Linking Culture and the Environment

R.E. Mitchell 159
Defining sustainable tourism
Extensive literature exists on tourism and sustainability (besides this volume,
see Hunter and Green, 1995; France, 1997; Stabler, 1997; Middleton, 1998;
Mowforth and Munt, 1998; Honey, 1999; Sharpley, 2000; Liu, 2003; Miller and
Twining-Ward, 2005). This wide diversity of scholarship also highlights the
difficulties inherent in defining sustainability or sustainable development
(e.g. Langhelle, 2000; Liu, 2003), not to mention its applicability to the tourism
sector. As mentioned in the introductory chapter, the lack of consensus
on meanings is a significant pitfall in the search for sustainability. Tourism is
often considered as a panacea to support regions and localities in flux due to
changing circumstances, leaving a correspondingly small footprint compared
to industrial alternatives.
Sustainable tourism generally implies a balanced mix of sustaining local
economies, local cultures and local environments with an acceptable and
desirable level of impacts. McIntyre (1993, p. 16) considers sustainable tourism
as a type of development that ‘connects tourists and providers of tourist
facilities and services with advocates of environmental protection and community
residents and their leaders who desire a better quality of life’. To be
truly beneficial, ‘[sustainable tourism] must also be dedicated to improving
the quality of life of the people who live and work there, and to protecting
the environment. . . . Tourism must be environmentally sustainable – in both
the natural and cultural environments – to be economically sustainable’
(McIntyre, 1993, p. 5). Sustainable tourism often equates with ‘ecotourism’,
which The Ecotourism Society defines as ‘responsible travel to natural areas
which conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of local people’
(Epler Wood, 1998a, p. 10).
In reality, it may be difficult to achieve such laudable outcomes since
local communities are often exploited and do not receive adequate benefits
from tourism (Epler Wood, 1998a). Given that it is impossible to ensure that
a particular visit or resort will not result in any significant long-term negative
consequences, ‘an emphasis on sustainability in intention is thus more realistic
than an insistence on sustainability in outcome’ (Weaver, 1999, p. 794). In
their critical analysis of ‘new’ tourism and sustainability in the Third World,
Mowforth and Munt (1998) contend that sustainability is a contested concept,
one ‘that is socially constructed and reflects the interests of those involved’
(Mowforth and Munt, 1998, p. 24–25). They argue that developed countries’
interests are served by the promotion of sustainability and ask ‘who decides
what sustainability means and entails, and who dictates how it should be
achieved and evaluated?’ (Mowforth and Munt, 1998, p. 12). The final section
of the chapter addresses this point of who decides.
Other criticisms inherent to sustainable tourism exist. The wide variety
of indicator sets and measurement techniques in use makes comparative
evaluation difficult (IISD, 1999). Monitoring of tourism impacts is often
absent or inadequately informal (Drumm, 1998). But perhaps most challenging
for sustainable tourism proponents is that disagreement still exists on