Andrew Holden 2009

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 373–389, 20090160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2008.10.009www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

THEENVIRONMENT-TOURISM NEXUS

Influence of Market Ethics

Andrew HoldenUniversity of Bedfordshire, England

Abstract: Society is at a critical juncture in its relationship with the natural environment, arelationship in which tourism has growing significance. Yet, twenty years after the BrundtlandReport, environmental policy has to date had little influence upon the workings of the tour-ism market, the supply and demand elements of which determine the ‘use’ or ‘non-use’ ofnature. Inherent to the market is its environmental ethic, that is, the extent of our recogni-tion of nature’s rights to existence. The thesis of this article is that whilst environmentalpolicy may possibly have a greater influence in the future, it is the environmental ethicsof the market that will be deterministic to the balance of the tourism-environmentrelationship. Keywords: environmental ethics, environmental economics, sustainable tour-ism. � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

The literature on tourism’s impacts upon the natural environment iswell-established (e.g., Mishan 1969; Mathieson and Wall 1982; Hunterand Green 1995; Mieczkowski 1995; Holden 2008) and it is not theintention to reiterate its negative and positive consequences. The rapidgrowth in demand for international tourism during the second half ofthe last century has lent a global spatial dimension to these impacts.For example, impacts of tourism on the natural environment of Antarc-tica have been observed (Hall and Wouters 1994; Hall and Johnston1995), whilst the contribution of aviation to Greenhouse Gas (GHG)emissions has become an issue of economic and environmental debate.

In the context of the society-environment relationship, which is at acritical juncture for deciding the extent that human activity is permit-ted to alter patterns of nature, our behavior and attitudes towards thenatural environment will subsequently also influence the tourism-envi-ronment nexus. A lexicon of terms depicting environmental problems,including global warming, ozone depletion, bio-diversity loss, speciesextinction, and ecosystem degradation are now interwoven into the

Andrew Holden is Professor of Environment and Tourism and Director for the Centre forResearch into the Environment and Sustainable Tourism (CREST) at the University ofBedfordshire (Putteridge Bury, Luton, LU2 8LE, England. Email: <[email protected]>). His research interests include environmental ethics; sustainable tourism develop-ment; poverty alleviation; and the tourist behavior/natural environment interface.

373

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news


374 A. Holden / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 373–389

discourse of global society. Scientific evidence suggests that thesechanges are a consequence of human activity rather than natural pro-cesses (Stern 2006; IPCC 2007). Significantly, these changes in the nat-ural environment also present a threat to the ‘‘ecosystem services’’upon which our well-being depends (Millennium Ecosystem Assess-ment 2005).

These ecosystem services include: ‘‘provisioning services’’ for exam-ple, food and water; ‘‘regulating services’’ for example, climate andflood control; ‘‘cultural services’’ that offer recreational, aestheticand spiritual benefits; and ‘‘supporting services’’, for example, photo-synthesis and nutrient recycling (ibid.). Evidently the raison d’etre oftourism is closely linked with cultural services but it is ultimately depen-dent upon the other ecosystem services, that is, recreational benefit isless likely to be obtained if there is a reduction in the quality ofprovisioning, regulating and supporting services. Subsequently, thetourism-environment relationship can be understood as being recipro-cal, tourism influencing environmental well-being which in turn im-pacts upon the characteristics and quality of tourism. The predictednumerical and spatial growth of tourism, the United Nations WorldTourism Organization (UNWTO 2007) forecast an increase in interna-tional tourism arrivals from a current level of approximately 800 mil-lion per annum to 1.6 billion per annum by 2020, implies thattourism will have an increasing global significance as a user of naturalresources in the future.

Tourism’s relationship with the natural environment is made com-plex through the involvement of a diversity of stakeholders, the vari-ance of the spatial dimension of its activities, a lack of cleardefinition of key conceptual themes, and the subsequent difficultiesof the systematic planning of its development. For example, whilstmost stakeholders in tourism would probably agree that ‘‘sustainabletourism development’’ is a desirable goal, the variety of interpretationsof what it actually is, typically lends it a reductionist approach, limitedto isolated examples of environmental initiatives and improvementsundertaken by tour operators, hotel groups or destinations. Thisshared observation of the limitations of sustainable tourism leads Saari-nen (2006:1133) to ask: ‘‘Are the present local solutions to global chal-lenges enough, and do they represent all that tourism can do?’’

Thus, twenty years after the publication of the Brundtland Report(WCED 1987), the subsequent advocating of sustainable tourism byinternational agencies including the United Nations World TourismOrganization (UNWTO), United Nations Environment Program(UNEP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi-zation (UNESCO), the European Union (EU), and the World Develop-ment Bank, the extent to which tourism’s relationship with the naturalenvironment has ‘‘improved’’, however we choose to conceptualizeand measure it, is debatable and contentious.

With reference to a list of rhetorical questions concerning the suc-cess of the mitigation of the negative environmental impacts of masstourism, including; whether the majority of hotels and other tourismcompanies had now adopted environmental management systems; nat-

A. Holden / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 373–389 375

ural resource usage had been minimized and the treatment of effluentis common practice; the hundreds of millions of tourists travelingaround the world had an awareness of the impacts of their consump-tion patterns and behavior, a senior representative of the UNWTOcomments: ‘‘It would certainly be naive to pretend to give a purely po-sitive answer to all these questions. . . Progress towards sustainabledevelopment of tourism is hardly satisfactory while sustainable prac-tices are restricted to a few niche markets, with the rest of the tourismindustry keeping its priorities clearly on profit rather than sustainabil-ity’’ (Younis 2003:13).

