Description
To provide training exercises that will help tourism planners and analysts better
understand the fundamentals of tourism sustainability and dynamics.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Management exercises and trainer's note in sustainable tourism and dynamics
Robert J . J ohnston Timothy J . Tyrrell
Article information:
To cite this document:
Robert J . J ohnston Timothy J . Tyrrell, (2007),"Management exercises and trainer's note in sustainable
tourism and dynamics", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 Iss 4 pp.
328 - 337
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180710824217
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:04 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 8 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1233 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Carmen Padin, (2012),"A sustainable tourism planning model: components and relationships", European
Business Review, Vol. 24 Iss 6 pp. 510-518http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341211270528
Erick T. Byrd, (2007),"Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying
stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development", Tourism Review, Vol. 62 Iss 2 pp. 6-13 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605370780000309
Lóránt Dávid, (2011),"Tourism ecology: towards the responsible, sustainable tourism future", Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 210-216http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17554211111142176
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Management exercises
and trainer’s note in sustainable
tourism and dynamics
Robert J. Johnston
Department of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics,
University of Connecticut, Groton, Connecticut, USA, and
Timothy J. Tyrrell
School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University,
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Abstract
Purpose – To provide training exercises that will help tourism planners and analysts better
understand the fundamentals of tourism sustainability and dynamics.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is organized as a presentation of tools and conceptual
models, followed by associated training exercises and answers. The ?rst exercise addresses basic
concepts of sustainability as applied to tourism development. The second addresses the use of phase
diagrams to illustrate the dynamic behavior and change of tourism-related economic and
environmental conditions over time.
Findings – Operational de?nitions of sustainable tourism generally are consistent with a wide
variety of outcomes for a tourist destination. Exercises demonstrate that operational de?nitions of
tourism sustainability require numerous choices and tradeoffs, and are more complex than is
suggested by common discourse.
Practical implications – Given that the most desirable sustainable outcomes for tourism differ
across groups, the search for sustainable tourism outcomes must combine environmentally
sustainable outcomes (which are often many) with socially acceptable compromise solutions that
lie somewhere between the optima for each distinct group. No amount of searching, bargaining, or
stakeholder education will reveal a universal sustainable solution that maximizes bene?ts to all
affected groups. In the vast majority of cases no optimal solution exists.
Originality/value – The paper provides tools and conceptual frameworks that characterize potential
con?icts, hazards, and tradeoffs implicit in the choice among different sustainable or non-sustainable
outcomes for tourism.
Keywords Training, Tourism management, Sustainable development
Paper type Case study
Introduction
The Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)
provides perhaps the most widely recognized de?nition of sustainable development:
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.” This de?nition suggests relatively
undisputed social goals, and an ability to agree on policies that meet, for example the
needs of the present. However, nearly all public policies create both winners and losers.
Rarely does perfect agreement exist on those policies that are most appropriate for
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6182.htm
IJCTHR
1,4
328
Received March 2007
Revised April 2007
Accepted June 2007
International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 1 No. 4, 2007
pp. 328-337
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6182
DOI 10.1108/17506180710824217
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
satisfying present needs, much less those that ful?ll the complete Brundtland
de?nition.
In contrast, operational de?nitions of sustainable tourism generally are consistent
with a wide variety of outcomes for a tourist destination. This reality can lead to
controversy regarding which version of sustainable tourism a region wishes to pursue.
Con?icts regarding the potential goals of sustainable tourism imply that the concept
alone does not convey suf?cient information to de?ne policy. Operational de?nitions
of tourism sustainability require details regarding what elements are to be sustained,
the level at which these elements should be sustained, and the stakeholder groups
whose bene?ts should be considered (Pezzey, 1997). For example, one may seek to
sustain the number of visitors, the size of industry pro?ts, the quality of some or all
environmental resources, the quality of the tourist experience, the number of tourist
jobs, the quality of life of local residents, or some combination of these and other
elements. These objectives are unlikely to be sustained simultaneously.
The following training exercises and accompanying text are designed to provide a
better understanding of tourism sustainability and dynamics. The ?rst exercise
addresses concepts of sustainability as applied to tourism development. The second
addresses the use of phase diagrams to illustrate the dynamic behavior and change of
tourism-related economic and environmental conditions over time, as related to
sustainable tourism outcomes. Together, they illustrate ?ndings relevant to the search
for sustainable tourism, and characterize potential con?icts, hazards, and tradeoffs
implicit in the choice among different sustainable or non-sustainable futures. They also
illustrate that operational de?nitions of tourism sustainability require numerous
choices, and are more complex than is suggested by common discourse and much of
the tourism literature.
Tourism sustainability
An environmentally sustainable optimum is a desired outcome’s maximum level (e.g.
economic pro?ts, quality of life) that may be maintained in a steady-state solution,
subject to constraints imposed by the environment. Drawing from this concept, optimal
environmentally sustainable tourism implies a primary emphasis on maintaining a
certain level of environmental quality. This emphasis notwithstanding,
environmentally sustainable tourism is impossible without both a sustainable
environment and a viable tourism industry. For example, zero visitors to a pristine
natural area are likely an environmentally sustainable outcome – however this
scenario is a largely trivial result for tourism. Sustainable outcomes that are optimal
from the perspective of various stakeholder groups, in contrast, require that one ?nd an
appropriate and sustainable balance between the bene?ts of tourism and
environmental quality. The search for this balance often is complicated by the
relationship between visitors and environmental quality – while visitors are often
attracted by pristine environments, they often degrade the very environments they
seek out.
Another issue is that different groups may view different outcomes as optimal when
considering sustainable tourism policies. For example, permanent residents may
bene?t from tourism income, jobs, and tax revenue (Haralambopolous and Pizam,
1996), but they often react negatively towards such factors as tourism-related
congestion, environmental degradation, and noise, as well as exclusion from the use of
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
329
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
natural resources or infrastructure of?cially or de facto reserved for visitors (Cohen,
2002; Kaynak and Marandu, 2006; Mason and Cheyne, 2000). Hence, residents’ goals
for tourism often differ from those of the tourism industry, such that sustainable
solutions that are most desirable for the tourism industry are not the same as those that
are most desirable for local residents. A common pattern is that residents realize
greater negative effects or costs related to tourism, such that the sustainable optima for
residents often involves fewer tourists than the industry desires.
