This article was downloaded by: [201.240.142.230]On: 05 April 2013, At: 15:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

Tourism Geographies: AnInternational Journal ofTourism Space, Place andEnvironmentPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20

Sustainable tourism: Astate‐of‐the‐art reviewRichard W. Butler aa Department of Management Studies, Universityof Surrey, UKVersion of record first published: 18 Apr 2007.

To cite this article: Richard W. Butler (1999): Sustainable tourism: Astate‐of‐the‐art review, Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of TourismSpace, Place and Environment, 1:1, 7-25

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616689908721291

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or

damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Sustainable tourism:

a state-of-the-art review

Richard W. ButlerDepartment of Management Studies, University of Surrey, UK

Abstract

The topic of sustainable tourism has emerged in the last decade as a result ofdiscussions from the report Our Common Future. This paper reviews the develop-ment of the term, beginning with a discussion of the confusion arising from theimprecise and conflicting definitions of the concept, and the need to distinguishbetween sustainable tourism and the development of tourism on the principlesof sustainable development. The paper then reviews the environmental focusof discussions of sustainable tourism and argues for the need to ensure thatthe concept includes and is applied to the human environment as well as thephysical environment. Attention then shifts to problems of carrying capacity,control of tourism development, and the relevance of the term to mass or conven-tional tourism. The paper concludes with a discussion of the future direction ofsustainable tourism and the likelihood of development moving in this direction.

Keywords: sustainable tourism, definitions, development, capacity, control, masstourism

Introduction

The profound and rapid changes that have taken place in the world in thepast two decades have been mirrored in changes in tourism. Global polit-ical and economic reorganizations have resulted in the expansion of tourismboth in a spatial sense and in terms of a significant increase in the size ofthe tourist market. Although these changes have been rapid and, in manycases, unanticipated, they have not had revolutionary effects upon tourism;rather, they have enabled it to grow in an evolutionary fashion. Changes•in the environmental sphere, however, appear likely to be more fundamental

R 1461-6688 © Routledge 1999 Tourism Geographies 1(1), 1999, 7-25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

8 Butler

and even revolutionary in terms of their effects upon tourism, perhapsbecause they have been slower in coming to the fore and could be viewedas long overdue. If there is a single factor that has the potential to changethe nature of tourism more than any other, it is the introduction of the con-cept of 'sustainable development'. Since the appearance of the term a decadeago, it has achieved worldwide recognition and widespread, if superficial,acceptance. Summit meetings of world leaders, policy statements, legisla-tion, the response of industry and marketing shifts - and perhaps evenchanges in the behaviour of tourists - all suggest that some basic changesmay be taking place in specific elements of tourism at different scales.

Geographers have long been interested in the relationships betweentourism and the environments, both physical and human, in which it oper-ates, and it is logical that they would be particularly interested in thediscussion and application of sustainable development in the context oftourism. This longstanding interest is manifest in the excellent work thathas been undertaken by geographers in the field of tourism (e.g. Mathieson& Wall 1982; Murphy 1985; Pearce 1989, 1995; Hall 1994; Hall &CJenkins 1995). With a few exceptions, however, geographers, like manyother researchers in tourism, have been reluctant to take a critical viewof sustainable development and the way it has been applied to tourism.Perhaps this is because the concept is a particularly attractive one toanyone who has concerns about the abuse of the environment, whichincludes most geographers, and because many of the principles of sustain-able development are in line with many of the basic principles of sensibleresource and environmental management. Irrespective of the reason, manywriters about tourism appear to have accepted rather unquestioningly thebasic proposition that sustainable development is inherently good andappropriate for tourism, and that its adoption will solve many of thenegative problems that have resulted from the development of tourism. Afew dissenters have argued that this is not necessarily the case (Butler1993; Wheeller 1993; Wall 1996) and that sustainable development isneither always possible nor even always appropriate in the context oftourism, but the concept still appears to have broad support, often basedapparently on little but optimism.

Here, I discuss the state of the art of knowledge and research on sustain-able development in the context of tourism with a focus on geographicalresearch. The paper proceeds by first examining the problem of the defi-nition of sustainable development, with the argument that many of theproblems relating to the concept owe their origins to the lack of agree-ment and clarity over the meaning of the concept. This is followed by adiscussion of the difference between sustainable development as a conceptand its particular application to tourism and the confusion and ambiguitywhich have arisen in this area. This confusion has been accentuated bythe linking of specific forms of tourism, such as 'alternative' tourism, with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Space: Sustainable tourism 9

sustainable development and a willingness to treat these forms as synony-mous with the concept. Although further discussion on the meaning ofthe concept is important, a great deal more attention must be paid to theproblem of how to operationalize the concept and make it applicable inappropriate situations to tourism. Related to this is the issue of whetherthe concept is the same when applied to the human and social world asit is in the context of the environmental sphere, and whether sustainabilityis achievable within the same parameters in each situation.

Particular attention is paid to three specific features related to the applic-ability of sustainable development to tourism, namely carrying capacity,control over tourism and mass or conventional tourism. These representthe real challenges to the acceptance and successful application of sustain-able development, and to date the problems which they represent havenot been fully resolved. The paper concludes with a brief discussion onthe future of 'sustainable tourism' and the role in its development thatmight be played by the geographic academic community.