It is subsequently argued that environmental and sustainable tourismpolicy has had relatively little influence on the workings of the tourismmarket, the main mechanism for deciding how the natural environ-ment and resources will be used for tourism. Subsequently, when con-sidering the future of the tourism-environment relationship, it isnecessary to observe the dynamics of the market, the workings of whichwill be critical in determining the balance of a symbiotic or destructivetourism-environment relationship.

MARKETS, THE ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM

Markets act as the key global mechanism for resource allocation,bringing together buyers and sellers, giving voice to people’s valuesthat reflect their preferences (Pearce, Markandya and Barbier 1988).The basis of the supply and demand functions of the market is thatthey generate order to the wider social system through the establish-ment of an equilibrium price, which acts as a type of rationing mech-anism (Heilbroner and Thurow 1998). However, the use of price asthe tool of a rationing mechanism is problematic when no market ex-ists for a good or service, as is the case for some of the services providedby the natural environment, their consequent ‘‘zero price’’ makingthem vulnerable to over-use and exhaustion. These problems are likelyto be accentuated where resources display characteristics of open-ac-cess, that is, a lack of ownership and regulation, which at a global levelhas traditionally included the atmosphere, oceans outside territorialwaters, and the stratosphere (Pearce 1995). Examples of such resourceover-use in the context of tourism include the emission of aircraft pol-lution into the atmosphere; hotels pumping sewage into the sea; andthe mining of coral reefs for building materials.

Efforts are being made to address this lack of market for environ-mental services, most pressingly in relation to carbon emissions andassociated global warming, a problem in which aviation has increasingsignificance. Typically this takes the form of the establishment of car-bon trading schemes, for example, the EU Emission Trading Scheme(ETS) for CO2 that started in 2005, the aim of which is to help memberstates to meet their Kyoto obligations and progress towards low-carboneconomies (European Union 2005). The EU ETS represents the larg-est existing company-level scheme for trading in CO2 emissions,encompassing all 25 member states (ibid.). The second stage of the


EU ETS (2008–2012) has direct implications for tourism, with theintention to include emissions from all aircraft departing from EU air-ports within the scheme. In this case, through governmental co-opera-tion to agree limits for carbon emissions, the atmosphere haseffectively been turned from an open-access resource to a global com-mon property resource, that is, defined by Pearce (1995) as possessingan ownership structure. However, as Pearce et al (1989) noted twentyyears ago, even if markets for environmental services are eventuallygenerated, there is no guarantee this can be achieved before theyare extinguished or irreparably damaged.

Attempts can also be made to economically cost negative externali-ties and to integrate them into the market system through environmen-tal taxation in line with the ‘‘Polluter Pays Principle’’ (PPP). Yet, todate aviation fuel has remained largely exempt from most fuel taxes(Gossling, Broderick, Upham, Ceron, Dubois, Peeters and Strasdas2007), despite producing per passenger kilometer more CO2 thanany other form of transport (Dubois and Ceron 2006). Nor has inter-national aviation been included in the Kyoto Protocol or emissionsincorporated into national GHG inventories (Gossling et al 2007).Whilst the total contribution of aviation to GHG emissions is a topicof contentious political debate, for example the International AirTransport Association (IATA 2007) suggests it is 2 per cent whilst Gos-sling and Peeters (2007) estimate it to be between 3.4 to 6.8 per cent,there is little dispute about the increasing demand for air transport.Associated with this growth in demand will be increased pollution,even allowing for the continued technological improvements in theenvironmental performance of aviation. The quantity of CO2 pollutionfrom aircraft is expected to double by 2025 to between 1.2 billion to 1.4billion tonnes (Adam 2007), whilst scientific calculations indicate thatthe emissions from air travel into the upper troposphere and loweratmosphere have a larger impact upon warming than the level ofCO2 emissions would suggest (Stern 2006).

Other attempts at internalizing the negative externalities of tour-ism’s environmental impacts are noticeable by their absence, not leastbecause of the difficulties of disassociating tourism impacts from otheranthropogenic causes and inherent spatial discontinuities (Hunter andGreen 1995; Mieczkowski 1995). One exception is the case of the Bale-aric Islands in the Mediterranean, the government of which imple-mented an eco-tax on tourists in 2002 at a rate of one Euro pernight, with the aim of funding environmental improvements includingheritage conservation and the protection of land for national parks.However, following the election of the centre-right Popular Party a yearlater in 2003, the tax was rescinded, much to the delight of foreign touroperators and the Balearic’s business community, the majority ofwhom were opposed to the scheme (Templeton 2003). This oppositionwas founded upon reduced demand following the imposition of thetax caused by tourists choosing to visit competing destinations offeringa more competitive price.

An alternative approach to mitigate tourism’s negative environmen-tal impacts is to attempt to control demand as an objective of policy, in


essence a type of rationing of the resource. Two main approaches maybe used to achieve this, ‘‘price control’’ and ‘‘quota’’ control measures.Price control measures rely upon fixing a higher price for resource usethan that determined by market equilibrium, subsequently reducingdemand. A quota control system places a restriction of access on tour-ism stakeholders to natural resources. An example of this approach isthe tourism policy of Bhutan, which limits the permitted number oftourists to a maximum of 20000 per annum, all of whom have to paya fee of US$ 200 per day during their stay. Out of this sum the govern-ment is allocated US$ 65 per day, whilst the limited number ofgovernment approved tour operators use the remainder to provideservices for the tourists and make a profit (Brunet, Bauer, De Lacyand Tshering 2001; Dalrymple 2008).

