pariwisata dan iklim

7/21/2019 Pariwisata Dan Iklim

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pariwisata-dan-iklim 1/13

Tourism Development in Small Islands across the World

Author(s): Jerome L. McElroySource: Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 85, No. 4, Special Issue: Nature-Society Interactions on Islands (2003), pp. 231-242Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Swedish Society for Anthropology and GeographyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3554423 .

Accessed: 18/01/2011 02:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black . .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=swedish

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3554423?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3554423?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=swedish




TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

IN

SMALL ISLANDS

ACROSS

THE

WORLD1

by

Jerome

L.

McElroy

McElroy,

.

L.,

2003: Tourism

Development

n Small Islands

Across he

World',

Geogr.

Ann.,

85 B

(4):

231-242.

ABSTRACT. his

study

develops

heTourism

enetrationndex

and

applies

t to 51 islands.The results onfirm

he most

pene-

trated

omprise

Caribbean,

Mediterranean

ndNorthern acific

islands

ypified

by

large

esorts,

rowding,

hort

tays

and here-

placement

f

man-made ttractionsor

lost

amenities.

The least

penetratedslands omprisemainlyPacificand ndianOceandes-

tinations

haracterized

y

small

acilities,

ong stays,

and imited

infrastructure.he

intermediate

slands

primarily

all into two

groups:

Caribbeanslands

advancing

o

the

high-density

tage,

and other

destinations

xperiencing apid

growth

and resource

conflicts.The

study

concludeswith

planning

mplications

nd

suggestions

or further esearch.

Key

words:

tourism

development,

enetration

ndex, islands,

planning,

world.

Introduction

The postwar historyof small islands has been

marked

y

two favorable

development

actors: he

march

of

decolonization

nd the

global

spread

of

internationalourism.

n the

first

case,

since

1960

about

30

tropical/temperate

slandsacross

he

five

major

oceanic basins have become

politically

n-

dependent McElroy

and

Mahoney,

2000).

Other

island erritories ave achieved

ignificantly reat-

er

internal

self-government

and

have used

this

new-found

autonomy

the so called

resource

f

jurisdiction

to

createtax

havens

and

diversify

intoothernontraditionalctivities uchas offshore

finance

and

ship registry

Baldacchino

nd

Milne,

2000).

In the second

case,

the

remarkableransfor-

mationof

tourism

nto

the

world's

argest ndustry

-

accounting

or about

one

tenth

of

global

GDP,

employment

nd

capital

ormation

WTTC,2001)

-

has coincidedwith the

restructuring

f small

s-

land

economies

away

rom

raditional

xports

uch

as

sugar

and

copra

owardsmass

ourism ndrelat-

ed construction.

The

results

have transformed

n-

sular

andscapes

cross

the

Caribbean,

Mediterra-

nean and North

Pacific,

and

created he so-called

Pleasure

Periphery

f North

America,

Europe

and

Japan espectively

Turner

nd

Ash,

1976).

The

problem

However,

muchof this

growth

has

been

overlyrap-

id,

unplanned

nd ntrusive ndhas

damaged

nsu-

lar

ecosystems

Briguglio

et

al,

1996).

In

the Car-

ibbean,

ourism

xpansion

as

directly

r

ndirectly

caused

deforestation nderosionof

upland

orests

for condominium evelopmentsandroad-works,

as

well as beach

loss,

lagoon pollution

and reef

damage

rom

sand

mining,

dredging

nd boat an-

choring

(McElroy

and de

Albuquerque,

1998).

Nearly

30%of the reefs areat

high

riskdue to run-

off

and

discharges

f

untreated

municipal

ndhotel

waste,

and

pollution

from

pleasure

yachts

and

cruise

ships Bryant

t

al.,

1998).

Partly

s a

result,

since 1985

fish

catches

areoff

nearly

50

percent

n

gross tonnage

UNEP, 1999b).

In

the

Mediterranean,

arge-scale

oastal

hotel/

marina nd nfrastructureonstruction as filled in

salt

ponds, disfigured

shorelines,

and

polluted

nearshorewaterswith

sewage

(Pearce,1989).

In

highlydeveloped

slandssuchas the

Balearicsand

Malta,

ourismhas been associatedwith the

rapid

decline

of

traditional

ursuits

and

renewable

re-

source

uses,

theriseof

realty

nflation

Beller

et

al.,

1990),

and

paralyzing

ummer

rowding

ndother

socioculturalntrusions hat threaten nsular

ife-

styles

and

dentity

Lanfant

t

al.,

1995).

In

deve-

loping

Indian

Ocean

slands,

he situation s simi-

lar.Tourism longwithunplanned rbanizations

associated

with

sand

mining,mangrove

estruction

andcoastal

pollution.

Mauritius

nd he

Seychelles

areranked econdand hird

n

theworld n terms

of

endangered

ative

plant species

(UNEP, 1999a),

and ome

beach-based esorts reunder hreat rom

sea-levelrise.

The

Pacific,

n

transition

rom

subsistence

o

a

cash

economy,

is

undergoing

ubstantial hreats

from

commercial

griculture

nd

fishing, ogging

and

coastal ourist

development.

n

popular

esort

areas

delicate

mangroves

have been

harvested or

construction

material,

and reefs scarred

by

tram-

pling

and

collecting

by

tourists

(Lobban

and

Schefter,

1997).

Development

on

Guamhas

been

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85

B

(2003)

?

4

231



JEROME .

MCELROY

compared

o suburban os

Angeles,

and

even

the

Galapagos

as

allegedly

beenoverrun

y

excessive

visitation

Lindberg

nd

Hawkins,

1996).

As a re-

sult of these

forces of

modernization,

he

region

boasts

he

largest

number f birdextinctions

n

the

world,

and seventimes more

endangered pecies

than

he

Caribbean

UNEP, 1999a).

Since tourism's

bioculturalbase

is

in

decline

across

he

island

world,

and

because

of the contin-

ued

pressures

rom ncreased

lobalization

xpect-

ed for

the future

UNEP, 2002),

researchers ave

called

or

greener,

ower

density

ourism

tyles

and

have

begun

o

explore

he causesof this

policy

fail-

ure.

A

variety

of structural nd nstitutionalactors

have been

suggested McElroy,

2002):

four stand

out.

First,

here

s

strongpressure

n

policy-makers

to createlabor-intensive pportunitiesn insular

economicsbuffeted

by

(1)

the oss of traditional

g-

ricultural

sugar,

opra)preferences

ue

to

the for-

mation

of

regional

rading

blocks

(EU, NAFTA),

and

(2)

by

the

fall-off

in

aid

stemming

rom is-

lands'

declining

geopolitical

significance

in

the

post-cold

war

era

(Commonwealth

Secretariat,

1997).

Second,

the scale

discrepancy

between

large,

heavily

capitalized,

high-volume

interna-

tional travel

interests

air

and cruise

lines,

hotel

chains,

tour

operators)

nd

small,

fragile,

insular

ecosystemsproducean inherent ropensityor en-

vironmental

overrun,

and

tourism's on-site

con-

sumption

character

s conducive to sociocultural

disruption.

Third,

over time

the cumulative

m-

pacts

of

mass

tourism'suneven

dynamics

n small

islands often

catch decision-makers

unprepared.

While visible

economic

benefits accrue

linearly

(e.g.

obs,

foreign

xchange),

osts are

often

hidden

until

dangerous

hresholds

re crossed

beach

ero-

sion,

fish

kills,

traffic

congestion).

Finally,despite

its

pervasiveness,

here s no

standard

measure

of

tourism'soverall mpact oprovidepolicy-makers

with

an

early

warning

ignal

for

broadly

assessing

potentially

non-sustainable evels

of

visitation

(U.S.

Congress,

1992).

Literature

Carryingcapacity

has been

a

policy

concern

in

small slands

pursuing

mass ourism

trategy

ar-

ticularly

since

the

appearance

f Butler's

(1980)

destination

ifecycle

model.

This

theory

mphasiz-

es

the

dynamic,

market-drivenhrust f

tourism

de-

velopment

and

argues

hat successfuldestinations

pass

through

a

regular equence

of

growth

stages

that

parallel

he

S-shaped

ogistic

curve.

Progress

along

the

development

continuum

nvolves

in-

creasing industry

institutionalization,

facility

scale,

visitor

saturation nd

cumulative

cological

impact

Butler,

1991;

Dannand

Cohen,

1991).