Given that the most desirable sustainable outcomes differ across groups, the search
for sustainable tourism outcomes must combine environmentally sustainable
outcomes (which are often many) with socially acceptable compromise solutions that
lie somewhere between the optima for each distinct group. In nearly every case, a
universal sustainable optimum does not exist for visitor numbers. No amount of
searching, bargaining, or stakeholder education will reveal a single sustainable
solution that maximizes pro?ts to industry and utility to residents. In the vast majority
of cases such an optimal solution does not exist. The search for sustainability implies
that at least one group will be worse off, compared to their most preferred
environmentally sustainable outcome. Hence, even if a tourist destination is at an
environmentally sustainable, optimal solution from the perspective of one group,
political pressure from other groups may force departure from that point. Moreover,
other goals, such as sustainable growth in pro?ts or quality of life, may not be
compatible with environmental sustainability and are likely non-attainable – at least
given ?xed technology.
Understanding paths to sustainable outcomes: the phase diagram
Phase diagrams are a common means to illustrate optimal solutions to dynamic
problems. This technique may be used to help model potential tradeoffs involved in the
search for sustainable tourism outcomes. Phase diagrams are like road maps. Each
point on the map lies on some optimal route that might be taken between places. The
latitude and longitude on the map are the values of two variables over space. When
used to characterize economic, biological or other dynamics, phase diagrams typically
illustrate the movement of interrelated variables over time. They help predict and
understand the movement of dynamic systems, and can help characterize potential
tradeoffs implicit in the choice among different sustainable or unsustainable
trajectories.
In typical applications, phase diagrams illustrate dynamic patterns using two loci
(collections of points typically drawn as a line or curve) that characterize change in a
state variable and a control variable. The state variable represents the current quantity
of some variable of interest (e.g. the size of a stock of ?sh, or the level of some
measure of environmental quality). The control variable characterizes the quantity of
some periodic activity that somehow in?uences the state variable, often in return for
some bene?t (e.g. the quantity of ?sh harvest per year, or the number of tourists per
day). The relationship between the state and control variable determines movement
along some optimal path towards, or away from, steady-state sustainable optima – or
sustainable solutions that maximize the bene?ts of one or more groups over time. The
basic idea is that a decision maker chooses the level of the control variable in each
period to maximize some objective. For example, a tourism manager might choose the
number of visitors per year to maximize industry pro?ts over time. This choice must
IJCTHR
1,4
330
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
re?ect unavoidable (and mathematically speci?ed) relationships and tradeoffs between
the control variable (e.g. visitors) and the state variable (e.g. environmental quality).
These relationships may be speci?ed based on researcher assumptions or on patterns
estimated using empirical data.
A simple tourism example
Figure 1 shows a simple phase diagram showing the relationships between
environmental quality (X) and the number of visitors per year (V) in a tourist
destination. The phase diagram’s pattern is derived from an underlying set of assumed
mathematical functions, such as those described by Johnston and Tyrrell (2005). These
relationships show linked changes in visitor numbers and environmental quality that
are consistent with choices that would maximize the discounted sum of net tourism
bene?ts to a particular group – here the tourism industry. A similar example can be
illustrated for permanent residents of a tourist region. The example’s speci?c details
are not particularly important here, but the basic idea is each visitor provides bene?ts
to the tourism industry, but also “uses up” a small amount of environmental quality.
As environmental quality degrades, however, each visitor is willing to pay less to visit.
Environmental quality renews itself, but only slowly. The question is how to choose
the number of visitors each period to maximize long-term discounted net bene?ts, in
this case to the tourism industry. This solution is shown by the phase diagram for a
simpli?ed example.
As Figure 1 shows, optimal tourism choices are determined by functions which
show the change in environmental quality and visitors over time. The relationship
describing the per-period change in environmental quality (X) combines the negative
in?uence of visitors (V) and the positive in?uence of natural renewal. The variable
_
X
indicates the resulting net change in environmental quality from period to period,
Figure 1.
Phase diagram
for environmentally
sustainable tourism:
steady-state and optimal
paths
X=0
.
V=0
.
A
B C
F
X
1
E
Visitors (V)
Environmental
Quality (X)
D
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
331
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
which may be positive, negative, or zero (the dot ( · ) represents a partial derivative of X
with respect to time). Sustainability of environmental quality occurs when no change
occurs over time ð
_
X ¼ 0Þ: This position represents a balance between natural renewal
and visitor damage. Each point along the
_
X ¼ 0 curve in Figure 1 shows a sustainable
pair of visitation and environmental quality levels. Any position above this curve
(e.g. point A) represents conditions in which visitor damage exceeds natural renewal –
hence environmental quality will degrade over time. Points below this curve
(e.g. point B) represent conditions in which natural renewal exceeds visitor damage –
hence environmental quality will improve over time. Only along the
_
X ¼ 0 curve will
natural renewal exactly offset visitor damage – a sustainable balance for
environmental quality.
The second curve on the graph characterizes the change in visitors over time that is
consistent with the maximization of tourism industry pro?ts. Curve
_
V shows the
change in visitors consistent with maximization of the present value of net pro?ts for
the tourism industry. This line re?ects mathematically how visitor numbers would be
ideally changed (i.e. in a way that maximizes the discounted sum of pro?ts) by the
tourism industry at any point in time, given speci?c starting combinations of visits and
environmental quality. The
_
V ¼ 0 curve shows locations where the optimal choice by
industry is to leave the number of visitors unchanged from one period to the next. Only
along this curve will there be no incentive for industry to either increase or decrease
visitors. Hence, the
_
V ¼ 0 curve shows sustainable locations with regard to the number
of visitors.
