Does sustainability (still) matter in tourism (geography)

Globalization, consumption and sustainability

The future has been bothering the society since the beginning of time. However, nowadays a future oriented and sustainable development of humans and nature seems to be more endangered than ever. The complex processes of globalization and modernization are diffusing the so-called ‘Western’ life and consumer stiles, simultaneously changing the behaviors and value systems of people worldwide. Tourism is an essential driver of these developments and the interconnectedness of global information and (tourism) trade is harmonizing markets and is dictated by the (neoliberal) economy. This global ‘horse-trade’ shows clear impacts on the tourism systems: the dynamic increase of consumption and the competition between destinations takes place at a global level, the material (resources) and immaterial (humans) lifelines of local societies are overused and exploited – cheap resources and labor are the basis of the global growth paradigm. The winners are focusing on the production of consumer goods, new excitements and permanent growth; the losers are found in those regions – mainly, but not only in countries of the Global South – where humans and resources are exploited at the economic, social and health related expense of the local population.

The Grand Challenges and the specific structural constraints of our knowledge society (information overflow, technology dependence, neoliberalism, use/abuse of power, conflict of interests, etc.) are requiring new concepts and new strategies. Since decades, sustainability is the catchphrase, but it is also one of the most controversially used and discussed terms in civil society and is furthermore a conceptually fragile construct in science. Not only, but especially in the context of a sustainable development of tourism, new behaviors and value systems are crucial for a change towards resilience, transition and transformation in tourism and consequently are essential for integrative, transdisciplinary and sustainability oriented tourism research.

Tourism geography as sustainability forerunner

Tourism geography (human- and nature-oriented) with its long tradition in researching human's activities, behaviors and impacts in place, time and space in a holistic way can be seen as one of the forerunners of the sustainability discussion (Butler, 1999; Place, Hall, & Lew, 1998). Like in many disciplines, sustainability has been challenged in tourism development and research with a wide range of themes and approaches (see overviews in more recent encyclopedias: Cater, Garrod, & Low, 2015; Jafari & Xiao, 2016).

However, when using the sustainability concept to solve global/regional challenges, it is obvious that sustainability is an emotionally ambivalent issue, depending on individual and collective value systems. Sustainability is often a ‘versus’ to actual challenges: e.g. sustainability versus political systems/power; sustainability versus economic growth and consumption; sustainability versus technological progress; sustainability versus resource (over)use; sustainability versus transport (mobility); sustainability versus population development; sustainability versus exclusion; sustainability versus ethics and morale, etc. Therefore, we mostly focus on partial systems and achieve incomplete solutions. Taking sustainability serious in a tourism context means to strongly incorporate individual values, value systems and the change of values towards sustainability into tourism research and development.

More recently resilience thinking was integrated into tourism concepts (Lew, 2014). Sustainability (mitigates change and long-term transformation) and resilience (adapts to change by short-term, incremental adaptations) can be seen as complementary, sharing some principles and objectives. Resilience concepts seem to be more flexible approaches to socio-ecological change in tourism planning and development. But in this context, two questions remain: To what status do we need to adapt when we consider the high economic resilience of the global tourism system? And, besides continuous commercial growth (despite of major crises) do we globally recognize any remarkable social and/or environmental improvements in tourism development?

Sustainability and tourism – a contradiction?

At a first glance, sustainability and tourism evidently are a contradiction, a fiction. Flying into holiday destinations, living in an (over)built environment, (over)using resources, destroying nature – is this sustainable? On the other hand: why should we care for the environment and for our hosts when we are on holidays, we want to break and enjoy. But these arguments are too simple, we need to use diverse perspectives and we need to accept different concepts:

• Different forms of mass tourism are based on the short time logics of the globalized economy (e.g. when even slum tourism is praised as a possibility to strengthen the economy of the respective neighborhood – who is profiting?).

• Different forms of sustainable tourism are focusing on holistic approaches including the reduction of socio-economic disparities, protection of natural resources and the improvement of human life. When we assume that sustainable tourism development is a permanent process which is following the claim for sustainability step-by-step, we can argue that – if stakeholder and the civil society are supportive – even in mass tourism destinations sustainable development can be incrementally implemented.