However, the use of price or quota control measures to restrict accessof usage is usually reliant upon government interference in the marketplace. Given the neo-liberal emphasis of contemporary political econ-omy, such interference may be regarded as politically inappropriate,as was the case in the Balearics. The case of the Balearics also illustratesthe price elasticity of mass tourism demand, implying that if market val-ues do in fact represent people’s preferences of how to maximize util-ity, there would seem to be little concern over the impacts of tourismon the environment.

However, the ability of markets to be able to accurately reflect theplurality of nature’s values in a meaningful way, to permit an individualto make a fully informed and purposive choice between the alternativeuses of scarce resources is questionable. As Holmes (1988) observes,nature carries a range of values alongside the economic, including alife-support value; re-creational value; scientific value; aesthetic value;genetic-diversity value; historical value; and life value. A concept thathas been developed in ecological economics in an attempt to reflectthe importance of nature in fulfilling a wide range of human needsis ‘‘natural capital’’. The concept emphasizes biophysical and geophys-ical process and their outcomes, for example, fish in the sea, oil in theground, in the context of their relationship to human needs over time(Butcher, 2006). In an early reference to natural capital, Pearce et al(1989:42) suggests that the maintenance of the services of the naturalenvironment is essential for the sustaining of economic livelihoods.Yet, two decades later, difficulties still exist in translating the worthof natural capital into market values (Butcher 2006). Nevertheless,the concept has relevance as a signifier of the reliance of developmentand well-being upon nature.

Even if it should prove possible in the future to establish markets forthe services provided by nature for society, the ‘use’ of nature remainsan ethical question as much as one of economic efficiency. As Hollandand Cox (1992:25) comment in the context of the natural environ-ment: ‘‘An important contribution which the philosopher has to makeis to remind us that society must decide what is right, before decidingwhat is efficient’’. Implicit to this statement is our collective environ-mental ethic and the ‘‘rights’’ of nature, which Holland and Cox(ibid.) argue are not subjective and sacrificial, as is the case for ‘‘eco-


nomic value’’. Hence, it is argued that in an attempt to understand therelationship between tourism and nature, it is necessary to clarify theethical basis of society’s relationship with the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND THE TOURISM MARKET

In the view of Nash (1989), the idea that the human-nature relation-ship should be treated as a moral issue represents one of the mostextraordinary developments in recent intellectual history, having po-tential future implications for thought and behavior comparable tothat of the ideal of human rights at the time of democratic revolutionin the eighteenth century. Similarly, to emphasize the significance ofwhat he believes to be the beginning of a contemporary ‘‘moralchange’’ in attitudes to global warming, Attenborough (2007) makesa comparison to the ethical shift in how slavery was perceived 200 yearsago. He suggests that it will be very difficult to impose limits on peo-ple’s behavior, such as the freedom to fly, without individuals possess-ing a stronger environmental ethic.

Although the need to consider our ethical relationship with nature isa contemporary issue, concerns over the effects of industrial develop-ment upon nature were already being expressed in the 19th centuryby notable social theorists, for example, Henry Thoreau and John Ru-skin. However, it was Aldo Leopold (1949) who overtly expressed thehuman-nature relationship in the context of ethics. In his concept ofthe ‘‘land ethic’’, he comments (1949:219): ‘‘In short, a land ethicchanges the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the land-com-munity to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fel-low-members, and also respect for the community as such.’’

This concept of a land-community has synergy and resonance withindigenous belief systems and practices. That genealogies should existbeyond the human to incorporate the non-human, making humanspart of the landscape rather than separate from it, is common to manyindigenous cultures (Whitt, Roberts, Norman and Grieves 2001). Sub-sequently, it is argued that the spirituality of the non-human world, re-flected in practices such as animism and shamanism, purports to amore caring attitude towards nature than is inherent to humanism.Yet, the extent of the bio-centrism often attributed to indigenous cul-tures is contentious. According to Fennell (2008) this perspective isbased upon little empirical evidence, whilst Pepper (1996) notes thatcounter-views exist to the First Nation Peoples of North America livingas part of an extended community of animals and humans. Inherent tothis counter-position, are accounts of the over-culling of animals; thediscovery of palaeo-biologists of extensive forest and fauna devastationby indigenous peoples before European contact; and the perspectivethat the principal rationale for stewardship was based upon a technicalvis-a-vis moral rationale (Pepper 1996; Fennell 2008).

Included in the concerns of Leopold (1949) was the role of the traveltrade, which he viewed as promoting access to nature in bulk, conse-quently reducing the opportunities for solitude (Hollinshead 1990).However, despite the recent growth in considered literature on ethics


and tourism, for example, Butcher (2003), Fennell (2006), Fennelland Malloy (2007), Hall and Brown (2006), Smith and Duffy (2003),Yaman and Gurel (2006), Lovelock (2008), the balance of ethicalconcerns remains weighted towards the anthropocentric. Nevertheless,both Holden (2003) and Macbeth (2005) recognize the importance ofenvironmental ethics to the tourism-environment relationship. Holden(ibid.) stresses the need for a non-rationalized approach to valuingnature from tourism stakeholders, whilst Macbeth (2005) emphasizesthe requirement for tourism policy makers, and it may be added allstakeholders, to have a reflexive understanding of ethical issues ofthe environment in practice.

