sustainable tourism management

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM MANAGEMENT:
C
B
C
S
ALEJANDRO ALVARADO HERRERA
& ALFONSO GONZALEZ DAMIAN
EDITORS
UNIVERSIDAD DE QUINTANA ROO
“Fructificar la razón: Trascender nuestra cultura”
DIRECTORIO
Mtra. Elina Alfi Coral Castilla
RECTORA
M en C. Nancy Angélica Quintal García
SECRETARIA GENERAL
M. en F. Erika L. Alonso Flores
COORDINADORA UNIDAD COZUMEL
Dr. Alejandro Alvarado Herrera
DIRECTOR DE LA DIVISIÓN DE DESARROLLO SUSTENTABLE
Dr. Luis M. Mejía Ortíz
SECRETARIO TÉCNICO DE POSGRADO E INVESTIGACIÓN
M.E. Karina Amador Soriano
SECRETARIA DE DOCENCIA
Dr. Alejandro Collantes Chávez-Costa
JEFE DE DEPARTAMENTO DE CIENCIAS Y HUMANIDADES
Dr. Alejandro Palafox Muñoz
JEFE DE DEPARTAMENTO DE ESTUDIOS SOCIALES Y EMPRESARIALES
M. en T. Felipe Hernández González
JEFE DE DEPARTAMENTO DE COMPETENCIAS BÁSICAS
First edi on: 2013
Universidad de Quintana Roo, Unidad Cozumel
Av. Andrés Quintana Roo c/ calle 110 sur s/n,
77600, Cozumel, Quintana Roo, México
Tel. (+987) 872-90-00, Fax (+987) 872-91-12 www.cozumel.uqroo.mx
All rights reserved Universidad de Quintana Roo
Blvd. Bahía s/n esquina Ignacio Comonfort
Colonia Del Bosque 77019 Chetumal, Q. Roo, México
Teléfono (+983) 8350300 / Fax (+983) 8329656 www.uqroo.mx
ISBN: 978-607-8056--24-8
Editor, composi on and interior design: Luis M. Mejía-Or z
Cover Designer:Irais Cabrera Huitrón
This book was support by Ins tu onal Program PIFI 2011 and Developing Sustainable
Project
PRINTED IN MEXICO
P
Tourism ac vity has been growing over the past 60 years, and this trend is
expected to con nue for at least the next 20 years. Advances in technology and
transporta on as well as the growth of the travel market, are factors driving
more people to travel, to do it more mes a year and to longer distances. These
facts imply that the ac vity will also have a growing impact on the environment,
the society and the economic issues, so it is necessary to make efforts to
manage it in a ra onal and oriented to sustainability manner. With even greater
urgency on tourist sites, which have historically been developed around natural
or ar ficial sites whose unique nature makes them a rac ve to be visited and
used for leisure and recrea on.
However, the management of tourism in general, in order to make
more sustainable its prac ces or at least friendly to the environment, does not
have a systema c and structured knowledge that helps to plan, implement
and evaluate prac ces. The reason of this lack is that academic and scien fic
research regarding the sustainable management of tourism is s ll young and its
findings require further work.
It is in this framework that comes the idea of the compila on of this
book, which presents an ini al approach to the sustainable management of
tourism, both from a conceptual angle and from reviewing case studies.
The resul ng book is divided into two parts: the first comprises
four chapters focusing on the conceptual analysis of sustainable tourism
management, while the second part integrates three chapters with case
studies.
In Chapter 1 Mejía-Or z, López-Mejía and Santander-Botello made a
review of the concept of sustainable development and its evolu on, the indicators
that have been proposed for assessment and its current components, scope
and related paradigms. In Chapter 2, González, Macías and Palafox present an
analysis of the concept of sustainable management and its implica ons, scope
and topics to research from the viewpoint of the three main theore cal trends
in tourism. In the third chapter, Alvarado-Herrera and Cavazos-Arroyo made a
tour on the academic produc on on tourism marke ng and sustainability, in
order to provide new researchers, an overview of the subject. In the fourth
chapter, Tejeida and Briones present systemic approach and systems science as
a comprehensive methodological perspec ve to study the sustainable tourism
management that has the posibility to exceed reduc onist views.
In the second part of the book three case studies in Mexico are
presented, the first one in Bahía de Banderas, in which Chávez-Dagos no,
Andrade, Cornejo, Massam and Espinoza analyzed the ecological footprint of
tourism as an indicator for assess its sustainability. The following case, on the
caribbean coast of the state of Quintana Roo, Frausto-Mar nez presents the
applica on of three models of sustainability indicators in tourist des na ons,
as well as its scope and limita ons. In the third and last case, Palafox, Pineda
and Anaya, present a study on the percep on of tourism for residents of
Cozumel, an insular tourism des na on, which can also be seen as an indicator
of sustainability from the angle of the social, tourism management.
We are sure that these papers are just a first approach and an ini al
sample of a vast series of studies about the sustainable tourism management,
which will provide informa on valuable to enrich the knowledge on the
subject.
EDITORS
CONTENTS
1) S
D
S
L
L
:C
,
P
M. M
C. S
-O
, M
L
-M
-B
2) B
15
: E
A
M
1
G
A
D
R
,A
M
P
R
3) B
43
A
C
4) S
A
-A
-H
J
.
S
A
T
65
S
A
P
B
J
R
T
5) W
B
B
,
M
:
87
S
?
R
A
R
M
M
C
R
E
6) S
T
C
O
7) T
T
A
S
D
L
, J
,
C
O
S
I
B
,
H.
M
’
A
D
C
F
E
107
-M
P
D
R
P
J
M
S
,G
A
O
121
P
1
S
D
C
,S
L
M. M
L
-O
C. S
:
P
,M
L
-M
-B
Research group: Management and Conserva on of Aqua c Natural Resources,
Sustainable Development Division. University of Quintana Roo, Campus Cozumel.
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected], & [email protected]
Abstract
The con nued indiscriminate use of the term sustainable development, first defined by
the Brundtland Commission 25 years ago, calls for a review of the origin of the concept,
star ng out from its simplest form and moving along to the new ideas that have been
incorporated over me. Twenty-five years a er the term was first used, a proposi on
has been made to evaluate the various indicators of sustainable development. The study
of sustainable development has been considered a new interdisciplinary science and a
lot of discussion has been made about the scope and the new paradigms that should
be included or maintained in the concept that Sustainable Development has become.
This chapter is a brief descrip on of its origin, the various indicators that have been
proposed, and its main components, scope and related paradigms today.
M -O
L. M., M. L
-M
L. C. S
-B
. 2013. Sustainable Development:
Concepts,Scope and Paradigms. In: Alvarado-Herrera A. & González-Damian A. Sustainable Tourism
Management: Conceptual Bases and Case Studies. University of Quintana Roo, México D. F. 142
pp.
Introduc on
Since the beginning of the
rela onship between humans and
their environment, the prac ce and
conceptualiza on of sustainable
development
has
transformed.
Moving from empirical ideas
promoted by the great naturalists
such as Alexander von Humboldt and
Charles Darwin, among others, un l
the sudden need for visualizing the
future and the basic needs of this
rela onship that became evident
a er the Second World War, from
the awareness of the scarcity of
resources and then understanding
that there has been an indiscriminate
and irra onal use of them. The
story of humanity has started out
with a pre-established idea of that
natural resources are unlimited and
when one finally realizes that this is
wrong it is because there are several
emergencies arising, including air
pollu on and the intensifica on of
an opinion on climate change that
did not exist early in the last century.
It is ini ally in the 70s that one first
realizes the need for planning the use
of the resources and the work on a
development plan starts. So finally in
1987 the commission that set out to
2
visualize strategies for a be er future
for the first me defines sustainable
development and proposes it as a
central concept for planning the
future of humanity. The proposal was
supported by various organiza ons to
the extent that it has been the focus
of a en on in various mee ngs held
by the United Na ons and in general
conferences
regarding
climate
change. Many governments adopted
this ini ally as a poli cal tool (which
has given them disastrous results) but
later on as a planning op on that has
produced a host of ac ons promo ng
sustainability, currently observable in
the lower emissions of greenhouse
gases, the use of clean energy, the
recycling of materials (formerly called
garbage), the best use of resources
like water, and the protec on of
ecosystems and species that suffer
under high levels of disturbance. All
this included again in the millennium
goals proposed by UNESCO, with a
view to 2015 and 2050 (Schu an,
2003).
Within the last 20 years of use of the
concept there has been an important
recogni on a ributed to sustainable
development, as being the choice that
humanity has to further develop in
order to coexist with the surrounding
Sustainable Tourism Management
medium. In 2012 we find that the
term is used in 191 000,000 pages
on the Internet and there are several
colleges that offer undergraduate and
graduate programs on the subject.
Most of the world’s countries have
incorporated it into their development
programs and there is an increasing
amount of researchers working on
the subject.
Given the importance of this concept
we will in this chapter discuss the
history of the defini on and then move
on to having a look at the common
indicators today and the interna onal
organiza ons that have proposed
them. Subsequently we will analyze
the scope of sustainable development
and finally the paradigms that are
suggested to create this concept.
Sustainable
Developments:
Concepts and Indicators
Sustainable
development
was
first defined by the Brundtland
Commission in 1987, as “to create
a sustainable development is to:
Ensure that the current development
meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability
of future genera ons to meet their
own needs” . This basic defini on is
very simple and is not explicit about
which human needs that must be
met, which ini ally was focused on
the search for economic growth to
eradicate poverty. However, this first
concept implied some limits imposed
mainly by technological development
and the organiza on of society both
in rela on to natural resources and
the ability of nature to withstand the
effects of human ac vi es, meaning
its resilience.
Over me the use of the concept was
promoted from different standpoints
such as socially, economically and
environmentally. Socially it is a ached
to the sustainable community,
culture, social group, ins tu ons and
all other cons tuents of social capital.
Within economic defini ons what is
sustainable is what supports life as
environmental services, resources and
the environment, but what should be
developed in the economics is wealth
and the produc on and consump on
sectors. However it is not so for the
environmental standpoint, where
nature is sustainable, mainly land,
biodiversity and ecosystems, and
what should be developed is the
human popula on in areas such
Sustainable Development
3
as child survival, increased life
expectancy, educa on, equity in the
distribu on of resources and equal
opportuni es, all with views towards
25 years from now, today, in the
near future and forever as promoted
by the Millennium Development
Goals by 2015 (short-term) , twogenera on goals by the Commi ee
on Sustainable Development in 2050
(medium term) and by the Global
Scenario Group beyond 2050 (long
term) respec vely (Kates, 2011; Kates
et al., 2005; Parris et al., 2003).
However, it is the development of
these proposals that comes together
and creates these concepts of
sustainable development through
visions involving both social,
economic and environmental aspects,
as all are closely related to the future
development of humanity and they all
contribute equally to the compliance
of the Millennium Development
Goals and the mes set by the various
commi ees in the medium and long
term. So the closest defini on we can
build in this chapter trying to meet the
original meaning of the concept and
the visions in the long and medium
term is: Sustainable development
occurs when the current human
4
popula on meets their economical,
social and environmental needs
without affec ng or compromising
the needs of future genera ons in
the long term. The economic, social
and environmental factors can be
summarized in the fig. 1.
Establishing a defini on and scope
of it is what has occurred to various
commi ees or groups interna onally
promote the use of different
indicators. This has led to disputes
over the use of indicators for different
mes and places that have been used
are valid as seen in Table I.
But despite disagreements over
the number of indicators and their
significance among groups that
have evaluated and sustainable
development according to the
defini on men oned in this chapter
is to iden fy three major themes that
grouped the different indicators and
we can locate the most important that
have been developed for Mexico:
a) Environmental
1)
Surface
water
and
groundwater, 2) Pollu on, 3)
coastal popula on growth, 4)
Fisheries; 5) Land Use; 6) Poverty; 7)
Precipita on; 8) Forest Reserva ons;
9) Deser fica on; 10) Natural
Sustainable Tourism Management
Fig. 1.- Los factores económicos, sociales y ambientales inmersos en el desarrollo
sustentable.
Resources, 11) agricultural ac vi es;
12) produc on; 13) Endemic species;
14) Issue pollu ng gases and other
compounds; 15) natural protected
areas; 16) solid waste; 17) Hazardous
wastes and radioac ve.
b) Social Aspects
1) Unemployment 2) Poverty, 3)
Inequality of income, 4) Salary, 5)
Popula on growth, 6) Migra on, 7)
Fer lity, 8) Popula on density, 9)
Educa on; 10) Health; 11) services;
12) life expectancy, 13) mortality; 14)
Nutri on; 15) consump on of fossil
fuels; 16) natural disasters and 17)
Housing;
c) Economics
1) Gross Domes c Product, 2) energy
Sustainable Development
5
Indicator ini a ve
46
58
Number of
indicators
Explicit
Same as
above
Implicit, but
informed by
Agenda 21
Implicit or
explicit
defini on?
Same as above
Climate, clean air, land produc vity,
ocean produc vity, fresh water, and
biodiversity
What is to be
sustained?
Same as above
Equity, health, educa on, housing,
security, stabilized popula on
What is to be
developed?
Not stated; uses
data for 1990 and
2000
Sporadic references
to 2015
For how long?
Table I. Defini ons of sustainable development implicitly or explicitly adopted by selected indicator ini a ves (Directly from Katers
et al., 2005
Commission on Sustainable
Development
88
Consulta ve Group on
Sustainable Development
Indicators
Wellbeing Index
“A condi on in which all members
of society are able to determine
and meet their needs and have a
large range of choices to meet their
poten al”
Not stated; uses
most recent data as
of 2001 and includes
some indicators of
recent change (such
as infla on and
deforesta on)
“A condi on in which the ecosystem
maintains its diversity and quality—and
thus its capacity to support people
and the rest of life—and its poten al
to adapt to change and provide a wide
change of choices and opportuni es
for the future”
68
Explicit
Environmental
Sustainability Index
Not stated; uses
most recent data as
of 2002 and includes
some indicators of
recent change (such
as deforesta on) or
predicted change
(such as popula on
in 2025)
“Vital environmental systems are
maintained at healthy levels, and to the
extent to which levels are improving
rather than deteriora ng” [and] “levels
of anthropogenic stress are low enough
to engender no demonstrable harm to
its environmental systems.”
Resilience to environmental
disturbances (“People and social
systems are not vulnerable (in the
way of basic needs such as health
and nutri on) to environmental
disturbances; becoming less
vulnerable is a sign that a society is
on a track to greater
sustainability”); “ins tu ons
and underlying social pa erns
of skills, a tudes, and networks
that foster effec ve responses to
environmental challenges”; and
coopera on among countries “to
manage common environmental
problems”
Sustainable Tourism Management
6
Sustainable Development
7
255
159
75
97
Costa Rica
Boston Indicator
Project
State Failure Task Force
Global Repor ng
Ini a ve
6
Ecological Footprintg
40
65
Global Scenario
Group
U.S. Interagency Working
Group on Sustainable
Development Indicators
26
Genuine Progress Indicator
Implicit
Explicit
Implicit
Implicit
Explicit
Explicit
Explicit
Explicit
Reduced consump on of raw
materials and reduced emissions of
environmental contaminants from
produc on or product use
Open/green space, clean air, clean
water, clean land, valued ecosystems,
biodiversity, and aesthe cs
Ecosystem services, natural resources,
and biodiversity
Environment, natural resources, and
ecosystem services
“The area of biologically produc ve
land and water required to produce the
resources consumed and to assimilate
the wastes produced by humanity”
“Preserving the essen al health,
services, and beau es of the earth
requires stabilizing the climate at safe
levels, sustaining energy, materials,
and water resources, reducing toxic
emissions, and maintaining the world’s
ecosystems and habitats.”
Clean air, land, and water
Profitability, employment, diversity
of workforce, dignity of workforce,
health/safety of workforce, and
health/safety/privacy of customers
Intrastate peace/security
Civil society, culture, economy,
educa on, housing, health, safety,
technology, and transporta on
Economic and social development
Dignity, peace, equity, economy,
employment, safety, health, and
quality of life
Through 2050
Ins tu ons to “meet human needs
for food, water, and health, and
provide opportuni es for educa on,
employment and par cipa on”
Current repor ng
year
Two years
Not stated; uses
most recent data as
of 2000 and some
indicators of recent
change (such as
change in poverty
rates)
Not stated; includes
some me series
da ng back to 1950
Current and future
genera ons
Not explicitly stated;
computed annually
from 1961–1999
Not stated;
computed annually
from 1950–2000
Economic performance, families,
and security
consump on, 3) Mineral Reserves; 4)
fossil energy reserves; 5) Value added
in the Gross Domes c Product; 6) Debt;
7) Foreign Investment; 8) Expenditure
for environmental protec on , 9)
Import of capital goods.
It should be recognized that each
country has among its differences
with other countries indicators for the
condi ons and the historical moment
is different, for that reason is that
the development of indicators or the
proposed indicators are also relevant
to the region concerned or with the
development of human popula ons at
specific sites.
Scope of Sustainable Development
As
men oned,
sustainable
development is a concept with a use
perhaps absurd, because labeling is
used as a way to manage economic
resources and not always culminate
with minimal a achment to the
defini on. But their strength is such
that governments have incorporated
it into their development plans and
the proposed new ci es, power
genera on, food culture, conserva on
of protected areas or species. More and
more policies that focus on sustainable
8
development in order to meet human
needs we have men oned in the
economic and social (Anonymous,
1999). Well the scope that this concept
has been substan al, it is not currently
promo ng a new dwelling unit without
a vision of conserva on of green areas
that impact on an increase in the
welfare of its inhabitants, not built
in areas coastal without complying
with environmental regula ons that
promote the conserva on of exis ng
species, it promotes family planning
and a more ra onal use of resources
in order to con nue to count on
them. Have increased curricula
na onally and globally on sustainable
development as a guiding principle
in order to have professionals able to
produce a holis c recommenda ons
for compliance with what should
be sustainable development for the
benefit of humanity. The scope of
this concept in the past 20 years have
been amazing because we went from
a human popula on apathe c to
global problems to a conscious human
popula on ini ally in developed
countries (though certainly not all),
while countries development have
waited global aid programs and may be
the best advantage of new technologies
to achieve a more sustainable. Today it
Sustainable Tourism Management
is much more expensive to transform
an established industry (created from
the second half of the last century)
to develop a new industry with
technological advances that promote
sustainability. However, a en on
ini ally focused on the performance
or sa sfac on of human needs has
changed and will benefit indirectly
but now debate on the future of high
poten al energy environments such as
marine and coastal ecosystems which
harbor the most species with poten al
for use by humanity, so recently in
the Rio +20 mee ng the proposal
was focused on the sustainability
of the seas and conserva on of
these environments (Drexhage and
Murphy, 2010; Anonymous, 200).
Clearly, the peaks on Environment
and Development to increase their
efforts in the following mee ngs to try
to slow climate change caused largely
by the industrial and technological
development unprecedented existed
in the second half of the last century
(Anonymous, 1999; Gore, 2006).
Which is already the major challenge
for all countries involved both as those
who are just doing the first ac ons
and changing the percep on of people
about this issue
Paradigms
Development
of
Sustainable
The acceptance of sustainable
development as a mul disciplinary
science has led to the constant
search for new paradigm of this
concept. Which is s ll a ma er of
debate, because although there are
many more manuscripts annually
published in indexed journals that
men on this concept, and there are
already several publica ons by the
name of Sustainable Development as
Journal of Sustainable Development,
studies have mostly strong support
mathema cal considered scien fic
in nature. However, it is important
to recognize the paradigm shi
“Sustainable Development” since its
incep on in 1987 as men oned at the
me and so far, since the incorpora on
of the social visions, economic and
environmental condi ons at the me
and the scope that could as they have
been revised, which groups have been
around the world try to figure out what
the next step and that other aspects
have not been considered. Some
examples are the religious aspect
in which the proposal is a paradigm
a ached to religion in this case the
Coran (Aström Orhan, 2011). This
Sustainable Development
9
proposal is interes ng because while
it is true that part of the happiness
and sa sfac on of humanity have
been related to their religiosity is
also true that religion has been
an important factor of repression
throughout history humanity. But
why should not ignore the proposal
an inclusive defini on of religion as is
proposed by Shaharir (2012) that says
“Sustainability is to achieve a level
(moderate, fair and balanced) of the
physical, social, poli cal , economic,
science and knowledge, spiritual
and religious culture of modern man
without sacrificing relevant resources
and all beings created by God so that
future genera ons can enjoy at least
the same level of happiness in this
world and in the future as the current
genera on.
Then there’s the environmental
proposal where the new paradigm
of sustainability is related to levels of
CO2 that humanity can emit and then
CO2 levels below sustainability levels
increase, it only has a close rela onship
with fashion market of emission
of greenhouse gases. We should
also men on that finally marke ng
strategies for selling “green” products
have been impressive and then the
rela onship smallest carbon footprint
10
in the products has been mistakenly
used as a synonym for sustainability.
For many of these products or many
of these green tags only respond to
a market process marked by fashion
(Rice, 2011; Jaffer and Stefan, 2011).
In contrast to previous proposals
the
economy
con nues
to
promote economic growth in
human popula ons, regardless of
past economic growth that may
produce some happiness and
social sa sfac on, and builds on all
marke ng campaigns and on fashion
organic products con nuing to
increase its economic capital users
(Escobar Delgadillo, 2007). Thus
perhaps the real paradigm is one vision
but combining several in conjunc on
with the increase in educa on levels
that humanity acquired to balance
these forces and that our paradigm is
focused vision long term with all the
benefits that we produce now being
sustainable to con nue developing in
the future (Leiserowitz et al., 2005c,
2005b, Du a et al., 2012).
Corollary
The need for humanity to evolve
around a plan is an idea that has been
forged over me before the emergence
Sustainable Tourism Management
of the concept of sustainable
development in its primary defini on
with the adjustments of the three
most important factors in human
development (economic, social and
environmental). However, with the
passage of me has seen the need to
assess the sustainable development
and the proposed indicators revolve
around these three factors are used
depending on the world region to
be assessed as well as the historical
moment of development thereof.
Clearly this involves a holis c concept
more than 50 years to ensure the
welfare of the exis ng genera on
and the immediate future. On the
other hand no circumstances be sta c
and sustainable development is no
excep on so far and discusses what
is the next paradigm that defines
sustainable development for the
coming years? and among other things
they have proposed the inclusion of
the religious in the defini on but also
to sustainable development has been
used as a synonym for an emission
of greenhouse gases down by rich
countries and the different degrees
of happiness can achieve economic
growth of human popula ons. So
you s ll have to keep adjus ng the
defini on in the following years.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful with Dr.
Robert Kates by send literature on
subject. And with Ove Pedersen for
the English improvement
Literature cited
A
, 1999. Our common journey: A
transi on toward sustainability.
Na onal Research Council. Board
on Sustainable Development.
Na onal Academic Press.
A
, 2006. Polí ca ambiental
nacional para el desarrollo
sustentable de Océanos y
Costas: Estrategias para su
conservación y uso sustentable.
Subsecretaría de Planeación y
Polí ca Ambiental. Dirección
General de Polí ca Ambiental
Integración Regional y Sectorial.
Dirección
de
Integración
Regional, México D. F.
B
, G. (Ed.). 1987. Our
common future: The world
commission on Environment
and Development. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
D
, J.
D. M
. 2010.
Sustainable Development: From
Brundtland to Rio 2012. United
Na ons: New York, 26 pp.
D
, S., R. L
D. M
,
2012. Paradigms for sustainable
Sustainable Development
11
development: Implica ons of
Management Theory. Corporate
Social
Responsibility
and
Environmental Management.
19(1): 1-10.
E
G
J
K
K
K
12
D
, J. L. 2007. El
Desarrollo Sustentable en
México (1980-2007). Revista
Digital Universitaria, 9(3): 3-13.
47(3):8-21.
L
, A. A., R. W. K
T.
M. P
. 2005a. Do global
a tudes and behaviors support
sustainable
development?
Environment, 47(9) 22-38.
L
, A. A., R. W. K
T. M.
P
. 2005b. Sustainability
values, a tudes, and behaviors:
A review of mul na onal and
global trends. CID Working Paper
NO. 113. Science, Environment,
and Development Group, Center
for Interna onal Development,
Harvard University.
O
A
Z. H. 2011. Paradigm shi
for sustainable development:
The contribu on of Islamic
Economics. Journal of Economic
and Social Studies. 1(1): 73-82.
P
, T. M.
R. W. K
, 2003.
Characterizing and measuring
sustainable
Development.
Annual Review of Environment
and Resources, 28: 559-586.
R
, L. 2011. Black-Boxing Sustainability.
Journal
of
Sustainable
Development, 4(4): 32-37.
S
B. M. Z. 2012. A new paradigm
of Sustainability. Journal of
Sustainable Development, 5(1):
91-99.
S
, C. 2003. The emerging
sustainable
development
paradigm: A global forum on
, A. 2006. An inconvenient truth:
The planetary emergency of
global warming and what we
can do about it. New York:
Rodale Books
,
R.
J. S
. 2011.
Environmental
performance
and sustainable development.
Journal
of
Sustainable
Development, 4(6): 181-187.
, R. W. E . 2011. From the Unity
of Nature to Sustainability
Science: Ideas and Prac ce CID
Working Paper No. 218. Center
for Interna onal Development,
Harvard University. Cambridge,
MA. Harvard University.
, R. W. 2011. What kind of a science
is
sustainability
science?.
Proceedings of the Na onal
Academy Science, 108(49):
19449-19450.
R. W., T. M. P
A. A.
L
. 2005. What is
sustainable
development?
Environment Science and Policy
for Sustainable Development,
Sustainable Tourism Management
the cu ng edge of progressive
thinking. Praxis: The Fletcher
Journal
of
Interna onal
Development, XVIII: 73-78.
Sustainable Development
13
15
B
:
A
G
E
D
A
,A
R
M
P
M
R
Research Group Environmental Studies. Sustainable Development Division.
University of Quintana Roo, Campus Cozumel. E-mail: [email protected];
[email protected] & [email protected]
Abstract
An analysis of the theore cal founda on of sustainable tourism management is
presented. The sustainable management is understood in this paper as one pursuing
equilibrated development that improves human well being, one that includes decisions
and ac ons of various actors, both internal and external to organiza ons, and one
that considers its surrounding beforehand from three different perspec ves: the
socioeconomic, cultural and ecological one; and one that in its appliance iden fies
with the tourism phenomena. The existence of three schools of thought within tourism
theory is suggested. Schema cally, their origin and development are described, as
well as how the significance of tourism and the possibili es towards its sustainable
management vary with each of the underlying basic concepts. Within each of the three
trends, achievements and limita ons to sustainable management and possible strains of
future inves ga on in order to develop knowledge of the subject ma er are iden fied.
G
-D
, A., P
-M
, A.
M
-R
, A. R. 2013. Basic Concepts of
Sustainable Tourism Management: Elucida ons Based on Different Tourism Theory Trends. In:
Alvarado-Herrera A. & González-Damian A. Sustainable Tourism Management: Conceptual Bases
and Case Studies. University of Quintana Roo, México D. F. 142 pp.
1. Background
For some authors sustainable
development is not more than a
utopic aspira on only usable within
poli cal speeches. To many others it is
an a tude based on ideology, ethics
and ra onal responsibility that can be
found in every human ac on. Its value
lies within the founda on of hypernorms to the rela on between both
socie es and individuals and their
environment facing other individuals
and socie es and in general all living
beings and natural forces.
Understood this way, sustainable
development is not a mo onless
aspira on but rather an orienta ng
guide, a program of ac on with a
long-term horizon, comprehending
development as its main aspira on.
And
as
its
framework
for
implementa on, three limi ng and
organizing ambits are defined: the
social, the economic and the natural
dimension.
Since its origins, the development
concept has been searching for
balance, by that dis nguishing it
from growth. Even though one
considers the la er being implicit
for the concept itself, since the end
16
of the 20th century, recognized
achievements and results have been
observed to be insufficient. Therefore
it became indispensable to stress the
relevance of a type of development
that would be sustainable.
Outside the purely academic field,
this even drove those responsible
of
administra ng
development
within the interna onal sphere to
look for agreements that recognize
the necessity to reorient efforts.
This, in fact, occurred in form of
voluntary agreements, which became
impulses widening the concept of
development, such as the mul ply
cited Earth Summit (Gabaldón, 1991),
the Brundtland Report (1987) and
the Kyoto Protocol (De la Covención,
1997).
With the years, the concept has turned
out to be of such a rac veness that
it has been formally incorporated in
the discourse of leaders and rulers,
in the alignments, programs and
inten ons of na onal governments
and mul ple interna onal organisms.
This has been the case of the World
Tourism Organiza on, which since
very early, incorporated in its
discourse and programs the theme
of sustainable tourism development
Sustainable Tourism Management
(McIntyre et al., 1993), urging in turn
those countries associated to the
mul na onal organism, to integrate
the topic in their development plans
and strategies.
From the point of view of the World
Tourism Organiza on, the search
for a sustainable tourism is viable.
A concept that places the ac ons of
tourism organisms, ins tu ons and
companies from an ethical perspec ve
following guidelines of social and
environmental responsibility, facing
posi ve and nega ve economic
and cultural impacts of tourism,
and which concentrates on four
topics: sustainable management,
socio-economic impacts, cultural
impacts and environmental impacts
– including the exploita on of
resources, the reduc on of pollu on
and the conserva on of biodiversity
and landscapes.
For the World Tourism Organiza on
therefore it is evident that any tourism
ac vity is conceived from an epistemic
paradigm iden fiable with the model
pressure – state – response or model
P-E-R with tourism ac vity, human by
nature, cons tu ng a force that exerts
pressure on its surrounding, changing
its state. In a permanent cycle, in
which entropic and negentropic forces
are of dynamic state (Perus, 2007),
in which human – tourism decisions
cons tute both the axis that exerts
pressure on the environment and
the sphere where responses to the
changes of the state of environment
arise (González-Damián, 2004).
The interest of the World Tourism
Organiza on, the associated na ons,
and therefore the one established in
the strategic plans, is to encourage
society’s consciousness and to follow
up on the search for sustainable
tourism development. Not only is the
term exponen ally increasing referred
to in discourses and with instruments
of public administra on but at the
same me an infinite number of
non-governmental
organiza ons,
associa ons and companies from the
private sector have emerged aiming
at promo ng the ac ons tending
towards a sustainable development
of tourism.
Together with this growing interest in
the prac cal aspects of management,
there has been no ced an increase
in specialized academic literature, in
which proposals for governmental and
local communal ac on are remarkably
contras ng including cri cal to
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
17
defending visions as well as studies
of successful cases and unsuccessful
ones, such as empirical analyses of
tourism ac vity and its desirable
sustainable development. In spite of
this growing produc on a thorough
reflexive and cri cal exercise is s ll
missing, that as any other aspect of
human knowledge, both concerning
the guidelines tourism prac ce
follows and its basis and no ons, do
not lack an ideological background, an
ontological-epistemological paradigm
and an expressed or underlying
commitment
with
theore cal
posi ons and specific methodologies,
inherited from the disciplines tackling
the study of tourism.
From the perspec ve of sustainable
tourism development, the exercise
of sustainable management is
considered to be the axis of ac on
within the sphere of human ac on,
with various actors in charge,
which can be denominated tourism
organiza ons, companies, ins tu ons
or en es. An management primarily
characterized by the search for the
mi ga on of the nega ve impacts
on the one hand and on the other
for the emphasis of the posi ve ones
facing their surroundings, classified
18
as socioeconomic,
environmental.
cultural
and
Considering this hyper-norma ve
frame (Currás Pérez et al., 2011),
in the search for a sustainable
development of tourism there exists
the possibility to take decisions and
to act, in a way that the impacts
of tourism ac vity would favor an
equilibrated socioeconomic, cultural
and environmental surrounding in
the short, medium and long run.
