Sustainability Week 1 Discussion

Topic: Based on the articles you have read for this week, please discuss the interrelationships between tourism and the following: a. population, b. peace, c. prosperity, d. pollution, and e. protection. Specify how such interrelationships are related and/or contribute to sustainability. Discuss and refer to concepts from the readings to support your points (please label your sections).

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869
www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Technical approach for a sustainable tourism development.
Case study in the Balearic Islands

Marc Fortuny, Roger Soler, Catalina Cánovas, Antoni Sánchez*

Department of Chemical Engineering, Escola Tècnica Superior d’Enginyeria, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,
08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Barcelona, Spain

Received 29 June 2006; received in revised form 21 March 2007

Available online 5 July 2007

Abstract

In this study, the possibility of transforming the current status of tourism in the Balearic Islands (a region in Spain which has been under an
enormous environmental pressure from conventional and massive tourism) to a sustainable tourism model is explored. Firstly, a general meth-
odology for the conversion from standard to sustainable tourism is presented. The methodology consists of an initial audit, the selection of ob-
jectives and solutions proposed, the application of the selected solutions, an economical evaluation and a review of the obtained results. This
methodology is then applied to the conversion of a real case study (‘‘Sa Cova’’) and a complete evaluation of the transformation to sustainable
tourism is presented, showing an important reduction in the environmental impacts associated with tourism development (especially in areas
such as energy consumption, water and waste management). The results presented here can serve as an example for the application of sustainable
tourism plans to other similar regions in Spain or other traditional tourist destinations with similar problems.
� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Renewable energies; Composting; Sustainable tourism; Waste prevention; Water conservation

1. Introduction

Nowadays almost everyone has heard about sustainable de-
velopment. One of the most referenced definitions of this term
is that given by the Brundtland Report [1] in 1987, but since
then, the general definition of sustainable development has
been formulated for each specific topic in which it has been
applied.

Tourism has developed into one of the world’s most impor-
tant industrial sectors, growing faster than the world’s gross
domestic product for the last 30 years [2]. Such a rapid devel-
opment has been coupled with the negative impacts on the so-
cial and environmental aspects of the communities where
tourism has developed. Also, tourism has not always produced
a direct economic gain for local residents, who have claimed

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 935811019; fax: þ34 935812013.

E-mail address: antoni.sanchez@uab.cat (A. Sánchez).

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.05.003

for a compensation for such negative impacts. Moreover, tour-
ism has a potential high impact generated by its supporting
sectors [2] such as infrastructure construction (roads, harbours,
buildings, etc.).

For these reasons and because ‘‘sustainable or green as-
pects’’ have acquired a significant importance in commercial
development, the tourism industry has been trying to define
the sustainable tourism development (STD) term since the
early 1990s. At present, there has not been a universal agree-
ment about this definition [3], which makes it difficult for leg-
islators and other stakeholders to move forward in the same
direction. The term depends on the perspective of the stake-
holders (mass tourism industry, small-scale tourism industry,
governments, non-governmental organizations, environmental
activists, etc.), who change the objectives to achieve and the
time necessary to achieve them [1]. Nevertheless, everyone
agrees today that tourism development should be sustainable
[4] and considerable human resources and funds are being in-
vested to attain this objective [5].

mailto:antoni.sanchez@uab.cat

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Table 1

General information of the Balearic Islands

Information Value

Population (2001) 955,045 (2.2% of Spain)

Extension (km2) 4992 (1.0% of Spain)

Population density (inh/km2) 169

Total tourism establishments (2005) 2619

Total rural tourism establishments (2005) 229

Tourism night stays (2005) 49,451,486 (21.3% of Spain)

Gross domestic product per capita (2004) 22,137 V

Services sector 72.4 (% of total economy)

Services sector electric demand 2,059,260 MWh

(83% of total demand)

861M. Fortuny et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869

Although STD has not been strictly defined, there is an
emerging consensus on the outline of the term’s definition.
A general approximation to what STD may be, according to
Weaver [6] is: ‘‘A tourism product that seeks to avoid o

minimize environmentally irreversible impacts and preserves
cultural heritage at the same time as providing learning oppor-
tunities and contributing to the maintenance or improvement
of local community structures, including positive benefits for
the local economy’’.

It has been stated that a large number of studies have con-
centrated on the developing forms of responsible tourism for
small-scale tourism enterprises even though mass tourism
has a greater lobbying power for the protection of nature
and societies and represents a greater channel to extend the
benefits of STD [2]. This can be explained mainly because
STD is usually associated with the small-scale, nature-based
tourism, whereas non-STD is usually associated with the
large-scale, 3S (sand, sea and sun) tourism.

Nevertheless, some studies dealing with sustainability-
related issues for mass tourism can be found. Trung and Ku-
mar [7] report on a study concerning energy and water use
and waste management in Vietnamese hotels. Both good and
inefficient practices that are currently applied are reported
and other possibilities and improvements not currently used
are proposed. Also, an attempt for benchmarking in efficient
resource use is done.

However, as there is still no consensus on a general defini-
tion for STD, it can be stated that every effort and new contri-
bution towards STD, for any kind of tourism, can help drive
the tourism industry closer to STD objectives.

Other authors are already supporting the idea of the evolu-
tion from ‘‘polar opposites’’ to ‘‘convergence’’ between the
mass tourism and the sustainable tourism concepts [8]. From
this point of view, the achievements obtained in small-scale
types of tourism could be scaled up and adapted in order to
be introduced to the large-scale tourism industry.

Hallenga and Brezet [9] reported on a study from 200

showing that in 1996, in the European hotel and catering sec-
tor, 94.4% of the enterprises had less than 10 employees, and
the observed trends in tourism indicate an increased demand
for small-scale, nature-related and rural tourism. These data
suggest that the so-called low impact of the STD initiatives
of the small-scale tourism industry may no longer be so low,
at least in some specific areas.

Today, there are already some very well-known tools for
sustainability improvement (i.e., EMAS, ISO14001, eco-labels,
etc.) more suitable for large-scale tourism enterprises because
of the high costs of implementation and because they are aimed
at large companies with a totally different organizational struc-
ture. As most of these tools are difficult to apply to small-scale
companies, attempts for a sustainable-design-aimed method for
small tourism initiatives have already been done [9].

The objective of this study is to provide a general method-
ology for the conversion from standard to sustainable tourism
of small-scale existing enterprises or enterprises-to-be devel-
oped, giving an example of its application to an existing coun-
try house (‘‘Sa Cova’’) located in the Balearic Islands.

2. Socio-economical background in the Balearic Islands

The Balearic Islands (Table 1), one of the most important
tourism destinations of Spain, are also one of the most impor-
tant tourism destinations in the world [10]. Its tourism industry
experienced a large expansion during the 1970s, 1980s and
1990s, transforming the Balearic Islands into one of the richest
regions of Spain. However, as a mainly 3S mass-tourism des-
tination, the economic benefits brought some obvious negative
environmental impacts as well as some lesser known, negative
social and cultural consequences.

As small Mediterranean islands, their natural water re-
sources are very limited, almost exclusively to groundwater re-
sources. Already in 1999, when the mean water demand was
estimated to be 292 L/person/day, most of the groundwater re-
sources were reported as revealing evidences of overexploita-
tion or marine water intrusion symptoms [11], something that
has forced the local authorities to seek other technological and
more expensive solutions such as desalinization plants.

A similar effect has occurred with energy resources. The
main power production plants depend on fossil fuels’ importa-
tion and, as every year the total energy demand increases [12],
every few years the capacity of the power generation facilities
is exceeded by the summer demand peaks, which are directly
related to the residential and the public service sectors as its
energy consumption accounts for 80% of the total energy
demand.

The tourism industry also has another great impact on the
islands’ society. In 2004, 634,000 t of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) were generated in the Balearic Islands, implying a gen-
eration coefficient of 1.82 kg MSW/person/day. However, this
coefficient increases to 2.50 kg MSW/person/day in summer
and drops to 1.50 kg MSW/person/day in winter. This means
that a huge amount of the total MSW generated each year is
produced by the tourism activities.

All of these negative impacts on the islands’ environment
will compromise the tourism industry itself in the mid- to
long-term. As stated earlier: ‘‘Tourists are mainly concerned
with price and quality of the destination. If environmental deg-
radation occurs at a destination, quality tourists are likely to
change their visit to other destinations rather than pressuring
the destination’s management to change its environmental
practices’’ [13].

862 M. Fortuny et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869

Some tourism destinations that already show signs of envi-
ronmental degradation have been reported to have lowered
their prices when the tourism pattern changed from tourists
who seek uniqueness to the traditional 3S-packaged tourists
[13]. The Balearic Islands tourism industry has been based
on the 3S-packages and this has worked so far, but for some
years voices have been raised claiming that the tourism indus-
try has been substituted by the construction sector as the main
driving force of the Balearic economy. This has not only
caused a drop in the offered tourism packages and tourist’s
quality but it may be the cause of the appearance, a few years
ago, of a local opposition movement to tourism development
and especially to some specific tourists’ nationality.

For all these reasons, either the tourism development in the
Balearic Islands must move towards a different approach or
the tourism industry will lead to its self-destruction, whi

has already been referred to as ‘‘too much tourism killing tour-
ism’’ [2].

An increasingly demanded alternative to 3S tourism is rural
tourism. It is a fast-growing holiday choice in tourist destina-
tions, and the Balearic Islands are no exception. Such tourism
alternative not only has a reduced environmental impact but
also takes advantage of local traditions and environmental
richness as a part of its tourism product, therefore, normally
having an intrinsic commitment towards the environment
and sustainability. This characteristic and its growing demand
makes rural tourism a promising tool for STD spreading be-
cause most sustainability improvement measures or good prac-
tices [7] will probably be easier to apply, thus reducing the
necessary vision, values and commitment for sustainability
that a standard tourism enterprise would need to proceed the
same way starting from scratch.

Moreover, apart from the reduced environmental impact of
such tourism alternative, rural tourism increase can help to al-
leviate the demand fluctuations characteristic of the mass 3S
tourism [13].

3. General methodology for the conversion from standard
to sustainable tourism

In this study, a general methodology is proposed for the con-
version from a standard, small-scale tourism to a sustainable
tourism alternative. The proposed methodology is relatively
simple and it can be applied to existing tourism enterprises
or to tourism enterprises-to-be developed. This requires the
following steps.

3.1. Initial audit

An initial evaluation of the main issues that can cause an
environmental impact is required. This covers three main
areas: water, energy and waste. Data about water and energy
consumption as well as about waste generation and manage-
ment are necessary to assess the potential improvement that
can be achieved by applying sustainability criteria. Usually,
the best resources for collecting these data are guest surveys
and existing registers.

The water area information should include (if possible):

(a) Water availability: amount and types (main water, well or
river water, rainwater, etc.).

(b) Mean total daily water demand per best available unit
(person or room).

(d) Estimation of water consumption in other existing points
(electrical household appliances, swimming pool mainte-
nance, crops and garden irrigation, livestock demand, etc.).

The energy area, which is usually the largest part of the ini-
tial audit, should be divided into two subgroups depending on
the type of energy considered:

Electricity: in this subgroup should be included (if
possible):

(a) Electricity availability: amount and types (main electricity,
available renewable energies, power generators, etc.).

(b) Estimation of the lighting demand: type and use (length
and frequency) of each one of the light points.

(c) Estimation of the demand of electrical household appli-
ances: type and use (length and frequency) of each of
the electrical appliances.

(d) Estimation of the electricity demand from other possible
points of consumption (heating/air-conditioning systems,
swimming pool, land machinery, etc.).

Heat: this subgroup should include (if possible):

(a) Heating availability: amount and types (electrical, foss

fuels, renewable energies, etc.).

(b) Heating demand (conditioning of rooms and hot water): it
can be either estimated by means of real fuel consumption
or calculated by means of some of the available software
packages that provide a theoretical heat demand from in-
put data on building insulation and characteristics.

Finally, the waste issue should take into account two main
areas:

Solid waste:

(a) Generation: types and amount per type (domestic organic
and inorganic waste, livestock waste, hazardous wastes,
etc.).

(b) Management (source separation, treatment, etc.).

Wastewater:

(a) Generation: types and amount per type (grey/black water,
rainwater, swimming pool water, etc.).

(b) Management (public sewer or self-treatment system).

All this information should be obtained for different days
(workweek or weekends), months or seasons. An improvement
of the initial audit would be to obtain data from different time

863M. Fortuny et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869

periods, in order to have a more accurate estimation of the sub-
sequent future demands and requirements. This information
must not be considered as the only source of impacts derived
from the tourism activity. Much complicated issues such as the
tourism activity impact on ecosystems or on human health and
safety will probably not be included, on a regular basis, in this
initial audit, otherwise the volume of needed and managed in-
formation may turn so large that will hinder the relatively sim-
plicity of the methodology proposed, which is thought to be
one of its strong points.

However, for those particular cases in which an important
and direct impact on such issues can be observed, they will
have to be considered. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) meth-
odology can be adequate for these cases where other potential
sources of environmental impact such as soil occupation, de-
pletion of natural resources associated to structural modifica-
tions, etc. are to be considered [14]. Some recent papers
provide a detailed methodology to consider these issues in ad-
vanced LCA studies [15].

3.2. Objectives’ definition and solutions’ selection

It is important to clearly define the policy and objectives of
the tourism model transformation. The best solutions’ set may
differ considerably, for example, from an urban-environment
tourism enterprise to a rural-environment tourism enterprise.
Water and energy resources as well as waste management al-
ternatives may be very different, thus, making the best solu-
tions’ set, different. Also, within the general concept of rural
tourism, there is a wide variety of offered services. This, again,
will affect the solutions’ selection process.

Other parameters that must be taken into account for the
potential solutions identification are the local resources avail-
ability and the geographical and socio-cultural context.

There is no general rule towards the best solutions’ set and
each case should be individually assessed. However, a general
approximation to the priority of criteria to be considered could
be the following:

(a) Application of internal management tools for the minimiza-
tion of the consumed resources and waste generation. Some
of the available tools or ‘‘good practices’’ that are currently
applied can be found in the literature [7,16]. However, each
particular case may differ considerably since depending on
the enterprise’s social, environmental and economical con-
text, some tools or good practices may not be suitable for all
the cases considered. Such actions may dramatically impact
the final sustainability improvement without significantly
affecting the enterprise’s budget.

(b) Priority should be given to alternatives that take advantage
of the local resources and knowledge. That is they should
consider applying the traditional local solutions for en-
ergy, water and waste generation savings and, afterwards,
consider new technological options that may improve
upon what has already been achieved. This may help to
avoid the, sometimes, common situation of local commu-
nities not accepting new enterprises.

(c) Economical viability and sustainability improvement must
also be important criteria in the selection process. They
must be balanced and thoroughly considered for each
alternative.

The identification and prioritization of possible solution op-
tions may require the advice from experts in each specific
area. The final decision should be evaluated in terms of eco-
nomic, ecological and ethical suitability for the relevant con-
text before being implemented.

3.3. Application of selected solutions

Once the solutions have been selected, they need to be ap-
plied to each particular situation. This step may require expert
assessment for each area (water, energy and waste manage-
ment). It is also important to quantitatively evaluate the water
and energy savings and the waste reduction achievements that
actually result due to implementation of the changes. This will
make it possible to accurately quantify the magnitude of sus-
tainability improvement. Also, it must not be forgotten that the
applied alternatives, technologies or management tools should
be visible or apparent, as far as possible, to the hosts, to the
guests and to other relevant stakeholders, who will have key
roles in its implementation journey. An environmental policy
clearly and visibly stating all the tourism enterprise’s visions,
goals, objectives and procedures will contribute positively to
helping to ensure success.

3.4. Economic and environmental evaluation: investment,
payback period and sustainability improvement

For the solutions selection step, the investment and mainte-
nance costs of each selected solution have to be assessed, and
the payback period should be estimated. The calculation of
these parameters must be based on the savings achieved
from each applied solution compared to the most common al-
ternative. Obviously, besides the investment and maintenance
costs, the total income that the tourism activity can produce
also needs to be estimated. If the initial investment cost is
too high, a time prioritization of the implementation of the
proposed solutions may be considered.

Also, the achieved environmental improvement will have to
be quantified. The environmental benefit of the applied mea-
sures will impact a wide range of topics, thus making its quan-
tification a difficult issue. The solution usually involves
defining the limits into which the sustainability impacts (either
positive or negative) will be considered and trying to reduce
most of the impacts to a common unit, such as CO2 savings
or toe (tons of oil equivalent) [17,18].

3.5. Follow-up and review of the obtained results

When the new economically and environmentally sound
practices have been implemented, it is essential to monitor
the results and to make further updates as needed. The guest’s

864 M. Fortuny et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869

role in this process is a key factor for the enterprise’s survival,
but the enterprise’s management is a key factor for the guest’s
attitude. Thus, the enterprise’s management must make sure
the guests are connoisseurs of and actively participate in help-
ing to implement the enterprise’s environmental policy. If
these concepts and experiences are taken back home by the
guests, it will make the investment in sustainability worth-
while and will produce a real impact on society’s attitudes
and practices towards helping to achieve sustainable societies.

4. Case study: ‘‘Sa Cova’’

The above-proposed methodology has been applied to an
existing country house (named ‘‘Sa Cova’’) in the largest of
the Balearic Islands, Majorca. This house is used as a second
residence for the owner’s family during the summer. In August
2004, the initial audit data were obtained in terms of statistical
data of water and energy consumption as well as MSW gener-
ation; this was done by a group of 10e15 persons during one
month. The rest of the necessary data were obtained via a sur-
vey performed by the house owners.

4.1. Initial audit

Since the house is not connected to a water or electrical
power distribution network, the water is obtained from rainwa-
ter collection and accumulation and the electricity is obtained
from a solar panel system supported by a diesel generator.
Low-power demands (lighting and small household appli-
ances) are supported by solar energy and high-power demands
(the charger of the solar system batteries and the swimming
pool pumps) are supported by the diesel generator.

A biomass burner (manually fed with wood and branches)
heats the radiators inside the house and butane gas cylinders
are used to provide hot water and the energy

requirements

of the kitchen (stove, oven and refrigerators).

Water and electricity demands were obtained from the sta-
tistical and survey data, whereas heating demand was calcu-
lated by means of the WICA 6.0 software package (Roca,
Barcelona, 2005) in which all the structural characteristics
of the house were introduced to estimate energy requirements.

