By Jess Ponting<\/strong> University of Technology, Sydney<\/strong> Completed as full requirement for “Tourism\u2019s Environments” and part of the requirement for the Master of Management (Tourism Management) degree.<\/p>\n Published February 2001 Acknowledgements\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n Executive Summary\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n Section I\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n Section II\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 1. Introduction\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2. Section I – Literature Review\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.2 Sustainable Tourism Models and Development\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.3 Sustainable Tourism Principles and Models\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.31 The Environmental Dimension\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.32 The Economic Dimension\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.33 The Social Dimension\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.4 The Role of Stakeholder Groups in Sustainable Tourism\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a>2.41 Government\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.42 The Industry\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.43 The Voluntary Sector & Non Government Organisations\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.44 The Host Community\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.5 Brief Overview of Sustainable Management Techniques\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a>2.51 Management Decision Making Frameworks\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.52 From Carrying Capacity to Growth Management Planning\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.53 From Limits of Acceptable Change to Tourism Optimisation Management Model\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 2.6 Conclusion\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3. Section II \u2013 Sustainable Surfing Tourism Management and the Mentawai Archipelago\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.1 Introduction\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.11 The Mentawai Archipelago: Background information\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a>3.2 Major Stakeholder Groups in Surfing Tourism Development in the Mentawai Archipelago\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a>3.21 Local Population\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.22 Government\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.23 Mentawai Wisata Bahari\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.24 Surfing Tourism Operators\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.25 Non Government Organisations (NGOs)\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.26 Tourists\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.3 Management Options\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a>3.31 Paul King: The Surf Travel Company\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.32 Rick Cameron: CEO Great Breaks International\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.33 Christie Carter: Wave Park Losmen\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.34 Professor Ralph Buckley: CRC Tourism; Griffith University\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.35 Dave Bamford: Tourism Resource Consultants\u00a0<\/a><\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 3.36 Discussion of Management Techniques\u00a0<\/em>*<\/a><\/p>\n 4. Conclusion\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n 5. References\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n 7. Appendices\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n Appendix 1. Extracts from interview with Paul King, owner\/manager the Surf Travel Company\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n Appendix 2. Extracts from personal communication from Rick Cameron, CEO of Great Breaks International\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n Appendix 3. Extracts from personal communication from Christie Carter, owner\/manager Wave Park Losmen\u00a0<\/strong>*<\/a><\/p>\n List of Tables.<\/strong><\/p>\n Table 1. Continuum of Industry Self Regulation Tools\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..22<\/p>\n Table 2. Surfing Tourism Operators in the Mentawai Archipelago\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202636<\/p>\n Table 3. Ways in Which Tourists Perceive the Difference of Objects of the Tourist Gaze\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..39<\/p>\n Table 4. Key Management Issues and Respondent Attitudes\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202646<\/p>\n List of Figures<\/strong><\/p>\n Figure 1. The Five Components of the Environmental Dimension of Sustainable Tourism\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026…17<\/p>\n Figure 2. Ladder of Community Influence\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202623<\/p>\n Figure 3. Location of the Mentawai Archipelago\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u202631<\/p>\n Rick Cameron: Chief Executive Officer of Great Breaks International<\/p>\n Paul King: Owner\/manager of the Surf Travel Company<\/p>\n Christie Carter: Manager of Wave Park Losmen<\/p>\n Ian Lyon: Manager of Atoll Adventures<\/p>\n Thanks also to the following individuals for their generous assistance<\/p>\n Glenn Reeves: Modern Asian Studies, Griffith University<\/p>\n Dave Bamford : Tourism Resource Consultants<\/p>\n Professor Ralph Buckley: International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Griffith University<\/p>\n Dave Jenkins : Surf Aid International<\/p>\n Laurens Bakker M.A in Cultural Anthropology, Leiden University, The Netherlands<\/p>\n <\/a>Executive Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/a>Section I<\/em><\/p>\n The recent discovery of world-class surf in the Mentawai archipelago, Indonesia has seen the rapid development of a foreign controlled surfing tourism industry in the region. This report, presented in two sections, aims to a) review existing literature concerning sustainable tourism management, then, b) review the developing surfing tourism industry in the Mentawai archipelago using this framework as a basis for discussing and presenting information.<\/p>\n Section I. Until recently conventional (mass) models of tourism have been advocated by development agencies and tourism industry bodies as a low impact, high return use of a developing nation\u2019s natural resources. Studies have shown, however control by foreign interests in these cases leads to high levels of revenue leakage from the destination region back to the foreign financiers. Host populations are often impacted upon socially by having to share their natural resources and living space with tourists. Poorly planned and regulated tourism development can also impact substantially upon the local environment. For these reasons conventional forms of mass tourism have been described by some academics as being neo-colonial.<\/p>\n Sustainable tourism has developed in response to the failure of more conventional forms of tourism to meet the expectations of stakeholders and its tendency to privatise the benefits of tourism whilst the negative impacts are inflicted upon the wider community. Recent moves away from the modernisation development paradigm have allowed tourism development to be assessed within the framework of the environmental and cultural lives of host communities rather than in purely economic terms.<\/p>\n Whilst it is acknowledged that all the aspects of sustainable development are intrinsically interlinked, for the purpose of this study, sustainable tourism development is separated in to three dimensions: environmental, economic and social. The environmental dimension may be considered as being comprised of five elements: wildlife, natural resources, and the built, farmed and natural environment. The economic dimension is important in the development of sustainable tourism development in that poorly designed tourism with insufficient or inappropriate links to local economies may have far reaching economic and social impacts upon host communities. Social impacts are difficult to isolate from other modernising influences in many developing countries but may include the demonstration effect and the occurrence of social duality within host communities. A major component of sustainable tourism design is the empowerment of all stakeholders, including local host communities.<\/p>\n The major stakeholder groups usually involved in sustainable tourism are host governments, the tourism industry, the voluntary and NGO sector, and the host community. Destination region governments are well placed to influence the development of tourism through legislation, however a lack of funding and political will often limits the government\u2019s role in developing countries. The tourism industry has a range of self-regulation options available to it for ensuring the sustainable development of tourist destination regions. These form something of a continuum of increasing formality from codes of practice to certification, tourism systems tend to move along this continuum as they mature.<\/p>\n The voluntary and NGO sector can play an important role in lobbying for the implementation of best practice sustainable development methodology, as well as potentially playing an important role in management support and capacity building amongst local populations. Host communities can be involved in tourism on a number of levels. Whilst host community participation is a keystone principle of sustainable tourism, local communities, particularly indigenies, are often marginalised from the planning, decision-making and management roles of developing a tourist destination.<\/p>\n Most literature on the subject suggests that the success of sustainable tourism strategies depends upon adequate monitoring systems and measurable performance indicators, and further, that the development and implementation of a strategy should involve the following generic steps.<\/p>\n Various tools and decision-making frameworks are available to sustainable tourism planners and managers. Carrying capacity attempts to quantify upper limits of tourist numbers based on the biological derivation of the environment\u2019s capacity to support them without impacting upon the ability of the environment to sustain such numbers in the future. Whilst perhaps a useful concept, carrying capacity has proven difficult to implement. Growth Management Planning is an extension of the carrying capacity concept, though the establishment of a \u2018magic number\u2019 of tourist numbers is abandoned in favour of management which is geared towards reaching performance goals based on notions of sustainability, and responsive to priority changes and information fed back to management through the use of performance indicators and associated monitoring systems.