A critical framework for interrogating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda in tourism

Abstract

Research in the area of sustainable tourism continues to grow, however a lack of understanding regarding necessary action inhibits progress. McCloskey’s (2015) critique regarding the failure of the MDGs, as a direct result of a lack of critical consciousness, and understanding of the structural contexts of poverty and under-development, provided the impetus for our work. McCloskey (2015) signals the important role of education in fostering transitions to sustainability. As such, we have applied our critical lens to the 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Our paper offers tools for critically thinking through the potential for the SDGs to help shape the tourism industry for more sustainable, equitable, and just futures. We positioned six themes to serve as a conceptual framework for interrogating the SDG agenda in tourism; arising from our considerations of both reformist and radical pathways to sustainable transitions in tourism: critical tourism scholarship, gender in the sustainable development agenda, engaging with Indigenous perspectives and other paradigms, degrowth and the circular economy, governance and planning, and ethical consumption. We address these core themes as essential platforms to critique the SDGs in the context of sustainable tourism development, and highlight the cutting edge research carried out by our contributors in this special issue.

Keywords:

• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• critical thinking
• gender
• Indigenous perspectives
• degrowth
• circular economy
• governance
• ethical consumption

Introduction

Balancing socio-economic interests with the planet’s finite ecological systems is a fundamental goal of sustainability. While significant environmental damage continues (e.g. Klein, 2010), there has been momentum and progress towards sustainability pathways in tourism (e.g. sustainability initiatives in hotels see Sloan, Legrand, & Chen, 2013). Tourism is multifaceted and highly impactful despite claims that it is a benign industry (e.g. Hall, 2008). As humanity transitions from the Holocene to the Anthropocene (Gren & Huijbens, 2014), the need to re-examine and re-enact systems thinking to transition socio-economic paradigms has become increasingly urgent due to habitat loss, threats to biodiversity and climate change. The conservation of our cultural and environmental diversity is indispensable for continued livelihood development and well-being and is fundamental to tourism.

The inherent relationship between sustainability and tourism has received increasing scholarly attention, since concerns about carrying capacity were expressed by O’Reilly (1986). Bramwell and Lane (1993) were the first to define sustainable tourism as

[…] a positive approach intended to reduce the tensions and friction created by the complex interactions between the tourism industry, visitors, the environment and the communities which are host to holidaymakers. It is an approach which involves working for the long-term viability and quality of both natural and human resources. It is not anti-growth, but it acknowledges that there are limits to growth. (p. 2)

The authors refer to the work of Inskeep (1991) and Krippendorf (1987) as scholars offering tangible ways in which stakeholders involved in tourism may reduce the impacts of tourism operations. However, contemporary scholars have pointed out that this is not yet fully realised in tourism despite increased public awareness of sustainability issues (Moscardo & Hughes, 2018), drawing attention to the elusiveness of the goal of sustainability (e.g. Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010). Such intangibility seems to inhibit behavioural change and action among both the tourism industry and tourists.

The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) declared 2017 a “watershed moment” with its official International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development which proposed “making tourism a catalyst for positive change” (UNWTO, 2017a, p. i). This declaration positions tourism as a tool to advance the universal 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (2015–2030) (SDGs) and 169 targets (UN, 2019). Such a claim needs to be met with considered critical thinking and analysed from a diversity of approaches and perspectives. It is important to understand that it was the failure of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with their 2015 deadline that necessitated the development of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). McCloskey explained that:

One of the reasons that new goals are necessary and the MDGs failed to meet all of their targets was the absence of a critical consciousness that considered the structural causes of poverty […] Above all, we have failed to relate the dominant neoliberal economic model to persistent levels of poverty and climate change. (2015, p. 186)

In response to this declaration, the papers presented in this special issue (SI) consider through a critical lens how the SDGs may be understood and realised from multiple worldviews and disciplinary perspectives. The UN’s 17 SDGs have received limited specific attention from tourism sustainability scholars (Bramwell, Higham, Lane, & Miller, 2017) which is surprising given the international applicability of the SDGs and their origin from a globally recognised intergovernmental organisation. Clearly, the academy must work more critically to reflect the realities of global communities, as related to, and impacted by, sustainable tourism development. Through this SI we seek to foster the next phase of sustainable tourism scholarship that actively considers the interconnections of the UN’s SDGs to tourism theory and praxis, and to activate critical thinking to analyse and advance sustainability in tourism systems. We also seek to articulate the need for the academy to be more intrinsically involved in ongoing iterations of multilateral accords and decrees to ensure they embody more critical and inclusive transitions toward sustainability as opposed to market-driven, neoliberal directives. This SI focuses on the functions that tourism systems serve in furthering sustainable livelihoods specifically through an examination of the essential role that critical thinking must play in education and multilateral directives and initiatives.

Critical thinking can be emancipatory. It lies at the heart of democracy (Giroux, 2011) and embodies a process of discovering, acknowledging, and checking implicit assumptions to ensure inclusive and informed decision-making (Brookfield, 1987). Sustainable tourism necessitates critical thinking; requiring deeper explorations of the dynamics of power, privilege, hegemony, and hierarchical structures (Mowforth & Munt, 1998). Barriers to sustainability are increasingly identified with inequitable distribution of resources, privatisation of the commons, and wealth accumulating to a small elite (Büscher & Fletcher, 2017). This realisation demonstrates that it is particularly important for all stakeholders to be involved in tourism planning and decision-making, including travellers, the industry, governments, communities, workers and the academy (Beaumont & Dredge, 2010). Neglecting adequate stakeholder involvement may lead to irreparable harm such as tourism conflicts and public opposition; ultimately risking an unsustainable future (Hall, 2008). Jamal and Stronza (2009) stress the importance of nature as a key stakeholder in sustainability that requires a voice.