But-

ler's

six

stages

include

emergence,

nvolvement,

growth,

consolidation,

maturity

nd/or

stagnation

followed

by

declineor

rejuvenation.

he

concept

s

analogous

o the

product

ifecycle

in

marketing

it-

erature

whereby

a new

product

is

launched,

achieves

acceptance

nd

growth

until

competitors

gain

market

hare,

and nnovation r

repositioning

is

necessary

o stave off sales and

profit

declines

(Heywood,

1986).

Although

he model has been

applied

o over a

dozen

resort

areas,

hese

case studies

ack

stand-

ardized

approaches,

niformmeasuresand

rigor-

ous quantificationGetz, 1992).As a result,con-

ceptual

and

empirical

ifficulties

emain,

ncluding

problems

of

empiricallydefining

he

stages,ques-

tions about

he

nevitability

f

the

progression,

nd

complications

nvolving

multiple products

with

multiplecycles

in

a

given

destination

Agarwal,

1994).

Despite

these

limitations,

a numberof au-

thorscontinue

o view the

ifecycle

model

as a use-

ful,

descriptive

nd

analytic

ramework

or under-

standing

he

general

processes

and

patterns

f tour-

ist

development

Hovinen,2002),

not

only

for in-

dividualdestinationsbut also at the more macro

level as a

regional

model of tourist

evolution.For

example,

Holder

(1988)

loosely

invokedthe

life-

cycle

-

his

so-called self-destruct

heory

of tour-

ism

to

broadly

haracterize

he

postwar

growth

of masstourism

n

popular

Caribbean

estinations.

Similarly,

Minerbi

(1988)

and

Choy

(1992)

sketched tourism's

development

stages

across a

number f

Pacific slands.

In the

same

vein,

morerecentwork

has

attempt-

ed

to

(1)

reduce

he number f

lifecycle

stages

to

moreempirically efinableevels,and 2)todevel-

op

more

comprehensive

measures

of overall

our-

ism

impact.

In the first

case,

de

Albuquerque

nd

McElroy

(1992)

developed

an abbreviated

hree-

stage

version

of Butler'smodel for the

Caribbean.

By

descriptively

nterpreting

ver a dozen

(mainly

economic)

indicators,

they

clustered about 23

small slands

nto

hree

evels

of

increasing

ourism

penetration:

ow-density emerging

destinations,

growing

ntermediate

slandsandmature

igh-den-

sity

resortareas.

Follow-up

tudies

McElroy

t

al.

1993;

McElroy

and

de

Albuquerque,

1994),

in-

cluding

a numberof Pacificislands,suffered he

same

limitations.To overcome these

shortcom-

ings,

in

the

second

case,

McElroy

and

de Albu-

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85 B

(2003)

?

4

232



TOURISM EVELOPMENT

NSMALL SLANDSACROSSTHE

WORLD

querque

1998)

constructed

TourismPenetration

Index

TPI)

and

uccessfully

pplied

tto the

small-

islandCaribbean. his instrumentmeasures

more

comprehensively

he cumulative

cale

and

mpact

Butler nvisioned or

the

ifecycle

process,

lusters

destinationsmore

systematically

nto discretede-

velopment tages,

and

provides

a more balanced

imprint

f

tourism n

island

economy,society

and

environment.

Most

recent

applications

have

ex-

tended

he

model to othersmall

slandsacross

he

world

(McElroy

nd

Olazarri,

997:

McElroy

and

de

Albuquerque,

999;

McElroy,

2002).

Scope

The

present

tudy

does four

things.

First,

t

devel-

ops the TPIand discusses ts strengths ndweak-

nesses.

Second,

it

applies

the model to

51

small

(about

one million

population

or

less)

islands

across he

world

and

nterprets

he resultsaccord-

ing

to the

scaleddown

three-stage

ersionof But-

ler's

lifecycle

model.

Third,

t

emphasizes

he ob-

vious

planning challenges

appropriate

or

each

stage

of

tourist

development.

Finally,

t assesses

the

general

usefulness

of

the

TPI

as

a

comprehen-

sive

measureof

overall ourism

mpact

as well as

its functionas

an

early

warning

ignal,

particularly

for those destinationsexperiencingand/or ap-

proachinghigh-density

development

and

poten-

tially

damaging

evels

of

visitation.

Methodology

Similar o

Briguglio's

1995)

small-island

ulner-

ability

ndex,

hree

major

riteria

overned

he

con-

structionof

the

Tourism

Penetration ndex. The

first was that t

shouldbe

simple

o formulate

nd

interpret

with

rising

TPI

scores

ndicating

ncreas-

ing

tourism

penetration.

The

secondwas that it

should

be

comprehensive

nough

o

includeall

ma-

jor

dimensionsof

tourism

mpact.

The

third

was

that

t

shouldallow wide

applicabilityhrough

he

use of

standard,

eadily

accessible

data.To

achieve

these

purposes,

he TPI

was

developed

rom

hree

separate

indicators which

measure

economic,

sociocultural

nd

environmental

enetration.

Variable

selection

The TPI was

constructed

n

three

steps.

First,

the

variableswereselected o measureourismdevel-

opment

across the three

mpact

dimensions.

Sec-

ond,

standardized

ndices

basedon

these variables

were

calculated.

Third,

TPIscores

werecalculated

as the

unweighted verage

f the

hree

tandardized

impact

ndices.

In the case of

variable

selection,

given

the

widespread

unavailability

f

tourism's

contribution

o

GDP

in

many

destinations,

isitor

spending

per

capita

per

resident

population)

was

selected

as a measure f

overalleconomic

mpact

becauseof its standard

sage

as wellas its

correla-

tion with

othermeasures

of tourism

development

(Liu

and

Jenkins,

1996).

The most

commonmeasure

of

tourism's ocio-

cultural

mpact

s the ratioof visitors

o the

local

population.

A more

rigorous

ndicators the

Tour-

ism

Penetration

atio,

.e.

the

number f

stay-over

visitors imes he

average

ength

of

stay

divided

by

the

population

imes 365

(CTO,1993).

This

study

useda similarmeasure hat includesone-dayex-

cursionists nd cruise

visitors,

and

may

be

called

the

averagedaily

visitor ensus

or

densityper

1000

population.

t

is

calculated s:

the number

f

stay-

over tourists

imes

the

average

ength

of

stay

plus

excursionists

ivided

by

the host

population

imes

365.The

resulting

atio

s

multipliedby

1

000

to

yield

the

averagedaily

visitor

censusor

densityper

1000

population.

A

figure

of

100,

for

example,

suggests

hat hereare

100

daily

visitors

per

1

000

population

ndicating

hat ourist

activity

esults n

a 10percentncreasenthedaily slandpopulation,

throughout

he

year.

This

indicatorwas

chosen as

an

aggregative,

ndirect

proxy

measureof

hose-

guest

irritation

nd/or

rowding

and/or

ocio-cul-

tural

pressure.

The

censusmeasure

was

selected

n

preference

to

the so-called

Tourism

Density

Ratio

(visitors

times

average tay

divided

by

landarea

imes

365)

-

to which

t

correlates

losely

-

because he

former

focuses

exclusively

on

social as

opposed

o envi-

ronmental

mpacts.

To

measure

environmental

penetration,heuse of moredirectmeasures uch

as

per

visitor

electricor

water

consumption

r an-

nual

rate

of

arable and

loss or

deforestationwas

precluded

y

the

unavailability

f the

data.

nstead,

the

numberof

hotel rooms

per

square

kilometer

was

chosen to

measure

ourism's

mpact

on

the

physical

environment.

Normally,

progression

through

Butler's

tages

of

tourism

development

n-

volves

enlargement

f

the hotel

plant,

ncreasing

facility

scale,

and

expansion

of

the associated

air,

sea

(ports

and

marinas)

nd land

(road

networks)

infrastructure.

otelrooms

per

km2

was

selectedas

a

commonly

accessibleindirect

proxy

for tour-

ism's

imprint

n

the

insular

andscape

nd

fragile

ecology.

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85

B

(2003)

?

4

233



JEROME . MCELROY

The

strength

f

these

ndicators,

s constitutedn

the

TPI,

is

that

they

represent

n

integrated

om-

prehensive

measureof overall tourism

mpact

n

small-island ountries.

However,

becauseof their

highly aggregative

ature,

hey

remain udimenta-

ry

first

approximations

nd

require

ome

interpre-

tive caveats.

First,

hey

do

not

measure

he

spatial

concentration f

tourism,

a

particularlymportant

dimensionfor islands

where sun-lust

activity

is

concentrated

long

the

seashore. Likewise

they

take

no

account

of

dualistic

development

n

single-

islandcountries

nd

mask ndividual slanddiffer-

ences

in

archipelagic

tates.

