 141, 142, 151, 154, 292, 293, 304, 305, 306, 309, 327, 394, 433 Mexico 62, 83, 84, 112, 113, 152, 189, 192, 196, 199, 279, 301, 302, 311, 317, 322, 327, 393, 406, 422 Middle East xvii, 10, 311, 323, 351, 352, 401, 405, 412, 416, 420, 421 migration labour 217, 229 leisure 229 Millennium Development Goals xviii, xix, 22, 31, 33, 34, 39, 69, 70, 71, 72, 78, 121, 123, 208, 298, 332, 440, 454 mitigation, climate 332, 333, 342, 353, 403 mobility 4, 17, 20, 186, 317, 332, 342, 344, 345, 401, 402 modernisation theory 19, 38, 40–43, 49, 52, 62, 72, 119, 138, 206, 217, 223, 235 motivation, tourist 15, 16, 358, 364, 366, 367–370, 374, 376, 463, 467 multinational corporation / enterprise xx, xxii, 42, 45, 46, 110, 174, 378, 409, 411, 413, 450 463, 465, 466 multiplier 38, 39, 43, 87, 91, 92–93, 146, 150, 154, 161, 190, 433 Myanmar 175, 296, 424 Nahua 279 natural rights 379, 380 neo-colonialism 36, 38, 72, 293, 417 neo-Malthusian 255–258, 283 neo-Marxism 44 new tourist 21, 363 NGO xviii, xx, 36, 39, 55, 59, 64, 66, 67, 70, 124, 127, 128–129, 130, 132, 134, 138, 160, 170, 176, 181, 187, 188, 192, 199–200, 202, 221, 236, 383,

Inde x

397, 398, 416, 418, 450, 459, 463, 466 Niagara 161, 166, 167, 174 north-south 120, 183, 260, 261, 304, 328, 330 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 6, 26, 99, 112, 121, 210, 212, 213, 214, 323, 411, 419 Olympics 13, 140, 162, 174, 408 Our Common Future 55, 261, 271, 356, 431 parks 13, 97, 135, 142, 150, 163, 176, 186, 268, 269, 284, 301, 371, 396 partnership 34, 67, 69, 71, 126, 130, 149, 158–159, 161, 165, 167, 176, 191, 196, 201, 358, 396, 447, 461 Peru xv, 3, 14, 228, 301 pleasure periphery 3, 46, 134 Poland 10, 83, 84, 112, 331 political economy 47, 51, 73, 144, 156, 184–185, 253, 257, 287–331, 394, 413, 439, 451, 462 positivism 379, 380 post-colonialism 62, 67, 401, 416–417, 464 post-development xiii, xix, 29–30, 39, 45, 60–63, 456 post-Fordist 240, 318 post-structuralism 67, 401, 409, 415–416, 464 poverty alleviation xix, 118–139, 175, 180, 183, 184, 189, 192, 195, 199, 200, 298, 333, 356, 357, 438 PPT Partnership 124, 183 pro-poor tourism xviii, xx, 66, 72, 118–139, 183, 184, 298, 335, 356, 411, 412, 445, 450, 458 prostitution 219, 225, 229–230, 388, 389, 393 Quality of Life Indicator 210–211 race 383, 385, 398 realism 401, 409–411, 413, 414, 416, 424, 432, 464 redistribution 5, 11, 80, 91, 94, 156, 188, 320, 326 regionalism 141, 142–145, 149, 152, 176, 459 regional economic development 40, 41, 42, 45, 140, 145–154

545

relocation 226, 229 resident involvement 183, 194 responsible tourism xviii, 66, 124, 130, 183, 364, 436, 441, 463 retirement 135, 164, 200 revitalisation 13, 160, 164, 459 Rio conference (see also Earth Summit) 33, 59 Rio de Janeiro 254, 284, 430, 431 Rio + 10 Conference 71, 262, 284, 430 Rio + 20 Conference 33, 55, 262 rural development 67, 163–167, 280 rural tourism 149, 159, 163–167, 190–192, 436, 442, 459 rural heritage 166 Russia xv, 69, 77, 83, 112, 213, 306, 391, 405, 406 seaside resort 17, 371, 468 seasonality 151, 229, 232 security xvi, xxii, 28, 33, 39, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 155, 188, 209, 210, 223, 241, 343, 345, 354, 387, 391–394 self-determination 21, 57, 172, 180, 185, 186, 385, 467 self-reliance 32, 33, 44, 48, 55, 57, 179, 184, 185, 190, 205, 293, 297, 433, 442 self-sufficiency 194 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) 106, 406, 408 sex tourism 225, 230, 231, 388, 418 sex trade 388 Seychelles 14, 111, 112, 338, 346, 347 Singapore 85, 106, 174, 175, 312, 338, 384, 408, 417 Slavery 293, 382, 386, 387–389, 398 slum tourism xxii, 119, 201, 387, 396–397 social constructivism 401, 414–415, 464 social order 399 Social Progress Index 210, 214–216, 460 social welfare 32, 88, 172, 223, 231, 233, 235, 260, 466 social well-being 182, 200, 219, 235 socialism 32, 60, 165, 297 socio-cultural impacts 220–231 socio-economic development xii, xviii, xx, 40, 41, 73, 205, 211, 220, 231, 233, 234, 237–249, 282, 389, 397, 443, 460 South Africa 69, 90, 128, 183, 184, 213, 300, 305, 323, 397, 405, 406 spaceship earth 254

