Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Sustainable Tourism Chapter 8, Relational Summary




Sustainable Tourism Chapter 8 
Bringing the David Weaver Textbook to Life
Relational Summary by T.H. Culhane

My first trip to the cultural landscape of the Pennsylvania Dutch, aka the “Amish”, was to visit a massive vertical farm in a greenhouse surrounded by pastures with grain silos  and quaint red barns topped with photovoltaic solar panels with people in 18th century garb going to and fro in horse carriages rimmed with LED lights.  It has become a popular tourist destination, and every year I bring students from Envisaj Mercy, the Mercy College Environmental Sustainability and Justice League, who drive three and a half hours down from New York to see the modern day miracle of how the Amish produce 7 to 20 times the amount of fresh salad greens  and vegetables per acre all year round with less than 20% of the water and with no pesticides and, best of all with no soil.  That means no soil erosion, no contamination with fertilizer run off causing eutrophication and fish kills collapse of riparian, lacustrine and coastal ecosystems downstream.  We got fresh unpasteurized ice cream made from raw milk made from grass fed cows and attended rabbit and chicken and turkey auctions at local county fairs surrounded by booths selling Trump hats and T shirts and lawn signs and  posters  urging us to “Make America Great Again’ by putting America’s first female Presidential candidate behind bars.   Make America great again by going back to the 19th century?  But which 19th century is this? The one in the  alternative steampunk universe of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells   where  we all did vertical aeroponic farming on an indusrial scale? 
The ecologically conscious Amish and English (non-Amish) guides who gave us the tour of the impressive Aero farm showed us a massive trailing tomato  vine that was five years old and still growing and producing organic fruit after five winters, and showed how they pull lettuce heads right out of the tower garden and pop them in a plastic bag, roots and all, without needing to wash them, because there is no dirt and they have never been sprayed by anything toxic, and, best of all, they don’t need to be refrigerated because they are, they told us “still alive, and will keep growing and stay fresh without refrigeration as they are trucked up to New York to the market and after you get them home”.
Given that 40 to 60% of America’s produce has to be thrown away before it even gets to the market, much of it because it spoils on the way even while costing the consumer enormous amounts of money because of the cost of refrigeration, this solution of shipping living vegetables is so innovative it sounds like something out of a science fiction movie.   We learned on the tour that a box of  this aeroponic lettuce had been left in the trunk of a car on a hot summer day for three days, and when they opened it, the lettuce was still growing and was crisp and tasty.
If a trip to the hydroponics section of the Land Pavilion of Disney’s EPCOT center theme park is supposedly a voyage into some vague simulacrum of  tomorrowland, the trip to Amish country is a trip into the reality of post-modern hybridity where offstage and onstage cultural and market forces are shaping a whole new reality.
Weaver says about the Amish Lancaster county and other cultural landscapes on page 133 “The realtionaship between these landscapes and the tourism industry is complex and often uneasy, in that the cultural landscape is an amalgam of public and private spaces upon which the tourism industry is often dependent but over which the latter has little or no control… the tourism industry, however, benefits from these landscape on a largely cost-free basis by not having to pay any rent to the owners of the scenery and other tourism resources. This can cause resentment on the part of residents, especially if elements of the tourism industry such as accomodations and built attractions  become increasingly visible in the landscape and in their own right contribute to the degradation of its scenic quality”.
However, this concern is predicated on the assumption that tour operators have the most agency and that local communities are merely passive players in the tourism theater.  In the case of the Amish, they have non-Amish business allies known as the “English” who do the interfacing with outsiders, and because capturing revenue is important and we live in an age of “disintermediation” it is more and more the case that local people are calling the shot. As an example, take a look at this website for the Aeroponic Facility in Lacaster.  Not only do they have an official form for scheduling tours, which are available Monday through Friday from 10 to 3, but they cater to out of town visitors by giving 10% discounts at the Stoltzfus B&B, a lovely 19th century farm house.  There is little worry that the Amish are being exploited.  Far from being “frozen in time” by tourists expectations, the Amish maintain the look of the landscape and their own dress and traditional practices because it suits them.  They are quite post modern in that they pick and choose the elements of the past, present and future that THEY want and present it to the tourists not just as a way of making money as though they were living in a theme park, but in a deliberate attempt to INFLUENCE the visitor.  As they say on the website “We love talking about growing fresh, healthy food through aeroponics! And the best place for a discussion of aeroponics is standing in our greenhouse with a full view of the aeroponics system in action.”
Some people in the county also love discussing politics and religion, and there is little fear of cultural erosion occurring just because outsiders are visiting.  On the contrary, tourism can provide a way for people in remote periphery areas to  affect the outside world, showing off their best practices, so as to PROTECT their worldview against incursion by unsustainable practices from the urban core.  What may have started out as Circumstantial Alternative Tourism, or CAT, becomes a form of Deliberate Alternative Tourism, or DAT.
What seems to count most, according to Weaver, is whether the destination in question is WHOLLY DEPENDENT on tourism or whether it retains an identity outside of tourism that can keep it vibrant and help it maintain its integrity.