<\/p>\n Leisure based literature has contributed to the array of decision making frameworks through, initially, the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) which attempts calculate appropriate levels of use of an area based on social and managerial variables as well as local ecology. Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) represent an extension of the ROS framework and specifically inclGude resource managers\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0stakeholders in the development and monitoring of performance standards. LAC has also been further developed into the Tourism Optimisation Management Model, which includes a political dimension and tends to focus on a destination regions optimal sustainable performance rather than maximum thresholds.<\/p>\n <\/a>Section II<\/em><\/p>\n The Mentawai archipelago lies of the coast of West Sumatra and is administered as a newly formed regency, and as such has its own representative (Bupati), under the umbrella of the West Sumatran provincial government. The archipelago is internationally considered to have high conservation value based on its high levels of endemic fauna and flora and the unique living culture of its indigenous population.<\/p>\n The population of the Mentawai archipelago is predominantly indigenous to the islands though it is the Minangkabau people from Sumatra who control local politics and economy. The Indonesian national government\u2019s push for national unity has, over the years, has seen deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of traditional Mentawaian culture in favour of a more \u2018modern\u2019 way of life. The Minangkabau harbour a certain amount of disrespect for the Mentawaians and their lifestyle and rarely interact with them socially. Mentawaians have been observed to feel apathetic towards tourism development, as they perceive it as something over which they have little control and which brings little economic benefit to them.<\/p>\n The Indonesian government is interested in pursuing tourism in the Mentawai archipelago, the provincial government already having been involved in a failed joint venture to manage tourism in the islands. Under new autonomy laws affecting the Mentawais the Bupati has instituted a management plan, the Zone Agreement Permit (ZAP). Under the ZAP operators can apply for management rights of particular zones within the archipelago in return for collecting a levy from tourists within that zone.<\/p>\n Mentawai Wisata Bahari (MWB) is an Indonesian joint venture between the West Sumatran provincial government and local Minangkabau partners which was formed in response to provincial level policy decision in 1998 to develop Siberut as a tourist destination. MWB has a working partnership with Australian tourism operator Great Breaks International (GBI) and has been active with GBI in pursuing management rights for surfing tourism in the archipelago. Most recently MWB with GBI have claimed management rights over three zones in the archipelago.<\/p>\n Just over 30 live-aboard charter boats were working in the Mentawais over the last season (April-November). Tourism operators in the area are fiercely competitive; a great deal of animosity has built up between some rival operators. However, all operators claim to be dedicated to ensuring the sustainability of the surfing tourism industry in the archipelago, disagreements arise over what form management of the industry should take.<\/p>\n Non Government Organisation World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has been involved in promoting the conservation value of Siberut in the early 1980s and participated in a process that led to the declaration of Siberut A UNESCO Man and Biosphere reserve. More recently a New Zealand based NGO, Surf Aid International has taken on the Mentawai archipelago as its maiden project in raising the well-being of local communities through the running of medical clinic and training of local staff.<\/p>\n Surfing tourists visiting the Mentawais though the surfing tourism industry may be seen as trying to experience the images of surfing perfection produced by the wider surfing industry. Of major concern to surfing tourists are crowding, concerns for health, and the quality of the natural environment.<\/p>\n Tourism operators, professional and academics provide a range of ideas for the sustainable management of the surfing tourism industry in the Mentawais. The major points of contention come from disagreements over the role of private operators in managing tourism in the archipelago, though all operators agree that management of some sort is necessary.<\/p>\n The Surf Travel Company\u2019s Paul King advocated the introduction of a licensing system for charter boats based on guidelines developed by a charter operators association in conjunction with local stakeholders. The licensing system would involve a standard transparent licensing fees and process and would incorporate minimum safety standards of licensed boats.