In the initial situation of the house, no water saving systems
were in use. Regarding the energy issue, it was estimated that
82% of the total energy consumed was provided by the solar sys-
tem, whereas the rest of the energy came from the diesel generator.

Finally, MSW and sewage sludge generation and manage-
ment were studied. The MSW management consisted of a se-
lective separation (organic matter, paper and cardboard,
plastics, glass and hazardous waste) resulting in a total produc-
tion of 0.77 kg MSW/person/day. As no public sewer is
available, sewage treatment consisted of a septic tank and
subsequent land spreading.

4.2. Definition of objectives and selection of solutions

The objectives of the project were to transform the house
into a sustainable tourism enterprise, by improving the house

characteristics related to the accommodation capacity, the wa-
ter and energy systems as well as to the waste management.
Economic aspects were considered in the scheme of proposed
solutions. Moreover, for each selected alternative, its possible
educational functionality was taken into account.

The enterprise accommodation capacity was set to 20 peo-
ple, which required some architectural alterations. For this ca-
pacity, the solutions selected were the following:

(a) Water area: optimization of the rainwater collection and
the accumulation system and minimization of the water
consumption in order to achieve self-sufficiency of the
house.

(b) Electrical energy: increase of the solar panel system and
minimization of the low-power consumption devices in or-
der to increase the solar electricity efficiency. The high-
power demands will continue being provided by the diesel
generator.

(c) Heating energy: improvement of the house heating system
by reducing the house heating demands and supporting the
existing biomass burner with a propane boiler. The pro-
pane boiler is also necessary to support the

solar energy

system intended for hot water supply.

(d) Waste management: two in situ treatment systems are pro-
posed; a composting system for the organic fraction of
MSW and a reed bed natural system for wastewater treat-
ment and reuse.

4.3. Application of selected solution options

The adopted solutions are the following.

4.3.1. Water availability and demand
Optimization of rainwater collection, increase of the accu-

mulation capacity and reuse of an existing accumulation tank.
This new water system design allows collection and accumu-
lation of rainwater in different tanks, from where it is pumped
to a central tank and a subsequent pumping brings it to the fi-
nal accumulation tank. Water from this final tank is treated by
ozone disinfection and supplied to the house by gravity. The
optimization of water collection and accumulation led to
a 20% increase in the collecting area and to a 67% increase
in the accumulation capacity. A final 29% increase in water
availability was reached with the application of these
solutions.

Water demand target was set to 72 L/person/day [19]. This
was achieved by the installation of flow-reducers on faucets,
double-discharge devices on lavatories, installation of water
use efficient household appliances and the design and installa-
tion of a grey water reuse system.

Finally, a water balance considering monthly rainwater col-
lection and accumulation capacity as well as monthly estima-
tion of water demand (using data of the Balearic Islands
tourism occupancy for 2004, Ref. [20]) was carried out
(Fig. 1). According to this balance, a surplus of water was ob-
tained for all the studied period and a mean water demand of

100

150

200

250

Ja
nu

ar
y

Fe
br

ua
ry

M
ar

A
pr

M
ay

Ju
ne

Ju
ly

A
ug

us
t

Se
pt

em
be

O
ct

ob
er

N
ov

em
be

D
ec

em
be

Month

W
at

er
v

ol
um

e
(m

3 )

Water demand
Water availability
Water resources

Fig. 1. Water annual balance (monthly basis). An initial accumulation of 60%

of the total capacity is considered. ‘‘Water demand’’ represents the total

monthly demand of water, taking into account the monthly occupancy and in-

cluding direct personal uses, household appliances demand and swimming

pool maintenance. ‘‘Water resources’’ represent the total amount of rainwater

that can be collected per month. ‘‘Water availability’’ represents the balance of

water available for use at the end of each month. Source: Fortuny et al.

865M. Fortuny et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869

0.080 m3/guest/day was obtained, including guest’s personal
use and swimming pool maintenance. Garden irrigation is
not included since it will be carried out using the effluent
from the wastewater treatment plant. This value is much lower
than the benchmarks reported in Ref. [7], either for Vietnam-
ese or European hotels (Table 2).

4.3.2. Energy availability and demand
A duplication of the existing solar electricity energy system

was proposed. The low-power future demand was calculated
from the initial audit and survey data and divided into four
subgroups: lighting, electrical household appliances, heating
(house heating and hot water) and water supply system.
Once energy-saving solutions were installed, total electricity
demand, availability and percentage of the total demand cov-
ered by solar energy were calculated (Table 3). As a result, the
annual average low-power electrical demand covered by solar
energy is 86%. This percentage resulted in savings of 7500 V
and 20,000 kg CO2 per year (Table 4), corresponding to a 90%
saving in fuel consumption. The rest of the low-power energy
requirements and the totality of the high-power demands con-
tinued to be provided by the diesel generator, and its utiliza-
tion and CO2 emissions were also calculated.

Table 2

Comparison of the obtained results with benchmarks for hotels in Vietnam and Eu

Vietnamese hotels [7]a

4 star 3 star 2 star Reso

kWh/guest/day 81e127 40e50 27e41 18e

m3/guest/day 4.4e38.9 2.2e11 0.6e10.8 6.3e
Kg MSW/guest/day 13.5e32.3 8.2e17.9 0.7e5.6 5.7e

m3 wastewater/guest/day n/a 2.3e12 1.4e1.9 n/a

a The original study [7] considered only electrical energy consumption.

In relation to the heating area, the house heating demand
was lowered by insulation improvement. Reduction of infiltra-
tion losses, insulation on thinner walls and ceilings and double
glazing were the solutions proposed. Using the previously
mentioned WICA 6.0 software, the new heating requirements
were calculated resulting in a 22% reduction on the annual
house heating demand. The final proposed heating system
consisted of a combination of an existing biomass burner
supported by a propane heater (Fig. 2). The biomass burner
provided up to a 59% of the heating demand, leading to
a 46% saving in fuel costs and CO2 emissions. If the biomass
burner and the insulation improvements were both considered,
a total saving of 70% was achieved in economic costs and CO2

emissions.
Finally, a new hot water system was designed according to

Ref. [21] in order to introduce a solar system designed with
a specific software (T-SOL Pro 4.03 Demo, Solar Brava,
2005). The solar hot water system provided up to 72% of
the annual hot water energy demand and the energy savings
were 860 kg of propane/year, equivalent to 825 kg of CO2

emissions. It has to be mentioned that the payback period ob-
tained from these savings (Table 4) is longer than the usual
values that can be found for standard solar heating systems
nowadays. It is mainly due to the reduced volume of hot water
consumed after the water saving solutions have been applied.
It is worthwhile to mention that the payback period was esti-
mated according to the propane price at the time of conducting
this case study (0.80 V/kg). However, the present increase of
fuel prices will shorten the payback periods on renewable en-
ergy in the next years.

Thus, after considering electrical requirements and house
heating and hot water energy demands, a mean energy demand
of 9.33 kWh/guest/day was obtained. Although the bench-
marks reported by Trung and Kumar [7] (Table 2) include
cooking energy requirements, from the same reference it can
be concluded that for small hotels, they have a very small
share in the total amount of energy consumption (about
10%). Consequently, if one adds this amount to the obtained
result, it would still be far below the benchmarks, which are
over 20 kWh/guest/day.

4.3.3. Waste generation estimation and

management system

MSW generation was calculated from the initial audit data,

leading to a mean value of 0.43 kg of MSW/guest/day, which
is situated below the range of the benchmarked values for

rope

European hotels [7]a Case study

rt 2, 3 and 4 star Resort Before applied

solutions

After applied

solutions

24 25 25 12.37 9.33

19.6 0.2e0.3 <0.33 0.11 0.080

18.7 0.5e1.5 n/a 0.77 0.43

n/a n/a 0.1 0.080

Table 3

Electrical demand covered by solar energy for the main categories considered

Month Lighting

(kWh/d)

Household

appliances

(kWh/d)

Water supply

(kWh/d)

Heating

(kWh/d)

Total energy

requirements

(kWh/d)

Available solar

energy (kWh/d)

Percentage

covered by

solar energy

Jan 2.28 2.04 1.85 2.50 8.66 3.97 46

Feb 2.28 2.04 1.85 2.50 8.66 6.80 79

Mar 2.02 1.93 1.85 1.89 7.68 9.17 100

Apr 2.55 2.14 1.85 1.68 8.22 9.17 100

May 2.82 2.24 1.85 0.45 7.36 8.95 100

Jun 2.65 2.18 1.85 0.45 7.12 9.70 100

Jul 3.14 2.37 1.85 0.45 7.80 9.64 100

Aug 3.03 2.32 1.85 0.45 7.65 10.02 100

Sep 3.03 2.32 1.85 0.45 7.65 8.88 100

Oct 3.05 2.33 1.85 0.45 7.68 6.80 89

Nov 1.77 1.84 1.85 1.89 7.34 4.63 63

Dec 1.84 1.87 1.85 2.09 7.64 4.35 57

866 M. Fortuny et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869

European and Vietnamese hotels (Table 2). With the calcu-
lated MSW generation value, a design of a home composting
system for the organic fraction of MSW was performed. The
amount of green waste (yard and pruning waste obtained
from the house) used as bulking agent was also estimated in
order to have an optimal initial composting mixture. The vol-
umetric ratio MSW:green waste was fixed at 1:3. A maximum
amount of 200 kg of organic MSW generation per month was
calculated, which corresponded to an approximate volume of
1350 L of initial composting mixture. It was considered that
the composting process should be finished in approximately
10e12 weeks, resulting in a total necessary composting vol-
ume of 4000 L.

The inorganic fractions of the MSW (paper and cardboard,
plastics, glass and metal) would be the only ones introduced
into the public MSW management system.

4.3.4. Wastewater management system
A three-step non-intensive system was designed. The first

step consisted of the existing septic tank which would act as
a buffer tank and primary settler. The second proposed step
is a sand filter to remove suspended solids. The last step would
be a Phragmites australis reed horizontal bed (hydraulic resi-
dence time of 8.1 days) designed for an average inflow of
1.4 m3/day (0.08 m3/guest/day, value much lower than the
benchmarks given in Ref. [7], Table 2) and an average inlet or-
ganic load of 400 mg BOD5/L. According to local legislation
requirements for water reuse on irrigation, an outlet organic
load of 20 mg BOD5/L was set as design criteria.

Finally, the spreading of the solutions set features was con-
sidered and some educational issues, such as processes dia-
grams and other visual information, were introduced into the
final project report.

Throughout this section it has been shown that the results
for each considered sustainability area are almost always
below the benchmarks given by Trung and Kumar [7]
(Table 2). However, it must be considered that those values
were obtained from mass tourism case studies and not from
small-scale, rural tourism enterprises. Hence, the results here
reported could represent the initial step for a necessary study

with which to establish another set of benchmarks for efficient
resources use in small-scale tourism enterprises.

4.4. Economic evaluation

Economic and environmental costs and benefits of the total
project were calculated considering the investment costs, savings
and payback periods for all the proposed solutions (Table 4).

Water savings were obtained comparing the proposed solu-
tions to the alternative of bringing water with tank trucks (in
order to simplify, CO2 emission savings only took into account
the fuel for transportation, although many more facts such as
noise and other forms of pollution could also have been con-
sidered). Energy savings were obtained in terms of the renew-
able energy systems savings and the insulation improvements
proposed. Finally, the waste management savings were re-
ferred to CO2 emissions and calculated with the WARM (Solid
Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life Cycle As-
sessment of Emissions and Sinks. Version 5.0, Environmental
Protection Agency 530-R-02-006) software for the MSW
management proposed. They could not be expressed in eco-
nomical terms since local MSW public treatment taxes are
currently paid on an annual basis without considering the
amount of MSW generated. Also, wastewater treatment
savings were not estimated since on-site treatment is the
only alternative in this case study; no public sewage system
is available.

The initial investment cost of the whole selected solutions
application was found to be 90,076 V. The estimation of the
architectural alterations was 83,000 V, therefore the total ini-
tial investment was 173,076 V (Table 5). Annual income for
tourism activity was calculated under different scenarios set-
ting a price of 30 V/person/day and comparing different oc-
cupancies of 100, 70 and 50% of the occupancy used as
design criteria and considering data of occupancy of the rural
tourism in the Balearic Islands [22]. The resulting payback
periods are shown in Table 5. The worst occupancy scenario
resulted in a 4-year payback period, which means that the
implementation of the sustainable tourism model to this
case study is economically advantageous.

Table 4

Annual savings of the solutions proposed

Annual savings Investment Payback Consumption (m3/guest/day)

m3/year kg CO2/year V/year V Years Before applied

measures

After applied

measures

Water-related

technologies

Water saving systems

(faucets’ flow- reducers,

lavatories’ double-discharge

devices and high-efficiency

household appliances)

461 495 3229 372 0.1 0.11 0.08

Grey water reuse 106 114 742 2425 3.3

Rainwater collection and

management system

478 513 3347 32,209 9.6

Total 1045 1122 7318 35,006 4.8

Annual savings Investment Payback Generation (kg MSW/guest/day)

kg/year kg CO2/year V/year V Years Before applied

measures

After applied

measures

MSW-related

Technologies

Composting system 2013 703 e 760 e 0.77 0.43

Annual savings Investment Payback Generation (m3/guest/day)

m3/year kg CO2/year V/year V Years Before applied

measures

After applied

measures

Wastewater-related

technologies

Wastewater treatment e e e 8576 e 0.1 0.080

Annual savings Investment Payback Consumption (kWh/guest/day)

kg propane/year kg CO2/year V/year V Years Before applied

measures

After applied

measures

Energy-related

technologies

Biomass heater 1886 1795 1509 0 0 12.37 9.33

Insulation 643 612 515 12,333 24.0

Climalit� glass 179 170 143 2850 19.9

Water solar heating system 863 822 690 8250 11.9

Electrical solar system 7474a 20,031 7474 16,208 2.2

Total e 23,430 10,331 39,641 3.8

Investment (V)

Other needed

investments

Heating 5027

Security 1066

Architectural

alterations

83,000

Total needed investment 173,076

a L diesel/year otherwise needed for the existing electricity generator.

867M. Fortuny et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869

The total environmental benefit of the project was also cal-
culated in terms of CO2 emissions’ savings compared to the
same tourism enterprise but without the applied selected solu-
tions for sustainability improvement. Thus, it was found to be
25,000 kg of CO2/year considering the tourism occupancy
level reported for the same area of the Balearic Islands where
the house is located, in 2004 [20].

5. Potential for a full development of sustainable tourism
in the Balearic Islands

Rural tourism is becoming more and more popular in many
well-known tourism destinations. In Spain, the number of rural

tourism establishments increased by 17% in 2004, leading to
a 21% increase in the number of employees in this sector
[23]. Specifically in the Balearic Islands, the rural tourism de-
mand increased by 25.8% from 1996 to 1999 [22] and the
number of establishments increased from 168 in 2002 to 229
in 2005 (36% increase). This rise shows that this type of
tourism is growing in interest despite the fact that the Balearic
Island’s traditional tourism model is based on the 3S mass-
tourism. In particular, Majorca is the island where most of
the rural tourism enterprises can be found (85% of the entire
Balearic rural tourism activity).

According to Ref. [22], the Balearic Islands rural tourist
profile is that of a person in his/her 30s or 40s, with a middle
or high qualified job, high level of education (50% having

Biom

(14m2)

C
on

su
m

pt
io

Water inlet

T= 65ºC

T =80 ºC

T 80ºC TC
T= 45ºC

Accumulation

T= 55ºC

UPS SOLAR 15-80

Propane Heater
(20000 Kcal/h)

SB-5 Y

F=
0.

5
m

3 /h

New heating system flow diagram

Tª indicator
Pump
Non return valve
Stop valve

Tª controller
3-way,thermostatic
mixing valve

Biomass heater
(14000 Kcal/h)

Solar panels

N-radiatorsT

T< 80ºC

Accumulation
tank (1000L)

Tªs

F =1.9 m3/h

Fig. 2. Flow diagram of the new proposed heating system. Source: Fortuny et al.

868 M. Fortuny et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869

university degrees), usually traveling as couples, spending
about a week in the destination and coming mainly from Ger-
many. It is reasonable to think that this tourist profile will have
a well-developed environmental conscience. Also, the Balearic
Islands rural tourist prefers activities such as walking, excur-
sions or visiting villages or local markets [22]. Hiking and
visiting protected natural areas are rated on the third group
of preferred activities. If asked for the reason to go on rural
tourism holidays, the two most cited motives are to relax
and escape from the daily routine as well as to enjoy a mild
climate and nature.

Sustainable tourism or ecotourism may be able to offer the
same product that conventional rural tourism offers as well as
an added value of environmental information or education.

Table 5

Income, costs and payback periods under different occupancy scenarios

Concept Cost (V) Payback (years)

Total investment 173,076 e

Maintenance Cost (V/year) Payback (years)

Staff 34,052 e

Propane 1254 e

Diesel 694 e

Total maintenance 36,000 e

Assumed occupancy (%) Income (V/year) Payback (years)

50 79,777 4.0

70 111,687 2.3

100 159,553 1.4

Rural tourism in Balearic Islands 85,076 3.5

Conventional rural tourism is based on the double benefit ob-
tained from activities such as land or animal farming: they
make a profit from the product itself as well as from showing
the activity to rural tourists. In the same way, sustainable tour-
ism or ecotourism can use the technologies designed for water,
energy and waste savings for those tourists interested in gain-
ing or improving their knowledge of such technologies as well
as to continue to practice ecologically sound practices they
may already be using in their homes.

The increasing rural tourism demand is a great opportunity
for well-developed tourism destinations, usually based on 3S
mass-tourism, to expand their tourism offer as well as to pro-
mote other interesting values such as cultural heritage, local
knowledge, nature-based heritage, etc.

The commitment for an STD in the Balearic Islands can
provide partial solutions for two important problems the Ba-
learic Islands are facing: on the one hand, the decline of tour-
ism demand due to the consideration of the Balearic Islands as
a ‘‘tired destination’’ [16]; and on the other, the environmental
stress caused by many years of uncontrolled and unsustainable
tourism development in the Islands.

