2000_Richard Sharpley_Tourism and Sustainable Development Exploring the Theoretical Divide

8/12/2019 2000_Richard Sharpley_Tourism and Sustainable Development Exploring the Theoretical Divide

1/21

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Autnoma del Estadode Mxico]On: 01 June 2012, At: 16:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,

London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable

TourismPublication details, including instructions

for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Tourism and Sustainable

Development: Exploring

the Theoretical DivideRichard Sharpley

Available online: 29 Mar 2010

To cite this article:Richard Sharpley (2000): Tourism and Sustainable

Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide, Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 8:1, 1-19

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667346

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied ormake any representation that the contents will be complete oraccurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,and drug doses should be independently verified with primary

sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667346http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20


2/21

claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Downloadedby[Univer

sidadAutnomadelEstadodeMxico]at16:56

01June2012


3/21

TourismandSustainableDevelopment:ExploringtheTheoreticalDivide

RichardSharpleyU n i v e r s it y o f N o r th u m b ria , L o n g h ir st C a m p u s , L o n g h i rs t H a ll , M o r p e t h ,

N o rt h u m b e r la n d N E 6 1 3 L L , U K

Despite the significant attention paid by tourism academics and practitioners tosustainable tourism development in recent years, there has been a consistent failurewithin thetourismliteratureto relatetheconcept to the theory of itsparentalparadigm,sustainable development. As a result, the applicability of sustainable development tothe specificcontextof tourism is rarelyquestioned. This paper addressesthisomissionin the literature. Reviewing development theory and the notion of sustainability, it

proposes a model of sustainable development against which the principlesof sustain-able tourism are compared. It is argued that tourism development remains embeddedinearlymodernisationtheory whilst theprinciples ofsustainabletourism overlookthecharacteristics of the production and consumption of tourism. As a result, significantdifferencesbetween the concepts of sustainable tourism and sustainable developmentare revealed, suggesting that the principles and objectivesof sustainable developmentcannot be transposed onto the specific context of tourism.

Introduction

Over the last decade, the concept of sustainable tourism development hasbecome the focus of increasing attention amongst tourism theorists and practi-tionersalike. It has nowachieved widespread acceptanceas a desirableobjectiveof tourism development policy and practice and many organisations repre-senting destinations or tourism industry sectors have published sustainabletourism development plans and sets of principles (for example, IFTO, 1994).

Nevertheless, the concept of sustainable tourism development remains thesubject of vigorous debate. It is variously interpreted and its validity as a means

and/or end of tourism development is questioned in many quarters, reflecting,in part,the lackofclarityor consensusconcerning its meaning or objectives. Defi-nitions abound, to the extent that defining sustainable development in thecontext of tourism has become something of a cottage industry in the academicliterature of late (Garrod & Fyall, 1998: 199). Such definitions fall primarilywithin two categories; those which are tourism-centric (Hunter, 1995), focusingon sustaining tourismas an economic activity, and those whichconsider tourismas an element of wider sustainabledevelopment policies (Cronin, 1990). Sustain-able tourismhas also been referred toasan adaptive paradigm, encompassingaset of meta-principles within which several different development pathwaysmay be legitimised according to circumstance (Hunter, 1997: 859). Whilst thisconceptualisation of sustainable tourism as a kind of free-floating developmentprocess is undoubtedly attractive, neatly side-stepping the need for a concisedefinition, it nevertheless does little to sharpen the focus of study onto theprocesses and overall viability of the concept.

0966-9582/00/01 0001-19 $10.00/0 2000 R. SharpleyJOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 8, No. 1, 2000

1

Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


4/21

More importantly, however, although sustainable tourism should be consis-tent with the tenets of sustainable development (Stabler & Goodall, 1996: 170),suggesting that the sustainable tourism discourse should be built upon a solidtheoretical foundationand understanding of the concept from which it has been

born, there has been a consistent and fundamental failure to build a theoretical

link between the concept of sustainable tourism and its parental paradigm(Lanfant & Graburn, 1992: 112). This is not to suggest that sustainable tourismhas become totally divorced from sustainable development. However, thevalidity of the sustainable development concept and its specific applicability totourism are rarely, if ever, questioned. That is, with a few recent exceptions (forexample, Wall, 1997;Mowforth & Munt, 1998), there appears to be a rigid accep-tance that the principles and objectives of sustainable development can be easilytransposed onto most tourism development contexts (Inskeep, 1991: xviii). As aresult, a number of fundamental questions with respect to tourisms potentialrole in the development process in general, and the validity of the sustainabletourism development concept in particular, are overlooked.

The purpose of this paper, then, is to build a theoretical bridge betweensustainable tourism and the broader framework of sustainable development inorder to introduce a more solid theoretical foundation to the sustainable tourismdevelopment debate. As such, it does not seek to addto the already considerableliterature concerned with the definition and processes of sustainable tourismdevelopment, but to explore the theoretical basis and, hence, the validity of theconcept. The first task, therefore, is to briefly review the theory of sustainabledevelopment.

WhatisSustainableDevelopment?

The concept of sustainable development suffers the same definitional prob-lems as it does in its tourism-specific guise. More than 70 different definitionshave been proposed (Steer & Wade-Gery, 1993) and, perhaps inevitably, peoplefrom many diverse fields use the term in different contexts and they have verydifferent concepts, approaches and biases (Heinen, 1994). More specifically, ithas also been criticised for being both ambiguous and inherently contradictory(Redclift, 1987; Worster, 1993). Its ambiguity lies in an absence of semantic andconceptual clarity, resulting in its focus and purpose being interpreted in avariety of ways (Ll, 1991),whilst some commentators also doubt the compati-

bility of resource conservation and economic development (Friend, 1992); theyregard sustainable development as an oxymoron. Certainly, in the context ofneo-classical economics and the more traditional ecological perspective, the

technocentric (economic growth/resource substitution) approach to develop-ment is diametrically opposed to the ecocentric, deep-ecology approach whichrepresents a virtual rejection of even the sustainable exploitation of naturesresources (ORiordan, 1981a, 1981b; Turner, 1993).