Second,

the

indices

also mask

the

seasonability

so

characteristic

f

tourism

(e.g. high

winter visitor

densities

in the

Caribbean nd intense

summer

visitation

in

the

Mediterranean). hird,as single-year,cross-sec-

tional

indicators,

none of

these variables

aptures

an island's

ong-term xperience

with and

adapta-

tionto

tourism

development. inally,

as land-based

indicators

hey may

not

accurately

measure

ourist

activity

n

certaindestinationshat

cater

principally

to

sea-based

yachting

ourism.

Index construction

In order o

develop

heTPI

scores,

he three

mpact

indicatorswere standardizedccordingo thefol-

lowing

formula:

TPIij

=

(Xij

-

Min

Xi)

(Max

Xi

-

Min

Xi)

Where

TPIij

tands

or

the

degree

of tourism

pene-

tration or the

th

islandwith

respect

o the ith vari-

able,

i

taking

on the

value

of

1

to 3 since

there

are

three

variables,

ndj taking

on

the

values

of

1

to 51

for the 51 islands

in

the

sample

(see

below).

Xij

stands or the valueof the ith variableor the this-

land.Max

Xi andMin Xi

stand

or maximum

and

minimum

values of

the ith variable

or all islands

in the

sample.

f an

islandhas

a

value

of

Xij equal

to themaximum

minimum),

ts standardized

core

would

be

1

(zero).

The

overall

TPI

scores or each

slandwerethen

estimated

by taking

an

unweighted

verage

of

the

threestandardizedndices

according

o

the

formu-

la:

TPIj = YTPIij, i = 1,2,3;j = 1,2...51

Since

different

weights

could not be

established

priori

rom

eitherthe

theory

or the

literature,

his

equivalent

mpact

formulation

ssumed

hat each

type

of

impact

(economic,

social,

environmental)

was as

important

s the other

wo

in

contributing

o

overall ourism

penetration.

To

operationalize

he

index,

a

sample

was se-

lected of

51

small islands of

approximately

ne

million

population

r less for

which

complete

data

were

available. This data

constraintexcluded

a

number f

small

non-sovereign

slandssuch as the

Azores,

Balearics,Faroes,Madeira,

Mayotte,

Wal-

lis andFutuna

nd

others.

To

ensure

uniformity,

ll

data

were

taken

romstandardources: he tourism

data

from the

Compendium

of

Tourism

Statistics

(WTO,2001),

andthe

population

ndarea

igures

fromTheWorldFactbookCIA,2001).Theresult-

ing sample

ncludes23 islands

n

the

Caribbean,

6

in

the

Pacific,

five

in the

Indian

Ocean,

our n

the

Atlantic,

wo in

the Mediterranean

Malta

and

Cy-

prus)

and

Bahrain n the Persian

Gulf. Threehave

slightly

more

han

one

million nhabitants

Hawaii,

Mauritiusand

Trinidad),

and all are less than

20000

Km2

in

area

apart

from

Iceland and the

Solomons.

Results

Table1

presents

hebasic

data,

andTable

2

records

the three

mpact

variables,

heir

standardizedndi-

ces andtheircombined

TPI

scores andthe overall

destination

ankings.Althoughquite aggregative

and

rudimentary,

he TPI scores

yield

results hat

broadly

onfirm

what s

expected.

The 51 islands

are

oosely

ranked rommost

(St. Maarten)

o least

developed

Comoros).

The

more

raditional,

evel-

oped,

and

accessible

Caribbean,

Mediterranean

andNorthern acific

destinations

opulate

he

top

half of therankingswhile themoreremoteandre-

cently emerging

South Pacific and Indian

Ocean

destinations ominate he

bottomhalf. The

sample

divides

approximately

ntothreedistinct

groupings

based

on

discrete evels of

development

s revealed

by

the

TPI

and nformed

by

historicalobservation

anda

sense

of the

literature.

hey

are most devel-

oped,

ntermediate

nd east

developed,

and

corre-

spond

generally

o threeabbreviated

tages

of the

destination

ifecycle.

The most

developed

slands orma

subgroup

f

13

internationally

isible

highly developed

desti-

nationscharacterized

y averageper capita

visitor

spending

approaching

10

000 andan

average

dai-

ly

visitor

density

over 170

tourists

per

1 000 resi-

Geografiska

Annaler

*

85 B

(2003)

?

4

234



TOURISM

EVELOPMENT

N

SMALL

SLANDS

ACROSSTHEWORLD

Table

1.

Selected

ourismndicators

or

small

slands,

1999a

Island

LandArea

Population

Tourist

Day

Stay

Rooms

Total

pending

(km2)

(000)

(000) (000)

(Nights)

(U.S. million)

Anguilla

91

12

47

60

8,5

1120

56

Antigua 440 67 232 357 7,0 3 185 291

Aruba

193

70 683 260b

9,3

7 783

782

Bahrain 620

645

1991

1

289

7,Ob

6

202

408

Bahamas

10070

298

1577

1982

5,4

14153

1503

Barbados

430

275

515 433

10,1

5761

677

Bermuda 50

64 354

193

6,2

3276 477b

Bonaire

311

12

61

20

8,3

1086

44

UK

Virgins

150

21 286

181

8,4

1626

300

Cape

Verde

4 030

405

67

-

7,0

1 800

23

Caymans

260

36

395 1035

6,5

4 318

450

Comoros

2 170 596

24

-

7,0

389

19

CookIsland

240

21 56

-

9,0

724

39

Curacao?

544

147 209

218

8,3

2696

201

Cyprus

9240

763

2434

220

11,0

34

122

1878

Dominica 750 71 74 202 11,2 857 49

Fiji

18

270

844

410

14

8,3d

5

777 275

Grenada 340

89

125

256

7,4

1

928

63

Guadaloupe

1706

431 561

379

5,8

8

260

375

Guam

541

158

1162

6

3,0e

10084

1908

Hawaii 16760

1212 6738

-

8,7

71480

11133

Iceland

103 000

278 263 18

4,3d

6 150

227

Kiribati

717

94 2 1

18,0

436 2

Maldives 300

311

430

-

8,7

7627

334

Malta 320

395

1 214 188

10,0

20445

675

Marshalls 181

71 5

-5,3e

300

4

Martinique

1060

415

564

340

13,0

6766

404

Mauritius

1

850

1190

578 22

5,7

8

255 545

Montserrat

100

8 7

-

10,0c

243

8

N. Caledonia 18575 205 100 47 16,0 2 398 125b

Niue

260 2

2

1

14,0e

84 2b

Marianas 477

75

498

4

3,6

4642 625b

Palau

458 19 55

-

6,0d

973

45b

Polynesia

3660

254

211 25

11,8

3396

389b

Reunion 2500

733

394

-

15,7

2527

270

Saba

13

2 24

24

7,0b

87

18b

St. Eustatius 21 2 25

-

7,0b

63

17b

St. Kitts

269

39 84

140

8,7

1762 70

St. Lucia 610 158 261

351

8,7

3065

311

St.

Maarten

41 36 445

616

5,0

3065

463

St. Vincent 340

116

68 155

10,6

1540

77

Samoa 2850

179 85

-

7,6c

710 42

Sao

Tome

b 1

001 165

5

2

7,0

259

111

Seychelles 455 80 128 6 10,5 2 346 25

Solomons

27

540

480 21

-

13,0

860

5

Tonga

718

104 31

13

17,0f

642

9

Trinidad 5 130

1170 348

39

10,b

3

971 201

Turks/Caicos 430 18

121

-

7,4

1

674 246

Tuvalu 26

11 1

-7,6

59

1

US

Virgins

349

122

485

1

478

4,4

4

849 940

Vanuatu 14

760

193 50 46

8,2

663

56

Sources:

Compendium of

Tourism

Statistics,

2001 edn

(WTO, 2001);

The World Factbook

(CIA,

2001).

Notes:a

Population

ata

generally

or 2001. Some

ourism ata

or

1998unless

otherwisendicated.

b

Author's stimate

c 1997

d 1996

e 1995

f

1994

Geografiska

Annaler

*

85 B

(2003) ?

4

235



JEROME . MCELROY

Table 2.