6. Conclusions

In this study a simple and general methodology for sustain-
able tourism enterprises is proposed. The methodology was
developed and applied to shape a small-scale, sustainable tour-
ism enterprise from an existing country house located in the
Balearic Islands. The application of sustainability actions in
the three main areas studied (water, energy and waste)

869M. Fortuny et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 860e869

provided substantially beneficial results both in economic and
environmental aspects.

The Balearic Islands tourism industry has lost part of its
initial quality value and tourist interest as ‘‘Mediterranean
climate islands’’ probably due to the appearance of other Med-
iterranean locations with similar characteristics and lower pri-
ces. This requires a new approach for the tourism development
model and one interesting possibility can be the adoption of an
STD model.

To that effect, the proposed methodology could easily be
applied to existing small-scale tourism enterprises or scaled
up and adapted for large-scale tourism enterprises. In the first
case, the methodology would be easier to apply because prob-
ably more appropriate data would be available for the initial
audit step. Concerning the large-scale enterprises, the adapta-
tion would need to be properly made depending on the enter-
prise characteristics (urban or rural, large or middle-scale
hotels, quality category, offered services, etc.). Although the
final solutions would probably be different and perhaps require
bigger initial investments, the proceeding would be as de-
scribed in the methodology and the savings, payback periods
and sustainability improvement much more interesting. Of
course, it is necessary to carry out more studies on implemen-
tation of sustainability measures in the tourism sector to obtain
general data on the efficiency of such measures, both in the ru-
ral and mass tourism sectors.

The methodology described in this paper does not require
a real reduction in the tourism enterprise’s comfort so that it
could have a negative impact on the enterprises’ occupancy.
It just gives an easy pathway for the application of a resource
use audit that will reveal unknown ‘‘resource leaks’’ and po-
tential savings, either in economical or environmental terms.
This is nowadays the limiting step for STD: realizing that it
basically provides benefits whatever the perspective with
which it is assessed.

References

[1] Lee KF. Sustainable tourism destinations: the importance of cleaner

production. Journal of Cleaner Production 2001;9:313e23.

[2] Budeanu A. Impacts and responsibilities for sustainable tourism: a tour

operator’s perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13:89e97.

[3] Tepelus CM, Cordoba RC. Recognition schemes in tourism-from ‘eco’ to

‘sustainability’? Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13:135e40.

[4] Gössling S, Peeters P, Ceron JP, Dubois G, Patterson T, Richardson R.

The eco-efficiency of tourism. Ecological Economics 2005;54:

417e34.

[5] Ko TG. Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure:

a conceptual approach. Tourism Management 2003;26:431e45.

[6] Weaver D. Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism.

Annals of Tourism Research 2005;32:439e55.

[7] Trung DN, Kumar S. Resource use and waste management in Vietnam

hotel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13:109e16.

[8] Tepelus CM. Aiming for sustainability in the tour operating business.

Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13:99e107.

[9] Hallenga SC, Brezet JC. The sustainable innovation design diamond for

micro-sized enterprises in tourism. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;

13:141e9.

[10] Urtasuna A, Gutiérrez I. Tourism agglomeration and its impacts on social

welfare: an empirical approach to the Spanish case. Tourism Manage-

ment 2006;27:901e12.

[11] Barón A. Propuesta del Plan Hidrológico de las Islas Baleares. Junta

d’Aigües de Balears. Govern de les Illes Balears; 1999.

[12] Conselleria de Comerç, Energia Indústria i. Estadı́stiques energètiques de

les Illes Balears. Govern de les Illes Balears; 2004.

[13] Shaalan IM. Sustainable tourism development in the red sea of

Egypt threats and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;

13:83e7.

[14] Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Available

from: ; [accessed 23.04.07].

[15] Diggelman C, Ham RK. Household food waste to wastewater or to solid

waste? That is the question. Waste Management and Research 2003;21:

501e14.

[16] Yaw J. Cleaner technologies for sustainable tourism: Caribbean case

studies. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13:117e34.

[17] Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P, Moberg A. Life cycle assessment of

energy from solid waste-part 1: general methodology and results. Journal

of Cleaner Production 2005;13:213e29.

[18] Güereca LP, Gassó S, Baldasano JM, Jiménez-Guerrero P. Life cycle

assessment of two biowaste management systems for Barcelona, Spain.

Resources, Conservation & Recycling 2006;49:32e48.

[19] Cuchı́ A, Castelló D, Dı́ez G, Sagrera A. Paràmetres de sostenibilitat.

Institut de Tecnologia de la Construcció de Catalunya; 2003.

[20] Conselleria de Turisme. El turisme a les Illes Balears. Dades informa-

tives. Govern de les Illes Balears; 2004.

[21] De Andrés JA, Aroca S, Garcı́a M. Calefacción y agua caliente sanitaria.

AMV Ediciones; 1991.

[22] Confederació d’Associacions Empresarials de Balears (CAEB), Àrea de

Recerca i Tecnologies Turı́stiques del Govern de les Illes Balears (CIT-

TIB). Agroturisme i turisme rural a les Balears; 2002.

[23] Reino C. Everyday more people makes a living on rural tourism. Metro

Newspaper, Barcelona, 25 April 2005.

http://www.setac.org/

Technical approach for a sustainable tourism development. Case study in the Balearic Islands

Introduction

Socio-economical background in the Balearic Islands

General methodology for the conversion from standard to sustainable tourism

Initial audit

Objectives’ definition and solutions’ selection

Application of selected solutions

Economic and environmental evaluation: investment, payback period and sustainability improvement

Follow-up and review of the obtained results

Case study: ‘‘Sa Cova’’

Initial audit

Definition of objectives and selection of solutions

Application of selected solution options

Water availability and demand

Energy availability and demand

Waste generation estimation and management system

Wastewater management system

Economic evaluation

Potential for a full development of sustainable tourism in the Balearic Islands

Conclusions

References

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.

528

–546, 2012
0160-7383/$ – see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.003
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: RESEARCH
AND REALITY

Ralf Buckley
Griffith University, Australia

Abstract: Social and environmental impacts, responses and indicators are reviewed for the
mainstream tourism sector worldwide, in five categories: population, peace, prosperity, pollu-
tion and protection.
Of the �5000 relevant publications, very few attempt to evaluate the entire global tourism sec-
tor in terms which reflect global research in sustainable development. The industry is not yet
close to sustainability.
The main driver for improvement is regulation rather than market measures. Some tourism
advocates still use political approaches to avoid environmental restrictions, and to gain access
to public natural resources.
Future research priorities include: the role of tourism in expansion of protected areas;
improvement in environmental accounting techniques; and the effects of individual percep-
tions of responsibility in addressing climate change. Keywords: indicator, development, enter-
prise, environment, community, social. � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Tourism researchers first turned their attention to social and envi-
ronmental issues almost four decades ago (Allen, Long, Perdue, &
Kieselbach, 1988; Brougham & Butler, 1981; Cater, 1987; Cohen,
1978; Farrell & McLellan, 1987; Liu & Var, 1986; Smith, 1977; Turner
& Ash, 1975; Young, 1973). Research using the specific term sustain-
able tourism, however, commenced barely two decades ago (May,
1991; Nash & Butler, 1990). The first decade yielded compilations
(Coccossis & Nijkamp, 1995; Hall & Lew, 1998; McCool & Moisey,
2001; Stabler, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1999), and basic frameworks from
backgrounds in tourism (Butler, 1999; Clarke, 1997; Hall & Butler,
1995; Hughes, 1995; Hunter, 1997), economics (Driml & Common,
1996; Garrod & Fyall, 1998) and environmental management (Buckley,
1996). The second decade yielded a number of reconceptualisations,
and a series of critiques including Sharpley (2000), Casagrandi and

Ralf Buckley (Director, International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Griffith University,
Australian 4222, ) leads Griffith University’s research in sustain-
able tourism, currently ranked first worldwide. He has �750 publications including �200
journal articles and a dozen books, about half in ecotourism, and has worked in >40
countries.

528

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.003

R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546 529

Rinaldi (2002), Gössling (2002), Liu (2003), Saarinen (2006) and Lane
(2009).

As we enter a third decade, this review takes stock of progress by
assessing the scope, focus and outcomes of academic research publica-
tion in sustainable tourism, against the practicalities of sustainability in
the commercial tourism industry. Its basic premise is that the key issues
in sustainable tourism are defined by the fundamentals of sustainabil-
ity, external to the literature of tourism research. This premise relies
on the axiom that both the tourism industry, and sustainability, are
real-world phenomena. Therefore, this review does not attempt to de-
duce internally-generated research themes from analysis of bibliomet-
ric patterns in sustainable tourism publications. Instead, it constructs
externally-generated themes by applying the key components of sus-
tainability to tourism, and uses these to evaluate the sustainable tour-
ism literature. This yields two outcomes. Firstly, it uses the results of
research to assess the current sustainability of the tourism industry. Sec-
ondly, by comparing relative research effort against industry signifi-
cance, it identifies priorities for future research.

This is a review specifically of the tourism research literature. Re-
search in science, environment, resource management, global change,
human health, economics and development policy is also relevant to
sustainable tourism, but for reasons of space and focus, is not detailed
here. The literature of tourism is large, >150,000 items in total, with
�5,000 relevant to sustainable tourism (CIRET, 2012). Because of
space constraints, this review can cite <250 individual items, i.e. <5% of the relevant literature. It largely omits topics which have been reviewed recently, such as water consumption and climate change (Gössling et al., 2011; Weaver, 2011). It examines the mainstream com- mercial tourism industry: recreation, ecotourism and responsible tour- ism are considered only where relevant. It first defines a framework for evaluation, under five main themes. It then compares the tourism re- search literature against that framework. For each theme, it summa- rises outcomes of all relevant research to date, supported by a representative selection of critical citations. Finally, it compares re- search effort and results against real-world progress and significance.

The five themes used for the evaluation framework are: population,
peace, prosperity, pollution, and protection. The rationale is as follows.
The fundamental concern of sustainability is that aggregate human im-
pacts threaten the survival of humans and the ecosystem services on
which they depend (Pereira, Leadley, Proença, Alkemade, & Scharle-
mann, 2010; Persha, Agrawal, & Chhatre, 2011). Impacts have grown,
ultimately, because biological evolutionary pressures promote contin-
uing human reproduction and competitive consumption. Sustainabil-
ity requires modifications to human society so as to reduce its
aggregate impacts. Impacts depend on: (a) the size and distribution
of the global human population; (b) its social organisation, including
economy, governance and civil society; and (c) the consumption,
pollution, and/or protection of nature as a result of such social orga-
nisation. World population is a key predictor of current and future
human impact on the planet. Peace is a global measure of successful

530 R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546

social organisation and governance. Prosperity is a measure of eco-
nomic activity, and a surrogate for per capita resource consumption.
Pollution indicates increases in environmental impact. Protected areas
indicate reductions.

Each of these factors can be changed through technological, individ-
ual or political means; and each of these means can generate either
gains or losses in sustainability. Technological advances can reduce re-
source consumption and waste generation locally, even though they
have increased both globally. Market-based measures can modify indi-
vidual behaviour either to increase or reduce environmental foot-
prints. Governments introduce laws, policies and incentives which
can either reduce or increase pollution, environmental protection
and social equity. The intentions and outcomes of any such measures
are commonly difficult to deconstruct or predict. Organisations may
promote measures based on individual choice or social responsibility
in order to disperse opposition and forestall regulation (Beder, 1997;
Buckley & Pegas, in press; Honey, 1999; Nunez, 2007; Wagner,
2011). In the tourism sector, Saarinen (2006), Nelson (2010), and Yasa-
rata, Altinay, Burns, and Okumus (2010), showed that industry advo-
cates use the jargon of sustainability and community to strengthen
power bases and legitimise current unsustainable practices.

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM RESEARCH

Research on links between tourism and population is limited. At glo-
bal scale, population growth increases tourism and its impacts, but
there is little evidence whether tourism influences population. At local
scale, tourism can generate economic growth and population change,
mainly through migration (Getz, 1986; Ghali, 1976; Gill & Williams,
1994; Smith, 1977). Some national parks, for example, attract new
migrants through tourism opportunities (Wittemeyer, Elsen, Bean,
Burton, & Brashares, 2008); but in some cases, resident populations
decrease despite growth in tourism (Heberlein, Fredman, & Vuorio,
2002).

Tourism may also have demographic effects at a more local scale.
Tourism income can reduce family size by indirect mechanisms such
as funding female education and reducing dependence on subsistence
labour. At the same time, however, tourism may decrease infant mortal-
ity and increase longevity, by funding healthcare. Net effects of tourism
on internal population growth rates, unrelated to migration, are thus
unclear even at local scale.

Links between tourism and peace are also little studied. Peace
dividends include social and environmental as well as economic
components. Wars and terrorism decrease tourism, at least in the short
term (Larson, Brun, Ogaard, & Selstad, 2011; Llorca-Vivero, 2008;
Neumayer, 2004; Spillerman & Stecklov, 2009). Tourism may contribute
to peace through improved cross-cultural understanding (International
Institute for Peace through Tourism [IIPT], 2011).

R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546 531

The links between tourism, prosperity and sustainability are com-
plex. At large scale, prosperity increases environmental impact. Claims
that environmental protection increases with economic growth are an
erroneous interpretation of development history (Buckley, 1993): the
finance industries are in the richest nations, manufacturing in industri-
alising nations, and biological extractive industries in developing na-
tions, but this is a pattern, not a causal chain. At local scale, in
developing nations tourism wealth buys guns, fishing boats, chainsaws,
livestock, and labour, with costs to conservation and equity: prosperity
only improves sustainability if harnessed by pre-existing social institu-
tions (Buckley, 2003a). In developed nations, tourism contributes to
urban development, material consumption, and pressure on protected
areas.

Distinguishing prosperity from poverty includes considerations of cul-
ture and equity, expressed in terms such as social impacts, community
participation and pro-poor tourism. These are heavily studied,
particularly for developing nations and indigenous peoples (Naughton-
Treves, Holland, & Brandon, 2005; Robinson, 1999; Somanathan,
Prabhakar, & Mehta, 2009; Stronza, 2001; Stronza & Gordillo, 2008;
Weaver, 2010). In the wealthier nations, there are examples from
Australia (Fallon & Kriwoken, 2003) and the USA (Ahn, Lee, & Shafer,
2002; Choi & Murray, 2010; Davis & Morais, 2004; Yu, Chancellor, &
Cole, 2011).

Especially in less wealthy nations, there may often be cultural, histor-
ical and socioeconomic differences between residents and interna-
tional tourists, and internal divisions within communities. Case
studies are available from: Turkey (Ferhan, 2006; Tucker, 2001), Gha-
na (Akyeampong, 2011), Kenya (Manyara & Jones, 2007), Botswana
(Hemson, Maclennan, Mills, Johnson, & Macdonald, 2009; Mbaiwa,
2011; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010), Indonesia (Cole, 2006), Fiji (Farrelly,
2011), the Philippines (Okazaki, 2008), Papua New Guinea (Wearing,
Wearing, & McDonald, 2010) and Costa Rica (Matarrita-Cascante,
Brennan, & Luloff, 2010).

Tourism contributes to pollution of atmosphere, oceans and fresh-
water (Gössling, 2002; Gössling & Schumacher, 2010; Gössling et al.,
2011). In 2001, tourism had consumed 0.34% of the world’s terrestrial
land area, was using energy at �14,000 PJ.a�1 or 3.2% of the global
total, and had contributed �5% of anthropogenic climate change
(Gössling, 2002). Climate change and its links to tourism have been
examined intensively over the past five years (Becken & Patterson,
2006; Dubois & Ceron, 2006; Gössling, 2009; Mendes & Santos, 2008;
Scott, 2011; Weaver, 2011). The industry makes unrealistic claims
over emission reductions (Gössling & Peeters, 2007), carbon offsets
(Gössling et al., 2007), and carbon neutrality (Glomsrød, Wei, Liu, &
Aune, 2011; Gössling, 2009; Gössling & Schumacher, 2010). Tourist
travel continues nevertheless, because of individual desires and cul-
tural factors (Buckley, 2011b; Cohen & Higham, 2011; Dickinson &
Dickinson, 2006; Hamilton, Maddison, & Tol, 2005; Hares, Dickinson,
& Wilkes, 2010; Verbeek & Mommaas, 2008; Weaver, 2011), though
some tourist destinations and subsectors are already affected by climate

532 R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546

change (Buckley, 2008a; Perry, 2006; Pickering & Buckley, 2010; Scott,
McBoyle, Minogue, & Mills, 2006).

Tourism produces direct local impacts on air, water, soil and biota;
and indirect impacts from manufacture and transport of material items.
Impacts derive from atmospheric emissions, solid and liquid wastes, and
consumption of water, energy and materials (Aall, 2011; Buckley &
Araujo, 1997; Chan & Lam, 2003; Charara, Cashman, Bonnell, & Gehr,
2011; Cummings, 1997; Gössling, 2000, 2002; Smerecnik & Andersen,
2011). In parks and natural areas there are additional impacts from veg-
etation damage and wildlife disturbance (Buckley, 2004; Buckley,
2011a; Liddle, 1997; Nimon, Schroter, & Stonehouse, 1995). This is
one of the most active fields in sustainable tourism research (Aceve-
do-Gutiérrez, Acevedo, & Boren, 2011; Cunha, 2010; Halfwerk, Holl-
eman, Lessells, & Slabbekoorn, 2011; Higham & Shelton, 2011;
Huang, Lubarsky, Teng, & Blumstein, 2011; Kociolek, Clevenger, St.
Clair, & Proppe, 2011; Lian, Zhang, Cao, Su, & Thirgood, 2011;
Maréchal et al., 2011; Reed & Merenlender, 2011; Remacha, Pérez-Tris,
& Delgado, 2011; Roux-Fouillet, Wipf, & Rixen, 2011; Steven, Pickering,
& Castley, 2011; Velando & Munilla, 2011; Wang, Li, Beauchamp, &
Jiang, 2011; Zhong, Deng, Song, & Ding, 2011).