The meaning of sustainable development

In the preparation of the presentation on which this paper is based,I requested input from colleagues with respect to the content and issues.Several colleagues responded and suggested that a discussion on defini-tions of sustainable development was not necessary, since its meaning wasclear, and that what was more important was a focus on ways in whichit could be applied (A.M. Williams, University of Exeter, personal commu-nication). Initially, I agreed with that sentiment, for a great deal has beenwritten on the topic over the last decade (see, for example, articles in theJournal of Sustainable Tourism). However, further examination of theliterature suggested that some discussion of the meaning of the term - atleast in the context of tourism - was warranted, not because there isno definition, but because there are so many (Stabler & Goodall 1996)(Table 1). As other writers have pointed out (Wheeller 1993), that thereare so many interpretations of the term has meant that each individualhas been able to claim that his or her use of the phrase is appropriate.One result has been that the wide acceptance of the term noted above inmany cases is simply acceptance of the phrase but not its implications.

The original definition of sustainable development was provided by theBrundtland Commission in Our Common Future as 'development thatmeets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs' (World Commission on Environmentand Development 1987: 43). This definition has been subject to a widerange of interpretation. On the subject of tourism, as Wall (1996) haspointed out, the Commission was silent, perhaps reflecting the all too

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

10 Butler

Table 1 Definitions of sustainable tourism

Tourism which meets the needs of present tourists and host regions whileprotecting and enhancing opportunity for the future. (World TourismOrganization 1993: 7)

Sustainable tourism is tourism and associated infrastructures that: both nowand in the future operate within natural capacities for the regeneration andfuture productivity of natural resources; recognize the contribution that peopleand communities, customs and lifestyles, make to the tourism experience;accept that these people must have an equitable share in the economic benefitsof local people and communities in the host areas. (Eber 1992: 3)

Tourism which can sustain local economies without damaging the environmenton which it depends. (Countryside Commission 1995: 2)

It must be capable of adding to the array of economic opportunities open topeople without adversely affecting the structure of economic activity.Sustainable tourism ought not interfere with existing forms of social organiza-tion. Finally, sustainable tourism must respect the limits imposed by ecologicalcommunities. (Payne 1993: 154-5)

Sustainable tourism in parks (and other areas) must primarily be defined interms of sustainable ecosystems. (Woodley 1993: 94)

Sustainable tourism is tourism which develops as quickly as possible, takinginto account of [sic] current accommodation capacity, the local population andthe environment, and:Tourism that respects the environment and as a consequence does not aid itsown disappearance. This is especially important in saturated areas, and:Sustainable tourism is responsible tourism, (quoted in Bramwell et al. 1996a:10-11)

frequent ignoring or ignorance of tourism by policy makers. The resulthas been a tremendously varied usage of this definition in the context oftourism, just as the term has met with similar varying interpretations inother contexts. It has become a form of ideology, a political catch phraseand, depending on the context in which it is being used, a concept, aphilosophy, a process or a product (Wall 1996).

Coccossis (1996) has suggested that there are at least four ways tointerpret tourism in the context of sustainable development: a sectoral view-point such as the economic sustainability of tourism; an ecological viewpointemphasizing the need for ecologically sustainable tourism; a viewpoint of thelong-term viability of tourism, recognizing the competitiveness of destina-tions; and a viewpoint accepting tourism as part of a strategy for sustainabledevelopment throughout the physical and human environments.Recognition that the concept is not value-free is crucial to an understandingof the concept, but, as Bramwell points out, this is not a point which is often

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Space: Sustainable tourism 11

made in the literature, with the resulting assumption by many that it is a sin-gle unified concept (Bramwell et al. 1996b: 23). In their review of the prin-ciples and practice of sustainable tourism management, Bramwell et al.(1996a: 5) note seven dimensions of sustainability: environmental, cultural,political, economic, social, managerial and governmental. It is clear thatresearchers and decision makers in each of these dimensions have differinginterpretations of the concept, which explains its widespread acceptance andequally widespread misuse and abuse.

It is unlikely, therefore, that there will ever be a totally accepted defi-nition of sustainable tourism that is universally applied, because the verysuccess of the term lies in the fact that it is indefinable and thus hasbecome all things to all interested parties. To the tourist industry, it meansthat development is appropriate; to the conservationist, it means that prin-ciples articulated a century ago are once again in vogue; to theenvironmentalist, it provides a justification for the preservation of signif-icant environments from development; and to the politician, it providesan opportunity to use words rather than actions. Only to the tourist doesit really mean or provide nothing other than, in most cases, as Wheeller(1993) has bitingly observed, an opportunity to feel good while enjoyingoneself.

'Sustainable' tourism

One of the major problems with the concept of sustainable developmenthas been the way in which the single word 'sustainable' has been appliedto a variety of activities based on the assumption that it carries with itthe ideological and philosophical implications of the concept (Harrison1996). In the case of tourism, the result has been the appearance andwidespread adoption of the term 'sustainable tourism', often without anyattempt to define it (Hunter and Green 1995). I have argued elsewhere(Butler 1993) that this is not only unfortunate but extremely misleading.'Sustainable' is a widely used term with a specific meaning; it is the adjec-tival form of the verb 'to sustain ('to maintain or prolong'; Collins ConciseDictionary 1995: 1189). In the context of tourism, an appropriate defin-ition of sustainable tourism is 'tourism which is in a form which canmaintain its viability in an area for an indefinite period of time' (Butler1993: 29). Thus, tourism at places such as Niagara Falls in North America,or in London, Paris or Rome, is eminently sustainable. It has beensuccessful in those locations for centuries and shows no signs of disap-pearing. With such a definition, the emphasis is on the maintenance oftourism, but in many cases tourism is competing for resources and maynot be the 'best' or wisest use of resources in these or other locations inthe long term.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

12 Butler

The above definition, however, is not what is generally implied by theterm 'sustainable tourism'. Rather, based on the current literature, whatis normally meant by that term is as follows:

tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, envi-ronment) in such a manner and at such a scale that it remains viableover an infinite period and does not degrade or alter the environment(human and physical) in which it exists to such a degree that it prohibitsthe successful development and well being of other activities and processes.(Butler 1993: 29).