To further complicate matters, others support the view that the concept ofsustainable development in fact mediates between these two polar positions,providing a forum atwhich a multitude ofviewpoints canbe addressed. Inotherwords, according to Skolimowski (1995), and in a similar vein to Hunters

concept of an adaptive paradigm referred to above, the inherent ambiguity of

2 J o u rn a l o f S u s t a in a b l e T o u r is m

Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


5/21

the concept is, paradoxically, its strength. It is evident, then, that a universallyacceptable interpretation of sustainable development is unlikely to be forth-coming. However, as Ll (1991) suggests, the philosophy of sustainable devel-opment may be explored by splitting it into its constituent parts and assessingeach separately. In other words, sustainable development arguably represents

the juxtaposition of two separate objectives or processes and may be consideredas an equation (Ll, 1991):

Sustainable development = development + sustainability

Thus, the theory of sustainable development can be usefully explored bycombining development theory with the concept of sustainability. Inevitablythis over-simplifies the complex amalgam of political, economic, cultural andecological processes encompassed by sustainable development. Nevertheless, itdoes provide a useful basis for conceptualising its inherent principles and objec-tives and the extent to which they can be transposed onto the specific tourismdevelopment context.

Development

Despite the attention paid to tourism as a vehicle of development, relativelyfew attempts have been made in the tourism literature to draw on developmenttheory, notable exceptions being Britton(1982),Erisman(1983),Lea (1988)Pearce(1989), Harrison (1992), de Kadt (1992), Opperman (1993), Dieke (1995) andTelfer (1996). Inshort,theconceptsof tourismand development remain adiscor-dant and unreconciled set of thoughts (Nelson, 1993: 4). However, to appraisetourisms potential role in (sustainable) development, it cannot be viewed inisolationfromthe broaderdevelopmental contextofwhich ismeant tobea part.

Development is an ambiguous term that is used to describe both a processthrough which a society moves from one condition to another, and also the goalof that process. That is, the development process in a society may result in itsachieving the stateor condition ofdevelopment. Yet, development does not refer

to a single process or set of events, nor does it imply a single, static condition.Thus, development may be seen as a term bereft of precise meaning [and] little more than the lazy thinkers catch-all term, used to mean anthing from

broad, undefined change to quite specific events (Welch, 1984).The concept of development has evolved over time (Goulet, 1992). Tradi-

tionally, it has been defined in terms of Western-style modernisation achievedthrough economic growth (Rostow, 1960; Redclift, 1987: 15). Indeed, develop-ment and economic growth have been widely considered synonymous.

However, recognition of the frequent failure of economic growth policies tosolve social and political problems resulted in the aims of development

becoming more broadly redefined (Seers, 1969). Initially, it came to be seen as aprocess of modernisation with the emphasis on how to inculcatewealth-oriented behaviour and values in individuals (Mabogunje, 1980:38), butthis was superseded by the broader concept of development as the reduction ofwidespread poverty, unemployment and inequality. People, rather than things,

became the focus of attention and the notion of self-reliance, in particular,

became a fundamental developmental objective. Thus, development nowimplied inter alia, reducing cultural dependence on one or more of the great

T o u r i sm a n d S u s ta in a b le D e v e lo p m e n t T h e o r y 3

Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


6/21

powers (Seers, 1977). It was no longer considered to be a process lying in thecontrol, or trusteeship of the advanced, Western nations (Cowen & Shenton,1996:x); development can be properly assessedonly in terms of the totalhumanneeds, values, and standardsof the good life and the good societyperceived by thevery societies undergoing change (Goulet, 1968) (emphasis added).

In short, in the space of some thirty years the concept of development hasevolved from a process or condition defined according to strict economiccriteriato a continual, global process of human development guided by the principle ofself-reliance; whilst economic growth remains a cornerstone, it also embracessocial, political and cultural components. The question now to be addressed is:how isdevelopment achieved, in particular throughthemedium of tourism?The

basis of the answer lies in a brief review of development theory.

Theoriesofdevelopment

Since the early 1950s, four main schools of development thought, or para-digms, have evolved. Each new paradigm has emerged as a result of increasingknowledge and understanding of the developmental process and a consequen-tial rejection of preceding paradigms (Telfer, 1996; Wall, 1997).

M o d e r n is a t io n t h e o r y The evolutionistperspective of development forms the theoretical foundation

of the modernisation paradigm, chronologically the first development para-

digm. According to this, modernisation is an endogenous process which realisesthe potential for development in all societies (Hettne, 1990: 61). Different soci-eties may be identified as lying at different points on the traditional-moderndevelopment continuum, placed according to indices such as GNP, per capitaincome,acceptanceof modernvalues, socialdifferentiation, orpolitical integra-tion (Fitzgerald, 1983: 1213), but all are following the evolutionary path tomodernisation.

The core premise of the paradigm is economic growth which, according to

Rostow(1960), enables societies toadvance through stages from traditional toanage of mass consumption. The benefits of economic growth trickle down ordiffuse through the spread of growth impulses (Browett, 1985) or poles ofgrowth (Perroux, 1955),eventually leading to an adjustment in regional dispari-ties (Opperman, 1993). Interestingly, though criticised on a number of grounds,particularly the useof traditional and modern as ambiguous ideal-type classi-fications with Western ethnocentric overtones (Bendix, 1967; Mehmet, 1995), themodernisation paradigm continues to underpin the rationale for tour-ism-induced development. That is, the perceived developmental contribution oftourismthrough, for example, foreign exchange earnings, the multiplier conceptand backward linkages throughout the economy, are firmly embedded inmodernisation theory. Development is assumed to occur as a result of theeconomic benefits that diffuse from growth impulses (the tourism sector) orgrowth poles (resorts). Therefore, despite the present widespread acceptance oftheprinciples of sustainabletourism,tourisms role in development continues to

be justified for the most part on the more narrow basis of economic growth,contradicting more recent development theory.