Private-sector approaches to sustainability such as self-regulation,
corporate social responsibility, ecocertification, and destination mar-
keting and demarketing have been promoted widely, but proved largely
ineffective (Ayuso, 2007; Black & Crabtree, 2007; Blanco, Lozano, &
Ray-Maquieira, 2009; Buckley, 2002; Buckley, 2011a; Buckley & Pegas,
in press; Choo, 2011; Claver-Cortes, Molina-Azoin, Pereira-Moliner, &
Lopez-Gamero, 2007; Erkus-Ozturk & Eraydln, 2010; Font & Buckley,
2001; Forsyth, 1997; Kastenholz, 2004; McKenna, Williams, & Cooper,
2011; Priego, Najera, & Font, 2011; Sheldon & Park, 2011). Few tourists
select sustainable products specifically (Budeanu, 2007); they expect
good environmental management routinely (Mair & Jago 2010). Indus-
try advocates promote self-regulation to avoid government regulation
(Nunez, 2007). Property developers lobby for development rights in
public protected areas, but with few exceptions (Buckley, 2010), this
has proved inimical to conservation.

Environmental policies, management measures and technologies
can reduce many tourism impacts (Buckley, 2009b). Regulatory instru-
ments provide the foundation of sustainability in tourism as in other
industry sectors. Success is often limited by poor implementation, in
both developed and developing nations worldwide (Berry & Ladkin,
1997; Buckley 2008a; Buckley 2011a; Dinica 2009; Godfrey, 1995; Hall
2010; Hunter & Shaw, 2007; Ioannides, 1995; Logar, 2010; Martin-Cejas
& Sanchez, 2010; Mycoo, 2006; Soteriou & Coccossis, 2010; Tosun,
2001; Wall, 1993; Warnken & Buckley, 1998; Zubair, Bowen, & Elwin,
2010). These relatively standard and straightforward planning, regula-
tory and technological approaches are key to reducing the pollution
and associated impacts from large-scale and mainstream tourism devel-
opment in urban and peri-urban areas, and resort clusters in coastal
and montane destinations.

R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546 533

Case studies of such approaches are widespread. There are >35 such
studies at individual sites. Early examples include Owen, Witt, and
Gammon (1993) in Wales, and Hall and Wouters (1994) in the sub-
Antarctic. There are also >15 case studies focussing on subsectors
rather than sites. Examples include: marine wildlife tours (Moore &
Rodger, 2010; Wilson & Tisdell, 2001); birding festivals (Lawton &
Weaver, 2010); cruise tourism (Hritz & Cecil, 2008), and events and
conventions (Mair & Jago, 2010; Park & Boo, 2010). There are much
larger compilations using the terminology of ecotourism (Buckley,
2003a; Gössling & Hultman, 2006; Stronza & Durham, 2008; Zeppel,
2006); responsible tourism (Spenceley, 2008); community tourism
(Nelson, 2010; Saarinen, Becker, Manwa, & Wilson, 2009) and conser-
vation tourism (Buckley, 2010).

Tourism in public protected areas is heavily studied, with a focus on:
visitor numbers (Buckley, 1999; Lindberg, McCool, & Stankey, 1997;
Shultis & More, 2011); fees and concessions arrangements (Alpizar,
2006; Barborak, 2011; Buckley, 2003b; Chung, Kyle, Petrick, & Absher,
2011; Crompton, 2011; Mmopelwa, Kgathi, & Molefhe, 2007; Peters &
Hawkins, 2009; Reynisdottir, Song, & Agrusa, 2008; Thur, 2010; Uyarra,
Gill, & Côté, 2010); access (Kaltenborn, Haaland, & Sandell, 2001;
McCool & Stankey, 2001); management tools (Buckley, 1998; Buckley,
2009a; Buckley, 2009b; Eagles, McCool, & Haynes, 2002); and interpre-
tation (Ballantyne, Packer, & Hughes, 2009; Ballantyne, Packer, &
Sutherland, 2011; Blangy & Nielsen, 1993; Bramwell & Lane, 1993).
Interpretation can indeed reduce impacts, but only if stringent condi-
tions are met (Coghlan & Gooch, 2011; Littlefair & Buckley, 2008).
Otherwise, interpretation does not change either attitudes (Tubb,
2003) or impacts (Boon, Fluker, & Wilson, 2008; Littlefair & Buckley,
2008).

Tourism can support conservation through private reserves, commu-
nal conservancies, and contributions to public protected areas, but
only under some circumstances, and with associated environmental
costs (Balmford et al., 2009; Buckley, 2009c, 2010; Buckley, 2011a).
In some countries, over 50% of parks funding is now derived from vis-
itor fees, though more typically it is around 10% and in many coun-
tries, 0%. Leasing tourism operating rights on communal land
tenures may or may not contribute to community wellbeing and biodi-
versity conservation, depending on the legal details of land and wildlife
ownership and the structure, cohesion and internal governance of
community organisations (Akyeampong, 2011; Buckley, 2008b, 2010,
2011a; Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Meguro & Inoue, 2011; Saarinen
et al., 2009; Stronza & Durham, 2008). Similar considerations apply
where tour operators lease rights from private landowners or land
trusts (Buckley, 2010; Chancellor, Norman, Farmer, & Coe, 2011) or
from public national parks (Barborak, 2011; Buckley, 2010; Bushell
& Eagles, 2007; Svensson, Rodwell, & Attrill, 2009).

The significance of sustainability indicators in tourism is long recog-
nised (Butler, 1991). Many have been proposed (Castellani & Sala,
2010; Ko, 2005; McCool, Moisey, & Nickerson, 2001; Miller, 2001;
Roberts & Tribe, 2008; Tsaur, Lin, & Lin, 2006). Few of these address

534 R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546

actual impacts (Hughes, 2002), reflecting scarcity of ecological data
(Buckley, 2004, 2011a). Indicators based solely on tourist, resident or
operator perceptions may be incomplete, since people may not always
perceive, understand or care about their impacts (Budeanu, 2007;
Dodds, Graci, & Holmes, 2010; Miller, Rathouse, Scarles, Holmes, &
Tribe, 2010; Puczko & Ratz, 2000). There seems to be only one attempt
to quantify any sustainability indicator for the tourism sector world-
wide, focussing on pollution (Gössling, 2002). Such limited progress
applies in all sectors, not only tourism (Bohringer & Jochem, 2007).

Comparing the tourism research literature against the sustainability
framework yields a number of broad-scale conclusions. A single quan-
titative measure of sustainability in tourism remains elusive, because of
difficulties in: definition, what to include; accounting, comparing dif-
ferent impacts in commensurate terms (Buckley, 2009b); and analysis,
tracking social and political mechanisms (Honey, 1999). Despite these
uncertainties, it is clear that mainstream tourism, like other industry
sectors and the human economy as a whole, is far from sustainable.
Most tourism enterprises adopt only those practices that improve prof-
its or public relations (Lane, 2009; Sheldon & Park, 2011; Weaver,
2009). Improvements are driven principally by regulatory changes, of-
ten against political resistance and with poor implementation. Market
measures are largely ineffective, with little direct public demand for
sustainability in tourism (Budeanu, 2007; Miller et al., 2010; Weaver,
2009). Tourists expect operators to minimise impacts routinely, not
as a criterion on which to choose between competing providers (Mair
& Jago, 2010).

Currently, there are few individual commercial tourism enterprises
with positive triple bottom lines, including positive net contributions
to local communities and to conservation (Buckley, 2009b, 2010).
There are rather more which take voluntary measures to reduce envi-
ronmental impacts, and make voluntary contributions to community
wellbeing. The vast majority take such measures only for legal compli-
ance or cost cutting. Tourism industry advocates lobby against govern-
ment environmental regulation, proposing self-regulation as an
alternative. They also lobby constantly for property development, tour
operation and visitor management rights inside public protected areas,
all with generally negative consequences for parks and biodiversity
conservation.

To improve social and environmental performance across the entire
tourism sector, both innovation and adoption are critical. Tourism
enterprises often lead new approaches, but mainstreaming needs gov-
ernment legislation: self-regulation and ecocertification are ineffective.
Improved sustainability in urban hotels, for example, has been driven
by regulations for planning, impact assessment, pollution control, bio-
diversity and heritage conservation, building construction, energy and
water efficiency, recycling, and so on. Voluntary private initiatives con-
tribute principally by leading regulatory change. There is thus no way
to avoid the complexities of politics, legislative change, international
trade barriers to domestic environmental law (Buckley, 1993), industry

R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546 535

lobbying for self-regulation, misrepresentation in the mass media
(Lane, 2009), and so on. There is no secret ingredient (Po, 2008).

In forecasting the future of sustainable tourism, the key consideration
is that both tourism and sustainability are changing more rapidly than
the tourism industry adopts sustainability improvements. The future of
tourism depends largely on conflicting social and economic pressures.
People want holidays, and on holiday they act hedonistically. The most
populous nations are richer, so more people travel. Tourism industry
associations promote growth. Even parks agencies promote tourism, de-
spite impacts. Travel costs, however, are rising with oil prices (Becken &
Schiff, 2011). Governments adopt carbon taxes and trading systems
which include tourism. Tourism destinations are affected by climate
change, despite adaptation (Buckley, 2008b; Lemieux, Beechey, Scott,
& Gray, 2011). Amidst these pressures, large-scale voluntary improve-
ments in sustainability are improbable, especially given low public pres-
sure for sustainability and the particular ambivalence to tourism.

CONCLUSIONS

All five of the key themes identified earlier are critical to sustainabil-
ity; but the influence of tourism, interest by the tourism industry, and
research effort to date, differ between them (Table 1). Except for a few
unusual enterprises (Buckley, 2010), the tourism industry focuses
strongly on economic aspects, with attention to social and environmen-
tal aspects confined to legal compliance, political manoeuvring, and
marketing and public relations (Buckley 2009b; Hall, 2010; Lane,
2009; Weaver, 2009). Tourism research in environmental journals ad-
dresses parks and pollution aspects, but few scientists study tourism
(Buckley, 2011a). Peace and population issues are barely addressed
(IIPT, 2011).

Table 1. Sustainability Significance, Industry Influence and Research Effort

Parks,
biodiversity,
conservation

Pollution,
climate
change

Prosperity,
poverty
alleviation

Peace,
security,
safety

Population
stabilisation
& reduction

Significance for
sustainability

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Influence of
tourism sector

***** **** *** ** *

Attention by
tourism industry

** *** ***** ** –

Effort by tourism
researchers

* ** ***** * *

Effort by science
researchers

*** ***** * * –

Key: Number of stars indicates the scale or importance of factors in each row, for the com-
ponents in each column. \\\\\, most; \, least; –, none or negligible.

536 R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546

Research topics significant for sustainable tourism were identified
several decades ago (Buckley, 1996; Cohen, 1978; May, 1991). These
topics have changed little (Table 2), save for the addition of climate
change. There has been extensive publication during this period, but
progress has been mixed. In addition, much of the most relevant re-
search is not in tourism journals. In its initial struggle to gain recogni-
tion as an independent discipline, tourism research became somewhat
self-referential. It could now make greater use of related research in
other fields. Cross-disciplinary publication is commonplace in tourism

Table 2. Issues in Sustainable Tourism Research and Practice

Issue Fields and topics Practical
interest

Research
progress

Research
priority

IMPACTS (+ & �)
Site-scale, social &

ecological
Park management, recreation

ecology, cultural and
community change

Med High **

Land-use change Parks politics, conservation
agreements, private and
community reserves

High Low ***

Resource
consumption:
general Energy and water conservation High Med *

specific Rare species used for souvenirs
etc

Low Low **

Wastes and
pollution

Water chemistry, microbiology

Med Med **

Climate change Climatology, climate impacts Med Low **

RESPONSES
Individual Cultural contexts, values,

behaviours, responsibility
High Low ***

Social, government Policy, planning, EIA,
legislation

Med Med **

Social, corporate Self-regulation, certification,
(de)marketing

High High *

Technological Energy, water, materials
conservation, waste
treatment, recycling

High High *

INDICATORS
Economic Regional economies, poverty High High *

Social Net gains, equity, welfare High High **

Environmental Lack of data,
incommensurable
parameters

High Low ***

Sustainability
(combined)

Scope and definitions,
incommensurable
parameters

Low Low **

Research priorities: \, lowest; \\\, highest. Priorities reflect degree of prior research effort as
well as significance of topic for sustainable tourism.

R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546 537

economics, and in tourism and climate change, but not in tourism and
environmental management (Buckley, 2011a).

The tourism industry does not pay much direct attention to research
(Buckley, 2008b; Lane, 2009). If academics can understand what the
industry does and why, however, then that information contributes
to government policy and regulation which improve sustainability.
There is, however, a critical caveat. Whilst academics see information
as having intrinsic value and incorruptible importance, most of the
world sees information mainly as a means to gain power, fame or
money. The products of research become tools of advocates, politicians
and entrepreneurs, no matter how hard researchers strive to remain
independent. This is particularly prevalent in contested domains such
as sustainable tourism.

Sustainability is shorthand for human and planetary future, yet tour-
ism research treats it as a small subdiscipline. Tourism journals rou-
tinely publish rankings of research outputs, yet only one such ranking
includes sustainability (Park, Phillips, Canter, & Abbott, 2011); and that
is based only on publications in top-tier tourism and hospitality jour-
nals, ignoring other social, environmental and sustainability journals.
Interest in sustainability amongst tourism researchers seems to be as
limited as it is amongst tourism industry advocates, enterprises and tour-
ists. Large-scale social and environmental changes are altering the
world in which tourism operates, but few researchers are attempting
to grapple with these changes.

With this in mind, Table 2 also attempts to pick some immediate pri-
orities for future research. One longstanding concern (Butler, 1991;
Butler, 1999) is to develop quantitative sustainability indicators for
the tourism sector. The most difficult component is to establish envi-
ronmental accounting measures, so this remains a priority for research.
Measurement and management of all types of tourism impact remain
important. One particular current priority, however, is the ability of
tourism to bring about large-scale change in land use, by generating
financial and political support for conservation. This is increasingly ur-
gent as the world’s nations attempt to increase their protected area es-
tate from 10% to 17% of land area over the next decade, in line with
the internationally agreed Aichi targets, as a buffer against climate
change. Finally, responses to impacts continue to include regulatory,
corporate and technological measures, but individual reactions to
responsibility in light of global change seem to form a particularly
promising field for future research.

Sustainability is as important in tourism as in any other sector of
the human economy, and equally difficult to achieve (Casagrandi &
Rinaldi, 2002). As noted by Sharpley (2009), there is ‘‘limited evidence
of its implementation in practice.’’ As long as the language of interna-
tional politics is couched in terms of sustainable development,
however, then the terminology of sustainability, as well as the practical-
ities of social and environmental management, will remain critically
important in tourism research as well as reality. This review identifies
some immediate priorities for academic research aimed to improve
the sustainability of the tourism industry in reality.

538 R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546

Acknowledgements—I thank Professor John Tribe, Editor-in-Chief for Annals of Tourism Research,
for the invitation to write this review; Professor David Weaver and Professor Stefan Gossling for
constructive critiques of drafts; and colleagues worldwide for information, insights and inspira-
tion over several decades of relevant research. Conclusions remain my own responsibility.

REFERENCES

Aall, C. (2011). Energy use and leisure consumption in Norway: An analysis and
reduction strategy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6), 729–745.

Acevedo-Gutiérrez, A., Acevedo, L., & Boren, L. (2011). Effects of the presence of
official-looking volunteers on harassment of New Zealand fur seals. Conserva-
tion Biology, 25(3), 623–627.

Ahn, B.-Y., Lee, B.-K., & Shafer, C. S. (2002). Operationalizing sustainability in
regional tourism planning: An application of the limits of acceptable change
framework. Tourism Management, 23(1), 1–15.

Akyeampong, O. A. (2011). Pro-poor tourism: Residents’ expectations, experi-
ences and perceptions in the Kakum National Park area of Ghana. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 197–213.

Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The impact of
tourism development on residents’ perceptions of community life. Journal of
Travel Research, 27(1), 16–21.

Alpizar, F. (2006). The pricing of protected areas in nature-based tourism: A local
perspective. Ecological Economics, 56(2), 294–307.

Ayuso, S. (2007). Comparing voluntary policy instruments for sustainable tourism:
The experience of the Spanish hotel sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1,
144–159.

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Hughes, K. (2009). Tourists’ support for conservation
messages and sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experi-
ences. Tourism Management, 30(5), 658–664.

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Sutherland, L. A. (2011). Visitors’ memories of wildlife
tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences.
Tourism Management, 32(4), 770–779.

Balmford, A., Beresford, J., Green, J., Naidoo, R., Walpole, M., & Manica, A.
(2009). A global perspective on trends in nature-based tourism. Plos Biology,
7(6), e1000144.

Barborak, J. (2011). Results of a comparative international review of public-private
partnerships for tourism management in protected areas. Available from http://
conserveonline.org/.

Becken, S., & Patterson, M. (2006). Measuring national carbon dioxide emissions
from tourism as a key step towards achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 323–338.

Becken, S., & Schiff, A. (2011). Distance models for New Zealand international
tourists and the role of transport prices. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3),
303–320.

Beder, S. (1997). Global spin. Melbourne: Scribe.
Berry, S., & Ladkin, A. (1997). Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective. Tourism

Management, 18(7), 433–440.
Black, R., & Crabtree, A. (2007). Quality assurance and certification in ecotourism.

Wallingford: CAB International.
Blanco, E., Lozano, J., & Rey-Maquieira, J. (2009). A dynamic approach to

voluntary environmental contributions in tourism. Ecological Economics, 69(1),
104–114.

Blangy, S., & Nielsen, T. (1993). Ecotourism and minimum impact policy. Annals of
Tourism Research, 20(2), 357–360.

Bohringer, C., & Jochem, P. E. P. (2007). Measuring the immeasurable – A survey
of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 1–8.

Boon, P. I., Fluker, M., & Wilson, N. (2008). Ten-year study of the effectiveness of
an educative programme in ensuring the ecological sustainability of

http://conserveonline.org/

R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546 539

recreational activities in the Brisbane Ranges National Park, south-eastern
Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 681–697.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Interpretation and sustainable tourism: The
potential and pitfalls. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(2), 71–80.

Brougham, J. E., & Butler, R. W. (1981). A segmentation analysis of residents’
attitudes to the social impact of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(4),
569–590.

Buckley, R. C. (1993). International trade, investment and environment: An
environmental management perspective. Journal of World Trade, 27(4),
102–148.

Buckley, R. C. (1996). Sustainable tourism: Technical issues and information
needs. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 925–928.

Buckley, R. C. (1998). Tools and indicators for managing tourism in parks. Annals
of Tourism Research, 26, 207–210.

Buckley, R. C. (1999). An ecological perspective on carrying capacity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26, 705–708.