Despite the limited development of a conceptual framework for envi-ronmental ethics relevant to tourism, the growth in philosophicalthinking about the moral standing of nature during the last four dec-ades, has led to a large array of diverse views (Booth 1998). However,thematic perspectives can be recognized, categorized by their extentof the recognition of the ‘‘rights’’ of nature to an existence.

‘‘Instrumentalism’’ views nature as having no rights to existence,subsequently determining that human impacts upon nature are unwor-thy of consideration beyond their potential harm to the interests ofother humans, a position supported by a Cartesian philosophy thatstresses our moral superiority to other beings (Nash 1989). Whilst,the non-recognition of the rights of nature to an existence is an ex-treme interpretation of anthropocentrism, a belief in our moral supe-riority over nature provides a rationale for the prioritization ofeconomic growth over conservation. Examples of this philosophy inpractice includes General Franco’s policy for tourism development inSpain, the Plan Nacional de Estabilization of 1959, which held aninherent creed of ‘‘crecimiento al cualquier precio’’ or ‘‘growth at anyprice’’. Similarly, the development of Cancun in Mexico from a villagehousing 12 Maya families in the 1970s to a resort receiving 2.6 millionvisitors per annum, in the process causing the destruction of rainfor-ests and mangroves, the filling of lagoons, and the leveling of sanddunes (Lynas 2003). is representative of an instrumental approach totourism development.

The converse ethical position to instrumentalism is ‘‘libertarianextension’’, in which all sentient and non-sentient beings right ‘tobe’ is recognized, independent of any value bestowed on them byhumankind. Important to the rationale of this thinking is the workof Stone (1972) who drew attention to the rights and legal status of sen-tient and non-sentient being’s in his seminal ‘‘Should Trees HaveStanding?’’ He comments (1972:450): ‘‘It is not inevitable, nor is itwise, that natural objects should have no rights to seek redress on theirown behalf. It is no answer to say that streams and forests cannot havestanding because streams and forests cannot speak.’’

The application of this latter ethic as the rationale for environmentallaw could have dramatic implications for tourism development, chal-lenging an established legal system that is centered upon humanrights. The concept of ‘‘Wild law’’ or ‘Earth jurisprudence’ recognizesthe rights of an ‘‘Earth community’’, in which humans as part of that


community cannot ignore the rights of the rest of it (Thornton 2007).Under this law for example, a hotel owner could be sued on behalf ofthe diversity of species belonging to a coral reef, whose habitat wasbeing destroyed by sewage emitted from the hotel. If the species ofthe coral reef won, the hotel would have to find other means to disposeof the sewage, as the right to existence would be paramount.

The middle ground between ‘‘instrumentalism’’ and ‘‘libertarianextension’’ is occupied by the ‘‘conservation’’ ethic, which recognizesour reliance upon nature and values nature for our own well-being. Inthe view of Vardy and Grosch (1999) this is the diktat of society’s moralreasoning about nature; the conservation ethic being central to envi-ronmental policy as exemplified in the Brundtland Report’s (WCED1987) advocating of natural resource conservation for the benefit offuture generations. Similarly, Holden (2003) suggests that the conser-vation ethic represents the moral reasoning of most tourism stakehold-ers, as demonstrated by the then World Tourism Organization’s (WTO2001) ‘‘Global Code of Ethics for Tourism’’ (GCET), Article 3 of whichstates: ‘‘All the stakeholders in tourism development should safeguardthe natural environment with a view to achieving sound, continuousand sustainable economic growth satisfying equitably the needs andaspirations of future generations’’ (WTO 2001:3).

However, judging by the marginal improvements in the tourism-envi-ronment relationship (Lynas 2003) and the reductionist approach tosustainable tourism (Saarinen 2006) during the last two decades, it issuggested that environmental policy has to date had relatively little ef-fect on the workings of the tourism market. Nevertheless, an evidenttrend is for some tourism suppliers to demonstrate a commitment toenvironmental conservation and protection. A significant innovationis ‘‘corporate social responsibility’’ (CSR), the motivation for whichis uncertain, but would seem to represent a combination of environ-mental altruism, a need for market competitiveness and a medium tolong term business strategy. According to the UNEP (2005:8) theadvantages of CSR for tourism suppliers are, it: ‘‘can have significantbusiness advantages for a company, in terms of its cost savings, marketshare, reputation and preservation of its main business assets—theplaces and cultures their clients are willing to pay to visit’’.

To this list can be added that CSR or the adoption of other environ-mental management practices for example, environmental auditingand codes of conduct, demonstrate an attempt at voluntary environ-mental regulation, which may be influential in counteracting moves to-wards government regulation of the industry. For example in Europe,members of the European Parliament have called upon the tourismindustry to ‘‘face up to its responsibilities’’, pointing out that consum-ers are becoming increasingly aware of ethical issues and expectedassurances over worker exploitation, environmental impacts and chil-dren’s rights (Searle 2005). An increased ethical awareness is also re-flected in industry advertising, for instance, a European low-costairline in its own in-flight magazine stressed its environmental creden-tials about its fuel efficiency and the quietness of its aircraft under the


title: ‘‘Do you care about the environment? So do we’’ (EasyJet2007:18).