Throughout the SI authors have positioned examples of ways to deconstruct power and to view tourism systems from multiple worldviews (e.g. marginalised and under-represented populations) through mobilising critical interrogation. Accordingly, contributions provide evidence for the need to work to build critical understandings of the processes and dynamics of tourism and the vital necessity for training, learning, and action, aiming for goals ranging from reform of current practices to alternatives and agendas that are more radical. We can imagine alternatives through engagement with underused paradigms such as Indigenous perspectives, ethics of care, feminist ecology, and radical eco-socialism, which may serve as vital entry points into alternate ways of being, knowing, and doing. The tourism academy has more to offer in this vital work and the analysis of the UN SDGs agenda towards 2030 is an optimum opportunity to apply critical thinking to move past the status quo to more radical and transformative approaches. Seizing tourism as a platform for imaginative and transformative action is the unfinished work we take up here.

In an era of neoliberalism and conservatism, engaging in critical thinking is essential (Giroux, 2014). Critical thinking aids us in illuminating the environmental, social and economic injustices that are perpetuated by and within the tourism industry. In this paper, we present six general themes which arise from our considerations of both reformist and radical pathways to sustainable transitions in tourism: critical tourism scholarship, gender in the sustainable development agenda, engaging with Indigenous perspectives and other paradigms, degrowth and the circular economy, governance and planning, and ethical consumption. We address these core themes as essential platforms to critique the SDGs in the context of sustainable tourism development. Our six themes, present a conceptual framework for interrogating transformed futures in tourism. Critical tourism scholarship provides the skill for deep critical thinking that supports open and emancipatory approaches. These innovative approaches can be supported through the open-mindedness that comes from engaging with diverse views and voices from women, Indigenous peoples, and others that will underscore there are many ways of being, knowing and doing in tourism. The final three core themes confront neoliberal capitalism as it prevents achieving sustainability and the SDG agenda. The six themes provide entry ways into thinking through both the problematic nature of the current tourism industry, as well as possible alternatives already evident. As we address each of these six core themes we take the opportunity to briefly highlight key contributions from authors of this SI.

While this SI is focused on the SDGs, it does so from a critical positioning. Elsewhere, the UN SDGs have been critiqued for their universalising tendencies, a concern that the agenda remains set in the neoliberal mould, the development role assigned to the private sector and a concern that it will allow for little more than “business as usual” (see Scheyvens, Banks, & Hughes, 2016). Perhaps the most critical question of all is: who will drive sustainability forward as choices get more difficult in a resource-constrained world and as climate change impacts compound? The roles of the multiple stakeholders in tourism are vital but as the body of this article will demonstrate there are power struggles and power vacuums that impact their capacity to support and to secure the SDG agenda.

Critical tourism scholarship

Critical tourism scholars have expressed concerns regarding the socio-cultural impacts of tourism, generated by the tourist gaze (Urry, 1990). Hollinshead (1992, p. 43) referred to such encounters as an “objectifying” gaze, thus raising questions about the ability of the industry to promote equality (Turner & Ash, 1975), concerns about power (Bianchi, 2009), and apprehensions regarding the lack of morality demonstrated by consumers and producers (Weeden & Boluk, 2014). Furthermore, concerns regarding the lack of local representation in tourism decision-making (Freire-Mederios, 2013), apprehensions regarding gender equality (e.g. Ferguson & Alarcon, 2015), environmental fears challenging the notion of sustainability (e.g. Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018), environmental justice (Higgins-Desbiolles & Powys Whyte, 2013), the postcolonial nature of the industry (e.g. Hall & Tucker, 2004), and aid in poverty alleviation (Scheyvens, 2011) have been articulated. The real and various impacts generated by tourism urge critical scholars and practitioners to reimagine a sector that can give back to the communities in which tourism takes place.

Concerns, regarding the impacts of neoliberalism on academic spheres are evidenced in the literature, in the themes that run through international conferences, university campuses, and in tourism practices. Therefore, critically reflecting on the ways in which neoliberalism affects our work, teaching and engagement with the broader community is needed to acknowledge, navigate, and resist neoliberal pressures. Neoliberal rhetoric has shaped a particular ideology valuing a market-driven education (Fletcher & Piemonte, 2017). Specifically, neoliberal structures prioritise the financial outcomes of higher education (Giroux, 2004), and consider the academy as an enterprise (Fletcher & Piemonte, 2017). As such, what matters in the neoliberal knowledge economy is securing grants and contracts, and the ability for scholars to present themselves and their teaching/research programs in ways that compete to attract domestic and international students (Ali, 2009). Furthermore, the various quantitative metrics by which scholars are evaluated prioritise individualism, productivity and profit maximisation. Such measurements, breeds self-commodification (Gahman, 2016). This has significantly undermined the contemporary possibilities in fostering, and at times modelling critical thinking.

Joseph (2012) refers to several disciplines (such as feminist studies, ethnic and racial studies, and postcolonial studies) that may be undervalued in traditional classical discipline streams (e.g. anthropology, psychology, sociology, geography, business) thus pushed to the margins under neoliberalism. Tourism studies may be another field ignored and/or perceived as less rigorous by non-tourism/leisure/recreation/hospitality/events scholars who are unable/unwilling to value its contribution. However, non-major and critical disciplines facilitate “spaces to engage discussions about social inequalities and cultural hierarchies” (Joseph, 2012, p. 254). Such considerations have clearly been taking place in the tourism scholarship. For example, from the producer perspective Mowforth, Charlton, and Munt (2008) challenge the benefits derived by tourism establishing that the rights of local people are neglected. This is echoed by Lovelock’s (2008) work on the ethical decision-making behaviour of travel agents who favour the rights of their clients to travel, above the human rights of host communities. From a consumer perspective, Mostafanezhad (2014) argued that volunteer tourism perpetuates geopolitical discourses of North-South relations and naturalises political, economic and social inequality. Furthermore, Groulx, Boluk, Lemieux, and Dawson (2019) examined the ethical challenges faced by last chance travellers visiting climate-threatened destinations, finding that most visitors are unwilling to engage in carbon offsetting.