Constructionof the Tourism

Penetration

ndex,

Destination Scores and

Rankings

Impact

Indices

b

Island

Spend/pop Density

Rooms

Spending

Density

Rooms

TPI

scores c

(US$)

1,000a

Km2

Most

tourism

developed

St. Maarten

12 861

UK

Virgins

14 286

Aruba

11171

Caymans

12 500

Bermuda 7

453

Saba 9 000

Turks/Caicos 13 667

St. Eustatius

8 500

Guam

12

706

Malta 1 709

Hawaii

9

186

US

Virgins

7

705

Marianas 8

333

Avg. 9 929

Intermediate ourism

developed

Anguilla

4

667

Bonaire

3 667

Bahamas 5 044

Antigua

4

343

Barbados

2 462

Maldives 1 074

Cyprus

2461

St. Kitts 1 795

Bahrain

633

Cook Island 1 857

St. Lucia

1

968

Palau

2

368

Seychelles

1 388

Martinique

967

Curacao 1 367

Grenada

708

Polynesia

1 532

Guadeloupe

870

Niue

1

000

Dominica 690

Montserrat

1 000

St. Vincent 664

Avg.

1

933

Least

tourism

developed

Mauritius 458

N.

Calcedonia

610

Reunion

368

Iceland 817

Tonga

87

Fiji

326

Samoa

235

Trinidad

172

Tuvalu

91

Vanuatu

290

Marshalls 56

Cape

Verde

57

Kiribati

21

Sao

Tome

30

Solomons 52

Comoros 32

Avg.

231

216

337

259

274

102

263

136

240

61

86

133

81

66

173

105

120

97

81

56

33

97

61

65

66

46

48

46

50

36

36

27

23

40

40

24

21

55

8

22

23

11

14

11

10

8

2

7

1

3

1

1

2

1

8

74,8

10,8

40,3

16,6

65,5

6,7

3,9

3,0

18,6

63,9

4,3

13,9

9,7

25,5

12,3

3,5

1,4

7,2

13,4

25,4

3,7

6,6

10,0

3,0

5,0

2,1

5,2

6,4

5,0

5,7

0,9

4,8

0,3

1,1

2,4

4,5

5,9

4,5

0,1

1,0

0,1

0,9

0,3

0,3

0,8

2,3

0,1

1,7

0,5

0,6

0,3

0,0

0,2

0,7

0,900

1,000

0,782

0,875

0,521

0,629

0,957

0,594

0,889

0,118

0,642

0,539

0,583

0,695

0,326

0,256

0,352

0,303

0,171

0,074

0,171

0,124

0,043

0,129

0,137

0,165

0,096

0,066

0,094

0,048

0,106

0,060

0,069

0,047

0,069

0,045

0,134

0,031

0,041

0,024

0,056

0,005

0,021

0,015

0,011

0,005

0,019

0,003

0,003

0,000

0,001

0,002

0,001

0,015

0,640

1,000

1,000

0,144

0,768 0,539

0,813

0,222

0,301 0,876

0,780 0,090

0,402

0,052

0,711 0,040

0,179 0,249

0,253

0,854

0,393 0,058

0,238

0,186

0,194

0,130

0,513 0,342

0,310

0,164

0,354 0,047

0,286 0,019

0,238

0,096

0,164 0,179

0,095 0,340

0,286

0,050

0,179 0,088

0,191

0,134

0,194 0,040

0,134

0,067

0,140 0,028

0,134 0,070

0,146 0,086

0,104

0,067

0,104

0,076

0,077 0,012

0,066

0,064

0,116

0,004

0,116 0,015

0,069

0,032

0,060 0,060

0,162 0,079

0,021 0,060

0,063

0,001

0,006

0,013

0,030 0,001

0,039

0,012

0,030 0,004

0,027 0,004

0,021 0,011

0,003 0,031

0,018

0,001

0,000

0,023

0,006

0,007

0,000 0,008

0,000 0,004

0,003

0,000

0,000

0,003

0,020 0,011

0,847

0,715

0,696

0,637

0,566

0,500

0,470

0,448

0,439

0,408

0,364

0,321

0,302

0,516

0,267

0,219

0,213

0,212

0,171

0,170

0,169

0,130

0,123

0,121

0,114

0,111

0,100

0,099

0,088

0,076

0,065

0,063

0,063

0,059

0,057

0,055

0,115

0,037

0,035

0,034

0,029

0,019

0,018

0,015

0,014

0,013

0,013

0,009

0,005

0,003

0,002

0,002

0,001

0,016

Sources:See Table

1

Notes:

a Calculatedas:

[(Tourists

*

Stay)

+

Day]/[(Population

*365)*1,000]

b

Calculatedas:

(IndicatorValue-Minimum)/(Maximum-Minimum).

c

Unweighted Average

of the three

impact

indices.

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85

B

(2003)

?

4

236



TOURISM EVELOPMENT

N SMALL SLANDSACROSSTHEWORLD

dents.Tourists hus

represent

he

equivalent

f a

17

percent

ncrease

n

the

daily year-round

opula-

tion. Their nsular

andscapes

re crowdedon

av-

erage

with

nearly

25 hotel rooms

per

km2of area.

This

group

ncludesthree

clusters:

1)

five tradi-

tionalresort slandscomprisingBermuda,heBrit-

ish

(BVI)

and U.S.

(USVI)

Virgins,

Hawaii

and

Malta;

2)

six

more

recententrants

nto

the mass

tourismmarket

ncluding

Aruba,

he

Caymans,

t.

Maarten,

Turks/Caicos,

Guamand

Northern

Mar-

ianas;

and

(3)

two small

Dutch

Antilles,

Sabaand

St.

Eustatius,

nown or

their

dive

tourism.The at-

ter result

points

up

one limitationof the

TPI.

It

overstates

he

impact

n

thesetwo destinations

nd

the

BVI

largely

because he

high

visitordensities

(ranging

rom240 to 337

per

1

000

population)

ail

to capturehemarine-based atureof their ourist

activity.

On the

other

hand,

he

TPI

does

capture

the

heavily

built

character

over

60

rooms

per

km2)

of

Bermuda,

t.Maarten

nd

Malta.

n

addition,

he

relatively

ow

per capita

visitor

spending

n

Malta

($1,709)

maypartly

eflect he

deepdiscounting y

European

our

operators

ommon n

Mediterrane-

an resort

slands.

Many

of

these

most

developed

destinations

share

a

relativelyunique

profile.

According

o the

literature

McElroy

and de

Albuquerque,

992),

thesemature, ffluent reasadvancingo thetopof

the

resort

cycle

are

characterized

y

high

visitor

andhotel

room

densitiesbut

relatively

low visitor

androom

growth

ates.

Theirmarkets

by

and

arge

dominated

by

shorter

taying

visitors

(6.2

nights

average)

witha

strong

preference

or

hotels,

arge-

scale

(comfortable)

acilitiesand

man-made ttrac-

tions.

They

also

exhibit he

highest

evels of

hotel

occupancy, promotional

pending,

and

(for

the

Caribbean)

ruise

passenger

raffic.As

a

partial

n-

dicatorof their

ntegration

nto the

global

tourist

economy, hey

tend o

display

he

owest

degree

of

seasonality hrough

pecial

year-round

ackages

(honeymoon

weekends,

onventions,

arivals,

re-

gattas).

They

also tend

to exhibita

relatively

high

degree

of

man-made

attractions

casinos,

golf-

courses,

conventioneering).Many

of the

olderes-

tablished

estinations re

also

among

he most

fre-

quently

cited in

the

literatureor

tourism-induced

ecosystem

damage,

marine

pollution,

overcrowd-

ing,

host tensions and

declining

vacation

quality

(Beekhuis,

1981;Towle,

1985;

Beller

et

al.

1990;

Jenner

nd

Smith,

1993;

Briguglio

t

al.,

1996).

As

one specific example,the USVI's NationalPark

was

recentlyplaced

on

the

USA's ten

mostendan-

gered

list due

to

over

fishing,

silt

runoff

from

poorly designed

developments

on

land,

careless

snorkelers nd

scuba

divers,

boatanchor

dropping

on coralreefs and

seagrass

beds andboats

running

aground

n

shallowreefs

Larson,

003,

p.

1).

In

conjunction

with

abundant

atural

menities,

the successof thesematuredestinations as been

fostered

by

significant

ocational

advantages

nd

long-standingmetropolitan

ommercial

ies.

The

geographical

roximity

f theCaribbean

o

North

America,

of the Mediterranean

o

Europe,

and

the

Northern

Pacific to

Japan

has facilitated

ourism

growth

becauseof their

relatively

heap

access

to

the most

lucrative

rigin

marketsn the

world.