So far the analysis of established and institutionalized methods for the implementation of sustainability in tourism has shown only minor integration of sustainability in approaches, programs and methods for planning, applying, monitoring and evaluating tourism developments. Despite numerous international conferences and political declarations we can state a weak global consensus about the principles, goals and guidelines for sustainable tourism. This is caused by interpreting or often misinterpreting sustainability. Often the term is abused for individual benefit and profit (greenwashing). Despite of this critique, we can state that already the public debate about sustainability issues and some initiatives in mass tourism destinations can be seen as progress – we need to be modest. The discussion about policy papers, initiatives (GSTC: Global Sustainable Tourism Council), different certificates, etc. is leading to a rethinking process among tourism stakeholders. Additionally, the pressure of the local population is resulting in more participation and new governance processes. This is the case especially in regions where capacity overloads of the natural and living environment are leading to conflicts, where conflicting land use and an overheated real estate market are creating resistance, and, as a curiosity, where the effects of mass tourism are interfering with the subjective well-being and the recreational visions of the guests. There we are in need of locally adjusted, specific and integrative concepts to review the negative effects and the disparities without compromising the requirement of mass tourism – profit-maximizing – so that mass tourism does not ultimately destroy mass tourism.

If the predominant neoliberal economic order in tourism will prevail, many ‘sustainable tourism offers’ of today are endangered. The majority of guests, coming from the Global North, are depending on the services of (transnational) tour operators, hotel chains and air carriers – consequently many (sustainable) tourism destinations, mostly in the Global South, are dependent. The result is an obedience to the global tourism industry which is acting in a surplus supply market, leading to low-price strategies and short-term competitive advantages without caring for a long-term and balanced tourism development in destinations. When tourism destinations are exhausted or have reached the maturity in the product cycle, new destinations and offers are entering the market. The responsibility of the global tourism industry for regions is lacking despite the fact that they are acting with their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) attitudes. But especially the global acting tourism companies could be the facilitator between the guests (as consumers) and the hosts (as producers) and could initiate and intensify awareness raising and change in behavior in favor of more sustainable tourism activities. Diverse approachesfor a more sustainable tourism development exist, so we can state: the process is initiated and has to be continued and strengthened.

Additionally there is also a responsibility and the need for a distinct support by political decision-makers in favor of local and alternative initiatives . The point is that they are carrying the disadvantage of smaller income effects and eventually less image. Therefore these political decisions require courageousness for more risk and critique – and eventually only success in a long-term run.

Change towards sustainable tourism means change in value systems

A framework for the development of sustainable tourism destinations was already developed by Farrell and Twining-Ward in 2005, indicating that sustainability in tourism (howsoever we define this in different living environments and regions) can only be achieved by perpetual transition processes, by adaptation and mitigation of local systems to improve the ecological and human/social well-being – ‘sustainable development, the never ending story!’

The crucial issue is the integration of natural and human systems by combining natural resources with local structures, especially human behaviors and actions along the tourism value chain. A holistic development of tourism destinations is the key – guests also perceive destinations as a scenery (according to their values and imaginations) and do not differentiate between nature, culture, tradition, etc.

This is the point where the hosts come into play: A holistic approach towards ‘sustainable’ change and ‘sustainable’ transition is grounded on the identity, the value systems and the capabilities as well as the needs of the local population. The ‘Logics of Sustainability’ (Zimmermann & Zimmermann-Janschitz, 2018) are illustrating the role of the logical levels of thinking and acting in development and decision processes (Dilts, 1996). Applied to sustainable tourism development, we can argue that a hierarchical sequence of thinking is determining our acting: (1) The basis of our life are our environmental constraints (natural resources, human potentials). (2) We operate on these constrictions by ecologic sustainability, e.g. by the reduction of resource use through our behavior (e.g. regulative policies, awareness raising, tourism labels, etc.). (3) Our behavior is guided by our capabilities which are affecting the institutional sustainability like democracy, social responsibility, CSR in tourism. (4) Our capabilities are organized by our belief systems. For example, economic sustainability needs behavioral changes which are mostly based upon changes of beliefs (from growth paradigms to trust-based tourism networks or community cooperation). (5) Our beliefs are organized by values and identity. Social sustainability, e.g. participation, empowerment and inclusion, is targeting the transformation of beliefs and value systems in tourism societies which is finally leading to new/transformed identities. Only by applying these logical levels in tourism development processes a new orientation focusing on sustainable transformation can occur.

It is clear that the logics of sustainability approach for research in tourism under the guiding principles of sustainability is neither a fast nor an easy methodological option for transformation processes. But it is also obvious that only a change of our values and value systems can guarantee a sustainable future for our society and our planet – and especially tourism geography could contribute a lot. The concept is targeting those tourism geographers who want to contribute to a respectful, humane, value-based and transdisciplinary research and who do not see the ultimate goal of research in ‘analyzing, constructing and optimizing a spatial order’ (Janschitz & Zimmermann, 2010).