The pedagogical emphasis in tourism studies on management and business fields (e.g. Hollinshead, 2009; Tribe, 2000, 2008) has shifted priorities. Specifically, the weight placed on workforce training echoes concerns expressed by scholars such as Freire (1970) and Giroux (2004). Such orientations, influenced by neoliberal agendas, have paid limited attention to the development of critical thinking, the original priority of tertiary institutions (Johnson & Morris, 2010; Kincheloe, 2008). Training critical pedagogues has been usurped with the profit driven nature of the tourism industry. This challenges the possibilities of tourism functioning as a social force (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006). The importance of instilling the skills of critical thinking was expounded in Boluk, Cavaliere and Duffy’s (this SI) work in their presentation of a framework to support the delivery and development of critical thinking in the classroom and beyond. Cotterell, Hales, Arcodia and Ferreira’s (this SI) work revealed the use of weak conceptualisations of sustainability that act to support “business as usual”. Limited engagement with the SDGs in tourism courses led to their development of a number of indicative critical questions assisting instructors in their incorporation of the SDGs.

The call for a “critical turn” in tourism studies to better respond to contemporary problems (Ateljevic, Morgan, & Pritchard, 2013) recognised “the future success of tourism rides not only on our ability to harness and channel its positive impacts, but also to come to terms with tourism’s negative impacts by taking responsibility for positive change” (Caton, Schott, & Daniele, 2014, p. 125). Accordingly, the opportunity of tourism as a tool for education (Pritchard, Morgan, & Ateljevic, 2011), social justice (Boluk & Carnicelli, 2019; Carnicelli & Boluk, 2017) and business productivity (Belhassen & Caton, 2011; Boluk, 2011), human rights (e.g. Cole, 2010; Higgins-Desbiolles & Blanchard, 2010), peace building, and citizenship (e.g. Bianchi & Stephensen, 2014; Blanchard & Higgins-Desbiolles, 2013) has been noted in the scholarship. An emerging interest in recognising the importance of criticality in tourism has been embraced in networks such as BEST EN, social movements such as TEFI, and conferences such as Critical Tourism Studies.

This section has established that critical tourism scholars have signalled the crucial impacts generated by the tourism industry. Furthermore, the neoliberal emphasis has prioritised vocational training over the development of skills which could equip students to think critically. This is problematic given the array of sustainability concerns that students will face in their professional lives. Interestingly, critical thinking is largely absent from the descriptions of the United Nation’s 17 SDGs as a way to realise the goals. We argue that critical thinking must be activated in order to respond to contemporary concerns in relation to sustainability. In activating critical thinking, it may become apparent whose voices are prioritised, whose are neglected, and which stakeholders should be actively facilitated to participate in processes and decision-making in order to have full and fair representation and empowerment. Even more significant, such inclusivity and openness will be an antidote to groupthink; avoiding this will be essential to address the challenges we now confront.

Gender in the sustainable development agenda

Women are essential to the achievement of sustainable development. Research has demonstrated that gender inequalities result in economic costs, social inequities and ecological damage (Shiva, 2009). Stevens (2010) has asked if “[…] gender equity is the ‘missing link’ of sustainable development” (p. 1). Similarly, women are essential to implementing the SDGs in tourism. When tourism is developed in a community, women may experience some of the worst negative impacts that tourism may bring. Moreno Alarcón, and Cole (this issue) note that employment for women in tourism does not take into account the need to redistribute unpaid care work, or reduce the gender pay gap or combat sexual harassment and that patriarchal structures, are often reinforced by tourism policy, such as viewing water work as women’s work. Additionally, women are a significant component of the tourism workforce, both in the formal and informal sectors. Women often experience the vulnerabilities that feature in tourism work, particularly in front-line hospitality positions (e.g. cleaning, serving) including seasonality, low wages, precarious conditions, and sexual harassment (Poulston, 2008). Without focused planning, women may find their personal, social, economic, and environmental conditions of living materially damaged by tourism developments within their communities. Most importantly, women’s leadership of tourism development and decision-making brings unique and invaluable wisdom to the process and underpins sustainability. This is the reason that such emphasis has been given to gender in development policies and planning and explains the inclusion of SDG 5 “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls” in the 17 UN SDGs.

While SDG 5 is concerned with achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls, this is indeed essential for achieving all 17 SDGs. As a result, “gender analysis, once confined to the margins of development theory, has over the last ten years penetrated both the thinking and the operations of international development institutions” (Miller & Razavi, 1998, p. 4). The United Nations has organised world conferences on women and periodic reviews of progress in an effort to advance a gender equality agenda globally (See UN Women, n.d.). Recently, the ‘Fourth World Conference on Women’ held in Beijing declared: “Women's empowerment and their full participation on the basis of equality in all spheres of society, including participation in the decision-making process and access to power, are fundamental for the achievement of equality, development and peace” (Beijing Declaration, 1989).

In addition to considerations of gender in development, it is also important to understand the influence of feminism as an evolving social movement of significant power. There have been a number of “waves” of feminism (see Munro, 2013), as well as various paradigms that hold significance for critically interrogating tourism and shaping it towards justice. These allow structures of power and oppression to be addressed in a more transformative approach than the efforts undertaken to incorporate gender analysis in development. Evidence of the impacts of feminism theory on tourism scholarship are clear. There is evolving interest in the lived lives of women in tourism and the ways patriarchal and hierarchical structures work to oppress women, women of colour and others (though the fourth wave of feminism does not yet seem evident in tourism as we have not seen the “call-out culture” of the #MeToo era addressed; see Munro, 2013). Thus, there is a need for holistic considerations of what a feminist approach to development, tourism and the SDG agenda might offer as tools to advance critical thinking and action in tourism.