In-

ter-island

proximity

also

helps explain

the

rapid

diffusion

of

tourismacross he Caribbeanndthe

popularity

f

Guamand

Saipan

as

Japanese

week-

endgolfandhoneymoon estinations.Historically

many

of these

islandsalso functioned s nodes

in

center-periphery

rade,

and theselinks

nourished

theinflow

of

foreign

private

hotel investment

n-

couraged

by generous,

pro-growth

ax incentives.

In

addition,

raditional

olitical

ties fostered

the

aid-financed

ransport

nfrastructurehat orms

he

capital

base of

the

visitor

ndustry.

The

east

developed

slands

ontain16

primarily

Pacificand

Indian

Ocean slands

ocatedat the ow

end or

beginning

stage

of

the resort

cycle.

As

a

group, they average$231 in per capitavisitor

spending,

.e.

less

than3

percent

f

the most

devel-

oped

islands'

level.

Likewise,

they average

only

eight

visitors

per

1 000

population

and

approxi-

mately

one

room

per

km2

of landarea.

Withsome

exceptions

Marshalls,

uvalu),

hey

tendon aver-

age

to be

larger

n

areaand

population

han hema-

ture

destinations

and to

exhibit more

diversified

economies.

The

largest

slands

e.g.

New Caledo-

nia,

Fiji

and

the

Solomons)

possess

valuablere-

sources

-

nickel,

gold

and

silver

respectively

while

overhalfthe labor orce nVannatu ndIce-

land s

engaged

n

subsistence/small-scale

gricul-

tureand

fishing

respectively.

At the

bottom

of this

grouping

re

five low-in-

come remote

outposts

with minimum

ourismde-

velopment

hat

esemble

MIRAB

tates

heavily

de-

pendent

on

emigration,

emittances,

oreign

aid

and

public

employment

(Bertram

and

Watters,

1986).

They

include he

Solomons

and

Kiribati

n

the

Pacific,

Cape

Verde

and

Sao

Tome/Principe

along

the

West

African

coast,

and

Comoros n

the

Indian

Ocean.

At

the

top

end are

several

destina-

tionswitha

couple

ofdecadesof tourist

xperience

and

some

highly

developed

ourism

ones

masked

by

the

aggregative

TPI.

They

include

Mauritius,

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85

B

(2003)

?

4

237



JEROME

. MCELROY

Reunion,

New

Caledonia,

Fiji

andIceland.

Forex-

ample,

Mauritius,

he world's

second

largest

ex-

porter

f woolen

knits,

boasts

he

largest

visitor

n-

dustry

n the Indian

Ocean;

and tourism

earnings

now rival the contribution

f traditional

ugar

ex-

ports

(Benhamou,

1993).

Finally,

he middle

rung

is

occupied

by

islands

advancing p

the

cycle.

Dur-

ing

the 1990s

Trinidad/Tobago

xperienced

ome

of

the

most

sustained

ncreases

n

stay-over

arriv-

als,

visitor

expenditure

nd hotel

room

growth

n

the Caribbean

CTO,

2001)

while Samoa

n

the

Pa-

cific

achieved nternational

ecognition

as

an

eco-

tourismdestination

or its natural

beauty

and

cul-

tural

uniqueness.

Although

t is

difficult

to

simply

classify

these

least

penetrated

slands

because

of

their

heteroge-

neity in size and overall level of development,

many

share haracteristics

ommon o

Butler's ar-

ly

tourism

tages.

These include

small-scale

acil-

ities and nfrastructure

some

ackjetports),

imited

visitor

growth,

and ess disturbed

ultures nd

eco-

logies

than heir

mature,

igh-density

ounterparts.

They

tend

to

spend

least on

promotion,

have

the

lowest

proportion

f

rooms

n

large

(100+)

hotels,

the

highest

ratio

of

regional

inter-island)

isitors,

andtheir

average

ength

of visitor

stay

s

the

long-

est

(ten

nights),

about

wo

weeks

n

five cases

(New

Caledonia,Kiribati,Reunion,the Solomonsand

Tonga).

They

also exhibit

greaterappeal

or

more

adventurous

ravelers

nd

niche

segments

han

or

the mass

market.

In

contrast

o the

'pleasureperiphery,'

he later

arrival nd

slower

progression

long

the resort

cy-

cle of these

Pacific,

ndian

ndAfrican

slandshave

derived

principally

rom their

remoteness.

This

isolation,

in combination

with

small-scale

facili-

ties,

has

hindered he

growth

of direct

air connec-

tions

with

metropolitan

rigin

markets

while

the

re-

sulting imitedpassengerraffichas further urbed

expansion

of hotelroom

capacity

Kissling,

1989).

Many

also

sharea

less extensive

colonial

and

com-

mercial

history

with

the West and

ow levels of

so-

cioeconomic

modernization.

ecause

of

the alter-

native

employment

afforded

by

their diversified

economies,

policy-makers

y

and

arge

have

been

less

aggressive

n

promoting

mass

tourism,

given

air access

and nfrastructure

onstraints,

nd

more

supportive

f selective

natureand

culture ourism

styles,

the

so-called

South

Pacific

Way

Yacou-

mis,

1989).

Finally,

n some cases

(Comoros,

Fiji),

recent

political

instability

has retarded

develop-

ment.

The ntermediate

estinations

epresent

he

arg-

est

and most

dynamic

group.

Their

average

TPI

scores

fall

cleanly

between

he

most

and east de-

veloped.

For

example,

averageper capita

visitor

spending

s

approximately

2000,

averagedaily

density

s 55 visitors

per

1000

population,

nd

av-

erage

rooms

per

km2 s six. Inmost

cases,

these is-

lands

are

characterized

y very

rapid

isitor

growth

and hotel and infrastructureonstruction. n

con-

trast o the most

developed

destinations,

hey

tend

to have

higher

rates

of

seasonality

nd

ower

evels

of

promotional

pending

andcruise

ship

traffic.

n

terms

of

lifecycle

progression,

hey

comprise

mix

of 22 islands

of

varying

size and

economic

struc-

turethat

display

ncreasing

ourism

cale,

ecosys-

tem

impact

and international

isibility.

All have

fairly

considerableourism

xperience

but

hey

are

marked yadiversity f tourism tyles.At thehigh

end are

traditionalmass marketdestinations

uch

as

Antigua,

he

Bahamas,

Bahrain,

Barbadosand

Cyprus.

n

fact,

the Bahamas

s more

accurately

mature

esort

because

of the

high-density

oncen-

tration

f

activity

n the

Freeport-Nassau

omplex,

but its intermediate

PI score results rom the ar-

chipelago's

large

land area and the low level of

tourist

development

across the outer

Family

s-

lands.

The ntermediateslso

ncludea

large

number

f

mid-sizesmall slandswith smaller ourism ectors

inside

more diversifiedeconomies:

n

the Carib-

bean,

Dominica,

Grenada,

St.

Lucia and

St.

Vin-

cent in transition

rom

preferential ependence

n

the

shrinking

EU bananamarket

plus

St.

Kitts/Ne-

vis

(sugar)

andCuracao

petroleum);

n the Indian

Ocean,

the

Seychelles

(tuna)

and the Maldives

(fishing);

and he

French verseas

dependencies

f

Polynesia

(farming)

and

Guadeloupe

and Marti-

nique, replacing

sugar

with

banana

exports

to

France.

n

recent

decades,

Dominica

St.

Vincent

to a lesserextent)hasbecomerecognized saneco-

tourism

destination,

marketing

ts

mountains,

or-

ests and ackof

development

s tourism ssets

rath-

er than

iabilities

Weaver,

2001,

p.

168).

Finally,

they

ncludea

handful f the east

populated

slands

in

the

sample:

Bonaireand

Palau,

ameddive

des-

tinations;

iny

Niue

andCook

Islands,

MIRAB-like

societies

heavily

dependent

on

remittances

and

subsidies

from New

Zealand;

and

Montserrat,

popular

NorthAmerican

etirement aven ince

the

1960s

whose TPI

ranking

has

declined

due

to

a

devastating

olcanic

eruption

n

1995 hat

rendered

overhalf the islanduninhabitable.

Anguilla

and

Antigua

at

the

top

of the

group

may

graduate

o most

developedhigh-density

tatus

n

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85 B

(2003)

4

238



TOURISM

EVELOPMENTN SMALL SLANDS

ACROSSTHEWORLD

the

next

wo

decades.Recent

performance

uggests

a slow-down

hat

may

be a

harbinger

f

saturation

and/or

declining

popularity.