This possibility is provided by human
technology, par cularly the one that
can be denominated sustainable.
The term management has two frames
of reference, concerning the effects
of tourism, turning out to be more
adequate than the term administra on
due to the following reasons. The
discipline of administra on, born at
the beginning of the 20th century
with the works of Taylor and Fayol
(1987), has as main subject to study
planning, leadership and evalua on
of organiza ons (Koontz, 1980),
has been nourished for over a
century by theore cal contribu ons
from very diverse academic fields
and has formed its own theore c
corpus, which clearly integrates
dis nct, currently valid, schools of
Sustainable Tourism Management
thought (Chiavenato, 2004). The
emphasis should be on the so-called
neoclassical ones, with authors such
as Drucker (2001) and Koontz (1980),
on strategy with recognized authors
like Porter (1981), on con ngency
(Mintzberg et al., 2005), on theories
of organiza ons and mathema cs,
in English known as Management
Science, and others. In the 20th
century, the administra ve discipline,
which in the Spanish-speaking world
has mainly been related to private
enterprises, dis nguishing it from
public administra on having a
reference frame coming from poli cal
science, has encountered with the
term management. A term, which
originates from ambits like geography
and biology; in which human ac on
leading towards the exploita on
of territories and natural resources
has met the term management. In
case of the anglosaxophon world,
the dis nc on between the terms
administra on – management doesn’t
present itself in a symmetrical manner,
given that, when referring to the
ac vity whether rela ng to human,
private or public organiza ons as well
as to natural territory and resources
the same term is used: management,
therefore its dis nc on from the
term administra on refers to the
level where the ac on is realized and
has been used to dis nguish between
high-level directors and leaders or
administra on and execu ves or
managers. The probable origin of
the dis nc on between the terms
management and administra on
in the Spanish-speaking ambit and
probably the usage of the two terms
in French, has to do with the no on
that there exist en es, as well as
living beings and the human himself,
that cannot be treated as objects
and be “administrated” but in any
case have to be “orientated and
consulted” meaning managed. The
majority of academics and experts
do not necessarily share the idea to
dis nguish between administrator
and manager, in spite of the no on
having
been
incorporated
in
technological terminology of various
disciplines. Even though there are
some, like Cardozo Brum (2008), who
ensure that the term management
encompasses a wider concept than
administra on, as it moves away from
the conven onal vision and permits
to approach the topic from a wider,
more modern and more integral
angle, where the decisions taken
internal or external to an organiza on
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
19
have impacts on a general
environment, which therefore has to
be taken into account permanently,
if understanding organiza ons as
integral parts of an environment that
they owe to and depend upon.
The management then refers to the
range of decisions and ac ons of the
organiza on’s execu ves concerning
a territory or a set of resources, and
their effects become apparent inside
the organiza on itself as well as
within its immediate surroundings.
This vision extending the sphere
of management tasks within an
organiza on implies a responsibility
which exceeds their physical and
intangibles limits and compromises
them directly with their human and
natural environment. Naturally, with
this vision it becomes necessary to
include sustainability as a criterion
within the concept of management.
A sustainable management then
includes the total of decisions and
ac ons of an organiza on. This comes
out in three areas of its surroundings:
the socioeconomic, the cultural and
the natural. Amongst these three
one searches for a balanced and wellthought plan of ac on that allows
and favors human coexistence in a
20
ra onal and harmonic way with the
environment in ques on.
Sustainable management, at least in
theory, can be applied to whichever
area of human doings. Due to this
fact it can also be applied to tourism
ac vi es, of which we will later on
reflect on the fundamental concepts
of theories on tourism. It is at this
point, from a reflec ve point of view,
that this ar cle intends to revise
theore c postures from tourism
related studiesand their rela on to the
concepts and customs of sustainable
management.
2. Methodological strategy for
tourism theories analysis
Tourism has been studied, analyzed,
explained, interpreted and cri cized
from a range of different disciplines
within social studies such as
geography, economy, sociology and
anthropology. In a rela vely short
period of me these disciplines have
offered diverse perspec ves, no ons
and conceptualiza ons of tourism in
such a manner that it is now possible
to iden fy tradi ons and schools of
thought.
These tradi ons and schools of
Sustainable Tourism Management
thought have developed around the
paradigma c cores of social sciences:
and recrea on, urban and regional
planning, marke ng, law, business,
the descrip ve-analy c, the cri cal
and the interpreta ve (GonzálezDamián, 2010)
transporta on, hotel and restaurant
administra on, as well as educa on.
His conclusion was similar to the
ones of other authors: that the area
of tourism has not elaborated a
proper theory, but that the study of
it is supported by theories developed
in other areas of research. Finally
he states that the study can be
mul disciplinary and in turn opens
the discussion towards angles that
carry the inten on of integra on from
other disciplines.
In a research exercise that included the
major scien fic publica ons in Spanish
and English on the subject of tourism
from different social disciplines, it
was proven that revisions do indeed
exist on the academic produc on and
inves ga ons regarding tourism. For
instance one might men on the ones
carried out by Jafari (1979), Dann et
al. (1988), Acerenza (1991) and by
McIntosh et al. (1995).
The first revision men oned here is the
one done by Jafari (1979), in his role
as head editor of the journal Annals
of Tourism Research. In this ar cle he
points at the academic produc on
within tourism as s ll emerging and
he proposes a disciplinary framework
in order to study tourism and create a
proper field of study on its own terms.
Se ng out to structure a plan of study
within the academic field of tourism,
he analyzed the contribu ons from
diverse disciplines to the ac vity:
sociology, economy, psychology,
anthropology, poli cal sciences,
geography, ecology, agriculture, parks
Dann et al. (1988) in their turn revises
the touris c research published in the
two most widely recognized journals
in their area, both from the United
States: the Annals of Tourism Research
and the Journal of Travel Research. In
their revision they conclude that even
though they found a large produc on
on the subject of tourism from diverse
disciplines, they found poor theory
and low levels of methodological
sophis ca on and technique to be
present in most of it.
Amongst the La n-American writers
(Acerenza, 1991), does an analysis
on the concept of tourism. A concept
suggested to arise from two lines
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
21
of thought which is referred to as
humanist theories and theories of
alignment. The first of the two is
quoted towards Krzystof Przeclawski
who affirmed that within the
leisure ac vi es there is a stronger
representa on of the values of truth,
love, crea vity and freedom. The
second line of thought is iden fied
with the theories of alignment that
are linked to the produc on of the
Frankfurt School whose most quoted
influence is found in the piece by
Louis Turner and John Ash: “The
Golden Hordes” (Turner & Ash, 1991).
In this work tourism is observed
as another product of industrial
society´s capitalis c consumerist
aspect. Acerenza however, suggests
that beyond these lines of thought,
theyhave in turn created their own
“schools of thought” in different
areas. He puts the followers of
Kurt Krapf´s work in what he calls
the “Berliner School”, with a heavy
focus on economics. Paul Ossipow
and his followers on the subject of
psychology within tourism he names
the “Polish School”. Ramaker, the vicepresident of the Dutch Associa on of
Tourism and Charles Reau, including
their followers such as Pierre Defert
and H. Robinson are labeled with
22
the “French School”. This direc on
approaches the study of tourism from
a sociological angle, in rela on to
the subjects of recrea on and me
off, men oning Joffre Dumazedier as
founder and main representa ve of
this direc on. Azerenza suggests the
rising of a La n-American school of
which he considers himself a part. This
school is suggested to be orientated
towards a focus on systems of which
he considers Raimundo Cuervo to be
a pioneer. In 1967 Cuervo made a
mathema cal model of the tourism
system in Mexico. He received
contribu ons from the Australian Neil
Leiper who helped put it in a graphic
system and thus created the theore c
model most commonly referred to in
the studies of tourism.
McIntosh et al. (1995) and his text
Tourism, Principles, Prac ces and
Philosophies became widely spread
within academic circles. In this work
there is a no on of nine angles from
which one can study tourism:
1) Ins tu onal approach: carried out
by ins tu ons that have some rela on
to the ac vity.
2) Product approach: containing the
study of “tourism products” and the way
they are produced,commercialized
Sustainable Tourism Management
and consumed.
3) Historical approach: involving an
analysis of the tourism ins tu ons
and ac vi es from an evolu onary
point of view. The authors themselves
confirm that very li le material has
been produced on this angle.
4) Managerial approach: concentrated
on the necessary administra onal
ac vi es in order to manage a tourism
business. The Journal of Travel
Research and Tourism Management
are men oned as leading publica ons
in this field.
5) Economic approach: analyzing
tourism and its contribu ons to
the economy and the economic
development in a country.
6) Sociological approach: a not very
developed angle, but an area the
authors claim “shows promise of
progressing rapidly and becoming
more widely used”
7) Geographical approach: the authors
claim this angle has studied the area
more deeply than other disciplines
and men on the Journal of Leisure
Research and Leisure Sciences.
8) Interdisciplinary approaches: given
the interdisciplinary nature of the
subject, this mainly focuses on the
view that Jafari sustains as editor
of the magazine of interdisciplinary
social sciences Annals of Tourism
Research.
9) The systems approach: from the
authors point of view this is what is
really necessary in order to study
tourism, placing themselves in this
category.
Monterroso and Zizumbo (2000)
made a methodological sugges on
in order to organize the theore c
produc on of tourism. They applied
the schema c analysis by Gilberto
Giménez (1994) that establishes four
quadrants to the theore c angles
along two axes. One of the axes being
the epistemological where posi ve
paradigms, Marxist and hermeneu c
views are placed. The other axis
being the theore c where economic
and linguis c models are placed.
Monterroso proposes a use of this
scheme and places the theorists of
tourism in two posi ons: posi vists
and Marxists. The inten on of the
author in the men oned exercise was
to prove the existence of wide areas
that have yet to be explored in the
theory of tourism and thus promote
further academic work in this field.
In another ar cle (González-Damián,
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
23
2010) we explore an analy c
proposal in order to analyzethe
theore cal sugges ons developed by
Alexander (2000), in order to analyze
sociological theory and apply this
to theories of tourism. Alexander
defines two dimensions that he
considers axes, each one a ending to
the assump ons and a priori postures
that are found behind the theories,
regarding the way the explana ons
are elaborated on problems of ac on
(ra onal or not ra onal) and order
(individual or collec ve).
Related to the first of the axes(the
one regarding ac on), Alexander
makes an analysison the way social
theories come to their conclusions,
being direct or implicit, as ac ng
with society in a ra onal “objec ve”
way or in a non-ra onal manner,
with basis in the individual, in other
words being “subjec ve”. All social
theories to some degree tend to
bend towards either of these two
extremes by accep ng the possibility
of a social ac on as being ra onal
or non-ra onal. The second axis to
be analyzed, regarding underlying
postures in social theories, is the one
of social order. In this one he iden fies
two extremes. From the individual
24
posi on, coming from the assump on
that social order is made out of accept
to what is individual, and the other
extreme being social order from a
collec ve view. The la er implying
that structural transforma ons only
happens and are understandable
from collec vity, which in turn is more
than just the total sum of individuals.
In turn, Alexander iden fies three
elements in all theory and what allows
them to be characterized: the models
that develops or use func onal,
ins tu onal or systema c models,
the use of quan ta ve or qualita ve
methods (the one most seen in his
applica ons), and theorizing from the
use of empirical data and the vision
that each one takes on the state of
the society: in a state of balance or in
conflict.
Alexander placed his analysis on the
level of general sociological theories.
However, it seems viable for the
analysis of par cular theore cal
approaches, such as those on tourism.
A er iden fying the underlying
postures in the theories on tourism,
three schools were made on the basis
of what they shared in common:
the economic school, the recrea on
school and the school of systems.
Sustainable Tourism Management
3. The two main streams on
the theories of tourism and the
structural-systema c revision
3.1 The economic school of tourism
theory
The view of tourism as mainly an
economic ac vity has kept on being a
paradigm for its studies for decades,
and with a few more added it makes
out the mainstream view on the
study of tourism. The first studies
on the economic phenomena of
tourism came from Hunziker and
Krapf (Acerenza, 1991) who sought to
analyze the subject through a use of
the theory from classical economics.
They chose to describe the rela ons
of supply and demand within tourism
without going into theore cal
discussions on the manner that the
ac vity is presented in society. This
posture is consistent with the general
view on classical economics that focus
on the mechanisms of produc on,
exchange and consump on, carried
out by individuals whom are believed
to act ra onally within the norms of
the market. Within this paradigm,
tourism is a sector of a par cular
market whose characteris cs lie
within the exchange of services
realized by people while travelling.
This perspec ve on tourism, even
when it is solely focused on one
of the aspects of the phenomena,
subsists in diverse academic sectors
and prac ces of the business
ac vity. From this perspec ve, and
given that the interest is placed in
economic terms, these studies focus
on the characteris cs of the market,
both on the area of individuals and
organiza ons as they happen to be in
the studies of tourism marke ng, as
on the area of markets in the studies
of economics. Manuel Figuerola
(1985) explains from this perspec ve
that since there exists is no proper
explica ve theory within tourism, it
is desirable to u lize what he names
“basic principals that can be verified
with reality”, since only these that
effec vely form an “economic truth”
may be included in the concept of
tourism
Furthermore,
given
that
the
economic ac vi es are related to
other spheres of social life, it is of
interest to this no on of tourism to
analyze the effects that the ac vi es
have on them. This is something that
has created a “dimension” of studies
from this angle. Amongst them we
find the work done by Mathieson
and Wall (1990) on social, cultural
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
25
and environmental impacts and the
economics of tourism, which has
created the guideline for a wide
range of empirical studies all over the
area. Another example of this type of
work is found in the line ini ated by
Brian King, Abraham Pizam and Ady
Milman (1993) on the social effects of
tourism, which has led to the study of
risk in the tourism sector.
This paradigma c posture, that the
economic school has been called
(González-Damián, 2010), tries to
produce the technology that allows
to accurately measure the tourism
ac vi es and its effects in other
economic ac vi es and of other kinds.
By seeking this it evidently works
from a methodological perspec ve
of a neo-posi vis c kind, in which
tourism is generated as a subject and
analyzed theore cally. The results
of these empirical studies are then
analyzed through sophis cated
sta s cal designs using so ware
to process the data, which in turn
has been acquired through the use
of measuring instruments whose
objec ve validity has been previously
proved and standardized.
3.2 The leisure school in the tourism
theory
26
The second perspec ve on tourism
comes from the sociological view
that was introduced by Veblen in his
theory of the “leisure class” (Veblen,
1995). In this work he presented
the bases for a cri cal angle on
tourism when considering it a type
of commerce that offers capitalism a
new way of controlling the working
class, by promo ng res ng programs
in controlled touris c areas. This
with the inten on of increasing
the produc vity of the worker and
simultaneously exploit the tourism
employees and the resources on the
des na ons, in order to benefit a
domina ng minority. Back in those
days the surroundings were not
favorable for studying deeper into
tourism, even though at the end of
the 19th century the very Lafargue
(1983), being an ac vist who worked
for years with Marx and Engels,
elaborated a manifest where he
urged the access to leisure ac vi es
on behalf of the working class, which
he named “The right to laziness”.
These two nineteenth century
works created the founda ons for
what later on transformed into the
second theore cal movement in
social sciences that tried to approach
the study of recrea on and tourism
Sustainable Tourism Management
as an alterna ve to the economic
school. It is not un l a er the Second
World War that the studies on leisure
(loisir - leisure) take form, almost
simultaneously in Europe and America.
Dumazedier (1962) and Friedmann
(1950) from Europe are recognized
as founders of the studies on leisure,
and on the other side Riesman
(1958) in America who established
a research center dedicated to the
study of leisure in 1955. The studies
of leisure struggle for a more equal
society in which everyone have access
and right to leisure when understood
as a regenera ng me off that favors
personal development. At their me
the studies of tourism as a leisure
ac vity were very well received. To
Dumazedier (Dumazedier, 1968;
Dumazedier & Kaës,1971) the leisure
is a group of ac vi es where the
individual may voluntary completely
give in, whether it is to rest, have fun,
exercise and prac ce, or do voluntary
social work, this a er being completely
liberated from professional du es
and family or social obliga ons.
Within this idea tourism is presented
as a consequence of the increase
in an individuals spare me and has
the capacity of increasing leisure as a
benefit to man.
Friedmann (1950) also developed
his addi on to the subject around
the idea of leisure being a libera ng
op on to man, the supplement and
compensa on for work; between
both there exists a rela on that makes
them complementary even though
the problems of work are unknown to
leisure and the virtues of leisure are
unavailable when working.
Mannheim (1988), C. Wright Mills
(Mills & Horowitz, 1966) and the
representa ves of the school of
Frankfurt touched the subject of
leisure in their work, although not
in a direct rela on to tourism. Their
western hegemonic view gives it an
aliena ng and less personal form,
when extending the dominium of
working hours to the act of consuming
goods, generally useless things, to the
leisure ac vi es.
On that same page Ge no (1987: 26)
says that tourism in a system like ours
at best implies“a rela ve social right
that only certain groups from the
middle and upper classes have gained
access to”. The author characterizes
tourism as a resource created by
mankind, using other natural and
social resources. Ge no also shows
that na ons emi ng tourists,
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
27
overes mates their role compared
to what would be right and fair, this
due to the fact that in the end, those
actually si ng on the resources are
the na ons that receives the tourists.
By observing this Ge no points to
a hegemonic misbalance within
touris c rela ons. In a more recent
proposal that reviews the possibili es
of tourism Ponterio (1991: 21) finds
within tourism the opportunity for
the common man to experience new
“teachings about his own existence,
of knowledge on the meaning of life,
of love towards other beings that
are connected to us by a resistance
in common” when facing the forces
of objec ve reality, capitalism and
generally todays social problems.
Knebel (1974) probably under
heavy influence from the works
of Dumazedier who was his
contemporary, elaborated on his side
a theory on the sociology of tourism,
based on the part that the tourist
plays. He intended to angle the study
of tourism towards the studies of
foreigners and immigrants that were
ini ated in Germany by Von Wiese
and Robert Glüksmann between 1930
and 1935. Knebel suggested a strategy
in order to analyze the ins tu ons
that come forth in a society star ng
28
out from the role of the tourist.
Knebel did not focus his a en on
on the subject of leisure and had
founda onal inten ons when trying
to accommodate and adjust a concept
next to leisure in order to analyze it.
By trying to do this he shares the view
of other writers men oned in this
text on thepresupposi ons of society:
that human ac ons are ra onal,
contextualized in a pre-structured
society and in constant conflict.
To
Knebel,
tourism
consists
of“predetermined
changes”
performed by ins tu ons, the means
of transporta on, and the society
that plays a determined role in it.
The role is free of choice but it has
been determined and marked by the
structures of the society (Knebel,
1974: 122). The role of the tourist has
more importance to it than the others,
since the tourist is always iden fied
as a tourist and welcomed by other
tourists as just that. The touris c
consump on is what determines
the criteria of stra fica on of roles.
Even those who move away from
what may be called “general”, s ll do
it within certain limits, and thus do
not escape from the behavior within
“predetermined changes”.
Sustainable Tourism Management
In the early seven es authors like
N.Anderson (1998), M Kaplan (1975)
or the very R.J. Havighurst (Havighurst
& Feigenbaum, 1959) developed their
work about the subject of leisure by
le ng the subjec ve nature or the
personal character be the guiding
idea. In general these authors support
the no on that leisure is something
that refers to, and is also made
possible by, the rela on that the
individual maintains with its ac vity,
independently of if it is carried out
during work or during me off. In all
of them, tourism plays a part as a
leisure ac vity, with everything that
implies, both to the ac vity and in
rela on to work.
On this same note, Ortuño Mar nez
(1966) places tourism in the frame
with me off and vaca ons. He differs
between regular trips and those of
tourism and pulls out that fun and
absence are the goals of touris c trips
and also that they are of a temporal
character. The idea of freedom, as
in freedom of choosing des na on
or touris c object, and freedom to
use the means that allows you to
reach the des na on and enjoy it. To
Ortuño, the school of leisure allows
you to go further than the ideas put
forth by the economic school, which is
done by observing tourism ra onally
not through economics, which in the
author´s analysis is named spiritual
interpreta on. It is from this stance
that the boom and enthusiasm
around “Social Tourism” arose in its
me, moved forward by the Belgian
M.H Haulot (1981).
This second paradigma c stance,
which has been called the school
of
leisure
(González-Damián,
2010), presents a methodological
orienta on of cri cal character
in which he supposes a society in
conflict where tourism is recognized
as a manifesta on of a phenomena
of nature that is deeply human and
social: leisure, as a right and a hope, as
a utopia and a program of ac ons. So
if the most no ceable manifesta on
of tourism is as a economic ac vity
ed down by the forces of the
market, then this reality is considered
a consequence of a social structure
that is primarily established by the
manner of produc on. This points
to other alterna ve manifesta ons
of the phenomena of tourism,
which allows us to study it deeper
than its economic side and establish
ideological posi ons whose highest
goals would be to transform society.
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
29
From this stance several publica ons
have been wri en, of which the
works of Hiernaux (2000) s cks out.
It provides a libera ng text on the
structural forces in society, a cri cal
view on mass tourism and opposes
to the idea of local development
through use of tourism (Monterroso
Salva erra y Zizumbo Villarreal, 2009;
Palafox Muñoz, Zizumbo Villarreal,
Arriaga Álvarez, and Monterroso
Salva erra, 2009)
Daniel Hiernaux (2000) studies what
is subversive within the short-lived
aspects of everyday tourism. He
speaks of the breach between those
who study tourism within the sense
of work and produc on as central
concepts within sociology and those
who on the other hand finds the issue
of leisure to be the main subject.
Of the last ones, the author makes
men on of Dumazedier, Lanfant,
Lalive as well as the works of Remy
and Maffesoli. In his works one may
observe an individual approach on
social orders and the non-economic
ra onality in which tourism plays a
fundamental part. Hiernaux claims
that the cri cal stance on tourism
may not easily deny that it contains
in itself something aliena ng. That
however by focusing the a en on
on the individual, one will discover
that there are everyday prac ces of
large amounts of liberty and even
subversion. Of them he says: (Hiernaux,
2000: 110) “new ways of ownership to
the me-space everyday rou ne are
arising, related to tourism and how
we make use of our spare me. They
induce the appearing of different life
styles even though they are generally
short-lived.” He relates them to the
expansion in spare me in everyday
life, the appearing of subversive roles
when dealing with the corpora ve
configura on of tourism, the constant
crea on and recrea on of new
everyday guidelines when travelling
and the importance that memories
play in everyday life at the job. In
this way, to Hiernaux, within tourism
there is a dialec c game between
the logics of work and the logics of
leisure, which is the expression of the
confronta on between the ra onal,
economic logics when confronted
with other different ones. There is
also a permanent challenging by the
individual (subversion) towards social
norms.
3.3 The school of systema c thinking
within the tourism theory
It was not un l the beginning of the
30
Sustainable Tourism Management
seven es that a third theore cal line
of thinking started to take form within
tourism. It was based on the general
theory of systems and influenced by
the theories on social systems. The
official detonator to the formal birth
of this line came with the work of Neil
Leiper (1979), who analyzed tourism
as a system that links three subsystems
found in specific environmental
spaces: origina ng area, receiving
area and region of transit. Sergio
Molina in his book “Conceptualización
del turismo” (1991) carried out an
inves ga on while trying to create
an including conceptualiza on of
tourism. He concluded that the
concept of tourism that has been
constructed by “posi vist” empirics,
and widely divulged, is obsolete. He
called it a model of tourism industry
and in turn proposed the construc on
of three possible conceptual
models of tourism: tourism as a
system, alterna ve tourism and the
phenomena of tourism, which in turn
would be integrated into the first one,
the one of systems.
More recently Mill and Morrison
(2002) proposed a model of the
tourism system that favored the
market func ons and within these
the flow of informa on gave it more
dynamical use. To these authors there
are four key elements or components
in the touris c system: the market,
the trip, the des na ons and the
marke ng. They create a cyclic form
while supposing that each of the
elements within the system feeds
the very system. In this same line
of thought, iden fying tourism as a
system that operates just like other
economic systems, we find the
works by Gunn (Gunn & Var, 2002)
and Butler (1980) at the end of the
80´s. Due to being par ally adopted
by the World Tourism Organiza on,
they became a large influence on the
mainstreamwithin the theories on
tourism.
From this paradigm, individual ac on
is ra onal when it is put in the context
of demand and supply,which in turn
exists within a superior framework
that we may call system. Due to this
paradigm there is not much reason
for theorizing on a micro level. What
is really interes ng and important, is
to find the func onal and structural
links between the collec ves of social
groups, the ins tu ons, the sectors
and the markets. One may seam to
be certain that as of now the main
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
31
theore cal paradigm of tourism is
that of systems, due to its hegemonic
state. Publica ons, as those of Gunn
(Gunn & Var, 2002), Jafari (2005),
Osorio (2005), Farrell and TwinningWard (2004) or Panosso (2007) points
towards this line of thought.
4. Theore c implica ons of the
three theory standpoints
In the school of economy the
social order originates from an
added phenomena that is distant
from the individual. It works as
an automa c adjustment and is
known as the “invisible hand”. It
supposes a society in balance and
evolu on where any unbalance
or crisis is adjusted automa cally
when reaching unacceptable levels
of unbalance. Tourism would in this
sense be subordinate to the laws of
supply and demand, and the actors
that par cipate would subdue to
the rules of the game. This point
of view, as one could see in the last
chapter, is not ques oned within the
school of economy, it is assumed and
accepted.
Within the school of leisure, at
least in its origins, society is seen
as a society with conflicts between
32
the classes. Later on it is seen as a
society with dichotomous tension
between the domina ng and the
dominated, or between westerners
and non-westerners, north-south
etc., where leisure and the society of
leisure proposes an alterna ve view
to the hegemonic which one should
strive for. In this sense the order
would be external to the individual,
anterior and presumed. Tourism is
thus subordinate to the paradigm of
dominant-alterna ve that society in
turn adapts to, and the actors that
take part in it are subordinated to the
posi on within the social network,
being hegemonic or dependent,
domina ng or dominated, owning or
dispossessed, of the leisure class or
the working class.
From the systema c point of view
social order is assumed to be in
balance. The balance is maintained
by the mechanisms of control that are
created by the system itself due to its
structure. The system is so to speak
automa cally regulated which leads
to the autopoiesis (Luhmann, 1995).
In this sense it is of interest to this view
of tourism to discover the structural
characteris cs, auto-regula ng and
autopoie c characters of tourism.
The works by Farrell and Twinning
Sustainable Tourism Management
Ward (2004) or that of Osorio (2007)
points to this. Farrell and Twinning
Ward propose a wider perspec ve
on the systems, looking towards the
theories of complexity. This will allow
the study of the complete system of
tourism along withthe hierarchical
bases it shares with other systems,
which in turn will allow studiers of the
subject to understand the dynamics
of this as a complex non-linear system
with diverse components such as:
objects and services of the ecosystem,
structures and func ons, local society
along with its percep ons and
aspira ons and everything that affects
its behavior. By doing this, the system
turns “comprehensive”, complex and
adap ve. Even if this view was not
worked out properly and in detail, by
simply taking into considera on the
complexity, the door is opened for
incorpora ng inclusive studies on the
duality of society and nature.
On his side, Osorio (2007) proposes
an alterna ve shaped around
communica on as a dis nc on of
the touris c system, he bases this
on the theory of complex systems
by Luhmanniana. Osorio claims the
“the theory on the system of society
permits interpre ng tourism as a
“social dis nc on” that arises because
of the func onal differen a on”
(Osorio, 2005:11) of trips/non-trips
and touris c trips/non-touris c
trips. As for differen a on within
society, he does not manage an
opera onal closure and it is therefor
not a social system even though it is
capable of crea ng irrita on within
other systems in society such as the
economic, the poli c, juridical and
educa onal amongst others. From
this point of view the social order is
self-referen al and only appears in
the society where the individual is
excluded, even though the decisions
may come to irritate the social system
and in turn create a consequence
of structural interconnec on of the
system.
It is very likely that in the years to
come we will see an increasing level
of science used in the studies of
tourism (Jafari, Smith, Brent et al.,
2001) even a er this having been
debated. The very fact that studies
are being carried out on the theories
(Tribe, 2006), which eventually could
lead to the construc on of the theory
on the theories of tourism, points
towards reaching a level of metatheory in the academic debate. The
ever increasing use of sophis cated
methodologies
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
and
techniques,
33
and the progressive accumula on
of knowledge on the ac vity, the
phenomena and its essence, or the
touris c system, allows us to assume
that new paths will be found and that
they will consolidate those that un l
now have been accepted within the
theories of tourism.
5. Conclusions: the sustainable
management of the phenomena,
system or ac vity
5.1 Sustainable management of what
is known as tourism
Sustainable
management,
the
concept understood as what strives
for a balanced development in favor
of life involving diverse par cipants,
both internal and external to
the organiza ons, that in their
decisions and ac ons first of all take
considera on to their environment in
three areas: the socioeconomic, the
cultural and the natural. This concept
can be applied to tourism. Due to the
theore c no ons that are commonly
followed within tourism, the meaning
and possibili es of sustainable
management is perceived differently.
It is therefor necessary to clarify
the different meanings of the term,
based on the theore c founda on of
34
the three schools of thought within
theories on tourism.
If within the literature on tourism
there is currently being published
a growing number of theore c
contribu ons that allows us to
receive a be er understanding of
the subject, then it is possible to
iden fy the different schools of
thought that are brought together
while conserving the differences
between these and the grand part of
contribu ons and proposals. In this
ar cle there was a consensus to set
out from the outline suggested by
Alexander (2000) in order to analyze
social theories. Three general lines of
thought are presented: the economic
school, the leisure school and the
systema c school. The first one to
come about, in terms of chronology,
was the leisure school, even though
it was not considering tourism as a
relevant system un l the years a er
the Second World War. The second
to appear was the economic school,
whose birth may readily be iden fied
with the same conflagra on, which is
probably why the academic debate
came out through its respec ve
representa ves basically since the
origins of both schools. The debate
has not been resolved, given that
Sustainable Tourism Management
the founda ons of both schools are
incompa ble not only on a theore c
level if not also in the underlying
bases on order and ac on. One of
them have been domina ng the
debate for a long me, not due to
academic contribu ons but thanks
to the impulse given by interna onal
poli cs, par cularly from the World
Tourism Organiza on which pushes
forward a no on of their own on
sustainable tourism and sustainable
management of tourism. The
economic school did however receive
a new impulse when incorpora ng
some contribu ons made by the
systema c school into their approach.
This came about in the eigh es in the
20th century, even though this line
of thought has followed its own path
that goes beyond the comprehension
of economic systems.
S ll today we may be sure that
there are studies and contribu ons
being made that would fit, due to
their similari es or because of the
acceptance they provide to some of
the founda ons in whichever of the
three schools of thought on tourism
theory. In turn this results in making it
possible to do an analy c and reflexive
exercise, rela ng the three no ons on
tourism with the idea of sustainable
management.