Gender analysis of tourism emerged from the discussions of gender in development. Enloe (1989) wrote a key critical text Making feminist sense of international politics which offered a chapter called “On the beach: Sexism and tourism” (pp. 19–41). This book applied the feminist ethos (second wave feminism) that the “personal is political” to endeavours such as tourism and thereby revealed how initiatives such as tourism development can be built on the oppression and exploitation of women. Margaret Swain edited a SI of Annals of Tourism on Gender in Tourism in 1995, marking a pivotal moment in tourism studies. Additionally, Sinclair (1997) edited a volume that examined the interfaces between gender, work and tourism through comparisons across international contexts to consider the ways in which tourism, patriarchal systems, and capitalism constrained and enabled women’s empowerment. The tourism literature during this time addressed issues such as: the inequalities of tourism development; gender in tourism experiences of both the tourists and the hosts; gender in marketing and representation; gender in sex tourism; gender and international political economy; and gender in tourism research. For Swain’s (1995) Gender in Tourism volume, gender referred to: “[…] a system of culturally constructed identities, expressed in ideologies of masculinity and femininity, interacting with socially constructed relationships in divisions of labour and leisure, sexuality, and power between women and men” (pp. 258–9).

Recent work on the tourism and gender interface focuses on gender and sexualities in tourism (Pritchard, 2007) or gender issues in the tourism academy (Chambers et al., 2017). Women in the tourism academy have gathered their voices using new technologies such as creative commons to co-author a report on the “gender gap” in the academy (Munar & Waiting for the Dawn, 2015) and to create social media networks such as “Women Academics in Tourism” on Facebook. There is much more focus needed on the gender in development segment and the knowledge gained from feminist activism to confront power if SDG 5 is to be realised within the domain of tourism development. More than two decades ago, Swain (1995) asserted that gender in tourism is “both a scholastic and a political endeavour” (p. 264). Realising SDG 5 requires renewed commitment on both fronts within the tourism academy.

A recent event suggests that the gender domain is a critical arena for action to attain sustainable development in tourism. In response to the 2017 International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development, the UNWTO set out key priorities for action addressing SDG 5 of a very limited nature: “gender analysis and monitoring of work conditions” and “training and capacity building for women and youth” (2017). This approach was criticised by the non-government organisation Equality in Tourism (EiN) who stated: “it depicts a limited framing of gender issues as related to economic empowerment, leaving out discussions of political empowerment and broader questions on structural inequalities” (2017). This NGO was established in 2014 to advocate for “gender equality in the tourism industry” and to “help ensure women enjoy an equal share in the tourism industry” (EiN, n.d.). Since its establishment, it has attempted to influence policy and has supported a small number of projects. Its criticism of the UNWTO’s engagement with SDG 5 suggests what a feminist approach offers in terms of guiding sustainability analysis to issues of power, justice and structural inequalities.

This SI presents three cutting-edge articles that advance critical thinking on gender, tourism and sustainable development. First, Moreno Alarcón and Cole highlight that gender issues are central to all 17 SDGs. Second, Khoo-Lattimore, Chiao, Yang and Sanggyeong Je offer a critical analysis of UNWTO planned events, finding that the tourism industry is missing out through the marginalisation of gender and diversity approaches; they question if the UNWTO may be engaging in “gender greenwashing”. Third, Kato uses feminist ecology in her study of women Japanese traditional divers and the ways they know and protect the marine environment and continue culture practices. Feminist approaches and gender analysis alert us to the need to think critically and seek out a diverse lens from which to view the tourism phenomenon.

Engaging with Indigenous perspectives and other paradigms

The problems that necessitate the SDGs and efforts to reorient the globe’s economies to more sustainable pathways may be attributed to the mono-cultural approach to modernisation and development since the 1960s (see Shiva, 1993). Mowforth and Munt (1998) described this as economic globalisation infiltrating and incorporating all countries into the global capitalist system. Transporting a host of negative impacts that collectively are catalysts to unsustainability; they demonstrated that tourism accompanies and supports this process (Mowforth & Munt, 1998). Analysts such as David Harvey have argued that the need for endless capital accumulation and economic growth is what drives the spread and imposition of this system, despite negative social, ecological, and political consequences (Harvey 2005, p.181).

As this capitalist form of globalisation was taking hold, simultaneously Indigenous Peoples from around the world had collectively acted to assert their rights through the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and other instruments (Blaser, 2004). Most had experienced the impacts of colonisation which may be viewed as the early beginnings of the western model of modernisation and development. As a result, Indigenous voices have marked a vocal point of resistance to imposition of this mono-cultural approach. Many Indigenous communities have confronted the unsustainable practices of modernising societies as their colonisation practices have inflicted dispossession and/or exploitation for several hundred years (Blaser, 2004). Resistance is more pronounced in recent, more resource-constrained times, including the iconic battle against oil pipelines such as at Standing Rock in the USA and against large dams in Brazil’s Amazonia, but also against tourism developments such as the recent struggle of the Maasai in Tanzania against land expropriation for foreign-owned game reserves (see Patinkin, 2013).

Indigenous approaches may also offer a positive alternative to the unsustainable trajectories of modernist development models. Mäori academic Stewart-Harawira (2005, pp. 250–251) argued that “a deep understanding of the interconnectedness of all existence is not only fundamental to Indigenous ontologies but has been empirically demonstrated in the studies of leading quantum physicists such as David Bohm”. Stewart-Harawira (2005) presented a sustained argument that traditional Indigenous ontologies can offer alternatives that could result in a transformed global order. Learning from her work, we would argue that Indigenous communities’ values and lifeways may better integrate many of the SDG goals as in Indigenous worldviews, people co-exist in webs of interrelationships and responsibilities to other people, other species and the total “environment”. These worldviews represent an alternative and a challenge to the myopic, instrumental and exploitative approach of globalising capitalism.