Buckley, R. C. (2002). Tourism ecolabels. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 183–208.
Buckley, R. C. (2003a). Case studies in ecotourism. Wallingford: CAB International,

264 pp.
Buckley, R. C. (2003b). Pay to play in parks: An Australian policy perspective on

visitor fees in public protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11, 56–73.
Buckley, R. C. (Ed.). (2004). Environmental impacts of ecotourism. CAB International:

Wallingford, 389 pp.
Buckley, R. C. (2008a). Climate change: Tourism destination dynamics. Tourism

Recreation Research, 33(3), 354–355.
Buckley, R. C. (2008b). Testing take-up of academic concepts in an influential

commercial tourism publication. Tourism Management, 29(4), 721–729.
Buckley, R. C. (2009a). Ecotourism: Principles and practices. Wallingford: CAB

International, 368 pp.
Buckley, R. C. (2009b). Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the

environment: A framework, first assessment and future research. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 17(6), 643–672.

Buckley, R. C. (2009c). Parks and tourism. PLoS Biology, 7(6), e1000143.
Buckley, R. C. (2010). Conservation tourism. Wallingford: CAB International, 214 pp.
Buckley, R. C. (2011a). Tourism and environment. Annual Review of Environment

and Resources, 36. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-041210-132637E.
Buckley, R. C. (2011b). 20 Answers: Reconciling air travel and climate change.

Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1178–1181.
Buckley, R. C., & Pegas, F. (in press). Tourism and corporate social responsibility.

In A. Holden, & D. Fennell (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and environment.
London: Routledge.

Buckley, R. C., & Araujo, G. (1997). Environmental management performance in
tourism accommodation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 465–469.

Budeanu, A. (2007). Sustainable tourist behaviour – A discussion of opportunities
for change. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(5), 499–508.

Bushell, R., & Eagles, P. F. J. (2007). Tourism and protected areas: Benefits beyond
boundaries. Wallingford: CAB International.

Butler, R. (1991). Tourism, environment, and sustainable development. Environ-
mental Conservation, 18(3), 201–209.

Butler, R. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies,
1(1), 7–25.

Casagrandi, R., & Rinaldi, S. (2002). A theoretical approach to tourism sustain-
ability. Conservation Ecology, 6(1), 13. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/
art13/.

Castellani, V., & Sala, S. (2010). Sustainable performance index for tourism policy
development. Tourism Management, 31(6), 871–880.

Cater, E. (1987). Tourism in the least developed countries. Annals of Tourism
Research, 14(2), 202–226.

Chan, W. W., & Lam, J. C. (2003). Energy-saving supporting tourism sustainability:
A case study of hotel swimming pool heat pump. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
11(1), 74–83.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-041210-132637E

http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art13/

540 R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546

Chancellor, C., Norman, W., Farmer, J., & Coe, E. (2011). Tourism organizations
and land trusts: A sustainable approach to natural resource conservation?.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7), 863–875.

Charara, N., Cashman, A., Bonnell, R., & Gehr, R. (2011). Water use efficiency in
the hotel sector of Barbados. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 231–245.

Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes towards sustainable community
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575–594.

Choo, H. (2011). Marketing innovations for sustainable destinations. Tourism
Management, 32(4), 959–960.

Chung, J. Y., Kyle, G. T., Petrick, J. F., & Absher, J. D. (2011). Fairness of prices,
user fee policy and willingness to pay among visitors to a national forest.
Tourism Management, 32(5), 1038–1046.

CIRET (2012). Encyclopedie de la recherche touristique mondiale. Paris: Centre
Internationale de Recherches et d’Etudes Touristiques.

Clarke, J. (1997). A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 224–233.

Claver-Cortes, E., Molina-Azoin, J., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Lopez-Gamero, M. D.
(2007). Environmental strategies and their impact on hotel performance.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 663–679.

Coccossis, H., & Nijkamp, P. (1995). Sustainable tourism development. Michigan:
Avebury.

Coghlan, A., & Gooch, M. (2011). Applying a transformative learning framework to
volunteer tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(6), 713–728.

Cohen, E. (1978). The impact of tourism on the physical environment. Annals of
Tourism Research, 5(2), 215–237.

Cohen, S. A., & Higham, J. E. S. (2011). Eyes wide shut? UK consumer perceptions
on aviation climate impacts and travel decisions to New Zealand. Current Issues
in Tourism, 14(4), 323–335.

Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644.

Crompton, J. L. (2011). A theoretical framework for formulating non-controversial
prices for public park and recreation services. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(1),
1–29.

Cummings, L. E. (1997). Waste minimisation supporting urban tourism sustain-
ability: A mega-resort case study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(2), 93–108.

Cunha, A. A. (2010). Negative effects of tourism in a Brazilian Atlantic forest
national park. Journal for Nature Conservation, 18(4), 291–295.

Davis, J. S., & Morais, D. B. (2004). Factions and enclaves: Small towns and socially
unsustainable tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 3–11.

Dickinson, J. E., & Dickinson, J. A. (2006). Local transport and social represen-
tations: Challenging the assumptions for sustainable tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 14(2), 192–208.

Dinica, V. (2009). Governance for sustainable tourism: A comparison of interna-
tional and Dutch visions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(5), 583–603.

Dodds, R., Graci, S. R., & Holmes, M. (2010). Does the tourist care? A comparison
of tourists in Koh Phi Phi, Thailand and Gili Trawangan, Indonesia. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 18(2), 207–222.

Driml, S., & Common, M. (1996). Ecological economics criteria for sustainable
tourism: Application to the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics World
Heritage Areas, Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(1), 3–16.

Dubois, G., & Ceron, J.-P. (2006). Tourism and climate change: Proposals for a
research agenda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 399–415.

Eagles, P. F. J., McCool, S. F., & Haynes, C. D. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected
areas: Guidelines for planning and management. Gland: IUCN.

Erkus-Ozturk, H., & Eraydln, A. (2010). Environmental governance for sustainable
tourism development: Collaborative networks and organisation building in
the Antalya tourism region. Tourism Management, 31(1), 113–124.

Fallon, L. D., & Kriwoken, L. K. (2003). Community involvement in tourism
infrastructure – The case of the Strahan Visitor Centre, Tasmania. Tourism
Management, 24(3), 289–308.

R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546 541

Farrell, B., & McLellan, R. (1987). Tourism and physical environment research.
Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1), 1–16.

Farrelly, T. A. (2011). Indigenous and democratic decision-making: Issues from
community-based ecotourism in the Bouma National Heritage Park, Fiji.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7), 817–835.

Ferhan, G. (2006). Components of sustainability: Two cases from Turkey. Annals of
Tourism Research, 33(2), 442–455.

Font, X., & Buckley, R. C. (Eds.). (2001). Tourism ecolabelling. Wallingford: CAB
International, 359 pp.

Forsyth, T. (1997). Environmental responsibility and business regulation: The case
of sustainable tourism. The Geographical Journal, 163(3), 270–280.

Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism
Management, 19(3), 199–212.

Getz, D. (1986). Tourism and population change: Long-term impacts of tourism in
the Badenoch and Strathspey District of the Scottish Highlands. Scottish
Geographical Journal, 102(2), 113–126.

Ghali, M. A. (1976). Tourism and economic growth: An empirical study. Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 24(3), 527–538.

Gill, A., & Williams, P. (1994). Managing growth in mountain tourism commu-
nities. Tourism Management, 15, 212–220.

Glomsrød, S., Wei, T., Liu, G., & Aune, J. B. (2011). How well do tree plantations
comply with the twin targets of the Clean Development Mechanism? – The
case of tree plantations in Tanzania. Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1066–1074.

Godfrey, K. B. (1995). Planning for sustainable tourism development in the Med.
Tourism Management, 16(3), 243–245.

Gössling, S. (2000). Sustainable tourism development in developing countries:
Some aspects of energy use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(5), 410–425.

Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global
Environmental Change, 12, 283–302.

Gössling, S. (2009). Carbon neutral destinations: A conceptual analysis. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 17–37.

Gössling, S. (2010). Carbon management in tourism. London: Routledge, 272 pp.
Gössling, S., Broderick, J., Upham, P., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Peeters, P., &

Strasdas, W. (2007). Voluntary carbon offsetting schemes for aviation:
Efficiency, credibility and sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
15(3), 223–248.

Gössling, S., & Hultman, J. (2006). Ecotourism in Scandinavia: Lessons in theory and
practice. Wallingford: CAB International.

Gössling, S., & Peeters, P. (2007). ‘‘It does not harm the environment!’’ An analysis
of industry discourses on tourism, air travel and the environment. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), 402–417.

Gössling, S., Peeters, P., Hall, C. M., Ceron, J.-P., Dubois, G., Lehman, L. V., &
Scott, D. (2011). Tourism and water use: Supply, demand and security, and
international review. Tourism Management, 33(1), 16–28.

Gössling, S., & Schumacher, K. P. (2010). Implementing carbon neutral destina-
tion policies: Issues from the Seychelles. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3),
377–391.

Halfwerk, W., Holleman, L. J. M., Lessells, C. M., & Slabbekoorn, H. (2011).
Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 48, 210–219.

Hall, M. (2010). Changing paradigms and global change: From sustainable to
steady-state tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 131–143.

Hall, C. M., & Butler, R. W. (1995). In search for common ground: Reflections on
sustainability, complexity and process in the tourism system. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 3(2), 99–105.

Hall, C. M., & Lew, A. A. (1998). Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective.
Harlow: Longman.

Hall, M., & Wouters, M. (1994). Managing nature tourism in the Sub-Antarctic.
Annals of Tourism Research, 21(2), 355–374.

Hamilton, J. M., Maddison, D. J., & Tol, R. S. J. (2005). Effects of climate change
on international travel. Climate Research, 29, 245–254.

542 R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546

Hares, A., Dickinson, J., & Wilkes, K. (2010). Climate change and the air travel
decisions of UK tourists. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 466–473.

Heberlein, T. A., Fredman, P., & Vuorio, T. (2002). Current tourism patterns in
the Swedish mountain region. Mountain Research and Development, 22(2),
142–149.

Hemson, G., Maclennan, S., Mills, G., Johnson, P., & Macdonald, D. (2009).
Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of
attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human-
carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biological Conservation, 142(11), 2718–2725.

Higham, J. E. S., & Shelton, E. J. (2011). Tourism and wildlife habituation:
Reduced population fitness or cessation of impact?. Tourism Management,
32(6), 1290–1298.

Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development. Washington DC: Island.
Hritz, N., & Cecil, A. K. (2008). Investigating the sustainability of cruise tourism: A

case study of Key West. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 168–181.
Huang, B., Lubarsky, K., Teng, T., & Blumstein, D. T. (2011). Take only pictures,

leave only . . . fear? The effects of photography on the West Indian anole.
Current Zoology, 57(1), 77–82.

Hughes, G. (1995). The cultural construction of sustainable tourism. Tourism
Management, 16(1), 49–59.

Hughes, G. (2002). Environmental indicators. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2),
457–477.

Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(4), 850–867.

Hunter, C., & Shaw, J. (2007). The ecological footprint as a key indicator of
sustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 28(1), 46–57.

International Institute for Peace through Tourism (2011). International Institute
for Peace through Tourism. Available from http://www.iipt.org/.

Ioannides, D. (1995). A flawed implementation of sustainable tourism: The
experience of Akamas, Cyprus. Tourism Management, 16(8), 583–592.

Jamal, T., & Stronza, A. (2009). Collaboration theory and tourism practice in
protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 169–189.

Kaltenborn, B. P., Haaland, H., & Sandell, K. (2001). The public right of access –
Some challenges to sustainable tourism development in Scandinavia. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 9(5), 417–433.

Kastenholz, E. (2004). ‘Management of demand’ as a tool in sustainable tourist
destination development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(5), 388–408.

Ko, T. G. (2005). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: A
conceptual approach. Tourism Management, 26(3), 431–445.

Kociolek, A. V., Clevenger, A. P., St. Clair, C. C., & Proppe, D. S. (2011). Effects of
road networks on bird populations. Conservation Biology, 25(2), 241–249.

Lane, B. (2009). Thirty years of sustainable tourism. In S. Gössling, C. M. Hall, & D.
B. Weaver (Eds.), Sustainable tourism futures (pp. 19–32). New York: Routledge.

Larson, S., Brun, W., Ogaard, T., & Selstad, L. (2011). The effects of sudden and
dramatic events on travel desire and risk judgements. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 11(3), 268–285.

Lawton, L. J., & Weaver, D. B. (2010). Normative and innovative sustainable
resource management at birding festivals. Tourism Management, 31(4),
527–536.

Lemieux, C. J., Beechey, T. J., Scott, D. J., & Gray, P. A. (2011). The state of climate
change adaptation in Canada’s protected areas sector. Canadian Geographer,
55(3), 301–317.

Lian, X., Zhang, T., Cao, Y., Su, J., & Thirgood, S. (2011). Road proximity and
traffic flow perceived as potential predation risks: Evidence from the Tibetan
antelope in the Kekexili National Nature Reserve, China. Wildlife Research,
38(2), 141–146.

Liddle, M. J. (1997). Recreation ecology: The ecological impact of outdoor recreation.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lindberg, K., McCool, S., & Stankey, G. (1997). Rethinking carrying capacity.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 461–465.

http://www.iipt.org/

R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546 543

Littlefair, C., & Buckley, R. C. (2008). Interpretation reduces ecological impacts of
visitors to World Heritage Areas. Ambio, 37(5), 338–341.

Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 11(6), 459–475.

Liu, J. C., & Var, T. (1986). Resident attitudes toward tourism impacts in Hawaii.
Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2), 193–214.

Llorca-Vivero, R. (2008). Terrorism and international tourism: New evidence.
Defence and Peace Economics, 19, 169–188.

Logar, I. (2010). Sustainable tourism management in Crikvenica, Croatia: An
assessment of policy instruments. Tourism Management, 31(1), 125–135.

Mair, J., & Jago, L. (2010). The development of a conceptual model of greening in
the business events tourism sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 77–94.

Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises develop-
ment in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty
reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 628–644.

Maréchal, L., Semple, S., Majolo, B., Qarro, M., Heistermann, M., & MacLarnon, A.
(2011). Impacts of tourism on anxiety and physiological stress levels in wild
male Barbary macaques. Biological Conservation, 144(9), 2188–2193.

Martin-Cejas, R., & Sanchez, P. (2010). Ecological footprint analysis of road
transport related to tourism activity: The case for Lanzarote Island. Tourism
Management, 31(1), 98–103.

Matarrita-Cascante, D., Brennan, M. A., & Luloff, A. E. (2010). Community agency
and sustainable tourism development: The case of La Fortuna, Costa Rica.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 735–756.

May, V. (1991). Tourism, environment and development – Values, sustainability
and stewardship. Tourism Management, 12(2), 112–124.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2011). Changes on traditional livelihood activities and lifestyles
caused by tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism
Management, 32(5), 1050–1060. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.09.002.

Mbaiwa, J. E., & Stronza, A. L. (2010). The effects of tourism development on rural
livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
18(5), 635–656.

McCool, S., & Moisey, R. (2001). Tourism, recreation and sustainability: Linking culture
and the environment. New York: CABI Publishing.

McCool, S. F., Moisey, R. N., & Nickerson, N. P. (2001). What should tourism
sustain? The disconnect with industry perceptions of useful indicators. Journal
of Travel Research, 40(2), 124–132.

McCool, S. F., & Stankey, G. H. (2001). Managing access to wildlands for recreation
in the USA: Background and issues relevant to sustainable tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 9(5), 389–399.

McKenna, J., Williams, A. T., & Cooper, J. A. G. (2011). Blue flag or red herring:
Do beach awards encourage the public to visit beaches?. Tourism Management,
32(3), 576–588.

Meguro, T., & Inoue, M. (2011). Conservation goals betrayed by the uses of wildlife
benefits in community-based conservation: The Case of Kimana Sanctuary in
southern Kenya. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(1), 30–44.

Mendes, L. M. Z., & Santos, G. (2008). Using economic instruments to address
emissions from air transport in the European Union. Environment and Planning
A, 40(1), 189–209.

Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a
Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22(4), 351–362.

Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2010). Public
understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 627–645.

Mmopelwa, G., Kgathi, D. L., & Molefhe, L. (2007). Tourists’ perceptions and their
willingness to pay for park fees: A case study of self-drive tourists and clients for
mobile tour operators in Moremi Game Reserve, Botswana. Tourism Manage-
ment, 28(4), 1044–1056.

Moore, S. A., & Rodger, K. (2010). Wildlife tourism as a common pool resource
issue: Enabling conditions for sustainability governance. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 18(7), 831–844.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.09.002

544 R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546

Mycoo, M. (2006). Sustainable tourism using regulations, market mechanisms and
green certification: A case study of Barbados. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
14(5), 489–511.

Nash, D., & Butler, R. (1990). Towards sustainable tourism. Tourism Management,
11(3), 263–264.

Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M. B., & Brandon, K. (2005). The role of protected
areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review
of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 219–252.

Nelson, F. (2010). Community rights, conservation and contested land: The politics of
natural resource governance in Africa. London: Earthscan, 342 pp.

Neumayer, E. (2004). The impact of political violence on tourism. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 48, 259–281.

Nimon, A. J., Schroter, R. C., & Stonehouse, B. (1995). Heart rate of disturbed
penguins. Nature, 374(6521), 415.

Nunez, J. (2007). Can self regulation work? A story of corruption, impunity and
cover-up. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 31, 209–233.

Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 511–529.

Owen, R. E., Witt, S. F., & Gammon, S. (1993). Sustainable tourism development in
Wales: From theory to practice. Tourism Management, 14(6), 463–474.

Park, E., & Boo, S. (2010). An assessment of convention tourism’s potential
contribution to environmentally sustainable growth. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 18(1), 95–113.

Park, K., Phillips, J. W. M., Canter, D. D., & Abbott, J. A. (2011). Hospitality and
tourism research rankings by author, university, and country using six major
journals: The first decade of the new millennium. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, 35(3), 381–416.

Pereira, H. M., Leadley, P. W., Proença, V., Alkemade, R., & Scharlemann, J. P. W.
(2010). Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science, 330,
1496–1501.

Perry, A. (2006). Will predicted climate change compromise the sustainability of
Mediterranean tourism?. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(4), 367–375.

Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy. Science,
331, 1606–1608.