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


7/21

D e p e n d e n c y th e o r y Dependency theory, the dominant development paradigm of the late 1960s

and 1970s,has informed much tourism research, particularly with respect to theway in which international tourism reflects historical patterns of colonialismand dependency (Lea, 1988: 10). Essentially, dependency theory represents

a conditioning situation in which the economies of one group of countriesare conditioned by the development and expansion of others. A relation-ship of interdependence between two or more economies becomes adependent relationship when some countries can expand only as a reflec-tion of the expansion of the dominant countries. (Dos Santos, 1970: 231)

In particular, the theory proposes that capitalist development in the core,metropolitan centres perpetuates underdevelopment in theperiphery as a resultof economic surpluses in the periphery being expropriated by foreign enter-prises, misused by the stateor squandered by the traditionalelites. The possibili-ties for development are thus limited and for backward countries to enter theroad of economic growth and social progress, the political framework of theirexistence has to be drastically revamped (Baran, 1963). That is, the solution liesin withdrawal from the world capitalist system and development guided by asocialist political system. As discussed shortly, there are evident correlations

between dependency theory and the political economy of international tourism.

T h e n e o - c la s s ic a l c o u n t e r re v o lu t io n ( T o y e , 1 9 9 3 ) During the 1970s, a variety of new schools of development thought emerged;

the consecutive paradigms of modernisation and dependency were replaced bya kaleidoscope diversity of new approaches (Hoogvelt, 1982: 128). Theseranged from the limits-to-growth school (Anderson, 1991; also Mishan, 1969;Schumacher, 1974) which included the eco-doomsday theorists (Preston, 1996:241) of the Club of Rome to the Basic Needs Approach (Streeten, 1977) and thecalls for the establishment ofa New InternationalEconomicOrder. It is nocoinci-

dence that during this period attention was first drawn to the potential negativeconsequences of the unbridled growth of mass tourism.However, it was not until the 1980s and the Reagan-Thatcher era that a new

identifiable development paradigm emerged. Following neo-classical economictheory which suggests that liberalised international trade can be a positive forcein export-led economic development (Ingham, 1995: 334), the neo-classicalcounter revolution was manifested in development policies that built upon thefundamental reliance on the free market and that favoured market liberalisation,the privatisation of state enterprises and overall reduction of state intervention.In particular, it has guided the policy of the World Bank and the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) and their Structural Adjustment Lending (SAL)programmes which render loan facilities conditional on specific policy andeconomic structurechanges in loan-receiving countries (Mosley andToye, 1988).However, such policies have attracted widespread criticism both in a generaldevelopment context (Harrigan & Mosley, 1991) and in the specific context oftourism (Dieke, 1995).


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


8/21

A lt e r n a t iv e d e v e l o p m e n t Representing, both chronologically and logically, the current end-point of the

development paradigm continuum, alternative development advocates a breakfrom the preceding linear, economic growth-based policies (Redclift, 1987). Incontrast, it proposes a broaderresource-based, bottom-upapproachembracing

human and environmental concerns. The fundamental principle of alternativedevelopment is, therefore, that it should be endogenous, satisfying basicneeds the fulfilment of peoples potential to contribute to and benefit from their owncommunity (Streeten, 1977) and encouraging self-reliance. Thus, it is basedupon a grassroots, community focus to development, building on the argumentthat development does not start with goods; it starts with people and theireducation, organisation and discipline (Schumacher, 1974: 140). However, theimportance of recognising the environmental constraints to development, or theneed for ecodevelopment (Redclift, 1987: 34) are also central to the alternativedevelopment thesis.

There are evident links between alternative development and tourism. Forexample, Emery (1981)considered alternativefutures in tourism,whilstDernoi(1981) proposed alternative tourism as a new style in North-South relations.The concept of environmental harmony (Budowski, 1976; Farrell and McLellan,1987) and self-reliance, fundamental requirements of alternative development,also became the focus of research into alternative tourism, the latter manifestedin the emerging literature on local community involvement in tourism develop-ment (Murphy, 1983, 1985, 1988; Haywood, 1988). As will be seen shortly, alter-native development also provides the foundation for sustainable developmentwhich, as noted earlier, may be conceptualised as the fusion of developmenttheory and environmental sustainability.

Sustainability

Just as development theory has evolved from the narrow, classical economicgrowth perspective into the broader, alternative development approach, so too

has environmental concern the driving force behind sustainability evolvedfrom the more narrowconservation ideology of the19thcentury into the broaderenvironmental movement of the late 20th century. Since the 1960s, in particular,environmentalism has come to embrace notonly resource problems, but also thetechnological, economic, social and political processes underpinning such prob-lems. Moreover, and of particular relevance to the present discussion, the focusof environmentalism has also become global. Influenced by Bouldings notion ofspaceship earth, it has been recognised that the effluence of affluence does not

respectnationalboundaries.The earth isnowviewed asa closedsystem,a singlespaceship, without unlimited reservoirs of anything, either for extraction or forpollution, and in which, therefore, man [sic] must find his place in a cyclicalecological system which is capable of continuous reproduction of material formeven though it cannot escape having inputs of energy (Boulding, 1992: 31).

It is this that sets the parameters for the concept of sustainability. The globalecosystems source and sink functions have a finite capacity to, respectively,supply the needs of production/consumption and absorb the wastes resulting

from the production/consumption process. Thus, the variables in the equationbecome (a) the rate at which the stock of natural (non-renewable) resources is


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


9/21

depleted relative to the development of substitute, renewable resources, (b) therate at which waste is deposited back into the ecosystem relative to theassimilative capacity of the environment, and (c) global population levels andper capita levels of consumption (Goodland, 1992: 31).

Of course, perspectives on sustainability (and sustainable tourism) vary

according to environmental ideology. Definitions of sustainability and how itmay be achieved are subject to ecocentric or technocentric approaches(ORiordan, 1981a) which are themselves underpinned by alternative politicaland socioeconomic ideologies. However, for the purpose of this paper,sustainability can be viewed as, simply, the capacity for continuance.

Development+sustainability=sustainabledevelopment

As suggested earlier, sustainable development may be conceptualised as ajuxtaposition of two schools of thought: development theory and environmentalsustainability. The most recent thinking in both concepts was first combinedwithin the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future (WCED ,1987). However,the report has been criticised for its central, Western-technocentric developmentthrough economic growth message (Adams, 1990: 5765). In contrast, a morerecent report, the IUCNs Caring for the Earth (IUCN, 1991), gives primacy tothe requirement for more sustainable lifestyles, particularly in wealthier, devel-oped nations. Arguing that more affluent groups or countries, either throughignorance or lack of concern, live unsustainably, its message is that resourceproblems are not really environmental problems: they are human problems(Ludwiget al., 1993). Arguably and as suggested shortly, nowhere is this morepertinent than in the context of tourism.