Sustainable solutions are characterized by zero changes over time in both
environmental quality (X) and the number of visitors (V) – solutions where both
_
X ¼ 0
and
_
V ¼ 0: The points where these two curves cross thus represent steady-state,
sustainable solutions for tourism, from the perspective of industry.
The joined arrows on the phase diagram show the direction of movement in both
visitors and environmental quality, based on the relationships described above. They
show where the system will move from one period to the next. Only from certain
starting points will optimal industry choices lead to sustainable solutions. For
example, the arrows in the ?gure’s upper left hand quadrant show that starting in this
location (say point A), the pro?t maximizing choices of industry leads to long-run
declines in the environment (X) and increases in ever lower-paying visitors (V) – an
unsustainable trajectory. However, starting at a point such as F, the optimal trajectory
results in fewer visitors and a gradual decline in environmental quality until
sustainable point C is reached. At this point both
_
X ¼ 0 and
_
V ¼ 0; so there are no
additional changes in either visitors or environmental quality over time. This solution
is a sustainable outcome that maximizes bene?ts to the tourism industry. Additional
details of this particular example are given by Johnston and Tyrrell (2005). Another
example of phase diagrams in an assessment of tourism sustainability is provided by
Casagrandi and Rinaldi (2002). This simple example illustrates ways in which such
dynamic models can help tourism planners to predict future outcomes, better
understand currently observed patterns, and identify optimal paths to sustainable
outcomes.
IJCTHR
1,4
332
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Training exercises for tourism research analysts and managers
The following training exercises are designed to help tourism managers and analysts
better understand the fundamentals of tourism sustainability and dynamics, both from
a conceptual and dynamic perspective. The ?rst set of exercises addresses
fundamental aspects of tourism sustainability, including outcomes and de?nitions
that are and are not implied by the concept of environmentally sustainable tourism.
The second set addresses the use of phase diagrams as a tool to model and
conceptualize optimal work of Johnston and Tyrrell (2005) and the discussion above.
Each set of exercises is comprised of four multiple choice questions followed by an
advanced training question. Answers, discussion, and trainer’s notes follow in a
subsequent section.
Training exercise one: tourism sustainability
(1) Operational de?nitions of tourism sustainability require decisions regarding of
which of the following?
.
What elements are to be sustained?
.
The level at which certain elements should be sustained.
.
Stakeholder groups whose bene?ts should be considered.
.
All of the above.
(2) Optimal sustainable tourism outcomes will likely differ across different
stakeholder groups because:
.
Visitors tend to degrade the environment of tourist destinations.
.
The bene?ts and costs of tourism differ across stakeholder groups.
.
The tourism industry is commonly shortsighted.
.
All of the above.
(3) The Brundtland report:
.
Provides a detailed template for sustainable tourism.
.
Demonstrates that it is possible to ?nd a single sustainable solution that
maximizes bene?ts to a wide range of stakeholder groups.
.
Provides de?nitions of sustainability that imply relatively undisputed social
goals.
.
Demonstrates why it is practically impossible to obtain environmentally
sustainable tourism.
(4) Which of the following could be considered an environmentally sustainable
optimum for tourism?
.
Maximumsteady-state industry pro?ts that, are consistent with maintaining
a chosen level of environmental quality.
.
Maximum steady-state quality of life for local residents that is consistent
with maintaining a chosen level of environmental quality.
.
Maximum steady-state number of tourism jobs that is consistent with
maintaining a chosen level of environmental quality.
.
All of the above, but it is unlikely that all may be sustained simultaneously.
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
333
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
(5) Advanced training exercise. Renewable resources are those that renew
themselves or grow over time (e.g. ?sh, or forests). Non-renewable resources
do not renew themselves over time (e.g. copper in a mine). Does the above
discussion of sustainability imply that degraded environmental resources (e.g.
by tourist visitors) are renewable or non-renewable? Explain your answer in a
brief paragraph of 4-6 sentences.
Training exercise two: phase diagrams and tourism dynamics
(1) Which of the following statements is supported by the phase diagram in
Figure 1?
.
Choices made by a pro?t-maximizing industry planner will never lead to
sustainable environmental outcomes.
.
Choices made by a pro?t-maximizing industry planner will always lead to a
decline in environmental quality over time.
.
Choices made by a pro?t-maximizing industry planner can lead to
sustainable outcomes, depending on initial levels of visitors and
environmental quality.
.
An economic incentive always exists for a pro?t-maximizing industry
planner to increase the number of visitors.
(2) Based on patterns shown in the phase diagram (Figure 1), what will happen if
one starts at point E?
.
Initially, visitors will increase and environmental quality will increase.
.
Initially, visitors will increase and environmental quality will decrease.
.
Initially, visitors will decrease and environmental quality will decrease.
.
Initially, visitors will decrease and environmental quality will increase.
(3) Which one of the following starting points of visitors and environmental quality
leads to a sustainable, steady-state outcome?
.
A
.
B
.
D
.
F
(4) The phase diagram predicts that incentives for immediate decreases in visitors
and environmental quality will occur in which quadrant of the graph?
.
Upper left hand quadrant.
.
Upper right hand quadrant.
.
Lower left hand quadrant.
.
Lower right hand quadrant.
(5) Advanced training exercise. Assume that environmental quality begins at level
X
1
on the phase diagram in Figure 1. In a short paragraph (3-6 sentences),
describe the path of visitors and environmental quality that will both maximize
bene?ts and lead to a sustainable, steady-state outcome.
IJCTHR
1,4
334
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Trainer’s note: discussion and solutions
Together, the two sets of training exercises are designed to convey a more nuanced
understanding of tourism sustainability and analysis among practitioners. The
purpose of the ?rst set of exercises is to dispel common misconceptions regarding
tourism sustainability, and to promote a more formal understanding of the concept and
the tradeoffs it implies. Correct answers are as follows:
.
d
.
b
.
c
.
d
.
