Tourism, Development, and the Environment PDF

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 develo...

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 dis- course 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 environ- mental 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 prevail- ing 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 imag- ery 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 addi- tion to these and other anthropogenic events, which fuelled environmental concerns, the 1970s and 1980s also witnessed a number of natural phenom- ena 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 con- cerns 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 degrada- tion, 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, increas- ing patterns of inequality and high rates of population growth, the ques- tion of sustainability began to dominate the debate over appropriate paths and means of development. Academics and policymakers from diverse back- grounds and spanning the political continuum reacted to the perceived envi- ronmental crises, with tourism being no exception. Even by the late 1970s, with international mass tourism still in relative infancy, commentators criti- cised the unbridled growth of tourism and its resultant environmental con- sequences 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 contemptu- ous servility to the unsophisticated multitude’. Interestingly, Mishan’s élit- ist ‘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 emer- gence 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 Popu- lation Bomb became a standard core text on countless geography course bib- liographies, re-establishing Malthus’ ideas of human population limits, maintained by ‘natural checks’, as the received wisdom in population/envi- ronment 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 pessi- mistic 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 industriali- sation 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 environmental- ism. 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 man- kind’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 evi- dence also raises questions about the environmental/developmental con- tribution 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, atten- tion 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 meth- odological 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 move- ment. 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 envi- ronmental 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 ideol- ogy 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 exam- ple, Doyle & McEachern, 1998) – rapidly gave rise to the formation of protest groups which coalesced into an influential environmental movement, capa- ble 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 fre- quently competing political philosophies. For example, social ecology, which espouses collective human control over nature, albeit at the local com- munity as opposed to state level, directly opposes deep ecology which pic- tures 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 tour- ism. Generally, calls for more appropriate forms of tourism development have as much, if not more, to do with social equity as they do with environmen- tal 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 transforma- tion 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 environ- mental 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 sustain- able 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 practi- cal or theoretical relevance to issues of environment and development (Lélé, 1991; Mundt, 2011; Redclift, 1987). Indeed, some, such as the post-develop- ment 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 add- ressed 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 interna- tional effort to address environmental problems and is described as a mile- stone 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 devel- opment’ seen as a means of overcoming the perceived paradox between eco- nomic growth and environmental protection. However, as Adams (1992) observes, the overall theme of the conference was that development (i.e. gro- wth) 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 bio- sphere and the application of human, financial, living and non-living resou- rces to satisfy human needs and improve the quality of human life’ (IUCN, 1980: Section 1.3), was regarded primarily as a vehicle for ensuring protec- tion of the global biosphere. For the first time, the term ‘sustainable develop- ment’ 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 artic- ulated in terms of the economic benefits conservation could yield to govern- ments 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 limita- tion 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 develop- ment – 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 con- demn hundreds of millions of people to starvation and despair’ (ICIDI, 1980: 50), thereby questioning the main precept of modernism, that faster eco- nomic 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 mea- surements of growth exclude the crucial element of social welfare, of indi- vidual 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 eco- nomic growth is dependent upon growth in the south) failed to win wide- spread 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 com- posed 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 strat- egies 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 sig- nificant contribution made by Agenda 21 is its rationalisation of environ- mentalist 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 environ- mental 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 sus- tainable 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 chal- lenges 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 increas- ingly diluted by few if any positive or tangible outcomes from these subseq- uent 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 interna- tional consensus on actions to achieve sustainable development. Indeed, it is evident that despite the competing interpretations of sus- tainable development that, over time, have become amalgamated in succes- sive 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 with- out 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 tour- ism 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 oper- ates by appropriating environmental resources and transforming them for sale in consumer markets, it is really no different in principle to the extrac- tion 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, cul- tural, economic and environmental connotations of the sustainable develop- ment 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 commu- nities, customs and lifestyles, make to the tourism experience; accept that these people must have an equitable share in the economic benefits of tour- ism; 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 develop- ment (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 indus- try which includes consideration of the long-term effects of eco- nomic 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 tour- ism’s role in society. It demands a long-term view of economic activ- ity... 