A comparison of the two reports is beyond the scope of this paper. However,the fundamental principles and strategies they propose, combined with thetenets of alternative development and sustainability outlined above, permit theconstruction of a conceptual model of sustainable development. Inevitably, thisdoes not reveal the inherent variablemixture of political, economic, cultural and

environmental forces that result in a lack of definitional clarity. Nevertheless, itprovides a basic template against which, in the following section, the viability ofsustainable tourism development may be compared. This conceptual model ofsustainable development, embracing its fundamental principles, objectives andprerequisites for its achievement, is summarised in Table 1.

TourismandSustainableDevelopment:ACritique

The purpose of this section is to consider the extent to which sustainable

tourism development, as generally proposed in the literature, accurately reflectsthe conceptual model of sustainable development suggested here. To this end,thefollowingdiscussionfollowsthe fourcomponentsof the model in Table 1, theunderlying premise being that sustainable tourism development should logi-cally embrace both development and sustainability objectives of its parentalparadigm.


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


10/21

Fundamentalprinciples

The concept of sustainable development is underpinned by three funda-mental principles which emanate from both its developmental and environ-mental contexts and against which sustainable tourism development may becompared.

H o l is tic a p p r o a c h Sustainable development advocates an holistic perspective; development can

only be sustainable if it is consideredwithina globalpolitical, socioeconomicandecological context. At first sight, the underlying philosophy of sustainabletourism development appears to embrace this notion of holistic planning. Lane(1994), for example, views sustainable tourism as a balanced triangular relation-ship between host areas and their habitats and peoples,holiday makers,andthetourism industry where no one stakeholder upsets the equilibrium. Similarly,

Mller (1994) proposes a magic pentagon comprising five balanced elements


Table 1 A model of sustainable development: principles and objectives

Fundamental principles Holistic approach: development and environmental issuesintegrated within a global social

Futurity: focus on long-term capacity for continuance ofthe global ecosystem

Equity: development that is fair and equitable and whichprovides opportunities for access to and use of resources

for all members of all societies, both in the present andfuture

Development objectives Improvement of the quality of life for all people: educa-tion, life expectancy, opportunities to fulfil potential

Satisfaction of basic needs; concentration on the natureof what is provided rather than income

Self-reliance: political freedom and local decision mak-ing for local needs

Endogenous development

Sustainability objectives Sustainable population levels

Minimal depletion of non-renewable natural resources

Sustainable use of renewable resources

Pollution emissions within the assimilative capacity ofthe environment

Requirements for sustain-able development

Adoption of a new social paradigm relevant to sustain-able living

International and national political and economic sys-

tems dedicated to equitable development and resourceuse

Technological systems that can search continuously fornew solutions to environmental problems

Global alliance facilitating integrated developmentpolicies at local, national and international levels

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

Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


11/21

and, in both cases, the potential for sustainable tourism development exists if nosingle factor or stakeholder predominates.

Importantly, however, the extent of the holisticapproach to tourism develop-ment is, in general, the tourism system itself and, in particular, individualtourism destinations or industry sectors. In other words, despite the acceptance

that tourism should be integrated into nationalandlocal development strategies,the focus of sustainable tourism development is usually inwards, or prod-uct-centred. This is not surprising. Given the complex, fragmented,multi-sectoral and profit-oriented nature of the tourism industry, theoperationalisation of sustainable tourism development is fraught with difficul-ties (Hunter, 1995). Thus, sustainable tourism strategies in practicetend to focusalmost exclusively on localised, relatively small-scale development projects,rarely transcending local or regional boundaries, or on particular industrysectors. At the same time, although different sectors of the tourism industry are,to varying degrees, adopting environmentally sound policies, there is littleevidence of a common development and business philosophy according tosustainable principles across the industry (Forsyth, 1995).

This is not to say that localised destination or sectoral strategies are neithernecessarynordesirable. Nevertheless, althoughsuch strategies should ideally belocated within the wider national or global context, many are not. For example,Place (1995) demonstrates how eco-tourism in Tortuguero, Costa Rica, thoughmore environmentally benign, has itself contributed little to the sustainabledevelopment of local rural communities whilst the national policy remainsfocused on larger-scale, coastal tourism development. More generally, tourism isa global phenomenon, yet its scope in terms of resource exploitation and its scaleas a global activity are overlooked. Thus, in a sense, developing sustainableformsof tourism insome areassimplysweeps the problems of tourism under thecarpet ofother destinations.As Klemm(1992) suggests, the real challenge for thefuture is to provide sustainable tourism for the mass market.

Moreover, attention is rarely paid to the relationship between tourism and

other economic sectors and the relative merits of alternative developmentalstrategies (Hunter, 1995).Over-dependence on tourismhaslong been recognisedas a potential cost of tourism development, yet tourism is frequently permittedto become the dominant economic activity, even when developed within asustainable planning framework. Bali (Wall, 1993) and Cyprus (Sharpley, 1998)are just two examples of where tensions have arisen between tourism andsustainable development policies, suggesting that a variety of factorswithin thepolitical economy of tourism militate against the implementation of sustainable

tourism development. In other words, the role of tourism as a developmentaltool is rarely questioned; the aim becomes sustaining tourism itself and the lackofattentionpaid toa balanced relationshipwith other economicsectorsresults intourism competing for, rather than sharing, resources. In the extreme, the activi-ties of other economic sectors are seen as an attackon tourism (Jenner & Smith,1992).

F u t u r i t y Futurity is undoubtedly a primary concern of sustainable tourism develop-

ment policies. The WTO (1993) defines sustainable tourism development as


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


12/21

meeting the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting andenhancing opportunity for the future, whilst most sustainabletourism develop-ment strategies stress the need for due regardto be given to the long-term appro-priate use of natural and human resources. However, the above argumentsurrounding the product-centred focus of sustainable tourism development

principles is equally applicable here. That is, the focus is primarily upon theecologicalsustainability of tourism itself rather than thepotential contributionoftourism to long term sustainable development. There is, therefore, somecommonality of approach between the two sets of principles within the contextof futurity but little evidence withinsustainable tourism development principlesof concern for the potential contribution of tourism to long-term developmentgoals.