For example, in many urban tourist areas such as London, Paris, Sydney, Prague and Washington, Sustainable Mass Tourism or SMT is more easily achieved because “the main structural  characteristic that distinguishes these urban places from tourism cities is the fact that the tourism accounts for only a small component of all economic activity within the city. Their spatial and symbolic distinctiveness, moreover, is not primarily influenced by tourism, which has a less visible impact on the cultural landscapes or community composition… the concept of applying the destination life cycle to London or Paris as a whole is untenable and also because multiple factors and environments external to tourism will substantially influence the physical landacpaces and attitudes of residents. Among other effects, the urban economy is not as likely to be universally depressed by seasonal fluctuations in the tourism sector”.  P.141.
And this dynamic needn’t only apply to big cities.  The Amish are going to be Amish whether the tourists come or not.  They have fought hard for the identity and landscape they maintain, and if anything most members of their community will strive to turn tourism to their advantage as a way of influencing the outside world.
And this can be true of indigenous groups as well.  Weaver tells us on page 144 that “Approximately 400 million people or 7 per cent of the world’s population are considered ‘indiginous”insofar as they are recognized as the original inhabitants of a particular area or the people who occupied that area prior to colonization by the current residents. Despite their relatively small numbers, however, they constitute a majority of substantial minority within as much as one-half of the earth’s land area”, particularly those places that many so called “eco-tourists” now want to visit.

Some have  felt that tourism would unequivocably have an erosive effect on their culture, even when it was part of a “strategy to overcome economic deprivation and initiate a cultural revival, as per the advocacy platform.  When the political situation was not sustainable to begin with (for example where there is high unemployment reflected through cultural discrimination) then “indicator bench marks using the status quo are normally inappropriate  since this would involve sustaining the unsustainable…
This may include our application of sustainability indicators that measure   “percentage of land in protected areas”, which is usually regarded as a good indicator of environmental quality, but which ignores the fact that  certain ecological features, such as the availability of a wide variety of food producing plants  in a rain forest or the maintenance of biodiversity is more often  actually  the result of historical good practices by indigenous groups interacting with nature in a sustainable way that Western society is still struggling to learn.   Robinson (1999) for example “regards this issue as as indicative of the conflict between indigenous tradition and the Eurocentric concept of environmentalism that has largely informed the sustainability debate.  Eurocentrism is also evident in the assumption of Urlich Cloher  and others that DAT is the option most sympathetic with indigenous communities. “ p. 144.
What if the natives are restless and are no longer happy with  the idea of having to dress up in grass skirts and juggling fire in Luaus? What if they want to explore their own ways of creating Sustainable Mass Tourism that embrace post-modern hybridity, creating their own pastiche of ancient and modern practices and dress codes?  What if different players in the society want to do things differently? Weaver reminds us on page 145 that “Rightly or wrongly, it is commonly assumed that indigenous people are attuned to a communal or community approach to making decisions…however this assumption must be reassessed, since some indegnous communities have also been associated with nepotism, clan rivalries and other problems, based on tradition or not, that have negative implications for the sustainability of certain groups or individuals within those groups.”
Many of these problems, however, seem to be easier to deal with when the Eurocentric hegemony that is the legacy of colonialism is replaced by a simple overall respect for all people regardless of their ethnic or cultural heritage. For example, Robinson talks about the  emerging ‘permission to gaze” model in which indigenous people decide what is made available for tourist consumption and under what terms, so that their own version of an ‘authentic’ and ‘unsustainable ‘ tourism  experience is featured.” P. 145.

