Rrpom

Environment tourism and development As a prelude to the industrial fair Globe 90, held in Vancouver, Canada, earlier this year, a workshop was conducted in March 1990 to develop an agenda for action on Sustainable Tourism with a view to providing a ‘sustainable tourism strategy’ to be put forward as the tourism industry’s contribution to Globe 90. Jonathan Edwards of the Dorset Institute, UK, and Mario Banks, Manager of the Chamber of Commerce, Cayman islands, describe how the delegates arrived at a suitable agenda for economic, environmental and social sustainability.

A workshop in March 1990. consider-

ing ‘Sustainable tourism’. attracted a

diverse range of delegates from many

parts of the world. All were however,

directly involved with either the plan-

ning, development or delivery of

touristic products. Held in Xfalta it

was organized by the Centre for En-

vironmental Management and P!an-

ning (CEMP) of the University of

Aberdeen. Scotland, which has estab-

lished itself as one of the leading re-

search and training centres in the field

of Environmental Impact Assessment

and Auditing, with respect to develop-

ment scenarios worldwide. The

Foundation for International Studies,

Malta. Dorset Institute and Globe 90

collaborated in the organization and

the workshop which also received sup-

port from WTO. UNESCO, UNEP

and WHO.

Part of the impetus for this meeting

came from the Canadian govern-

ment’s decision to host Globe 90, a

major industry/environment fair and

conference in late iLlarch 1990. Tour-

ism was one of the streams being

considered and one of the outcomes of

the &lalta workshop was the provision

of .first draft’ sustainable tourism

strategies to go forward to this confer-

ence.

Sustainability was introduced as the

theme by a series of keynote introduc-

tory papers which drew on experi-

ences from North America, the Carih-

bean, the Far East and Europe. In-

evitably terms such as ‘green‘ and

‘alternative’ were used as were the

approaches of ‘integrated planning’,

‘community preparation’, ‘community

involvement’ and ‘equity’. This latter

term, which did not translate that easi-

ly, \vas defined by Linda Cronin of

266

Tourism Canada as meaning. ‘full ac-

cess to economic. social and environ-

mental continuity and opportunity’.

At the end of the introductory sessions

few would have disagreed in principal

with Arthur Spiegler’s Austrian es-

perience which led him to define sus-

tainable tourism as ‘forms of tourism

that support the ecological balance

which is the basis of the beauty and

the features of a given, mostly cultural

landscape’. Many of the introductory

papers, while recognizing the poten-

tial to influence the development of

‘new’ tourism products and destina-

tions, were more concerned with the

problem of modifying existing and tra-

ditional tourism products and regions

to relocate them on a sustainable

basis. The philosophical basis of this

approach was well expressed in papers

by Emanuel de Kadt, read in his abs-

ence, and James Stark from the Cana-

dian Centre for Responsible Tourism.

Following on from this introduction

the workshop followed a pattern

whereby group seminars followed

each of the four theme specific ses-

sions:

economic, physical and human en-

vironments;

institutional and technical environ-

ments;

tourism in the Mediterranean; and

case studies.

During these workshop seminars the

presentations, which drew attention to

situations and practices from North

America, Saudi Arabia, Yugoslavia.

Greece, Portugal, Denmark. the UK.

Turkey. Africa and Mediterranean is-

lands including appropriately. XIalta.

formed the basis of comparatix.e dis-

cussions. Each of the three groups

were asked to work towards the pro-

duction of an ‘agenda for action’ for

sustainable tourism development.

There was widespread agreement

that these seminars. bringing together

perspectives and experiences from

many locations and cultures. at diffe-

rent stages in the development of their

tourism industries were of great value

to all participants. iLIore than once

prescriptions of, carrying capacity me-

asures, or host-guest ratios. or plan-

ning frameworks, would be put for-

ward only to bring the response ‘We

do all that and it doesn’t work’.

The difficulties of these groups com-

ing to clear resolutions \vas prohabl>

best illustrated in the responses to

various sites seen on an all too brief

tour of the main island of I\;Lalta.

Whereas there was almost total unani-

mity as to what \verc unsuccessful

examples of tourism development.

there was far less agreement as to

what had the potential to operate SIIY

tainably to the satisfaction of all.

(Those who know the Island will

appreciate the delight and amazement

which resulted from a brief stop at

‘Popeye’s village’.)

The varying composition of the

three discussion groups \vas clearI>

reflected in their final presentations as

each in turn suggested WAS in which

economic, environmental and social

sustainability might both he under-

stood, developed and manaped for an

industry that is characterized by its

dynamism in providing for clients

whose demands change rapidly. The

ideas that came for\vard tariecl from

philosophical academic models

attempting to establish valid

approaches to the synthesis of sustnin-

able tourism to more practical inte-

grated regional planning evaluation

and auditing schemes which recog-

nized the need to in\.olve. inform and

educate, not only the owner, em-

ployee and resident, hut also the visi-

tor. The participation of a number of

delegates whose principal interests

and experience lay in marketing tour-

ism products, ensured that those plan-

ning approaches did not lose sight of

the practicality of ‘no tourists no tour-

ism’.