E q u i t y

Within the context of equity, the concept of sustainable tourism developmentis both weak and contradictory. Sustainable development calls for both intra-and inter-generational equity; that is, fair and equitable opportunities for devel-opment for all people, both in the present and in the future. Tourism has long

been considered a basis for reaching a greater level of respect and confidenceamong all the peoples of the world (WTO, 1980: 3), whilst, more specifically,alternative tourism seeks to achieve mutual understanding, solidarity andequality amongst participants (Holden, 1984: 15). In other words, in addition to

its economic developmental role, tourism is considered by some to be an effec-tive means of achieving a more equitable social condition on a global scale.However,althoughmostsustainable tourism development strategies emphasisethe importance of community-based, or collaborative, tourism planning, theobjective being a more equitable share of the benefits accruing from tourismdevelopment (Murphy, 1985;Godfrey, 1990; Inskeep, 1991; Dowling, 1993; Getz& Jamal, 1994;Brohman,1996), in reality boththe flows and thestructure of inter-national tourism suggest that equitable development through tourism is unach-

ievable.Despite the emergence ofnewer popular destinationsand newtourism gener-ating countries, the major international tourism flows and correspondingeconomic benefits remain highly polarised and regionalised. Europe and NorthAmerica are, in particular, the main beneficiaries of tourism development, yeteven within most Third World regions tourism has been monopolised by a fewcountries to the exclusion of the rest (Brohman, 1996). Moreover, in many lessdeveloped countries which are popular tourism destinations, tourism isfrequently distributed unevenly, diminishing the opportunities for equitabledevelopment through tourism even on a national scale (Britton, 1982; Jenkins,1982; Opperman, 1993). Tourism is frequently influenced by local power rela-tionships which favour the political or economic lite, or concentrated withinenclave resorts or tourist ghettos, thereby contributing to socioeconomic inequi-ties through a developmental process which, ironically, is oftenpromotedby thecentral governments of the countries in which the resorts are located (Pearce,1989: 95).

This situation is exacerbated by the structure of international tourism. Notonly are tourist flows dominated by western, industrialised nations, but also the

1 0 J o u rn a l o f S u s t a in a b l e T o u r is m

Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


13/21

three most lucrative components of [international] tourism (i.e. marketingand the procurement of customers, international transportation, and food andlodging) are normally handled by vertically integrated [western owned] globalnetworks (Brohman,1996).As a result, there isa lack of local communitycontrolover resource use (Oliver-Smith et al., 1989) and, in particular, a significant

proportion of tourism earnings is lost through overseas leakages. In short, thepatterns and structures of international tourism, particularlybetween the metro-politan centres and peripheral developing nations, reinforce rather thandiminish global socioeconomic inequities. Thus, unsurprisingly, although local-ised, small-scale (alternative/sustainable) developments attempt to reverse thistrend, much international tourism still reflects the problems of dependency(Hivik and Heiberg, 1980; Britton, 1982; Bastin, 1984; Nash, 1989; Wilkinson,1989).

Overall, then, sustainable tourism development policies do not fully embracethe three fundamental principles of sustainable development. Although thenotions of futurity, equity and an holistic perspective are evident in specifictourism development principles, their focus is inward and product-centred,giving primacy to ecological sustainability over the developmental contributionof tourism. Furthermore, the structure of international tourism more accuratelyreflects the dependency theory of development. As now discussed, these weak-nesses are also evident in relation to the more specific develop-mental/sustainabilityobjectives and requirements of sustainabledevelopment.

Developmentobjectives

Tourism is widely perceived to be an effective vehicle for development,although,assuggestedearlier, thegoals andinherent processesof developmentare largely overlooked in the tourism literature. Therefore, the objectives of tour-ism-related development should, logically, be commensurate with those of theprevailing development paradigm: sustainable development.

Certainly, this is often the case in principle. However, the extent to which the

stated objectives of sustainable tourism development represent realistic plan-ning and management goals in practice is less certain. In particular, the issues ofthe scale and scope of international tourism and the character of the tourismproduction system, as well as the tourism-centric orientation of most sustain-able tourism development policies, again undermine the potential for achievingthe objectives of sustainable development through tourism. For example, thedegree of improvement of the quality of life forallpeople (see Figure 1) isrestricted by the spatial inequity of tourism development. Research into local

community attitudes towards tourism has revealed that, usually, those who aredirectly involved in tourism view it favourably, whereas those who are lesseconomically dependent on tourism for income or employment tend to beambivalent, if not openly antagonistic, towards tourism (Belisle & Hoy, 1980;Brougham & Butler, 1981; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Akiset al., 1996). Furthermore,given the relationship between tourism development and modernisation theoryreferred to earlier, it is unclear how tourism can contribute to the specificelements of the good life as an inherent objective of sustainable development.

Similarly, the extent to which import substitution and backward linkagesthrough the local economy, a vital factor in sustainable development, occur is

T o u r i sm a n d S u s ta in a b le D e v e lo p m e n t T h e o r y 1 1

Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


14/21

also dependent onthenature of tourismproduction. In thecase of tourismin TheGambia, for example, not only is tourism development largely restricted to theAtlantic coastal strip, but virtually all goods to support the tourism industry areimported (Sharpley & Sharpley, 1996;Thomson et al., 1995). As a result, there areminimal backward linkages throughout the Gambian economy, net tourism

earnings represent approximately 20% of total tourist expenditure, and rela-tively few of the countrys one million population benefit from tourism.The satisfaction of basic needs and self-reliance, fundamental objectives of

sustainable development, are also implicit objectives of sustainable tourismdevelopment. In particular, the emphasis on community involvement in theplanning, development and control of tourism is a linchpin of sustainabletourism development strategies. That is, it is only when priority is given to thedevelopmental needs and interests of local communities over the goals of thetourism industry itself that broader social development will be achieved(Simmons, 1994; Brohman, 1996). Although there is widespread support forcommunity-based tourism planning, in practice such local involvement is,generally, only feasible on a small scale, whilst some commentators question thevery concept of community involvement in tourism(Taylor, 1995).Nevertheless,there are many examples of successful locally planned and managed tourismdevelopments, such as the locally-controlled rural tourism projects in Europesupported by the LEADER programme (Barke & Newton, 1994).