Interestingly, this is what is happening in the island communities of the Amish – islands because they are cultural pockets deliberately  isolated from the broader American society, but where they are determining what ‘authentic’ means.  The big difference is that the Amish are a European “indigenous” group who, despite their desire to hold on to centuries old traditions and resist government and corporate influence over their “low technology” lifestyle, have not suffered the prejudices and structural impediments that plague people of color and those who suffered from the legacy of colonialism. 
On page 136 Weaver talks about Doxey’s 1975 “Irridex” or IRRITATION INDEX model of community responses to tourism, which suggests parallels with Butler’s destination life cycle model.  Like the S curve, it starts out great but doesn’t end well, progressing through stages from Euphoria, where visitors are welcome but there is little planning, to Apathy, where visitors are taken for granted and contact becomes more formal, to Annoyance, where saturation is approached and the local people begin to have misgivings while planners attempt to control the situation via increasing infrastructure rather than limiting growth, and finally antagonism, where the local openly express their irritation.  In this scenario planning is remedial but paradoxically promotion of the destination is increased in order to offset the deteriorating reputation of the area and the decline in interest.
Remember the movie Jaws, and the dilemma the mayor of Amity Island faced after the first couple of shark attacks?
The challenge, as Weaver points out in section 8.3.1, is that it is dreadfully hard to define precisely WHO the community is. He reminds us that many of the most vocal pro tourism or con tourism members of the community “may actually account for only a small minority. Destinations usually contain several competing interest groups and T. Manning (199) goes so far as to suggest that a ‘communty’ is little more than an agglomeration of competing special interest groups.
The idea that successful advocacy groups are able to fulfil their vested interests reflects the broader truism that the costs and benefits from tourism within a community are not equally distributed, even in cases where alternative tourism is practiced. This complicates efforts to achieve consensus, which can be used as an indicator of sociocultural sustainability. During the era of the cautionary platform, the irridex model of Doxy proposed that community attitudes progress uniformly from euphoria through to apathy, annoyance and antagonism as tourism evolves through the destination life cycle. However this notion of an evolving consensus has since been refuted by numerous investigations that reveal conflicting attitudes and community discord at all stages of development in all types of destinations, with those in favour of tourism typically being those who benefit from employment within the sector. An additional complication is that many residents acknowledge positive economic benefits from tourism at the same time that they express concerns about concomitant sociocultural and environmental costs. ” P. 136.
And those special interest groups also appeal to special interest groups in the tourist population.  So, for example, some tourists may go to a coastal location, say in Australia as part of the GCV or Gold Coast visioning project mentioned in the book, to surf and party, while others like me may go to study insect diversity in the rainforests Lamington National park, as I did on an Earthwatch expedition in 1995 while  still others will visit the Jellurgal Aboriginal Cultural Centre and have their faces painted and learn to throw Boomerangs.  Critics may contend that this is not an authentic experience in that the aborigines are now capitalizing on myths about their past and when they go home for the day they wash off the paint and wear trousers and go out drinking in the pubs of Brisbane rather than sit around the campfire in walkabout dreamtime.  The same criticism is vituperatively launched against the recreated Maya city at the Xcaret Maya theme park in Cancun, saying that it is totally contrived. But Lawton (2001a) found that the residents of the Gold Coast regard highly contrived and commercial specialized built attractions as contributing in a very positive way to their personal quality of life” while Weaver points out that “tourism cities may be described as the consummate spatial expression of post-modernism… (and) they are also symbolically distinct in that their identity is inextricably linked to their emphasis on tourism and leisure. This is extremely significant from a sustainable perspective in that tourism is more of a basis for the destination’s sense of place than an activity that has usurped a pre-existing identity. Theme parks and casinosl often castigated as placeless intruders in other urban areas are very much part of the identity of tourism cities such as Las Vegas rather than necessarily a negative indicator.” (p. 140).
And what is wrong with the idea of Australian Aborigines or the descendants of the Maya making a living engaging in their rituals in front of a paying public in a theme park or resort that recreates the architecture and environments of their past?  Far from being erased by tourism, one could say they are getting a chance to bring their cultural influences to a larger slice of humanity. And since many of the cultural practices came out of the abundant leisure time that many indigenous groups had – Anthropologist Marshal Sahlins called hunter gatherer groups “the original affluent society” after all – couldn’t it be argued that tourism’s leisure activity raison d’etre is the perfect place to continue the evolution of these practices?
Destinations, Weaver tells, us, are inherently complex places in which the pursuit of sustainability is critically influenced by factors such cultural landscape, scale, boundaries, absolute and relative location and the fact that all destinations are positioned withing and influenced by a nested hierarchy of other destinations and the presence of permanent resident populations or communities.” (p 148)   A Green Globe 21 Community  Standard now accompanies the Company Standard featured in Chapter 7, based on a trajectory of involvement that begins with Affiliate or Awareness status and progress to Benchmarked and Certified Status, and given the complexities of human societies, the biggest different between Community Standards and Company standards in Green Globe is that community standards place “greater emphasis on community consultation and participation and in formulating a sustainable tourism destination master plan.” (p. 148).  But there is no goal as “amorphous and subjective” than sustainabile tourism, Weaver reminds us, particularly since we live on a planet where every square inch is now a conceivable tourist destination, and deisntations are a “complicated amalgam of public and private sector componenets represented by numerous stakeholders ranging in their awarenss and pursuit of sustianbility from highly active to apathetic and even hostile.” (p. 148.
Certainly small islands are substantially over-represented as tourist destinations with just 0.3 percent of the population but 4.6 percent of all international stayowvers, with tourism accounting for as much as 70 percent of the economy. (p. 146), and these islands may be the most important battlegrounds for ecological sustainability, biodiversity preservation and cultural distinctiveness because of the endemism and the species richness and the fragility that isolation over evolutionary time created.  But it is perhaps because the entire world is now a tourist destination that we can have some hope to preserve these sensitive areas.  After I went to a very popular  tropical beach party in the city of Munich, Germany, on a completely false beach replete with coconut trees and lapping waves, and visited an ice skating rink on the outskirts of the slums in Manila in the Phillipines, I realized that much of what tourists are craving can be contrived anywhere, and it may be possible to preserve endangered species and ecosystems and their services precisely by recreating the leisure aspects of fragile natural landscapes elsewhere.  And if people want to eat farm grown sustainably harvested vegetables and watch people ride about in horse carts or dance with face paint and throw boomerangs then there is no reason these cultural practices and their landscapes can’t expand outside of their original regions of origin.  After all, if Europeans can turn most of America into a simulacrum of the English countryside with its lawns and brick buildings and English sparrows and sheep and cows, we can also turn parts of Europe into a land of tee pees and Bison.  Tourism may have started Circumstantially, with explorers discovering a cool practice or a neat area and invited others to visit as well.  But when the demand grows there are two ways to deal with it.
1) Try to figure out how to preserve the destination while encouraging more and more visitors to check it out, creating at DAT or SMT situation or
2) Trying to figure out how to create more and more places with the desirable characteristics of the original destination.
At some point in our post modern world, tourism may stop being a phenomenon where wealthy folks leave home to seek out a rare experience, but rather a part of the normal nomadic lifestyle that most human beings engaged in since we began to walk upright, going, like aborigines and other nomads, on walkabout, sharing songs and stories of where we’ve been and where we would like to go until we go on our final journey into dream time.
And with that, I would like to end with a poem, inspired by the CAT in the HAT by Dr. Seuss, called “When CAT turns to DAT”.