The above discussion assumes that the resources upon which tourism depends
are renewable to some degree. Non-renewable resources in general do not
support steady-state (sustainable) solutions. The reason is because
non-renewable resources, if used at all, are eventually depleted, such that
“sustainable” use of non-renewable resources is not possible. Sustainable
outcomes can occur if one allows for renewable “backstop” resources that replace
non-renewable resources once depletion is imminent, or if there is substitution
between natural and man-made capital. These cases, however, do not involve
sustainable use of the original resource, but replacement of the resource at it
diminishes with renewable resources or capital.
Of particular emphasis in the ?rst set of exercises is a recognition that many outcomes
are consistent with the notion of tourism sustainability, and that user groups likely will
disagree as to the most optimal of these potential outcomes. A single sustainable
outcome viewed as optimal by all affected groups (e.g. the tourism industry, local
residents) rarely exists. These issues are highlighted in questions 1, 2 and 4.
Furthermore, as emphasized by the correct answer to question 3, this critical
recognition is often missing from political discourse in tourism sustainability, as
re?ected in commonly-cited de?nitions such as that provided by the Brundtland
Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
The ?fth question underscores yet another aspect of sustainability often overlooked
by policymakers – the depletion of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels,
minerals, and some groundwater resources is not consistent with environmentally
sustainable tourism. If non-renewable resources are somehow replaced with renewable
substitutes or man-made capital (often called backstop technologies), then sustainable
outcomes may be possible in the long run. The depletion of non-renewable natural
capital, however, is not sustainable. A long-term vision for sustainable tourism must
therefore rely on resources that are renewable to some degree, or provide for the
replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable backstops.
The second set of exercises is meant to provide insight into the use of quantitative
tools – here phase diagrams – to explore dynamic paths towards (and away from)
potential sustainable outcomes. Phase diagrams are common tools in many areas of
research inquiry in which sustainability is a goal, but have only recently been applied
to tourism analysis (Casagrandi and Rinaldi, 2002; Johnston and Tyrrell, 2005).
Questions and answers are designed to help tourism analysts interpret simple phase
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
335
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
diagrams, and appreciate the potential for tourism applications. Correct answers to the
?ve questions are as follows:
(1) c
(2) a
(3) d
(4) b
(5) Starting at environmental quality X
1
, the optimal starting point for visitors is at
point E. Subsequent periods are characterized by a gradual increase in both
visitor numbers and environmental quality along the dashed line, until point C
is reached. Point C is a steady-state optimum, at which the bene?t-maximizing
strategy is zero change in visitors and environmental quality over time.
One of the most essential and often misunderstood aspects of a phase diagram such as
that Figure 1 shows is that all paths shown on the diagram are optimal, in that they
represent dynamic, bene?t-maximizing strategies from any given starting point.
However, only a limited number of these paths will lead to steady-state, or sustainable,
outcomes in which renewal of natural resources exactly offsets tourism-related
diminishment. As a result, the actions of an planner seeking to maximize the sum of
discounted industry pro?ts may lead to a sustainable outcome, but this result depends
critically on the starting point of visitors and environmental quality (see answer to
question 1). Hence, one option for planners seeking to encourage sustainable tourism is
to ensure that the starting point is such that sustainability becomes an optimal
solution.
Depending on where one starts on the phase diagram (representing stylized
conditions in an actual tourist destination), along the optimal path incentives may
cause the number of visitors and environmental quality to increase, decrease or remain
unchanged. Any combination is possible, depending on the starting point. For
example, starting at point E in Figure 1, the optimal path leads upward and to the right
– an optimal trajectory characterized by increases in both environmental quality and
visitor numbers until steady state C is reached. At steady-state point C, the optimal
strategy is to maintain both visitors and environmental quality at existing levels – a
sustainable steady state (see answers to questions 2 and 5). Aside from point E, there is
only one other point identi?ed on the diagram that leads to the single steady state
outcome C. This position is point F, where the optimal trajectory leads downward and
to the left, with decreases in both visitors, and environmental quality (see answers to
questions 3 and 4). Note that many other non-labeled points also would lead to the
same steady state outcome. For example, optimal paths from any point along the bold
dashed lines between E, F and C will lead to the same steady state (i.e. to C). However,
of those points labeled on the graph, only paths from E and F do so.
Conclusion
Operational de?nitions of tourism sustainability do not always correspond with the
more vague notions of sustainability prevalent in the tourism literature. Nonetheless,
these de?nitions are consistent with a wide variety of tourist destination outcomes.
These exercises illustrate ways to characterize potential con?icts, hazards, and
tradeoffs implicit in the choice among different sustainable or non-sustainable
IJCTHR
1,4
336
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
outcomes for tourism. The underlying models are not the sole way that such analytic
tools may be applied to sustainable tourism issues. Rather, the current approaches are
presented as templates – alternatives that may be added to the toolbox available to
those assessing tradeoffs in sustainable tourism. The exercises are intended to provide
a preliminary step towards greater structure and clarity in the discussion of tourism
sustainability – a means to incorporate guiding structure to an area of debate often
characterized by a lack of theoretical and conceptual clarity.
References
Casagrandi, R. and Rinaldi, L. (2002), “A theoretical approach to tourism sustainability”,
Conservation Ecology, Vol. 6, pp. 13-27.
Cohen, E. (2002), “Authenticity, equity and sustainability in tourism”, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Vol. 10, pp. 267-76.
Haralambopolous, N. and Pizam, A. (1996), “Perceived impacts of tourism: the case of Samos”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23, pp. 503-26.
Johnston, R.J. and Tyrrell, T.J. (2005), “A dynamic model of sustainable tourism”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 44, pp. 124-34.
Kaynak, E. and Marandu, E.E. (2006), “Tourism market potential analysis in Botswana: a Delphi
study”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, pp. 227-37.
Mason, P. and Cheyne, J. (2000), “Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism development”, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, pp. 391-411.