As more scientists and other experts have come to respect and value the accumulated wisdom of the millennia of insights Indigenous peoples have gathered, Indigenous knowledges, and particularly traditional ecological knowledges are increasingly being engaged in collaborative projects to address such issues as global environmental change (i.e. Whyte, 2013). However, it would be problematic for non-Indigenous experts to try to appropriate Indigenous knowledges and lifeways to resolve the ecological, social and even ontological crises that monolithic modernisation has brought to our societies. Indigenous peoples assert their Indigenous rights, including over Indigenous knowledges, and so the only appropriate way this knowledge can be tapped is through respectful collaborations that are developed through Indigenous processes and protocols (see UN, 2008).

The insights that may be gleaned from this analysis is that diversity is required for sustainable futures. Accordingly, respect for local rights and local lifeways are essential for building consensus and collaborations on pathways forward. We also note that Indigenous rights have manifested in the tourism phenomenon and provide important insights for the sustainable development of the industry. The case of the Kuna Indigenous peoples of Panama offer the lessons of a Statute on Tourism that stipulated the only tourism allowed in their communities would be controlled by and benefit the Kuna peoples (Snow & Wheeler, 2000). While not fully and effectively implemented in practice, this declaration of Kuna rights and authority has shown that Indigenous peoples can practice and participate in tourism in self-determining ways (Pereiro et al., 2012).

The values of other traditions and civilisations also play a role in challenging imposed, mono-cultural development models enacted in tourism. An early contribution was offered by Sohail Inayatullah (1995) who in his work on “rethinking tourism” offered an Islamic perspective on tourism. Another illustrative case is how the ‘fair trade in tourism’ phenomenon emerged in South Africa out of a black empowerment ethos underpinning the effort to build a post-Apartheid future for the country, and alleviate poverty (e.g. Boluk, 2011). Rural sociologist David Barkin has presented models of tourism development for Mexico that challenge the corporatised growth-pole strategies pursued by the Mexican government at destinations such as Cancun, including a strategy for rural tourism development based on engagement between rural communities and urban schools that assist in building rural-urban bonds and solidarity (2001). Barkin advocated a form of social tourism “more conducive to the country’s needs and to those of its people” and that can be “an instrument to promote decentralized development” (2001, p. 43). Such examples show how sustainable practices are fostered through diverse worldviews and paradigms and how local authority is essential in securing local needs through tourism. One of the most important developments which has emerged in part from Indigenous leadership is the growing recognition of the “rights of Mother Nature”. This gained global status with the “Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth” (2010) and is realising meaningful implementation in jurisdictions such as New Zealand (i.e. Daly, 2017) and most recently with a Sami Parliament (Sami Parliament of Sweden, 2018).

In this SI, the work presented by Stumpf and Cheshire provided rich insights into the Indigenous Micronesian views of land, relationships and community thereby revealing that Indigenous perceptions of poverty differ greatly from western views. Their findings established several disconnects between understandings of sustainable development and often held views on land as commodified physical spaces removed from cultural meaning which are important in Micronesian societies. Lyon and Hunter-Jones’ contribution provides a critical approach to examining discourses related to sustainable tourism development through the case of the Watersberg Biosphere Reserve in South Africa revealing that South Africa’s black population have still not been positioned as equals post-apartheid. They revealed how top-down decisions support unequal power dynamics impeding the realisation of sustainability.

Degrowth and the circular economy

There is a need to transform the dominant approach of infinite growth of consumption and production due to the impossibilities of operating within a finite Earth system. The neoliberal economic growth perspective is prevalent across many industries, including tourism. SDG 8 focuses on the promotion of “sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth”, along with an emphasis on “full and productive employment and decent work for all” (UN, 2019). While ongoing economic development is essential in many parts of the world for people to attain a decent standard of living, an overarching goal of continued growth is not possible based on ecosystem capacities. Target 8.4 recognises a need to “endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation” (UN, 2019) urging developed countries to take the lead. An addiction to growth has been identified as a central problem in tourism (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018).

Conceptualisations of post-capitalistic politics, degrowth and tourism can be linked through identifying the need to downsize global patterns of consumption and production (Büscher & Fletcher, 2017). Kallis et al. (2018) argues that the concept of degrowth is being increasingly utilised among scholars who debunk growth-based economic development. They also highlight the need for “radical political and economic reorganization” to enact reductions in resource and energy usage (Kallis et al., 2018, p. 291). Unsurprisingly, degrowth conflicts with the premises of SDGs 12, 8 and 14, which view growth as success.

A goal of critical citizenship is to create a society that questions and analyses consumption (Johnson & Morris, 2010). According to Salleh (2010), the pervasive drive toward growth-based economics is responsible for overconsumption and therefore, climate change and biodiversity loss are the direct products of capitalist overproduction. An emphasis on prioritising economic growth and acquisition of corporate wealth has superseded socio-cultural and environmental interests in communities, and biocultural conservation (Assadourian, 2012; Cavaliere, 2017a). Engaging with other worldviews can support understandings of economic alternatives to capitalism and “business as usual” approaches that are driving dynamics leading to biocultural extinction. Doing so can serve to encourage connection with the non-human world and progressive paradigms that support regeneration and biocultural conservation (Cavaliere, 2017b).

A critical examination of traditional market driven contexts entrenched in pro-growth rhetoric is essential for realising sustainable systems in the long-term. Thus, analysis of the current conceptualisation of responsible tourism can assist in diagnosing the issues of contemporary capitalism (Burrai, Buda & Stanford, this issue). Degrowth analysis suggests a need for focus instead on social system-based innovations that result in wellbeing (Hall & Gössling, 2013). Notions of new approaches to sustainable production and consumption from post-capitalist social movements is quintessential to making radical transitions for improved livelihoods (Cavaliere, 2017a). Authors within this SI have identified issues of contention arising from neoliberal agendas and discourses that define progress as synonymous with the growth-based economy (Robinson, this issue). Critical perspectives are offered that call for the recognition that the dominant environmental-economic narrative in relation to sustainability must be reconfigured to include focus on social sustainability (Robinson, this issue). Social equity, decent working conditions and quality jobs are required to alleviate poverty and promote sustainable livelihood development (Bramwell et al., 2017). A critical lens is required to more deeply understand how to achieve this as decoupled from a sole focus on economic growth.