Circumstantial Altnerative Tourism (CAT) is great,
but it rarely sustains, so that sooner or later,
the crowds start to grow as the locale starts to cater
to higher demand
Causing harm to  the land,
so the way that things were,
 following Bulter’s s-curve, can no longer persist In a comfortable way
and that’s where planning comes in, to try and save the day.

If the CAT goes to DAT, well then, what’s wrong with that?
Circumstantial Alternative Tourism turning into Deliberate Alternative Tourism…
If you plan tourism well, and you know where you’re at…
oh the places you’ll go… oh the things we’ll create…
If we can just take it slow, if we can achieve steady state…
The danger of course is without strong regulation
The DAT may turn into a UMT operation (Unsustainable Mass Tourism)
Where the pressure on resources destroys destinations.
And where fixing the problem leads to only frustration
With spoiled beaches, high crime rates,… and that won’t attract any tourists…
why, just ask any Haitian.
The desirable outcome is of course SMT – Sustainable Mass Tourism
Cause there’s no going back to when things were pristine
So we look for the best ways to handle the crowd,
Passing laws to tell tourists what’s no longer allowed
Closing nutrient loops and recycling
Urging low impact hiking, encouraging biking,
And hoping “Green Tourism” is to everyone’s liking

in some ways its easier to start with a place
That has no real nature, no cultural face
A once vibrant city that’s seen better days,
Like the new tourist district down in downtown LA
Or out in the desert , like the town of Las Vegas
Where anything goes, because what’s contrived is what makes us,
come there…
You see tourists don’t really know what sustainability means, as long as a place has no crime and is clean
And exciting to visit and at least somewhat green,
with clean air to breath and clean water for swimming,
“authentic” or “man-made” for most men and women
Is only as important as the reaction they get,
When they are telling their friends where they went,  what they did and  bought, who they met
The Gold Coast of Australia’s the textbook example
Where “unremitting arrival” threatens resources once ample
with Butler’s stagnation, in what was once a surfer paradise
Now increasingly congested with high rises and vice
But they’ve pulled in the hinterland, with its quaint farms and rain forests
To handle the spill over through a border now porous
Between UMT and DAT, in a complex mosaic of Hypertourism sprawl
Where every place on earth now heeds tourism’s call
Whether urban or  rural
or the fringe in between
The world is complex, but there’s plenty to see
If we just make a commitment to avoid U M T."

I hope you enjoyed that and I hope you'll use your creativity to bring Weaver's textbook to life so that everybody can enjoy thinking about and contributing to our dialog about Sustainable Tourism. See you next time!