Between

1993 and

2000,

growth

was

fluctuating

nd

essentially

lat n

stay-overs

ndvisitor

expenditure

n

Anguilla,

and

in stay-oversand hotel roomsin

Antigua

WTO,

1999,2001).

However,

ver he same

period,many

other

ntermediate estinations

xperienced

obust

growth,

he

hallmark

f this

stage

n

the

lifecycle.

For

example,

stay-overs

nd

expenditure

pproxi-

mately

doubled

n the

Maldives

while

cruise raffic

nearly

ripled

n

St.

Luciaanddoubled n

Dominica

and

St.Vincent.

Stay-overs

ncreased

y

40

percent

in

both

Guadaloupe

nd

Martinique

nd

expendi-

turedoubled n

Polynesia.

n

addition,

apid

hotel

room

growth

markedhe environmentn

a number

of islands:over50 percent n St. Lucia,the Mal-

dives and

Palau,

and

between

30

and50

percent

n

Dominica,

Grenada,

Martinique,

t.

Lucia

and

the

Seychelles.

Many

destinations

undergoing

uch

noticeable

hanges

are

experiencing

esource-use

conflictsand

planning hallenges

s

and,

aborand

capitalmigrate

rom

raditional

ursuits

o

tourism.

Lifecycle

implications

In

broadbrush,

he

TPI

presents global

picture

of

tourismdevelopmentn small islandsacross the

world.

Becauseof its

aggregative

ature ndother

limitations,

ts

individual

ankings

may

be

less

im-

portant

han

the

clustering

of

destinations

t the

low,

intermediatend

high

end

of

the

ifecycle.

The

resultsare

usefulas a first

approximation

or

poli-

cy-makers

n

at

easttwo related

ways:

1)

as an

n-

direct

early

warning

ignal

particularly

or those

destinations

experiencing

or

approachinghigh-

density

and

potentially

nonsustainable

evelop-

ment,

and

(2),

with Butler's

ramework s

a back-

drop,

as

revealing

menu

of the

principal lanning

challenges

hat

urface

long

hethree

major tages

of the

cycle.

For

the

most

developed

mature

estinations,

or

example,

he

key

task s to sustain

vacation

quality.

This will

require

t

least

three

major

policy

direc-

tions:

(1)

restoring

environmental

damage

and

curbing

urther

ncursions nto

fragile

areas;

(2)

managing

isitor

densities ess

intrusivelyby

dis-

persal

hrough

ime

and

space;

and

(3)

expanding

length

of

stay

and visitor

quality

and

developing

smaller

scale

specialty

alternatives o

mass

tour-

ism:heritage, cientific,nature, etirement,

illage

andso

on.

Bermuda

epresents

uch

a

success sto-

ry.

The

stagnation

f Bermudan

ourism n

themid-

1980's

plus

citizen

complaints

f visitor

aturation

promptedwidespread ublic

discussionand

ong-

term

eassessment.Residents

avored

etaining

he

island's

upscale

mage

and

protecting

ts

unique

bi-

odiversity

and

heritage.

Policy-makers

esponded

with

ceilings

on bed

capacity,

vehiclesandcruise

ships

as well as

specific

controlson

construction

design

and

andscaping.

atural

menities nd

his-

toricalarchitecture

emainedntactwhile

tourism

stabilized nthe 1990s

somewhat elow

1980s ev-

els

(McElroy,

001).

Fiveelements

played

arole

n

this case: a tradition

f environmental

onserva-

tion,

widespread ommunity

wareness

nd

partic-

ipation,

trong

destination

dentity,

policy

commit-

ment

o the

long

term,

and

a

robust

offshore

inan-

cial sector

banking,

nsurance,

hip

registry)

o

ab-

sorbanytourismdeclines.

The

key

challenge facing many

intermediate

destinations

s

controlling

he

quantity

nd

quality

of

growth.

During

his

phase

of

increasing

ntegra-

tion with

the

global

ourist

conomy,

hese slands

must

attempt

o constrain he natural

ropensities

of international

ir,

hotel

and cruiseinterests

or

large-scale

acilitiesand

high-volume

isitation o

that

hese

growth

mperatives

o not

exceed he

n-

sulareconomic

labor,

utilities,

etc.)

and

socio-en-

vironmental

absorptivecapacities.

This will

re-

quireatleastthreemajornitiatives:1)preventing

further

ncroachment n

renewable

esourceuses

(agriculture,

isheries); 2)

sequencing arge

deve-

lopments

n

stages

over

ong

horizons;

nd

(3)

en-

gaging

residents ot

only

in

participatory

ecision-

making,

but

also

providing

hem

with

a

stronger

i-

nancial

take

n

the

industry.

The

latter

may

be ac-

complished

by

tax and other

ncentives or

small-

scale,

ocal

abor-intensive

nterprises

nd or

ocal

purchases by

hoteliers/restaurateurs/developers.

Targeting

nter-island

egional

ourists s

also war-

ranted ince suchvisitors upportmaller cale lo-

cal

service

suppliers

and tend o

travelto more

geographically

ispersed

areas

of

the

destination

country, hereby

acilitating

wider

distribution f

the

income

from

tourism

Sinclair

and

Voker,

1993,

p.

213).

Growth anbe further

imited

at

crit-

ical

habitatsand

stressed

sites

by raising

access

fees

to also

secure

unding

or

biodiversity

onser-

vationand

managementLindberg,

991).

The

Seychelles

represents good

example

of a

mid-stressed

destination

managing

tourism

through

ocalizationand ecotourism

n

a macr-

oeconomiccontextof

fallingcopra

prices

and ish

catches

(Shah,

2002).

For

three

decadesthe

gov-

ernment as

managed

Cousin

sland,

a defunct o-

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85

B

(2003)

?

4

239



JEROME . MCELROY

conut

plantation

onverted

o a wildlife

refuge

for

Hawksbill

urtles,

Seychelles

Warblers

and other

rare

errestrial nd marine

pecies.

Ten

percent

of

all

Seychelle

visitors take

day-trip

adventures o

the site in

local vessels. Fees finance

conservation

of the slandandalso

support

cientific ourism nd

environmental

ducational

rograms.

The Maldives

provides

another

llustration f an

intermediate

estination

accommodating

ourism

growth

n

an unfavorablemacroeconomic

ontext:

the

collapse

of

its fresh ish

export

market o

frozen

fish

and heclosureof a

major

UK airbase.

Over

he

past

two

decades,

ourismhas been

principally

e-

sponsible

or

directly

expanding mployment

nd

stimulating

ndirect

activity

n

building

materials,

handicraftsnd hell

souvenirs,

nd

other

ottage

n-

dustries.To manage his growth, he government

has craftedan

environmentally

ntegrated

nd

so-

cially segregated

ourism

tylewhereby

mallunin-

habitedslandsacross

he

sprawling rchipelago

re

leased to

foreign

investors o construct

elf-con-

tained,

high-quality,

ow-density

resorts. Strict

building

nd

operational

odes

serve o

preserve

he

natural

patrimony

and to attractaffluent visitors

from

Europe

and

Japan

Domroes,

1999).

Deve-

lopers

arealso

required

o

provide

heirown

utilities,

waste

disposal

andstaffaccommodation.n order o

minimizeWestern nfluenceon the local Muslim

population,

he

government

lso

regulates

isitor

ac-

tivities,

.e.

prohibiting

ude

bathing

s well as over-

nightstays

on inhabitedslands.

The outcome

of all

such

planning

s that he

Maldiveshas becomeone

of

the best water

port

andunderwater

iving

desti-

nations n

the world

Cockerell, 995).

In contrast o the

Seychelles

and the

Maldives,

noted

for

their

ong-rangeplanning

o control he

pace

of

development

Innskeep,

1994),

Antigua

provides

an intermediate

ase of nonsustainable

growth.Centuries f deforestationorsugar ulture

presaged

he

post-war rowth

of masstourism.

Be-

tween 1975 and 1980

totalvisitation

doubled,

and

doubled

again

between

1980

and

1990.

During

these

years

more

mangrove wamps

and

offshore

reefswere

damaged

r killed

han

n all

previous

s-

land

history

Coram,

1993),

hrough

ntensecoastal

commercial olonization.

ubsequent

o

these

asset

losses,

overnight

visitors

have

still not recovered

from

heir

arly

1990

evels

(WTO,2001).