Pezzey, J.C. (1997), “Sustainability constraints versus ‘optimality’ versus intertemporal concern,
and axioms versus data”, Land Economics, Vol. 73, pp. 448-66.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Corresponding author
Robert J. Johnston can be contacted at: [email protected]
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
337
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_426903821.pdf
To provide training exercises that will help tourism planners and analysts better
understand the fundamentals of tourism sustainability and dynamics.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Management exercises and trainer's note in sustainable tourism and dynamics
Robert J . J ohnston Timothy J . Tyrrell
Article information:
To cite this document:
Robert J . J ohnston Timothy J . Tyrrell, (2007),"Management exercises and trainer's note in sustainable
tourism and dynamics", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 Iss 4 pp.
328 - 337
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180710824217
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:04 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 8 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1233 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Carmen Padin, (2012),"A sustainable tourism planning model: components and relationships", European
Business Review, Vol. 24 Iss 6 pp. 510-518http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341211270528
Erick T. Byrd, (2007),"Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying
stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development", Tourism Review, Vol. 62 Iss 2 pp. 6-13 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605370780000309
Lóránt Dávid, (2011),"Tourism ecology: towards the responsible, sustainable tourism future", Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 210-216http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17554211111142176
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Management exercises
and trainer’s note in sustainable
tourism and dynamics
Robert J. Johnston
Department of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics,
University of Connecticut, Groton, Connecticut, USA, and
Timothy J. Tyrrell
School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University,
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Abstract
Purpose – To provide training exercises that will help tourism planners and analysts better
understand the fundamentals of tourism sustainability and dynamics.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is organized as a presentation of tools and conceptual
models, followed by associated training exercises and answers. The ?rst exercise addresses basic
concepts of sustainability as applied to tourism development. The second addresses the use of phase
diagrams to illustrate the dynamic behavior and change of tourism-related economic and
environmental conditions over time.
Findings – Operational de?nitions of sustainable tourism generally are consistent with a wide
variety of outcomes for a tourist destination. Exercises demonstrate that operational de?nitions of
tourism sustainability require numerous choices and tradeoffs, and are more complex than is
suggested by common discourse.
Practical implications – Given that the most desirable sustainable outcomes for tourism differ
across groups, the search for sustainable tourism outcomes must combine environmentally
sustainable outcomes (which are often many) with socially acceptable compromise solutions that
lie somewhere between the optima for each distinct group. No amount of searching, bargaining, or
stakeholder education will reveal a universal sustainable solution that maximizes bene?ts to all
affected groups. In the vast majority of cases no optimal solution exists.
Originality/value – The paper provides tools and conceptual frameworks that characterize potential
con?icts, hazards, and tradeoffs implicit in the choice among different sustainable or non-sustainable
outcomes for tourism.
Keywords Training, Tourism management, Sustainable development
Paper type Case study
Introduction
The Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)
provides perhaps the most widely recognized de?nition of sustainable development:
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.” This de?nition suggests relatively
undisputed social goals, and an ability to agree on policies that meet, for example the
needs of the present. However, nearly all public policies create both winners and losers.
Rarely does perfect agreement exist on those policies that are most appropriate for
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6182.htm
IJCTHR
1,4
328
Received March 2007
Revised April 2007
Accepted June 2007
International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 1 No. 4, 2007
pp. 328-337
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6182
DOI 10.1108/17506180710824217
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
satisfying present needs, much less those that ful?ll the complete Brundtland
de?nition.
In contrast, operational de?nitions of sustainable tourism generally are consistent
with a wide variety of outcomes for a tourist destination. This reality can lead to
controversy regarding which version of sustainable tourism a region wishes to pursue.
Con?icts regarding the potential goals of sustainable tourism imply that the concept
alone does not convey suf?cient information to de?ne policy. Operational de?nitions
of tourism sustainability require details regarding what elements are to be sustained,
the level at which these elements should be sustained, and the stakeholder groups
whose bene?ts should be considered (Pezzey, 1997). For example, one may seek to
sustain the number of visitors, the size of industry pro?ts, the quality of some or all
environmental resources, the quality of the tourist experience, the number of tourist
jobs, the quality of life of local residents, or some combination of these and other
elements. These objectives are unlikely to be sustained simultaneously.
The following training exercises and accompanying text are designed to provide a
better understanding of tourism sustainability and dynamics. The ?rst exercise
addresses concepts of sustainability as applied to tourism development. The second
addresses the use of phase diagrams to illustrate the dynamic behavior and change of
tourism-related economic and environmental conditions over time, as related to
sustainable tourism outcomes. Together, they illustrate ?ndings relevant to the search
for sustainable tourism, and characterize potential con?icts, hazards, and tradeoffs
implicit in the choice among different sustainable or non-sustainable futures. They also
illustrate that operational de?nitions of tourism sustainability require numerous
choices, and are more complex than is suggested by common discourse and much of
the tourism literature.
Tourism sustainability
An environmentally sustainable optimum is a desired outcome’s maximum level (e.g.
economic pro?ts, quality of life) that may be maintained in a steady-state solution,
subject to constraints imposed by the environment. Drawing from this concept, optimal
environmentally sustainable tourism implies a primary emphasis on maintaining a
certain level of environmental quality. This emphasis notwithstanding,
environmentally sustainable tourism is impossible without both a sustainable
environment and a viable tourism industry. For example, zero visitors to a pristine
natural area are likely an environmentally sustainable outcome – however this
scenario is a largely trivial result for tourism. Sustainable outcomes that are optimal
from the perspective of various stakeholder groups, in contrast, require that one ?nd an
appropriate and sustainable balance between the bene?ts of tourism and
environmental quality. The search for this balance often is complicated by the
relationship between visitors and environmental quality – while visitors are often
attracted by pristine environments, they often degrade the very environments they
seek out.
Another issue is that different groups may view different outcomes as optimal when
considering sustainable tourism policies. For example, permanent residents may
bene?t from tourism income, jobs, and tax revenue (Haralambopolous and Pizam,
1996), but they often react negatively towards such factors as tourism-related
congestion, environmental degradation, and noise, as well as exclusion from the use of
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
329
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
natural resources or infrastructure of?cially or de facto reserved for visitors (Cohen,
2002; Kaynak and Marandu, 2006; Mason and Cheyne, 2000). Hence, residents’ goals
for tourism often differ from those of the tourism industry, such that sustainable
solutions that are most desirable for the tourism industry are not the same as those that
are most desirable for local residents. A common pattern is that residents realize
greater negative effects or costs related to tourism, such that the sustainable optima for
residents often involves fewer tourists than the industry desires.