5.2 Sustainable management within
tourism as an economic ac vity
If tourism is conceived as an economic
ac vity where one may observe
the rela on between supply and
demand in a sociocultural, economic
and environmental se ng, then
sustainable management of tourism
would be completely compa ble with
what is now proposed by the WTO
(UNWTO, 2005). Knowing that one
should steer decisions and ac ons
of the of the direc ves of tourist
des na ons and businesses in order
to:
1. Make op mal use the environmental
resources while maintaining the
essen al ecological processes and
helping in conserving the natural
resources and biodiversity since
they are key elements in tourism,
development.
2.
Respect
the
sociocultural
authen city of the host communi es
by conserving their cultural and
architectural assets as well as their
tradi onal values and contribute
to intercultural understanding and
tolerance.
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
35
3. Secure that some economic
ac vi es are viable, long-term
solu ons that provide well-distributed
socioeconomic benefits such as
opportuni es for stable employment,
as well as social services and income
to the hos ng communi es, while
reducing poverty.
When put into the rigid framework
given by the market laws, it is not
enough to promote these ideas by
their intrinsic or ethical value in order
to fulfill these aspira ons. It becomes
necessary to make these ideas
a rac ve in economic terms to the
tourism businesses and des na ons
by crea ng specific goals, standardized
by a set of criteria that in turn provides
them with addi onal value and
makes them more compe ve in the
market. With complete congruence
on this perspec ve of tourism it is only
reasonable that agencies such as the
Global Sustainable Tourism Council
arises. This agency is sponsored by
the interna onal organiza ons to
promote sustainable tourism by
crea ng norms and global standards
which as of now have two opera onal
products: 1) the Global Sustainable
Tourism Criteria for Hotels and Tour
Operators and 2) Global Sustainable
Tourism Criteria for Des na ons.
36
These and future criteria arise from
the consensus between different
representa ves
of
businesses,
governments and civil society, which
in turn provides them with the
sufficient legi macy to cons tute
as an ethic norm of behavior to the
managers of tourism when dealing
with sustainability.
5.3 Sustainable management of
tourism as a manifesta on of leisure
If tourism is conceived as
a
manifesta on
of
leisure,
understanding the la er as a human
right to individual development by
doing ac vi es of its own choice by
exercising individual freedom, then
tourism would be a par cular way
of exercising the right to leisure.
However, this exercise is limited by
the structural condi ons of the global
economic system. With me this has
become a business that basically deals
with luxury ac vi es that are only
accessible to a certain part of society.
Within these condi ons, the crea on
of a sustainable management has
to come from a reassessment of the
paradigm of development in benefit
of a few select. One has to establish
strategies on a local level that may
counteract the global forces and find
Sustainable Tourism Management
possible ways towards a development
where the needs and rights of the
individual is handled in a equal
manner and in turn: in balance with
the surroundings (Guimarães, 2003).
In this sense, sustainable management
of tourism would have to be
cons tuted in a program of ac on on
a local level, which due to its individual
characteris cs would necessarily have
to respond to very specific contexts.
Because of this we don´t find many
global, interna onal or even na onal
programs. A rare example would be
the program of tourism in Ecuador
(Ministry of Tourism of Ecuador,
2012) where one now can see some
examples of this prac ce (ZizumboVillarreal, 2007).
5.4 Sustainable management
tourism as a system
of
If tourism is to be considered a
system that consists of diverse
related and co-dependent elements
between itself and its surroundings
then
sustainable
management
would have to focus and conceive
itself in the system and its rela on
to the environment. In this sense,
sustainable management would not
only have to consider socioeconomic,
cultural and environmental events as
external to the ac vity but also as a
part of the system itself. A balanced
development of the elements would
have to be considered in interrelated
terms, making the concep on more
complex and in turn the prac cal
implementa on. In this type of
no ons none of the elements in the
system are completely independent
of the rest, which is, for instance,
why changes in cultural aspects in a
tourist des na on is not iden fied as
a consequence of tourism, if not as
an integral element of it. This relates
to tourism businesses and the host
society, the visitors, the government,
as well as the providers of the
services and anyone related to the
phenomena.
Beneath this third perspec ve of
tourism, sustainable management
has to start by recognizing the
characteris cs of the touris c system
as a complex system that tends
towards entropy (Leff, 2000). Due to
this, work agendas have been made
to construct indicators of sustainable
development within tourism (Vera,
2001) that will simplify the func on
of the tourism system in analy c
models and simula ons. This will in
turn allow us to create strategies and
controlling ac ons that will ensure
the sustainability of the system.
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
37
5.5 Final reflec ons
Just like the concept tourism has
diverse meanings, the concept of
sustainable management changes
and acquires new meanings, and as
we have seen up to this point, it brings
out dis nct implica ons. Some mes
they are even contrary or opposite
to each other. This situa on is not
very favorable to the dialogue, not
only on advanced academic terms,
but also on a basic level, which is why
it should be suitable to iden fy the
founda ons that have given so dis nct
perspec ves on these conclusions we
may observe today. Since there is no
general consensus on these ma ers
it may very well be interpreted as a
weakness, and on the other hand as
strength since it allows us to recognize
that there is s ll a lot to research and
to do on the subject of sustainable
management within tourism.
As a consequence of the la er, it is
possible to iden fy four major lines of
research done to develop knowledge
on sustainable management within
tourism. To provide a start at least
one line of research to each of
the three no ons on tourism: the
sustainable management of tourism
as an economic ac vity, tourism as a
38
manifesta on of leisure and tourism
as a system. Furthermore it would be
desirable to create an addi onal line
of a theore cal-methodological and
even meta-theore cal research that
would take on the subject from a more
abstract angle. This would imply the
use of all three no ons and develop
the methodological and technological
applica ons to go deeper in its
knowledge, its development and its
prac cal applica ons.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Inga
Eumann and Ove Pedersen for the
improvement of the English text.
Literature cited
A
, M. A. 1991. Administración
del turismo, conceptualización y
organización. México: Trillas.
A
, J. C. 2000. Las teorías
sociológicas desde la segunda
guerra mundial. Barcelona:
Gedisa.
A
, N. 1998. Work and leisure.
Londres: Routledge.
B
, I. 1987. «Nuestro Futuro
Común», por la Comisión
Mundial de Medio Ambiente y
Sustainable Tourism Management
Desarrollo. MOPTMA, Madrid.
B
, R. W. 1980. The concept
of a tourist area cycle of
evolu on: implica ons for
management of resources.
Canadian
Geographer/Le
Géographecanadien,
24(1),
5–12.
C
B
, M. 2008. Ges ón y
evaluación par cipa vas en
polí cas sociales. Polí ca y
cultura, (30), 137–163.
C
, I. 2004. Introducción
a la teoría general de la
administración. 7ma (7a ed.).
México: McGraw Hill.
C
P
, R., E. B
A
A. A
H
,
2011. Perspec vas teóricas
usadas para el estudio de
la
responsabilidad
social
empresarial: una clasificación
con base en su racionalidad.
Estudios Gerenciales, 27(118).
D
, G., D. N ,
P. P
,
1988.
Methodology
in
tourism research. Annals of
TourismResearch, 15(1), 1–28.
D
C
, P. K. 1997. Marco
de Naciones Unidas sobre el
Cambio Climá co. Tercera
Conferencia de las Partes de la
UNFCCC.
D
, P. F. 2001. Management
challenges for the 21st century.
HarperPaperbacks.
D
, J. 1962. Vers une civilisa on
du loisir? París: Du Seuil.
D
, J. 1968. Hacia una nueva
civilización del ocio. Madrid:
Estela.
D
, J., R. K , 1971. Ocio y
sociedad de clases. Barcelona:
Fontanella.
F
, B. H., L. T
-W , 2004.
Reconceptualizing
tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research,
31(2), 274–295.
F
, H.,
F. W. T
, 1987.
Administración industrial y
general. El Ateneo Buenos
Aires.
F
, M. 1985. Teoría económica
del turismo. Madrid: Alianza
Editorial.
F
, G. 1950. Industrie, loisir
et democra e in ou va le
travailhumain? París: Gallimard.
G
, A. J. 1991. Cumbre de la
Tierra:
una
interpretación
necesaria. Medio ambiente y
urbanización, 9(36), 15–28.
G
, O. 1987. Turismo y desarrollo
en América La na. México:
Noriega Editores.
G
, G. 1994. La teoría y el análisis
de la cultura. Problemas teóricos
y metodológicos. Metodología y
cultura. México: CONACULTA.
G
-D
, A. 2004. Complejidad,
desarrollo
sostenible
y
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
39
turismo. Reflexiones sobre.
Presentado en IV Congreso
Nacional
de
Inves gación
Turís ca., México: CESTURSECTUR. Recuperado a par r
de
h p://fama2.us.es:8080/
turismo/turismonet1/
economia%20del%20turismo/
ul mos/complejidad%20desarr
ollo%20sostenible%20y%20turi
smo.pdf
G
-D
, A. 2010. Posturas
subyacentes sobre orden y
acción social en las teorías del
turismo. Epistemología del
turismo. Estudios crí cos (pp.
98–112). México: Trillas.
G
, R. P. 2003. Tierra de sombras:
desa os de la sustentabilidad
y del desarrollo territorial y
local ante la globalización
corpora va (Vol. 67). United
Na ons Publica ons.
G
, C. A.,
T. V , 2002. Tourism
planning: Basics, concepts,
cases. Londres: Routledge.
H
, A. 1981. Social tourism:
Current dimensions and future
developments.
Interna onal
Journal of Tourism Management,
2(3), 207–212.
e mero. La vida co diana
y su espacio-temporalidad.
Barcelona: Anthropos, CRIM, El
Colegio Mexiquense y UNAM.
J
, J. 1979. Tourism and the social
sciences: A bibliography: 19701978. Annals of TourismResearch,
6(2), 149–194.
J
, J. 2005. El turismo como
disciplina cien fica. Polí ca y
sociedad, 42(1), 39–56.
J
, J., V. L. S
, M. B
, 2001.
The scien fica on of tourism.
Hosts and guests revisited:
Tourism issues of the 21st
century, 28–41.
J
, A. 2004. Una aproximación
sistémica
al
turismo:
implicaciones para la mul
y
la
transdisciplinariedad.
Presentado en VI Congreso
Nacional
de
Inves gación
Turís ca, México: CESTURSECTUR.
K
, M. 1975. Leisure: Theory and
policy. Londres: Wiley.
K
, B., A. P
, A. M
, 1993.
Social impacts of tourism: Host
percep ons. Annals of tourism
Research, 20(4), 650–665.
H
, R. J.,
K. F
,
1959. Leisure and life-style.
American Journal of Sociology,
396–404.
K
, H. J. 1974. Sociología del
turismo: Cambios estructurales
en el turismo moderno.
Barcelona: Hispano Europea.
H
, N. 2000. La fuerza de lo
K
, H. 1980. The management
40
Sustainable Tourism Management
theory jungle revisited. Academy
of Management Review, 175–
187.
L
, P. 1983. El Derecho a la Pereza
(1883) (4aedic ed.). Barcelona:
Fundamentos, Barcelona.
L
, E. 2000. La complejidad ambiental.
Siglo XXI. México.
L
, N. 1979. The framework of
tourism: Towards a defini on of
tourism, tourist, and the tourist
industry. Annals of Tourism
Research, 6(4), 390-407.
L
, N. 1995. Social systems. San
Francisco: Stanford University
Press.
M
, K. 1998. Ideology and utopia
(Vol. 1). Londres: Psychology
Press.
M
, A.,
G. W , 1990.
Turismo:
repercusiones
económicas, sicas y sociales.
México: Trillas.
M I
, R. W., C. R. G
,
J. R. B. R
, 1995.
Tourism: Principles, prac ces,
philosophies. New York: John
Wiley.
M I
, R. W., C. R. G
J. R.
B. 1999. Turismo: Planeación,
admistración y perspec vas.
México D. F. Limusa.
M I
, G., & others. 1993. Sustainable
tourism development: guide for
local planners. World Tourism
Organiza on (WTO).
M , R. C.
A. M. M
, 2002.
The tourism system. Dubuque:
Kendall Hunt.
M
, C. W.,
I. L. H
, 1966.
Sociology and pragma sm: The
higher learning in America. New
York: Oxford UniversityPress
New York.
M
T
E
.
2012. Turismo Consciente.
El Turismo Consciente es
una experiencia de vida
transformadora. Recuperado
sep embre 17, 2012, a par r de
h p://www.turismoconsciente.
com.ec/
M
, H., B. A
J.
L
, 2005. Strategy safari: A
guided tour through the wilds of
strategic management. Free Pr.
M
, S. 1991. Conceptualización del
turismo. México: Limusa.
M
, N.
V
, 2000.
turís ca. Toluca:
Autónoma del
México.
M
S
, N.
L.
Z
V
, 2009. La
reconfiguración neoliberal de
los ámbitos rurales a par r del
turismo:?` Avance o retroceso?
Convergencia, 16(50), 133–164.
Basic concepts: Tourism Theory Trends
L. Z
Inves gación
Universidad
Estado de
41
O
post-industrial society. Mass
Leisure. Glencoe (III).
M
,
M.
1966.
Introducción al estudio del
turismo. México: Porrúa.
T
O
, M. 2005. La Complejidad de
Turismo’. VI Congreso Nacional
de Inves gación Turís ca.
, J. 2006. The truth about tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research,
33(2), 360–381.
T
O
, M. 2007. El carácter social del
turismo. Estudios y Perspec vas
en Turismo, 16, 464–492.
, L.
J. A , 1991. La horda
dorada: el turismo internacional
y la periferia del placer. Madrid:
Endymion.
P
M
, A., L. Z
V
,
E. G. A
Á
N. M
S
, 2009. Introducción
al estudio del turismo a través
del materialismo cultural. Polis
(San ago), 9(25), 461–486.
P
N
, A. 2007. Filoso a
del turismo: Una propuesta
epistemológica. Estudios y
perspec vas en turismo, 16(4),
389–402.
P
, M. C. 2007. Cuarenta años de
crisis: entropía, neguentropía
y recomposición capitalista.
Problemas del Desarrollo.
Revista La noamericana de
Economía, (149), 203–218.
P
, S. 1991. Metodología en el
turismo. México: Trillas.
P
, M. E. 1981. The contribu ons
of
industrial
organiza on
to strategic management.
Academy of management
review, 609–620.
R
, D. 1958. Leisure and work in
42
UNWTO. 2005. Making Tourism More
Sustainable - A Guide for Policy
Makers. Organización Mundial
del Turismo.
V
, T. 1995. Teoría de la clase ociosa
[1899]. México: FCE.
V
, F. 2001. Planificación y ges ón del
desarrollo turís co sostenible:
propuestas para la creación
de un sistema de indicadores.
Barcelona: GEDISA.
Z
-V
, L. 2007. El turismo
local en La Marquesa. Entorno
Del Turismo, 67.
Sustainable Tourism Management
43
B
A
A
-H
1
J
C
-A
2
1
Research Group: Environmental Studies. Sustainable Development Division.
University of Quintana Roo, Campus Cozumel. E-mail: [email protected]
2
Universidad Popular Autónoma de Puebla e-mail: cavazosjudith01@gmail.
com
Abstract
The challenges that arise when studying touris c marke ng and sustainability are diverse
as well as complex and they demand the a en on of the en re academic community.
With the inten on of providing fresh researchers of the area with a few solid first steps,
and giving the advanced researchers some good and reliable scien fic informa on in
order to gain deeper knowledge of the subject, a deliberate documental search was
carried out, hopefully providing the reader with a brief overview on the subject.
A
-H
, A. J. C
-A
. 2013.The Basic Overview of Touris c Marke ng and
Sustainability. In: Alvarado-Herrera A. & González-Damian A. Sustainable Tourism Management:
Conceptual Bases and Case Studies. University of Quintana Roo, México D. F. 142 pp.
Introduc on
Approaching the subject of touris c
marke ng is due to several reasons
not an easy task. First of all because
the paradigm of marke ng, the
framework of reference to conceive
“touris c marke ng”, in itself has
evolved constantly since its beginning,
which happened a bit more than a
century ago (Bigné, 2005). Effec vely,
research regarding marke ng has not
only passed through different periods
of change of concep on, techniques
and research tools, if not also it has
done so faster than in other areas of
research, constantly adap ng to the
changing environment we live in.
Second of all, both marke ng
(Mendelson and Monaghan, 1965;
Gummesson, 2006) and tourism
(Sancho, 2006; Toselli, 2006) are
vast and complex areas, on one
hand implying the need to iden fy
and select from a great universe of
elements that come from a varied
range of disciplines involving subject
ma ers,
theories,
paradigms,
perspec ves, techniques as well as
conceptual and methodological tools,
and on the other hand indulging in
the work of ge ng to know them
and understanding them with
44
the necessary depth for them to
become useful in a specific scien fic
inves ga on.
Now, as Sancho (2006) indicates,
the formal study of tourism is also
something rela vely new in the
history of science, this due to that it
did not start un l the period between
the world wars (1919-1938) and
consequently “there is s ll an open
debate in order to provide a univocal
and standard concept of tourism that is
well reflected in a universal defini on”
(Sancho, 2005:45). Also, due to that
the focus of tourism managers was
centralizing and in some cases kept
centralizing, predominantly (and
some mes unfortunately) on the offer
(Calantone and Mazanec, 1991; Bigné
et al., 2008; Bigné et al., 2009, Bigné
et al., 2010). The change of focus; from
concentra ng on the agencies and
moving on to focusing the marke ng
directly on the consumer only came
about as the compe on got harder
and the preferences and pa erns
of the tourists made the need for it
evident (Bigné et al., 2008; Bigné, et
al., 2010). This in order made this
sector one of the very last to adopt
this focus of a en on (Bigné et al.,
2010) and in terms of research it was
Sustainable Tourism Management
sentenced to fall decades behind
other sectors (Jafari, 2005).
As if the difficul es men oned above
did not create enough of a challenge,
let’s keep in mind that there is s ll
another element to add to the
“equa on” we are dealing with:
sustainability. This concept derived
from the perspec ve of sustainable
development (SD) is the model that
was adopted by the World Tourism
Organiza on (UNWTO), (being the
highest governing body of tourism
related ac vi es on a global level)
(Organización Mundial del Turismo,
2004; Alvarado, 2007)-, to steer
the development in this area. This
has in turn by some researchers
been considered an environmental
hypernorm (Logsdon, 2004; Lizcano
and Nieto, 2006) or an ideal that it
is necessary to constantly advance
towards by crea ng values according
to the social, environmental and
economic axis (Wheeler, Colbert and
Freeman, 2003).
So it seems clear that solving the
obstacles previously men oned is a
task of tanic dimensions that should
be carried out by the en re academic
community. To suppose that it can be
done in such a small amount of space
as this chapter is simply ridiculous.
However, we do find it feasible to
offer a Basic overview of touris c
marke ng and sustainability, which
has the inten on of helping the fresh
researcher and provide him or her
with the first steps in the study of
these ma ers, and to the advanced
researcher: provide a few scien fic
sources that are reliable, from
which one can find more thorough
informa on which we hope will
prove useful in order to focus the
effort. This piece of work, the result
of an inten onal purely documentary
research, tries to provide specific
answers to the ma ers discussed in
this introduc on.
Changes in the way of thoughts
regarding marke ng
“The understanding of the concepts
and tools in tourism marke ng
requires a previous knowledge of its
evolu on” (Bigné, 2005:221).
Just as expected, the first obstacle
the interested student confronts
when researching the subject is
the fast development in literature
regarding marke ng (Bigné, 2005),
a development that throughout
Touris c Marke ng
45
the years has been documented by
various researchers (Bartels, 1988;
Munuera, 1992; Kerin,1996 and Bigné,
2005). Bigné, through his studies
and from previous research (2005),
iden fied five stages of evolu on in
the way of thinking marke ng. In
this ar cle the stages are outlined in
the following paragraphs, based on
the research carried out by Bartels
(1988), Munuera (1992), Kerin (1996),
Moliner and Cervera (2004), and
Bigné (2005). The inten on is but to
provide a basic, fast and easy-to-use
guideline to the interested and hand
out some literature that is helpful in
understanding each of the stages.
We can name the first of these
stages the “pre-historic stage” or the
“origin”, it took place between 1870
and 1880 during the repatria on in
the United States and was brought
forth by economists that had
studied in Germany. The period
lasted un l the end of the century.
It was characterized by having an
orienta on towards produc on and
focus on distribu on and publicity
since the main idea was to provide
the consumer with easy access to
the product and reduce the costs of
produc on (Moliner and Cervera,
2004).
46
Later on, between 1900 and 1959
came the period that Bigné (2005)
named the “preconceptual” period.
During this period the orienta on of
the marke ng changed (probably due
to the great depression from 1929 and
on), from a focus on produc on over
to sales, while keeping a centered
focus on distribu on and replacing
the former center of inves ga ons
with a focus on the consumers
behavior and a classifica on of de
func ons of marke ng, something
that contributed to a widening of the
field of knowledge.
And like that, during this stage
emerges at least ten different schools
of thought within marke ng, all
presented in the following table I.
As one may conclude from the table
above, several of these schools
survived the pre-conceptual stage and
some are s ll important influences
that may be recognized today.
Just like Alvarado states (2007), in
the end of the 1950’s an academic
discussion about the wideness of the
term marke ng started, understood
as “the development of business
ac vi es that directs the flow of goods
and services towards the consumer”
(Alexander et al., 1948), which in
Sustainable Tourism Management
Touris c Marke ng
47
Non interac ve
economics
Non interac ve
economics
Non interac ve
On the product
On the func ons
Geographic
Interac ve economics
Interac ve economics
Ins tu onal
Func onalist
economics
Type
School of thought
Alderson y Cox
(1950)
Weld (1917)
Reilly (1932)
Shaw (1912)
Copeland (1923)
Main workl
Alderson y Cox (1957); Nicosia (1962); Rethans (1979);
Hunt. Muncy y Ray (1981)
Weld (1920); Butler (1923); Converse y Huegy (1940);
McCammon (1965); Bucklin (1965); Mallen (1973); Breyer
(1984)
Converse (1949); Vaile, Grether y Cox (1952); Revzan
(1961); Huff (1964); Grether (1983); Huff y Rost (1984);
Black, Ostlun y Westbrook (1985)
Shaw (1915); Weld (1917); Clark y Weld (1932); Ryan
(1935); Alexander, Surface, Elder y Alderson (1940); Clark y
Clark (1942); McCarthy (1960); Frey (1961); Lazer y Kelley
(1961); Borden (1964); ; Shugan (1987)
Rhoades (1927); Robinson (1933); Aspinwall (1958);
Holton (1958); Lick (1959); Miracle (1965); Kaish (1967);
Raymond y Assael (1974); Holbrook y Howard (1977); Enis
y Roering (1980); Murphy y Enis (1986); Shugan (1987).
Some relevant contribu ons
Table I. Schools of thought within marke ng that arose during the “preconceptual” period. Elaborated by the author, based
on Moliner and Cervera (2004) and Bigné (2005).
On the management
On consumer behavior
On macromarke ng
On organiza onal
dynamics
About the systems
Interac ve economics
Non economical, non
interac ve
Non economical, non
interac ve
Non economical
school of thought, non
interac ve
Non economical
school of thought, non
interac ve
Ridgeway (1957)
Ridgeway (1957)
Vaile, Grether y
Cox (1952)
Ditcher (1947)
Dean (1950)
Lazer y Kelly (1962); Kunh (1963); Bell (1966); Goldstrucker
(1966); Fisk (1967); Brien y Stafford (1968); Mackenzie
y Nicosia (1968); Rethans (1979); Reidenbach y Oliva
(1981); Dowling (1983); Alderson (2006)
Mallen (1963 y 1967); Beier y Stern (1969); Stern (1969);
Stern y Gorman (1969); Hunt y Nevin (1974); Lusch (1976);
Kasulis y Spekman (1980); Dwyer y Walker (1981); Childers
y Ruekert (1982); Frazier (1983); Frazier y Summers (1984);
Gaski (1984)
Holloway y Hancock (1964); Hunt (1977); Hunt y Burne
(1982); Bartels y Jenkins (1977); Kilbourne, McDonagh y
Prothero (1997); Ahuvia y Friedman (1998); Venkatesh
(1999)
Duesenberry (1949); Bauer (1960); Kuhen (1962); Howard
(1963); Andreasen (1965); Nicosia (1966); Howard y Sheth
(1967); Cox (1967); Sheth (1973), Belk (1975); Bonoma y
Zaltman (1978); Kotler (1975); Assael (1984)
Dean (1951); Vaile, Grether y Cox (1952); Smith (1956);
Levi (1960); Magee (1960); McCarthy (1960); Oxenfeldt
(1960); Davidson (1961); Frey (1961); Lavidge y Steiner
(1961); Lazer y Kelley (1961); Borden (1964); Ruekert y
Walker (1987); Shugan (1987)
Sustainable Tourism Management
48
turn led AMA (American Marke ng
Associa on) to studying possible ways
to redefine the term. However, the
Comity of Defini ons decided in 1960
to acknowledge “officially” without
further modifica ons, the defini on
that had been used up to this point.
The very same term that had been
adopted in 1948 and that originally
was established in the report of the
American Business Census of 1935
(See AMA, 2005).
This event resulted in the rise of the
stage referred to as “conceptualiza on
and widening the field of ac on”
(Bigné, 2005) or “formal defini ons”
(Munuera, 1992), in which another
important change of focus in
marke ng happens, leaving behind
the orienta on towards the sales
strategies and focusing more on
the consumer while also provoking
new elements for research. Studying
subjects such as: the classifica on of
the instruments used in marke ng,
the establishment of its scien fic
bases, the necessity for a social
consciousness, and paying social
expenses and of non lucra ve
marke ng (Bigné, 2005; Moliner and
Cervera, 2004).
The two schools of thought within
marke ng that arose during this stage
and some of the most representa ve
works are listed in table II.
The decision adopted by the AMA in
1960 s mulated further the academic
debate on the need for amplifying
both ver cally and horizontally
the limits of the discipline and in
1985 the first stage of “redefini on
and marke ng as an exchange”
(Moliner and Cervera, 2004; Bigné,
2005) started. This due to that the
AMA recognized the following as a
new defini on of marke ng: “the
process of planning and execu ng
the design, determining the price,
communica ng and distribu ng ideas,
goods and services in order to create
exchanges that sa sfies individual
and organiza onal objec ves” (Board
of AMA 1985:1). As one may see,
even though s ll heavily influenced
by the four p’s of the marke ng mix
that McCarthy introduced (1960), it
improved as it included the generic
concept of marke ng (Kotler, 1972),
the marke ng as an exchange
(Bagozzi, 1975) as well as “nature
and a widening of the limits of the
discipline” (Hunt, 1976).
However, the academic debate did
not stop there, and in 1986 the stage
of “integra on” (Moliner and Cervera,
Touris c Marke ng
49
Non economic
not interac ve
Non economic,
interac ve
Alderson y Mar n
(1965)
Kotler y Levy (1969);
Drucker (1969) y Lazer
(1969)
Kotler (1972); Bagozzi (1974, 1975, 1978 y 1979)
Lavidge (1970); Dawson (1971); Farley y Leavi (1971);
Feldman (1971); Ferber (1971); Kelley (1971); Kotler y Levy
(1971); Zaltman y Ver nsky (1971); Kotler (1972); Moinpour
(1972); Moyer (1972); Spencer y Moinpour (1972); Sweeney
(1972); El-Ansary y Kramer (1973); Enis (1973); Shapiro
(1973); Althafer, Butcher y Fosburg (1974); Nichols (1974);
Hunt (1976); Lacksniac y Murphy (1983); Hunt y Chonko
(1984); Hunt, Chonko y Cox (1984); Ferrel y Gresham (1985);
Haaker y Bruzzone (1985); Lacksniac y Murphy (1985);
Cado e, Woodruff y Jenkins (1987); Gundalch y Murphy
(1993)
Table II. Schools of thought within marke ng that arose during the stage of conceptualiza on and widening the field of
ac on. Elaborated by the author, based on Moliner and Cervera (2004) and Bigné (2005).
Ac vist
On social
exchange
Sustainable Tourism Management
50
2004; Bigné, 2005), during which
arose both the concept of rela onal
marke ng (Gummesson, 1987) as
well as the school of thought carrying
the same name (shown in Table III)
and the researchers insisted on their
recommenda ons even later on in the
nine es (Grønholdt and Martensen,
2005). Because of this the AMA felt the
need to re-establishing, once more,
the defini on of marke ng. In 2004 it
was stated that it involved “a func on
and a group of processes in order to
create, communicate and provide a
value to crea ng, communica ng,
and delivering value to customers and
for managing customer rela onships
in ways that benefit the organiza on
and its stakeholders (Keefe, 2004:17,
AMA, 2004 and 2005).
While it is true that since then
there have been voices that invite
re-conceptualize marke ng with
proposals as the “spherical marke ng
concept” Svensson (2006), the
adjustments to the defini on of the
AMA have been lower, meaning
today by marke ng to “the ac vity,
set of ins tu ons and processes for
crea ng, communica ng, delivering
and exchanging offerings that have
value for customers, clients, partners
and society at large” (AMA, 2007).
Main themes and methodologies
used for the study of touris c
marke ng
An adequate way of handling the
second factor that makes it difficult to
enter the study of touris c marke ng
is iden fying the thema c, techniques,
conceptual tools and methodological
issues and its relevant terms (mostly
used in sub-disciplines) and to know
Table III. Schools of thought of marke ng arose during integra ve stage
Schools of
thought
Type
Seminal work
Relevant Contributors
Relational
Not economic
interactive
Gummesson (1987)
Gröonros (1994); Morgan y Hunt
(1994); Aijo (1996); Ravald y
Gröonros (1996); Sheth y Parvatiyar
(1995); Svensson (2006).
Touris c Marke ng
51
about the impacts that the delay in a
change of focus from the sector had.
All this is done best by analyzing the
content of the scien fic publica ons
on this area.
Effec vely, as Bigné, Alvarado and
Sánchez (2009), indicates: knowing
the general subjects and tendencies
in the research of touris c marke ng,
is necessary in order to establish new
paradigms and orientate readers
studying the field on the current
context of these subjects of research.
This work has been done in previous
inves ga ons like those carried out
by Bigné (1996 and 2005), Oh, Kim
and Shin (2004), Ma la (2004),
Bigné, Andreu and Sánchez (2005),
Bigné et al. (2008 and 2009) and
we here focus on the work done by
Bigné and collaborators (2010) since
it is the most recent and actual of the
ar cles referred to. It is also a piece of
research that apart from containing
the analysis of 382 ar cles of touris c
marke ng and having been published
in the two most influen al magazines
on interna onal tourism (Annals of
Tourism Research (ATR) and Tourism
Management (TM)), the researchers
included the previous work of Bigné,
offering a horizon of 12 years worth of
52
scien fic produc on on the subject.
The source research was carried out
while using 10 different variables.
1) Magazine, providing the name of
the magazine where the ar cle was
published. 2) Year of publica on,
3) Main subject of the ar cle –
according to the classifica on by the
Journal of Marke ng (JM), 4) Specific
subject of the ar cle according to
the classifica on by JM. 5) Specific
sub-theme of the ar cle according
to the classifica on by JM. 6) Subsector within tourism (as seen in the
document) 7) Methodology, referring
to the methodological approach of the
ar cle. 8) Origin of the informa on
(techniques for collec ng the data
used in the research. 9) Analysis of
the data (sta s c treatment of the
data). 10) Quan ta ve, quan ta ve
techniques used for the analysis of
the data.
The agreements between judges
ended up repor ng: a reliability of
0.827 (Hols , 1969) and index of
reliability Ir=0.904 (Perrault and Leigh,
1989). Variables for specific subject:
reliability=0,874 (Hols , 1969) and
index of reliability Ir=0,912 (Perrault
and Leigh, 1989) for the main subject
(Bigné et al., 2010).