However, the achievement of development objectives, particularlyself-reliance and endogenous development, must be considered within thecontext of a global tourism production system which, although fragmented,diverse and comprising a multitude of small businesses, is becoming increas-ingly dominated by major international players. The enormous power wielded

by, for example, tour operators and their resultant ability to control tourist flows,to influence tourist attitudes, expectations and behaviour and to influence thenature of tourism services, severely restricts opportunities for developmentaccording to local needs. Moreover, the very nature of tourism as a form of

discretionaryconsumptionsuggests thatendogenous development is an unreal-istic objective. A variety of economic, political and social factors can adverselyimpact upon the demand for tourism, thereby not only weakening the ability ofdestinations or countries to maintain control over tourism-related development

but also highlighting the inherent dependency (i.e. non-sustainability) of alltourismdevelopment. Therefore, although there is somecorrelationbetween thedevelopmental objectives of sustainable development and sustainable tourismdevelopment, such objectives are of greatest relevance to local, small-scale

tourism developments and may even then be subject to a variety of exogenousfactors.

Sustainabilityobjectives

The principles of sustainable tourism most closely reflect those of its parentalparadigm within the context of environmental sustainability objectives. Afundamental principle of all sustainable tourismdevelopment policies is that thenatural, social and cultural resources upon which tourism depends should be

protected and enhanced. Furthermore, most, if not all, sectors of the tourismindustry have a vested interest in following such a policy. This may result from


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


15/21

either a genuine commitment to sound environmental practice, from the adop-tion of ethical business principles which, according to some commentators,embrace sustainability issues (Wheeler, 1992; Hultsman, 1995) or for more prag-matic, business reasons (Swarbrooke, 1994).

However, the extent to which sustainabilityobjectives are achievable remains

questionable. Resource sustainability is dependent on all sectors involveddirectly and indirectly in the tourism industry working towards common goals.Therefore, whilst there is no doubt that different organisations and industrysectors have, to a lesser or greater extent, attempted to implement sound envi-ronmental business practices, it will only be when the entire tourism industryaccepts the need to introduce policies for sustainable resource utilisation thatsustainability within the context of tourism will be achievable. In other words,there is little point in only some tourism organisations,or only particular aspectsof tourism operations, being sustainable; tourism, irrespective of the scale ofanalysis, cannot exist in isolation from regional, national and global resourceutilisation concerns (Hunter, 1995). Thus, the issue of scope and the funda-mental requirement of an holisticapproach again reveal an inherent weakness ofsustainable tourism development policies.

Requirementsforsustainabledevelopment

As suggested in Table 1, the achievement of sustainable development isdependent upon the fulfilment of a number of basic requirements. In relation totourism, a number of points deserve emphasis. Firstly, it is recognised thatnational and international co-operation should exist to facilitate the adoption ofsustainable tourism development policies. However, the political structure andfragmented nature of the industry suggest that political systems dedicated toequitable development and resource use are unlikely to be forthcoming.

Secondly, from a technocentric perspective on development, many of theprinciples of sustainable development have been criticised for ignoring thecontribution of technological advance to solving environmental problems

(Beckerman, 1992).There is littledoubt that technologyhas much to contributetosustainable resource use, although within the context of tourism its role is lessclear. On the one hand, technology has provided the means for reducing certainenvironmental impacts,such asnoise reduction and fuel efficiency in jet engines.On the other hand, technological advance has, paradoxically, contributed to thecontinuing growth in tourism, not only increasing tourist numbers but alsoaccess to more distant and fragile environments.

Thirdly, sustainable tourism development requires the adoption of a new

social paradigm relevant to sustainable living; herein lies what is, arguably, thegreatest challenge to its achievement. For example, many practical environ-mental policies are proposed by the International Hotels Environment Initiative(IHEI), launched in 1992, yet it has been suggested that fully convincingevidence of a major shift in consumer attitudes backed by a willingness to payfor environmental quality does not exist for hotels (Middleton & Hawkins,1993). This is indicativeofa widerproblem. Much of the literatureon sustainabletourism claims that tourists are becoming increasingly environmentally

conscious and are, therefore, seeking out sustainable forms of tourism or areprepared to adopt modesof behaviour more appropriate to the tourismenviron-


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


16/21

ments they enter. This position is justified partly on the results of surveys whichimply the emergence of the so-called green consumer, and partly on rapidlyincreasing participation in ecotourism (Cater, 1993). However, there is littleevidence to suggest that the popularity of ecotourismis specifically relatedto theemergence of green consumerism (Eagles, 1992), whilst recent research not only

reveals significant ambivalence amongst consumers to different environmentalissues, but that stated environmental concern is rarely translated into consis-tently green consumer behaviour (Macnaghten & Urry, 1998; Witherspoon,1994). Thus, it is unlikely that there exists a widespread propensity amongsttourists to adopt a new, sustainable (tourism) lifestyle; indeed, as McKercher(1993)argues, the nature of the consumption of tourism positively discriminatesagainst the possibility of its achievement.

Conclusion

This paper set out to explore the theoretical divide between the concept ofsustainable tourism development and its parental paradigm, sustainable devel-opment. In so doing, it has revealed that, although sustainable tourism shouldlogically reflect the tenets of sustainable development, there exist significantdifferences between the two concepts. In particular, despite its appearance as anholistic, equitable and future-oriented development strategy, sustainabletourismdevelopment hasa largely inward, product centred perspective. In other

words,whilst it embraces theobjectives of environmentalsustainability,sustain-able tourism does not appear to be consistent with the developmental aspects ofsustainabledevelopment. This is,perhaps,notsurprising. Neither the inherentlyimperialistic, dependent nature of tourism production on a global scale nor thecharacteristics of tourism consumption fit easily with the principle of endoge-nous, alternative development. At the same time, the rationale for tourism as ameans of development remains firmly embedded in economic growth-inducedmodernisation theory which, as has been shown, has long been superseded byother developmental paradigms. This suggests that the principles of sustainabledevelopment cannot be transposed onto tourism as a specific economic andsocial activity. In other words, true sustainable tourism development is unach-ievable.