The difference between these definitions is not merely a matter of seman-tics. The definition of sustainable tourism above says very little aboutanything except the future of tourism. This is, as Wall (1996) has noted,a single sectoral approach, something that is at odds with the concept ofsustainable development, which by its very nature is holistic and multi-sectoral. Thus sustainable tourism is not automatically the same as tourismdeveloped in line with the principles of sustainable development. As longas it is taken to be so, then ambiguity and confusion will continue. Theneed to define the type of tourism being studied or developed beyond thecatch-all of 'sustainable' is therefore crucial, if knowledge about thesustainability of tourism is to be expanded.

Alternative forms of tourism and sustainability

Compounding the ambiguities discussed above has been the tendency tolink a variety of forms of tourism with the concept of sustainable devel-opment. The majority of these are forms of tourism which can becharacterized as being 'green' or 'alternative', in the sense that they arenot part of mass or conventional tourism (Smith and Eadington 1992).An unfortunate corollary of this linkage has been the automatic assump-tion that mass tourism is automatically non-sustainable and, therefore,has nothing to do with sustainable development. Indeed, some of the mostardent critics of mass tourism are the most fervent supporters of sustain-able development and alternative forms of tourism, in the apparent beliefthat support of the latter will make the problems of the former disappear(Croall 1995).

This is a problematic development for two reasons. First, it is almostimpossible to have a form of tourism development that does not haveimpacts upon the location in which it occurs. The naive assumption thattourism which is nature-focused will automatically be sustainable may notonly be incorrect but also harmful. Small-scale developments of tourism,all other things being equal, could reasonably be expected to have fewerand less severe impacts than large-scale developments, and thus be more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Space: Sustainable tourism 13

sustainable. They may not be fully sustainable, however; and, in reality,all other things are rarely equal. Many forms of alternative tourism, suchas ecotourism, are located in highly sensitive and vulnerable environments,some of which cannot withstand even moderate levels of use, and whichoften have little or no infrastructure to deal with development. Theresulting impacts, small though they may be individually, may becomeserious because of the location in which they occur or because of theircumulative effects.

Second, it has yet to be proven that all examples of mass tourism areunsustainable. While such evidence as exists tends to suggest such a view,the relatively small amount of empirical research into the effects of masstourism development leaves a great deal unexplained. More importantly,this assumption appears to have led researchers away from the difficultbut much more important task of resolving how mass tourism can bemade more sustainable (Wheeller 1993; Bramwell etal. 1996a; Wall 1996).The key problem with sustainable development in the context of tourismis not ensuring the continued introduction of small-scale, environmentallyand culturally appropriate forms of tourism, but how to make existingmass tourism developments as sustainable as possible. Studies on thisaspect of sustainable development, such as that by Prat (1996) on theCosta Brava, are extremely rare.

Sustainable development of tourism in different environments

Much of the discussion on sustainable development and tourism has beenin the context of the environment in which tourism occurs (Eagles 1994;McCool 1994), and in many cases the settings examined have been in theThird World (Cater and Lowman 1994). This focus probably results fromthe fact that, in many ways, it is much easier to examine new or proposeddevelopments in virgin or 'greenfield' sites and to argue how they couldbe made more sustainable, rather than deal with mature and decliningurban tourism destinations. In addition, the tourism industry has not beenslow to appreciate the marketability of the concept of sustainable devel-opment. It has realized that to ignore the groundswell of support for theconcept would leave it vulnerable to criticism and possibly stringent regu-lation, if not prohibition, in certain localities. In many cases, therefore, ithas adopted the concept of sustainable development in name if not inoperation. Thus many small-scale tourist operations in a wide variety oflocations have suddenly begun to call themselves 'sustainable' (and often'ecotourist') in the hope of successfully competing for the 'appropriatetourist'. In this context, it is important to remember that the touristindustry is comprised of many small but highly competitive operations aswell as the well-known and often criticized multinational conglomerates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

14 Butler

Too many inappropriate or poorly operated small-scale developments inthe wrong location can be just as harmful and non-sustainable as a singlelarge development.

The overwhelming focus of attention on the environmental context hasbeen effectively criticized by, among others, Craik (1993: 3), who asked thehighly pertinent question, 'Why is sustainable development almost invari-ably reduced to, and articulated in terms of, environmental matters?' Oneanswer to this very valid query is that sustainable development as a con-cept emerged in the context of the second global wave of environmentalconcern. It coincided with increasingly obviously visible environmentalimpacts of tourism in mature destinations, and growing political supportfor environmental protection. In the context of tourism, however, it shouldhave been clear to all those involved that tourism, like most forms ofresource use, straddles both the physical and the human worlds. It can havejust as severe and far-reaching impacts upon the human (cultural, social)resources of tourist destinations as it does on the physical (vegetation,wildlife, water, etc.) resources (Mathieson and Wall 1982). Indeed, this prin-ciple has been recognized by the World Tourism Organization, which sug-gested that sustainable tourist development should meet 'the needs ofpresent tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportu-nity for the future' (World Tourism Organization 1993: 7). However, rel-atively little attention has been paid to date by researchers in determininghow sustainability in the context of the human environment could be deter-mined. Craik (1995) is one of the few to suggest a specific framework forsuch an approach, although there are indications that other researchers areincreasingly accepting that sustainable development must be accepted ashaving a human component that is equally as important as the more tra-ditionally accepted environmental focus (for examples, see Briguglio et al.1996a, 1996b).