Sustainable Development Chapter 7 Relational Summary




Chapter 7: Quality control

 In Chapter 7 we explore:
Quality control spectrum
Codes of conduct
Characteristics
Weaknesses
Strengths
A carrot rather than a stick approach
Moral suasion
Pre-emption of external and obligatory regulation
Elements of success
Eco-labels
Industry incentives for participation
Anatomy of ecolabelling schemes
Attributes of success.
Green globe 21
Affiliated status
Benchmarked status
Certified status
Membership patterns
Critique
Specialized ecolabels
Blue Flag
‘Green Hotels Association

Commited to Green Foundation
TUI environmental monitoring of contracted hotels
Weaknesses of tourism ecolabels
The Mohonk Agreement
Awards
British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Awards

World Legacy Awards
On the ground: toward sustainable tourism certification in Costa Rica.

Upon completion of this chapter, YOU, the reader, should be able to:
·         Explain the role and importance of quality control in attaining environmental and sociocultural sustainability within the conventional tourism industry
·         Describe and differentiate the various levels of quality control in tourism
·         Discuss and compare the positive and negative aspects of codes of conduct, awards and certification-based ecolabel programmers in sustainable tourism
·         Explain the difference and relation between Certification and Accreditation
·         Present and assess examples of best practice quality control in sustainable tourism especially at the certification and accreditation level and, finally,
·         Assess the factors that increase the likelihood that a quality control initiative in tourism will succeed as a mechanism for fostering sustainable tourism development.

To be able to do all those marvelous things… you need to read the chapter. Right now, I’m going offer you an alternative viewpoint on the last bullet point, suggesting that paradoxically these mechanisms actually may NOT foster sustainable tourism,  by  giving you another Culhane relational summary of Weaver’s main chapter points, starting with…
Section 7.1:  INTRODUCTION in which I introduce you to my belief in
“The Dangers of Differentiating the Product”

See, here’s the thing:
Weaver says on page 110: “The conventional tourism industry, by and large, has formally recognized through its constituent organizations a desire to purse an environmentally and socioculturally sustainable path of development. The actual extent of this pursuit, however, is a matter of debate, given that most initiatives appear to be of the superficial or ‘weak variety and/or are exemplified by a relatively small number of industry leaders, such as British Airways and the Aspen Ski Company.  However far the actual effort within the industry has proceeded, a critical component in achieving sustainability is the implementation of and adherence to quality control mechanism that guide the process and demonstrate adherence to relevant principles and practices, thereby differentiating the product from those not adhering to these mechanisms.”
Sounds good right? All you have to do to be a green millionaire or, in a more competitive landscape,  stay in business as a green business,  is paradoxically  hope nobody else adopts the sustainable practices you say you believe in.  
And this is going to lead to social and environmental justice exactly how?
Take a look at this  diagram based on Rogers curve of the diffusion of innovations and Maloney’s 16% rule.  What happens if we apply it  to what I call “the dangers of differentiating the product”?