Of course, these issues, particularly the ecological versus developmentalobjectives of sustainable tourism,have been raised elsewhere (Cater, 1991,1993).Moreover, the factors identified here which militate against sustainable tourismdevelopment reflect many of the criticisms of sustainable development itself,including the oxymoronic coinage of the term in general and the more specific

dilemmas of choice, equity, liberty and ownership of the concept(Enzensberger, 1972; Bennett, 1992).However, this paper has provided the theo-retical foundation, previously lacking in the literature, to support the positionthat the concept of sustainable tourism development is, in effect, a red herring.That is, it draws attention away from many of the realities of tourism develop-ment, realities which are in opposition to a number of the principles and objec-tives embodied in the concept of sustainable development.

This is not to suggest that tourism does not play an important developmental

role; indeed, the growth of mass forms of tourism has proved to be a vital and


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


17/21

effective vehicle of economic growth and consequential socioeconomic develop-ment in many nations.Nor is it to suggest that many of the principles of sustain-able tourism are invalid. On the contrary, they play a vital role in drawingattention to the global natureof tourism and the undoubted need to consider theconsequences of tourism development on a global scale. However, on a global

scale, the challenge must be to continue to seek or encourage more environmen-tally benign forms of tourism which best suit a destinations social and economicdevelopment criteria without hiding behind the politicallyacceptableyet in thecontext of tourism inappropriate banner of sustainable development.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Richard Sharpley, Senior Lecturerin Travel and Tourism, University of Northumbria, Longhirst Campus, LonghirstHall, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 3LL ([email protected]).

References

Adams, W.M. (1990) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World.London: Routledge.

Akis, S., Peristianis, N. and Warner, J. (1996) Resident attitudes to tourism development:The case of Cyprus.Tourism Management17 (7), 481494.

Anderson, V. (1991)Alternative Economic Indicators. London: Routledge.Baran, P. (1963) On the political economy of backwardness. In A. Agarwala and S. Singh

(eds) TheEconomicsofUnderdevelopment (pp.7592).Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Barke, M. and Newton, M. (1994) A new rural development initiative in Spain: TheEuropean Communitys Plan LEADER.Geography 79, 366371.

Bastin, R. (1984) Small island tourism: Development or dependency?Development PolicyReview2 (1), 7990.

Beckerman, W. (1992) Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whoseenvironment?World Development 20 (4), 481496.

Belisle, F. andHoy, D. (1980)The perceived impactof tourism by residents: A case study inSanta Marta, Colombia.Annals of Tourism Research 7 (1), 83101.

Bendix, R. (1967)Tradition andmodernity reconsidered.ComparativeStudiesin Society andHistory 9 (3), 292346.

Bennett, G. (1992) Dilemmas: Coping with Environmental Problems. London: Earthscan.Boulding, K. (1992)The economics of the coming spaceship Earth. In A. Markandya and J.

Richardson (ed.)The Earthscan Reader in Environmental Economics(pp. 2735). London:Earthscan.

Britton, S. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the Third World.Annals of TourismResearch 9 (3), 331358.

Brohman, J. (1996) New directions in tourism for Third World development.Annals ofTourism Research 23 (1), 4870.

Brougham, J. and Butler, R. (1981) A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to thesocial impact of tourism.Annals of Tourism Research 8 (4), 569590.

Browett, J. (1985) The newly industrializing countries and radical theories ofdevelopment.World Development 13 (7), 789803.

Budowski, G. (1976) Tourism and environmental conservation: Conflict, coexistence orsymbiosis?Environmental Conservation 3 (1), 2731.

Cater, E. (1991) Sustainable Tourism in the Third World: Problems and Prospects. Discussionpaper No. 3. Department of Geography, University of Reading.

Cater, E. (1993) Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems for sustainable tourismdevelopment.Tourism Management14 (2), 8593.

Cowen, M. and Shenton, R. (1996) Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge.

Cronin, L. (1990)A strategy for tourism and sustainable developments.World Leisure andRecreation 32 (3), 1218.


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


18/21

de Kadt, E. (1992) Making the alternative sustainable: Lessons from development fortourism. In V. Smith and W. Eadington (eds) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials andProblems in the Development of Tourism (pp. 4775). Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.

Dernoi, L. (1981) Alternative tourism: Towards a new style in northsouth relations.International Journal of Tourism Management2 (4), 253264.

Dieke, P. (1995)Tourism and structural adjustment programmes in the African economy.Tourism Economics1 (1), 7193.

Dos Santos, T. (1970) The structure of dependency. American Economic Review60 (2),231236.

Dowling, R. (1993) An environmentally-based planning model for regional tourismdevelopment.Journal of Sustainable Tourism1 (1), 1737.

Eagles, P. (1992)The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists.Journal of Travel Research31 (2), 313.

Emery, F. (1981) Alternative futures in tourism. International Journal of TourismManagement2 (1), 4967.

Enzensberger, H. (1972) A critique of political ecology.New Left Review84, 331.Erisman, M. (1983)Tourism and culturaldependency in the West Indies.Annals of TourismResearch 10 (3), 337362.

Farrell, B. and McLellan, R. (1987) Tourism and physical environment research.Annals ofTourism Research 14 (1), 116.

Fitzgerald, F. (1983) Sociologies of development. In P. Limqueco and B. McFarlane (eds)Neo-marxist Theories of Development (pp. 1228). Beckenham: Croom Helm.

Forsyth, T. (1995) Business attitudes to sustainable tourism: Self-regulation in the UKoutgoing tourism industry.Journal of Sustainable Tourism3 (4), 210231.

Friend, A. (1992)Economics, ecology and sustainabledevelopment: Are they compatible?

Environmental Values1 (2), 157170.Garrod, B. and Fyall, A. (1998) Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism

Management19 (3), 199212.Getz, D. and Jamal, T. (1994) The environmentcommunity Symbiosis: A case for

collaborative tourism planning.Journal of Sustainable Tourism2 (3), 152173.Godfrey, K. (1990) The tourism planning charrette: A strategy model for community

based tourism planning. Paper presented at the Conference on Tourism Research intothe 1990s, Durham University.