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 devel- opment decisions’ (Cronin, 1990)) and, on the other hand, environmentally sustainable tourism (see Hunter, 1995). As discussed in the literature (Sharp- ley, 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 con- science. International, national and industry sectoral organisations have all drawn up codes of practice or lists of guidelines to guide tourism develop- ment, whilst tourists themselves have long been exhorted to adopt appropri- ate or sustainable roles and practices or to become ‘good’ or ‘responsible’ (Goodwin, 2011; Wood & House, 1991). Those which are directed at tour- ism 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 litera- ture. Such conditions as ‘using resources sustainably’, ‘reducing over- consumption 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 prin- ciples 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 prin- ciple would elevate the need to preserve the natural integrity and biodiver- sity of the environment above all else. Thus, most codes or lists of principles lack detail and, without definition, explanation and, in some cases quanti- fication, 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 eco- nomic development (Inskeep, 1991) and, in many countries, tourism freque- ntly 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 plan- ning measures may be rigorously implemented. As with its theoretical basis, the practice of planning for sustainable tour- ism 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 mana- gerial tools employed by planners to ensure environmental ‘limits’ are respected. At the same time, the rhetoric of sustainability has become insti- tutionalised 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 physi- cal 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 irre- versible 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 accept- able 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 envi- ronment’s capability to accommodate change. The UN World Tourism Org- anisation 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, materi- als, water and land... The accumulation of knowledge and the develop- ment 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 con- strained resource and reorient technological efforts to relieve the pressure’ (WCED, 1987: 45). Thus, the notion that there is a fixed ‘ceiling’ to devel- opmental 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 envi- ronmental indicators pivotal to the application of carrying capacity as a plan- ning 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 regula- tions. 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 con- text this approach was exemplified by the former English Tourist Board (ETB). In response to the government’s then national agenda for sustain- able 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 Depar- tment 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 charac- teristic landscapes... unspoilt stretches of undeveloped coastline, areas of special interest for nature conservation, historic buildings and town- scapes; 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, never- theless, be an integral part of the land use planning process, accommodating competing demands for resources and reconciling the interests of all inter- ested 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 signifi- cant conservation value. National park status, for example, confers protec- tion 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 achieve- ment of environmental sustainability is the extent to which guidelines articu- late 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 manage- ment strategies for environmental resources, services and facilities. As a result of complex and often ambiguous planning structures, such activities as farm- ing, 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 manage- ment (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 col- lectively provide a framework which, in theory, balances the physical capaci- ties 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 uni- versal 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.  Tour ism, Development and the Env ironment 277 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 tour- ism’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 unifor- mity, and generally contribute to the continuing degradation on our planet’. Is such a critical perspective warranted? Interactions between tourists, devel- opers, policymakers and planners and the environment are often highly com- plex (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 environmen- tal deterioration mediated by socio-political pressures outside the control of the tourism industry. Accordingly, the natural environment both ‘consti- tutes 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 pri- macy 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 culmina- tion 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 genera- tions 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 quan- tifiably, 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 tour- ism 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 environmen- tally degrading activities, ranging from environmental vandalism, including littering and creating noise pollution, to the unconscious degradation of frag- ile 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 Medi- terranean 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 pro- cessing infrastructure at all. However, although there is much evidence of the environmentally degrading consequences of tourism development, the adopted image of tour- ism 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 small- scale wildlife safaris conducted on their land, but the mere presence of tour- ists 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 incen- tives for environmental conservation, making protection a more economically profitable option in comparison to other potential resource uses. Wildlife con- servation 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 wild- life 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 his- tory. 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 gen- erated 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, conser- vation has generally benefited from tourism because of the very close relation- ship 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 pro- duction, 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 life- line 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 inter- est 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 tour- ist 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 inter- national 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 inter- linkages between vacation, conservation and development are most apparent. According to King and Stewart (1996: 293), ‘in an idealised model of ecotour- ism, an integration of conservation and development occurs in which entrepre- neurs, 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 natu- ral 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 primar- ily 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 conserva- tion 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 & Danger- field, 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 gen- erate 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 develop- ment 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 conse- quences, it has been argued here that sustainable tourism development has ‘failed’ as a result of the environmental managerialism inherent in sustain- able (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 neo- Malthusian 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 polit- ical 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 sustain- able tourism remains an illusive objective. Nevertheless, the cross-disciplin- ary 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 develop- ment’ (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 opera- tionalised 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 theo- rists 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 conser- vation-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, trans- port, quarrying, water and power supply and, of course, tourism and conservation.