 The diagram assumes that in every population roughly 2.5% of the people are innovators and another 13.5%  are visionaries. Together they make up the creators and early adopters of any new technology or idea.  In the Harry Potter world these are the folks who make up Hogwarts.  The rest of us are the muggles:  34% the pragmatic early majority, 34% the conservative late majority, and the remaining 16% the skeptical inactive late mass.  We ridicule people like this, don’t we?  The one’s who “just don’t get it?”  If we map the Plog tourist profile curve onto the diffusion innovation curve we can even unpack our own biased assumptions that the innovative 16% are the allocentric tourists, ideal for the evolving “green market” while half of the pragmatic early majority are midcentric, and the rest tend toward an ever more conservative psychocentric profile.  Of course it isn’t that simple.  But those are the general trends.  As Human beings, it seems, we just can’t help judging each other and trying to pigeonhole one another into bell curve distributed groups, just like we did in school,  with A students on one side and F students on the other.  But that isn’t what disturbs me about the human desire to differentiate people and products in the green tourism industry.
What I find dangerous about the trend toward green product differentiation described by Weaver is that it ignores the underlying paradox of green marketing which, in turn reveals the famous fundamental internal contradictions of late stage capitalism.
The paradox is illustrated nicely by the diagram.  Note that on the left side of the chasm the  “Psychology of Influence” is “Scarcity”.  The Zero sum game. We do things because they make us ‘special’, because they  make us STAND OUT from the maddening crowd.  Of muggles.
  On the right side of the chasm the psychology of influence is “Social Proof” where we do something good not because it makes us special, but because everybody is doing it as part of the ethics of our  culture.  The 16% rule chasm lies between. Maloney’s rule states: “Once you have reached 16% adoption of any innovation you must change your messaging and media strategy from one based on scarcity to one based on social proof in order to accelerate through the chasm to the tipping point.”
The tipping point in our case would be the moment when being sustainable becomes so trendy you couldn’t imagine NOT being sustainable. Oh the shame!
And here’s the problem (you can see it can’t you?): If sustainable tourism operators try to differentiate their product by providing  the only (or one of the few) tourism destinations that are eco-friendly or socially just, the scarcity business model depends for its success on their keeping the other destinations exploitative and polluted.
 I saw this first hand in the Dominican Republic.
My students and I from Mercy College went to the DR to do Voluntourism work and stayed the first couple of days with the family of one of our students in the economically depressed area of Boca Chica not all that far from the airport.  My little kids and their mother were with me and we all decided to go to the beach.  The public beach, the beach free to everyone,  however, was filled with trash both on the sand and in the water, the view was spoiled by a downwind cement factory on a pier over the water belching smoke in the distance and the unregulated competing restaurants were blaring distorted music and eardrum shattering levels while vendors hawking trinkets disturbed every minute of tranquility we had.  At a certain point my children’s mother was fed up and wanted to go home, but I encouraged her to bring the kids and walk up the beach about 15 minutes around a curve.  On the other side we found a gated fence and a series of beautiful resorts with clean soft sand, lots of coconut trees, beautiful views of clear blue seas, beautiful architecture and tranquility.   Because my children’s mother is German and my children look European and not local, the beach guards did not stop us from simply waltzing in.  The contrast was immediate and amazing.  It was clear that the beauty and tranquility and cleanliness of these sections of beach were what enabled the resorts to offer a  “differentiated product” for which guests pay a premium. The rest of Boca Chica, by contrast, is a nightmare, and going to the public beaches for free is not something a tourist would ever want to do.  One wonders if this doesn’t create a perverse incentive to tour operators who have influence over government policy to deliberately keep the public beaches in a state of degradation.
When the messaging and media strategy is based on scarcity there is no incentive to clean up or green up the entire industry. Powerful market forces will keep the few resorts doing good things on the left of Maloney’s  chasm and in fact it will be in the best interest of the tour operators to see the other areas destroyed. For example, if one of your selling points is the availability of wild sea turtles and dolphins at your resort, you may be happy to allow coral destruction and poaching on the other side of the island, driving the remaining wildlife to you and reducing competition. It may behoove you to have the only remaining stands of primary rainforest or mountain gorillas so you can charge top dollar to see them.  It was ironic to me when I went to Gombe stream resort in Tanzania to work with the Jane Goodall Institute that they were cooking the tourists expensive meals on charcoal from forest trees cut down in neighboring forests, furthering the extinction of chimps in those areas.  The Tanzanian tourist authority charges several hundred dollars to see their chimps “in the wild”; this fee can only be commanded when there are no wild chimps left to encounter when hiking in adjacent forests; given that Gombe is now a tiny island of fragment forest in a sea of ever increasing agricultural destruction, it was hard for me to get the sense that it wasn’t turning into essentially a very large zoo.
So what would happen to “green tourism” if we actually crossed the chasm and went from a scarcity model to a “social proof” model?  If EVERYBODY had a sustainable eco-friendly and socially just experience to offer tourists, which you would imagine is the goal of the sustainable tourism movement, would there be any product to differentiate? Would there be anything to offer to distinguish your operation from your neighbor? What added value could a tour destination offer if and when the world is healed again and wildlife and beauty and clean renewable energy and recycling and health are available everywhere? For me this is the million dollar question for sustainable tourism.  How do we “change our messaging and media strategy from one based on scarcity to one based on social proof in order to accelerate through the chasm to the tipping point”

 The issue of Quality Control is brought up in section 7.2 of the chapter where we learn that companies usually require “mechanisms that indicate, through external recognition or other means, the quality and credibility of a company’s sustainability performance” and that there is a is a spectrum of quality control mechanisms ranging from those that are internal or voluntary to those that are increasingly external and obligatory.  We learn that the pursuit of sustainable tourism is often “hindered by the fact that external enforcement of regulations and laws are “seldom promulgated as part of an integrated and formal programme of achieving sustainable tourism outcomes in cooperation with tourism stakeolder groups. These laws therefore may be either excessive or inadequate.”
What isn’t addressed is WHY they may be inadequate from a structural perspective.  What is keeping external enforcement so lax?  We usually think of Codes of conduct, which Weaver says are often called “codes of ethics” for sustainable tourism, as falling into three categories, those intended for tourists, for host communities, or the tourism industry (page 111).  Codes that are intended for tourists can be drivers of real change, since what Weaver calls “deep green tourists” create demand for better practices by host communities and the tourism industry.  But codes intended for host communities and industry operators  are “almost always based on the principle of voluntary adherence and predicated on the principle of self-regulation so that the member company is responsible for ensuring its own compliance”. This is described as “leaving the fox watching the hen house” with one of the weaknesses described as being the tendency for there to be “unscrupulous companies putting their voluntary adherence to vague directives of the APECT/PATA codes, giving them a certified “quality tourism product” , giving false evidence of their green credentials, even though all they sometimes do is restate what is required by law”. The cynical perspective Weaver talks about comes from a “lack of evidence that existing codes of conduct are being monitored and enforced” while the principles themselves are “not intended to create new legal liabilities, expand existing rights or obligations, waive legal defenses or otherwise  affect the legal position of any endorsing company, and are not intended to be used against an endorser in any legal proceeding for any purpose.” (p. 113).