Peters, H., & Hawkins, J. P. (2009). Access to marine parks: A comparative study in
willingness to pay. Ocean and Coastal Management, 52(3–4), 219–228.

Pickering, C., & Buckley, R. C. (2010). Climate response by the ski industry: The
shortcomings of snowmaking for Australian resorts. Ambio, 39(5–6), 430–438.

Po, P. (2008). In DreamWorks Animation, Kung fu panda. Hollywood: Paramount
Pictures.

Priego, M. J., Najera, J. J., & Font, X. (2011). Environmental management decision-
making in certified hotels. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3), 361–381.

Puczko, L., & Ratz, T. (2000). Tourist and resident perceptions of the physical
impacts of tourism at Lake Balaton, Hungary: Issues for sustainable tourism
management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(6), 458–478.

Reed, S. E., & Merenlender, A. M. (2011). Effects of management of domestic dogs
and recreation on carnivores in protected areas in northern California.
Conservation Biology, 25, 504–513.

Remacha, C., Pérez-Tris, J., & Delgado, J. A. (2011). Reducing visitors’ group size
increases the number of birds during educational activities: Implications for
management of nature-based recreation. Journal of Environmental Management,
92(6), 1564–1568.

Reynisdottir, M., Song, H., & Agrusa, J. (2008). Willingness to pay entrance fees to
natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tourism Management, 29(6),
1076–1083.

Roberts, S., & Tribe, J. (2008). Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises
– An exploratory perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 575–594.

Robinson, M. (1999). Collaboration and cultural consent: Refocusing sustainable
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3–4), 379–397.

R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546 545

Roux-Fouillet, P., Wipf, S., & Rixen, C. (2011). Long-term impacts of ski piste
management on alpine vegetation and soils. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(4), 906–915.

Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33(4), 1121–1140.

Saarinen, J., Becker, F., Manwa, H., & Wilson, D. (Eds.). (2009). Sustainable tourism
in Southern Africa: Local communities and natural resources in transition. Bristol:
Channel View Publications.

Scott, D. (2011). Why sustainable tourism must address climate change. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 17–34.

Scott, D., McBoyle, G., Minogue, A., & Mills, B. (2006). Climate change and the
sustainability of ski-based tourism in eastern North America: A reassessment.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14, 376–398.

Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the
theoretical divide. Tourism of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1–19.

Sharpley (2009). Tourism development and the environment: beyond sustainability?
London: Earthscan, 220 pp.

Sheldon, P. J., & Park, S.-Y. (2011). An exploratory study of corporate social
responsibility in the US travel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 50(4),
392–407.

Shultis, J., & More, T. (2011). American and Canadian national park agency
responses to declining visitation. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(1), 110–132.

Smerecnik, K. O., & Andersen, P. A. (2011). The diffusion of environmental
sustainability innovations in North American hotels and ski resorts. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 19(2), 171–196.

Smith, V. (1977). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania.

Somanathan, E., Prabhakar, R., & Mehta, B. S. (2009). Decentralization for cost-
effective conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(11),
4143–4147.

Soteriou, E. C., & Coccossis, H. (2010). Integrating sustainability into the strategic
planning of national tourism organisations. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2),
191–205.

Spenceley, A. (2008). Responsible tourism: Critical issues for conservation and develop-
ment. London: Earthscan, 432 pp.

Spillerman, S., & Stecklov, G. (2009). Societal responses to terrorist attacks. Annual
Review of Sociology, 35, 167–189.

Stabler, M. (1997). Tourism and sustainability: Principles to practice. Wallingford: CAB
International.

Steven, R., Pickering, C., & Castley, J. G. (2011). A review of the impacts of nature-
based recreation on birds. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10),
2287–2294. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.005.

Stronza, A. (2001). Anthropology of tourism: Forging new ground for ecotourism
and other alternatives. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 261–284.

Stronza, A., & Durham, W. H. (Eds.). (2008). Ecotourism and conservation in the
Americas. Wallingford: CAB International.

Stronza, A., & Gordillo, J. (2008). Community views of ecotourism: Redefining
benefits. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 444–468.

Svensson, P., Rodwell, L. D., & Attrill, M. J. (2009). Privately managed marine
reserves as a mechanism for the conservation of coral reef ecosystems: A case
study from Vietnam. Ambio, 38(2), 72–78.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. Wallingford: CAB
International.

Thur, M. T. (2010). User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine
protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Marine
Policy, 34(1), 63–69.

Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the
developing world: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 22(3), 289–303.

Tsaur, S.-H., Lin, Y.-C., & Lin, J.-H. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism sustainability
from the integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism
Management, 27(4), 640–653.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.005

546 R. Buckley / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 528–546

Tubb, K. N. (2003). An evaluation of the effectiveness of interpretation within
Dartmoor National Park in reaching the goals of sustainable tourism
development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 476–498.

Tucker, H. (2001). Tourists and troglodytes: Negotiating for sustainability. Annals
of Tourism Research, 28(4), 868–891.

Turner, L., & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasure
periphery. London: Constable.

Uyarra, M., Gill, J., & Côté, I. (2010). Charging for nature: Marine park fees and
management from a user perspective. Ambio, 39(7), 515–523.

Velando, A., & Munilla, I. (2011). Disturbance to a foraging seabird by sea-based
tourism: Implications for reserve management in marine protected areas.
Biological Conservation, 144(3), 1167–1174.

Verbeek, D., & Mommaas, H. (2008). Transitions to sustainable tourism mobility:
The social practices approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 629–644.

Wagner, G. (2011). Going green but getting nowhere. New York Times, A29.
Wall, G. (1993). International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism

in Bali, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 38–47.
Wang, Z., Li, Z., Beauchamp, G., & Jiang, Z. (2011). Flock size and human

disturbance affect vigilance of endangered red-crowned cranes. Biological
Conservation, 144(1), 101–105.

Warnken, J., & Buckley, R. C. (1998). Scientific quality of tourism EIA. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 35, 1–8.

Wearing, S. L., Wearing, M., & McDonald, M. (2010). Understanding local power
and interactional processes in sustainable tourism: Exploring village-tour
operator relations on the Kokoda Track, Papua New Guinea. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 61–76.

Weaver, D. (2010). Indigenous tourism stages and their implications for sustain-
ability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 43–60.

Weaver, D. (2011). Can sustainable tourism survive climate change?. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 19(1), 5–15.

Weaver, D. (2009). Reflections on sustainable tourism and paradigm change. In S.
Gössling, C. M. Hall, & D. B. Weaver (Eds.), Sustainable tourism futures
(pp. 33–40). New York: Routledge.

Wilson, C., & Tisdell, C. A. (2001). Sea turtles as a non-consumptive tourism
resource especially in Australia. Tourism Management, 22(3), 279–288.

Wittemeyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W. T., Burton, A. C. O., & Brashares, J. S. (2008).
Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges. Science, 321, 123–126.

Yasarata, M., Altinay, L., Burns, P., & Okumus, F. (2010). Politics and sustainable
tourism development – Can they co-exist? Voices from North Cyprus. Tourism
Management, 31(3), 345–356.

Young, G. (1973). Tourism – Blessing or blight?. London: Penguin.
Yu, C.-P., Chancellor, H. C., & Cole, S. T. (2011). Measuring residents’ attitudes

towards sustainable tourism: A reexamination of the sustainable tourism
attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 57–63.

Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable development and management.
Wallingford: CAB International, 308 pp.

Zhong, L., Deng, J., Song, Z., & Ding, P. (2011). Research on environmental
impacts of tourism in China: Progress and prospect. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92(11), 2972–2983.

Zubair, S., Bowen, D., & Elwin, J. (2010). Not quite paradise: Inadequacies of environmental
impact assessment in the Maldives. Tourism Management, 32(2), 225–234.

Submitted 13 October 2011. Final version 4 February 2012. Accepted 9 February 2012.
Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: John Tribe.

sustainable tourism: Research and reality

Introduction

Sustainable tourism research

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

References

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.

627

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.002
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Graham Miller
University of Surrey, UK

Kathryn Rathouse
Independent Social Researcher, UK

Caroline Scarles
University of Surrey, UK

Kirsten Holmes
Curtin University of Technology, Australia

John Tribe
University of Surrey, UK

Abstract: If tourism is to become part of a more sustainable lifestyle, changes are needed to
the patterns of behaviour adopted by the public. This paper presents the results of research
conducted amongst members of the public in England on their understanding of sustainable
tourism; their response to four desired tourism behaviour goals, and expectations about the
role of government and the tourism industry in encouraging sustainable tourism.
The research shows a lack of awareness of tourism’s impact relative to day-to-day behaviour,
feelings of disempowerment and an unwillingness to make significant changes to
current tourism behaviour. Keywords: behaviour change, public, understanding, sustainable,
responsibility. � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Urry (2008) argues that social sciences have no choice but to engage
with various futures, principal amongst which is the challenge of cli-
mate change. While technological innovations in alternative fuels
and energy saving devices may provide some comfort (or distraction)
the scale of advance needed means they are unlikely to produce the
efficiencies necessary to avoid the dangerous climate change territory
described by the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(2007) and Stern (2006). Hence, this original work is situated within
the literature of behaviour change and considers whether members
of the public are willing to consume differently, and/or consume less

Dr Graham Miller is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Management and Law at the
University of Surrey (Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK. Email ).
Graham’s research is in the transition towards sustainable tourism. Kathryn Rathouse is an
independent social researcher; Dr Caroline Scarles is a lecturer in tourism and Prof. John
Tribe is a professor of tourism, both at the University of Surrey. Dr Kirsten Holmes is a
research fellow at Curtin University, Australia.

627

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.002

628 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

through changes to their tourism behaviour in order to progress the
transition towards a more sustainable lifestyle.

The UK Government’s Sustainable Development Strategy and re-
port by the Sustainable Development Commission and National Con-
sumer Council through the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable
(2006) recognised the need to explore public responses towards ac-
tions for sustainable lifestyles and their interactions with broader
lifestyle aspirations. Addressing this strategy, this paper presents re-
sults of empirical research conducted for the UK government
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),
on public understanding of sustainable tourism, as part of Defra’s
programme of work on sustainable consumption and production.
The remit of the research undertaken for this project was to inves-
tigate people’s understanding of sustainability as it applied to tour-
ism and leisure, although this paper presents the results of the
findings related only to tourism. The findings from the research
are designed to feed into a Behaviour Change Strategy and the Cit-
izens and Mass Engagement Programme. Parallel projects examined
public understanding and willingness to change behaviour related to
energy use in the home, transport, finance and investment and
food, and some of the synthesis findings of these projects are incor-
porated within this paper.

Recognising the alternative futures possible, Defra felt that to make
the transition towards a more sustainable lifestyle, a fuller under-
standing of residents’ response to sustainable tourism was needed.
The three research objectives set by Defra and addressed in this pa-
per are: firstly, to explore public understanding of sustainable tour-
ism; secondly, to establish responses by members of the public to
Defra’s four tourism behaviour goals, and finally to establish expecta-
tions about the role of government and the tourism industry in the
supply of sustainable tourism opportunities. The four behaviour goals
were: first, to encourage the UK as a holiday destination; second, to
travel less or combine travel; third, to choose more sustainable travel
methods; and fourth to choose more sustainable activities whilst on
holiday.

PRO-ENVIRONMENT BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

A common premise of work promoting sustainability has been that
an increase in awareness and education amongst the public will
encourage more pro-environmental behaviour (Devine-Wright,
2004). Within the literature on sustainable tourism, raising awareness
amongst consumers has also featured heavily as an approach to mak-
ing tourism more sustainable (Dolnicar, Crouch, & Long, 2008). For
authors such as Johnson (2006) the need to raise the awareness of
visitors is incumbent on business operators, but the link between this
rise in awareness and any change in behaviour is not questioned.
Amendah and Park (2008) believe raising knowledge can change
consumption patterns while Lee and Moscardo (2005) find that

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 629

environmentally aware consumers may be more likely to exhibit pro-
environmental behavioural intentions than other consumers. Boon,
Fluker, and Wilson (2008) test the effect of a 10 year programme
of awareness raising to promote ecological sustainable tourism in
south east Australia and conclude that the programme had almost
no effect over the period. In response, different education pro-
grammes are proposed.

Such studies are based on the rational ‘deficit model’ of behaviour
change whereby information creates awareness of the problem, which
leads to the individual changing their behaviour appropriately. As an
example, Harriott (2002) reports tourists to the Great Barrier Reef
reflecting that if they had more information about their impacts they
would have made different consumption decisions. Yet research by
Association of British Travel Agents (2002), Becken (2007), Bohler,
Grischkat, Haustein, and Hunecke (2006), First Choice (2005) and
Gossling, Bredburg, Randow, Sandstrom, and Svensson (2006) all dem-
onstrate various populations of tourists and leisure tourists to be largely
ignorant of the impacts of their behaviour. Coupled with this low level
of awareness, findings suggest pro-environmental behaviour for tour-
ism is low. Aguilo, Alegre, and Sard (2005) argue that despite the
claims by Poon (1994) of the rise of ‘new tourists’ armed with greater
environmental concern, tourists visiting the Balearic islands have lar-
gely not changed their behaviour and still demand an ‘old tourist’
product. More broadly, evidence in the UK shows that less than 1%
of all outgoing holidays booked in the UK give any real priority to
the environment (Mintel, 2005).

Yet, despite the intuitive and optimistic appeal of the deficit ap-
proach, Hounsham (2006) in his meta-review of behaviour change ini-
tiatives concludes that information programs offer very little on their
own, as they assume the receiver makes rational decisions based on
all the information available. This does not mean the provision of
information has no value, instead, information alone does not neces-
sarily lead to increased awareness and increased awareness does not
necessarily lead to action (Defra, 2005; Jackson, 2004). Continuing this
critique, Kurani and Turrentine (2002) and Owens (2000) question
whether the level of awareness can make any significant difference to
pro-environmental behaviour as it relates specifically to travel. Situa-
tional constraints and the complexity of assessing practical alternatives
may mean that action inspired by high levels of awareness are frus-
trated, with little consequent change in behaviour. Responding, Barr
(2007) separates our general environmental knowledge from more
specific ‘behavioural knowledge’ about how we translate our general
interests into specific actions. Barr’s (2007) study of waste management
shows that it is the specific knowledge of how to act with regards to an
issue that is a greater predictor of action and behaviour rather than the
more general interest and awareness that is frequently obtained by
quantitative ‘superficial’ studies (Rose, Dade, Gallie, & Scott, 2005).

The evident gap between general environmental intention and spe-
cific behaviour within tourism would suggest that tourism will be a dif-
ficult behaviour to change. ‘Foot-in-the-door’ strategy describes the

630 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

experience of small environmental actions that lead to bigger environ-
mental actions, through creating awareness as a kind of snowball effect
develops. Yet, the snowballing effect of ever larger pro-environmental
actions does not appear to have reached tourism to any significant de-
gree (Miller, 2003). The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF, 2008)
agree that for smaller pro-environmental actions it is possible to
change behaviour without changing values through techniques such
as celebrity endorsement, demonstrating financial savings or invoking
guilt. However, for flying and holidays, such appeals to extrinsic goals
will be less effective, and there is a need to target values and intrinsic
motivations. This suggests tourism sits a long way along the continuum
of possible pro-environmental actions and pro-environmental tourism
actions will be difficult for the public to take. Yet, Macey and Brown
(1983) argue in criticism of the classic Theory of Reasoned Action
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) that behavioural experience is the better pre-
dictor of action, not intention. Hence, without experience, it is difficult
to elicit a change in attitude, so there is less social proof of people
operationalising their interests, and so consumer demand for sustain-
able tourism products is limited.

One of the key facets of the most prominent theories of behaviour
change, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) is the sense
of perceived behaviour control, or the extent to which people feel they
can achieve the result they want. Marshall (2005) believes action on cli-
mate change suffers because of the way the debate has been projected,
describing the enormous potential impacts in a global and future-ori-
ented manner. Given this, a sense of disempowerment to effect change
can occur, a malaise of absent agency. Anable, Lane, and Kelay (2006)
describe climate change as an issue which sits within the public’s
‘sphere of concern’, but not within their ‘sphere of influence’. Indeed,
the framing of the problem as a global problem identifies it as a prob-
lem for which we all need to take responsibility, and so no one does.
Lowe et al. (2005) describe this as the ‘bystander effect’ whereby mass
paralysis of action is caused when people as a group are confronted
with something that demands intervention. For climate change, the
remoteness, contested and complex discourses and intangibility of
the problem add to the difficulty of understanding how our individual
actions can make a difference (Des Jardins, 1997). Worse, it is possible
that where we are unable to change our behaviour, then additional
information can result in a state of denial about the message. Cohen
(2000) believes that climate change challenges our sense of moral
responsibility to such an extent that we have to deny the problem exists
given the fundamental changes to our behaviour necessary to make an
appropriate adjustment. Individual, deficit theorists would see the inac-
tion as a result of a lack of information rather than too much.

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) believe the lack of agency can be over-
come in part by modifying behaviour through the power of social
norms. Recycling is a recent example where behaviour has been signif-
icantly changed, and values modified subsequently to avoid cognitive
dissonance, through regular public demonstration of a household’s
commitment to recycle. Barr (2007) showed that for reduction and

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 631

reuse of waste, social norms were less important as these were activities
which took place away from the view of neighbours, friends and
peers—those who reinforce social norms. Hence, where the behaviour
is less tangible, or publicly exposed, so social norms may be less power-
ful. For tourism, although the act of holidaying takes place in public,
any guilt at the decision to fly is diluted immediately upon arrival at
a busy airport, and any decision to stay at a hotel without any
environmental management systems, accreditations etc is dispelled
by the fact that the hotel is full of other people who have made the
same decisions. The Sustainable Consumption Roundtable (2006)
deliberative forum heard one respondent suggest anyone who had
not chosen to offset the carbon emissions from their flight be com-
pelled to sit at the back of the plane. While the idea was made in jest,
the suggestion shows the challenge of creating situations in tourism
where social norms can influence those with undesirable behaviours
to follow the lead of those with more pro-environmental behaviours.
With a lack of social proof as to what sustainability in tourism is, we
are locked in to a system of feedback that confirms our decisions to
ignore sustainability in our tourism consumption.