Responsible consumption and production, a specific focus of SDG 12, are imbedded within the antithetical discourse promoting the continuation of the market driven neoliberal regime. Bramwell and Lane (2011) cautioned the weak support or acceptance of alternative policy paradigms that recognise different sustainability paradigms such as degrowth. In addition, many of the articles in this SI reveal the roles that leading international organisations, state agencies, destination managers, corporate actors and academic institutions play in reinforcing continual economic growth that is resulting in environmental and social devastation (Hall, 2019, this issue).

Shifts towards alternatives can be further understood through in-depth ecological impact analysis of the tourism system. The concept of bioregionalism is linked to wellbeing and notions of degrowth (Cavaliere, 2017a). Snyder (2010) noted that bioregionalism demonstrates ways that specific places ground understandings of the natural world and include elements such as biota, elevations and watersheds. A focus on locality is important in tourism research if the “cultural troupe of western ethnocentric perspectives are to be challenged, re-constituted and re-told” (Jamal & Hollinshead, 2001, p. 76). An additional lens to be considered involves the consideration of notions of biocapacity ( Zappile & Cavaliere, 2018). Biocapacity is another way of measuring the resources available to continue fulfilling human and socio-ecological needs. Ecological footprint and biocapacity provide an understanding of the supply and demand of the biosphere’s ecosystem services and can be “less biased than the monetary valuations, which are affected by market price variability and individuals’ preferences” (Mancini et al., 2018, p. 234).

Finally, we introduce the concept of the circular economy. This concept serves as acounter to the current approach of the linear economy, and describes the “redesign of processes and cycling of materials” (Murray, Skene and Haynes, 2017, p. 369). However, currently academic business and sustainable literature is not engaged in this discussion (Murray et al., 2017) and the concept of the circular economy has also been largely ignored by the tourism academy. Scheyvens et al. (2016) noted some inclusion of philosophical literature as related to the Chinese state-controlled economy however not so for business models in the Western free market economy. However, there are initial indications that there is an understanding of the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships for transitions to new economic approaches within the UN system. A joint meeting was held between experts from the Economic and Financial Committee of the United Nations General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to focus on accelerating implementations of multiple SDGs from 9 to 18 July 2018 (UNDESA, 2018). This meeting resulted from in-depth reviews of SDG 12 and 13 by the United Nations High-Level Political Forum. The outcomes from the meeting focused on the articulation of the transition to a circular economy (UNDESA, 2018). Attainment of sustainable tourism development will require ongoing critical engagement focused on challenging pro-growth dynamics and advocating for inclusion of multi-stakeholder perspectives.

Governance and planning

Tourism is now a globalised activity and so planning and governance have become more complicated. Tourism ranges from the local to the global, from the individual to the societal, and from the immediate impacts of activities to the longer terms of environmental change in the age of the Anthropocene. These temporal, geo-spatial and sociological aspects make tourism impacts a highly complex endeavour to address. Because of these complexities, a variety of paradigms or platforms have been applied to tourism analysis (see Macbeth, 2005). Additionally, systems thinking is an evolving approach to build understanding and enable better management (Hall, 2008).

The neoliberal ideologies and practices discussed in the preceding section have added to the complexity in efforts to implement sustainability. Neoliberalism promotes freeing the market from governmental regulation based on arguments that this results in greater economic efficiencies, maximisation of resource use and beneficial outcomes for all through a “trickle-down effect” of free enterprise. Harvey (2007) stated: “The corporatization, commodification, and privatization of hitherto public assets have been signal features of the neoliberal project” (p. 35). This has had particular impacts on tourism, for instance by transitioning national parks from dedication to conservation priorities and public benefit to commercialised tourism ones. Additionally, power is now more diffuse and so policy is no longer limited to “public policy”. As a result, Hall (2011) suggested there are now four categories of governance, ranging from political hierarchies (state governance), to markets (recognising the power of private economic actors and their associations), to networks (through public-private partnerships and associations), to communities (governance arising from the local level with direct public involvement). In Hall’s contribution to this SI, he examines the managerial ecology of tourism and the SDGs. He explains managerial ecology as involving: “the instrumental application of science and economic utilitarian approaches and in the service of resources utilization and economic development” (p. X). Such approaches offer little of the changes that are required to transition to more sustainable futures and underscore arguments that the SDG agenda allows for continuation of “business as usual” (Scheyvens et al., 2016).

However, extreme cases as found at the Galapagos Islands, Machu Picchu, Mount Everest, Majorca, Barcelona, and Venice have shown that regulation of tourism impacts is essential and that neoliberalism’s laissez faire approach to tourism management is not conducive to securing long-term sustainability. In 2017, cases of over-tourism became obvious and concerns grew about how to address such issues. Particular phenomena, such as Airbnb and Uber, representing the disruptive forces of technological change raised particular concerns for the negative impacts they might bring to destinations. Jurisdictions around the world are turning back to regulation to manage these tensions illuminated by the over-tourism phenomenon. Interventions have included: tourist information to change tourist behaviour, changes in zoning regulations, caps on visitation, tourist levies and even temporary closures. While neoliberalism has overseen a steady diminution of governments’ role in tourism governance and a concomitant expansion of private sector power, these recent developments suggest the pendulum may swing back again as governments are forced to again govern for the public good.