<\/p>\n Great Breaks International\u2019s CEO, Rick Cameron advocated a wider plan of management based on the delegation of environmental protection to private industry, a surfing and environmental management plan, a fair tax on surfers, land based accommodation, and planning for the inevitable introduction of non-surfing tourism.<\/p>\n Wave Park Losmen\u2019s Christie Carter is in favour of a surfing tourism industry controlled and managed by Mentawaians. He feels that capacity capping is unrealistic, but that control of the number of charter boats to a level of around 30 boats meeting minimum safety standards is necessary. Carter suggested the auctioning of these licenses by the Indonesian government including a certain number of licenses reserved for locally owned operations.<\/p>\n Tourism academic Ralph Buckley suggested the establishment of the Mentawai archipelago\u2019s surf recreational capacity and the establishment of a management plan to enforce a capacity cap. Buckley also advocated the building of up-market land based resorts through the archipelago, which could then be used as the base for expanding into other forms of tourism. This is deemed necessary to provide returns to the local economy adequate to ensure the priority of sustainable tourism development over more destructive forms of development.<\/p>\n Tourism professional Dave Bamford stressed the potential for confusion to arise amongst local communities and government agencies as to exactly what is involved in surfing tourism, and why regulation of it may be necessary. Bamford observed that in many instances it has taken 10-15 years for local populations to catch up to foreign tourism operations and become a force in their own right. In order to aid this process it is suggested that government should demand the involvement of local populations. It was also suggested that cost based competition between operators may compromise the sustainability of operations.<\/p>\n Though there is animosity between tourism operators and some major differences in approach to the sustainable management of surfing tourism in the archipelago, these differences do not appear irreconcilable, indeed there is much common ground. The agreement of operators on the need for safety standards, limiting the number of charter boats to around 30 vessels, the establishment of greater links with the local economy, and support of the work of Surf Aid International should serve as a starting point for cooperation between operators to sustainable manage surfing tourism in the Mentawai archipelago.<\/p>\n <\/a>1. Introduction<\/p>\n The conventional model of tourism development in developing countries, mass tourism, has in recent times been criticized for the large impacts it has visited upon local environments, and the high level of leakage of revenue to, generally, foreign owners and interests. In response to these concerns, and in the wake of the 1987 Brundtland Report, alternative, sustainable models of tourism have been developed with the intention of minimising the negative impacts of tourism upon host communities\u2019 environments, and maximising and equitably distributing the positive impacts of tourism.<\/p>\n The recent discovery of world-class surf in the Mentawai archipelago, Indonesia, and subsequent exposure of images of the region in international surf media has pushed the archipelago to the brink of an explosion of surfing tourism development. Foreign tourism operators in the area are, however, aware of the potential for negative impacts upon the local environment, culture, social fabric, and economy (and their own business) if tourism is allowed to develop unchecked. As such attempts are being made from within the surfing tourism industry, as well as from local government, to manage surfing tourism development sustainably.<\/p>\n This report is presented in two sections. This first section takes the form of a literature review examining<\/p>\n a) recent shifts in thinking concerning development theory and the forces driving this change, and<\/p>\n b) the development of the sustainable tourism paradigm and associated principles, management tools, and frameworks.<\/p>\n The evolution of development paradigms from modernisation theory to models of sustainable development are discussed and linked to evolving models of tourism development.<\/p>\n The second section of the report presents information specific to the development of surfing tourism in the Mentawais within the framework established in the preceding section. Due to a lack of published information regarding the surfing tourism industry much of the information presented is the product of primary research. This qualitative research variously took the form of in-depth interviews both personal and telephone, and extensive use of electronic mail to develop on-going dialogue with the resource people who participated in the study. The \u2018position\u2019 of each of the major stakeholder groups is examined in light of the information gathered in the previously described manner, and the range of management strategies suggested by five stakeholders from within and outside the surfing tourism industry is discussed.