Given that the most desirable sustainable outcomes differ across groups, the search
for sustainable tourism outcomes must combine environmentally sustainable
outcomes (which are often many) with socially acceptable compromise solutions that
lie somewhere between the optima for each distinct group. In nearly every case, a
universal sustainable optimum does not exist for visitor numbers. No amount of
searching, bargaining, or stakeholder education will reveal a single sustainable
solution that maximizes pro?ts to industry and utility to residents. In the vast majority
of cases such an optimal solution does not exist. The search for sustainability implies
that at least one group will be worse off, compared to their most preferred
environmentally sustainable outcome. Hence, even if a tourist destination is at an
environmentally sustainable, optimal solution from the perspective of one group,
political pressure from other groups may force departure from that point. Moreover,
other goals, such as sustainable growth in pro?ts or quality of life, may not be
compatible with environmental sustainability and are likely non-attainable – at least
given ?xed technology.
Understanding paths to sustainable outcomes: the phase diagram
Phase diagrams are a common means to illustrate optimal solutions to dynamic
problems. This technique may be used to help model potential tradeoffs involved in the
search for sustainable tourism outcomes. Phase diagrams are like road maps. Each
point on the map lies on some optimal route that might be taken between places. The
latitude and longitude on the map are the values of two variables over space. When
used to characterize economic, biological or other dynamics, phase diagrams typically
illustrate the movement of interrelated variables over time. They help predict and
understand the movement of dynamic systems, and can help characterize potential
tradeoffs implicit in the choice among different sustainable or unsustainable
trajectories.
In typical applications, phase diagrams illustrate dynamic patterns using two loci
(collections of points typically drawn as a line or curve) that characterize change in a
state variable and a control variable. The state variable represents the current quantity
of some variable of interest (e.g. the size of a stock of ?sh, or the level of some
measure of environmental quality). The control variable characterizes the quantity of
some periodic activity that somehow in?uences the state variable, often in return for
some bene?t (e.g. the quantity of ?sh harvest per year, or the number of tourists per
day). The relationship between the state and control variable determines movement
along some optimal path towards, or away from, steady-state sustainable optima – or
sustainable solutions that maximize the bene?ts of one or more groups over time. The
basic idea is that a decision maker chooses the level of the control variable in each
period to maximize some objective. For example, a tourism manager might choose the
number of visitors per year to maximize industry pro?ts over time. This choice must
IJCTHR
1,4
330
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
re?ect unavoidable (and mathematically speci?ed) relationships and tradeoffs between
the control variable (e.g. visitors) and the state variable (e.g. environmental quality).
These relationships may be speci?ed based on researcher assumptions or on patterns
estimated using empirical data.
A simple tourism example
Figure 1 shows a simple phase diagram showing the relationships between
environmental quality (X) and the number of visitors per year (V) in a tourist
destination. The phase diagram’s pattern is derived from an underlying set of assumed
mathematical functions, such as those described by Johnston and Tyrrell (2005). These
relationships show linked changes in visitor numbers and environmental quality that
are consistent with choices that would maximize the discounted sum of net tourism
bene?ts to a particular group – here the tourism industry. A similar example can be
illustrated for permanent residents of a tourist region. The example’s speci?c details
are not particularly important here, but the basic idea is each visitor provides bene?ts
to the tourism industry, but also “uses up” a small amount of environmental quality.
As environmental quality degrades, however, each visitor is willing to pay less to visit.
Environmental quality renews itself, but only slowly. The question is how to choose
the number of visitors each period to maximize long-term discounted net bene?ts, in
this case to the tourism industry. This solution is shown by the phase diagram for a
simpli?ed example.
As Figure 1 shows, optimal tourism choices are determined by functions which
show the change in environmental quality and visitors over time. The relationship
describing the per-period change in environmental quality (X) combines the negative
in?uence of visitors (V) and the positive in?uence of natural renewal. The variable
_
X
indicates the resulting net change in environmental quality from period to period,
Figure 1.
Phase diagram
for environmentally
sustainable tourism:
steady-state and optimal
paths
X=0
.
V=0
.
A
B C
F
X
1
E
Visitors (V)
Environmental
Quality (X)
D
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
331
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
which may be positive, negative, or zero (the dot ( · ) represents a partial derivative of X
with respect to time). Sustainability of environmental quality occurs when no change
occurs over time ð
_
X ¼ 0Þ: This position represents a balance between natural renewal
and visitor damage. Each point along the
_
X ¼ 0 curve in Figure 1 shows a sustainable
pair of visitation and environmental quality levels. Any position above this curve
(e.g. point A) represents conditions in which visitor damage exceeds natural renewal –
hence environmental quality will degrade over time. Points below this curve
(e.g. point B) represent conditions in which natural renewal exceeds visitor damage –
hence environmental quality will improve over time. Only along the
_
X ¼ 0 curve will
natural renewal exactly offset visitor damage – a sustainable balance for
environmental quality.
The second curve on the graph characterizes the change in visitors over time that is
consistent with the maximization of tourism industry pro?ts. Curve
_
V shows the
change in visitors consistent with maximization of the present value of net pro?ts for
the tourism industry. This line re?ects mathematically how visitor numbers would be
ideally changed (i.e. in a way that maximizes the discounted sum of pro?ts) by the
tourism industry at any point in time, given speci?c starting combinations of visits and
environmental quality. The
_
V ¼ 0 curve shows locations where the optimal choice by
industry is to leave the number of visitors unchanged from one period to the next. Only
along this curve will there be no incentive for industry to either increase or decrease
visitors. Hence, the
_
V ¼ 0 curve shows sustainable locations with regard to the number
of visitors.