Goodland, R. (1992) The case that the World has reached its limits. In R. Goodland, H.Daly, S. Serafy and B. von Droste (eds) Environmentally Sustainable Economic

Development: Building on Brundtland(pp. 1527). Paris: UNESCO.Goulet, D. (1968) On the goals of development.Cross Currents18, 387405.Goulet, D. (1992)Development: Creatorand destroyer of values.WorldDevelopment20(3),

467475.Harrigan, J. and Mosley, P. (1991) Evaluating the impact of World Bank structural

adjustment lending.Journal of Development Studies27 (3), 6394.Harrison, D. (1992) International tourism and the less developed countries: The

background. In D. Harrison (ed.)Tourism and the Less Developed Countries(pp. 118).London: Bellhaven Press.

Haywood, M. (1988) Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community.

Tourism Management9 (2), 105118.Heinen, J. (1994) Emerging, diverging and converging paradigms on sustainable

development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 1,2233.

Hettne, B. (1990) Development Theory and the Three Worlds. Harlow: Longman.Hivik, T. andHeiberg, T. (1980)Centre-periphery tourism and self-reliance. International

Social Science Journal32 (1), 6998.Holden, P. (1984) Alternative Tourism With a Focus on Asia. Chiang Mai, Thailand:

Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism.Hoogvelt, A. (1982)

The Third World in Global Development. London: Macmillan.


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


19/21


20/21

Opperman, M. (1993) Tourism space in developing countries.Annals of Tourism Research20 (4), 535556.

ORiordan, T. (1981a) Environmentalism (2nd edn). London: Pion.ORiordan, T. (1981b) Environmentalism and education.Journal of Geography in Education

5 (1), 317.Pearce, D. (1989) Tourism Development (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman.Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. (1989)Blueprint for a Green Economy. London:

Earthscan Publications.Perroux, F. (1955) Note on the concept of growth poles. In I. Livingstone (ed.)Economic

Policy for Development: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Place, S. (1995) Ecotourism for sustainable development: Oxymoron or plausible

strategy?GeoJournal35 (2), 161173.Preston, P. (1996) Development Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Redclift, M. (1987) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions London:

Routledge.Rostow, W. (1960)The Stages of Economic Growth:A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Schumacher, E. (1974)Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if PeopleMattered. London:Abacus.

Seers,D. (1969)The meaning ofdevelopment. InternationalDevelopmentReview 11(4),26.Seers,D. (1977)The new meaning of development. InternationalDevelopmentReview19(3),

27.Sharpley, R. (1998) Island Tourism Development: The Case of Cyprus. University of

Northumbria: Centre for Travel and Tourism.Sharpley, R. and Sharpley, J. (1996) Tourism in West Africa: The Gambian experience. In

A. Badgeret al. (ed.)Trading Places: Tourism as Trade. London: Tourism Concern.

Sheldon, P. andVar, T. (1984)Resident attitudes towards tourism in North Wales. TourismManagement5 (1), 4048.

Simmons, D. (1994) Community participation in tourism planning.Tourism Management15 (2), 98107.

Skolimowski, H. (1995) In defence of sustainable development.Environmental Values4,6970.

Stabler, M. and Goodall, B. (1996) Environmental auditing in planning for sustainableisland tourism. In L. Briguglioet al. (eds)Sustainable Tourism in Islandsand Small States:Issues and Policies(pp. 170196). London: Pinter.

Steer, A. and Wade-Gery, W. (1993) Sustainable development: Theory and practice for a

sustainable future.Sustainable Development 1 (3), 2335.Streeten, P. (1977) The basic features of a basic needs approach to development.

International Development Review 3, 816.Swarbrooke, J. (1994) Greening and competitive advantage. ETB Insights (Vol. 6) D4350.

London: English Tourist Board.Taylor, G. (1995) The community approach: Does it really work?Tourism Management 16

(7), 487489.Telfer, D. (1996) Development through economic linkages: Tourism and agriculture in

Indonesia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario.Thomson, C., OHare, G. and Evans, K. (1995) Tourism in the Gambia: Problems and

proposals.Tourism Management 16 (8), 571581.Toye, J. (1993)Dilemmasof Development:Reflectionson theCounter-revolutionin Development

Economics(2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.Turner, K. (1993) Sustainability: Principles and practice. In K. Turner (ed.)Sustainable

Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice(2nd edn) (pp. 336).Chichester: J. Wiley.

Wall, G. (1993) International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism in Bali,Indonesia.Journal of Sustainable Tourism1 (1), 3847.

Wall, G. (1997) Sustainable tourism unsustainable development. In S. Wahab and J.Pigram (ed.)

Tourism, Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability(pp.

3349). London: Routledge.


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012


21/21

WCED (1987)Our Common Future, TheWorld Commissionon Environment andDevelopment.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Welch, R. (1984) The meaning of development: Traditional view and more recent ideas.New Zealand Journal of Geography 76, 24.

Wheeler, M. (1992) Applying ethics to the tourism industry.Business Ethics: A EuropeanReview1 (4), 227235.

Wilkinson, P. (1989) Strategies for tourism in island microstates. Annals of TourismResearch 16 (2), 153177.

Witherspoon, S. (1994) The greening ofbritain: Romance and rationality. In R. Jowell etal.(ed.)British Social Attitudes: The 11th Report(pp. 107139). Aldershot: Dartmouth.

Worster, D. (1993) The shaky ground of sustainability. In W. Sachs (ed.)Global Ecology: ANew Arena of Political Conflict(pp. 132145). London: Zed Books.

WTO(1980)Manila Declarationon WorldTourism. Madrid:WorldTourism Organisation.WTO (1993)Sustainable Tourism Development: A Guide for Local Planners. Madrid: World

Tourism Organisation.


Downloadedby[Univer


01June2012

2000_Richard Sharpley_Tourism and Sustainable Development Exploring the Theoretical Divide

Documents

Transcript of 2000_Richard Sharpley_Tourism and Sustainable Development Exploring the Theoretical Divide