A second aspect of sustainable development that has received little atten-tion is the application of the principles to tourist sites in the developed world,particularly in urban and highly developed areas. Two recent papers(Bramwell et al. 1996a; Zelfde 1996) provide some evidence of a develop-ment of interest in these areas. The edited volume by Priestley et al. (1996)has an encouragingly wide range of topics within it, including several deal-ing with the human component of tourism in developed areas, although,despite the title of the volume, the discussion on sustainability is rather lim-ited. The fact remains, however, that the bulk of the literature and policieswhich do exist on tourism and sustainable development have a clear empha-sis on environmental matters and new, often small-scale developments, gen-erally related to natural or heritage features (Ecologically SustainableDevelopment Working Groups 1991; McCool 1994; Croall 1995; Hunter &Green 1995). Relatively few authors have focused attention on the applica-tion of the concept to the human and social elements and the different frame-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Space: Sustainable tourism 15

works that are required for successful implementation (Nelson et al. 1993;Craik 1995; Bramwell et al. 1996b; Briguglio et al. 1996a, 1996b; Squire1996), and their efforts have been concentrated in the last few years only.To many people in tourism and other fields, the concept of sustainable devel-opment is still, unfortunately, tied firmly and often exclusively to thephysical environment.

Major unresolved issues in sustainable development

In the context of tourism there remain a number of key, as yet unre-solved, issues with the concept of sustainable development, including itsrelationship with carrying capacity, with control of development and oper-ation, and with mass or conventional tourism. These issues are clearlyrelated to each other, and arise because of the nature of tourism devel-opment, the nature of the tourism industry and the role of the publicsector in tourism in many destinations. In addition, and related to thedifficulties stemming from the ill-defined nature of the concept, are theproblems of measurement and monitoring. Whether the concept of sustain-able development is anything new is a subject that needs considerablediscussion, but readers familiar with writings on conservation dating backfrom the turn of the century may be forgiven for thinking that it is simplya version of that concept with a new face. Certainly, the writings ofMeadows et al. (1972) a quarter of a century ago in The Limits to Growthraised very similar issues and sentiments to those expressed in OurCommon Future (World Commission on Environment and Development1987).

The key term in this concept is the one of 'limits'. However muchproponents of development may ignore the fact, implicit in the conceptof sustainable development is the idea of limits. In the case of tourism,this is normally expressed in terms of numbers of tourists, although implicitin this is the associated infrastructure development and landscape modi-fications. While thinking on carrying capacity has been modified greatlysince the 1960s, when researchers were seeking the 'magic number' ofvisitors who could be accommodated at a specific site, the issue of volumestill remains (Butler 1996). Although it is generally accepted that numbersalone are not an entirely satisfactory measure of the effects of tourism,there is little doubt that, in almost all tourism contexts, there is a maximumnumber of tourists who can be successfully accommodated (however'successful' is defined). Once this number is exceeded, a range of nega-tive and sometimes irreversible effects take place. These impacts may takesome time to manifest themselves in certain areas (e.g. changes in envi-ronmental quality), whereas in others their effects may be felt almostimmediately (e.g. resident attitudes). In most cases, there is no clear

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

16 Butler

threshold and the effects are often cumulative, sometimes in a linear butnot necessarily simple relationship, depending on a wide range of vari-ables. The fact remains, however, that in almost every conceivable context,there will be an upper limit in terms of the numbers of tourists and theamount of development associated with tourism that the destination canwithstand (Shipp 1993). Once these levels are exceeded, a number ofthings occur, normally in undesirable form. The nature of tourism itselfchanges, the nature of the destination changes, the attractivity and hencethe viability of the destination declines, and tourism becomes no longersustainable in its original form. If overuse and overdevelopment continueunabated, then any form of tourism may become unsustainable in thatdestination (Butler 1991; Cooper 1996; Zanetto & Soriani 1996).

Given this scenario, one would expect that proponents of sustainableforms of tourism or sustainable development encompassing tourism wouldinclude limits to growth in any proposed development. Such limits wouldbe based on the ability (capacity) of the resources (human and physical) toabsorb the effects of tourism so that tourism and other activities and attrib-utes would be able to be maintained over the long term. This is a pointmade by Bramwell et al. in their excellent discussion of a framework forsustainable tourism: 'A key element of setting targets for sustainabletourism is the establishing of the tourism carrying capacity of a destinationarea' (1996b: 61). In fact few, if any, development proposals identify orpropose such limits. If sustainable development principles are included indevelopment plans in anything more than name only, they are normallycouched in vague terms which are long on emotion and short on specifics.This is explained, in part, by the fact that researchers and policy makersin tourism have never grasped the nettle of carrying capacity or limits andhave never produced measures that could be used in such contexts (Butler1996). The urgent need to take such steps at the local level as well as atmore senior levels of government has been stressed more strongly recently(Coccossis &C Parpairis 1996; Johnson and Thomas 1996).

This problem relates directly to that noted above of measurement of sus-tainability. A few examples of proposed measures appeared in the volumeTourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing(Nelson et al. 1993), including those by Kreutzwiser (1993), Payne (1993)and Marsh (1993), but all of these are speculative and none are based onempirical research. The idea of measures or indicators of the nature oftourism are not new. The need for performance indicators in plans andmanagement strategies for tourism development has been noted byGetz (1982), Gunn (1994), Inskeep (1991) and the World TourismOrganization (1993) among others, and yet these calls have rarely beentranslated into action. Without such indicators, the use of the term 'sus-tainable' is meaningless. It becomes hyperbole and advertising jargon of thekind so brilliantly criticized by Wheeller (1993, 1994). In England, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Space: Sustainable tourism 17

Countryside Commission concisely summarized the need for, and the resultof an absence of, monitoring: 'A commitment to monitoring is essential.Without any commitment to measuring impact on either a qualitative orquantitative basis, it is impossible to decide whether one is moving towardssustainable tourism or away from it' (Countryside Commission 1995: 9).