To escape from this impasse, Halpern et al. (2004) posit sociological
theories revealing the importance of social networks and community
role models and stressing the interpersonal nature of behaviour
change may represent a way forward. Devine-Wright (2004) suggests
there is something about the topic of environmental challenge, and
‘carbon-citizenship’ in particular that makes it suited to binding self-
interested people together as we recognise the mutuality of our sur-
vival. Thus, social capital may be enhanced at a local level as groups
of people strive to make bigger and more permanent changes to their
lifestyles. Halpern et al. (2004) suggest the co-production of solutions
and more frequent contact with a support network enhances trust in
the message, has an empowering effect and strengthens the perceived
behaviour control of individuals. Within tourism greater empower-
ment of tourists could serve to create new norms about the way we tra-
vel for holidays, and the amount that a responsible citizen should
undertake.

Anable et al. (2006) conclude there is also no single unifying theory
to achieve behaviour change, and instead the authors encourage
researchers to consider alternative approaches beyond those reliant
on increased information, or the established Theory of Planned Behav-
iour (Ajzen, 1991). Similarly, Jackson (2004) argues that because our
individual motivations are so complex and multifaceted, it is virtually
impossible to design a model that will explain these different processes
across different aspects of life. The behaviour change literature under-
lines the necessity of examining tourism and people’s willingness to
adapt to more sustainable lifestyles. To this end, three research objec-
tives were set: firstly, to explore public understanding of sustainable
tourism; secondly, to establish members of the publics’ response to
Defra’s four tourism behaviour goals, and finally to establish expecta-
tions about the role of government and the tourism industry in the
supply of sustainable tourism opportunities.

Table 1. Focus Group Characteristics

Characteristics Number
of Participants

Area Environmental segment
Brighton (SE) 16 Disinterested 0
Bournemouth (SW) 15 Basic contributor 7
Manchester (NW) 16 Long term restricted 7
Watford (Outer London) 15 Currently constrained 10
Tenure Consumer with conscience 10
Social housing tenants 24 Wastage focused 12
Owner occupiers 27 Green activist1 1

Not known2 11 Holiday frequency
Age No holidays in last 2 years 0
Under 303 19 1 or fewer holidays in last 12 months 25
30–60 31 2 holidays in last 12 months 14
Over 60 12 3 or more holidays in last 12 months 21
Sex Not known 2
Male 28 Ethnicity
Female 34 Ethnic groups including black

Caribbean, Indian, other Asian,
Chinese and mixed

Total 62

1 One focus group in Brighton was composed entirely of green activists; 2 The group of 16–
21 year olds were not asked about housing tenure; 3 One focus group in Brighton was
composed entirely of 16–21 year olds.

632 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

Study Methods

While much of the work on pro-environmental behaviour has
focused on domestic behaviour (Anable et al., 2006; Commission for
Integrated Transport, 2007) the increasing recognition of travel and
tourism’s potentially deleterious effects suggests it is appropriate to
begin to investigate members of the public’s understanding of the is-
sues and their willingness to change, before designing strategies to
change behaviour. Specifically related to travel, Anable et al. (2006,
p. 80) describe the state of the application of behaviour change theo-
ries as ‘currently immature’, with a preference for closed questions and
a reliance on self-reported measures of behaviour.

In the light of this criticism, this empirical research adopts a qualita-
tive approach, utilising a focus group method. Fourteen focus groups
were conducted in total, of these fourteen groups, six discussed the to-
pic of sustainable leisure, while eight focus groups discussed sustain-
able tourism, and are the subject of this paper. 62 people attended
these eight groups, which were hosted in Brighton (South East),
Bournemouth (South West), Manchester (North West) and Watford
(Outer London) (see Table 1). These locations were chosen primarily
because they are all close to large regional airports, rather than to try to
identify any regional differences. Two focus groups were held in each

Table 2. Defra Environmental Segments

Statement Category

I don’t really do anything for the environment and I don’t
see any reason to start

Disinterested

I do my bit for the environment but I don’t think that people
like me can make much difference

Basic contributor

I do my bit for the environment but I can’t do more because
there are too many other things to think about

Long term restricted

I do what I can for the environment and I will do more soon,
when I have the time and money

Currently constrained

I do what I can for the environment but I draw the line at
making large changes to my lifestyle

Consumer with conscience

I do what I can to use resources carefully because I don’t like
waste

Wastage focused

I do everything I can for the environment, even if this means
putting myself out

Green activist

Source: Miller, Rathouse, Scarles, Holmes, and Tribe (2007).

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 633

location, with one group for high income households, and another
group for low income households, with housing tenure used as a proxy
for assessing income. While there are regional variations in income
level throughout the UK, the intention of asking about whether partic-
ipants owned their own home or not was to ensure people from a
range of income levels were spoken with in each location. Each group
comprised both men and women, a range of ages and ethnicity, differ-
ent frequency of holiday-taking, different holiday destinations and with
different levels of activity and views about environmental issues. It was
not the aim of the research to achieve a representative sample of ‘the
public’, but instead to ensure a range of people were recruited. Hence,
a recruitment questionnaire administered on the street in each loca-
tion was used to select potential participants for the groups. Anyone
who had not taken a holiday in the previous two years, people who
had not flown for environmental reasons (so excluding ‘deep-greens’),
and people who had no interest in the environment were rejected from
participating further. Participants were paid a small fee for their time.

Defra have been keen to develop a segmentation approach to under-
standing pro-environmental behaviour, which has led to their creation
of a typology reflecting how much people do for the environment (see
Table 2). Ahead of participation in the groups, all respondents were
asked to say which of the statements most closely reflected their own
beliefs.

The recruitment process revealed a difficulty in finding ‘green activ-
ists’, so a decision was made to dedicate one group only to ‘green activ-
ists’ and this was hosted in Brighton, a city with a strong reputation for
environmentally minded citizens. Additionally, a group comprising
only 16–21 year olds was held in order to establish if there was anything
distinct about the views of these younger participants. Each focus
group was two hours in length and facilitated by two moderators.

634 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

Having two moderators as well as a well-crafted topic guide was crucial
to be able to manage the focus groups and achieve a balance between a
free-flowing discussion and the need to answer set research objectives.

In order to encourage conversation, visual stimuli were developed by
the researchers in the form of coloured picture cards illustrating a
range of examples relating to the behaviour goals including: Australian
wine-tasting, Caribbean cruise, a beach holiday in Cornwall, Edinburgh
city break, EuroDisney, skiing in France, a beach holiday in Greece,
trekking in Nepal, a New York city break, a Paris city break, golfing
in Scotland and a Thai beach holiday. While these served to provide
respondents with a range of possible experiences, discussion was not
contained exclusively to the destinations and practices pictured.
Rather, they served to stimulate a wider discussion of respondents’
actual and desired experiences as well as the perceived impacts of
the scenarios identified. As such, visuals became referents (Barthes,
1981); catalysts through which respondents were able convey meanings
and facilitate understanding (Pink, 2002).

On the back of each picture card information was presented about
the carbon emissions of travelling to that destination expressed both
as tonnes of carbon dioxide, and in terms of the length of time a
100W light bulb would need to be left on to emit an equivalent amount
of carbon dioxide. This approach was taken in order to try to make the
impacts seem more tangible and understandable for respondents. The
percentage GDP contribution from tourism to the destination was also
included as stimulus for discussion.

All focus groups were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.
The data were analysed manually and thematic matrices created,
from which key issues were identified (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Miles
& Huberman, 1994). Defra had hoped for the environmental seg-
mentation model to be of value in analysing the respondents’ discus-
sions and although descriptors are used alongside quotes in the
results section that follows, the explanatory power of this typology
seemed weak for tourism (perhaps reflecting the difference between
tourism and other forms of consumption). It is worth reminding
readers that given the research objectives the focus group method
was not able to explore differences between the views of men and
women, young and old, rich and poor, or regional variations. The
findings presented in this paper use selected excerpts from interview
transcripts in order to support arguments. These are anonymous to
ensure confidentiality.

Study Results and Discussion

Public Understanding of Sustainable Tourism. As a warm up activity the
use of the picture cards allowed for respondents to sort the cards
according to places they most and least wanted to visit, which allowed
for a discussion of what aspects of a holiday were most appealing.
Respondents were then asked to sort the cards according to which hol-
idays they thought would have the greatest negative impact. The task

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 635

was not defined any further in order to allow respondents to define
‘impact’ themselves. These initial ‘warm up’ tasks allowed for a free dis-
cussion of what respondents understood by sustainable tourism rather
than having any perspective imposed on them.

Overall, respondents’ understanding of how tourism relates to the
environment seemed weak, largely perhaps as a consequence of a
generally low level of awareness about the environment and global is-
sues. Respondents recognised their own confusion at the relationship
between ‘buzz words’ such as ‘ozone’ and ‘climate change’, while black
smoke from buses was equated to carbon emissions:

‘‘Well I don’t really know. Just the effects of our everyday lives in terms of pol-
lution. How everything we do [like] recycling affects the planet. Obviously
that’s why we’ve got blistering hot days and tomorrow it could be snowing
for all we know. It just affects the ozone layer and all that sort of thing.’’
(Woman, 16–21, basic contributor, Brighton)

Despite this confusion, respondents often described themselves as
concerned about environmental issues, although this was frequently
for the sake of their children or grandchildren. The research did also
uncover respondents who said they were not concerned about the envi-
ronment and chose to dismiss global warming instead as something
that was part of a natural cycle, or would not happen within their life-
times, or was something to be welcomed as it would improve the weath-
er for the better.

Specific to tourism, respondents often struggled to cite the kind of
impacts tourism might have while day-to-day environmental impacts
and actions such as saving energy by turning off lights, or saving water
were not considered relevant to tourism. When pressed, tangible im-
pacts such as traffic, litter, noise, water and landscape were mentioned,
with social impacts more readily suggested than economic or environ-
mental. Although air pollution and global warming as intangible im-
pacts were raised, there was much confusion about these topics
beyond the superficial level, a finding consistent with the findings of
Becken (2007), Bohler et al. (2006) and Gossling et al. (2006) who also
identify the low level of connection between general understanding
about the environment and possible impacts of tourism.

Placing respondents’ willingness to act on tourism’s impacts in con-
text with day-to-day environmental actions revealed further confusion.
Respondents reported a widely held belief that small and everyday ac-
tions in the home could have a greater impact than any possible
changes to tourism behaviour. Key to this position seemed to be the
frequency with which these actions were taken. For instance, a frequent
flyer believed that reusing carrier bags, changing to low energy light
bulbs, and insulating his home were more important for the environ-
ment than changing his holiday behaviour. Although this consumer
with a conscience had a sophisticated understanding of environmental
issues he recognised he had little feel for the relative impacts of every-
day and tourism behaviour. An interesting development to this argu-
ment is that where the impacts of tourism were recognised, some
participants felt they earned the right to fly because they took

636 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

pro-environmental actions throughout the year, suggesting an attempt
to be ‘green on balance’ (Anable et al., 2006) might be the best that
can be hoped for. To achieve this delicate calculation, a much more
refined understanding of tourism’s role within global environmental
challenges is necessary, to say nothing of the competing discourses
of social and economic sustainability.

A similar confusion existed with the impacts caused by different as-
pects of tourism. Hence, aviation’s impacts were seen as being distant,
and so of less concern than the pollution caused by cars and buses,
which is more obvious:

‘‘Aeroplanes are right up there [so] by the time it gets down to us it’s pretty
diluted’’ (Man, 30–60 Consumer with a conscience, Bournemouth)

Some respondents recognised that even the cleanest of trains and
cars relied on electricity, the impact of which depended on how that
power was produced. Yet, there was disagreement over whether long
haul was much worse than short haul flying, how cruise ships compare
to other forms of transport, and what the impact of tourist attractions
and shopping malls might be. Destinations that were seen as unpopu-
lated and rural were ranked as being more sustainable than urban des-
tinations with larger populations. Thus, holidays to Paris and New York
were seen as having greater impact than wine tasting in Australia, or
trekking in Nepal, despite the huge travel components for Australia
and Nepal from the UK.

This phenomenon of calculating equivalencies between activities ap-
pears fatally flawed given the misunderstanding and lack of recogni-
tion of the impacts of tourism. Where pro-environmental actions are
taken without changing values, there is always likely to be the risk of
a ‘rebound effect’ (WWF, 2008) where consumers feel they earn ‘envi-
ronmental credits’ through one set of actions that are relatively easy to
take, only to then cash these credits by not acting in a pro-environmen-
tal manner because the pro-environmental choice is either difficult
and/or undesirable. Respondents said they knew what they were sup-
posed to do as citizens in terms of general pro-environmental behav-
iour, but were not aware of the impacts of tourism and so did not
know what to do. This suggests the urgent need to begin describing
what actions a responsible tourist must take, albeit recognising that
gaps may emerge between recommendations and actions. Relatedly,
respondents recognised that at home they paid directly for the energy
and resources they consumed, so had an incentive to conserve re-
sources. On holiday, there is no financial incentive to conserve, and in-
deed, the view was expressed that having paid for the holiday they felt
entitled to consume all the resources available. Companies need to be
able to pass on any financial savings made as a result of their custom-
ers’ behaviour, lest the invocations to reduce consumption be ineffec-
tive, or suggest only a desire to enhance corporate profitability.

Tourism Behaviour Goals. The first of the four behaviour goals was the
desire to encourage domestic tourism for UK citizens and so address
the rapid expansion in flying (UK Energy Research Centre, 2006) with

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 637

its attendant reduction in carbon emissions. Yet, for the majority of
respondents domestic holidays could not replace the experience possi-
ble from taking an overseas holiday. Whether this be an experience of
warmer weather, different cultures or of being somewhere new, holi-
days in the UK could be at best ‘enjoyable’, but not an ‘experience’.
Other barriers to domestic tourism cited were the negative memories
many people had as children from such trips with their parents, the rel-
ative expense of taking a holiday in the UK versus travelling overseas,
the ability for children to play more safely abroad and to feel more wel-
comed. Two of the more adamant respondents stated:

‘‘For most people their holiday is the big one of the year. Trying to get people to
change, trying to go for that, you’re just going for the jugular and you don’t
stand any chance.’’ (Man, 30–60, Wastage focused, Bournemouth)

‘‘[It] might sound really selfish [but] I work the rest of the year so I have to go
away and it’s costing me money so then I’m going to have a good time. I’m not
going to think I’m not going to go there because of pollution or because of this or
because of that, or I’m going to use this transport or travel by this rather than
that. I’m just going away and that’s it.’’ (Woman, under 30, basic contrib-
utor, Manchester)

By contrast, some people were happy to stay in the UK for pro-envi-
ronmental reasons.

‘‘I’m thinking more about the damage that we all do when we fly by plane, espe-
cially on a long haul flight. So I’m thinking twice about that, much as I’d love
to go to New York.’’ (Man, 30–60, wastage focused, Brighton)

However, while there were undoubtedly people driven by environ-
mental concerns, even amongst those acting for pro-environmental
reasons, this was rarely their sole reason. An interesting group was
those who recognised the impact of their holidays, but were not pre-
pared to change to holidaying in the UK. For them, they would try
to use alternate means of transport where possible, travel less often, off-
set or just ‘‘feel a bit bad’’.

‘‘You should be more aware, you should be more conscious of it. . . We don’t
think enough about the environment, definitely not, but we all want to do what
everyone else is doing, visiting all these places.’’ (Woman, 30 to 60, wastage
focused, Bournemouth)

Non-environmental reasons to stay in the UK were more often given,
such as the ease of domestic travel compared to using airports, or a de-
sire to avoid long periods travelling (particularly for families). People
who did not like warm weather, were keen to see specific sites in the
UK or who wanted to visit friends and family were all happy to stay
in the UK. To encourage this behaviour goal it is important to recog-
nise that while the majority of people said they would not want to stay
in the UK for their main holiday, some would be prepared to take
more domestic weekend breaks. As a rapid expansion in flying has
been driven by low cost airlines to Europe (Shaw & Thomas, 2006),
persuading tourists to switch weekend breaks from, say Barcelona to
Bath would make a considerable gain on total emissions from flying.
Reduced costs (both actual and perceived), enhanced facilities, a

638 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

changed image, stressing the opportunities for adventure and more
information were all suggestions for encouraging more domestic tour-
ism, as well as evidence that other people in the UK and across the
world were making similar changes to their behaviour.

The second behaviour goal was to test people’s willingness to travel
less, or to combine their holidays to take one longer holiday instead of
two or three shorter holidays, and so reduce the travel impacts of trav-
elling. Predictably, people are wedded to the idea of taking holidays,
and nobody was willing to take fewer holidays. In 1977 UK residents
took 6.8m holidays overseas, by 2005 this had increased to 44.1m hol-
idays overseas by air for the year (UK Tourism Survey, 2007). nVision
(2006) shows that the item that most people feel represents ‘luxury’
is going on a nice holiday, far beyond living in a nice area, or driving
a nice car. Tourism has also been shown to be the number one item
that people in the UK save for, and the first discretionary item that peo-
ple are prepared to go into debt for, rating it above paying for wed-
dings or their children’s education (nVision, 2006). Urry (2008)
describes the need to move to new futures rather than return to old
futures, and travelling less would appear to be an example of the latter.

To combine travel there are significant barriers to overcome. People
like the idea of taking lots of shorter breaks as this gives something to
look forward to throughout the year and helps to break the monotony
of work. The benefit on impacts of this combined travel was recognised
by some, but there was little willingness to change the behaviour of
travelling frequently:

‘‘I don’t want to say this out loud but we have about 8 to 12 holidays a year.
Some of them I wouldn’t really call holidays. They’re short holidays round Eur-
ope—short term fixes to get you through to your longer holiday’’. (Woman,
under 30, wastage focused, Watford)

Longer holidays are more difficult to arrange with work, and while
people liked the idea of being on holiday for longer, some respon-
dents suggested that a long holiday may put strains on family relation-
ships. As with the behaviour goal of encouraging more domestic
tourism, a possible target instead of encouraging people to travel less
could be to convert overseas short breaks to domestic short breaks (as
per the first behaviour goal). If people travelled less, the rebound ef-
fect could mean that people spend the money they save by not trav-
elling, on other products instead. If these new products prove to be
more impactful than travel, the effect of the behaviour goal will be a
negative one for emissions and other impacts. WWF (2008, p. Fore-
word) describe the preference for a consumerist approach which
decouples economic growth from environmental impact as a ‘happy
coincidence’ that could be revealed by a lack of attention to the
underlying reasons why people consume. Hence, while Krippendorf
(1987) believes it is ‘rebellious tourists’ who are needed to shake
the industry, and Hjalager (1999) asserts the tourism industry has
not yet been ‘invaded’ by radical expressions of green consumerism,
such an approach may not deliver the anticipated pro-environmental
benefits.