Additionally, a concern with the precarity of working conditions for the tourism and hospitality workforce is growing as market forces are driving structural changes that foster technological disruptions and a new “gig economy”, with Uber impacts creating a new concept of uberisation (Nurvala, 2015). There are movements to secure fair work, award rates and a living wage for the workers in the tourism and hospitality sector. One Australian report indicated that 84% of Australian fast food restaurants underpaid their workers (Crellin, 2016). This situation represents serious inequity in the tourism and hospitality spheres that undermine the sector’s contributions to sustainability and directly relate to SDG 8 focused on decent work and SDG 10 on reduced inequalities. Robinson’s article in this SI addresses issues of precarity for workers in tourism and hospitality. Furthermore, Winchenbach, Hanna and Miller offer conceptual explorations of the value of dignity and the importance of identity in tourism employment in this SI which builds understanding of what creates positive work in tourism.

Addressing such issues is a matter for tourism businesses and their commitments to implementing sustainability are of primary importance. Recent work by Campos, Hall, and Backlund (2018) addressed the role of powerful multinational corporations in implementing sustainable, fair and inclusive practices. Examining the case of one of the largest Scandinavian tour operators, Apollo, they argued:

Powerful players in the industry, such as large tour operators, have the ability to enable greater sustainability and more inclusive forms of tourism. But if more coercive institutional pressures, in the form of laws, regulations and incentives, are not enacted to accelerate this process, it risks perpetuating a limited adoption of inclusive practices in the mass tourism industry (p. 19).

There has been a growing realisation that tourism policy and planning research must become more attentive to power dynamics. Dredge and Jamal (2015) have advocated more critical deconstructions of the political and economic structures that shape tourism policy and planning. Higgins-Desbiolles (2018) has argued that the “structural context set by powerful corporations, subservient governments and consumerized citizenry needs to be understood” (p. 158). Jamal and Camargo (2018) have argued that justice is a “key principle of good governance” (p. 205). These works indicate that critically challenging power dynamics and pursuing shared decision-making are important aspects in the pursuit of sustainability.

Ethical consumption

SDG 12 focuses on responsible consumption and production patterns. SDG12 is one of only three SDGs (along with SDG 8 and SDG 14) explicitly recognising the role of the tourism industry. In fact, SDG 12 positions tourism as a leader suggesting that sustainability in tourism has implications for a global shift towards more sustainable practices. Perhaps echoing the absence of the tourism industry in the articulation of the 17 SDGs, limited evidence in the tourism scholarship identifies the industry as a trailblazer supporting sustainability. Rather, tourism is more commonly associated with trepidations regarding how it is practiced; this is articulated by Weeden and Boluk (2014) who argued despite the documentation of the negative impacts generated by tourism, neither producers nor consumers have responded convincingly to urgent responsibility concerns. Discussions of sustainability are often embedded in discussions of sustainable growth (Tyrvainen, Uusitalo, Silvennoinen, & Hasu, 2014). As aforementioned, conceptualisations and implementation of degrowth strategies present both opportunities and challenges that need to be critically considered.

Unambiguously, tourism sustainability has been discussed in the literature since initial concerns regarding carrying capacity (O’Reilly, 1986). Sustainability in tourism has not been addressed holistically as its emphasis is usually on greening efforts (which mutually recognise cost savings). In relation to SDG 12, contemporary consumption has been regarded as a source of harm and political practice (Harrison, Newholm, & Shaw, 2005). Evidence of impairment may be related to Marx’s (1867) notion of commodity fetishism, where consumers demonstrate limited knowledge of the goods they consume thus causing damage to environments, cultures, animals, and peoples. Commodity fetishism is recognised in the discourse of behavioural addiction specifically “binge flying”, reflecting the rising appetite for holidaying (Cohen, Higham, & Cavaliere, 2011). Supporting neoliberal rhetoric, tourism provides an opportunity to commodify and package experiences for the primary benefit of wealthy and privileged tourists; for example, touring Antarctica in an attempt to capture spaces of last chance tourism, touring the other in poverty porn through slum tourism, and child exploitation in “volunteer” capacities through orphanage tourism (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018, p. 158). Such examples draw attention to the superficial encounters and potential social-cultural damage created by the tourism industry. Drawing on Fiji as a case study, Scheyvens and Hughes (this SI) challenged the notion that tourism may be a vehicle to support sustainable development. Specifically, the authors examine some of the critiques of tourism as a tool for “end[ing] poverty in all its forms everywhere” as stipulated in SDG 1 and ultimately highlight that the eradication of poverty would require herculean efforts in an industry that caters to the hedonic interests of holiday seekers.

Newholm (2000) reminded us that individuals increasingly express their responsibility via their consumption and the related self-image construction resulting as this is one of society’s major time-consuming activities. As such, the above tourism experiences are often positioned and marketed as opportunities to conserve the environment and make a contribution to local communities which often times allows western travellers to position themselves as moral beings and/or reconcile their guilt (see Butcher, 2006).

In addition to commodity fetishism, a “bucket list” mentality of accumulating an impressive list of visited travel destinations has been documented in the literature. For example, McKay (2014) described a bucket list mentality in her interpretation of addicted or dedicated adventure rafters seeking ultimate white-water such as the Ash River in South Africa. Taylor, Grimwood, and Boluk (2018) argued that enhanced captive elephant welfare is hindered by Western tourists’ bucket list mentality in Thailand. Specifically, they identify the bucket list mentality as representing a narrow-mindedness among tourists to simply engage in experiences in order to tick them off their lists. Such lists then provide the impetus to act upon desires given that this is interpreted as the experience to engage in. This constructed discourse supports an egocentric mentality blocking the process of grappling with any critical concerns about the welfare impacts of their actions. Such examples of addictive behavioural tendencies recognise the hedonic behaviours asserted by Marx (1867) and adverse impacts for tourism.

There are examples however where consumers participate in driving alternative approaches by supporting businesses that implement sustainability. Higgins-Desbiolles and Wijesinghe’s contribution (this SI) addressed the ways restaurant patrons support sustainability agendas by choosing sustainable restaurants and how such restaurants support: “implementation of specific SDGs; using food as a way to unite and empower people; educating their stakeholders about environmental and community impacts of sustainability practices; and indeed, even critical questioning” (p.x) of sustainability. However, such restaurants still must support an economic bottom-line and the patrons are often engaging in prestige consumption so critical questioning of such transitions to ethical consumption remain essential.