The points raised in the above discussion stem in many cases from thefact that, despite the many agencies and private sector elements involvedin the promotion and development of tourism, there are few bodies whosefunction is to control tourism once it has been developed. Indeed, one ofthe key issues is how tourism could be controlled given the nature, varietyand motivations of the industry and the participants. Tourism researcherswith few exceptions have tended to ignore the issue of control of tourismand, by implication, the politics of tourism. Richter's (1989) early workraised some of the issues in the context of Asian tourism, but not untilmore recently has there has been an overall review of the political realmof tourism and its implications (Hall 1994; Hall & Jenkins 1995). Theabsence of research and discussion on the political aspects of tourism -and the reverse, the ignoring of the political implications of tourism devel-opment and the changes it brings by decision makers and their advisors- is yet another example of the isolation of tourism from the world inwhich it exists. While there are examples of good discussion of the policyimplications of sustainable tourism (see, for example, Pigram 1990), thelinks between policy and politics are often not developed. Wall (1996)has commented eloquently on the problems of dealing with tourism froma single sector viewpoint and the need to consider the context in whichtourism occurs and the systems with which it interacts. The political systemof control is one of these, and a particularly important one when consid-ering controls on the amount, type and rate of development that areinevitable in the case of sustainable tourism development.

This leads to the third major issue identified above, namely the rela-tionship of sustainable development to mass or conventional tourism.Writers critical of mass tourism (e.g. Poon 1993; Croall 1995) oftenpropose what are termed 'sustainable forms of tourism' as the ideal alter-native, and in so doing imply, if not state categorically, that the two formsof tourism are incompatible. It is clear that many examples of mass tourismdevelopment are not sustainable by any definition of the term, and thedifficult position many established destinations find themselves in at thecurrent time is evidence of this (Dickinson 1996; Prat 1996; Vera &C Rippin1996). However, to take such evidence and conclude that sustainable devel-opment principles can only be applied to small-scale, sensitive newdevelopments in greenfield sites is shortsighted. In the first case, as manyauthors have pointed out (Butler 1991; Wall 1993a, 1993b; Wheeller1993; Pearce 1995), mass tourism is incredibly popular and is not goingto disappear or be replaced by 'alternative' tourism.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

18 ButlerTourism is a phenomenon that has demonstrated continuous growth for

at least half a century at the global scale, and most of this growth has beenin mass tourism. While the most rapid growth in recent years appears tohave been in specialized forms of tourism, such as ecotourism, the actualnumbers of tourists involved in these forms are very small compared tothose engaged in 'mass' tourism (World Tourism Organization 1995). Also,as these new forms of tourism become increasingly popular, there is everylikelihood that they will become varieties of mass tourism; indeed, manyof them are taking on such characteristics very rapidly as they expand. Theincrease in numbers, the intensive marketing, the need for large accom-modation and transportation units, the changes in the product itself, andthe resultant impacts on destinations are all familiar trends in mass tourism.To assume that they will remain sustainable, if indeed they ever were sus-tainable in anything but name, is naive and not supported by research.

Where tourism has been in existence for long periods of time, for exam-ple in capital cities and at specific 'marked' sites such as the Pyramids,Niagara Falls and the Alps, with few exceptions it has continued to surviveby changing its products or enlarging its market. Neither of these techniquesis sustainable in the strict sense of the term as used by the World Commissionon Environment and Development. However, the basic attractions in suchplaces still exist to a large degree, although certainly not in an unchanged orpristine form. Where tourism has existed for a long time based on naturalattractions but involving large numbers of visitors, we see major problemsin many areas. The numbers of visitors require and generally result in theestablishment of facilities and an infrastructure to meet their needs, with theresult that the natural areas lose some of their naturalness and hence theirattractivity. As tourist numbers and facilities increase, the market changesand many visitors who were attracted by the natural features and the absenceof development and large numbers of tourists no longer come, going insteadto other, less developed sites. The natural 'capital' of these sites is beingreduced by development and they are becoming less sustainable, althoughnumbers may be stable or even still increasing.

The mass market for tourism shows no signs of decreasing; indeed, asnew countries of origin in Asia, such as Japan and Korea, provide everlarger numbers of tourists, it shows every evidence of continuing to increasefor the foreseeable future. Existing and future destinations of this mass mar-ket should be the focus of efforts at achieving sustainability in tourism fortwo reasons. First, it is simply inappropriate in this day and age to developdestinations that do not strive to be as environmentally and socially benignas possible, and hence as close to sustainability as feasible. The environ-ments and residents of destination areas deserve such consideration, as dothe visitors themselves. Second, if such destinations rapidly decline in qual-ity and attractiveness because of poor planning and development, touristswill desert them and seek new destinations at an increasingly rapid rate.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Space: Sustainable tourism 19

The benefits of tourism will not be maximized but will only be compressedinto a short period. New destinations will have to be established to meetthe new demand and the same process will continue to escalate until thereare literally no more suitable destinations or no areas willing to accepttourism, a process discussed by Plog (1974) more than 20 years ago.

Conclusions

In trying to identify where the state of the art of current research ontourism in the context of sustainable development stands is rather diffi-cult. There is now a sizeable body of literature on this subject, which isgrowing rapidly. The topic has even resulted in the appearance of a journal{Journal of Sustainable Tourism) devoted to this field. A great deal moreresearch by geographers and others has been conducted and is just reachingthe publication stage (Pigram &c Wahab 1997; Hall &C Lew 1998; C.Becker, University of Trier, personal communication). Thus one cannotconclude simply that there is little written and that much remains to bedone, nor can one argue that the key questions have been resolved.Although a great deal has been written, particularly in the last 5 years,I feel that much research does still remain to be undertaken.