And why should they? If we are operating under the scarcity model, and the incentive for the tourism industry or host country is to differentiate its product, ecological and social sustainability become just two of a vast array of distinguishing features whereby a destination can attract consumers.  To make money you can go green, or you can serve cheap alcohol and high end call girls.  Your call.  And since governments cater to business interests, unless a given activity (say the downwind pollution spewing cement factory in Boca Chica) has a direct effect on the resorts upwind, or the blaring music from the public beach restaurants reaches the resort beach to spoil its tranquility, there is no reason to try and make broad legislation that affects all development across the board.  It isn’t just that the fox is watching its own chicken coop, for the logic of the market says that as islands like the Dominican Republic degrade there will be more and more of a reason for certain resorts, like the exclusive Punta Cana resort featured in Conde Nast Traveler as one of the most sustainable tourist destinations on the planet, to continue to up their game, the fox will indeed ensure that the chickens are healthy.  It is the structural problem of how this logic affects the whole, affects the wider tourist destination ecosystem, that is the problem.  
Competition for the Ecolabels and the independent certification and accreditation from third parties that give them credence and value, can ironically  lead to a situation where their value is wholly dependent on there being enough unlabeled and inadequate operations to cause a significant price differential. The laws of supply and demand rule all businesses. Ecolabels are defined by Font, 2001 as ‘methods to standardize the promotion of environmental claims by following compliance to set criteria, generally based on third party, impartial verification (p 115).”  But standardization and set criteria are diametrically opposed concepts to differentiation and high quality.  There is an assumption that the reason government regulation works is because businesses supposedly fear the possibility that “government will step in and increase its own (external and obligatory) regulations if industry does not regulate itself in a responsible and credible manner” says Weaver on page 114. “The potential loss of power over its own affairs is therefore an enormous incentive to adhere to codes of conduct as well as higher forms of internal and voluntary quality control (Mason and Mowforth 1996). P. 114.
But something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and the Dominican Republic and everywhere else for that matter.  What happens when we apply the concept of Walrasian Equilibrium to tourism as L. Dwyer does in “The International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism” (page 302), and investigate whether the fundamental interrelationships between sectors are driving distributional effects on policies for resource allocation as certain tourist destinations go green? And what happens when we apply Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory which suggests that there is a world economic system in which some countries benefit precisely because others are exploited?  How can we think about Sustainable Tourism if we apply Andre Gunder Frank’s insights about the 5000 year history of this torturous equilibrium and its inevitability, creating what he called “The Development of Underdevelopment” where both are two aspects of the same system and underdeveloped or unsustainable areas are the direct result of their relationship with the developed or sustainable areas?

Weaver tells us that the Elements of Success include the need for  sponsors of a given code of Quality to “make available  examples of tangible practices and objectives” so that best practices may be imitated by others and bad practices avoided.  But if the value added prospects of a tourism business rely on green innovations then the best practices become a kind of “intellectual property” which competitive tourism operators are loath to share with others so they can protect their brand.   Weaver talks about industry incentives for participation and notes that “A primary reason for the tourism industry to seek affiliation and certification with ecolables is to demonstrate external recognition for their sustainability  practices and accomplishments… through the credibility this provides they are more likely to generate  positive publicity that translates into increased business from green consumers, leverage to charge a premium price and a reduced likelihood of government intervention.” He reminds us that “A successful ecolabel is one that is widely recognized and patronized by consumers and other stakeholders, thereby conferring  the bearer with a competitive advantage over rival products that do NOT possess the ecolabel…(p. 116). “ He tells us that Buckley in 2002 suggested that a successful ecolabel must have suffiecient ‘guts’ or the substantive criteria that distinguishes  products with the ecolabel from those who do not have it, as well as ‘teeth’ or procedures that ensure the use of the ecolabel only where it is warranted”.