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 639

The third behaviour goal was to determine if respondents were will-
ing to adopt more sustainable travel methods. First Choice’s (2005)
consumer trends report shows 40% of those British tourists surveyed
now take two or more holidays per year by plane. Over three quarters
of all visits abroad from the UK are by air, with 64% of all UK air pas-
senger movements either domestic or to EU15 countries (nVision,
2006). Approximately 6% of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions are
caused by aviation, but of greater cause for concern is that transporta-
tion is the only industrial sector in the UK where emissions have risen
since 1990, this is primarily due to the expansion in short haul flying
and an increase in delivery vehicles on the roads (Cairns & Newson,
2005; Commission for Integrated Transport, 2007). According to the
UK Energy White Paper (2007) ‘holiday air travel’ is responsible for
about 12% of an individual’s carbon dioxide emissions per year, mean-
ing for the UK to meet its emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol,
persuading UK tourists to consider alternatives to the ‘default’ of flying
will be crucial.

Respondents identified how cheap flying had become, to the point
that it was often now the cheapest form of transport available, even
for relatively short distances. The speed and convenience of flying
was mentioned, as was the lure of flying itself:

‘‘I find [it] a bit annoying [that] in my childhood and growing up I couldn’t
afford to go abroad. In fact hardly anyone in my school did. If they did it was
‘oh, they’ve been to Spain’. No-one went abroad, only if you had the money. It
was a very elite thing. But now finally you can hop on a plane. And I’m think-
ing ‘oh I can see the world’. Then suddenly it’s ‘hold on, what about the envi-
ronment?’’’ (Woman, 30–60, green activist, Brighton)

To encourage people to reduce their flying, respondents suggested a
number of initiatives. Illustrating the intuitive appeal of the deficit
model, information was raised as a way to encourage people to change
their behaviour. Beyond information, the behaviour of politicians and
public figures was often mentioned, and it was felt that if it was desired
for the public to travel less by plane, then these prominent members of
society should lead by example. This need for positive social proof ex-
tended to decisions to limit the growth and expansion of airports,
while increasing the price differential between flying and taking the
train was also suggested. A more user-friendly booking and reservation
system was suggested, and there was discussion about how to encourage
people to book as early for train travel as people book flights, so attract-
ing cheaper fares. There was also some support for the fairness of per-
sonal carbon allowances to discourage those who flew a lot without
punishing those who flew less frequently, although the intrusion on
the ‘rights’ of people to travel as much as they wanted was raised.

The final behaviour goal was to assess people’s willingness to under-
take more sustainable activities, which was loosely interpreted to mean
an increase in outdoor activities, avoiding activities with an impact on
biodiversity, and to contribute more to local economies. Yet, because
respondents generally exhibited low awareness of the possible impacts
of different tourism activities, few had thought to avoid certain

640 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

activities for pro-environmental reasons. Where shopping centres,
theme parks, chain restaurants, or new golf courses (as opposed to
established courses) were avoided it was almost exclusively not for
pro-environmental reasons.

Requests for Industry and Government. This section sought discussion
from respondents on who should take responsibility for promoting
more sustainable tourism, and the actions that should accompany this.
Despite mistrust of their motives, government was seen as being
responsible for four reasons. First, participants expected government
to address environmental problems in the way they had always previ-
ously done with issues such as recycling; second, measures such as addi-
tional taxes on flying or personal carbon allowances would require
legislation to introduce; third, legislation would be necessary to rein-
force any behaviour change; and finally, some participants felt the Brit-
ish government was responsible for causing the problems or allowing
them to happen, and so should be responsible rather than the public:

‘‘Oh dear, now we’ve caused it, right you lot can’t go on holiday’’ (Woman,
30–60, Wastage Focused, Brighton)

Industry was not seen as being responsible for addressing global envi-
ronmental problems, although this was in part because participants did
not understand the dividing line between government and industry. As
an example, government was held responsible for train tickets being
too expensive, yet the rail network has been privatised for many years.
Further, it was felt that industry would be doing all it possibly could in
order to reduce their impacts as they wouldn’t want to be paying for
wasted resources. Although government was identified as being primar-
ily responsible, respondents did recognise their own responsibility, al-
beit whilst stressing the difficulty of converting intentions to action.
Yet, what came through clearly from this part of the research was the
sense of disempowerment felt by respondents in the face of other indi-
viduals and countries that were not taking action:

‘‘What I can do is just a drop in the ocean. If the Chinese are opening the
equivalent of one coal-fired power station every week, what chance have I
got?’’ (Man, 30–60, consumer with conscience, Manchester)

‘‘If everyone was singing from the same song sheet I think I’d be sing-
ing with them’’. (Woman, under 30, consumer with a conscience,
Watford)

Fairness was frequently cited as being important. Respondents
wanted to see that not just politicians and other high profile individu-
als were changing their behaviour, but also people like themselves were
changing. This illustrates the importance of not just relying on celeb-
rity endorsement to encourage change, but working with communities
of people to create community champions who would inspire and
encourage other ‘normal’ people.

The provision of more information was frequently raised, although
(as with Hounsham, 2006) there was disquiet about whether this would
really lead to behaviour change. However, one person commented that

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 641

if global environmental issues are important, then he would expect
there to be lots of information available. The effects of a previous belief
that information leads to corrected behaviour may have created an
expectation about the amount of information being related to the seri-
ousness of the problem. Respondents cited the importance of situa-
tional factors that inhibit the ability to change, even if information
leads to increased awareness and a motivation develops. Hence, strong
messages could be sent by reducing rail fares which would also reduce
a situational factor as a barrier to change. Expanding airports such as
London’s Heathrow sent the opposite message and justified
intransigence.

Any information provided needs to be very practical in terms of what
actions people can take to reduce the environmental impact of their
holidays, although some respondents wanted to know why they should
act, as well as just how. The use of expressing carbon dioxide emissions
from travelling in terms of light bulb equivalents was popular as people
understood the broader environmental need to turn off lights at home.
For some, there was a risk of message fatigue resulting in turning away
from the necessary actions. Such a situation may be indicative of cog-
nitive dissonance where there is an attempt to change values, but situ-
ational factors prevent this leaving the individual with no choice but to
reject the message in order to maintain consistency between values and
actions.

The amount of facilities, and the quality of the facilities for different
groups of people did suggest that respondents felt there was a lack of
alternatives to overseas travel. Investment in domestic tourism would
send the kind of positive message respondents wanted to support their
own changes in behaviour. The potential for technological advances
was mentioned by some, with great faith being placed in alternative
fuels. Other suggestions for industry included encouraging attractions
to turn off their lights at night, eliminating non-reusable items, improv-
ing recycling facilities and a reduction in the number of golf course
developments all as physical evidence of the change necessary and
commitment to change.

CONCLUSION

This research has shown a low level of awareness about the impacts
of the tourism industry and appropriate response options. Where there
was greater awareness, this tended to be on the tangible impacts such
as littering rather than the intangible impacts of global warming.
Respondents were resistant to change their behaviour unless other
people and developing countries changed, often expressing a sense
of entitlement to enjoy their holidays as they chose, unencumbered
by the need to think about the impacts it was having. The research
identified drivers and inhibitors for each of the four behaviour goals,
revealing potential to encourage more domestic holidays and more sus-
tainable travel methods, while encouraging people to travel less, com-
bine travel and to undertake different activities seems certain to face

642 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

greater resistance. Respondents seem to place greater responsibility on
government to address the problem than any other group, including
themselves while politicians needed to set an example through their
own behaviour and show leadership, instead of hypocrisy.

The authors reject the conclusions of the ‘deficit’ models of behav-
iour change, that pro-environmental behaviour can be achieved by sim-
ply improving awareness of the problem. Change will need to be
orchestrated by going far beyond the provision of information (Collins,
Thomas, Willis, & Wilsdon, 2003). Similarly, the Theory of Planned
Behaviour seems too simplistic to apply to tourism where behaviour
is heavily influenced by a myriad of factors overlaid with an absence
of reasoned thought. Instead, this paper suggests listening to the lan-
guage of respondents in discussing ‘entitlement’ and their ‘rights’ to
holidays, and then to think about the responsibilities this brings forth.
If a right is always matched by a responsibility (for example, a right to
life carries a responsibility not to take a life) then tourism needs to
emphasise what is the responsibility carried alongside the right to holi-
day. The concept of reciprocity may encourage tourists to think about
what they are responsible for, if they believe they are entitled to visit
freely (Halpern et al., 2004).

The challenge then will become to develop a sense of personal
responsibility for the impacts developed by taking a holiday. Such a
development may sit comfortably with a desire for government to em-
power citizens to make decisions rather than to correct problems once
they are manifest. One way in which personal responsibility can be en-
hanced and supported is through connecting people and overcoming
the sense of disempowerment obvious from this research. This connec-
tion could be made by providing feedback at a local level about the ef-
fects of pro-environmental consumption decisions (Moisander, 2007).
Appropriate mechanisms would need to be explored for this, but the
feedback could illustrate the difference it is possible to make and pro-
vide social proof of change. A number of possible practical actions can
be drawn from the research: such as the need for labelling of the sus-
tainability of tourism products; the promotion of personal carbon
allowances and a ‘carbon calculator’ to understand tourism’s relation-
ship with these allowances; the creation of priority lanes for boarding
planes (or similar) for those who have offset their emissions; and the
introduction of ‘metering’ in hotels to allow guests to be charged for
the resources they consume. These actions could begin to break cycles
of action, create positive examples and champions and so lead to the
creation of new social norms.

Further, pro-environmental behaviour could be encouraged through
physical and virtual networks to develop and cement the connections
between people, and the connections between people and their ac-
tions. Olli, Grendstad, and Wollebaek (2001) describe how the most
important predictor of environmental behaviour they found was partic-
ipation in environmental networks as this creates group norms to guide
new behaviour and overcome the social dilemma of what is best for
society in the long term versus what is best for the individual more
immediately. The ‘weight-watchers’ programme may provide an

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 643

example of how difficult changes to behaviour are made possible with
group support. Hence, initiatives like community based social market-
ing and utilising social networking tools such as ‘facebook’ may have
currency for the tourism industry to overcome public disempowerment
and lack of understanding to support pro-environmental behaviour
change. Any behaviour changes will of course be contingent on there
being a supply of pro-environmental holiday options available to
absorb new-found motivations to act, lest they become frustrated at
the constraining situational factors and adjust their values back, but
now more resistant to any future messages of the need to change.

Finally, the study of ‘tourism’ needs to be reduced to its constituent
elements for a more useful understanding of public perceptions of pro-
environmental alternatives. Hence, thinking about the transport,
accommodation and activities decisions people make may be more
beneficial than trying to make the suite of decisions more sustainable.
Further research will be needed on the segmentation model to see if
there are groups of consumers who are more or less receptive to mes-
sages of change, for what reasons and how receptive they may be to
ideas of responsibility. Any possible behaviour changes need to be
modelled to understand what their effects might be. Indicators of
the effects of tourism will be necessary to provide some evidence for
this debate, but the answers will lie in the normative ethic we choose
to pursue. Encouraging people to holiday in the UK may have consid-
erable effects on congestion in tourism destinations already busy with
tourists to the UK, but there would be a reduction of positive impacts
in overseas countries caused by an increase in domestic tourism, and
strategies to address this reduced earning potential would be essential
in order that less sustainable alternatives to tourism are not taken up as
income replacement activities. To encourage the reduction of overseas
tourism as a way to reduce climate change makes enormous decisions
about the importance of the environment over society, the future over
the present, life ‘here’ over life ‘there’ and those who know, over those
who do not. Less tourism may not lead to improved global sustainabil-
ity, but if demand from tourists is not less, then it must be different.

REFERENCES

Aguilo, E., Alegre, J., & Sard, M. (2005). The persistence of the sun and sand
tourism model. Tourism Management, 26(2), 219–231.

Amendah, E., & Park, J. (2008). Consumer involvement and psychological
antecedents on eco-friendly destinations: Willingness to pay more. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing and Management, 17(3&4), 262–283.

Association of British Travel Agents (2002). Holiday survey. London: IPSOS-MORI/
ABTA.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Anable, J., Lane, B., & Kelay, T. (2006). An evidence base review of attitudes to climate
change and transport. Report to the department for transport. London: HMSO.

Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviours: A UK
case study of household waste management. Environment and Behaviour, 39,
435–472.

Barthes, R. (1981). Camera lucida. New York: Hill and Wang Publishing.

644 G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645

Becken, S. (2007). Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on the
global climate and potential climate change policies. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 15(4), 351–368.

Bohler, S., Grischkat, S., Haustein, S., & Hunecke, M. (2006). Encouraging
environmentally sustainable holiday travel. Transportation Research Part A, 40,
652–670.

Boon, P., Fluker, M., & Wilson, N. (2008). A ten-year study of the effectiveness of
an educative programme in ensuring the ecological sustainability of
recreational activities in the Brisbane Ranges National Park, South-Eastern
Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 681–697.

Cairns, S., & Newson, C. (2005). Predict and decide: Aviation, climate change and UK
policy. Oxford: Energy Change Institute.

Cohen, S. (2000). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Oxford:
Polity Press.

Collins, J., Thomas, G., Willis, R., & Wilsdon, J. (2003). Carrots, sticks and sermons:
Influencing public behaviour for environmental goals. London: Demos/Green
Alliance.

Commission for Integrated Transport (2007). Transport and climate change. London:
Commission for Integrated Transport.

Defra (2005). Changing behaviour through policy making. London: Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Des Jardins, J. (1997). Environmental ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Devine-Wright, P. (2004). Towards zero-carbon: Citizenship, responsibility and the

public acceptability of sustainable energy technologies. Towards zero-carbon—
Sustainability in practice conference. London, 21st September 2004.

Dolnicar, S., Crouch, G., & Long, P. (2008). Environment-friendly tourists:
What do we really know about them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2),
197–210.

First Choice (2005). Responsible tourism—Who cares? Crawley: First Choice.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gossling, S., Bredburg, M., Randow, A., Sandstrom, E., & Svensson, P. (2006).

Tourist perceptions of climate change: A study of international tourists in
Zanzibar. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(4/5), 419–433.

Halpern, D., Bates, C., Mulgan, G., Aldridge, S., Beales, G., & Heathfield, A.
(2004). Personal responsibility and changing behaviour: The state of knowledge and its
implications for public policy. London: Cabinet Office, Prime Minister’s Strategy
Unit.

Harriott, V. (2002). Marine tourism impacts and their management on the Great Barrier
Reef. Queensland: CRC Reef Research Centre and James Cook University.

Hjalager, A. (1999). Consumerism and sustainable tourism. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 8(3), 1–20.

Hounsham, S. (2006). Painting the town green: How to persuade people to be
environmentally friendly. London: Green Engage Communications/Transport
2000.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Summary for policymakers.
In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Avery, M.
Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis
contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, T. (2004). Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of evidence on consumer
behaviour and behavioural change. London: Sustainable Development Research
Network.

Johnson, D. (2006). Providing ecotourism excursions for cruise passengers. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 14(1), 43–54.

Krippendorf, J. (1987). The holiday makers. London: Heinemann.
Kurani, K., & Turrentine, T. (2002). Marketing clean and efficient vehicles: A review of

social marketing and social science approaches. University of California: Institute of
Transportation Studies.

G. Miller et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 627–645 645

Lee, W., & Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort
experiences on tourists’ environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 546–565.

Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., De Franca Doria, M., Haynes, K., & Vincent, K.
(2005). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate
change. Manchester: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Working
Paper 72.

Macey, S., & Brown, M. (1983). Residential energy conservation: The role of past
experience in repetitive household behaviour. Environment and Behaviour, 15,
123–141.

Marshall, G. (2005). Sleepwalking into disaster—Are we in a state of denial about climate
change? Perspectives on climate change. Oxford: Climate Outreach and Informa-
tion Network.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Sage publications: London.

Miller, G. (2003). Consumerism in sustainable tourism: A survey of UK consumers.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(1), 17–39.

Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2007). Public
understanding of sustainable leisure and tourism. London: Defra.

Mintel (2005). Ethical holidays. London: Mintel—Leisure Intelligence.
Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International

Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 404–409.
nVision (2006). Drivers of change in travel and transport. Retrieved January 7th, 2008,

from .
Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental

behaviours: Bringing back social context. Environment and Behaviour, 33(2),
181–208.

Owens, S. (2000). Commentary: Engaging the public: Information and delibera-
tion in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A, 32, 1141–1148.

Pink, S. (2002). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media and representation in research.
London: Sage Publishing.

Poon, A. (1994). The ‘New Tourism’ revolution. Tourism Management, 15(2),
91–92.

Rose, C., Dade, P., Gallie, N., & Scott, J. (2005). Climate change communications—
Dipping a toe into public motivation. Retrieved January 7th, 2008, from
.

Shaw, S., & Thomas, C. (2006). Social and cultural dimensions of air travel
demand: Hyper-mobility in the UK? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(2),
209–215.

Stern, N. (2006). The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Sustainable Consumption Roundtable (2006). I will if you will. Report to the
Sustainable Development Commission. Retrieved January 7th, 2008, from
.

UK Energy White Paper (2007). Meeting the energy challenge. London: HMSO.
UK Energy Research Centre (2006). Predict and decide. Oxford: UKERC.
UK Tourism Survey (2007). Tourism statistics. Retrieved January 7th, 2008, from

.
Urry, J. (2008). Climate change, travel and complex futures. The British Journal of

Sociology, 59(2), 261–279.
WWF (2008). Weathercocks and signposts. Godalming: WWF.

Submitted 20 January 2009. Final version 31 July 2009. Accepted 16 December 2009.
Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Andrew Holden

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.futurefoundation.net/nvision.php

http://www.campaignstrategy.org

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/I_Will_If_You_Will

http://www.staruk.org.uk

Public understanding of sustainable tourism

Introduction

Pro-environment behaviour change

Study Methods

Study Results and Discussion

Public Understanding of Sustainable Tourism

Tourism Behaviour Goals

Requests for Industry and Government

Conclusion

References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Sustainability Week 1 Discussion ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now