The key problem, in my mind, is the current inability to define to thesatisfaction of all, or even most, of the stakeholders in tourism, exactlywhat is meant by 'sustainable tourism'. As noted above, this remains amajor problem and, because ambiguity exists, almost any form of tourismcan, and often is, termed sustainable. Related to this fundamental issueis the question of how sustainability might be monitored and measuredif and when a satisfactory definition of sustainable tourism is establishedand accepted. It is clear that current research in all disciplines involvedwith tourism has not really tackled the problem of monitoring the effectsof tourism in any context. Despite the real need to benchmark and monitor,first called for many years ago (Mathieson 8>C Wall 1982), such effortshave, by and large, been at best sporadic and non-systematic. Given thehype that exists in industry and political circles to persuade people thatmuch is being done to achieve sustainable tourism, there is implicit, ifnot overt, opposition to research that might show that very little new orexisting tourism development is sustainable, or at best that a decision onits sustainability cannot be made for many years to come. Also, manyproponents of the idea of sustainable tourism seem unwilling to acceptthat, because an operation calls itself sustainable, it may not be so inreality.

To assess the real impacts of tourism and the level of sustainabilityachieved requires in-depth longitudinal research and environmental,economic and social auditing. This requires stable funding and a willing-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

20 Butler

ness on the part of researchers to commit to a research programme fora considerable period of time. There is very little evidence that this sortof commitment currently exists and good long-term research on sustain-able development in tourism or any other field is extremely scarce (Wall1996). One can argue, therefore, that the greatest research need is todevelop measures of sustainability and to apply these to existing and newforms of tourism development to help determine what affects sustain-ability and how it can be achieved; in other words, to operationalize theconcept and evaluate it in operation. This is far more complex than itsounds because, as discussed above, a multi-sectoral approach is essen-tial, and this requires much more than simply estimating the direct effectsof tourism on the physical and human environments of destination areas.

Even when the elements and processes of sustainability are identifiedand understood, there is still no guarantee that it will be practised indestination areas. It will be necessary, if sustainability is to be achieved,to ensure that all stakeholders are willing participants in the process. Ifthe industry, at all scales, cannot be persuaded that it is in its own directinterest to commit to some principles of sustainability, then efforts ofother stakeholders will have little effect. If the public sector is not willingto educate and, if necessary, enforce sustainable policies and actions, thenfew are unlikely to follow them. Simply listing appropriate actions andstrategies and calling for their adoption (Table 2), as some governmentshave done (Tourism Canada 1990), is but a first step - specific actionand enforcement are necessary as well. If local residents cannot see theshort-term as well as long-term benefits to themselves of sustainable poli-cies, they will subvert or ignore them. Finally, if the tourists themselvesdo not enjoy or anticipate satisfaction from sustainable forms of tourism,they will not participate and not visit destinations geared to offer thistype of tourism. One of the other tasks facing researchers, if they wishto ensure the application as well as the understanding of sustainable devel-opment of tourism, is to find ways to ensure the necessary policies andactions are acceptable to all stakeholders in tourism.

Simply saying that all is well and that sustainable tourism is the way ofthe future because there is a growing interest in the concept will not ensureits adoption or success. At present, there is a disturbing tendency, in thedesire to promote sustainable tourism, to claim that any small-scale, envi-ronmentally or culturally focused form of tourism is sustainable, particu-larly where it is developed by or for local residents. In the absence ofaccurate and reliable indicators and monitoring, one cannot comment onthe sustainability of any enterprise until many years after its establishment,and only then, after comparing its operation and effects, to the state of theenvironment at the time of its establishment. Given that the term sustain-able development did not enter the lexicon until 1987, it is still too soonto say if anything created since then is truly sustainable or not.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Space: Sustainable tourism 21

Table 2 An action strategy for sustainable tourism development: the role ofgovernment

Governments should:

1. Undertake area- and sector-specific research on overall tourism effects2. Support the development of tourism economic models3. Assist and support lower levels of governments to develop their own

tourism development strategies in conjunction with conservation strategies4. Develop standards and regulations for environmental and cultural impact

assessments, monitoring and auditing of existing and proposed tourismdevelopments

5. Apply sectoral and regional environmental accounting systems for tourism6. Design and implement public consultation techniques and processes in

order to involve all stakeholders in making tourism-related decisions7. Develop and implement new economic indicators which define national

well-being in the sustainable development sense8. Design and implement educational and awareness programmes which will

sensitize people to the issues of sustainable tourism development9. Develop adequate tools and techniques to analyse the effect of tourism

development projects on heritage sites and ancient monuments as anintegral part of cultural and environmental impact assessment

10. Develop design and construction standards which will ensure that tourismdevelopment projects are sympathetic with local culture and naturalenvironments

11. Ensure that carrying capacities of tourism destinations reflect sustainablelevels of development and are monitored and adjusted appropriately

12. Enforce regulations for illegal trade in historic objects and crafts, unofficialarchaeological research, the prevention of erosion of aesthetic values anddesecration of sites

13. Regulate and control tourism in environmentally and culturally sensitiveareas

14. Include tourism in land use planning15. Create tourism boards that involve all stakeholders16. Ensure that all government departments involved in tourism are briefed on

the concept of sustainable development17. Ensure that tourism interests are represented at major caucus planning

meetings that affect the environment and the economy18. Ensure that national and local tourism development agreements stress a

policy of sustainable tourism development

Source: Tourism Canada (1990).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

22 Butler

References

Bramwell, B., Henry, I., Jackson, G., Prat, A.G., Richards, G. and van der Straaten,J., eds. 1996a. Sustainable Tourism Management: Principles and Practice.Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Bramwell, B., Henry, I., Jackson, G. and van der Straaten, J. 1996b. A frame-work for understanding sustainable tourism management. In SustainableTourism Management: Principles and Practice, ed. W. Bramwell, I. Henry, G.Jackson, A.G. Prat, G. Richards and J. van der Straaten, pp. 23-72. Tilburg,Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Briguglio, L., Archer, B., Jafari, J. and Wall, G. eds. 1996a. Sustainable Tourismin Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies, Vol. 1. London: Cassell.