Sustainable solutions are characterized by zero changes over time in both
environmental quality (X) and the number of visitors (V) – solutions where both
_
X ¼ 0
and
_
V ¼ 0: The points where these two curves cross thus represent steady-state,
sustainable solutions for tourism, from the perspective of industry.
The joined arrows on the phase diagram show the direction of movement in both
visitors and environmental quality, based on the relationships described above. They
show where the system will move from one period to the next. Only from certain
starting points will optimal industry choices lead to sustainable solutions. For
example, the arrows in the ?gure’s upper left hand quadrant show that starting in this
location (say point A), the pro?t maximizing choices of industry leads to long-run
declines in the environment (X) and increases in ever lower-paying visitors (V) – an
unsustainable trajectory. However, starting at a point such as F, the optimal trajectory
results in fewer visitors and a gradual decline in environmental quality until
sustainable point C is reached. At this point both
_
X ¼ 0 and
_
V ¼ 0; so there are no
additional changes in either visitors or environmental quality over time. This solution
is a sustainable outcome that maximizes bene?ts to the tourism industry. Additional
details of this particular example are given by Johnston and Tyrrell (2005). Another
example of phase diagrams in an assessment of tourism sustainability is provided by
Casagrandi and Rinaldi (2002). This simple example illustrates ways in which such
dynamic models can help tourism planners to predict future outcomes, better
understand currently observed patterns, and identify optimal paths to sustainable
outcomes.
IJCTHR
1,4
332
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Training exercises for tourism research analysts and managers
The following training exercises are designed to help tourism managers and analysts
better understand the fundamentals of tourism sustainability and dynamics, both from
a conceptual and dynamic perspective. The ?rst set of exercises addresses
fundamental aspects of tourism sustainability, including outcomes and de?nitions
that are and are not implied by the concept of environmentally sustainable tourism.
The second set addresses the use of phase diagrams as a tool to model and
conceptualize optimal work of Johnston and Tyrrell (2005) and the discussion above.
Each set of exercises is comprised of four multiple choice questions followed by an
advanced training question. Answers, discussion, and trainer’s notes follow in a
subsequent section.
Training exercise one: tourism sustainability
(1) Operational de?nitions of tourism sustainability require decisions regarding of
which of the following?
.
What elements are to be sustained?
.
The level at which certain elements should be sustained.
.
Stakeholder groups whose bene?ts should be considered.
.
All of the above.
(2) Optimal sustainable tourism outcomes will likely differ across different
stakeholder groups because:
.
Visitors tend to degrade the environment of tourist destinations.
.
The bene?ts and costs of tourism differ across stakeholder groups.
.
The tourism industry is commonly shortsighted.
.
All of the above.
(3) The Brundtland report:
.
Provides a detailed template for sustainable tourism.
.
Demonstrates that it is possible to ?nd a single sustainable solution that
maximizes bene?ts to a wide range of stakeholder groups.
.
Provides de?nitions of sustainability that imply relatively undisputed social
goals.
.
Demonstrates why it is practically impossible to obtain environmentally
sustainable tourism.
(4) Which of the following could be considered an environmentally sustainable
optimum for tourism?
.
Maximumsteady-state industry pro?ts that, are consistent with maintaining
a chosen level of environmental quality.
.
Maximum steady-state quality of life for local residents that is consistent
with maintaining a chosen level of environmental quality.
.
Maximum steady-state number of tourism jobs that is consistent with
maintaining a chosen level of environmental quality.
.
All of the above, but it is unlikely that all may be sustained simultaneously.
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
333
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
(5) Advanced training exercise. Renewable resources are those that renew
themselves or grow over time (e.g. ?sh, or forests). Non-renewable resources
do not renew themselves over time (e.g. copper in a mine). Does the above
discussion of sustainability imply that degraded environmental resources (e.g.
by tourist visitors) are renewable or non-renewable? Explain your answer in a
brief paragraph of 4-6 sentences.
Training exercise two: phase diagrams and tourism dynamics
(1) Which of the following statements is supported by the phase diagram in
Figure 1?
.
Choices made by a pro?t-maximizing industry planner will never lead to
sustainable environmental outcomes.
.
Choices made by a pro?t-maximizing industry planner will always lead to a
decline in environmental quality over time.
.
Choices made by a pro?t-maximizing industry planner can lead to
sustainable outcomes, depending on initial levels of visitors and
environmental quality.
.
An economic incentive always exists for a pro?t-maximizing industry
planner to increase the number of visitors.
(2) Based on patterns shown in the phase diagram (Figure 1), what will happen if
one starts at point E?
.
Initially, visitors will increase and environmental quality will increase.
.
Initially, visitors will increase and environmental quality will decrease.
.
Initially, visitors will decrease and environmental quality will decrease.
.
Initially, visitors will decrease and environmental quality will increase.
(3) Which one of the following starting points of visitors and environmental quality
leads to a sustainable, steady-state outcome?
.
A
.
B
.
D
.
F
(4) The phase diagram predicts that incentives for immediate decreases in visitors
and environmental quality will occur in which quadrant of the graph?
.
Upper left hand quadrant.
.
Upper right hand quadrant.
.
Lower left hand quadrant.
.
Lower right hand quadrant.
(5) Advanced training exercise. Assume that environmental quality begins at level
X
1
on the phase diagram in Figure 1. In a short paragraph (3-6 sentences),
describe the path of visitors and environmental quality that will both maximize
bene?ts and lead to a sustainable, steady-state outcome.
IJCTHR
1,4
334
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Trainer’s note: discussion and solutions
Together, the two sets of training exercises are designed to convey a more nuanced
understanding of tourism sustainability and analysis among practitioners. The
purpose of the ?rst set of exercises is to dispel common misconceptions regarding
tourism sustainability, and to promote a more formal understanding of the concept and
the tradeoffs it implies. Correct answers are as follows:
.
d
.
b
.
c
.
d
.