But when you take World Systems Theory into account, this sounds problematic.  To me it smacks of a lack of imagination.  What happens when we reach a standard practice state of sustainability and justice, and create a world where the use of the desired ecolabel is ALWAYS warrented? Are we suggesting that we don’t believe such a world is possible? Is sustainability really only some fantasy utopia we can only dream about?  What happens to tourism when everyone everywhere is engaged in best practices? Does the green sector simply vanish and with it the premium that was the driving incentive in the first place?
Right now this may seem inconceivable to proponents of ecolabels and certifications who face a daily struggle even getting tourists and tour operators to be aware they even exist and are vitally concerned with tourist destinations falling off the decline end of Butler’s S curve.  Weaver says on page 125 “A major weakness in tourism ecolabelling is the continuing lack of consumer recognition, which reduces the incentive for tourism companies to become involved in such schemes and thus leads to a second major problem of lackluster corporate participation levels. “  He cautions against greenwashing and the ability of companies to “obtain an ecolabel on the basis of meeting certain  (e.g.  recycling and energy reduction) while continuing to engage in  activities such as habitat clearance that are harmful to the environment but not included in the criteria inventory”.  He worries that “laudable environmental practices may disguise unethical social and cultural practices” and concludes that “ultimately there is still no widespread belief or convincing evidence that products with ecolabels are demonstrably more sustainable than those without, even though Green Globe 21 appears to be ‘pulling ahead of the pack’ through its three-tier award structure that culminates in the third party certification of an array of relevant  indicators.”
The irony is that on the one hand there aren’t enough ecolabels in some areas and on the other there are TOO MANY ecolabels in another while the “actual number of participating companies is still negligible relative to the total potential number of companies and its geographic and sectoral scope” and may be “too ambitious relative to its resources” so that “the scheme therefore has a long way to go before it can be regarded as an effective mechanism  for attaining sustainable tourism development within the tourism industry.” P. 125

The Mohonk Agreement has set in motion the creation of the Global  Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC) to take a macroscopic approach to all of this, but it still doesn’t seem to be exploring the perspective of World Systems there and doesn’t seem to question the zero-sum scarcity model logic that undergirds almost all Capitalist enterprises.   Right now the concern over the global awards accreditation protocols is that awards for those practicing sustainability are “good opportunities to recognize  and publicize  purported  industry leaders and role models” which would seem movement toward Maloney’s 16% advice that we remessage and rebrand toward “social proof”, but Weaver also contends that “awards are concurrently intended to serve as public relations exercises for their sponsors” with “a strong element of self-interest” that “dilutes their integrity and is evident in the inclusion of sponsor names in the award titles and in high profile presentation ceremonies. It is for this reason, and the added factor that only a limited number of qualifiying products can obtain awards, that the latter are positioned below ecolables within the quality control spectrum.”
After a whole chapter listing all the various ecolabelling and credentialing and quality assurance schemes out there, and decrying the failure of the systems to yet have their intended effect, Weaver summarizes saying “they should not be dismissed out of hand, since well-constructed codes facilitate in a non-threatening way the initial engagement in sustainability (i.e. a minimalist model). They also provide a common ground for networking and a basis for identifying suitable indicators, they exercise a moral suasion over adherents and they help to pre-empt further government regulation if they actually support sustainable outcomes.”
IF.
The problem, unexplored in the chapter, is the unexplained yet underlying internal  contradictions of the world capitalist system.  When Weaver says “The Use of the Ecolabel must be restricted to certified tourism products that are broadly recognized, at least by green tourists, as being SUPERIOR to uncertified COMPETING Products” and tells us that “THIS RECOGNITION ALLOWS THE PRODUCT TO COMMAND A PRICE PREMIUM AND HENCE SERVES AS A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR COMPANIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ECOLABEL AS LONG AS ITS ACQUISITION  IS NOT TOO ONEROURS OR EXPENSIVE A PROCESS” he is tacitly admitting that the “code of conduct” he described as a “code of ethics” aiming to “influence the attitudes and behavior of those claiming adherence to it” on page 111 isn’t a code of ethics at all.  It is merely business as usual, no ethics required. The attitude of the capitalist world system isn’t influenced in the least, and the behavior is still driven by market share.   He states the problem that “it is not at all clear that ecolabelled products are adequately differentiated from non-ecolabelled products” rather than the problem that differentiation is arguably got us into trouble in the first place.

The real question is “why are there any unhealthy, unsustainable and unjust places and behaviors in the first place? Why do we even need ecolabels at all? Shouldn’t SUSTAINABILITY AND JUSTICE BE BUSINESS AS USUAL?

In conclusion, I would like to ask you to imagine a world in which there is nothing special about being green. How would you run your tourism business and make a living on a truly green planet where beautiful, safe, healthy, exciting landscapes surrounded us all, where wild places and charismatic wildlife were everywhere we looked, as they were for most of human history. How would you run your tourism business where every beach was clean and unspoiled and relaxation in nature could be found in everyone’s backyard? Has tourism been on the rise since the industrial revolution and especially post  World War II in part because much of the world has become so unlivable and  undesirable that people are willing to save up for year just to spend a week or two in places that still look much as they did before the industrial revolution and a few world wars wrecked things everywhere else?
Is sustainable tourism, by operating according to a zero-sum scarcity model, continuing to perpetuate the very underdevelopment it says it seeks to repair.  Is it insidiously making the chasm between the few haves who have access to desirable destinations and  other 84% who don’t larger? 
What do you think?
And… what are you going to do about it?