Briguglio, L., Butler, R., Harrison, D. and Filho, W. eds. 1996b. SustainableTourism in Islands and Small States: Case Studies, Vol. 2. London: Cassell.

Butler, R.W. 1991. Tourism, environment, and sustainable development.Environmental Conservation 18(3): 201-9.

Butler, R.W. 1993. Tourism - an evolutionary perspective. In Tourism andSustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, ed. J.G. Nelson,R.W. Butler and G. Wall, pp. 27-44. Waterloo, Ontario: University ofWaterloo (Department of Geography Publication 37).

Butler, R.W. 1996. The concept of carrying capacity for tourism destinations: deador merely buried? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 2(3-4):283-93.

Cater, E. and Lowman, G. 1994. Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? New York:John Wiley.

Coccossis, H. 1996. Tourism and sustainability: Perspectives and implications. InSustainable Tourism? European Experiences, ed. G.K. Priestley, J.A. Edwardsand H. Coccossis, pp. 1-21. Wallingford, Oxford: CAB International.

Coccossis, H. and Parpairis, A. 1996. Tourism and carrying capacity in coastalareas: Mykonos, Greece. In Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences, ed.G.K. Priestley, J.A. Edwards and H. Coccossis, pp. 153-75. Wallingford,Oxford: CAB International.

Cooper, C. 1996. The environmental consequences of declining destinations.Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 2(3-4): 337-46.

Countryside Commission. 1995. Sustaining Rural Tourism. Cheltenham, UK:Countryside Commission (CCP 483).

Craik, J. 1993. The cultural limits of tourism in pacific rim countries. Paperpresented at the International Conference on Sustainable Tourism in Islandsand Small States, Valletta, Malta, November 1993.

Craik, J. 1995. Are there cultural limits to tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism3(2): 87-98.

Croall, J. 1995. Preserve or Destroy: Tourism and the Environment. London:Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Dickinson, G. 1996. Environmental degradation in the countryside: Loch Lomond,Scotland. In Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences, ed. G.K. Priestley,J.A. Edwards and H. Coccossis, pp. 22-34. Wallingford, Oxford: CABInternational.

Eagles, P.F.J. 1994. Understanding the market for sustainable tourism. In LinkingTourism, the Environment and Sustainability, ed. S.F. McCool and A.E. Watson,pp. 23-33. Ogden, UT: USDA (General Technical Report INT-GTR-323).

Eber, S., ed. 1992. Beyond the Green Horizon: A Discussion Paper on Principlesfor Sustainable Tourism. Godalming, UK: Worldwide Fund for Nature.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Space: Sustainable tourism 23

Ecologically Sustainable Working Groups. 1991. Final Report - Tourism. Canberra,ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Getz, D. 1982. A rationale and methodology for assessing capacity to absorbtourism. Ontario Geography 19: 92-101.

Gunn, C. 1994. Tourism Planning. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.Hall, C.M. 1994. Tourism and Politics: Power, Policy and Place. London: John

Wiley.Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. 1995. Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge.Hall, C.M. and Lew, A.A., eds. 1998. Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical

Perspective. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Harrison, D. 1996. Sustainability and tourism: Reflections in a muddy pool. In

Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies, Vol. 1,ed. L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wall, pp. 69-89. London: Cassell.

Hunter, C. and Green, H. 1995. Tourism and the Environment: A SustainableRelationship? London: Routledge.

Inskeep, E. 1991. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable DevelopmentApproach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Johnson, P. and Thomas, B. 1996. Tourism capacity: A critique. In Sustain-able Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies, Vol. 1, ed.L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wall, pp. 118-36. London: Cassell.

Kreutzwiser, R. 1993. Desirable attributes of sustainability indicators for tourismdevelopment. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning,Managing, ed. J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler and G. Wall, pp. 243-48. Waterloo,Ontario: University of Waterloo (Department of Geography Publication 37).

Marsh, J. 1993. An index of tourism sustainability. In Tourism and SustainableDevelopment: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, ed. J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butlerand G. Wall, pp. 255-8. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo(Department of Geography Publication 37).

Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. 1982. Tourism: Economic, Social and Physical Impacts.London: Longman.

McCool, S.F. 1994. Linking tourism, the environment, and concepts of sustain-ability: Setting the stage. In Linking Tourism, the Environment andSustainability, ed. S.F. McCool and A.E. Watson, pp. 3-7. Ogden, UT: USDA(General Technical Report INT-GTR-323).

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. 1972. Limits toGrowth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament ofMankind. New York: Universe Books.

Murphy, P.E. 1985. Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen.Nelson, J.G., Butler, R.W. and Wall, G. eds. 1993. Tourism and Sustainable

Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Waterloo, Ontario: Universityof Waterloo (Department of Geography Publication 37).

Payne, R. 1993. Sustainable tourism: Suggested indicators and monitoring tech-niques. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning,Managing, ed. J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler and G. Wall, pp. 249-54. Waterloo,Ontario: University of Waterloo (Department of Geography Publication 37).