<\/p>\n <\/a>2. Section I – Literature Review<\/strong><\/p>\n 2.1 The Evolving Development Paradigm<\/strong><\/p>\n The prevailing tourism development paradigm for developing countries has largely been one of mass, uncontrolled tourism in the pursuit of substantial economic returns for foreign investors and host economies. Many writers now believe that mass tourism has been incorrectly advocated as a viable means for generating substantial foreign exchange for developing economies (Marfurt, 1999; Mahapatra, 1998; Butler, 1991). Brohman (1996:p51, 53) questions the effectiveness of mass tourism as a development tool as conventional models often lead to economic dependency upon an industry dominated by foreign interests, socio-economic and spatial polarization of host communities, environmental destruction, cultural alienation and the loss of social control and identity (Brohman 1996:p51, 53; Mahapatra, 1998). Britton (1980:p149) argues that monopolistic controls over ownership and organisational structure by foreign owners have rendered mass-tourism in developing countries “a neo-colonial extension of economic forms of underdevelopment” reflecting historical inequalities between developed and developing nations (Brohman , 1996).<\/p>\n In purely economic terms the mass tourism paradigm creates high levels of leakage of the economic benefits of tourism away from host communities and economies. Vertically integrated transnational firms and conglomerates generally control the three most lucrative components of tourism in developing countries: securing customers; transportation; food and accommodation (Brohman, 1996:p 55). On this basis Rodenburg (1980), and Weaver (1998) challenge the apparent advantages offered by the larger revenues of concentrated, foreign owned mass tourism compared to smaller scale, locally owned, alternative forms of tourism.<\/p>\n In assessing tourism as a development tool in developing countries Harrison (1992) equates the mass tourism model with the process of modernisation and describes two paradigms for considering such development in less developed countries: modernisation theory (MT) and underdevelopment theory (UDT). Modernisation theory is aligned with neo-classical economics in that it is concerned with the westernisation of the less developed country\u2019s internal structures, economy, and social institutions and structures based on market forces and maximisation of self-interest. \u2018Change agents\u2019 (for example tourism entrepreneurs) play a pivotal role in introducing modern values, often in the face of resistant or even hostile tradition (Harrison, 1992).<\/p>\n Alternatively, UDT considers development and underdevelopment to be linked elements of the same process, developed regions transferring value from less developed regions to themselves. Underdevelopment theory advocates a move away from capitalist notions of development as an important first step in achieving \u2018real\u2019 development. Both paradigms are intrinsically Eurocentric and essentially “ignore the wants and ambitions of those about to be developed” (Harrison, 1992:p 9). Mahapatra (1998:p 93) goes further in suggesting that the move away from modernisation paradigms of tourism development in developing countries is part of a larger modulation in the \u2018development\u2019 paradigm to encompass “the sum factors that make mankind happy and contented”. This new conception of development allows the process of tourism development to be assessed in the framework of the environmental and cultural dimension of life and society, rather than in purely economic terms.<\/p>\n The process of paradigm evolution from modernisation and mass tourism to models which advocate community empowerment and sustainable development can be explained by Wearing\u2019s (1986) linking of the writings of Passmore (1975) and Harris (1971) – who claim that a philosophy of nature seeking to adequately address ecological issues must facilitate expansive thought by the inclusion of case studies – with Kuhn\u2019s (1962) ideas on non-incremental change. That is, rather than change occurring within existing frameworks, crisis within specific situations and the search for solutions can facilitate paradigm changes. Wearing illustrates the point by quoting Kuhn (1962:p90): “confronted with anomaly or with crisis, scientists take a different attitude toward existing paradigms, and the nature of their research changes accordingly.” Thus in the tourism development context, the crisis driving paradigm evolution can be interpreted as the failure of the existing tourism development paradigm (mass tourism) to meet the expectations of stakeholders in terms of the equitable distribution of benefits, and the unacceptably high costs being brought to bear upon host communities and their environment.<\/p>\n In something of a parallel the use of agriculture as a development tool, unsatisfactory results from the application of conventional rural development methodology, one of imposition from above of predetermined development models, fuelled the evolution of sustainable, participatory methods (Wearing\u00a0et. al.<\/em>, 2000). It is from the realm of agricultural development and through work published in papers such as the International Institute for Environment and Development \u2018s (1994)\u00a0Rapid Rural Appraisal Notes\u00a0<\/em>that participatory methodology has developed and come to be considered as best practice in the planning and management of sustainable development projects in less developed countries.