Relationships between consumption and identity challenge the acceptance of sustainability in tourism. We are reminded of Mowforth and Munt’s (1998) argument that sustainable tourism was the industry’s way to rationalise the consumption of the environment, commodifying it for the tourists’ gaze and enforcing its preservation as an exclusive amenity for advantaged tourists. The discussion analysing consumption and production in the tourism industry highlights a lack of criticality in research addressing sustainability in tourism (Budeanu, Miller, Moscardo, & Ooi, 2016). These observed gaps provided the impetus to this SI, which inspired the collection of articles mobilising critical thinking as a way to assess current attainments in sustainability of tourism systems. In doing so, we seize the opportunity presented by the UN’s 2030 SDGs framework to consider the tourism industry as it currently is, and also what it could be.

Conclusion

As noted in the introduction to this article, McCloskey (2015) offered a considered critique of the failure of the MDGs which he attributed to a lack of critical consciousness to the structural contexts of poverty and under-development. His remedy was “development education” which would draw the public into the consideration of sustainability and the structural causes of poverty; entailing “persuading the development sector as a whole to take a larger view of the development process” (McCloskey, 2015, p. 192). He urged understanding of the structural impacts of neoliberalism rather than band-aid solutions of development aid. This work alerted us to the role of education in fostering transitions to sustainability as we applied a critical lens to the 2030 UN SDG agenda. McCloskey’s critique reinforces the necessity to situate our analyses of tourism within a wider context of holistic sustainable development and avoiding a myopic focus of merely sustaining tourism (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018).

This article has offered tools for critically thinking through the potential for the SDGs to help shape the tourism industry for more sustainable, equitable and just futures. We positioned six themes to serve as a conceptual framework for interrogating the SDG agenda in tourism. (1) Critical tourism scholarship is essential in fostering the critical thinking skills required to holistically interrogate tourism development. (2) Gender in development and feminism must underpin our work to empower women for equal contributions to all roles in tourism essential for co-creating sustainable futures. Feminist thinking also foregrounds issues of oppression and justice prompting us to ask critical questions of who benefits and who is excluded. (3) Indigenous and alternative paradigms bring other values to the fore and widen the array of possibilities we consider. (4) Degrowth and transitions to a circular economy presents alternative paradigms under development which provide evidence that there are viable alternatives to the pervasive pro-growth neoliberal model of capitalism. (5) Considerations of ethical consumption and production remind us that tourism is not only a business and development sector but also a moral sphere; accordingly, all stakeholders have ethical responsibilities that must be further examined. (6) Issues and mechanisms of governance are essential to shape tourism’s future into a form that is equitable, inclusive, just, ecologically compatible and thereby sustainable. Thus, our analysis indicates how this critical framework assists in interrogating and influencing the way the UN SDG agenda is enacted in the domain of tourism.

This SI presents cutting edge research from diverse contributing authors and perspectives that challenge us to deepen and widen our critical lens specifically as we strive to decouple the challenges, limitations, and opportunities in achieving the SDGs. We propose that one essential component to furthering sustainability is through the application of critical thinking within our multilateral covenants. This may allow for a propulsion toward transitions for sustainable livelihoods for all. In order to combat injustice, question positions of power, subvert corporate domination and give rights to those without voices (human and non-human) we must first challenge political and economic structures to circumvent business as usual approaches that currently control socio-ecological processes. This SI broadens the discussion and considerations of the role and value of critical thinking to further tourism sustainability via the SDGs.

Further research is required to deepen the understanding of how activating critical thinking could contribute to the redistribution of power, attaining equity, new economic paradigms and biocultural conservation that can enact benchmarking toward realising inclusive sustainability within the tourism system. While this SI is the first to call on scholars to consider how critical thinking may propel sustainability in tourism systems, in specific reflection of the UN’s 2030 SDGs, we do not expect, and indeed we hope, it will not be the last. With this SI, we would like to call on scholars to critically reflect on the SDGs and challenge how tourism may be a conduit for enhanced sustainability. Our intention is for this SI to inspire future empirical and philosophical inquiry into the role of critical thinking for furthering sustainability not only in relation to the UN SDG agenda but also beyond 2030. As demonstrated here, critical thinking enables interrogation of our assumptions of ways of being, knowing and doing tourism in order to envision radical pathways to a fairer and more sustainable future for all.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editors of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, and particularly Professor James Higham, for his support and guidance during the development of this Special Issue. We also thank the authors for their contributions and the many reviewers who provided their advice and expertise.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Karla A. Boluk

Karla A. Boluk , Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies in the Faculty of Applied Health Sciences at the University of Waterloo. Utilizing a critical lens, Karla’s scholarship investigates ways to sustainably engage and empower communities positioning tourism as a mechanism for the creation of positive change. Her main research interests explore the role of tourism systems in progressing sustainability, specifically the SDGs and investigating ways to activate critical thinking in students; preparing graduates as critical tourism change agents.

Christina T. Cavaliere

Christina T. Cavaliere , Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Hospitality and Tourism Management Studies at Stockton University. Christina is an environmental social scientist with expertise in international sustainable development specifically linking tourism and conservation. Her research interests include tourism and climate change, local economies, ecogastronomy, agritourism and critical pedagogy for sustainability.

Freya Higgins-Desbiolles

Freya Higgins-Desbiolles , Ph.D. is a Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management with the School of Management, University of South Australia. Her research and teaching has focused on policy and planning for sustainable tourism, Indigenous tourism, the rights of local communities in tourism and the impacts of tourism. She is a critical tourism scholar who seeks partnerships for engaged and impactful research. She is co-founder of the Tourism Alert and Action Forum, a member of the Trinet International Advisory Group and an affiliate of Equality in Tourism.