Sustainable Tourism Management
Given the nature of this chapter, only
some of the most relevant results will
be treated in this research. Interested
readers may consult the original
source that has been quoted.
An interes ng first result of this study
refers to the significant increase in
the amount of ar cles dedicated
to touris c marke ng that were
published between 1995 and 2006; in
the case of ATR, from a total of 18%
of the published work in the period
between 1995 and 1996 and up to
36,8% between 2005 and 2006. In
the case of TM the increase was from
31,4% to 38,9%. Apart from verifying
(according to Bigné and collaborators
(2010) the evolu on happening within
marke ng it also proves that this has
been no ced by the researchers of
touris c marke ng and also that the
academic environment within tourism
has started to focus, more and more,
on the different aspects of marke ng
and its applica ons within the sector.
Amongst the main results of the
inves ga on that served as source, it
is declared that the two most studied
areas between 1995 and 2006 was first
of all the area of marke ng (51%). By
this meaning research related to the
analysis of demand and the market,
the tourist behavior, demographic
aspects, sociocultural, legal, poli cal
and economical aspects as well
as ethics and social responsibility.
Second of all it was the func ons of
marke ng (41,1%) involving subjects
related to managing and planning,
strategies of marke ng, channels
of distribu on, marke ng and new
technologies, price, products and
services, sales promo on, publicity
and other forms of communica on. All
this leaving us with the less a ended
subjects being the ones related to
the research of markets (7,3%) and
other subjects (0,5%). Regarding the
general tendency of the main subjects
of the ar cles Bigné et al. (2010)
iden fied that the area of marke ng
has had a rela ve increase and that
the func ons of marke ng has had
a decrease, this since the study of
markets and other specific subjects
seems to be of li le interest to the
leading journals of tourism.
Now, regarding the specific subjects,
the study of tourist behavior (41,1%),
the strategies of marke ng (14,4%),
the managing and planning (8,9%)
and products and services (6,8%)
are the most a ended areas while
price (1,8%), the promo ons of sales
(1,8%), other forms of communica on
Touris c Marke ng
53
(1,8%), channels of distribu on
(1,3%), publicity (0,8%) and other
specific subjects (0,5%) were the
least interes ng to the researchers
and editors of ATR and TM (Bigné et
al., 2010). The former also seems to
strengthen the idea that the change of
focus within the sector has driven the
readers to make good use of modern
no ons on marke ng, abandoning
the old idea of the mix of marke ng.
Other results that we find interes ng
to this chapter are the ones related
to the touris c sub-sectors. The most
researched ones being des na ons
(38%), types of tourism (24,3%) and
the least researched being restaurant
and food services (0,3%), mul ple
sub-sectors (1,3%), other subsectors (2,4%), transporta on (4,2%),
middlemen and travel agencies (5,8%)
and accommoda on (7,9%). Finally,
the findings of Bigné and collaborators
(2010) show that the research based
on empirical methodologies (93%)
are the most frequent ones in ATR
and TM, and that the techniques for
analyzing the data are predominantly
descrip ve sta s cs (41,3%) and the
analysis of principal components
(15,3%). It also shows that the most
increasing technique is the use of
structural equa ons and analysis
54
paths (R2=0.859), analysis of
principal components (R2=0.814),
discrimina ng analysis (R2=0.809),
descrip ve sta s cs (R2=0.0772 and
neuronal models and mining of data
(R2=0.737). This last, linked to that
84.3% of the published ar cles used
more than two variables of study,
seems to confirm the relevancy of
mul -varied strategies of analysis in
order to inves gate the phenomena
of touris c marke ng.
Many important conclusions may
be drawn from the findings of Bigné
et al. (2010), but since we are trying
to keep things to the point and
provide an overview of the subject
in this chapter, we once more urge
interested readers to consult the
original research we have cited.
Incorpora ng sustainability in the
equa on
Despite the progress described in the
previous chapter, the literature on
touris c marke ng has been lacking
relevance in the evolu on of the
general theories of marke ng (Li and
Petrick, 2008), actually, the tradi onal
orienta on of marke ng is now
insufficient to sa sfy the demands of
a market that is more dynamic and
complex (Donaldson & O’Toole, 2002).
Sustainable Tourism Management
On the other hand, those in charge
of managing and touris c marke ng
have poorly understood the dynamics
of collabora on (Theobald, 2004). A
lot of them are instead of promo ng
tourism as a social ac vity, seeing it
as a source of rapid economic growth
and solely focusing on increasing
the number of visitors, con nuously
pushing forward the development
of new des na ons (Batra, 2006).
They to this without reflec on on
the impact this has on the future
regenera on and produc vity of
the natural resources, the cultural
integrity, the essen al ecological
processes, the biological diversity and
the systems that sustains life (World
Tourism Organiza on (OMT), 1998).
When touris c marke ng is observed
nearsightedly, one may think of it as
two-dimensional: me and space.
Where me is fragmented in short
moments, focusing on a unidirec onal
vision in which businesses are focused
on obtaining tourists. A different view
on touris c marke ng is more holis c
and dynamic, trying to iden fy,
an cipate and sa sfy the necessi es
both of the clients and the society
in a sustainable way (Pea e, 1995).
This last perspec ve tend to focus
on the rela ons between providers
within the sector and tourists,
priori zing the sustainable use of the
resources beneath a wider horizon,
that considers the local, regional
and global environment (Li & Petrick,
2008).
The sustainability, from a holis c point
of view within touris c marke ng,
is based on social marke ng and
should include all of the ac vi es in
which organiza on is involved. This
implies planning, development of
new touris c products, changes in the
produc ve and opera ve processes,
distribu on and logis cs, price and
communica on between lots of other
ac vi es. A big part of the literature
on sustainable marke ng has focused
on the concepts of ecological and
green marke ng, driven by moral
ideas and the offer of something
unique and dis nc ve (Chhabra,
2009). Beneath a holis c specter this
widens up, given that one should
also consider the micro- and macroenvironmental factors in marke ng.
These are designed to promote
sustainable consump on in order to
lessen the barriers towards a change
of behavior and improve the quality
of life (Kilbourne, McDonagh and
Prothero, 1997), both for tourists and
inhabitants.
Touris c Marke ng
55
Segmenta on and sustainability
Market
segmenta on
suggests
valuable informa on about clients and
makes it possible for a des na on to
adjust what it is offering to the needs
of its clients (Pesonen, Laukkanen &
Komppula, 2011). Segmenta on has
turned into an increasingly difficult
task since the industry of travel is very
mature. There is a strong compe on
between different categories, large
pressure on prices and a slow growth
(Theobald, 2004). In addi on, not all
tourists are interested in performing
sustainable tourism. Because of them
both des na ons as well as tourism
operators dedicated to this subject,
should use marke ng techniques
a rac ng the meta-market that is
interested in sustainable des na ons
and services. This since every
des na on only can coincide with
some types of demand (Buhalis,
2000).
Usually in the area of sustainable
knowledge, the consumer is
categorized from a very wide angle
without considering that very rarely
you may separate the natural habitat
from the sociocultural and economical
forces (Hall, 1994). Due to the new
56
tendencies, organiza ons star ng
up within the industry are focusing
on bringing niches of the market by
combining, not only demographical,
geographical and behavioral variables,
but also those of benefits (Pesonen
et al., 2011), the style of vaca ons
(Dolnicar and Leisch, 2003) and also
ethnic variables related to geography
and culture (Chen and Uysal, 2003).
Several researchers argue that longterm sustainability and decisions
on lifestyle will be centerpieces in
the development of strategies for
touris c marke ng in the future, this
in order to compete effec vely and
gain a differen al and compe ve
advantage (Tsiotsou and Ra en,
2010). In recent years there has been
a significant increase in interest from
several agents within the market
towards different forms of sustainable
tourism and its combina on with
economic progress, environmental
care and sociocultural consciousness.
Despite of this, it has not conquered
the problem of only reaching a niche
of the complete market (Honey,
1999). A relevant change of paradigm
is that tourists are not only consumers
anymore. They are ge ng being
involved in the sector as a human
resource for regional development. An
Sustainable Tourism Management
example of this is alterna ve tourism
which is characterized by the tourists
intending to establish more contact
with the local popula on without the
necessity of a touris c infrastructure,
using the same accommoda on
and transporta on that the locals
use (Krippendorf, 1987). There is
also volunteer tourism which is a
type of travel where people, during
their vaca ons, pays for their stay
by par cipa ng in projects or makes
exchanges of work for room and
board. These projects may be focused
on communal development, nature
preserva on, educa on, work in
organic farms and suppor ve ac vi es
within tradi onal economies, among
others (Moscardo, 2007).
Cri cism
towards
sustainable tourism.
marke ng
Despite the increase of sugges ons
based on sustainable tourism, some
s ll ask themselves if this really is a new
way of tourism or a successful strategy
of differen a on that deep down
offers the same as always (Lansing &
De Vries, 2007), and if it really is an
ethical answer to economical, social
and ecological problems in different
contexts (Wheeler, 1995).
A strong cri que directed towards
the prac oners of marke ng is
that they tend to be conspire in the
crea on of unsustainable pa erns
of consump on (James, 2007), at
the same me there is a lack of
knowledge, understanding and trust
towards the subjects related to
sustainability amongst the consumers
(Chatzidakis, Hibbert & Smith, 2007;
Connolly & Prothero, 2008). These
aspects transform into barriers since
a sustainable future requires a deep
modifica on of lifestyles, habits,
norms and ins tu ons of social
consump on (Connolly & Prothero,
2003; Bandura, 2007), this aside
from tourism already being highly
dependent and vulnerable to factors
that are out of control to the industry
and also the na onal community.
Due to this, there have been some
successful efforts, for instance, some
hotel chains and interna onal resorts
dedicated to the luxury segment
has played an ac ve part in the
environmental conserva on, mainly
through the crea on of eco-resorts.
Other sustainable ini a ves have been
able to par cipate in historical and
cultural preserva on, crea ng some
health benefits, educa on, inclusion
and employment to local residents,
guaranteeing that the benefits are
shared with the local community
Touris c Marke ng
57
(Lansing & DeVries, 2007).
The efforts towards integra on
of sustainable tourism marke ng
can be seen as fading due to the
fragmenta on of the industry and
the domina on of a produc on
system that is heavily orientated
towards profitability and merely
weakly interested in ecological and
social aspects (Lansing & De Vries,
2007). Some believe that the way
to guaranteeing a development of a
sustainable marke ng, in this case
applied to tourism, is that all of those
interested take on the agenda of
sustainability through incorpora ng
prac ces of green marke ng,
social marke ng and a cri cal
marke ng, that requires research
and mul faceted ac on with the
purpose of having posi ve impact
on this (Gordon, Carrigan & Has ngs,
2011). The sociocultural effects of
tourism development should be
analyzed with greater precision and
educa on plays a fundamental part
in order for the local communi es to
act with consciousness when dealing
with changes in their environment
and responding with more capacity
towards the investments made in
their surroundings (Lansing & De
Vries, 2007).
58
Finally, we believe that touris c
marke ng based on sustainability
requires development and the use
of innova ons that may be applied
to the products/services, processes,
ac vi es and rou nes as well as
paradigms within and between the
supply chains in the tourism industry.
The synergies between tourism
and other ac vi es may contribute
to
sustainable
development
(Moscardo, 2007), through the
product (Specifically linked to
the infrastructure), the market
(involving tourists as part of regional
development) and marke ng ac vi es
(through different mechanisms and
systems, for instance distribu on and
promo on amongst others). The key
to innova on is found in genera ng
and managing the knowledge on
how to develop regional, sustainable
tourism. This may be transferred and
used in the planning and managing
of a par cular des na on, providing
a posi ve impact that integrates the
well-being and the quality of life as
well as the economical, social and
cultural capital of the inhabitants.
Acknowledgements
The
authors
Sustainable Tourism Management
are
grateful
with
Ove Pedersen
improvement
for
the
content24159.php.
English
A
M
A
.
2007. Dic onary of marke ng
terms.
Accesado
el
20/11/2007, desde h p://
www.marketingpower.com/
mgdic onary-view192.php.
B
, R.P. 1975. Marke ng as
exchange. Journal of Marke ng,
39 (4), 32-39.
B
, A. 2007. Impeding Ecological
Sustainability through Selec ve
Moral
Disengagement.
Interna onal
Journal
of
Innova on and Sustainable
Development, 2(1): 8-35.
B
, R. 1988. The History of
Marke ng Thought. Columbus:
Publishing Horizons.
B
, A. 2006. Tourism marke ng for
sustainable development. ABAC
Journal, 26(1): 59-65.
B
, E. 1996. Turismo y Marke ng:
una revisión y perspec vas
de futuro. Revista de Estudios
Turís cos, 129: 105-127.
B
, E. 2004. Nuevas orientaciones del
marke ng turís co: de la imagen
de des nos a la fidelización de
los turistas. Papeles de Economía
Española,102: 221-235.
B
, E., J. A
, L. A
,
A.
A
, 2010.
Desarrollo
Sostenible y Responsabilidad
Social Empresarial en el
Literature cited
A
A
A
A
A
, R.S., J. A
, G. C
,
W. C
, K. D
, D.
H
, et al. 1948. Report
of the defini ons commi ee.
Journal of Marke ng, 13 (2):
202-217.
,
A.
2007.
Evolución
epistemológica
de
la
responsabilidad
social
empresarial: del management
al marke ng. Trabajo de
Inves gación no publicado.
Departamento
de
Comercialización e Inves gación
de Mercados, Universidad de
Valencia.
M
A
B
. 1985. AMA Board
approves
new
marke ng
defini on. Marke ng News, 19:
1.
M
A
.
2004. Marke ng redefined:
nine top marketers offer their
personal defini ons. Marke ng
News, 38: 16.
M
A
.
2005. New defini on of
marke ng.
Accesado
el
27/10/2006, desde h p://
www.marketingpower.com/
Touris c Marke ng
59
contexto del Marke ng de
Servicios Turís cos: propuesta
de una definición específica. En
Anton, S. (Ed.) Conocimiento,
crea vidad y tecnología para un
turismo sostenible y compe vo
: actas del XII Congreso de
la Asociación Española de
Expertos Cien ficos en Turismo
: Vila-seca (Tarragona), 12 a
14 de diciembre de 2007. -[Castellón] : AECIT ; [Tarragona]
: Universitat Rovira i Virgili (pp.
55-72). España: AECIT
B
B
, E., A. A
,
I. S
,
2010. Research in tourism
marke ng. P. p. 3-14. In Kozak,
M., Juergen, G. y Andreu, L.
(Eds.) Advances in Tourism
Des na on
Marke ng:
Managing Networks. Reino
Unido: Routledge
, E., L. A
, Y G. I. S
2005.
Inves gación
en
marke ng turís co: un análisis
de las publicaciones en el
período 1995-2003. XV Jornadas
Hispano-Lusas de Ges ón
Cien fica, Sevilla.
B
, J., L. A
, I. S
A.
A
, 2008. Inves gación
internacional en marke ng
turís co: análisis de contenido
sobre temas y metodologías.
PASOS, 6 (3): 391-398
B
D. 2000. Marke ng the
compe ve des na on of the
60
future. Tourism Management,
21(1): 97-116.
C
, R.
J. M
, 1991.
Marke ng management and
tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 18 (1): 101-119
C
, A., S. H
A. S
,
2007. Why People Don’t Take
their Concerns about Fair Trade
to the Supermarket: The Role
of Neutralisa on. Journal of
Business Ethics, 74(1): 89-100.
C
, J.,
M. U
, 2003. Leisure
traveler typology: a case of
ten Eastern states. Journal of
Hospitality & Leisure Marke ng,
10 (1/2): 51-62.
C
, D. 2009. Proposing a
sustainable
marke ng
framework for heritage tourism.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
17(3): 303-320.
C
, J.
A. P
, 2003.
Sustainable
Consump on:
Consump on, Consumers and
the Commodity Discourse,
Consump on, Markets and
Culture, 6(4): 275-291.
C
, J. A. P
, 2008. Green
Consump on: Life-Poli cs, Risk
and Contradic ons. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 8(1): 117145.
D
, S., F. L
, 2003. Winter
tourist segments in Austria.
Journal of Travel Research, 41
Sustainable Tourism Management
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
(3): 281-292.
D
, B.,
T. O’T
.
2002. Strategic Marke ng
Rela onships: From Strategy
to Implementa on. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
G
, R., M. C
,
G.
H
, 2011. A framework
for sustainable marke ng.
Marke ng Theory, 11 (2): 143163.
G
G
G
H
H
, L. A. M
, 2005.
Marke ng redefined: changes
and challenges. Marke ng
Review, 5 (2): 101-109.
, E. 1987. The new
marke ng - developing longterm interac ve rela onships.
Long Range Planning, 20 (4):
10-20.
, E. 2006. “Many-to-many
marke ng as grand theory”. P.p.
339-353. In:Lusch, R. F., & Vargo,
S. L. (eds), The service-dominant
logic of marke ng: Dialog,
debate, and direc ons. Armonk,
NY: ME Sharpe
, C. M. 1994. Ecotourism in Australia,
New Zealand and the South
Pacific: Appropriate Tourism
or a New Form of Ecological
Imperialism? In E. Cater, and G.
Lowman. (Ed). Ecotourism: A
Sustainable Op on? Chichester:
John Wiley.
, O. 1969. Content analysis for the
social sciences and humani es.
H
, M. 1999. Ecotourism and
Sustainable Development: Who
Owns Paradise? Washington,
DC: Island Press.
H
, S.D. 1976. The nature and
scope of marke ng. Journal of
Marke ng, 40 (3): 17- 28.
J
, J. 2005. El turismo como
disciplina cien fica. Polí ca y
Sociedad, 42 (1): 39-56
J
, O. 2007 Affluenza. London:
Vermilion.
K
, L.M. 2004. What is the meaning
of ‘marke ng’? Marke ng
News, 38: 17-18.
K
, R.A. 1996. In pursuit of an ideal:
the editorial and literary history
of the Journal of Marke ng.
Journal of Marke ng, 60 (1): 113.
K
, W., P. M D
,
A.
P
, 1997. Sustainable
consump on and the quality
of life: A macromarke ng
challenge to the dominant
social paradigm. Journal of
Macromarke ng, Spring: 4-24.
K
, P. 1972. A generic concept of
marke ng. Journal of Marke ng,
36 (2): 46-54.
K
, J. 1987. The Holiday
Makers. London: Heineman.
L
, P.,
P. D V
, 2007.
Sustainable Tourism: Ethical
Touris c Marke ng
61
de
marke ng.
Castellón:
Universitat Jaume I; puede
solicitarse al Departamento de
Administración de Empresas
y Marke ng de la Universitat
Jaume I.
Alterna ve or Marke ng Ploy?
Journal of Business Ethics, 72(1):
77-85.
L , X.
L
L
J. F. P
, 2008. Tourism
Marke ng in an Era of Paradigm
Shi . Journal of Travel Research
46 (325): 235-244.
M
, J.L.
N
, P. 2006b. La
semán ca de la responsabilidad
social corpora va. Madrid:
AECA.
, G. 2007. Sustainable
tourism innova on: Challenging
basic assump ons. Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 8(1): 4-13.
M
, J. 1992. Evolución de las
dimensiones del concepto
de marke ng, Información
Comercial Española, 707: 126142
, J.M. 2004. Global business
ci zenship: applica ons to
environmental issues. Business
and Society Review, 109 (1): 6787.
M
, A. 2004. Consumer behavior
research in hospitality and
tourism journals. Interna onal
Journal
of
Hospitality
Management, 23 (5): 449-457
M C
, E. 1960. Basic marke ng:
a
managerial
approach.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
M
, B. R. M
, 1965.
“The mul discipline approach:
a
marke ng
applica on”.
Proceedings of the Joint
Computer Conference, Part I
AFIPS ‘65 (Fall, part I) Pp. 13943. November 30--December 1.
ACM New York, NY, USA
M
62
, M.A.
A. C
, 2004.
Historia y teoría del marke ng:
origen y evolución del concepto
O , H., B. K , J. S , 2004. Hospitality
and tourism marke ng: recent
developments in research and
future direc ons, Interna onal
Journal
of
Hospitality
Management, 23 (5): 425-447
O
M
T
1998. Guía para las autoridades
locales en el desarrollo de
turismo sostenible. Madrid:
Organización
Mundial
de
Turismo.
O
M
T
.
2004. Declaraciones de la
Organización
Mundial
de
Turismo en relación con el
desarrollo sostenible del turismo:
conceptos
y
definiciones.
Accesado
el
24/10/2007,
desde:
h p://www.unwto.
org/espanol/frameset/frame_
Sustainable Tourism Management
Reconciling corporate social
responsibility,
sustainability
and a stakeholder approach
in a network world. Journal of
General Management, 28 (3):
1-28.
sustainable.html.
P
, K. 1995. Environmental
marke ng
management:
Mee ng the green challenge.
London: Pitman Publishing.
P
, W.
L. L
, 1989.
Reliability of nominal data
based on qualita ve judgments.
Journal of Marke ng Research,
26 (2): 135-148.
W
, M. 1995. Tourism Marke ng
Ethics:
An
Introduc on.
Interna onal Marke ng Review,
12(4): 38-49.
Pesonen, J.; T. Laukkanen, & R. Komppula,
2011. Benefit segmenta on of
poten al wellbeing tourists.
Journal of Vaca on Marke ng,
17 (4): 303-314.
S
, A. 2006. Introducción al
Turismo. Madrid: OMT.
S
, G. 2006. The spherical
marke ng
concept:
A
revitaliza on of the marke ng
concept. European Journal of
Marke ng, 39 (1): 5 - 15
T
, W.F. 2004. Global Tourism.
USA: Bu erworth-Heinemann.
T
, C. 2006. Algunas reflexiones
sobre el turismo cultural, (4)2:
175-182
T
, R.,
V. R
, 2010.
Future research direc ons in
tourism marke ng. Marke ng
Intelligence & Planning.28(4):
533-544.
W
, D., B. C
, R. E. F
,
2003. Focusing on value:
Touris c Marke ng
63
65
S
S
A
T
S
A
B
J
1
R
T
P
2
1 S
Sustainable Division, University of Quintana Roo Campus Cozumel E-mail:
[email protected] 2Escuela Superior de Turismo, Ins tuto Politécnico
Nacional.
Abstract
Sustainability has been well received in tourism, due to current trends in services’
genera on. However, in communi es it is observed that the sustainable use of resources
creates complex liaisons among the la er, due to their specific rela onships and
interac ons. These result from the selec on of the resources, their implementa on and
reuse, implemen ng the vision of preserva on of cultural and natural environments in an
economically beneficial rela onship. Taking this into account, sustainable management
should be discussed as based on a worldview used to interpret the produc ve media
and reconsider the role of the actors involved in this ac vity, in order to define an adapt
concept that emerges from the common purpose. The System Science and Systemic
perspec ve present a viable alterna ve to achieve this development, as they permit
overcoming of the reduc onist analysis, by focusing on the wholeness observa on
enabling knowledge u liza on on all the internal and external rela ons defining
tourism’s sustainability.
B
-J
, A. R. T
P
, 2013. System Science Approach to Tourism Sustainability.
In: Alvarado-Herrera A. & González-Damian A. Sustainable Tourism Management: Conceptual
Bases and Case Studies. University of Quintana Roo, México D. F. 142 pp.
Introduc on
The Sustainability defini on comes
from the environmental problems of
global concern and extends in finding
solu ons to conserve resources
without compromising future needs
(WCED, 1987). The ideas forming the
core of the concept are based on the
topics discussed by the Brundtland
Commission in “Our Common Future”
(Hedren & Linner, 2019). Essen ally This
chapter exposes the produc on media,
processes and purposes of human´s
ac ons, by exploring some solu ons
that consider the altera on of the
economic, cultural and environmental
scopes. Therefor it refers to systemic
es to develop a frui ul ac vity, which
is based on complex harmonic rela ons.
These denote the right ac ons possible
to perform in a sustainable way and
regarding the available condi ons.
The sustainability topic in tourism has
been treated by several forums. The
most significant statements were made
at the: Manila Declara on on World
Tourism (1980), the Charter of Tourism
and Tourist Code (1985); Hague
Declara on About Tourism (1989);
Summit of Rio de Janeiro (1992);
Conference on Sustainable Tourism in
Lanzarote (1998); Global Code of Ethics
66
for Tourism (1999); Quebec Declara on
on Ecotourism (2002); Declara on
Djerba on Tourism and Climate Change
(2003), among other contribu ons. The
ideas developed there have allowed
advance in conceptual understanding
of tourism´s sustainability.
The core of sustainability and tourism
refers to dimensional concern about
an equilibrium established to ensure
long-term sustainability (OMT, 2004).
The idea behind is to be focused in
the genera on of tourism ac vity
that contributes to economic and
social welfare for the local community
(Aronsson,
1994).
Nevertheless,
planning and scheduling of tourist
ac vi es have has experienced
certain evolu on in recent years, due
to changing demands. The tourism
alterna ve is understood as a process
that seeks mutual understanding,
solidarity and equality between
par cipants (Stephen & Neil, 1999).
The transforma on of tourism towards
sustainability is cornerstone of new
tourism ac vi es. Some of them are:
rural tourism promo ng useful means to
address social and economic challenges,
as it copes with the rural problems
of declining tradi onal farming areas
(Baoren, 2011); ecotourism which
Sustainable Tourism Management
developed environmental awareness
as well as respect for the local culture
(Reimer & Walter, 2012), ethnotourism
related to cultural travelers, e.g. in
indigenous se lements in order to
learn the culture and tradi ons there
(Morales, 2008); and tourism adventure
that integrates physical ac vi es and
interac ons with natural environment
and cultural learning (SECTUR, 2009).
Sustainable tourism in its essence
provides the opportunity to capture
trends for the des na ons while
maintaining long-term economic and
environmental viability of the area
(Sandoval, 2006). It contributes to
the forma on of mutually beneficial
rela onships to improve quality of life
of the locals, while preserving their
environment. In this case decision
making and planning are essen al, as
communi es and organiza ons have
to design by agreement, the economic
demands as well as the social and
environmental aspects of sustainable
development (Bahaire & White 1999).
This is achieved by adap ng of spa al
planning criteria, increasing of regional
development processes (Borrayo, 2002)
and establishing a balanced produc on
with special emphasis to the concerned
scopes such as rescuing of cultural
elements and biodiversity protec on,
even if the communi es have to cope
with the dilemma of performing or not
an essen al economic ac vity. Further
on, tourism as a topic of knowledge,
is tackled by different scien fic
perspec ves Some of them are the
economic theory that recognizes its
ability to generate mul plier effect
(Ge no, 1993); the social psychology
that comes from intercultural referral
contacts (Brown, 2005 cited in
Castaño, 2005); the sociological theory
researching on social phenomena,
(Bente et al., 2006); and tourism
anthropology that is manifested in the
ethno-cultural dynamisms (Siew et
al., 2006). However, these approaches
are weak in order to clarify theore cal
synopsis since they start from a singular
vision framed in a par cular discipline
or speciality. This results in selec ng a
method with appropriate features, but
detached from the study object.
The integra on of knowledge in tourism
sustainability has a two prone impact.
It dis nguishes the stages of reflec on
of the social, economic, cultural
and natural essence and exposes its
sensi vity revealed in the dialec c
phase. This applica on in tradi onal
science requires not only to omit the
System Science Approach
67
general vision of the problem, but
also to observe only a singular part
of it. Thereby, the phenomena are
observed outside of the complexity
considera ons. The analysis consists
of explora on of conjectures without
taking greater care of their contextual
composi on. Thus, the researcher
removes the construct rela ons so
that she makes possible the study of
the tourism, which is subordinated
to sustainability’s studies. The
GST (General Systems Theory) is
appropriate to address with general
issues concerning interdisciplinary of
tourism (Leiper in Farrrel and Twining,
2004). The approaches in this area
aime to developing more refined
defini ons (Jafari, 2005), as they allow
the use of controversy between the
elements and their rela onships. The
systems view in tourism has achieved
good diffusion, scope and useful tools
for this study area. Hence, to date GST
is the theory that explains best the
dynamics of tourism (Panosso, 2007)
and contrasts to the reduc onist
science, which is unable to deal with
the unstable tourism system.
This chapter presents the systemic
approach as means to address the
sustainability of tourism. It consists
68
of the following sec ons: part II
presents the role of stakeholders into
the tourism sustainability, in part III
are raised Systemic considera ons
to address the complexity of tourism
sustainability, while part IV presents
a proposal of sustainable systemic
tourism, finally in Sec on V is
presented the conclusions.
Role
players
sustainability
in
The
Sustainability
Tourism
tourism
requires considera on of joint
efforts, which are composed by the
state interven on, the community
par cipa on and the ac on of those
involved in maintaining good planning
of tourism goods and services
(Gartner, 1996; Inskeep, 1991;
Gunn, 1988, Johnson et al., 1994).
These aspects must become part
of an integral vision to contemplate
all facets of this ac vity, so that its
formula on should be a process of
exchange of views and commitment
agreements to involve different
actors (Acerenza, 2006). At tourism
planning, governance´s par cipa on
has important func on, since it has
the essen al role of enabling concrete
ac ons. Thus, the proper learning
plans are necessary for developing of
Sustainable Tourism Management
poli cs, which is used to determine
appropriate strategies for tourism
(Connell et al., 2009).
The poli cal direc ons should create
an atmosphere in which actors not
only increase their capacity, but
also expand their opportuni es for
present and future genera ons.
Therefore, the communi es should
encourage new forms of organiza on
and sustainable management. This
is necessary in order to recognize
their opera on areas and select the
environment on which they depend.
Hence, the communi es would be in
the condi on to route their ac ons
and generate their own management
mechanisms to create closer links
with stakeholders.
Further on, touris c companies
usually develop economic ac vi es
by using mass produc on models,
where the business management has
adopted sustainable elements on a
later stage. It is clear that something
interes ng happens with this
produc on schema since it is designed
to obey the market compe on
requirement as well as to reduce the
legisla ve and environmental quality
cost (Burgos et al., 2002). In this
context, sustainability leads to certain
vagueness, especially for companies
that focus on poten al customers, in
which the promo onal value stands
out as a publicity stunt (Cohen,
2002). However, the guidelines for
the sustainable development and
management prac ces are applicable
to all forms of tourism (WTO, 2005 in
OTM, 2005). Consequently, according
to the actors´ visions, it is necessary
to define the scopes for implemen ng
the ac ons, i.e. to recognize the depth
of the shares and the convergence
of planning, so that this defini on
helps the designer to consider mutual
benefit ac vi es. This is possible since
in sustainable defini on of tourism, it
has to shed a superior character. This
ac vity brings to natural and social
environments a new drive, which is
fostered by consumers as a result of
the momentum for transforma on.
Tourists request, without any charge,
to take part in tourism conserva on,
which means to par cipate in the
development and improvement of the
social and economic environments.
This par cipa on is growing,
henceforth, it is important to provide
the appropriated ac vi es and
services for a selected market niche.
The sustainable tourism approach by
System Science Approach
69
a brief bibliographic review reveals
two antagonis c theses. The first one
has served to develop a sustainable
tourism approach as a NETWORK,
focused on coopera ve efforts
between governments and other
interested companies (Fadeeva et
al., 2000). However, this guidance
is not being prosecuted to the
integrity of visions, instead of that
it returns to learning by a minimum
of understanding between members
of the network and the shared
experiences. On the other hand, the
SOLIDARITY tourism involves the host
community in each phase of the project.