This

pol-

icy

failure

derives

rom

the absenceof the

five in-

gredients

llustrated

n

the Bermudian

ase:

(1)

a

legacy

of environmental

eglect,

2)

the absenceof

a cleardestination

dentity

anchored o

the

native

genius

of the

place,

(3)

the

poor

performance

f

non-tourist

iversification

nto

manufacturing

nd

domestic

agriculture,

4)

marginal

itizen

andNGO

decision-making

articipation,

nd

(5)

the

political

directorate's

persistent

preference

or

short-term

economic

gain

over

long-term

ustainable

atural

resource

planning

nd

management.

For the least

developed

destinations,

he

key

challenge

is

to

establish international

isibility.

Ideally,

this

requires

a

major community-wide

planning

effort to achieve three

objectives:

1)

to

identify

the

islands'

unique

assets/attractions,

2)

to construct he

transport

nd

acility

nfrastructure

for

sustainably

ccessing

hese

assets,

and

3)

to de-

terminea

destination

dentitycompatible

with the

native naturaland cultural

genius

of the

place.

This is a

formidable

ask,

but

fortunately

hese is-

landshaveamplepolicyroomto maneuver ueto

of their

earlyposition

n

theresort

ycle. They

have

sufficient

imeto

develop

a tourism

tyle

that s so-

cially

acceptable, nvironmentallyompatible

nd

economically

iable,

and hereare

a

number f

suc-

cessful

models

of

integrated

planning

available

(Manning

nd

Dougherty,

1999).

These

destinations lso

possess

some

of

the

best

opportunities

or

designing

moresustainable lter-

natives

to

mass tourism.

Although

recent

growth

has

elevated t

to

intermediate

tatus,

Dominica

s

one of the best examples of comprehensively

planned

cotourism.

Basedon

its

unique

natural

s-

sets

(riverine

cology,

spectacular

alls,

black-sand

beaches),

the

government

s

fostering

small-scale

local

tourism

emphasizing

the forested

nterior,

volcanic

phenomena,

he

remnant

f Carib ndian

culture of the east coast and colonial historical

sites

(Weaver,

1998,

p.

194).

Other ecotourism

possibilities

Weaver

dentifies or

low-density

Pa-

cific islands

nclude

hiking

rails

n

Samoa,

village

tourism

n

the

Solomons,

andcontrolled

diving

ac-

tivity n theEnipeinMarineParkonPohnpeinthe

Marshall slands.

Summary

and further research

This

analysis

applied

he TourismPenetration

n-

dex to 51 small slandsacross

he

world

o

broadly

assess tourism'soverall

pressure

n

fragile

nsular

societies and

ecosystems.

In

the

contextof an ab-

breviated

hree-stage

ersionof Butler's

ifecycle

model,

the

TPI classified slands nto

least,

inter-

mediateandmost

penetrated

estinations.

n so do-

ing

it

provided

n

early

warning

ignal

orresortar-

eas

crossing

he threshold o the

high-density

tage

and

possibly

non-sustainable

tourism deve-

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85 B

(2003)

?

4

240



TOURISM EVELOPMENT

N SMALL SLANDS

ACROSSTHE

WORLD

lopment.

As a

highlyaggregative

udimentary

ool,

however,

he

index suffers rom

a

number f

limi-

tations,

n

particular

he

failure o

capture

easonal

variations s well

as the

geographic

oncentration

of visitor

lows in dualistic

and

archipelagic

oun-

tries.A firstorder f

follow-up

esearch houldad-

dress

these and other

deficiencies o

improve

he

TPI's

performance

nd

reliability.

A

second

potentially romising

venue or fur-

ther

tudy

oncernshe

nfluence f

political

tatus,

i.e. the

character f

jurisdiction,

n island

ourism

development.Although

non-sovereign

urisdic-

tions

make

up

45

percent

23/51)

of

the totalsam-

ple

in

this

study, hey

are

markedly ver-represent-

ed

among

he

most tourism

developed

and

clearly

under-represented

mong

he

least

penetrated.

o

illustrate, 2of the13mostdevelopeddestinations

with the

highest

TPI scores

are

non-sovereign

e-

pendencies

or

states

(Hawaii),

while

only

two of

the

16 least

tourist-penetrated

re

dependencies

(New

Caledonia and

Reunion).

Such

evidence

though

impressionistic

uggests

that

non-sover-

eign political

status

may

confer

particular

dvan-

tages

for

tourism

growth.

Thesecould nclude

ge-

ographic

proximity

o and

ease of travel

no

pass-

ports,

same

currency)

rom

major

mother

ountry

origin

markets,

eady

access to

investment

apital

andaid-financedransportndcommunicationsn-

frastructure,

pecial

ax and

duty-free

oncessions

for

gift/liquor

urchases

s

well as other

avorable

advantages

hat

deserve

urther

xamination.

Jerome L.

McElroy

Department

of

Business

and Economics

Saint

Mary's

College

Notre

Dame,

IN

46556

USA

E-mail:

mcelroy

@

aintmarys.edu

Notes

1. An

earlier

ersionof this

paper

was

presented

t

the

Islands

VII

Conference,

nstitute

f

Island

Studies,

University

of

Prince

Edward

Island,

Charlottetown,

EI

(June 26-30,

2002).

References

AGARWAL,

.

(1994):

The

resort

ycle

revisited:

mplications

for

resorts.

n

COOPER,

C.P.

and

LOCKWOOD,

.

(eds):

Progress

n

Tourism,

Recreation nd

Hospitality

Manage-

ment

Vol.

5)

(pp.

194-208).Chichester,

Wiley.

BALDACCHINO, G. and MILNE, D. (2000): Lessons from the

Political

Economy

f

Small

slands:The

Resourcefulness

f

Jurisdiction.

New

York,

St.

Martin's Press.

BEEKHUIS,

.

(1981):

Tourismn

the

Caribbean:

mpact

n

the

economic,

ocialand

natural

nvironment.

mbio

10(6):

25-

331.

BELLER,

W.,

D'AYALA,P.,

and

HEIN,

P.

(eds) (1990):

Sus-

tainable

Development

nd

Environmental

Management

f

Small Islands.

Paris,

UNESCO-Parthenon.

BENHAMOU,

F.

(1993):

L'ile

Maurice: un

tourisme L'armo-

nieuzmais ragile.Espace,121:42-46.

BERTRAM,

.and

WATTERS,

.F.

1986):

The MIRAB

proc-

ess: earlier

analysis

in

context.

Pacific

Viewpoint

27(1):

47-59.

BRIGUGLIO,

L.,

ARCHER, B.,

JAFARI,

J.

and

WALL,

G.

(eds)

(1996):

Sustainable

Tourismn

Islands nd

SmallStates:

s-

sues and

Policies.

London,

Pinter.

BRIGUGLIO,

L.

(1995):

Small island

developing

states

andtheir

economic

vulnerabilities.

in

PAOLETTO,

G. and

KUHR,

R.

(eds):

nternational

ymposium

nSmall slands

nd

Sustain-

able

Development

(pp.

7-51):

Tokyo:

United

Nations

Univer-

sity.

BRYANT,

D.,

NIELSON,

D. and

TANGLEY,

L.

(1998):

The

Last

Frontier

Forests:

Ecosystems

nd Economies

on

the

Edge.

Washington,

DC:

World Resource

Center.

BUTLER,R.W.(1991):Tourism, nvironment,ndsustainable

development.

nvironmental

onservation

8(3):

201-209.

BUTLER,

R.W.

(1980):

The

concept

f a

tourist

rea

ycle

of

ev-

olution:

mplications

or

management

f

resources.

Canadian

Geographer

24:

5-12.

CARIBBEAN

OURISM

ORGANIZATION

2001,1993):

Car-

ibbean

Tourism

Statistical

Report.

Christ

Church,

Barbados:

CTO.

CENTRAL

INTELLIGENCE

AGENCY

(2001):

The

World

Factbook.

Washington,

DC: CIA.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/

publications/factbook/index.html.

CHOY,

D.J.L.

(1992):

Lifecycle

models

for Pacific island

desti-

nations. ournal

f

Travel

Research

0(3):

26-31.

COCKERELL,

N.

(1995):

Maldives.

International

Tourism Re-

ports No. 2, pp. 25-43. London, UK: Economic Intelligence

Unit.

COMMONWEALTH

SECRETARIAT

(1997):

A

Future

for

SmallStates:

Overcoming

ulnerability.

ondon:

CS.

CORAM,

R.

(1993):

Caribbean

Time

Bomb. New

York,

William

Morrow.

DANN, G.,

and

COHEN,

E.

(1991):

Sociology

and

tourism. An-

nals

of

Tourism

Research,

18(2):

155-169.

DE

ALBUQUERQUE,

K.

and

MCELROY,

J.L.