It fell to Barry Sadler. as one of

those providing a link ber\veen this

TOURISM MANAGEMENT September 1990

meeting and the Globe 90 conference.

to synthesize an ‘agenda for action’

with regard to sustainable tourism de-

velopment. Sustainable tourism dr-

velopment wax. he suggested. a model

of socioeconomic activity and a re-

sponse to landscape stewardship. It

can be seen as a ‘niche function’ of

landscape systems fitting into and giv-

ing expression to the regional halance

bet\veen man and nature. However.

he warned it was not a specific mix of

physical/land-use assets and opportu-

nities, rather it must be given policy

definition and direction in different

countries and locations. He nent on to

emphasize the need to characterize

the problem. to be able to state clearly

the elements of - strategy. vision,

goals. principles and instruments

which result in sustainable tourism

development. In addition he recom-

mended that it would be valuable to

Lvork to\vard a checklist of incentives

and constraints exemplified b> ex-

isting examples, possibly further re-

fined by an in-depth case study of a

clearly defined location.

These ideas were taken forward. b)

Barry Sadler and Brian Clark from

CELIP. to the Globe 90 mfcting in

Vancouver. 3s part of a continuing

process of appl!lny to tourism the

idea5 of sustainabilitv and alternative

development scenar;os. Lvhich have

for instance. been put for\\ard b>

David Pearce anal his colleagues at

The London Environmental Econo-

mics Centre at University College.

London.

For further details of presentations

made to the Malta bvorkshop contact

Sandra Ralston. Conference and

Training klanaper, CEbtP. 23 St

Machar Drive. Old Aberdeen XB3

IRL’ and for reports of the Globe 90

conference contact Lynda Cronin.

Director Tourism Policy. Government

of Canada. 35 Queen Street Ottawa.

Canada. KlA OHS.

Jonathan Edwards Department of Tourism

Dorset Institute Poole UK

and Mario Banks Chamber of Commerce

Cayman Islands West Indies

Does tourism promote world peace? John Ap, a graduate student, and Turgut Var, Professor of Tourism, in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University, have carried out an exploratory survey of Australian and North American tourism professionals to examine their perceptions of tourism as a promoter of world peace. They also looked at perceptions of the general benefits of tourism and sought to identify common parameters which quantify a social impact of tourism. The study found that tourism is viewed as an economic activity of positive impact which can be considered as a common parameter, but tourism is not seen as a significant contributor to world peace.

Amon the positive benefits attri-

buted to the social and cultural effects

of tourism are the promotion of good-

will. understanding and peace among

people of different nations.’ The role

of tourism as an ambassador and

vehicles of international understand-

ing and peace has been recognized by

international bodies such as the Un-

ited Nations. In 1960, the World

Tourism Conference in Manila de-

clared that ‘world tourism can be a

vital force for world peace ‘_ While there is general recognition

of the contribution of tourism towards

world peace. there has been little

research on this subject. D’Amore

and Jafari provided the first substan-

tial collection of literature on this

topic for the First Global Conference:

Tourism - A \‘ital Force for Peace

held in Vancouver. Canada and this

has sparked considerable interest on

the relationship between tourism and

peace.’ World peace is an intangible

attribute and the impact of tourism on

world peace is a difficult concept to

quantify. However. if the tourism

TOURISM MANAGEMENT September 1990

industry and its supporters are to

maintain credibility and continue to

espouse -orId peace a5 one of the

positive attributes of .tourism.

atrempts to measure its impact \vill be

necessary.

The literature on the perceived im-

pacts of tourism forms a basis upon

which one can begin to develop oper-

ational measures to identify the rela-

tionship between tourism and world

peace.’ People’s perceptions must be

investigated to ascertain if there are

any \vhich may facilitate a better

description of this relationship. In

support of this approach Liu. Sheldon

and Var indicated that cross national

comparisons appear useful in identify-

ing common parameters and estab-

lishing norms in terms of ‘perceptual

differences in the attitudes of people.’

The goals of this exploratory study are

(I) to examine the perceptions of

tourism professionals from two de-

\-eloped countries towards the extent

to which they perceive that tourism

promotes world peace. an d the gener-

al benefits of tourism. and (1) to

identify common parameters and mea-

sures kvhich quantify a social impact of

tourism.

3Iethodology

This study is part of an international

research effort which was principalI)

administered to university and college

students, and involved measuring

perceptions towards the benefits of

tourism (social. economic and physic-

al). The study was conducted in June

19%.

A survey instrument consisting of a

questionnaire form with 1.7 items \vas

administered to the participants (see

Appendix). The first 15 items on the

questionnaire used a five point Likert-

type scale to solicit an indication of

agreement (or disagreement) with a

statement of belief about the rela-

tionship between tourism and a par-

ticular type of benefit or cost. State-

ments used in the questionnaire were

penerated from a review of the litera-

ture. review by some faculty and

gaduate tourism students at two uni-

versities in the USA, and from a pilot

test on students. Most of the state-

ments were positively bvorded but a

267