Then, the individual issues, such as
cultural and natural environment are
regarded and employed to ensure
the proper distribu on of generated
resources (WTO, 2007). Thus, there
are conflic ng perspec ves in these
applica ons, since they are based
on tourism ac vity as a commercial
and social ac vity respec vely.
Yet, the social and produc ve goal
evolves from the same source.
Natural outcome is that Communi es
need to determinate a correct
system that can meet efficiently the
Figure 1. Actors Rela onship in Tourism Sustainability
70
Sustainable Tourism Management
common objec ves. This suggests
the idea to coordinate the regulatory
policy, the business management,
the communi es’ efforts, and the
customer preferences towards a
common commitment. This requires
a clear understanding of the interests
and a tudes stakeholders have (Byrd
et al., 2009).
Systemic
considera ons
to
address the complexity of tourism
sustainability.
The General Systems Theory is
alterna ve proposal, which emerges
from the incapacity of mechanis c
scheme and the merits treatment to
cope with the theore cal problems,
especially in the bio-social field
(Bertalanffy, 2002). It is a discipline
that integrates the natural and social
sciences to covert the study of living
and nonliving systems through the
use of isomorphs1 principles. The
study of a system, which is considered
as a whole, consists of covering its
complexity. Meanwhile, the elements
and their rela ons have to remain
intact (Gigch, 1981). Consequently,
the observed phenomena cannot be
simplified as tourism sustainability. In
general, within the conceptualiza on
of systems thinking, the authors
have agreed upon that is a set of
criteria coordinated to interact in
a way achieving a set of objec ves
(Johansen, 1999).
The systems approach is reached
through the dialec cal synthesis
between quan ta ve and qualita ve
methods, since it considers them as
se ng complementary focus on two
aspects: finding the explana on of
the phenomenon, and enac ng its
improvement (Tejeida, 2005). Living
systems are endowed with certain
proper es to achieve their mission.
Ackoff (1999) speaks of adap ve
systems, as able to change an internal
state to a new one, in response to
environmental varia on. This phase
includes the changing of the state
through a biological rela onship.
The biological link is revealed by the
self-reproduc on of its own items in
a autopoie c rela onship (Maturana,
1981:21). Thus, the system achieves
a stability, allowing surviving in the
changing environment.
The living systems model is presented
by Boulding (1956) as hierarchically
structured living systems by the
complexity in the roles, purposes,
System Science Approach
71
elements and rela onships, whereas
each system is related with certain
characteris cs. Therefore, living
systems require food, sun and water
as well as the social systems exist
within a social context (see Table I).
The cogni ve systems are manifested
in a conscious state that allows not
only assessing the environment,
in which they are found, but also
modifying or adap ng the condi ons
in accordance to their own needs.
The social systems are manifested in
organiza ons, which need to assure
the survival through recognizing the
purpose of the whole by dialogue
or submission. The con nuous
interac ons of each system have
direct or indirect influence on other
system, so that an autopoie c system
would be altered by an allopoie c
one and vice versa.
The cogni ve systems are manifested
in a conscious state that allows
assessing the environment in which
they are found, through modifying
and / or adap ng them to their needs.
The social systems are established in
organiza ons and need to recognize
the purpose of the whole in its parts.
Table I. Hierarchy of living systems. Source: (Boulding, 1956).
72
Sustainable Tourism Management
Therefore, the survival is determinate
by dialogue or submission. The
possible answers can be: a) To adopt
postures of persistence, which
dynamics lead to new states in new
rela onship func onality, b) to
generate a social bifurca on, which in
its order, rises to a new evolu onary
process. Loyola (2005) calls them the
invariant dimension that consists of the
organiza on, making the system what
it is, and the size varia on, making the
organiza on real and current. Each
intellectual system belongs to a social
system with different purpose. In
fact, it could be on the contrary. This
gives rise to the behavior outlined
by individuality where each element
takes some decision, generated by
cogni ve process and the evalua on
through
the
awareness.
The
“holon”2 as a composite autopoie c
determines the rela ons of the
par es in an evolu onary genera on
of new states, but the rela onship is
not autonomous, since it does not
evolve by itself. This externaliza on
is generated in a close rela onship
with the whole. This asser on was
observed by Jiming (2000) who
men ons, that biological evolu on
is the result of amplifica on of
biodiversity through the spontaneous
selec on mechanism, which follows
the goal of his evolu on to the extent
of biodiversity.
This idea suggests that in social
systems the interac ons generate
new compounds in the surrounding
environment and this evolu on
leads to spontaneous emergence of
systems with increasing complexity.
Thus, social systems are in constant
interac on with their environment
and are affected by the rela onships
with other systems belonging to the
same environment and the nature.
Conclusively, even though the
economic system is not intended to
affect the natural system, its internal
changes generate synergies.
The directed systems are operated
by control mechanisms. There a
complex variety is understood as the
number of different elements in the
system. Cyber machine opera on
(control) introduces a degree of order,
which eliminates uncertainty. The
informa on reduces the variety, which
is one of the main elements of the
regula on (Beer, 1980). The entropy
expresses the amount of disorder in a
system that tends to increase, unless
the system receives this informa on
or negentropy (Young, 1978). The
System Science Approach
73
entropic advance in social systems
supposes sta c or dysfunc onal state,
because ac ve hemosta c3 process
generates from inside a balanced
reac on with its environment. The
main characteris c of social systems
is the emergence of human ac vity
systems, which manifested a definite
purpose (deliberate ac ons which
are decided by will) and emergent
property (view of reality). This idea
puts the knowledge of social systems
within a cycle in which the purposeful
ac on comes as part of the
experien al knowledge. Accordingly,
it can turn to a new knowledge a er a
new experience (Checkland , 2001).
Systemic
considera ons
Sustainable Tourism
in
The holis c view has contributed to
the dialec cal synthesis of tourism
epistemology with contribu ons
from: Crow (1967; cited in Cuervo,
1967), Leiper in Acerenza, (1984);
Boullon (1985), Liu (1994), Molina
(1996), Mill and Morisson (1998); Beni
(2000); Jiménez (2004), and Briones
(2009). The Systemic view offers an
alterna ve to study and understand
tourism phenomenon (McDonald,
74
2009). However, the sustainability of
tourism has been li le studied from
this perspec ve, because this requires
simultaneous considera on of parallel
scopes. Studying sustainability of
tourism through robust instruments,
i.e. systems methodologies, makes
it possible to display and model
the phenomena by building a
comprehensive solu on of complex
thought.
Sustainable tourism has mul ple
ac vi es connected recursively, in
which the system receives inputs,
which are presumably of sustainable
character. These inputs are processed
in a phase of transforma on to convert
them in ac ons, which are presented
in the concern environments in
perceived and measurable outputs.
Simultaneously,
they
generate
changes within a feedback phase, in
order to cons tute new factors that
maintain the sustainability of the
ac ons, see Figure 2.
The transforma on consists of
combina on of inputs, which meet
within homeosta c func on to
ensure a steady state. This func on is
derived by entropy, resul ng from the
combina on of environments. Thus,
the system inputs are referen al to
Sustainable Tourism Management
outputs, since the inputs are formed
by sustainable provision so that
outputs should reflect this provision.
This thought comes from the need to
generate new models in the tourism
industry as a demand-driven response
and to match it with sustainable
tourism development (Pere, 1998).
The variety of the sustainable
tourism system is understood as
mul ple elements presenta on, on
which are established regula ons,
i.e. the economic goals fit with the
social, cultural and environmental
ones. This task requires the recomposi on of each subsystem, i.e
development of local tradi ons to
social conserva on and adap ve
forms to generate less impact to
nature. Therefore, the concept of
sustainability can be redesigned on
the basis of homeosta c rela onships
between the par es. According to
Regard Buckley (2012) in predic ng
the future of sustainable tourism,
the key considera on is derived
from the idea that both tourism and
sustainability are changing faster than
the tourism industry is able to adopt
to sustainability improvements.
Therefore, it is appropriate to talk of
sustainable basic social system. This
system can be structured with defined
purposes since the concept belongs
Figure 2. Diagram of system transforma on in tourism sustainable.
System Science Approach
75
to the social domain. The system can
be rebuilt in order to gestate ac ons
with the idea of maintaining a concept
adopted, i.e. form a common vision
with sustainable approach, which
on its turn, should be understood as
a worldview. This view takes place
between the transforma on process
and its context. Freeman et al. (2001)
describe integrated approaches as not
guaranteeing a win-win situa on for
all stakeholders, but as it is suggested
by the theory; the strategies distribute
the harms and benefits in a way that
ensures the long-term support of all
stakeholders
Adap ng thus developed concept,
it is possible to use the theory of
knowledge construc ons systems,
based on the ideas of Nukumori
et al. (2011), to define the basis
of sustainable purpose, by the
interven on use of the following
phases: To know what is missing?
Intelligence (indicators), involvement
(community interest) and integrate
the knowledge inherited while it is
transformed into ac on, using the
physical recomposi on of space
tourism, the reconfigura on of
suitable ac vi es; recons tu on
of sustainable system from the
76
standpoint of the stakeholders,
and the re-formula on of balanced
development proposal. For these
phases it is necessary to take into
account the level of par cipa on of
stakeholders as this varies between
communi es, in alignment with
the interests and empowerment of
stakeholders (Panyik et al., 2011). In
this context, human ac on is abstract
and the systemic structure responds
to diverse interests. Therefore, it is
necessary to iden fy human groups
as well as their main purposes, in
order to assess their consistency to
structure sustainable ac vi es. This
phase can be designed using the
systemic teleology (See Table II).
The social science refers to a
theore cal approach to explain
the occurrence of human groups’
behavior. However, the systemic
perspec ve treats the similari es
observed instead of specific traits.
Therefore, the researcher’s work is to
assess the mo va ons of the actors
to be part or not to the sustainable
tourism.
Sustainability depends on a number
of external and internal factors that
give free components to act within
their own margins conserva on that is
Sustainable Tourism Management
Table II. Teleology Sustainable Tourism
integrated in a superior environment.
This generates the need to address the
macro-system, which is cons tuted
by the surrounds of the focus system
in their capaci es, social priori es,
environmental and cultural control
mechanisms outlined appropriately
for each case.
The evolu on of the social system
comes from mee ng of individual
purposes, which is integrated by
a mutual improvement, as the
limits are established by the system
itself. Thus, sustainable tourism is
understood as consensual agreement,
in coherence with the purpose of the
system into the social system. Thus,
there is a dialec cal rela onship
between the organiza on’s and the
society’s interpreta on of its own
means. Nevertheless, the limita on
may persist as shown by Tao & Wall
(2009), who point out that the more
the communi es try to understand
themselves and their skills on their
own terms, the be er they will begin
evalua ng decisions on external
characteris cs such as tourism.
This concept can be adapted to
develop through So
Systems
Methodology (SSM), in which the
system of no onal human ac vity is
defined to describe the purpose from
a declared perspec ve or worldview.
The methodology can help to
recognize even the presenta on forms
System Science Approach
77
of demand and actual availability for
the ac vi es. Tourists generate the
main force to develop sustainable
ac vi es with specific quali es with
regard to the disposi on of defined
ac vi es, services and facili es that
have to correspond with one or more
market niches in the environmental
and the cultural tourism.
The solu on of coordina on and
balance should be designed bearing
in mind the ac vi es and their
connec on to the above-men oned
systems in recursive processing,
so that it causes the least harm to
people and has the lowest costs.
Moreover, it is required to have right
informa on about the sustainable
states by incorpora ng of sustainable
indicators. This part could be
developed to focus on those aspects
that present great challenges on
compliance. In such case, it is needed
to make a rela onal schema for the
measurement phase. Consequently,
it is important to consider the design
of appropriate mechanisms that
reflect the measurement of rela ons
and its environments. According
with Ivanovic et al. (2009), there
is not only a clear need for regular
monitoring of the status of each
indicator, but also it is necessary
78
to observe their rela onship as a
whole. Special a en on should be
given to monitoring the indicators
of economic and ecologic ma ers
in which sustainable tourism has
indica ve basis (Table III).
This work can be developed further
by defini on of the algedonic
channels, which correspond with the
outlined concept (worldview). These
channels are used to indicate different
rela onships while pronouncing
the integra on of environments,
as well as providing the necessary
informa on and sufficient structure
in order to describe the mul emergence rela ons, coming from
the organiza on of the system itself,
the rela ons between the system
and its subsystem with its conjecture
with larger system. Therefore, the
environmental considera ons are
becoming a recursive mechanism not
only because they reveal the known
disturbances but also because they
show the unknown disturbances of
the sustainable areas.
The algedonic channels may contain
links criteria such as:
Socio-Economic - The economic
ac vity is developed as a conserva on
ma er. The economic goods come
Sustainable Tourism Management
Table III. Sustainability Indicators
from the natural environment and
should be preserved for future
produc ons. The society uses
resources and the common goods in
order to preserve the environment of
natural and cultural life.
Socio- Economic-Ecologic- The socie es
are dis nguished by regula ng the
ecological-economic link, which is
based on the means at its disposal.
The genera on of new media allows
them permanence.
Socio-Sustainable - The social system is
developed with sustainable purposes.
The rela onships between the social
system and their environment have
affinity congruence. The social system
seeks to reverse the nega ve impacts
of the environment and its own social
system.
Socio-Economic - The community
seeks the common good and tries to
reduce the social gap.
Eco-sustainable (sustainable economic)
- The produc on of goods is carried
out in consistence with the natural,
social and economic balance. The
means of produc on use renewable
energy.
The integra on of the past stages
is schema cally shown in the figure
below.
Finally, for the study and measurement
of the previous phases could be used
different systemic methodologies
as: the dynamic models, the fi h
discipline, the Viable Systems Model
and its measurement instruments
could be developed through
quan ta ve methods such as the
System Science Approach
79
Figure 3. Conceptualiza on of tourism sustainable system.
techniques of ar ficial intelligence,
fractal geometry, fuzzy sets among
others.
Conclusions
The current chapter is an effort
to break up the complexity of
establishing sustainable ac vi es in
the tourism sector. Considera on
of Systemic approach dis nguishes
important rela onships while se ng
interest to foster condi ons for care
and preserva on of social, economic
80
and environmental tourism. This work
is an effort to cope with the complexity
while
establishing
sustainable
ac vi es in the tourism sector. The
considera on of Systemics science
allows to dis nguish the important
rela onships in fostering condi ons
to preserve social, economical and
environmental interests in tourism
ac vi es, which demand a rethinking
of the rela onal schema of the host
community and its linkage with
stakeholders (government, business
organiza ons etc.). All that shall
Sustainable Tourism Management
enable a new sustainable produc on
schema, and reflec on of the posi on
of each component to recognize the
resources available and their scope.
The study reached the following
reflec ons.
1.
The consensual concept
(worldview), spreads the objec ves
and scope of ac ons. The system
design of sustainable tourism shows
the recurrences of mechanisms for
the maintenance and improvement
of the means of produc on and
preserva on through the assessment
and evalua on of ac ons and social
arrangements.
2. The algedonic channels should
be established a priori to recognize
the needs of the system so that the
conjecture social roles generate logic
in which should exist consistency
between the ac ons and defini ons.
This allows renaming the concept
according to the system needs and
reconfiguring the internal mechanisms
of sustainable tourism system.
3. The sustainable tourism as a
whole aims to establish a balanced
rela onship. Since a separa st view
analysis suggests the considera on
of problems and solu ons in isolated
as well as different considera ons for
present and future, in which planning
and programming efforts may develop
from poli cs. However, in complex
environments
like
sustainable
tourism, it is important to consider the
factors that influence and affect the
sustainability as such and tourism’s
sustainability in par cular.
4. The transforma on of the
ac vi es depends on certain
control mechanisms as well as the
social disposi on. These should
enable healthy internal rela ons to
interact with their environments
and to achieve sustainable tourism
maintaining internal synergy.
Literature cited
A
, M. A. 1984. Administración
del turismo Conceptualizacion
y Organización, Ed. Trillas,
México.
A
, M. A. 2006. Polí ca turís ca
y planificación del turismo, Ed.
Trillas, México.
A
, R. 1999. Rediseñando el futuro,
Editorial Limusa, México.
A
, L. 1994. Sustainable
tourism systems: The example
of sustainable rural tourism in
Sweden, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 2(1-2): 77-92.
System Science Approach
81
B
, T.
M. W
, 1999. The
Applica on of Geographical
Informa on Systems (GIS) in
Sustainable Tourism Planning:
A Review, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 7(2): 159-174.
B
,
B
, M.C. 2000. Analise estructural do
turismo, Secac Soa Paulo.
S. A. 1980. Ciberné ca y
Administración,
Editorial,
C.E.S.A, México.
,
H., M. G
,
M.
M
, 2006. Li le
Norway in Spain From Tourism to
Migra on. Finnmark University
College, Norway
B
, L. V. 2002. Systems
Episthemology.
Vol.
2.
Bertalanffy Organiza ons. USA.
B
, L. V. 1995. Teoría General
de los Sistemas, Editoria, Fondo
de Cultura Económica. México.
B
, L. R. 2002. Sustentabilidad y
desarrollo económico, Ed. Mc
Graw Hill, México.
B
, K. 1956. the image, Ann
Arbor the university of Michigan
press.
B
82
, A. R. T
O. M
,
2009. Toward the Evolu on
of the Tourism’s conceptual
system, Journal ISSS, 5: 1-14
B
, R. 2012. Sustainable Tourism:
Research and Realityannals of
Tourism Research, Annals of
Tourism Research, 39(2): 528–
546.
B
, J., C. C
J. C
,
2002. Planning and control of
environmental performance in
hotel. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 10(2): 207-221.
B
, E., H. B
M. D
,
2009.
Comparisons
of
stakeholder
percep ons
of tourism impacts in rural
Eastern North Carolina, Tourism
Management, 30(5): 693–703.
C
, B. 2005. Psicología social de
los viajes y el turismo, Editorial,
Thompson, Madrid.
C
, P. 2001 Pensamiento de
sistemas y prac ca de sistemas,
Ed. Limusa, México.
C
, E. 2002. Auten city, Equity and
Sustainable in Tourism, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 10(4):
267-277.
C
, J., P. P
T. B
, 2009
Towards sustainable tourism
planning in New Zealand:
Monitoring local government
planning under the Resource
Management Act, Tourism
, S. 2011. Rural tourism in China,
Tourism Management, 32(6):
1438-1441.
B
B
B
, C. R. 1985. Planificación del
espacio Turís co, Ed. Trillas,
México.
Sustainable Tourism Management
Management, 30(6): 867–877.
C
F
, R. 1967. Un método para
evaluar
condiciones
que
afectan la decisión sobre el
otorgamiento de la 5ª libertad
en el tráfico aéreo internacional
en el turismo como medio
de comunicación humana.
Departamento de Turismo del
Gobierno de México.
, Z., M. H
, S. A
, L.
M
, M. H
,
G. M
, M. M
A. H
, 2000. El nuevo
paradigma
de
Turismo
Sostenible: Una perspec va de
red (“network”) Documento
URL h p://www.randagroup.
es/esp/pi/InforEmpostNet.pdf
(20/09/ 2011)
F
, B.
L. T
, 2004.
Reconceptualizing
Tourism,
Annals of Tourism Research,
31(2): 274-295, USA.
F
, R. E.
J. M V , 2011.
A Stakeholder Approach to
StrategicManagement (2001).
Darden Business School Working
Paper No. 01-02. Documento
URL: SSRN: h p://ssrn.com/
abstract=263511 (25/05/2011)
G
, W. C. 1996. Tourism
Development: Principles, Process
and Policies. Van Nostrand,
Reinhold, ITP, Interna onal
Thompson Publishing, London.
G
, O. 1993. Turismo y desarrollo
de América La na, Editorial
Limusa, México.
G
, J. 1981. Teoría General de los
Sistemas. Editorial, Trillas,
México.
G
, C. A. 1988. Tourism planning.
Taylor & Francis, New York
H
, J. L
, B. 2009. Utopian
thought and the poli cs of
sustainable
development,
Futures, 41: 210–219
Inskeep, E. 1991. Tourism Planning:
An Integrated and Sustainable
Development
Approach.
NewYork,
I
, O., M. G
, S. D
M. D
, 2009. Perspec ves
of sustainable development
in countries of Southeastern
Europe,
Renewable
and
Sustainable. Energy Reviews,
13(8): 2079-2087.
J
, J. 2005. El turismo como
disciplina cien fica, Polí ca y
sociedad, 42 (1): 39-56.
J
, A. 2004. Una aproximación
sistémica
al
turismo:
implicaciones para la mul y la
transdisciplinariedad. Doc. URL:
http://www.sectur.gob.mx/
Congreso_de_Investigacion/
ponencias/Alfonso%20Jimenez.
pdf (21/06/2011).
J
, C . 2000. A new evolu onary
System Science Approach
83
theory deduced mathema cally
from entropy amplifica on,
Chinese Science Bulle n, 45(1):
91-96.
J
J
, J., D. S
, S. A ,
1994. Residents’ percep ons of
tourism development, Annals of
Tourism Research, 21: 629–642.
, O. 1999. Introducción a la
Teoría General de los Sistemas.
Editorial Limusa, México.
L , Z.H. 1994. Tourism development –
a systems analysis. P.p. 20-30. In
A.V. Seaton et al. (eds) Tourism:
The State of the Art. Chichester:
John Wiley.
L
, R. 2005. Leadership: The force
for social Self - Organiza on
Tecnológico de Monterrey
Documento URL: www.filogenia.
net/files/leadership-isss04.pdf
(14/08/11).
M
, S. 1996. Conceptualizacion del
turismo, Ed. Limusa, México.
M
, M. 2008. Etnoturimso o
turismo indígena, Teoría y
Praxis, 5: 123-136.
N
Y., A. W
Z. Z
2011 Theory of Knowledge
Construc on System. System
Research
and
Behavioral
Science, 28(15): 15-39
OMT 2004. Organización mundial de
Turismo “desarrollo sostenible
del
turismo,
definición
conceptual” Documento URL:
www.world
tourism.org/
sustainable/esp/concepts/htm
(25/02/2010).
OMT
2005. Organización Mundial
del Turismo, Indicadores de
desarrollo sostenible para
los des nos turís cos, OMT,
España.
M
, H. 1981. Autopoiesis, in
Zeleny M. (ed) Autopoiesis a
theory of the living organiza on,
North Holland, New York.
P
, A. 2007. Filoso a del turismo
una propuesta e mológica.
Estudios y perspec vas del
turismo, 16 (4), Buenos Aires.
M D
, J. 2009. Complexity science:
an alterna ve world view for
understanding
sustainable
tourism development, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 17(4):
455-471
P
E., C. C
T. R , 2011.
Implemen ng
integrated
rural tourism: An eventbased
approach,
Tourism
Management, 32(6): 13521363.
M , R.
A. M
, 1998. The
Tourism System. An Introductory
Text. Kendall & Hunt Publishing
Co. USA.
P
, A. 1998. Los modelos de desarrollo
turís co en el mediterráneo,
Cuadernos de Turismo No. 2 pp.
7-24
84
Sustainable Tourism Management
R
J. P. W
, 2012. How do
you know it when you see it?
Community-based ecotourism
in the Cardamom Mountains
of southwestern Cambodia,
Tourism Management, Ar cle in
press, pp.1-11
S
, E. S. 2006 Ecoturismo
operación técnica y ges ón
ambiental, Ed. Trillas, México.
SECTUR 2009. Adventure travel
Assessment report, Documento
URL:
h p://www.sectur.gob.
mx/work/models/sectur/
Resource/852/1/images/
DIAGNOSTICOAVENTURA.pdf
(15/02/ 2011).
S
, I., J. L , N. G
, 2006.
Tourists’ inten on to visit a
country: The impact of cultural
distance. Graduate School of
Management, University of
Western Australia.
S
, W. N , J. 1999. Ecoturismo
impacto
tendencias
y
posibilidades, Ed. Síntesis,
Madrid, España.
T , T.
W
G. 2009. Tourism as a
sustainable livelihood strategy,
Tourism Management, 30(1):
90–98.
T
, R. 2005. Los conceptos de
entropía y evolución en la
administración:
La
teoría
Exelixiica de las Organizaciones.
Administración Contemporánea,
Revista de Inves gacion, Vol. 2
Colparmex, México.
Y
WCED
, J.Z. 1978. Program of the brain,
U.P Oxford.
“W
C
E
D
”. 1987, “Our
Common Future”, New York.
WTO “W
T
O
”
2007. Study of the concepts and
Reali es of Social and solidarity.
Tourism in Africa.
System Science Approach
85
87
WHALE WATCHING FOOTPRINT IN BAHIA DE
BANDERAS, MEXICO: SUSTAINABLE TOURISM?
R
J
M
L
C
C
D
O
B
1,
3
E
,R
H. M
A
E
5
.
2
R
S
,
4
1,2,4
Centro Universitario de la Costa, UDG –CA-443, Universidad de Guadalajara,
Mexico. [email protected] 3PhD Student BEMARENA Program, Centro
Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico. jose.luiscornejo@
hotmail.com; 5 DFRSC University, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies,
York University, Canada [email protected]
Abstract
The discussion about non-sustainability of systems, s ll in force, led to biophysical
analysis of the human-nature rela ons that have become an important way of
establishing human impacts on Earth based on the coloniza on of the nature and
socio-economic metabolism. The Ecological Footprint (EF) is an indicator used as a tool
to assess sustainability that shows the impact on global ecosystems, where the ra o
consump on / produc vity determines a balance and becomes a primary requirement
to get sustainability, establishing the planetary biocapacity. The EF measures the overall
area required to maintain a “lifestyle” by a human popula on under certain technological
condi ons prevailing. Tourism has “appropriated” of various types of ecosystems that
represent a finite set of spa ally distributed resources. The purpose of this chapter
is to address the issue of sustainable tourism with a focus on EF as an indicator of
sustainability in a na onal park: the Marietas islands, an area subject to intense tourist
ac vity. The marine mammals watching ac vi es, par cularly humpback whales,
a racts many tourists each year that generates CO2 emissions, so a high EF ac vity in a
protected natural area, would hamper global conserva on goals. The methodology used
was transforming the cost of the ac vity from money to fossil fuel and then assign the
equivalence factors to get footprint. The Tourism Ecological Footprint was determined
as 46. 85ha that is considered low and hence, a sustainable ac vity.
C
-D
, R. M., E. A
-R
, J. L. C
-O
, R. E
-S
B.
H. M
. 2013. Whale watching footprint in Bahía Banderas, Mexico: Sustainable Tourism. In:
Alvarado-Herrera A. & González-Damian A. Sustainable Tourism Management: Conceptual Bases
and Case Studies. University of Quintana Roo, México D. F. 142 pp.
Introduc on
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 confirmed
some of the expected “changes” on the
planet causing a new environmental
ra onality in most western countries.
Warning environmental signs are
widely tracked today. Costanza et
al. (1999) summarizes the evidence
of having transgressed the physical
limits of the planet: excessive human
appropria on of biomass, accelera ng
climate change, expanding ozone
holes,
land
degrada on
and
biodiversity loss, associated to poverty
and inequality. Although there is no
absolute consensus in the scien fic
world about the current state of the
planet and its causes frequently are
issued statements on the ma er like
the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Living
Planet Report, published every two
years since 1998, is one of the basis
documents to establish biocapacity
and the actual state of the planet.
It includes an index, the Living
Planet Index (LPI), which defines
the state of the world’s ecosystems,
combined with the EF index, which
provides human pressure on resource
demand. Both behave contrary, while
the former decreases from the 70s,
the second has increased above the
88
planet’s bio-capacity in the same
decade, maintaining the trend today.
According to the latest report (WWF,
2010), key findings were that global
biodiversity has declined by 30%
since 1970, mostly due to habitat loss
in tropical regions, where biodiversity
has declined by 60%, many species
have experienced significant declines
in their popula on in recent years,
natural resources are being consumed
faster than the Earth can replace
them. Currently we are consuming
the equivalent of 1.5 planets to
sustain human ac vi es. If current
trends con nue, by 2030 would
require the equivalent of two planets
to meet the consump on needs of
natural resources and absorb waste
CO2. The same document warns
about EF has doubled since 1966,
mainly due to the carbon footprint,
which has increased 11 mes since
1961. Among the possible solu ons
they provide to ensure that the Earth
can sustain a projected popula on
of 9 billion people by 2050, is the
responsible behavior of companies,
the role they can play to produce, buy
and build assets and services of low
ecological footprint. Among the good
news of this report are the current
technology that is being developed
Sustainable Tourism Management
to significantly reduce CO2 emissions
and the large range of jobs at all levels
to reduce the footprint and promote
global sustainability. Moreover, the
defini on of sustainable development
has evolved in two major schools of
thought; the first defines sustainable
development based on a set of
cri c ecological constraints (Sagoff,
1988) and the second as a complex
interac on of targets within the
fields of Ecology, Economics and
Sociology (UNDP, 1994; Carvalho,
2001). According to Mitchell (1997),
decisions can be effec ve only from
the posi ve a ributes of both schools.
In the first approach, the idea of
development was built on the concept
of carrying capacity, basically outlined
by Malthus that supported the idea
of “limits to growth” and states that
there is an ecological threshold, so
sustainable development involves
the use of resources within these
limits. Cri cs point out that in this
context, the essence of sustainable
development seems limited. Thus, to
acquire the adjec ve “sustainable”
a na on, industry or lifestyle, must
prove that is not consuming resources
beyond the “authorized quota” based
on the biocapacity of the planet.
The assignment of numerical values
for the human use of resources has
the advantage of enabling more
precise
management
ini a ves
and increases the legi macy of the
concept of sustainable development
(Wackernagel & Yount, 1998). EF
derived from this way of thinking, but
is said to be a single index capable
of deno ng environmental, social
and economic issues. The proposal
that tourism should be sustainable
was due to recogni on of the “dark
side” of the sector and has become a
topic of great interest to researchers
(Chávez, 2007). Because of the
interest of the tourism industry to
a ract a greater number of tourists
in addi on to the local popula on,
there is no doubt that the movement
towards sustainability is in sight
difficult. A tourist des na on should
ensure that the tourist´s demands
be met like food, mostly transported
from faraway places; diverse energy
ranging from transporta on to the
comfort. Recently, the so-called
alterna ve tourism products have
been ques oned, because total
posi ve and nega ve effects when
compared to tradi onal forms, not
always trump the former in the
context of sustainability. The debate
now focuses on whether there can
Whale watching footprint
89
be a form of tourism that is profitable
from the standpoint of sustainable
development, namely economic,
social and environmentally. Cater
(1990) established that there are three
requirements to achieve sustainable
tourism development, the first is
that it must improve the quality of
life of local inhabitants, the second
concerns to a ract an increasing
number of tourists to achieve the first
and the third relates to safeguarding
the natural environment that made
possible the existence of travel and
this is a requisite for achieving the first
two. There is a circular and cumula ve
rela on between the three condi ons,
where the latest condi ons the first
two, so that the environment is a
priority. It is therefore necessary to
understand the demands to undergo
natural resources for tourist use,
especially the global consequences
ignored un l recently as the case of
travel (Gössling, 2000; Gössling et al.,
2002).
Ecological footprint and tourism
The ecological footprint is perhaps
the most comprehensive measure
currently available for assessing
global environmental sustainability
90
issues, and its u lity for such purposes
is widely recognized but also cri cized
(Wackernagel et al., 2002).