<\/p>\n <\/a>2.2 Sustainable Tourism Models and Development<\/strong><\/p>\n Sustainable development is a term that was popularised by the 1987 report of the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development, The Brundtland Report,\u00a0Our Common Future<\/em>. The definition of sustainability proposed in the Brundtland Report and that adopted by this paper refers to the responsibility of the present generations to meet their needs in a manner which ensures that the ability of future generations to meet their needs is not compromised by irreversible resource depletion (Stabler and Goodall, 1996; World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Sustainable development forms the basis for the concept of sustainable tourism (Swarbrooke, 1999; Weaver, 1998) Broadly speaking, then, sustainable tourism is tourism that aims to provide equitably distributed benefits (meeting the needs of current generations) whilst minimising the negative environmental and cultural impacts generally associated with tourism development:\u00a0i.e.<\/em>\u00a0to combine development and conservation (Wild, 1994: p12).<\/p>\n Clarke (1997) traces the development of the sustainable tourism paradigm over time through four stages, and appears most concerned with the notion of scale, and the inclusion of mass tourism models and management practices in the sustainable tourism equation. Over time, Clarke suggests that the sustainable tourism paradigm has been reoriented since mass tourism and sustainable tourism were perceived as polar opposites based on scale (small = good; large = bad). Clarke contends that at this time sustainable tourism was considered to be the possession of small-scale tourism. The second stage, again based on scale, is described as a continuum between the extremes of mass tourism and sustainable tourism. According to Clarke, this was essentially a recognition that sustainable tourism\u2019s use of mass tourism infrastructure, transport and reservations systems has often resulted in the development of tourism systems which, in the absence of careful management, can facilitate a slide down what was considered to be the slippery inclined continuum of sustainable tourism towards mass tourism.<\/p>\n Clarke (1997) suggests the third stage in the reorientation of the sustainable tourism paradigm, \u2018movement\u2019, developed in response to attempts to operationalise principles of sustainability in the wider tourism industry. No longer based solely on scale, sustainable tourism became a goal for all forms of tourism, but was largely interpreted as being concerned almost exclusively with impacts upon the natural physical environment. Finally, Clarke describes a convergence in mass and sustainable tourism through which small scale operators are able to apply the allegedly advanced environmental standards of their larger mass tourism cousins, whilst small scale tourism offers understanding of social aspects of sustainable tourism and the diversity at the local level between destination regions and the implications of this for management.<\/p>\n Swarbrooke (1999:p40) takes issue with the assumptions that sustainable tourism has been based on, suggesting that at the most fundamental level “sustainable tourism is, perhaps, an impossible dream, and the best we can hope for is to develop more sustainable forms of tourism.” Also called into question is the objectivity of much of the sustainable tourism debate. Swarbrooke sees the polarisation of tourism forms into \u2018good\u2019 and \u2018bad\u2019 as being value laden, unnecessarily divisive and unhelpful. Buckley (1999) highlighted difficulties in defining sustainable tourism given\u00a0<\/strong>problems associated with defining \u2018sustainable\u2019, suggesting alternatively that it may be a more fruitful exercise to define what types of activity are unsustainable (Buckley, 1999, 1991). A similar line is taken by Clarke (1997: p229) in “accepting that the concept of sustainable tourism is still evolving, the absence of a precise goal definition is less important than a general movement in the correct direction”. Identifying the correct direction does, however, require some level of definition. Section 2.3 outlines principles of sustainable tourism which allow \u2018the correct direction\u2019 to be identified.<\/p>\n <\/a>2.3 Sustainable Tourism Principles and Models<\/strong><\/p>\n Sustainable tourism principles divorced from scale as a defining characteristic are presented in Bramwell\u00a0et. al.<\/em>\u00a0(1996). These are summarised below.<\/p>\n Swarbrooke (1999:p46) suggests that there are three equally important dimensions to sustainable tourism. Namely<\/p>\n The components of these three dimensions are briefly discussed below.<\/p>\n <\/a>2.31 The Environmental Dimension<\/em><\/p>\n Swarbrooke (1999) suggests five components of the environmental dimensions which may be impacted upon by tourism and as such should be factored into any sustainable tourism development. These are shown in Figure 1. below.<\/p>\n Figure 1. The Five Components of the Environmental Dimension of Sustainable Tourism<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The Farmed Environment<\/strong> Each of these compenents collectively form what we label “The Environment”.