Conversely it can be asked, ‘‘What if we didn’t? Would you?’’ Therewould appear to be a presumption within some tourism organizationsthat consumers are interested in their environmental credentials as thisinfluences buying behavior. Whilst this may be true to varying degreesin markets for other goods and services, what evidence is there of astrong enough environmental ethic in the tourism market to influencedemand? Although Poon (1993) had observed the emergence of ‘‘newtourism’’ and ‘‘new tourists’’ by the early 1990s, an implicit character-istic of which was environmental concern, sustainable practices still re-main the preserve of market niches (Younis 2003). The environmentalconviction of these market niches has also been questioned, for exam-ple ‘‘ecotourism’’ has been criticized as a sham by Wheeller (1993,2005), referring to it instead as ‘‘egotourism’’ with the potential tohave similar negative causal effects as mass tourism.

Existing empirical evidence to support or disprove a strengtheningenvironmental ethic within the tourism market is limited and some-times contradictory. A comprehensive environmental attitudinal surveyof 1192 households in the United Kingdom found that although fourout of five households believed that climate change will affect them,and the same number believed that climate change was already havingan effect, only 22 per cent were willing to fly less, defined as flying toone holiday destination rather than two per annum (Energy SavingTrust, 2007). Based upon their willingness to forego personal benefitsfor the sake of the environment, it was the second most unpopularstatement out of five statements presented to the interviewees, the firstbeing a willingness not to purchase a plasma television to protect theenvironment to which only 21 per cent responded positively. In com-parison, 73 per cent were willing to: ‘‘Stop leaving the tap runningwhen brushing teeth’’; 56 per cent were willing to: ‘‘Give up drivingwhen able to walk’’; and 52 per cent were willing to: ‘‘Cook more localproduce’’ (ibid.). Further in-depth analysis was not conducted to un-cover the reasons that lay behind these responses, nor was the existinglevel of awareness of the contribution of aircraft emissions to globalwarming ascertained.

It is observable from the responses to the statements, that thereseems to be a propensity for a higher degree of reluctance to relin-quish activities associated with pleasure than other types. Similarly, Bec-ken (2007) found reluctance from tourists to take voluntary initiativesand be pro-active to address the global impact of air-travel. Based uponfocus group meetings with 32 tourists in New Zealand, she found that alow level of awareness of air travel’s contribution to climate change ex-isted, and that the mitigation of negative impacts was viewed to be theresponsibility of governments and organizations vis-a-vis the individual.

Conversely Asthana and McKie (2005) suggest that there are agrowing number of concerned individuals who are turning away frominternational flights. However, the comments of interviewees indicate adivergence of opinion over who has responsibility for taking action toreduce the demand for flying. For example, one interviewee replied:


‘‘With the government (author’s note: United Kingdom) planning totriple aviation in the next 30 years, the only thing you can do is to takeindividual action’’; whilst another commented: ‘‘Flights are now unre-alistically cheap. It makes it difficult for people to say no to them. Thegovernment should take that decision away from people’’. Implicit tothese two contradictory statements is that whilst individual action isnecessary, the attractiveness of flying may be too strong, making coer-cion from government necessary to reduce demand.

Research undertaken by Chesshyre (2005) into the motivations ofwomen for participating in ‘‘responsible tourism’’ also provides a ri-cher understanding of attitudes and behavior towards the natural envi-ronment. The results reveal a level of culpability about flying, beingviewed as a type of behavior that is discordant with the respondents’usually environmentally conscious lifestyles. Comments included:‘‘I’ve always been quite conscientious about my impact upon the envi-ronment’’; ‘‘I fly a lot and that makes me feel guilty’’; and ‘‘We’re plan-ning to go to Australia next year, but I use a carbon-neutralizingscheme to offset the emission charge’’ (Chesshyre 2005:4). The extentto which these travelers would be willing to deny themselves the plea-sures of tourism for protection of the natural environment was lessclear. The only direct reference to foregoing tourism was made byone respondent who commented: ‘‘The only way to preserve thingsis not to go there at all. But you have to draw the line between com-plete restraint and enjoying something. It should be about having aminimal impact’’ (ibid.). A common approach of the sample was to tra-vel but to attempt to minimize their negative impacts, for examplethrough using less environmentally damaging modes of transportwhere feasible or contributing to carbon off-setting schemes, whilstsimultaneously maximizing their economic contributions to localcommunities.

Ethical concern over the impacts of flying has also been displayed bythe founders of two of the best-selling guide books series for indepen-dent travelers, the ‘‘Rough Guide’’ and the ‘‘Lonely Planet Series’’,which collectively sell 6 million copies per annum (Barkham 2006).Reflecting on concern over ‘‘casual flying’’, Mark Ellingham the foun-der of the ‘‘Rough Guide’’, comments: ‘‘We’ve got a responsibility tomake people aware of the information about climate change so peoplehave a less casual attitude towards flying. We want to show that twocompanies who are direct rivals feel this is an issue important enoughto coordinate and cooperate on’’ (Barkham 2006:3). Ellingham com-pares tourism to the tobacco industry in the sense of the denial of itstrue impacts by the industry, notably the effects carbon emissions fromflying are having on global warming. In new editions of the guides,warnings about the impacts of flying on global warming will appear. Be-side a demonstration of environmental culpability, the ethical stance isnotable in representing a combined approach of two market competi-tors towards a universal benefit. Alongside providing information onless environmentally damaging travel options to air travel where possi-ble, other suggested behavioral changes to reduce negative environ-


mental impacts include flying less but staying longer in destinations,and the donation of money to carbon offsetting schemes.