The EF ini ally developed by
Wackernagel and Rees (1996), has
gained significant popularity in many
fields and quan fies the amount of
biologically produc ve land required
to support the consump on of
renewable natural resources and
assimila on of carbon dioxide
emissions of a given popula on
reported in global hectares, and is
calculated by adding imports to, and
subtrac ng exports from, domes c
produc on. In mathema cal terms,
consump on = (produc on + imports)
- exports. In recent years, the idea
has been applied to tourism (TEF)
to calculate environmental capacity
of regional tourism, impacts and
possibili es.
As a big part of the global EF
corresponds to energy (from fossil
fuels), transport in tourism has been
one of the central topics. Harold
Goodwin (Gray, 2007) pointed out
about pressure cruise lines and
airlines would suffer as new groups
of consumers arise to force them
to publish their CO2 outputs and to
make changes to reduce the nega ve
Sustainable Tourism Management
impact on atmosphere and oceans.
In order to maintain and enhance
compe veness, touris c des na ons
use business strategies focused on
‘tourism yield’ and include tourism’s
environmental and social value to a
des na on in addi on to economic
value. Environmental and economic
yields were es mated by Lundie,
Dwyer and Forsyth (2007) using
a hybrid approach that combined
input–output analysis with an onsite
audit for tourist accommoda on in
Australia. The relevant environmental
impacts included energy use, water
use, greenhouse gas emissions and
ecological footprint. Their findings
reveal that, for some inbound
markets, simultaneous achievement
of rela vely high economic and
environmental goals is not possible,
and that economic-environmental
tradeoffs may be necessary. The results
have implica ons for all des na ons
which use no ons of ‘tourism yield’
to inform their marke ng strategies
Some other studies try to reveal
how aware tourists are about
environmental issues. A more recent
study examines a tudes to climate
change and tourism among residents
of Hong Kong and evaluates their
willingness to voluntarily modify travel
behaviors to reduce environmental
impacts. Previous related studies have
iden fied a significant gap between
awareness and ac on, some of them
concluded that even the most aware
individuals are unlikely to change
their behaviors. McKerchera et al.
(2010) noted similar findings, thus
reducing the possibility of minimizing
the environmental impacts. The
paper concludes that government
interven on may be required to
create meaningful behavioral change
in travel pa erns.
Most of developed countries in the
world have done EF approxima ons
and a variety of applica ons to
tourism, but in countries like México
there is li le informa on about
tourism
EF.
Chávez-Dagos no
(2007) es mated and compared the
individual EF between rural and urban
inhabitants including tourists, in the
north coast of Jalisco state. Concluded
a non homogeneous region as urban
and rural zones showed an EF beyond
the planet´s carrying capacity that
contributes to the global ecological
debt and Puerto Vallarta, the main
debtor in the region, needed near
of 90% of its biocapacity to capture
the total amount of CO2 produced
Whale watching footprint
91
by direct consump on of fossil fuels,
where the major contributor was the
air travel.
The distribu on and abundance of
cetaceans is likely to alter in response
to global climate change (Gössling
& Hall, 2006). Related to whalewatching tourism, Lambert et al.
(2010) proposed a framework with
three key components contribu ng
to the resilience of a whale-watching
operator to global climate change
induced changes in cetacean
occurrence: trip and tourist type and
likelihood of observing a cetacean, so
they reviewed how such changes may
affect the sustainability of whalewatching operators and its associated
benefits from a resilience perspec ve,
where resilience is the degree of
change in cetacean occurrence
experienced before tourist numbers
fall below a cri cal threshold.
Humpback whale watching in the
Bahia de Banderas has increased
significantly. The issuance of permits
for this ac vity in 2006 increased
by 92% compared to 2000. Chávez,
Andrade & Beets (2007) studied the
sustainability of this ac vity in the
Bay of Banderas through compliance
with the Official Mexican Norm 131
92
(DOF, 2000), income genera on,
research and protec on projects and,
coopera on of the tour operators in
these ac vi es.
Tourism in natural protected areas
Today tourism in natural protected
areas is recognized by interna onal
conven ons and declara ons as
an opportunity for sustainable
development, but it also brings
threats to the conserva on of natural
and cultural heritage. This growth
in visita on has been recorded by
Secretaría de Turismo (SECTUR) in
Mexico and studies have found that
natural areas, par cularly protected
areas are favorite des na ons for
ecotourism and adventure tourism.
Mexico formulated a cross-sector
nature tourism program in order to
regulate and guide comprehensively
this ac vity in priority areas.
Subsequently developed the Master
Plan for nature tourism and again
iden fied the protected areas
as the greatest poten al for the
development of this tourist segment.
The growth in visitors at the same
me brings threats mainly in the form
of nega ve environmental impacts
and opportuni es for conserva on of
Sustainable Tourism Management
protected areas.
The management of tourism in each
area is variable and is at different levels
of progress because of ins tu onal
capaci es and resources in each.
Study area: Parque Nacional Islas
Marietas
The Marietas islands are situated
on the coast of Nayarit state, in the
municipality of Bahía de Banderas,
Mexico and were declared as natural
protected area with na onal park
status in 2005 (DOF, 2005), providing a
total area of 1.383-01-96.95 hectares,
with four core areas with a total area
of 78-00-92.94, that includes Isla
Redonda, Isla Larga and two small
islands near it, a marine area located
in the extreme northeast each island,
the remaining area corresponds to
the marine area (figure 1).
Its scien fic value, educa onal and
tourism lies in its wealth of wildlife, the
reproduc ve processes of popula ons
of endangered species and scenic
beauty. They are an important
breeding area for marine mammals
and birds, provide shelter and transit
area for 92 species of birds, hos ng
important breeding colonies. It also
includes coral reef ecosystems, which
have a high diversity, large numbers
of caves and tunnels, which are also
the site with high diversity of reef fish
in the Bay of Banderas.
In terms of tourist importance, the
Islands offer a wealth of underwater
landscapes of great beauty and color,
so divers have the opportunity to
observe the diversity of corals, other
invertebrates and fishes, including
giant ray. Caves, rocks and small
beaches of par cular scenic beauty
as the Playa del Muerto and Playa
La Nopalera on Isla Larga and Playa
del amor at Isla Redonda, makes this
place so a rac ve to develop many
ac vi es, where diving and whale
watching from December to March
are the main ac vi es.
It is necessary to establish policies
and guidelines to address the
needs and opportuni es specific
to each natural area to achieve the
common objec ves of an integrated
sustainable development of tourism
in these areas.
Reduc on and mi ga on of nega ve
impacts by tourism in these areas is
a challenge, thus the es ma on of EF
is an important ac on to assess the
Whale watching footprint
93
Figure 1.- Islas Marietas loca on
impact not only locally but globally.
Methods
Tourist’s ac vi es inevitably take up
resources, facili es and service of
tourism, then affec ng the sustainable
development of Tourism. According
to the meanings of ecological
footprint, TEF can be defined as: the
area of produc ve land of occupied,
consumed and waste intake caused
by tourist ac vity, in certain places
and me scope (Zhang 2009). This
94
ecological produc ve land is global
unified and can be comparable
directly. The steps of compu ng TEF
as follows (Yang & Li, 2007; LU et al.,
2006):
(1) Dividing the expenditure items,
calcula ng the per capita construc on
and consump on. Occasionally,
tourist en re travel expense project
may divide into three sectors. They
are food, accommoda on, and travel.
(2) Using the average output data,
converse each consump on quan ty
Sustainable Tourism Management
into biology produc ve land. The
biological resources consumed by
tourist include agricultural product
and animal product and so on.
Conversing
following:
formula
is
showed
energy is 1.1, the lawn is 0.5 and the
sea is 0.2 (Doménech, 2004).
According to the above equa on, TEF
models of sub-account are showed in
related references (Zhang & Zhang,
2004; Zhang, 2008).
Ai = Ci / Pi (1)
Data Source and Data Collec on
Ai : real ecological produc on land
of i expense item; Ci :consump on
of i biological resources; Pi: average
output of i biological resources.
Calculated data of TEF of Islas Marietas
include three categories:
Energy conversing formula is:
Ai= Ci×f /GM
Ai: area land of i energy; Ci:
consump on of i energy; f: i energy
conversion coefficient; GM: global
average energy coefficient of i energy
consump on.
(3) Transform each kind of biological
produc ve land area into equal
produc ve land through the balanced
factor. Then sum and calculate the per
capita of average ecology footprint.
Conversing formula is:
TEF=∑αiAi
TEF : Ecological footprint per tourist;
αi : balanced factor o f biological
produc on land. Different land has
different balance factor, farming and
construc on land is 2.8, the fossil
1. Research data: including origin of
tourists, transporta on pa erns
2. Tourist stay- me, commodi es.
In January to May 2011, authors
handed out 136 ques onnaires in
the Portuary Integral Administra on
(API), and did sample analysis and
sta s cs. Basic data: including total
tourists, areas of accommoda on,
restaurants and energy consump on
etc, this informa on can be found
from Tourism Bureau of Puerto
Vallarta and management Park office.
3. Standard data: including energy
consump on of each vehicle, average
calorific of world fossil fuel produc ve
land, which can be found from some
research literatures and reports.
Results
TEF of transporta on of whale
Whale watching footprint
95
watching at Islas Marietas
In 2011, 81.6% tourists in Islas
Marietas were foreign, 18.4% were
from Mexico, 55.9% foreign tourism
came from United States, 22.8%
from Canada, 1.5% from Germany,
0.7% from France and 0.7% from
Colombia. Stay- me for visitors was
65.4% six to ten days, 27.2% one to
five days, and 7.4% more than 11
days. Among domes c tourists 52.0%
reached Puerto Vallarta by plane
and 42% by own car, 97.3% foreign
tourists reached Puerto Vallarta by
plane, 1.8% by own car, and 0.9% by
buses; the average distance of travel
calculated for domes c tourism
was 944 km; foreign tourists arrived
to Puerto Vallarta by plane from
over 1000 km ci es. Vehicles which
tourists used were standard buses,
cars, and aircra : 83.1% car-planecar, 5.9% bus-plane-bus, 10.3%
car, and 0.7% used bus. No tourist
chose water transport, so it was not
considered. Calcula on the Kg CO₂
by person and city are shown in table
1. According to the calcula on model
of ecological footprint for tourism
traffic (Doménech, 2004), air travel
deserves special considera on in
the calcula on process because its
96
emissions are released at 10-12 km
height in the upper troposphere and
lower stratosphere, where they have
a larger impact on ozone, cloudiness
and radia ve forcing than they do
at the Earth’s surface (IPCC, 1999).
Aircra missions thus need to be
weighted with a factor of 2.5-3.0
to include their addi onal warming
poten al (IPCC, 1999). In order to
account for these effects, the energy
footprint of air transport has been
weighted with a factor of 2.7 (Høyer,
2000). The transporta on TEF of
Puerto Vallarta was 44.7 ha.
Carbon calculators employ a basic
technique used by the distances
they travel and the level of emission
factors to calculate emissions of CO2
(see Gössling et al., 2007 for a full
discussion of calcula ng emissions,
including evalua on of exis ng
calculators).
Service footprint
Behind every service “consumed”
there is also material and energy
consump on so that its footprint
should also be calculated. To es mate
energy expenditure associated with
services was assumed that a por on
of the total service bill is assigned for
“energy” converted propor onally
Sustainable Tourism Management
from pesos to fossil fuel. The
percentages corresponding to the
energy bill have been es mated based
on the billing of these services in the
Port Authority of Gijón (Doménech,
2004) (Table II).
The calcula on is as follows: an
es mated 1.5% of total services
“hotel” corresponds to the energy,
the average cost per room per night in
Puerto Vallarta is 1.282 pesos. This was
converted to liters of liquid fossil fuels
as the price of it at present (9 pesos
/ liter); then to kilograms mul plying
by 0.8 and, finally, kilograms to tons:
((174352 * 1.5/100) /9) * 0,8 / 1000
service, to convert the expenditure
incurred by the use of taxis to tons of
fuel, energy expenditure corresponds
to 30.5% of the total service cost,
which were 80 pesos per person on
average. The exact calcula on is as
follows:
((10880 * 30,5 / 100) /9) * 0,8 / 1000
The cost for the whale watching
ac vity is 660 pesos average.
According to the calcula on model of
ecological footprint of tourism traffic
(Doménech, 2004), the taxi and bout
transporta on TEF of Islas Marietas
was 0.21 and 1.71 ha respec vely
(Table II).
TEF of food and accommoda on
The result is mul plied by the energy
content of fuel (43.75 Gj/ ton) for
consump on in gigajoules, and is
divided between the produc vity of
liquid fossil fuels (71 Gj/ ha / year)
to get the footprint. In the same way
was done with the restaurant service
considered an 8% of the amount of
the total bill (where an average meal
for one person is considered as 150
pesos).
((20400 * 8/100) / 0,717) * 0,8 /
1000
To reach API Tourists Used the taxi
The food consump on of the local
residents in Puerto Vallarta was
considered as referred data in
calcula on, so the food footprint of
whale watching of Islas Marietas is
0.10 ha. The tourist housing me in
Puerto Vallarta is variable: 27.2% stay
from one to five days, 65.4% from 6 to
ten days, and 7.4% more than 11 days.
A 91.2% stay accommodated from
three-star to five-star hotels in Puerto
Vallarta, 2.9% with family, 2.2% with
friends, 3.7% are local people; 85.3%
of the tourist use at least one me the
restaurant to eat. The accommoda on
Whale watching footprint
97
Table I. KgCO₂ by person and city. Prepared by own using the calculator Atmosfair
(www.atmosfair.de)
N
98
City
Country
Frequency
Percentage
Kg CO₂/
person
Kg CO₂/
city
1
D.F.
Mexico
14
10.3%
420
5880
2
Chicago
USA
11
8.1%
1540
16940
3
Los Angeles
USA
9
6.6%
1060
9540
4
Edmonton
Canada
8
5.9%
1980
15840
5
Guadalajara
Mexico
7
5.1%
140
980
6
Vancouver
Canada
6
4.4%
1900
11400
7
Calgary
Canada
6
4.4%
1860
11160
8
St. Paul
USA
6
4.4%
1560
9360
9
Sea le
USA
5
3.7%
1800
9000
10
Des Moines
USA
5
3.7%
1380
6900
11
Dallas
USA
3
2.2%
880
2640
12
San Diego
USA
3
2.2%
980
2940
13
Toronto
Canada
3
2.2%
1860
5580
14
Denver
USA
3
2.2%
1140
3420
15
Salt Lake City
USA
3
2.2%
1260
3780
16
Houston
USA
3
2.2%
800
2400
17
Boston
USA
2
1.5%
2160
4320
18
Cd. Juarez
Mexico
2
1.5%
700
1400
19
Omaha
USA
2
1.5%
1320
2640
20
Grand Rapids
USA
2
1.5%
1680
3360
21
Manchester
USA
2
1.5%
2140
4280
22
Winnipeg
Canada
2
1.5%
1780
3560
23
Urbandale
USA
2
1.5%
1380
2760
24
Memphis
USA
2
1.5%
1180
2360
25
Vallejo
USA
2
1.5%
1360
2720
26
St. Lewis
Canada
1
0.7%
3440
3440
27
Santa Barbara
USA
1
0.7%
1140
1140
Sustainable Tourism Management
28
Tulsa
USA
1
0.7%
1060
1060
29
Cedar Falls
USA
1
0.7%
1540
1540
30
Ontario
Canada
1
0.7%
1700
1700
31
Santa Fe
USA
1
0.7%
920
920
32
Washington
USA
1
0.7%
1800
1800
33
Azusa
USA
1
0.7%
1640
1640
34
Berkeley
USA
1
0.7%
1360
1360
35
St. Claude
Canada
1
0.7%
1780
1780
36
Iowa City
USA
1
0.7%
1440
1440
37
Bramschwerg
Germany
1
0.7%
6780
6780
38
Beswa
Germany
1
0.7%
6780
6780
39
Montreal
Canada
1
0.7%
2120
2120
40
Oak Island
USA
1
0.7%
1660
1660
41
Wilmington
USA
1
0.7%
1660
1660
42
Bordeaux
France
1
0.7%
6460
6460
43
York
Canada
1
0.7%
2160
2160
44
Lansing
USA
1
0.7%
1680
1680
45
Oak Bank
Canada
1
0.7%
1700
1700
46
Hermosillo
Mexico
1
0.7%
660
660
47
Pereira
Colombia
1
0.7%
1940
1940
48
Queretaro
Mexico
1
0.7%
360
360
136
100.0%
86040
196940
Total
Table II. Footprint by service
Service
cost
pesos
% From the
total of bill
which is fuel
consumption
Taxi
10880
30.5
0.2949
Hotel
174352
1.5
0.2324
20400
8
0.145
Service
Restaurant
Fuel
tons
Energy
content
Gj/tons
Energy
productivity
Gj/ha/year
Equival..
factor
43.75
71
1.138
43.75
71
1.138
0.163
43.75
71
1.138
0.1017
Footprint
ha
0.2068
Boat
89760
30.5
2.4334
43.75
71
1.138
1.7064
Plane
968400
30.5
26.2544
43.75
71
2.7
44.6802
Total
1263792
29.3601
Whale watching footprint
46.8581
99
TEF was 0.16 ha.
The total TEF of whale watching at
Islas Marietas was 46.86 ha.
Discussion
The total calculated TEF did not
included shopping and waste because
people who visit Islas Marietas spend
just one day and there is no place to
purchase something or to generate
during travel, liquid and solid wastes,
and gas such as CO2.
Modern travel is characterized by
globaliza on: major airlines have
agreed upon strategic alliances and
serve an increasing number of remote
des na ons,
Tourists themselves have more
travel experiences and can compare
des na ons.
Consequently,
growth in long-distance travel has
outpaced conven onal travel in
most industrialized countries, with
a substan al share of interna onal
tourist arrivals now taking place by
means of air transport (WTO, 2000).
Considering this trend, Islas Marietas
as a protected area should not be a
mass-tourism des na on but most of
their visitants are from the high-value
100
segment of interna onal tourism that
visits Puerto Vallarta.
Within the current world system,
the conserva on of ecosystems is
achieved by se ng aside protected
areas. As economic ac vi es are
restricted in these areas, conserva on
is generally perceived as entailing
‘costs’, both through the non-use of
areas (‘opportunity costs’) and the
direct costs for management and
monitoring. James et al. (1999) puts
the la er at 2.8 US$ per hectare per
year in developing countries. On the
other hand, protected areas largely
contribute to the image of a green,
pris ne and sustainable des na on
that a racts wealthy tourists.
Consequently, tourism is the second
largest foreign exchange earner and
contributes directly and indirectly to
the financing of protected areas.
The ecological ‘costs’ of environmental
protec on are reflected in the
footprint analysis, which reveals that
the whale watching depend on a large
ecological hinterland to maintain
the tourist system. If tourism is to
safeguard a species or an ecosystem,
the ques on arises of how large an
ecological hinterland is acceptable to
achieve protec on and which level of
Sustainable Tourism Management
resource-deple on can be tolerated.
Whale watching in Islas Marietas
yielded a footprint of 46 ha if divided
by the number of interviewed tourists
(136) results in 0.34 ha per person that
can be considered as low if compared
to the footprint (1.73 ha) calculated
for the visita on of Seychelles Islands
(Gossling, 2002).
As long distance air travel has a high
cost in terms of EF, some authors
encourage regional travel over the
former. Tourism sector is unpleased
by this and reacted with ac ons
like the use of biofuels in a few
years as announced by at least five
corpora ons, more efficient aircra s,
carbon offsets and other.
This becomes clear considering
energy use: global warming, to a large
extent a results of emissions from
transporta on, will be an important
factor leading to the ex nc on of
species in the future (Sala et al., 2000).
Climate change is also likely to lead to
substan al sea-level rise in the future
(IPCC, 2001). As long-distance travel
contributes substan ally to global
warming, the current understanding
of tourism as a sustainable economic
ac vity needs to be revised.
Finally the local people should seize
this ac vity, since they are the ones
that generate the less footprint and
that probably whales will change their
distribu on and abundance in the
coming years due to global warming,
so that may be last chance Tourism
for local people.
The whale watching footprint
analysis also revealed that the major
environmental impact of travel is a
result of transporta on to and from
the des na on: more than 95% of
the energy footprint is a result of
air travel, Gössling found in 2002
that more than 97% of the energy
footprint is a result of air travel from a
similar research.
In the context of Islas Marietas, it
can be assumed that most other
approaches to assess sustainability
like environmental impact assessment
(EIA) that may have assessed posi vely
but locally. EIA may thus be seen as
suitable concepts to inves gate local
environmental change, but they
cannot assess sustainability from a
more comprehensive (global) point of
view, because tourism seems to o en
draw on extensive hinterlands, and
because global environmental change
(e.g., global warming) is not captured
in these concepts.
Whale watching footprint
101
TEF, on the other hand, is not a
suitable means to understand the
local environmental consequences
of tourism, and it can make no clear
statements about the rela ve value
of land. For example, a certain area
might be ecologically valuable due to
its richness in endemic species. It may
thus be a conserva on priority, even
though its preserva on might create
an ecological hinterland elsewhere.
It should also be noted that the
assessment of local environmental
change and the se ng of maximum
carrying capaci es or threshold levels
is always based on personal values
concerning the appropriateness
of change (Lindberg et al., 1997;
Lindberg and McCool, 1998), which is
difficult to capture in TEF. In contrast,
global models and agreements exist
about, for example, tolerable levels
of greenhouse gas emissions. Limits
to change such as these can be
captured very well in TEF, and the
concept can be used to make clear
statements about sustainability in
these contexts.
However, TEF is o en difficult to apply
because it requires a detailed database
on consump on and biomass yield
figures. Such data is o en difficult to
102
obtain due to insufficient sta s cal
databases, lack of transparency
or unwillingness to cooperate.
With respect to greenhouse gas
inventories, the calcula on of energy
use associated with air traffic may
also prove to be a complicated task.
Par cularly in developing countries,
the applica on of models such as
provided by (Becken et al., 2002).
Conclusions
The EF associated to the ac vity of
whale watching in Islas Marietas is
considerably low compared with
other calculated; this is an ac vity that
does not exceed the global average
biocapacity, so can be qualified as
sustainable ac vity.
Islas Marietas as a natural protected
area is responsible for this CO2
emissions and should consider this
global impact that can increase if
visita on increase.
The 82 % of visitors are foreign, most
from Canada and United States who
have the biggest EF in the world,
over biocapacity. So whale watching
footprint would increase their
individual EF.
The EF biggest contributor was
Sustainable Tourism Management
the energy category; food and
accommoda on FP was survey
informa on collected, so the footprint
in these categories was almost
negligible.
Literature cited
B
, S., S
, D. G., 2002.
Understanding
energy
consump on pa erns of tourist
a rac ons and ac vi es in New
Zealand. Tourism Management,
in press.
C
, G. O. 2001. Sustainable
development: Is it achievable
within the exis ng interna onal
poli cal economy context?
Sustainable
Development
9(2):61-73.
C
, E. 1990. The development of
sustainable tourism in the third
World. World Conference on
Tourism, Great Britain.
C
, R., J. C
, H.
D , R. G
R.
N
,1999. Introducción
a la Economía
Ecológica,
AENOR, Madrid, España
C
C
-D
,
R.M.
2007.
Huella Ecológica y Desarrollo
Sustentable.
Un
enfoque
regional en la Costa Norte
de Jalisco. Tesis Doctoral:
Universidad de Guadalajara,
México.
, R.M., E. A
K. B
2007.
La observación de
ballenas en la Bahía de Banderas,
México. ¿Una ac vidad ac vidad
turís ca responsable? Turismo,
Patrimonio y Desarrollo, 4(1):920.
DOF 2000. Norma Oficial Mexicana
NOM-131-SEMARNAT-1998:
Lineamientos y especificaciones
para
el
desarrollo
de
ac vidades de observación
de ballenas, protección y
conservación de su hábitat.
Diario Oficial de la Federación
[on line] SEGOB México. [200001-10:11-36]. Available at:
http://200.77.231.100/work/
normas/noms/2000/131ecol.
pdf (2011, 24th of august]
DOF, 2005. Decreto por el que se declara
área natural protegida, con la
categoría de parque nacional,
la región Islas Marietas. Diario
Oficial de la Federación [on line]
SEGOB, Mexico. [2005-04-25].
Available at: h p://dof.gob.mx/
nota_detalle.php?codigo=2034
060&fecha=25/04/2005 (2011,
26th of august]
D
, J.L. 2004. Huella ecológica
portuaria
y
desarrollo
sostenible. Puertos, (114): 2631
G
, S. 2000. Sustainable tourism
development in developing
countries:
some
aspects
of energy use. Journal of
sustainable Tourism, 8(5): 410425.
G
,
H
C.
Whale watching footprint
B
, S. S
H., O.
, 2002.
103
Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A. (Eds.),
Climate Change 2001: The
Scien fic Basis. Contribu on
of Working Group I to the
Third Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Ecological footprint analysis
as a tool to assess tourism
sustainability.
Ecological
Economics, 43, 199-211.
G
G
, S.,
C. M. H , 2006.
Uncertain es in predic ng
tourist flows under scenarios
of climate change. Clima c
Change, 79: 163–173
, S., J. B
, P. U
,
P. P
, W. S
, J. P.
C
, 2007. Voluntary carbon
offse ng schemes for avia on:
Efficiency
and
credibility.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
15(3), 223–248.
H
, K.G., 2000. Sustainable tourism
or sustainable mobility? The
Norwegian case. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 8 (2), 147_
/160.
G
, C. 2007. Responsible tourism
will have a high profile at next
month’s World Travel Market.
Travel Trade Gaze e, [2007,26th
October].
I
I
104
P
C
C
(IPCC), 1999. In: Penner,
J.E., Lister, D.H., Griggs, D.J.,
Dokken, D.J., McFarland, M.
(Eds.), Avia on and the Global
Atmosphere. A Special Report
of IPCC Working Groups I and
III. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
P
C
C
(IPCC), 2001. In: Houghton, J.T.,
Ding, Y, Gripps, D.J., Noguer,
M., van der Linden, P.J., D ai, X.,
J
, A.N., G
, K.J., B
,
A., 1999. Balancing the Earth’s
accounts. Nature 401: 323-324.
L
, K., M C
, S., 1998. A
cri que of environmental
carrying capacity as a means of
managing the effects of tourism
development. Environmental
Conserva on 25 (4): 291-292.
L
, K., M C
, S., S
,
G., 1997. Rethinking carrying
capacity. Annals of Tourism
Research 24: 461-465.
LU
F
, QIN Y
, XU
L
, 2006. Tourism
Ecological Footprint: A case
Study of Songshan Scenic Spot
in Maylst Golden Week of
2005[J]. Human Geography (5):
31-35 (in Chinese)
L
S., L. D
P. F
.
2007. Environmental-Economic
Measures of Tourism Yield.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
15(5):
M K
, B., B. P
, C.
C
R. L
. 2010.
Achieving voluntary reduc ons
in the carbon footprints of
tourism and climate change.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
18 (3): 297-317.
Sustainable Tourism Management
M
, B. 1997. Resource and
Environmental Management.
Essex, Pearson Educa on Ltd.
N
, N., R. R
, J
,
2002. Tracking the ecological
overshoot of the human
economy. Proceedings of the
Na onal Academy ofSciences,
99 (14): 9266–9271.
R
, J., 2007. Ecological unequal
exchange: interna onal trade
and uneven u liza on of
environmental space in the
world system. Social Forces
85,1369–1392.
S
, M. 1988.The Economy of the
Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
S
, O.E., C
, F.S., III, A
,
J.J., B
, E., B
,
J., D
, R., H
-S
,
E., H
, L.F., J
,
R.B., K
, A., L
, R.,
L
, D.M., M
, H.A.,
O
, M., P , N.L.,
S
, M.T., W
, B.H.,
W
, M., W , D.H., 2000.
Global biodiversity scenarios
for the year 2100. Science 287:
1770-1774.
UNDP, 1994. 1994: Human development
report. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
W
W
, M., R , W
, 1996.
Our Ecological Footprint. New
Society, Gabriola Island, Bri sh
Columbia.
, M. J. D.Y
, 1998.
The Ecological Footprint: An
indicator of Progress towards
regional stability. Environmental
Monitoring 51(1-2): 511-529.
Wackernagel, Mathis, Schulz, Niels
B., Deumling, Diana, Linares,
Alejandro Callejas, Jenkins,
Mar n,
Kapos,
Valerie,
Monfreda, Chad, Loh, Jonathan,
Myers
W
T
O
, 2000.
Sta s cal Yearbook of Tourism,
Madrid.
WWF 2010. Living Planet Report
2010. Biodiversity, biocapacity
and development [on line].
Switzerland: World Wildlife
Fund Interna onal. Available at:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_
our_earth/all_publications/
living_planet_report/
Y
G
, L P
, 2007. A
Discussion on Tourist Ecological
Footprint and Its Theore cal
Significance[J], Tourism Science,
22(2):54-58
Z
J H ,Z
J , 2004. Touris c
Ecological Footprint Model and
Analysis of Huangshan City in
2002 [J]. Acta Geographica
Sinica, (5):763-771 (in Chinese)
Z
J. 2008. Measuring the ecological
impact of tourist wastes:
methodology and cases study
of Jiuzhaigou and Huangshan
Na onal Park[J]. Acta Ecologica
Sinica, 28(6):2764-2773.
Z
Y., Y
G
, 2009. The
Touris c Ecological Footprint
Study of Man-made Scenic
Spot: Taking Kunming World
Whale watching footprint
105
Hor -Expo Garden as a Case [J].
Journal of Beijing Interna onal
Studies University, (1): 51-58
106
Sustainable Tourism Management
107
SUSTAINABLE INDICATORS APPLIED IN
TOURISM DESTINATIONS ON MEXICO’S
CARIBBEAN COAST
O
F
-M
Observa on and Research Spa al Laboratory, Research group: Management
and Conserva on of Aqua c Natural Resources, Sustainable Development
Division. University of Quintana Roo, Campus Cozumel. E-mail: ofrausto@
uqroo.mx
Abstract
The design and development of general indicator systems for diverse regions and areas
has been difficult and had discouraging results, especially in the field of tourism. The
result of the experimental programme on sustainable indicators for Mexico illustrates
this trend. This study outlines three models of sustainability indicators (global, na onal
and local indicators) applied to the tourist des na ons on Mexico´s Caribbean Coast
in the estate of Quintana Roo. Finally, emphasis is placed on monitoring, control and
evalua on of the indicators.
F
-M
, O. 2013. Sustainable Indicators applied in Tourism Des na ons on Mexico’s
Caribbean Coast In: Alvarado-Herrera A. & González-Damian A. Sustainable Tourism Management:
Conceptual Bases and Case Studies. University of Quintana Roo, México D. F. 142 pp.
Introduc on
Differences in opinion and the recent
use of the concept of sustainability
have both had a major influence on
the development of indicators; their
construc on and conceptualisa on
have been broadly discussed (for
a more extensive survey of this
discussion, please see: UN 1996; Hardi
& Pinter 1995; Pfister & Renn 1996;
Frausto et al., 2006a and Wong 2006).
In fact, sustainable development
entails diverse uses and dimensions,
so it is important to stress how the
indicators are interpreted.
Indicators are signals that summarise
relevant informa on on a specific
phenomenon. On a general level,
an indicator is a signal, while on a
specific level it is an opera onal
representa on of an a ribute
(quality, characteris c or property) of
a system. Indicators simplify relevant
informa on, which not only makes
a phenomenon of interest visible or
percep ble, but also quan ta vely
highlights and conveys the most
important informa on (Birkmann
& Frausto, 2001; Frausto, 2010).