The above discussion assumes that the resources upon which tourism depends
are renewable to some degree. Non-renewable resources in general do not
support steady-state (sustainable) solutions. The reason is because
non-renewable resources, if used at all, are eventually depleted, such that
“sustainable” use of non-renewable resources is not possible. Sustainable
outcomes can occur if one allows for renewable “backstop” resources that replace
non-renewable resources once depletion is imminent, or if there is substitution
between natural and man-made capital. These cases, however, do not involve
sustainable use of the original resource, but replacement of the resource at it
diminishes with renewable resources or capital.
Of particular emphasis in the ?rst set of exercises is a recognition that many outcomes
are consistent with the notion of tourism sustainability, and that user groups likely will
disagree as to the most optimal of these potential outcomes. A single sustainable
outcome viewed as optimal by all affected groups (e.g. the tourism industry, local
residents) rarely exists. These issues are highlighted in questions 1, 2 and 4.
Furthermore, as emphasized by the correct answer to question 3, this critical
recognition is often missing from political discourse in tourism sustainability, as
re?ected in commonly-cited de?nitions such as that provided by the Brundtland
Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
The ?fth question underscores yet another aspect of sustainability often overlooked
by policymakers – the depletion of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels,
minerals, and some groundwater resources is not consistent with environmentally
sustainable tourism. If non-renewable resources are somehow replaced with renewable
substitutes or man-made capital (often called backstop technologies), then sustainable
outcomes may be possible in the long run. The depletion of non-renewable natural
capital, however, is not sustainable. A long-term vision for sustainable tourism must
therefore rely on resources that are renewable to some degree, or provide for the
replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable backstops.
The second set of exercises is meant to provide insight into the use of quantitative
tools – here phase diagrams – to explore dynamic paths towards (and away from)
potential sustainable outcomes. Phase diagrams are common tools in many areas of
research inquiry in which sustainability is a goal, but have only recently been applied
to tourism analysis (Casagrandi and Rinaldi, 2002; Johnston and Tyrrell, 2005).
Questions and answers are designed to help tourism analysts interpret simple phase
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
335
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
diagrams, and appreciate the potential for tourism applications. Correct answers to the
?ve questions are as follows:
(1) c
(2) a
(3) d
(4) b
(5) Starting at environmental quality X
1
, the optimal starting point for visitors is at
point E. Subsequent periods are characterized by a gradual increase in both
visitor numbers and environmental quality along the dashed line, until point C
is reached. Point C is a steady-state optimum, at which the bene?t-maximizing
strategy is zero change in visitors and environmental quality over time.
One of the most essential and often misunderstood aspects of a phase diagram such as
that Figure 1 shows is that all paths shown on the diagram are optimal, in that they
represent dynamic, bene?t-maximizing strategies from any given starting point.
However, only a limited number of these paths will lead to steady-state, or sustainable,
outcomes in which renewal of natural resources exactly offsets tourism-related
diminishment. As a result, the actions of an planner seeking to maximize the sum of
discounted industry pro?ts may lead to a sustainable outcome, but this result depends
critically on the starting point of visitors and environmental quality (see answer to
question 1). Hence, one option for planners seeking to encourage sustainable tourism is
to ensure that the starting point is such that sustainability becomes an optimal
solution.
Depending on where one starts on the phase diagram (representing stylized
conditions in an actual tourist destination), along the optimal path incentives may
cause the number of visitors and environmental quality to increase, decrease or remain
unchanged. Any combination is possible, depending on the starting point. For
example, starting at point E in Figure 1, the optimal path leads upward and to the right
– an optimal trajectory characterized by increases in both environmental quality and
visitor numbers until steady state C is reached. At steady-state point C, the optimal
strategy is to maintain both visitors and environmental quality at existing levels – a
sustainable steady state (see answers to questions 2 and 5). Aside from point E, there is
only one other point identi?ed on the diagram that leads to the single steady state
outcome C. This position is point F, where the optimal trajectory leads downward and
to the left, with decreases in both visitors, and environmental quality (see answers to
questions 3 and 4). Note that many other non-labeled points also would lead to the
same steady state outcome. For example, optimal paths from any point along the bold
dashed lines between E, F and C will lead to the same steady state (i.e. to C). However,
of those points labeled on the graph, only paths from E and F do so.
Conclusion
Operational de?nitions of tourism sustainability do not always correspond with the
more vague notions of sustainability prevalent in the tourism literature. Nonetheless,
these de?nitions are consistent with a wide variety of tourist destination outcomes.
These exercises illustrate ways to characterize potential con?icts, hazards, and
tradeoffs implicit in the choice among different sustainable or non-sustainable
IJCTHR
1,4
336
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
outcomes for tourism. The underlying models are not the sole way that such analytic
tools may be applied to sustainable tourism issues. Rather, the current approaches are
presented as templates – alternatives that may be added to the toolbox available to
those assessing tradeoffs in sustainable tourism. The exercises are intended to provide
a preliminary step towards greater structure and clarity in the discussion of tourism
sustainability – a means to incorporate guiding structure to an area of debate often
characterized by a lack of theoretical and conceptual clarity.
References
Casagrandi, R. and Rinaldi, L. (2002), “A theoretical approach to tourism sustainability”,
Conservation Ecology, Vol. 6, pp. 13-27.
Cohen, E. (2002), “Authenticity, equity and sustainability in tourism”, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Vol. 10, pp. 267-76.
Haralambopolous, N. and Pizam, A. (1996), “Perceived impacts of tourism: the case of Samos”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23, pp. 503-26.
Johnston, R.J. and Tyrrell, T.J. (2005), “A dynamic model of sustainable tourism”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 44, pp. 124-34.
Kaynak, E. and Marandu, E.E. (2006), “Tourism market potential analysis in Botswana: a Delphi
study”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, pp. 227-37.
Mason, P. and Cheyne, J. (2000), “Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism development”, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, pp. 391-411.
Pezzey, J.C. (1997), “Sustainability constraints versus ‘optimality’ versus intertemporal concern,
and axioms versus data”, Land Economics, Vol. 73, pp. 448-66.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Corresponding author
Robert J. Johnston can be contacted at: [email protected]
Management
exercises and
trainer’s note
337
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_426903821.pdf