<\/p>\n *Source Swarbrooke (1999:p50)<\/p>\n <\/a>2.32 The Economic Dimension<\/em><\/p>\n In economic terms, poorly designed (unsustainable) tourism development in developing countries can result in a combination of the destruction of linkages with the domestic economy; failure to create adequate levels of local employment and income; worsening of balance of payments and foreign indebtedness; transfer of inappropriate (often capital intensive) technology; loss of local skills and failure to provide skilled jobs for local population; labour exploitation; inequitable distribution of the costs and benefits of tourism (Brohman, 1996). Brohman (1996) developed a set of criteria for assessing the likelihood of outward\u2013oriented growth positively impacting upon overall development. These criteria may be appropriately applied in the assessment of a tourism development\u2019s likelihood of contributing positively to host economies.<\/p>\n * Source Brohman, 1996<\/p>\n <\/a>2.33 The Social Dimension<\/em><\/p>\n One of the key principles of sustainable tourism development is the empowerment of all stakeholders in the decision making process, and the inclusion of all stakeholders in the assessment of costs and benefits of proposed developments (Bramwell\u00a0et. al.<\/em>\u00a01996). Butler (1991) observes that benefits from tourism are rarely equitably distributed, tending to be concentrated amongst those actively involved in the tourism industry at the expense of those who generally bear the costs of tourism. Wearing and Neil (1999p.76) contend that host communities are often neglected in the planning and management of tourism development leading to \u2018inadequate levels of participation perceived by these communities in the management of what they regard as their traditional domains\u2019. Wearing, Largamente and Coronado (2000) explain that host communities can participate in tourism in a number of ways, and in the case of external agents imposing tourism upon communities, participation often takes on the form of organised opposition to the development rather than cooperation. Cooperative participation is widely touted as a means of gaining community support for tourism projects, whilst the potential for indigenous resource management practices to inform, and contribute to more successful projects is, in the view of Wearinget. al.<\/em>\u00a0(2000), neglected.<\/p>\n Most writers on the subject seem to agree that the assessment of socio-cultural impacts of tourism on a host community in a developing nation is an extremely complex task given the difficulty in isolating the effects of tourism from other modernising influences (Shaw & Williams, 1999; Mathieson & Wall, 1982). A range of social impacts are commonly associated with tourism development and steps can be taken to minimise their impact in a sustainable tourism system. For example, the \u2018demonstration effect\u2019, the adoption of tourist behaviour and consumption patterns by local residents, particularly young people (Shaw & Williams, 1999; Rivers, 1973), can led to a greater reliance upon imported goods, effectively a drain on the local economy (Clevendon, 1979). The introduction of foreign values can lead to other social tensions including the development of a social duality between those embracing new values (generally the young and those most involved in the tourism industry) and those wishing to retain the pre-existing way of life. Other writers include moral changes amongst tourisms social impacts including associated rises in crime, gambling, prostitution and the spread of AIDS (Shaw & Williams, 1999:p 107-108).<\/p>\n <\/a>2.4 The Role of Stakeholder Groups in Sustainable Tourism<\/strong><\/p>\n This section outlines the roles that the major stakeholders, government. Industry, host communities, NGOs can play in the development of sustainable tourism.<\/p>\n <\/a>2.41 Government<\/em><\/p>\n Destination region governments have a major role to play in developing sustainable tourism. Wearing and Neil (1999p. 25) point out that government has powerful tools at its disposal to influence tourism development. Namely<\/p>\n Through the use of legislation government has the ability to enforce consistent standards of operations of foreign and domestic tourism operators. Tourism is an inherently political subject and as such will be subject to lobbying to influence the political processes involved. Swarbrooke identifies potential obstacles for the effective use of government powers in the sustainable tourism equation. These are summarised below.<\/p>\n Tools commonly used in implementing industry self-regulation have been placed in a continuum by Manidis Roberts (1994) see Table 1 on the following page.<\/p>\n
\n(Jess.Ponting@uts.edu.au)<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nFaculty of Business<\/strong>
\nSchool of Leisure, Sport and Tourism Studies<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nContents<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\nAgricultural landscapes
\nMan-made forests
\nFish farms
\nThe Natural Environment<\/strong>
\nMountainous areas
\nSeas
\nRivers and Lakes
\nCaves
\nBeaches
\nNatural woodland
\nThe Built Environment<\/strong>
\nIndividual buildings\/structures
\nVillages and townscapes
\nTransport infrastructure
\nDams and reservoirs
\nWildlife<\/strong>
\nLand-based mammals
\n& reptiles
\nFlora
\nBirds
\nInsects
\nFish and marine mammals
\nNatural resources<\/strong>
\nWater
\nClimate
\nAir<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n