It is important to remember that
any indicator – whether descrip ve
or norma ve – has significance
108
besides its face value. This means
the relevance of the indicator for
es ma ng a certain quality or
characteris c of a system arises from
the interpreta on made about the
indicator and its rela onship to the
phenomena of interest. Therefore,
assigning a meaning to a variable and
defining the indica ng func on of the
indicator makes an indicator out of the
variable. In principle an indicator can
be a qualita ve variable (nominal),
a rank variable (ordinal) and/or a
quan ta ve variable (Birkmann,
2006).
The debate and use of indicators is
nothing new. In Europe and La n
America, economic indicators started
to be used during the second half of
the 20th century (Hartmuth, 1998).
Social indicators began to be used in
the early 1970s (OECD, 1976). Later,
in the early 1990s, the development
of community indicators (Wong,
2006) started with the dissemina on
of the principles of sustainability a er
the 1992 Rio summit (Vera & Ivars,
2001) and with the signing of the
Agenda 21 pledges. Chapter 40, in
par cular, calls for the development
of indicators that would enable
sustainable development to be
measured and monitored, focusing
Sustainable Tourism Management
on three thema c axes: the economy,
society and ecology.
The
debate
on
sustainable
development
indicators
can
be generalised in terms of two
concepts. First, the ins tu onal
concepts of indicators, which stress
the construc on of sustainable
development models using key
indicators or highly aggregate
indicators. The second type of
approach,
when
construc ng
these indicators, is the concept of
par cipatory (community) indicators
on sustainable development, which
are generated based on the processes
of construc ng the local Agenda
21, stressing the defini on of local
sustainability (Birkmann & Frausto
2001, Frausto & Welch, 2010).
This study combines the experiences
of monitoring and controlling
sustainable tourism development for
five des na ons in Mexico (Figure
1) during the period from 1999 to
2010. The contribu ons were divided
into three sec ons according to the
applica on of the indicators. The
first refers to the na onal monitoring
systems in the context of compliance
with the Millennium Development
Goals and the crucial role of the World
Tourism Organisa on in achieving
objec ve 1 (halving the number of
poor people) for the des na ons
Cozumel, Cancun and Playa del
Carmen. The second sec on describes
the na onal Agenda 21 system in
Mexico’s tourism industry, and the
case study of the sustainable tourism
indicators of the tourism communi es
in Akumal is set forth. The third
sec on presents the case studies
of community indicators developed
in Cozumel, Playa del Carmen and
Cancun. The text concludes with a
reflec on on these experiences as well
as recommenda ons for monitoring
and controlling sustainable tourism
development in these des na ons on
Mexico’s Caribbean coast.
Monitoring tourism des na ons
and the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) indicators.
The MDGs represent a global
associa on that emerged from the
pledges and goals addressed at the
world summits held during the 1990s.
In response to the main challenges
of development and the voice of
civil society, the MDGs promote
a reduc on in poverty, as well as
educa on, maternal health and
gender equality, aiming to combat
Sustainable Indicators
109
Figure 1. Mexico´s Caribbean coast and tourism des na ons applied sustainability
indicators (study area).
child mortality, HIV/AIDS and other
diseases. With the target set for 2015,
the MDGs are a set of agreed-upon
goals that can be fulfilled if all the
stakeholders play their part. The poor
countries have pledged to govern
be er and invest in their people
through healthcare and educa on,
while the wealthy countries have
pledged to support them through aid,
110
debt relief and a fairer trade system
(Giraldo et al., 2006).
The World tourism Organisa on
(WTO 2005) also promotes tourism
as a strategy for achieving compliance
with the first goal (to eradicate
extreme poverty and hunger) through
its ST–EP programme (Sustainable
Tourism – Elimina ng ‎Poverty), and
Sustainable Tourism Management
promotes the eradica on of poverty
by implemen ng economic, social and
environmental systems of sustainable
tourism
(h p://www.unwto.org/
step/pdf/declara on).
Despite this ini a ve, at the core of
implementa on is the lack of basic
studies
demonstra ng the point
of departure that would allow the
des na ons to be monitored. Thus,
via the local urban observatories
(MDG monitoring centres) the
preliminary results are in for the
ci es of Cancun, Cozumel and Playa
del Carmen (Frausto, 2010). Table I
shows the level of poverty in these
des na ons.
The basic poverty indicator registered
in each town is homogeneous for
the region. However, there are three
important considera ons: 1) the
number of inhabitants in tourism
des na ons that are living in extreme
poverty is 343,836; b) the number
of residents in a precarious situa on
is 66,947; and c) the chief target of
lowering poverty by 2015, star ng
from the base figures from 2005,
would be 171,918 inhabitants. Will
this be possible?
Table I. Basic indicators for Goal 1: eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.
Target: to cut the percentage of people suffering from hunger and whose
income is less than one dollar per day in half by 2015*.
Poverty level
registered in
2005*
Level 1
Cozumel
Playa del
Carmen
Cancun
Regional
9.10
9.79
9.80
9.56
Level 2
37.30
37.37
37.40
37.35
Level 3
49.12
49.09
49.10
49.10
73,193
100,383
526,701
700,277
Total popula on
* Poverty level:
Level I: Percentage of urban households with insufficient per capita income
to purchase the shopping basket that covers the nutri onal needs required
to live.
Level II: Percentage of urban households with income that does not manage
to meet the set of needs that includes food and clothing, housing, transport,
healthcare and educa on.
Level III: Percentage of urban households that do not have sufficient economic
resources to meet the profile of consump on of those households that have
sufficient total per capita income to purchase the food shopping basket.
Sustainable Indicators
111
Sustainable
development
indicators systems: The Agenda 21
of Mexican tourism
Mexico is a member of the group
of countries par cipa ng in the
pilot programme of indicators
being conducted by the United
Na ons Commission on Sustainable
Development (UNCSD). In these
countries, a total of 134 indicators
organised according to the PressureState-Response model and related
to the different chapters and issues
in Agenda 21 are being applied.
Although Mexico par cipated on an
informal basis from the start of the
project, it was in March 1997, during
the third workshop on the ma er
held in Costa Rica – the previous
ones had been held in the United
States and Belgium, in 1995 and
1996, respec vely – that it formally
joined the 21 other countries that
had voluntarily decided to par cipate
in the worldwide pilot test to develop
these indicators (Birkmann and
Frausto, 2001).
Mexico has managed to generate 113
sustainability indicators out of the
total of 134. Of the 113 indicators
generated, 39 are related to pressure,
43 to state and 31 to response. In all
112
three cases, the results can be regarded
as highly sa sfactory, as reflected by
their propor ons compared to the
number of indicators proposed by
the CSD (Commission on Sustainable
Development), 90.7%, 79.6% and
83.8%, respec vely. This amount is
made up of 97 indicators devised in
accordance with the corresponding
methodological sheets, plus another
16, which are alterna ves to the
proposed methodology. Of the
remaining 21, six indicators are in the
process of development and another
15 have no informa on available as for
the me being they do not respond to
the na onal informa on priori es.
In contrast to the previous programme,
which is guided by the INE (Ins tute
Na onal of Ecology and INEGI, the
Secretariat of the Environment and
Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) and
the Secretariat of Tourism (SECTUR)
together applied the Agenda 21
programme for Mexican tourism. The
goal of this programme is to serve as a
framework for ac on in the sustainable
development of tourism. Thus, within
the 2000-2006 strategic plan of the
Na onal Tourism Programme, one
strategic avenue consists of keeping
the tourist des na ons sustainable,
and goal 11 (to foster the sustainable
Sustainable Tourism Management
development of tourism) shows the
strategy of implemen ng a system
of sustainability indicators in tourism
(SECTUR, 2003).
For 2003, the Agenda 21 programme
was launched for Mexican tourism
under the supervision of SECTUR. It
contained four different components,
namely socioeconomic dimensions,
conserva on
and
management
of resources for development,
strengthening the main groups and
means of execu on, and a total of
38 issues to monitor. For 2005, only
two strategies were launched: a)
implementa on and recogni on
of the Agenda 21 programme
for coastal towns (training the
consulta ve councils in 55 ci es),
and b) development of the System
of Sustainability Indicators for
Tourism. Addi onally, the capture
programme in 12 des na ons was
also implemented.
In addi on to the four major topic
groups, the System of Sustainability
Indicators for Tourism also has twelve
sub-topics, which are further divided
into 28 indicators with 49 variables.
The indicators are evaluated according
to the standards set by Agenda 21 for
Mexican tourism, and an indicator is
marked as posi ve, nega ve, without
changes or with no informa on
available.
Of the 28 indicators, only ten (35.71%)
showed favourable results, mainly
the indicators on the socioeconomic
se ng. A full 42.85% of the indicators
(12 of them) are either nega ve or
cri cal, especially in the areas of
urban development and tourism.
Finally, one indicator is in a moderate
state or showed no relevant changes
(waste water treatment). We should
highlight the fact that there is no
data for determining the state of four
indicators, hence they were nega vely
evaluated.
Community
indicators
of
sustainable tourism: Cozumel and
Tulum.
In this sec on we will describe
two experiences involving the
implementa on of sustainable tourism
indicators through the development
of community indicators.
- Cozumel
The process of developing sustainable
tourism indicators was executed via
the ini a ve by the World Tourism
Organiza on and the University of
Quintana Roo in 1999. In order to
Sustainable Indicators
113
do this, the following steps were
taken: 1) iden fica on of risks for the
tourism industry and the community;
2) iden fica on of the values of all
the interest groups in the ac vity and
the community; 3) priority areas in
the des na on; and 4) indicators.
The indicators were divided into four
topics: environmental, economic,
social and management. Regarding
ecology, eight different issues have
been iden fied, and are monitored
via 15 indicators. There are seven
problems
with
11
indicators
concerning economics. As regards the
social area there are seven problems
and 11 indicators. Finally, in the
area of management, there are six
problems and seven indicators. The
monitoring and control of the issue
of management are posi ve, while
the indicators on the environmental,
social and economic topics have not
yet been fully implemented (Frausto,
et al, 2009).
Generally speaking, 15 of the 44
indicators have not been analysed due
to a lack of basic informa on (reliable
data or development difficul es).
Four indicators show no significant
changes. Twenty-three indicators
have nega ve results either because
114
the monitoring was not implemented
or due to a nega ve trend in the
development of the indicator. Finally,
17 indicators show a posi ve state of
development.
- Tulum
By developing community indicators
in the city of Tulum, the priority areas
for monitoring the des na on were
iden fied. The workshops were held
in 2003 (Sippel, 2005 and Frausto
et al., 2006). The OECD’s PSR model
(Pressure-State-Response)
was
followed, and this was complemented
by a local evalua on, serving as the
basis for controlling ac ons.
The model proposed for Tulum has
the par cular feature of making
a hierarchy of problems based on
community opinion, which broadly
promotes collec ve control ac ons
through the indicators. Therefore,
the community has the control to
track the local issues on 12 different
topics, yielding posi ve ac ons in five
cases (transport, ecosystem, cultural
iden ty, ci zen structure and the
state of buildings), which is broadly
related to the public works projects
undertaken by the town in the year
when the informa on was gathered
(2005). Plus, when asking ci zens
Sustainable Tourism Management
about the priority issues, the highest
categories (rated 6) were water,
services and good governance.
We should highlight the fact that the
model of tourism indicators in the
des na on of Tulum started from the
concept of the development of the
des na on, in addi on to the ongoing
evalua on of the government’s
responsibility of the principles of
accountability and implemen ng
development policies.
Discussion
Besides the discussion of major
func ons of indicators, and of tourism
indicators in par cular, the analysis of
the process of indicator development
is important in order to understand
the different phases and judgements
that the construc on of indicators
and criteria are based on.
In general, one can dis nguish nine
different phases in the development
of indicators, which also apply in the
development of tourism indicators.
The indicator development starts with
the defini on or selec on of relevant
goals. Then it is necessary to carry
out a scoping process, which implies
clarifying the scope of the indicator
by iden fying the target group and
the associated purpose for which
the indicators will be used (goals and
func ons).
It is also important to define the
temporal and spa al bounds, which
means iden fying the meframe over
which indicators are to be measured
and determining the spa al bounds of
the repor ng unit (community, subregion or socio-economic regions, biogeographical zones or administra ve
units).
The third phase involves the
iden fica on of an appropriate
conceptual framework, which means
structuring the poten al themes and
indicators. The different approaches to
measuring sustainability encompass
various conceptual frameworks,
like those that focus on sectors,
issue-based frameworks or causal
frameworks. Which framework may
be most appropriate for structuring
sustainability tourism indicators
depends on the purpose for which
the indicators will be used, as well as
on the target group and, finally, on
the availability of data. The following
func ons as most important for
tourism indicators:
•
Sustainable Indicators
se ng priori es
115
•
background for ac on
•
awareness raising
•
trend analysis, and
•
Empowerment.
The fourth phase implies the
defini on of selec on criteria for the
poten al indicators. Although the
scien fic debate about indicators has
led to a set of general criteria (Wong,
2006) for ‘‘good quality’’ indicators,
like ‘‘scien fically valid’’, ‘‘responsive
to change’’ and ‘‘based on accurate
and accessible data’’, it is necessary to
link these to the theme, func on and
goal of the specific approach. These
criteria have to be interpreted, for
example, in terms of such aspects as
data accuracy and data accessibility.
The iden fica on of a set of poten al
indicators (phase 5) is a key step
in indicator development. Finally,
there is the monitoring, controlling,
evalua on and selec on of each
indicator (phase 6) with reference
to the criteria developed at an
earlier stage, which results in a set of
indicators.
The collec on of data for the indicator
has to be followed in order proves
the applicability of the approach. This
phase can o en be the most difficult
116
one, especially since vulnerability
is characterized by many intangible
factors and aspects, which are
difficult to quan fy or which can be
measured only indirectly, such as
social networks, confidence, trust and
apathy, and ins tu onal aspects such
as good governance, appropriate early
warning, and appropriate legisla on.
Therefore, the strict separa on
between indicators, monitoring and
controlling becomes less rigid in
the course of prac cal applica on.
Nevertheless, it is important to keep
in mind the differences and also
to underline how sustainability is
dis nguished from a ‘‘pure’’ ecology,
economic and social assessment
approach. Also important is a precise
understanding of what the approach
focuses on in terms of ‘‘sustainability
tourism’’: sustainability to what and
sustainability of what. In this context
it is essen al to focus on the defini on
and percep on of what is meant by
sustainable tourism in the specific
approach, such as the Sustainable
Tourism Index, the DMG Index and
the Agenda 21 model.
Conclusions
The following conclusions reflect the
Sustainable Tourism Management
foregoing discussion and raise some
important ques ons, which provide
useful tools and guidelines for further
inves ga ng current approaches. The
forma on of a theore cal basis of
indicator development, the analysis
of current data and the examina on
of differences between sustainable
tourism, monitoring and controlling
have revealed that sustainable
tourism assessment must go beyond
tourism policy des na on.
The experience of implemen ng
sustainable tourism indicators in the
des na ons of Cancun, Cozumel,
Playa del Carmen, Tulum and Akumal,
which began in 1999, enabled us to
gather informa on that is useful for
monitoring the major problems in
these tourism communi es.
Evidence of implementa on of the
monitoring system can be seen in
official reports, ins tu onal databases,
academic documents and civil society
organisa ons, and this promotes a
culture of using informa on to make
decisions.
Through the use of indicators and
follow-up indicators, the control
systems of the des na ons enable the
sustainable development of the town
to be guided and steered, thus being
planning systems. This document has
aimed to set forth the control tools
through the use of indicators and
monitoring systems.
The indicators developed in these
des na ons respond to concerns on a
global scale (Millennium Development
Goals), to na onal strategies involving
monitoring tourism des na ons
(Agenda 21 from the Mexican tourism
authority) and the development of
local agendas through community
par cipa on.
The evalua on of monitoring and
control has iden fied future avenues
of ac on (implementa on of followup indicators) for indicators without
data (no data) or for indicators with
nega ve values.
These situa ons are linked with the
overall func on of the approach.
For example, is the approach mainly
intended to provide knowledge
for understanding or is it aimed at
informing decision-making processes
(knowledge for ac on)? Finally, the
author also recommends keeping
in mind that every approach to
measuring sustainability is based
– explicitly or implicitly – on a vision
or goals.
Sustainable Indicators
117
SEDESOL-México.
Literature cited
B
, J.
O. F
, 2001.
Indicators
for
Sustainable
Development for the Regional
and Local Level: Objec ves,
Opportuni es and problems:
Case Studies from Germany and
Mexico. European Journal of
Regional Development, 9, 2330.
F
, O., J. R
L
, X. S
,
2006a. Indicadores de desarrollo
sostenible a nivel regional y
local: análisis de Galicia, España,
y Cozumel, México (Chapter V):
P. p. 176–197. In: Guevara, R.
(Ed.). Estudios mul disciplinarios
en turismo. México. SECTURCESTUR.
B
, J. 2005. Vom Monitoring zum
Controlling. RuR 5, 357-370
F
F
, O. 2010. Indicadores para la
planificación de los des nos
turís cos. P. p. 373 – 384
En: Cuevas, T. y L. Anguiano
(Comp.). Dinámicas y tendencias
del turismo contemporáneo.
Universidad
Autónoma
de Ciudad Juárez, textos
Universitarios, serie extensión.
, O., M. S
, G. C
, S.
G
, 2006b Sustainable Tulum:
Indicators of tourism in Mexico.
P. p. 423–433. In: Lacosta, A.
(Ed). IX Coloquio de Geogra a
del turismo, ocio y recreación.
Prensas
Universitarias
de
Zaragoza, Spain.
F
, O., T. P
, J. R
, T.
I , A. T
G. C
. Análisis
y evaluación del uso del sistema
de indicadores UN-habitat de la
Riviera Maya. Pp. 107-120. In:
Campos, Cas llo y Velazquez
(Coords.)
Urbanización
y
turismo. Barcelona Ed. Pomares
F
, O., J. T , J. R
T. I ,
2007. Sistema de indicadores
de desarrollo humano, Cozumel.
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
G
, F., J. G
, A. B
,
A. A
, 2006. Habitat
y pobreza: los obje vos del
desarrollo del milenio desde la
Ciudad. UN-Habitat, Bogotá,
Colombia.
F
F
118
, O.
G. M. W
, 2010.
Indicators of the Habitat
Agenda in Mexico: Local urban
observatory
programme.
Journal of US-Chima Public
Administra on, 7(11) (Serial N°
61): 39 – 45.
, O., T. I , J. T , J. R
, B.
G
A. V
, 2009.
Principios generales sobre el
sistema de información del
observatorio urbano de la Riviera
Maya. P. p. 99–108 In: SEDESOL.
Mejores prác cas realizadas por
la Red de Observatorios urbanos
Locales en ciudades Mexicanas.
Sustainable Tourism Management
H
H
, P.
L. P
, 1995. Models
and Methods of Measuring
Sustainable
Development
Performance: Revised dra
discussion paper prepared for
the Sustainable Development
Coordina on Unit, Execu ve
Council,
Government
of
Manitoba, Interna onal Ins tute
for Sustainable Development,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
, G. 1998.
Ansaetze
und
konzepte
eines
umweltbezogenen
gesellscha lichen Monitoring.
Ziele,
Moeglichkeiten
und
Probleme
eines
gesellscha lichen Monitorings.
MAB-Mi eilungen, Bonn. (42):
9-35.
OECD. 1976. Measuring Social WellBeing: A Progress Report on
the Development of Social
Indicators. The OECD Social
Indicators Program, Paris.
Arbeitsbericht 64, Akademie
fuer Technikfolgenabschaetzung
in
BadenWuer emberg,
Stu gart, Germany.
SECTUR. 2003. Agenda 21 Local para
el turismo sustentable, guide
leaflet, SECTUR, Mexico.
S
, M. 2005. Sustainable Tulum. P. p.
61–80. In: Frausto, O. Desarrollo
sustentable: turismo, costas y
educación. UQROO, Mexico.
V
, J. F.
J. A. I
. 2001. Una
propuesta de indicadores para
la planificación y ges ón del
turismo sustentable. P. p. 712. In: J. VERA & J. A. IVARS.
V Na onal Environmental
Congress, Madrid, Spain.
W
, C. 2006. Indicators for urban
and regional planning: the
interplay of policy and methods.
The Routledge Press – London,
U
.
2007.
Informe técnico de Benito
Juarez. Disponible en: h p://
observatorio.ucaribe.edu.mx
WTO. 1999. Indicadores de turismo
sostenible para el Caribe y
Centroamérica. Cozumel. I Taller
de indicadores de desarrollo
sustentable. World Tourism
Organisa on. Spain.
UN. 1996. Indicators of Sustainable
Development: Framework and
Methodologies, United Na ons,
New York.
WTO. 1999. Workshop on Sustainable
Tourism
Indicators.
World
Tourism Organiza on. Spain,
44pp.
P
WTO. 2005. Tourism, Microfinance
and Poverty Allevia on. World
Tourism Organiza on. Themis
programme, Spain.
O
, G. A
O. R
, 1996. Ein
Indikatorensystem zur messung
einer nachhal gen Entwicklung
in
Baden-Wuer emberg.
Sustainable Indicators
119
WTO, Declaración de la OMT. Disponible
en:
h p://www.unwto.org/
step/pdf/declara on
120
Sustainable Tourism Management
121
THE PERCEPTION OF RESIDENTS IN A
TOURIST DESTINATION
A
P
J
M
S
1
,G
A
P
O
S
2
3
1)
Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences. Professor and Researcher at the Sustainable
Development Division. [email protected]; 2) B.A. in Tourism.
[email protected]; 3) MSc. In Tourism and Hotel Management.
Professor and Researcher at the Sustainable Development Division. juliasderis@
gmail.com University of Quintana Roo
Abstract
Quality of life is one of the reasons that cause the movement of people to places with
be er condi ons in the personal and professional, mainly as a result of inequali es
and dispari es in income and jobs that emerge between the center and the periphery.
According to the assessing body of social development programs, the state of Quintana
Roo has decreased its percentage linked to the popula on living in extreme poverty,
this as a result of growth of the economy based on tourism, which requires manpower
to meet the needs of the sector, leading to large migra on flows to the en ty. The
increase in popula on displacements caused by such notable impacts generates social,
environmental and economic (safety, pollu on and employment), before the picture is
seen the need to analyze the impressions of the local popula on has been transforming
its environment in these respects, this percep on is understood as the process by
which people meet and evaluate each other and which is considered the way of how
events occur within their social space. This paper put discussion of the different op cal
percep on served to develop the theore cal construct - methodological was used to
reveal the percep on of the local popula on of Cozumel before the arrival of migrants
at des na on.
P
-M
, A., G. P
-S
J. S. A
-O
. 2013.The Percep on of Residents
in a Tourism Des na on. In: Alvarado-Herrera A. & González-Damian A. Sustainable Tourism
Management: Conceptual Bases and Case Studies. University of Quintana Roo, México D. F. 142
pp.
Introduc on
Cozumel island.
According to Vanegas (2005) migra on
is a response to the difference in
income because people a empt to
increase their profits and improve
their living condi ons, this implies
that the migra on process con nue
given that the real income of the
locali es des na on are greater than
those currently in their home.
For this purpose, the theory of capitals
of Pierre Bourdieu (2001), which
focuses on the social prac ces of men
and proposes a rela onal thinking,
taking into account the objec ve and
subjec ve elements, structural and
construc on when the man develops
his prac ces.
The state of Quintana Roo has the
essen al elements for a migratory
ac vity: possible employment with
be er wages, be er educa on and
life, in contrast to some urban and
rural en es that have higher rates
of poverty, causing a high migratory
pressure towards locali es with
increasing development.
Migra on and Poverty in the State
of Quintana Roo
Tourism des na ons have high
popula on mobility due to the need
for workforce as a result for the
investment performance in tourism
infrastructure and services for the
development of the ac vity. However,
the resident popula on is transformed
his environment, which changes the
percep on of the environment, and
in some cases migrants are blamed
for causing these changes, therefore,
the interest to analyze the percep on
of the resident popula on of the
122
In the academic literature there
is extensive informa on available
regarding the term migra on and
increasing at a rapid pace, as not only
government agencies in charge do
ques ons about this type of mobility,
but also special interest groups
(NGO’s), these sectors who need
updated informa on on travel and
its effects on receptor communi es.
In this sense, Mercado and Palmerin
(2009) argue that migra on is
determined by the change of residence
caused by economic, poli cal or
labor. In this regard, the Na onal
Ins tute of Sta s cs, Geography and
Informa cs (INEGI, 2000) considers
the migra on as the change of
residence of a person or persons
Sustainable Tourism Management
temporarily or permanently, usually
with the inten on of improving their
economic situa on and their personal
and family development. Likewise,
the Interna onal Organiza on for
Migra on (OIM, 2011) notes that
the migra on is considered when a
person or group of them moves from
a geographical area to another with
the inten on of se ling indefinitely or
temporarily.
Thus, people move to areas where
employment sources and wealth are
concentrated, specifically in the case
of Quintana Roo migratory movement
has boosted for tourism which
means and represents the economic
growth; it involves a growing need for
workforce genera ng enlargement
migra on flows to the region of the
Mexican Caribbean, territory where
has the largest foreign exchange
earnings from tourism, which is $
5790.97 million U.S. dollars in 2011
(SEDETUR; 2011a).
By its natural and cultural wealth,
tourist des na ons are privileged
contact environments, since they
cons tute the pla orms for receiving
mul ple streams of tourists and
migrant workers, which to establish
new migra on routes (Dehoorne;
2002 Lanquar , 2007). According to
the informa on of CONEVAL (2008),
the tourist area of the state of
Quintana Roo has all the elements
for a high migratory ac vity: possible
employment with be er wages,
be er educa on and life, in contrast
to other locali es the country, as well
as rural areas or towns of the same
state, so that migra on pressure
remains increasingly towards tourist
des na ons of the state, especially
those in which the State has allowed
foreign investment to form a tourist
corridor .
Quintana Roo is a state whose
popula on is integrated for a large
percentage of migrants who arrived
from various states, which in many
cases were distributed in small
enclaves that were formed for the
purpose of acquiring land or work
to the chicle extrac on, nowadays
by tourism. Garcia (2009) states that
the lessons learned in this process of
change of residence there is a culture
or tradi on of migra on, in addi on,
these processes were guided mobility
were poli cal interests to make
the territory into a state and give it
economic self-sufficiency.
Despite the economic growth of the
Percep on of Residents
123
organiza on by tourism, there is a
4.7% of the popula on in extreme
poverty (CONEVAL, 2011), also the
Na onal Council for the Evalua on of
Social Development Policy in its report
about poverty in Mexico, the state
of Quintana Roo have the following
results: food poverty (11%), access to
educa on (16%) and housing (36.5%),
compared with neighboring en es,
Quintana Roo has be er return
results: Yucatan (18.1% , 26.2% and
51.7%) and Campeche (20%, 27.3%
and 51.4%) respec vely (CONEVAL,
2008), however the state has grown
rapidly since 1970, there were 88.150
inhabitants, for the Na onal Census
2010, the results were that the state
has 1,325,578 inhabitants (INEGI,
2011).
However, the poverty indicators of
Quintana Roo contrast significantly
with the data of Nuevo Leon (3.6%,
7.2% and 27.5%), Distrito Federal
(5.4%, 10.3% and 31.8%) and Jalisco
(10.9%, 17.2% and 41.6%), territories
with higher popula on and their
economic growth is not dependent on
tourism. Nevertheless, the weakness
of Quintana Roo is that 50.4% of
the economically ac ve popula on
(EAP) is directly employed in the
sector of commerce, restaurant and
124
hotels, and the rest of the popula on
is divided into ac vi es such as
agriculture, animal husbandry, fishing,
construc on services, educa onal,
professional, and real state, in addi on
to manufacturing, electricity, water,
gas, postal and warehousing (INEGI,
2010), as consecuence Quintana Roo
has become into a monoproducer
state which has achive the quality
of life of big ci es, but that quality
may be diminished by the fragility
of the economic sector (Palafox and
Velázquez, 2008, Borja and Gómez,
2009, Monterrubio, 2010).
Consequently, municipali es primarily
engaged in the tourism sector have
lower poverty rates compared with
municipali es where tourism is not
the main economic ac vity. Thus,
according to the Government of
Quintana Roo (2010) the economic
growth of Othon P. Blanco, Felipe
Carrillo Puerto, Jose María Morelos,
and Lázaro Cárdenas is based on
the primary sector (agriculture,
livestock, fishing) being the ter ary
sector (services) in second and
end manufacturing, construc on,
electricity, and because they have
higher rates of food poverty and
housing (see Table I).
Sustainable Tourism Management
Table I. Quality of life, housing and income in the municipali es of the state of
Quintana Roo.
Municipality
Cozumel
Felipe Carrillo
Puerto
Isla Mujeres
Othón P. Blanco
Benito Juárez
José María
Morelos
Lázaro Cárdenas
Solidaridad
Total
Popula on
73,193
Food
Poverty (%)
4.5
Educa on (%)
Housing (%)
9.0
31.6
65,373
38.9
48.7
72.8
13,315
219,763
572,973
4.9
18.6
3.5
7.3
25.7
7.2
18.4
49.7
27.2
32,746
46.7
56.3
77.2
22,357
135,589
40.6
1.6
49.8
3.4
71.6
16.0
Source: CONEVAL, 2008.
It is noteworthy that Cancun and
Cozumel are the closest points to
Europe and the U.S. East Coast,
this loca on offers a compe ve
advantage over other countries in
the Americas and certainly with the
same state municipali es (Carballo,
2005). Added to this, thanks to the
development of tourism of sun and
beach, and cruises, has meant that
the number of visitors has became
higher in these des na ons, and
the economic benefits are greater
for those who work directly or
indirectly with tourism, and in
2011 the number of interna onal
tourists were distributed as follows:
a) Cancun received 3,115,177; b)
Cozumel 3,346,934 and c) Riviera
Maya 3,662,862, togehter they
receive 5,686.89 million dollars, that
represents the 98% of the income of
the en ty for tourism concept.
Such concentra on of wealth
con nues to rise and leads to a
high mobility of people who come
to reside at the tourist des na ons
of the state, that is causing the
emergence of slums by high mobility
and lack of migra on u li es because
service delivery is not growing at the
rate of popula ons. Now, the mass
mobili es to the countryside to the
city are gradually losing strength and
importance to lead into a migra on
which targets mid-sized ci es
(Vanegas, 2005).
The percep on as category to study
the migra on
For Mead (1968) percep on is where
Percep on of Residents
125
the actor looks and reacts to s muli
related to the momentum. The man
is able to perceive or feel the s mulus
through hearing, touch, taste, smell,
etc., this involve incoming s muli as
mental images that are created. Thus,
those selected s mulus features and
choose between different s muli,
which determines its percep on and
it senses interac on. Luhmann (1984)
defines it as “a less demanding of
informa on gain, because it allows
informa on need not be selected or
communicated informa on” (p. 369).
Similarly, Weber (1922) shares that
percep on is the way it takes into
account the presence and behavior of
others and other persons belonging
to a society, it leads to social ac on,
for example human behavior and
that a tude has a value to those
who perform other ac ons targeted.
Thus, Weber (1922) established
three criteria for social ac on: 1)
percep on, 2) significance, the
subject’s ac on must have a symbolic
value or meaning for others and the
others must have meaning for the
subject, 3) understanding, is the
sum of percep on and meaning. It
concludes with the understanding of
the percep on of the subject due to
their ac on or ac ons.