Pearce, D.G. 1989. Tourist Development. London: Longman.Pearce, D.G. 1995. Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis. London: Longman.Pigram, J.J. 1990. Sustainable tourism: Policy considerations. Journal of Tourism

Studies 1(2): 2-7.Pigram, J.J. and Wahab, S.A.E., eds. 1997. Tourism, Sustainability and Growth.

London: Routledge.Plog, S.C. 1974. Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel

and Restaurant Administration Quarterly (February): 55-8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

24 Butler

Poon, A. 1993. Tourism, Technology, and Competitive Strategies. Harmondsworth,UK: CAB International.

Prat, A.G. 1996. Back to a sustainable future on the Costa Brava. In SustainableTourism Management: Principles and Practice, ed. W. Bramwell, I. Henry,G. Jackson, A.G. Prat, G. Richards and J. van der Straaten, pp. 121-46. Tilburg,Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Priestley, G.K., Edwards, J.A. and Coccossis, H., eds. 1996. Sustainable Tourism?European Experiences. Wallingford, Oxford: CAB International.

Richter, L. 1989. The Politics of Tourism in Asia. Honolulu, HI: University of HawaiiPress.

Shipp, D., ed. 1993. Loving Them to Death? Sustainable Tourism in Europe's Natureand National Parks. Grafenau: Federation of Nature and National Parks ofEurope.

Smith, V.L. and Eadington, W.R. 1992. Tourism Alternatives. Philadelphia, PA:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Squire, S. 1996. Literary tourism and sustainable tourism? Promoting 'Anne of GreenGables' in Prince Edward Island. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4(3): 119-34.

Stabler, M.J. and Goodall, B. 1996. Environmental auditing in planning for sustain-able island tourism. In Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issuesand Policies, Vol. 1, ed. L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wall, pp. 170-96.London: Cassell.

Tourism Canada. 1990. An action strategy for sustainable tourism development.Workshop paper for Globe '90 Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, October1990. Ottawa, Ontario: Tourism Canada.

Vera, F. and Rippin, R. 1996. Decline of a Mediterranean tourist area and restruc-turing strategies: The Valencian region. In Sustainable Tourism? EuropeanExperiences, ed. G.K. Priestley, J.A. Edwards and H. Coccossis, pp. 120-36.Wallingford, Oxford: CAB International.

Wall, G. 1993a. International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism inBali. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(1): 38-47.

Wall, G. 1993b. Towards a tourism typology. In Tourism and SustainableDevelopment: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, ed. J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butlerand G. Wall, pp. 45-58. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo (Departmentof Geography Publication 37).

Wall, G. 1996. Is ecotourism sustainable? Environmental Management 2(3-4):207-16.

Wheeller, B. 1993. Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(2): 121-9.Wheeller, B. 1994. Ecotourism: A ruse by any other name. In Progress in Tourism

Recreation and Hospitality Management, Vol. 6, ed. C.P. Cooper and A.Lockwood, pp. 3-11. London: John Wiley.

Woodley, S. 1993. Tourism and sustainable development in parks and protectedareas. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning,Managing, ed. J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler and G. Wall, pp. 83-96. Waterloo,Ontario: University of Waterloo (Department of Geography Publication 37).

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future.New York: Oxford University Press.

World Tourism Organization. 1993. Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide forLocal Planners. Madrid: WTO.

World Tourism Organization. 1995. Summary of Statistics. Madrid: WTO.Zanetto, G. and Soriani, S. 1996. Tourism and environmental degradation: The

northern Adriatic Sea. In Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences, ed. G.K.Priestley, J.A. Edwards and H. Coccossis, pp. 137-52. Wallingford, Oxford:CAB International.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13

Space: Sustainable tourism 25

Zelfde, J. van t'. 1996. Environmentality at Disneyland Paris. In SustainableTourism Management: Principles and Practice, ed. W. Bramwell, I. Henry, G.Jackson, A.G. Prat, G. Richards and J. van der Straaten, pp. 87-102. Tilburg,Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Biographical note

Professor Richard Butler was born in England and educated at Nottingham(BA Hons) and Glasgow (PhD) Universities. He taught at the Universityof Western Ontario from 1967 to 1997, specializing in the geography oftourism and recreation. He is Past President of the International Academyfor the Study of Tourism and a Past President of the Canadian Associationfor Leisure Studies. His main fields of research have been the evolutioncycle of resorts, the social impact of tourism, sustainable tourism andtourism on islands. (Department of Management Studies, University ofSurrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK; e-mail: R.Butler@surrey.ac.uk)

Résumé: Le tourisme durable: un état de la question

Le thème du tourisme durable a émérgé dans la dernière décennie, sute aux discus-sions sur le rapport Notre Futur Commun. Cette contribution s'intéresse d'abordau développement du terme lui-même, en commençant par une discussion sur laconfusion engendrée par des définitions imprécises et controversées du concept, etsur le besoin de distinguer entre tourisme durable d'une part et développementtouristique fondé sur les principes du développement durable d'autre part. Elleexamine ensuite l'aspect environnemental des discussions sur le tourisme durableetplaide pour la nécessité d'affirmer un concept, et ses applications, qui concernel'environnement autant humain que physique. L'attention est ensuite portée auxproblèmes de capacité de charge et de controle du développement touristique ainsiqu'à la pertinence du terme pour le tourisme de masse (ou conventionnel).La conclusion discute de l'orientation future du tourisme durable et de la prob-abilité d'un développement dans cette direction.

Mots-clés: tourisme durable, définitions, développement, capacité de charge,controle, tourisme de masse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

240.

142.

230]

at 1

5:51

05

Apr

il 20

13