However, although carbon off-setting may go someway to assuagingenvironmental guilt, such schemes have received a number of criti-cisms, including: varying calculations by different organizations ofthe amount of CO2 emitted by the same flights; up to 40 percent ofthe donations being used to cover administrative and salary costs; peo-ple in developing countries being forcibly removed from their land forthe cultivation of new forests; the planting of non-native trees in mono-culture plantations causing ecosystem disturbance; and that trees onlyabsorb CO2 when they are living, subsequently releasing it when theydie or are burnt (Gossling et al 2007; Robbins 2006). At present carbonoff-setting is in an embryonic stage of usage by the tourism industryand tourists as Gossling et al (2007:241) comment: ‘‘Voluntary com-pensation is still far from firmly rooted in the tourism industry andamongst tourists’’.

Whilst flying has global environmental implications, the ethicalbehavior of tourists at a local level will also be influential in shapingthe tourism-environment relationship, as the impacts of tourism aretypically associated with the cumulative effects of visitation. Whetherthey are consciously aware of it or not, each person has ethical posi-tions which guide their decision-making on moral issues (Macbeth2005), and their subsequent actions. As one tourist commented on anature-based experience to Kilimanjaro; ‘‘I went on a trek up Kilimanj-aro in Tanzania, and what struck me was the amount of rubbish there.We were expressly told not to leave any rubbish, and yet people did. Iwas disgusted that people didn’t listen. You feel that you put the effortin—why can’t everyone else do the same?’’ (Chesshyre 2005:4). Theimplication of this statement is that a similar environmental ethic isnot shared by all the tourists, even those who may be viewed as partic-ipating in types of tourism that could be construed as being environ-mentally centered. This observation is supported by researchundertaken by Zografos and Allcroft (2007) into the environmentalvalues and attitudes held by people thought of as ecotourists becauseof a propensity to visit areas of natural beauty. They discovered thatthere were high levels of variance between the tourists based uponparameters relating to attitudes and action towards nature; supportfor species equality; level of concern for the earth and its limits; anda belief in the level of human skills and development to deal with envi-ronmental problems.

The influence of an environmental ethic on behavior and impactsin situ can be demonstrated through the example of visitor to a forest,who recognizing the intrinsic value of the nature and wildlife avoidsmaking unnecessary noise out of respect for other sentient beings,even when it is certain there are no other people around. In contrast,the visitor who places little value on wilderness beyond its anthropo-centric benefits, may decline from unnecessary noise or disturbanceif other humans are present but may otherwise feel at liberty to makeas much noise as they wish, provided it does not interfere with theenjoyment of others. Emphasis in the latter case is placed upon duty


to other humans whilst in the former it is placed upon duty to all sen-tient beings.

CONCLUSION

Given the expanding spatial boundaries of tourism and its environ-mental impacts, it represents a significant agent for change in the con-text of society’s relationship with nature. Its impacts which havetraditionally been focused upon at a destination and regional level,are now understood to have consequence on a global scale, notablyas an outcome of aviation’s contribution to GHG emissions. The neg-ative externalities of the effects of resultant global warming not onlythreatens the livelihoods of many people, particularly the poor ofdeveloping countries, but also the well-being of eco-systems and thecontinued existence of many species of flora and fauna. It is arguedthat there is a strong propensity for tourism and aviation to be a focusof ethical debate as society seeks to re-evaluate its position relative tonature.

Accepting capitalism as the dominant economic ideology; the mar-ket system will have a central role in the representation of the ethicaland economic values of nature. The market is given higher advocacythrough the forces of neo-liberalism, which favor the minimization ofgovernment interference in it. For example, the strong oppositionfrom the tourism industry to the Balearic government’s attempt to im-pose an eco-tax, illustrates the challenges governments may face to ac-tion that is perceived to reduce market competitiveness for the benefitof the natural environment.

Subsequently, it is suggested that the interaction between the indus-try and the consumer will be the defining relationship in deciding theoutcomes of the interaction between tourism and the natural environ-ment. The strength of the market’s environmental ethic; the willing-ness of stakeholders to trade-off individual benefit for the greaterenvironmental good, will be instrumental in deciding the extent oftourism’s impacts upon nature. In a system that encourages individual-ity, consumption and freedom of choice, symbolized by the right to tra-vel for recreational purposes, a move towards what may be regarded asa more ascetic lifestyle will pose a major challenge.

Tensions over the loss of personal benefit or utility as a consequenceof a stronger environmental ethic are evident in the demand for flying.Whilst there is research (Becken 2007; Energy Saving Trust 2007) thatsuggests a reluctance to voluntarily reduce participation in flying, thereis also evidence (Asthana and McKie 2007) of the beginning of a shiftaway from its use for recreational purposes. If aviation becomes a majorsource of GHG emissions, and the level of public debate over the ethicsof flying increases, it is not inconceivable that the increase of demandfor flying experienced over the last 50 years may begin to reverse. Un-likely as this may seem at present, using the analogy of the tobaccoindustry, the knowledge of the harmful effects of a particular activitycan lead to behavioral changes. Whilst, the tourist who is willing to


fly less presently represents a minority, changes in market behavior arelikely to be incremental and progressive rather than sudden.