126
Furthermore, Mejía et al. (2001: 466)
define social percep on as:
“Is the process or processes
through which we try to
know and understand other
people. Perceptual systems
can not be explained solely
in terms of physiological
opera ons, because each
individual exists in a number
of internal signals that control
the physiological ac vi es,
but our consciousness is
alien to them, and that
directly mediate the different
percep ons that performs
the individual throughout
his life”.
This wording suggests three elements
to build the percep on towards a
person: 1) recogni on of emo ons, 2)
forma on of impressions and 3) causal
a ribu ons, for example iden fying
the causes of others’ behavior. A er
iden fica on of the above elements,
the individual is created an idea of
another person. These elements are
consistent with social ac on proposed
by Weber (1922).
The social exchange theory assumes
that
individuals
select
their
agreements once they have evaluated
the benefits and costs (Homans,
1961), for example that a tudes
are influenced by percep ons of the
Sustainable Tourism Management
exchange that individuals believe they
are doing. In other words, individuals
that are personally benefi ng from
tourism perceive greater economic
profits and lower environmental
and social impacts (Getz, 1994 in
Royo and Ruiz, 2009). In this sense,
immigrants provide benefits to the
local community, due to the arrival
of workforce, business, investment,
tradi ons, habits, etc.., and they
perceive higher economic profits in
comparisson to a lesser extent to the
social and environmental nega ve
impacts. In this respect, Bourdieu
and Wacquant (2000) sentence that
migra on is mainly a product and
expression of a historical interna onal
material and symbolic domina on.
The use of power is observable
in the trajectories, prac ces and
experiences of migrants, and is also
expressed in the transforma on of
the social order, both in the socie es
of origin and des na on, such as
social mobility of migrants and their
families are not always legi mate
or accepted by the cultural codes of
the host socie es causing the sense
of not belonging to the local society.
The ignorance of the local resindents
about the social condi ons of
migrants are alien to them, that is
why have not built rela onships later
in similar social circles, therefore the
inmigrants are not allowed to entry
to these groups and interact with
them, and there is uncertainty to the
inten ons of the new inhabitants,
also the encounter int the social
fairing of tourism in Cozumel is purely
commercial, outsourced, and the
immediate percep on is of rejec on
and delimita on of their physical and
social space, to care or not and share
the scarce resources.
The above emphasizes the interest to
build a theore cal and methodological
construct, which allows the analysis
of the percep on od the sociall
environmental
and
economic
aspects of the residents popula on
of Cozumel as a tourist des na on
facing the increasing migrant’s flow.
The percep on from the perspec ve
of Pierre Bourdieu.
Pierre Bourdieu’s theory (2001)
focuses on why social prac ces of
men, and to analyze he proposes
a rela onal thinking, i.e., taking
into account the objec ve factors,
subjec ve, structural and construc on
when men develop these prac ces
. The elements are observable or
Percep on of Residents
127
external objec ves of the human
being’s, instead of that subjec ve
are not at glance, are interior and
percep ons, the structural ones are
the forms of reproduc on through
which is generated or build the
knowledge.
“A
person
throughout
its
life,
accumulate experience, knowledge
and skills that make him laundering,
which allow him to group together
with other individuals with common
characteris cs, in other words take
posi on and take posi on but also
are posi oned and cons tutes fields”
(Anaya and Palafox, 2010: 174).
Also, Bourdieu (2001) states that the
capitals are a set of characteris cs
that play, build, distribute, evaluate,
consume, invest and they can become
other. These assets of knowledge
create the capitals that will be
represen ng the human being in the
social space, i.e. individuals through
their capitals are integrated to form
fields. Thus, the fields are rela vely
autonomous space game, with its
own objec ves to be achieved, with
players compe ng against each other
and being able to obtain a place or
posi on in social space, based on
the above, the individual can be part
128
of different fields depending the
composi on of their capital.
Bourdieu (1998) proposes the
following capitals: a) the economic
capital where money plays a vital
role by represen ng universally for
the acquisi on and possession of
material goods, b) cultural capital
refers to the accumula on of
experiences, knowledge and skills,
and is manifested by obtaining
training, school diplomas and tles
or roles that designate the academic
level of a person; c) social capital, is
membership in a group or social circle,
where they must respect standards
and allows you to develop the ability
to mobilize social networks derived
from belonging to different groups, for
example: Taxi Drivers’ Union, Rotary
Club, i.e. the part of a certain group of
people for purposes in common and
rela onships through these can get
to present and establish interac ons
that lead to benefit the individual
to raise capital and develop agility
in the field and social space where
they are, and finally d) the symbolic
capital consists of certain intangible
proper es that seem inherent in
the very nature of the agent, such
features are o en called: authority,
pres ge, reputa on, credit, fame, etc..
Sustainable Tourism Management
The symbolic capital “is nothing more
than economic or cultural capital as
known and recognized” (Bourdieu
1987: 160), i..e, that such proper es
can only exist to the extent that they
are recognized by others.
The sum of all capital shapes the
habitus, as a system of internalized
schemes for genera ng the thoughts,
percep ons and ac ons characteris cs
of a culture. In other words, are
the individual characteris cs that
actors acquire through daily life and
experiences they have had on the
environment in which they have
developed. It is in the habitus where
structures - cogni ve, emo onal,
social, among others, form the
principles through which each agent,
and more generally, every class,
defined by the posi on of agents in
social space and perceive the world
ac ng on it, namely:
“The habitus produces
individual and collec ve
prac ces, produces, therefore
history bego en according
to the principles of history:
ensures the ac ve presence
of past experiences which,
deposited in each organism
in the form of principles
of percep on, thought
and ac on tend to greater
security than all formal rules
and explicit norms, to ensure
conformity of prac ces and
their constancy over me”
(Bourideu; 1993: 94 – 95).
Thus, Ibáñez (1994) states that all
social representa ons cons tute
a category that contributes to the
configura on of habitus, by virtue of
its symbolic nature, likewise allows
people to recognize and accept the
social reality, joining social posi on
it deserves in terms of their pa erns
of thought. This process is symbolic,
since representa ons provide the
agent building codes of your reality,
giving it meaning and contribute to
the reproduc on of social rela ons.
These codes express and involve
social representa ons, in turn, certain
ideology group, which cons tutes a
condi on for the produc on thereof.
All this takes place in the social space,
which “is where individuals develop
and bring into play their capitals,
these spaces are in the family, school,
work, and others where the individual
sole found” (Anaya and Palafox, 2010:
185).
Therefore, the capitals will be used
to analyze the percep on of the local
community, also will recognize which
capital is predominant around the
Percep on of Residents
129
social, economic and environmental
variables. The concep on of social
space and the development of capital
offered by Bourdieu contributes to
how one joins and acts as agents in
the construc on of the world. Thus,
the capitals are interlinked and can be
transformed into each other, so are
the capital who form the theore cal
proposal that allowed to analize the
percep on of the local popula on
about the migra on of Cozumel as a
tourism des na on.
Final comments.
From the analysis of the three themes
emerged capitals about percep on,
namely: a) environmental with
respect to the increase of garbage
or waste, b) economic: to whether
employment
opportuni es
are
affected by migrants, and c) social :
on increasing insecurity.
The impact of tourism on host
communi es is dual, and Amer (2009:
7) presents the next argument “on
the one hand, tourism can be a tool
to generate economic development
and also a factor in the moderniza on
and social transforma on; moreover,
tourism as an economic ac vity may
130
be a tool to catalyze, or accent, social
and economic inequali es within a
society. However, tourism can provide
tools for maintenance, renova on or
construc on of cultural expressions,
and, in turn, can contribute to
processes that entail the collapse of
other cultural or trivializa on”.
Tourism always print posi ve and
nega ve impacts on receiving
communi es, this is a consequence
of the reproduc on of the capitalist
mode of produc on. In this sense,
Sharpley (2003: 210) men ons that
“when tourism is concentrated in me
and space, grows rapidly, dominates
the local economy, disrupts the lives
of residents, environmental impacts
and ignores characteris cs and local
input”.
Given this scenario, people migrate
to par cular des na on in order
to improve their living condi ons
and adapt to the type of society
that has been imposed, however,
when the des na on is considered
environmentally sensi ve, and is
saturated with immigrants and
floa ng popula on because the
economic ac vity is developed, so
the percep on of the local popula on
begins to show signs of antagonism
Sustainable Tourism Management
according to Doxey irrita on index
(1975).
Flores (2009) states that a migrant
is not always welcomed in the host
community, where distrust, rejec on,
racial discrimina on, sexual, religious,
cultural and labor, among others
dominates. This has not been an
obstacle to be overcome to achieve
immigrants frequently having to spend
labor exploita on, where tourism
shows signs of slavement, in addi on
the felxibilización and precariousness
of working condi ons where workers
are in the Mexican tourism sector.
Based on the defini on of Bourdieu
(2001) for the fields, it is defined as
an area in dispute between opposing
actor by offering the same goods,
is seen in the local popula on is
a pressing need to modify and
strengthen its capital, in order to gain
or maintain their posi on in the social
space in which they are involved.
Thus, Cozumeleños, say they have
had to leave the island to reinforce
their cultural capital, to increase their
educa on and be able to return and
implement acquired knowledge and
ideas and be competent to achieve
obtaining a good employment or
generate a profitable company, which
consolidates their economic capital,
mainly in the sense of acquiring a
be er quality of life by ge ng gainful
employment and also a membership
in a social circle dis nguished by
its members hold high economic
capital and renew their skills
through strengthening their social
and symbolic capital, as they are
recognized by them.
Over
me and with increasing
popula on, access to social circles
was closing, because people came
to have no rela onship with them
and because of the economic crisis
and low tourism flow and the lack of
jobs percep on of a safe island longer
something presumed to social actors.
Armed robbery, for residences,
businesses, and others, which have
been involved some immigrants have
caused social percep on migra on is
nega ve. In addi on to the above, the
local media, government and tourism
promo on insist that insecurity is
minimal and nothing compared to
other places, but the views of the
local popula on of the above lectures,
since most of respondents men oned
having suffered a robbery, having
been assaulted or know someone
who has been robbed, thus, social
capital refers to the uncertainty has
Percep on of Residents
131
been modified over me, crea ng
distrust and rejec on of the migrant
popula on, because of that people
have li le calm, tranquility and peace
and the old ways are disappearing::
“In the 60’s the handiest
public transport was the
bicycle, bike rack ... was a
town ... and movie me
there were 500 bikes parked
without padlock or chain,
some mes we le
the
theater boys got together to
go to be serenaded but the
bikes they were le there on
the door of the theater, we
were going to serenade us
dawn, we returned at dawn
or at dawn, we passed to
find and there were bicycles.
Things have changed now
been broken many family
structures” (Pineda Sánchez,
2011j). “Before the island
was quiet, did not need
e.g. a policeman here in the
corner” (Pineda Sánchez,
2011a). “There are many
people out because they
come to work but those
who come to harm not only
the peace of mind because
you hear all that here and
assaulted, and nailed him,
and robbed him, and can not
live in peace, and there is no
trust”(Luna; 2011).
The capital of the local popula on is
132
characterized by fear and uncertainty,
which increases the need to share
the place with more than 80 000
inhabitants from different parts of the
republic and abroad. Residents were
accustomed to meet one another and
with the arrival of large numbers of
people were reinforcing and closing
these social circles:
“It scares me because I do
not live calm in Cozumel
those who came to be
stored for a crime they did
somewhere else because
they have no money or
no job” (Pineda Sánchez,
2011i). “There was no crime
before, everyone knew each
other and the security we
had between us, the cops
knew us and we knew them”
(Pineda Sánchez, 2011j).
“Immigra on has definitely
been the primary factor
decisive for this but also a
li le family has had a lot of
guilt, the family did not care
for their children of people
who are already experienced
criminal and drag points to
some young people by family
imbalance are easy prey for
bandits” (Pineda Sánchez,
2011d).
However, Pineda Sánchez (2011e),
thinks otherwise, and that migrants
come to rely on work and economic
Sustainable Tourism Management
development of the town, they also
pay taxes, so the immigrant comes
to working with the community and
the host community must provide
security in order to build trust. This
is seen even in small communi es
where social cohesion is strengthened
by the group by blood and friendship,
therefore, Pineda Sánchez (2011e)
reports that:
“Rarely have passed things
some mes come to see
what’s in other people’s
houses, I touch my sister
who stole your dishes and
so usually have come but as
you can guess who it is, and
I think the center is most
annoying”.
In addi on to the economic situa on,
crime rates increased in each of the
capitals and municipali es because
according to data from the Center for
Development Research A.C. (CIDAC),
in 2009 the crime rate per 100,000
residents in Mexico, is almost three
mes that seen in the United States,
and a year later, in Quintana Roo
for every 100,000 inhabitants was
18.692; standing on the 5th instead of
the states with the highest crime rate
in the country. Meanwhile, on the
island of Cozumel, think of a thousand
529 the s per 100,000 inhabitants
(Miranda, 2012).
Despite being a city on the island is s ll
possible to meet many people o en,
by its spa al dimension, s ll prevalent
surnames “reputable” you know they
like to be known and recognized as
such, hence the influence of social
and economic capital, but capitals will
not secure the increment of cultural
capital, as Bourdieu (2001) suggests
that at higher economic capital a
minor cultural capital and vice versa.
Moreover, the majority of island
residents share that at the beginning
of tourist ac vity everyone had jobs,
with boom of tourism subsequently
hiring cheaper workforce for
crea ng port infrastructure and
accommoda on,
and
finally
the tourism des na on needed
specialized personnel to a end the
tourists, that is one of the reasons
to use the immigrant popula on that
came with be er training around
the ac vity that was developing in
order to be a compe ve des na on.
The migra on phenomenon took
a turn causing the island’s resident
popula on to con nue their academic
development, because in that me
the educa onal level only reached the
basic one, over me emerged colleges
and private and public universi es.
Percep on of Residents
133
About this, Pineda Sánchez (2011a)
says “I think we all have opportuni es
to go to the place where they believe
to be right, but some mes we feel:
hey come here to take away what
is good for us but we can do there”.
Resident popula on appreciates
Cozumel security, natural resources,
customs, etc., the percep on goes
to share the space, work and interact
with migrants in certain celebra ons
to feel that they are stealing their
culture, their original prac ces,
and resigned however accept that
it is a phenomenon that can not be
stopped.
Moreover, Pineda Sánchez (2011c)
men ons:
“I think it’s just luck if
the person knows how
to work and behave well
will keep his job, but then
come the problems with
syndicate, that when they
were working here on the
road and got laid people
off others and then did a
unemployment. We were
doing a great house like a
hotel and unemployment did
there day and night, un l we
got half the people work and
achievement and we wanted
to remove for disposal of the
site manager”.
134
The percep on of the economic
impact is understood as compe on
for employment is varied, in this
sense Luna (2011) arguements: “I do
not think that migrants come to take
jobs away from here, there are places
where immigrants favor because they
arrive with poor pay and if they are
decent get to work. Some people
do not eat, but they are people who
are not from here. However, Pineda
Sánchez (2011i) says “I think they
give more preference to people who
come more prepared, if immigrants
come they do things be er, because
there are people who know how
things work but are rus c, there are
things that have learned in university
because there are many people who
run computers, many trained people
came”.
Moreover, before the opening of
hotels chains, interna onal jewelery
and some other foreign companies
bring their senior management
employees, we can hardly get a place.
In this sense, Pineda Sánchez (2011g)
men ons that:
“is difficult to find work
because now comes so many
people well prepared for
example many hotel owners
bring their own personnel
and the waiters are leaving
Sustainable Tourism Management
but the main people who
run are people you trust
and occupy the place and
you do not have that local
opportunity to work”.
At present, the academic and
professional training is more
accessible in the insula, young
Cozumeleños and new residents
have the op on to go college on the
island, but many others con nue
migra ng prepare themselves and
con nue with the family business or
start their own business. However,
the local percep on before the
global economic crisis and the lack of
research and promo on of tourism
have affected the ming of the
ac vity, i.e. employment is sparing.
“Formerly
there
were
enough people and many
jobs ... but right now there
no one, I tell you, hotel
workers for example, are
firing people ... if Cozumel
back again as it was before
coming much sightseeing
cruises arrive ... right now
and once people well ... do
not buy, they are measured
with the esxpenses” (Pineda
Sánchez, 2011b).
The rapid growth of popula on has
also been reducing employment
opportuni es on the island, because
they depend on a single source market
-United States of America, the results
are not en rely posi ve. In this sense,
the state of Quintana Roo ranks 30th in
job crea on according to the Assistant
Secretary for Employment and Labor
Produc vity Ministry of Labour and
Social Welfare (Ruiz, 2012). Moreover,
this situa on is explained by the effect
of seasonality, tourism itself, because
when this increases, the numbers
change, jobs are generated and
improved overall picture, however
the Ministry must specify the quality
of jobs created because the condi ons
of exploita on and precariousness of
it are decreased the quality of life of
the people who is hired on tourism
sector. This feeds the symbolic capital
of the receiving loca on and generates
various percep ons, including tourism
that dominates the island is a mass
tourism with less economic benefit.
In today’s globalized modern
consumerism, waste genera on is
vast, products, tools, etcetera, the
effect in the island of Cozumel are
severous, the enterprise that gathers
up the solid waste collects 92.12
tons of garbage daily (Villegas and
Do Castella, 2012). The permanence
of the capitalist mode of produc on
favors mass produc on of goods
Percep on of Residents
135
in order to sa sfy the needs of a
growing popula on. In this sense,
the moderniza on of products
and services creates an adverse
environment for others, which
develops economic strategies under
environmental discourse.
“Generate trash is something
inherent in human beings,
there is always waste and
if there are more people,
more waste, but there are
a circumstances that makes
the concept, increases
the produc on of waste
and today is that we live
in an age of plas c and
not biodegradable, then
that makes us see ... bags,
bo les, toys and who knows
what all ... everything occurs
as massively as it is cheaper,
at other mes the most
difficult thing was some
glass bo les, cans, but all
that was gradually degraded
and was propor onal, few
people walking away, I think
that whether or not they are
genera ng more or less, but
it is part of the me in which
we live” (Pineda Sánchez,
2011j).
The popula on is no stranger to
the situa on, their cultural capital
has turned to strengthen their
social capital through the exercise
136
of symbolic capital, i.e. if they are
modified forms of waste collec on
and treatment, to implement good
reason not to harm the atmosphere.
However, the migrant came with
their customs and daily prac ces,
and residents is dissa sfied with such
behaviors, namely:
“Previously
governement
burned
garbage
and
obviuosly there was less,
there was disposable cups
and all, you washed your
dishes, there was not trahs
bags, people carry their
sabucán1 and brought their
bu ery, right now everything
is trash and rubbish” (Moon,
2011). “I think you do, while
there are more people
there are going to be more
garbage, more waste out of
the houses. I have a rented
house I am sorry to say that
but the lady cares for me,
I went to visit her and the
yard is a hill, and got people
to clean it, I like to keep my
house clean. Those renters
primarily come from outside,
and I get bad, are people
who can not abide” (Pineda
Sánchez, 2011i).
The percep on of the local popula on
is that the cultural capital of immigrant
lacks culture or simply have other
1
Sabucán in mayan language
means bag.
Sustainable Tourism Management
customs, unlike the foreign immigrant
who cares about the environment
and surrounding environment. Also,
waste genera on has been increasing
in parallel with the opening of
shopping centers and popula on
growth. However, the villagers devise
proposals to provide solu ons like
s cking to the environmental plans,
namely:
“Once I proposed sonething
to improve Cozumel but
they thought I am crazy, the
islands, including Isla Mujeres
should have a limit on the
number of inhabitants. That
was when the legal fund
will cover Cozumel and by
people, is just a limited
number of hotel rooms, a
limited number of vehicles
and this maybe who hears
it will say, goes against the
cons tu on, goes against
the rights of Mexican, the
freedom we have to move
from one place to another,
freedom to live where we
want, yes it is, but not to
the detriment of others and
Cozumel is an island very
weak about their ecological
environment”
(Pineda
Sánchez, 2011d).
Cozumel is a sensi ve environment
that bases its economic growth in
tourism by modifying the natural
and cultural landscape of the host
communi es, in this sense Lanfant
(1980, 39) states “tourism is not
only an economic model is a cultural
one”, this lifestyle supported by the
capitalist mode of produc on that
has modernized economic ac vi es
and modified behavior pa erns of
the local popula on and migrant
one, this mode of produc on
emphazises the mode of produc on
in the economic capital and symbolic
capital strengthened by allowing the
transforma on of cultural capital and
residents.
Final comments
The social impacts of tourism
specifically on tourists and hosts
rela ons are the result of an intense
rela onship between foreign and
indigenous, these kind of impacts
understood as changes in a tudes,
behaviors and values of local people
(Pearce, 1988 in Calderon, 2007). It is
enough just the presence of tourists
to begin with cultural transforma on,
i.e. the people start adop ng ways
to act, dress or speak with reference
to visitors act, done that similarly
may present with immigrants and
them to be created a mul cultural
Percep on of Residents
137
environment, which according to the
modifica on of their capitals allow
scrolling in the various fields of social
space.
From the environmental perspec ve,
tourism has posi ve and nega ve
limits, although the social capital
assumes greater lack of care of the
natural heritage, economic capital
limits its value as a strategic tourist
resource. The interpreta on of the
empirical evidence shows that o en
neglect these environmental assets in
order to exploit them for greater profit.
Thus, the nega ve impacts of tourism
on the surrounding environment are
obvious: irreversible destruc on of
the landscape, waste genera on, loss
of animal and plant species, density
reduc on jungle, urbaniza on of
rural areas, popula on growth,
among others. The urbaniza on of
rural areas affects the demand for
housing and suitable condi ons for
survival, i.e., access to public water,
sewer, street ligh ng and pathways
and transfer.
Finally, immigra on is an effect of
tourist ac vity, which generates
posi ve and nega ve changes, both
are environmental, social, cultural
and economic, and that such changes
138
impact the forma on of capital. In
this sense, the percep on of change is
coincident with the excep on that the
impacts made by the migrant, which
are taken into greater considera on
by the host community to be sharing
a common space, i.e. the territory.
Literature cited
A
, J. 2009. Los debates sobre la
percepción social del turismo
en las Islas Baleares, Ninbus,
23-24: 5-23.
A
O
, J. A. P
M
,
2010. El perfil del turista
internacional de Cozumel a
par r de la construcción de
su capital simbólico. Teoría y
Praxis, 8: 171 – 185.
B
C
, J. R. G
U
,
2009.
Condicionantes
del
turismo sustentable en el caribe
mexicano. Études caribéennes,
13–14:
Université
des
An lles et la Guyane. (h p://
etudescaribbennes.revue.org/
index4208.html).
B
, P. 1993. El sen do prác co,
Taurus, España.
B
, P. 1987. Cosas dichas, Gedisa,
Argen na.
B
, P. 1998. Razones prác cas,
Anagrama, España.
B
, P. 2001. Capital cultural,
Sustainable Tourism Management
escuela y espacio social, Siglo
XXI, México.
B
, P. L. W
2000. The
organic ethnologist of Algerian
migra on. Berkeley Journal of
Sociology, 1(2): 173 – 182.
C
V
, F. 2007. Distrito
turís co rural: un modelo
teórico desde la perspec va
de la oferta, en: h p://www.
eumed.net/tesis/2007/fjcv/
[21/09/2012].
C
S
, A. 2005. Análisis
de un modelo de desarrollo
ecoturís co en Quintana Roo,
México.Teoría y Praxis, (1):31
– 47.
Interna onales, 18(1).
D
. G. V. 1975. A causa on theory
of visitor – resident irritants:
methodoly
and
research
inferences. Proceedings of The
Travel Research Associa on, 6th
Annual Conference, San Diego:
195 – 198.
F
F
, J. A. 2009. Migraciones
modernas. Una oportunidad a
la utopía, en: Contribuciones a
las Ciencias Sociales, Diciembre
2009.
h p://www.eumed.
n et / re v /c c c s s / 0 6 / j aff. ht m
21/09/2102].
G
M
, J. T. 2009. Migración
e interculturalidad en Quintana
Roo, In: Sierra Sosa, L. (Coord.).
Migración, educación y trabajo:
entre el cAribe Norte y a
Frontera Sur de Quintana Roo,
Plaza y Valdés - Universidad de
Quintana Roo, México.
G
, D. 1994. Residents’ A tudes
Towards Tourism: a longitudinal
study in Spey Valley, Scotland,.
Tourism Management, (15):
247 – 258.
G
E
Q
R
2010. V Informe de Gobierno,
Gobierno del Estado de
Quintana Roo, México.
H
M
, G. 1973. Ensayos
suplementarios I, espíritu,
persona y sociedad, Paidós,
España.
H
, G. 1961. Social behavior: its
CIDAC 2012. Incidencia delic va por
estado México vs Estados
Unidos, en: h p://www.cidac.
org/esp/uploads/1/CIFRAS.pdf,
[21/09/2012].
CONEVAL, 2008. Informe de evaluación
de la polí ca de desarrollo
social en México 2008, Consejo
Nacional de Evaluación de la
Polí ca de Desarrollo Social,
México.
CONEVAL, 2011. Pobreza en México y en
las en dades federa vas 2008
– 2010, Consejo Nacional para
la Evaluación de la Polí ca de
Desarrollo Social, México.
D
, O. 2002. Tourisme, travel,
migra on: interrela ons et
logiques mobilitaires. Revue
Européenne des Migra ons
Percep on of Residents
139
los inmigrantes colombianos
residentes en Kendall (Miami,
USA). Inves gación y Desarrollo,
9(1): 464 – 487.
elementary forms, Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, EUA.
I
,
T. 1994. Representaciones
sociales. Teoría y método,
P.p. 156-213. In: Ibáñez, T.
(coord.), Psicología social
construccionista. Universidad
de Guadalajara, México.
INEGI, 2011. Censo de población y
vivienda 2010, Ins tuto Nacional
de Estadís ca, Geogra a e
Informá ca, México.
M
V
, H.
M. P
C
. 2009. Causas y
consecuencias de la migración
de mexicanos a los Estados
Unidos
de
Norteamérica,
en: www.eumed.net/libros/
2009c/597/, [21/09/2012].
M
, J. 2012. Cozumel, por
arriba de la media nacional
en denuncias por robo, en:
h tt p : / /s i p s e . c o m / n o t i c i a .
p h p ? I D _ N OT I C I A = 1 5 0 5 1 4 ,
[21/09/2012].
M
, J. C. 2010. Short-term
economic impacts of influenza
A (H1N1) and government
reac on on the Mexican
tourism industry: an analysis of
the media. Interna onal Journal
of Tourism Policy, 3(1): 1 – 15.
INEGI, 2000. Cuéntame, en: h p://
cuentame.inegi.gob.
m x / p o b l a c i o n / m i g ra c i o n .
aspx?tema=P [21/09/2012].
L
, M. F. 1980. Introducción.
El turismo en el proceso de
internacionalización.
Revista
Internacional
de
Ciencias
Sociales, XXXII(1): 14 – 45.
L
, R. 2006. Turismo, migraciones
y
codesarrollo.
Revista
Internacional de Sociología,
LXV(48): 221-241.
L
, N. 1984. Sistemas sociales:
lineamientos para una teoría
general de sistemas, Anthropos,
España.
M
, G. H. 1968. Espiritú, persona y
sociedad. Paidós, Argen na.
M
R , S., R. M
P
,
M. A
R. O
,
2001. Percepción social que
enen de sus connacionales
140
OIM, 2011. A propósito de la migración,
en: h p://www.iom.int/jahia/
jahia/about-migration/lang/es
[21/09/2012].
P
M
, A.
A. V
M
,
2008.
Impacto
económico originado por el
huracán Wilma en el empleo
turís co de la isla de Cozumel,
P.p. 131-148. In: Palafox Muñoz,
A. y O. Frausto Mar nez
(coords.), Turismo: desastres
naturales, sociedad y medio
Sustainable Tourism Management
ambiente, Plaza y Valdez –
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
México.
P
S
, G. 2011e, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: José del Pilar
Santos Poot por G. Pineda
[Audio digital]. Entrevista sobre,
La percepción de la comunidad
de Cozumel ante la inmigración,
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
P
S
, G. 2011f, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: Mariano Dzay
Chan por G. Pineda [Audio
digital]. Entrevista sobre, La
percepción de la comunidad de
Cozumel ante la inmigración,
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
P
S
, G. 2011g, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: Miguel Gildardo
Coral Kini por G. Pineda [Audio
digital]. Entrevista sobre, La
percepción de la comunidad de
Cozumel ante la inmigración,
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
P
S
, G. 2011h, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: Pedro Antonio
Mari Angulo por G. Pineda
[Audio digital]. Entrevista sobre,
La percepción de la comunidad
de Cozumel ante la inmigración,
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
P
S
, G. 2011i, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: Rita María Azueta
Vivas por G. Pineda [Audio
digital]. Entrevista sobre, La
Pearce, D. 1988. Desarrollo turís co:
su planififcación y ubicación
geográfica, Trillas, México.
P
P
P
P
S
, G. 2011a, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: Arminda Dzay
Aguilar por G. Pineda [Audio
digital]. Entrevista sobre, La
percepción de la comunidad de
Cozumel ante la inmigración,
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
S
, G. 2011b, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: Dalila del Pilar
Allen Delgado por G. Pineda
[Audio digital]. Entrevista sobre,
La percepción de la comunidad
de Cozumel ante la inmigración,
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
S
, G. 2011c, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: Eligio Cárdenas
Montero por G. Pineda [Audio
digital]. Entrevista sobre, La
percepción de la comunidad de
Cozumel ante la inmigración,
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
S
, G. 2011d, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: Germán García
Padilla por G. Pineda [Audio
digital]. Entrevista sobre, La
percepción de la comunidad de
Cozumel ante la inmigración,
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
Percep on of Residents
141
percepción de la comunidad de
Cozumel ante la inmigración,
Universidad de Quintana Roo,
México.
P
S
, G. 2011j, Diciembre.
Entrevista a: Velio Vivas Valdez
por G. Pineda [Audio digital].
Entrevista sobre, La percepción
de la comunidad de Cozumel
ante la inmigración, Universidad
de Quintana Roo, México.
R
R
V
, M. M . E. R
M
2009. Ac tud del residente
hacía el turismo y el visitante:
factores determinantes en el
turismo y excursionismo rural –
cultural,. Cuadernos de Turismo,
(23): 217 – 236.
Reino Unido.
V
, M. 2005. Análisis de los flujos
migratorios y evaluación del
impacto económico y social de
la migración en la zona norte
del estado de Quintana Roo,
Universidad La Salle Cancún,
México.
V
, G.
M. D
C
.
3/02/2012. Aumenta más del
7% la generación de basura
diaria en Cozumel, en: h p://
sipse.com/noticia.php?ID_
NOTICIA=147221 ]21/09/2012].
Weber, M. 1922. Economía y sociedad,
Fondo de Cultura Económica,
México.
, D. (19/03/2012). Quintana Roo,
número 30 a nivel nacional
en la generación de empleos,
en:
h p://sipse.com/
noticias/149383-quintananumero-30-nivel-nacionalgeneracion-empleos.html,
[21/09/2012].
SEDETUR, 2011a. Indicadores turís cos,
Secretaría de Turismo del Estado
de Quintana Roo, México,
disponble en: h p://sedetur.
qroo. gob.mx/estadisticas/
indicadores/Indicadores%2
0Turisticos%20%202011.pdf
[4/09/2012].
S
142
, R. 2003. Tourism, tourists
and society, ELM Publiaca ons,
Sustainable Tourism Management