Conceptual and Practical Limitations

Implementation of the sustainability concept into tourism development has faced several limitations from its earliest origins (Hall, 1998: 13). Bramwell and Lane (1993a: 4) assert, “It is easy to discuss sustainability. Implementation is the problem”. While the principles of sustainable development have been widely adopted globally, effective practice has been limited by a combination of conceptual and practical difficulties (Butler, 1998: 27). Due to these limitations, Sharpley (2009: xvii) argues there is a “…significant gap…between the idealism of the concept of sustainable tourism development…and the reality of tourism development in practice”. These difficulties are reviewed further below with the aim of showcasing the complexities of implementing sustainable development theory into tourism practice.

Initial conceptual limitations arise with the notion of sustainability itself. Sustainable development is an ambiguous and broad concept, yet was and remains the most popular solution to mitigating tourism impacts. Specific questions about STD including “…what is to be sustained, by whom and how” reveals few answers but nonetheless remain vital to efficient implementation and justifying the “validity” of the concept (Berno & Bricker, 2001: 10). Beyond these basic inquiries, the STD concept remains intangible through the multitude of struggles practitioners experience in converting the idea to a “…workable set of policies and practices relevant to real world tourism” (Sharpley, 2009: xvii). This is most likely because of the vagueness surrounding its core theory which creates an indefinable concept (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006: 1275). Southgate and Sharpley (2002: 244) also argue that lists of principles, or codes of conduct, lack detail and are “...of limited practical value”. Easily misconstrued theory has allowed for its “manipulation” amongst tourism stakeholders, thus prohibiting success (Mowforth & Munt, 2009: 118).

57

As previously discussed (Section 2.3), ST is primarily concerned with the “…wise use of resources” yet the understanding of this varies considerably based on the values of different stakeholders (Oriade & Evans, 2011: 82). Indeed, herein lays a primary conceptual limitation where STD is dependant more on “...value judgments than on empirical research or other factual evidence” (Swarbrooke, 1999: 24). This limitation could potentially be remedied through the existence of a universally adaptable framework which could be applied to various tourism developmental contexts. However, Southgate and Sharpley (2002: 261) contend, “…the imposition of a universal blueprint for tourism development, a set of ‘meta-principles’ founded on mainstream planning and designation processes, is inappropriate given the diverse developmental contexts and needs of tourism destinations, particularly in less developed countries”. Tosun (2001: 289) has also argued that because STD principles were initiated from developed countries, they subsequently have failed to adapt to the “…conditions in the developing world”. In turn, this has lead to a lack of policy formulation and mandatory “coherent legislation” which would regulate the industry (Tepelus & Cordoba, 2005: 135). Further development of these conceptual limitations will expose the potential of STD as either a “…realistic set of guidelines for developing and managing tourism” or a “...politically attractive objective that is unachievable in practice” (Sharpley, 2002: 322).

Ko (2001: 817) argues that little practical methodology has been developed when attempting to implement STD. Although an indistinct conceptual framework contributes to this circumstance, there are also practical limitations which limit STD potential. Above all, these limitations exist in the tourism industry itself and are scattered throughout a system that is fragmented through the competing interests and control issues between several stakeholder groups (Sharpley, 2009: 74; Berno & Bricker, 2001). As a result, decision making becomes nearly an impossible task due to lengthy effort of balancing individual interests (Oriade & Evans, 2011: 69). A key aspect of this research and STD in general is that stakeholder collaboration is essential to STD and requires input from all groups. For example, Tosun (2001: 289-290) demonstrates that STD is “…an enormously difficult task to achieve in developing countries without the collaboration of the international tour operators and donor agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund”. Furthermore, communication between these groups can often be limited, particularly in developing countries where certain areas are remote and lack telecommunication access (Oriade &

58

Evans, 2011: 79). However, Oriade & Evans (ibid) argue this can be remedied through the use of “conventional communication methods” such as forums, meetings and workshops (see also Byrd et al., 2009: 698).

Additional practical limitations include the lack of financial resources, expertise, infrastructure and the priorities of economic development (Tosun, 2001: 291). These issues are commonly found in the developing world, can be mutually inclusive and present significant challenges for keeping up with the ‘standard’ of other international tourism projects (ibid). Tourism is often seen as an immediate source of revenue in these contexts and consequently may not always include sustainability in management structures (Tosun, 2001: 299). Furthermore, the competition amongst stakeholders for resources in ST signals the need for a “political solution” (Berno & Bricker, 2001: 12). However, at present there have been very few policies or strategies created by the public sector regarding STD (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006: 1275).

In summary, there are a multitude of conceptual and practical limitations that prohibit effectively implementing STD. Conceptually, STD is a complex idea which does not allow for a universal model of application. Instead, STD requires “…measures that are both scale- and context- specific” (Lew & Hall, 1998: 200). This will assist in dealing with the assortment of practical issues on the local level. Sharpley (2009: 77) also contends local tourism development should reflect its true goals and aspirations and not conform to the “...rigid, western-centric perspectives on nature, conservation and economic-based modernization”. This is an effective approach in ensuring each destination copes with its own environmental, socio-cultural and economical elements and in turn shortens the gap between theory and practice.

2.6 Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to critically examine ST theory and practice to develop a broad understanding of the concept. This was done by reviewing the history of STD, its underlying principles and major stakeholder groups and implementation limitations which are related to contextual factors found at the study site for this research. Reasoning behind this examination lies in the fact that it is crucial to understand fully the ST concept in order to facilitate answering the defined research question. This chapter has demonstrated a key gap in STD; namely that whilst the concept is a respectable goal to aim for, its implementation continues to be a difficult task. Also

59

identified in this chapter is the absolute importance of stakeholder involvement and collaboration amongst each of the six identified groups. Stakeholder actions and perceptions was a fundamental aspect of this study and will be discussed further in Chapter Four. While some might consider STD to be a minor solution to a major problem, it is argued that if each destination adapted their own unique set of ST principles and practical application strategies, this effort could collectively contribute to global sustainability in the sector. The next chapter on ecomuseology seeks to highlight the concept’s unique principles which could potentially be used in the sustainable development of tourism.

C h a p t e r 3 .

61

3 Ecomuseology.

3.1 Introduction

The subject of this chapter corresponds to another key element in the research question: ecomuseum philosophy. The previous chapter explored ST theory and practice to provide a base foundation of knowledge on the subject. This examination was necessary to develop a comprehensive understanding on any issues, benefits and challenges in the ST sector. This chapter introduces and examines ecomuseology to establish its significance as a heritage management framework and initiate the process of identifying and analysing areas of synergy with ST theory and practice. The overall aim of this chapter is to critically assess ecomuseology and its defining philosophy, principles and challenges. This aim will be achieved by considering a number of central themes. The first theme is the historical background and creation of ecomuseology (Section 3.2) and outlines the origins and influences on its contemporary state. This is followed by examining the philosophical framework with a particular focus on definition and theory (Section 3.3), relationships with the environment and local communities. Ecomuseum principles are then examined (Section 3.4) before the final section (3.5) explores the conceptual and practical limitations of the ideal.