However, the ability of technological innovation to mitigate negativeimpacts in the face of increasing consumer demand is debatable. Forexample in the case of the aviation industry, even if a non-carbon jetfuel became commercially viable, there can be no assurance that itwould not have unforeseen long-term negative environmental or eco-nomic consequences. For instance, the cultivation of maize for ethanolproduction to use as a bio-fuel is a contributory factor to increasinggrain prices, having implications for the future of world food consump-tion(Vidal 2007). Nor would the use of non-carbon aviation fuel ad-dress problems of noise and local air pollution, or land-use andecosystem changes, which characterize airport development.

It is optimistic to expect that an approach reliant upon technologicalinnovation and improved management will provide the solutions toenvironmental problems resulting from tourism. Whilst technologicaladvancement has a key role to play in the creation of a more balancedsociety-environment relationship, critically important is the behavior ofindividuals and governments in combination with science. For exam-ple, it was through a partnership of government action to limit chloro-fluorocarbon (CFC) use, chemical companies’ innovation to find anenvironmentally benign alternative to CFCs, and a consumer boycottof CFC emitting products for example, aerosols, that the growth ofthe hole in the ozone layer has been arrested.

However, this partnership of government policy, industrial innova-tion, and change in consumer behavior has not yet been witnessedin the tourism market. Rather, the relationship between the tourismindustry, tourists and governments is at cross-roads of confusing signalsthat may or may not imply change. Nevertheless, whilst the principle ofcarpe diem may remain attractive to some, tourism cannot exist in a voidof connectivity with the changing dynamics of the wider society-envi-ronment relationship.

The effects of changes in this relationship are beginning to filter intothe tourism market. Notably, it would seem that the days of tourismbeing free from constraints of global environmental policy are limited.Aviation will be affected by its inclusion in the follow-up agreement toKyoto, as it will by its inclusion in the next stage of the EU’s ETS agree-ment. Tourism businesses will also eventually be subject to carbon trad-ing schemes and have to look to reduce GHG emissions in line withagreed quota systems. At an individual level, it is not inconceivable thatin the future we will have personal carbon allowances, limiting ouropportunities to travel without the incursion of extra cost.

Nevertheless, environmental policy takes time to be implemented,whilst in the meantime market forces will continue to determine pat-terns of tourism development. It is suggested that the conservationethic has established itself in the market and that there is an embryonicprogression towards a stronger sense of duty to nature. If an environ-mental ethic founded upon the intrinsic right of nature ‘‘to be’’,should become established in the consumer market in the future, thentourism is likely to be different. The desire to travel long distances will


be constrained by our duty to nature, our behavior in natural environ-ments will be more orientated to reducing negative impacts than atpresent, and sentient and non-sentient beings will have legal rightsto representation and redress when their interests are threatened bytourism development. As unlikely as perhaps this seems at present,the thoughts of John Stuart Mill quoted by Nash (1989:8) are apposite:‘‘every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discus-sion, adoption’’.

REFERENCES

Adam, D.2007 Flights Reach Record Levels Despite Warnings Over Climate Change.

London: The Guardian May 9, p. 3.Asthana, A., and R. McKie

2005 Rising Number of Greens Ditch Cheap Air Travel. London: The ObserverMay 1, p. 6.

Attenborough, R.2007 A Change in the Moral Climate. London: The Guardian June 2, p. 6.

Barkham, P.2006 Oops, We Helped Ruin the Planet. London: The Guardian March 4, p. 3.

Becken, S.2007 Tourists’ Perception of International Air Travel’s Impact on the Global

Climate and Potential Climate Change Policies. Journal of SustainableTourism 15:351–368.

Booth, E. D.1998 The Environmental Consequences of Growth. London: Routledge.

Brunet, S., J. Bauer, T. De Lacy, and K. Tshering2001 Tourism Development in Bhutan: Tensions between Tradition and

Modernity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9:243–263.Butcher, J.

2003 The Moralization of Tourism: Sun, Sand. . .. . .and Saving the World?London: Routledge.

2006 Natural Capital and the Advocacy of Ecotourism as Sustainable Develop-ment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14:529–544.

Chesshyre, T.2005 Lean, Keen and Green. London: The Times Travel Supplement August 27,

pp. 4–5.Dalrymple, W.

2008 What Use is Democracy to Idyllic Bhutan? The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news. Sources 23 March 2008

Dubois, G., and J. P. Ceron2006 Tourism/Leisure Greenhouse Gas Emission forecasts for 2050: Factors for

Change in France. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14:171–191.EasyJet

2007 Do You Care About the Environment? So Do We. Inflight, July:181.London: EasyJet.

Energy Saving Trust2007 Green Barometer: Measuring Environmental Attitudes. London: Energy

Saving Trust.European Union

2005 EU Action Against Climate Change. Brussels: European Commission.Fennell, A. D.

2006 Tourism Ethics. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.2008 Ecotourism and the Myth of Indigenous Stewardship. Journal ofSustainable Tourism 16:129–141.




Fennell, A. D., and D. C. Malloy2007 Codes of Ethics in Tourism: Practice, Theory, Synthesis. Clevedon:

Channel View Publications.Gossling, S., J. Broderick, P. Upham, P. J. Ceron, G. Dubois, P. Peeters, and W.

Strasdas2007 Voluntary Carbon Offsetting Schemes for Aviation: Efficiency, Credibility

and Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15:223–248.Gossling, S., and P. Peeters

2007 ‘It Does Not Harm the Environment!’ An Analysis of Industry Discourseson Tourism, Air Travel and the Environment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism15:402–417.