(1992):

Carib-

bean

small-island tourism

styles

and sustainable

strategies.

Environmental

anagement

6:

619-632.

DOMROES,

M.

(1999):

Tourism in

the Maldives:

the resort

con-

cept

and

tourist-related services.

Insula,

8(3):

7-14.

GETZ,

D.

(1992):

Tourism

planning

and

the destination

lifecycle.

Annalsof TourismResearch, 9(4):752-770.

HEYWOOD,

K.M.

(1986):

Can

the

tourist-area

ifecycle

be

made

operational?

Tourism

Management,

7(3):

154-167.

HOLDER,

J.

(1988):

Pattern

and

impact

of

tourism

on the

environ-

ment

of the

Caribbean. Tourism

Management,

9(2):

119-127.

HOVINEN,

G.

(2002):

Revisiting

the

destination

lifecycle

model.

Annals

of

Tourism

Research,

9(1):

209-230.

INNSKEEP,

E.

(1994):

National

and

Regional

Tourism

lan-

ning:

Methodologies

nd

Case

Studies.

London,

Routlege.

JENNER,

P.,

and

SMITH,

C.

(1993):

The

Tourism

Industry

and

the Environment.

London,

Economist

Intelligence

Unit.

KISSLING,

C.

(1989):

International

ourism and civil

aviation in

the South Pacific: issues

and innovations.

Geojournal, 19(3):

309-315.

LANFANT, M.F., ALLCOCK, J.B., andBRUNER, E.M. (1995):

International

ourism:

dentity

nd

Change.

London,

Sage.

LARSON,

C.

(2003):

Group

ranks

VI

national

park

among

U.S.'

10

most

endangered.

The

Virgin

Islands

Daily

News 15

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85

B

(2003)

?

4

241



JEROME

.

MCELROY

January:

.

<wysiwyg://home.89/http://www.virginisland...news.com/

index.plarticle_home

>id=835409>.

LINDBERG,

K.

(1991):

Policies

for Maximizing

Nature

Tour-

ism's

Ecological

and Economic

Benefits.

Washington,

DC:

World

Resources

nstitute.

LINDBERG, .,andHAWKINS, .E.(eds) 1996):Ecotourism:

A

Guide

or

Planners

nd

Managers.

North

Bennington,

T:

Ecotourism

ociety.

LIU,Z.H.,

and

JENKINS,

C.J.

(1996):

Country

ize

and ourism

development:

cross-

nation

analysis.

n

BRIGUGLIO,

.

ARCHER,B., AFARI,

. and

WALL,

G.

(eds):

Sustainable

Tourismn

Islandsand

Small

States

pp.

90-117).

London,

Pinter.

LOBBAN,

C.S.,

and

SCHEFTER,

M.

(1997):

Tropical

acific

s-

land

Environments.

Mangilao,

GM:

University

of Guam

Press.

MANNING,

E.W.,

and

DOUGHERTY,

.D.

(1999):Planning

tourism

in sensitive

ecosystems.

in

SINGH,

T.V.

and

SINGH,

S.

(eds):

Tourism

Development

n CriticalEnviron-

ments pp.1-20). New York,USA:CognizantCommunica-

tion

Corporation.

MCELROY,

.L.

2001):

Island ourism:

developmenttrategy

for

biodiversity.

nsula10

(2):

21-22.

MCELROY,

.L.

(2002):

The

mpact

of

tourism mall slands:

global

comparison.

n

DICASTRI,

.

and

BALAJI,

V.

(eds):

Tourism,

Biodiversity

nd

Information,

pp.

151-167).

Lei-

den,

NL:

Backhuys

Publishers.

MCELROY,

.L.,

and

DE

ALBUQUERQUE,

.

(1992):

An In-

tegrated

ustainable cotourism

or

Small

Caribbean

slands.

Bloomington

IN: Indiana

University,

Center for

Global

Change

ndWorld

Peace,

Occasional

aper

No.

8,

Series

on

Environment

nd

Development.

MCELROY,

.L. and

DE

ALBUQUERQUE,

.

(1994):

Island

touristprofilesacross he destinationife cycle.Insula3(1):

12-18.

MCELROY,

.L.,

and

DE

ALBUQUERQUE,

.

(1998):

Tour-

ism

penetration

ndex n small

Caribbean

slands.Annals

of

Tourism

Research,

5

(1):

145-168.

MCELROY,

.L. and

DE

ALBUQUERQUE,

.

(1999):

Meas-

uring

ourism

penetration

n small

slands.

Pacific

Tourism

Review,

3(2):

161-169.

MCELROY, .L.,

and

MAHONEY,

M.

(2000):

The

propensity

for

political

dependence

n island

microstates.

nsula,

9

(1):

32-35.

MCELROY,

.L.,

and

OLAZARRI,

.

(1997):

A

tourism

pene-

tration ndex for small

island

destinations.

ank

of

Valletta

Review

16

(Autumn):

-10.

MCELROY, .L.,DEALBUQUERQUE,. andDIOGUARDI,

A.

(1993):

Applying

he

tourist

area

destinationife

cycle

model o smallCaribbean

nd

Pacific

slands.World

Travel

and Tourism

Review3:

236-244.

MINERBI,

.

(1988):

Alternativeormsof

tourism

n

the

coastal

zone:

searching

or

responsible

ourismn

Hawaii.

Honolulu,

HI:

University

f

Hawaii,

Dept.

of

Urban

nd

Regional

Plan-

ning.

PEARCE,D. (1989):TouristDevelopment.Harlow,Longman

Scientificand

TechnicalPublishers.

SHAH,

N.

(2002):

Bikinis

and

biodiversity:

ourism nd

conser-

vationon Cousin sland. n

DICASTRI,

.

and

BALAJI,

V.

(eds):

Tourism,

iodiversity

nd

Information

pp.

185-196).

Leiden,

NL

Backhuys

Publishers.

SINCLAIR,M.T.,

and

VOKER,

R.W.A.

1993):

The

economics

of

tourism n Asia and the

Pacific. In

HITCHCOCK,M.,

KING,

V. and

PARNWELI,

M.

(eds):

Tourismn

South-East

Asia

(pp.

200-213).

London,

Routledge.

TOWLE,

.

(1985):

The

sland

microcosm.n

CLARK,

.R.

ed.):

CoastalResources

Management:

evelopment

ase

Studies

(pp.

589-749).

Washington,

C: NationalPark

Service.

TURNER,

L.,

and

ASH,

J.

(1976):

The

Golden

Hordes:

nterna-

tional Tourism nd the PleasurePeriphery.New York,St.

Martin's

ress.

UNITED

NATIONS

ENVIRONMENT

PROGRAMME

(1999a):

Environmental

utlooks

or

theIslandCountries

f

the

Caribbean,

ndian

Ocean

and South

Pacific.

Nairobi,

Kenya:

UNEP.

<http://www.unepch/earth/sidsgeo.htm>.

UNITED

NATIONS

ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

(1999b):

Global

Environmental

utlook

000.

London,

UK:

Earthscan ublications.

http://www.unep.org/geo2000>.

UNITED

NATIONSENVIRONMENT

ROGRAMME:NEP

(2002):

GEO-3:

Outlookfor2002-2003.

airobi,

Kenya.

<ht-

tp://www unep.org/downloads.GEO3>.

UNITED TATESCONGRESS

1992):

Scienceand

Technology

Issues

in

Coastal Ecotourism.

Washington,

DC:

G.P.O.,

Of-

fice of TechnologyAssessment.

WEAVER,

D.B.

(1998):

Ecotourism

n

the Less

Developed

World.New

York,

CABI

Publishing.

WEAVER,

D.B.

(2001):

Mass

ourism ndalternativeourism n

theCaribbean.n

HARRISON,

.

(ed.):

Tourism nd

he

Less

Developed

World: ssues and

Case Studies

pp.

161-174).

New

York,

CABI

Publishing.

WORLDTRAVELAND

TOURISMCOUNCIL

2001):

Year

2001: Tourism

atellite

Accounting

Research.

London,

WT-

TC.

<http://www.wttc.org/ecres/pdfs/WLD.pdf>.

WORLDTOURISMORGANIZATION

1999,

2001):

Compen-

dium

of

Tourism tatistics.

Madrid,

pain:

WTO.

YACOUMIS,

.

(1989):

South

Pacifictourism

promotion:

re-

gionalapproach.

ourism

Management

March):

5-28.

Geografiska

Annaler

?

85 B

(2003)

?

4

242

pariwisata dan iklim

Documents