546

Tour ism and Development

spiritual travel 244–246, 460 spread effects 41, 147, 149 staged authenticity 227 stages of economic growth 40, 44, 207 ST-EP (Sustainable Tourism - Eliminating Poverty) xx, 70, 127, 132–134, 183, 458 structural adjustment 38, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 60, 292, 297–298, 300, 301, 320, 327 sustainable consumption 359, 441 sustainable livelihoods 123, 129, 183, 184, 185, 186, 190, 195, 446 Tanzania xv, 25, 26, 156, 186, 296, 298, 320, 331, 341, 390 terrorism 67, 97, 106, 116, 229, 230, 391, 394, 406, 410, 420, 423, 426 Thailand 10, 48, 51, 83, 90, 96, 99, 112, 157, 175, 301, 303, 304, 388 Third World 6, 44, 45, 46, 47, 55, 60, 62, 119, 127, 179, 199, 232, 292, 297, 320, 383 Tourism Area Cycle of Evolution 153 tourism consumption 291, 359, 360, 361, 365, 367, 370, 373, 376–377 Tourism Concern 59, 71, 128, 130, 134, 199, 222, 258, 263, 264, 361, 407, 411, 416 tourism-culture relationship 370–371 tourism satellite account 42, 116 trafficking 382, 387, 389, 393, 398, 418 transnational corporations (TNC) 232, 300, 302, 331 travel account 7 Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI) 290 trickle down 36, 119, 146, 149, 152, 270, 459 tsunami xvii, 10, 97, 402, 408 Tunisia 48, 226, 297, 309, 331, 400, 412, 413 Turkey 52, 53, 77, 83, 88, 95, 112, 140, 158, 245, 297, 306 United Nations (UN) 5, 15, 122, 132, 215, 223, 330, 357, 382, 454 UNCED 254, 261 UNCHE 254, 259, 431 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 21, 22, 55, 63, 121, 124, 224, 235, 295

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 124, 130, 259, 336, 339 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNUDHR) xxii, 383, 385, 386, 389, 390–398 UNESCO 130, 200, 210, 243–244, 246, 247, 414, 415, 425, 460 United Arab Emirates (UAE) 78, 300, 410 United Kingdom 158, 219, 265, 364, 388, 391, 406, 468 urban xx, 6, 11, 40, 41, 43, 48, 67, 96, 97, 113, 140, 142, 149, 152, 154, 160–163, 176, 179, 234, 268, 331 USA xvi, 11, 12, 28, 51, 82, 112, 347, 391 Vanuatu 136, 188, 338 Vendors 154, 244 Vietnam xv, 3, 106, 175, 408, 414 VisitBritain 7 volunteer tourism 62, 66, 184, 200, 201, 411, 412, 467 Wales 268, 269 Washington Consensus 36, 49, 64, 68, 208, 416, 423 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 33, 55, 261 World Conservation Strategy (WCS) (see also Brundtland Report) 20, 33, 55, 57, 153, 179, 183, 260, 261, 267, 271, 356, 431 World Bank 25, 38, 41, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 81, 83, 88, 89, 121, 130, 192, 208, 209, 297, 298, 300, 301, 333, 400, 406, 419, 444 World Heritage Site (WHS) 200, 243, 301, 340, 351 world peace 222 world systems 44, 48 World Tourism Organisation (WTO / UNWTO) xv, xviii, 4, 5, 52, 116, 122, 132, 267, 335, 396, 411, 415, 438 World Trade Organisation (WTO) 5, 295, 324, 328, 419 World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) 4, 59, 83, 307, 332, 408, 411 Zambia 186, 192, 274, 295, 299 Zanzibar 298, 299, 300, 320, 321, 325 Zimbabwe 123, 173, 186, 187, 280, 323