Hall, D., and F. Brown2006 Tourism and Welfare: Ethics, Responsibility and Sustained Well-being.

Wallingford: CAB International.Hall, C. M., and M. Johnston

1995 Polar Tourism: Tourism in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions. Chichester:John Wiley.

Hall, C. M., and M. Wouters1994 Managing Nature Tourism in the Sub-Antarctic. Annals of Tourism

Research 21:355–374.Heilbroner, R., and L. Thurow

1998 Economics Explained. New York: Touchstone.1998 Economics Explained. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Holden, A.2003 In Need of New Environmental Ethics for Tourism. Annals of Tourism

Research 30:92–108.2008 Environment and Tourism (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Holland, A., and B. J. Cox1992 The Valuing of Environmental Goods: A Modest Proposal. In Valuing the

Environment: Economic Approaches to Environmental Valuation, A. Cokerand C. Richards, eds., pp. 12–27. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Hollinshead, K.1990 The Ethics of Ennoblement: A Review of Leopold on Leisure and of

Callicott on Leopold. Society and Natural Resources 3:373–383.Holmes, R. III,

1988 Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World.Philadelphia: Temple Press.

Hunter, C., and H. Green1995 Tourism and the Environment: A Sustainable Relationship? London:

Routledge.IATA

2007 It’s Growing. But It Will Still Be Small in 2050. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/campaign/bonsai. Accessed 11.07.07.

IPCC2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science (Basic Summary for Policy-

makers). Geneva: International Panel on Climate Change.Leopold, A.

1949 A Sand County Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lynas, M.

2003 Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Geographical December:100–104.Lovelock, B.

2008 Ethical Travel Decisions: Travel Agents and Human Rights. Annals ofTourism Research 35:338–358.

Macbeth, J.2005 Towards an Ethics Platform for Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research

32:962–984.Mathieson, A., and G. Wall

1982 Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Harlow: Longman.Mieczkowski, Z.

1995 Environmental Issues of Tourism and Recreation. Lanham: UniversityPress of America.

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/campaign/bonsai

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/campaign/bonsai


Millennium Ecosystem Assessment2005 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island

Press.Mishan, E. J.

1969 The Costs of Economic Growth. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Nash, R. F.

1989 The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Wisconsin: TheUniversity of Wisconsin Press.

Pearce, D., A. Markandya, and B. E. Barbier1989 Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan Publications.

Pearce, D.1995 Blueprint 4: Capturing Global Environmental Value. London: Earthscan

Publications.Pepper, D.

1996 Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction. London: Routledge.Poon, A.

1993 Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Wallingford: CABInternational.

Robbins, T.2006 The Great Green Rip-off? London: The Observer Travel Supplement

December. The Observer Travel Supplement December, pp. 1–2.Saarinen, J.

2006 Traditions of Sustainability in Tourism Studies. Annals of TourismResearch 33:1121–1140.

Searle, R.2005 Disregard Ethics at Your Peril. London: Travel Trade Gazette 24 June.

Travel Trade Gazette 24 June, p. 20.Smith, M., and R. Duffy

2003 The Ethics of Tourism Development. London: Routledge.Stern Report

2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. London: HMTreasuryOffice.

Stone, D. C.1972 Should Trees Have Standing? Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects.

Southern California Law Review 25:450–501.Templeton, T.

2003 A Kick in the Balearics for Eco-tax. London: The Observer, June 8. TheObserver, June 8, p. 5.

Thornton, J.2007 Can Lawyers Save the World. The Ecologist June. The Ecologist June, pp.

38–46.UNEP

2005 Integrating Sustainability into Business: A Management Guide forResponsible Tour Operations. Paris: United Nations EnvironmentProgrammed.

UNWTO2007 Tourism Highlights 2006. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism

Organization.Vardy, P., and P. Grosch

1999 The Puzzle of Ethics. London: Harper Collins.Vidal, J.

2007 Global Food Crisis Looms as Climate Change and Fuel Shortages Bite.London: The Guardian November 3. The Guardian November 3, p. 27.

WCED1987 Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wheeller, B.1993 Sustaining the Ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1:121–129.2005 Ecotourism/Egotourism and Development. In Nature-Based Tourism in

Peripheral Areas, C. M. Hall and S. Boyd, eds., pp. 263–272. Clevedon:Channel View Publications.


Whitt, A. L., M. Roberts, W. Norman, and V. Grieves2001 Indigenous Perspectives. In A Companion to Environmental Philosophy,

D. Jamieson, ed., pp. 3–20. Malden: Blackwell.WTO

2001 Global Code of Ethics for Tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.Yaman, H. R., and E. Gurel

2006 Ethical Ideologies of Tourism Marketers. Annals of Tourism Research33:470–489.

Younis, E.2003 Sustainable Tourism: World Trends and Challenges Ahead. In Nature-

Based Tourism, Environment and Land Management, R. Buckley, C. Pickeringand D. B. Weaver, eds., pp. 11–16. Wallingford: CAB International.

Zografos, C., and D. Allcroft2007 The Environmental Values of Potential Ecotourists: A Segmentation Study.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15:44–65.

Submitted 23 November 2007. Resubmitted 1 June 2008. Final Version 26 August 2008.Accepted 5 October 2008. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Kadir Din

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Andrew Holden 2009

Documents

Transcript of Andrew Holden 2009