the production of sustainable tourism: concepts and examples from norway

Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 10, 223–234 (2002)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sd.195

THE PRODUCTION OFSUSTAINABLE TOURISM:CONCEPTS AND EXAMPLESFROM NORWAY

Jason Eligh,1 Richard Welford2* and Bjarne Ytterhus3

1 Centre for Corporate Environmental Management, University of Huddersfield,Huddersfield, UK2 Corporate Environmental Governance Programme, The University of Hong Kong,Hong Kong SAR, China3 Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Management (BI), Sandvika,Norway

Place, location and locality are examinedin the context of the development oftourism in a way that is consistent withthe concept of sustainable development.Concepts relating to tourism destinationmanagement are discussed in this contextand a number of characteristics indicatingpossible success factors are drawn out.Two examples from Norway are used toillustrate how successful destinationmanagement strategies can be applied andwhich of the success factors appear to bethe most important. The paper suggests avery strong role for leadership, externalfunding, support from appropriateexternal agencies and the existence ofconsumer demand in an area where smallsize is more conducive to success.Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltdand ERP Environment.

* Correspondence to: R. Welford, CEPG, Centre of UrbanPlanning and Environmental Management, The University ofHong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 1 December 2000Revised 11 March 2001Accepted 10 May 2001

INTRODUCTION

Tourism is one of the largest industries inthe world in terms of both employmentand revenue. It can be found in every

country of the world, though its principalconsumers are primarily derived from therichest third of these nations. In the EU alonethe travel and tourism economy accountsfor over 14% of gross domestic productand employs an estimated 22 million people(WTTC, 1999). Its impacts can be considerableand managing the sustainable developmentof such an industry is difficult, especiallywhen it encroaches on areas of environmentalsensitivity.

Tourism is an important economic asset inmany countries (especially developing coun-tries, where we have seen a rapid growth oftourism related activities) and some regionscan easily become dependent on it. Indeedtourism has been seen as an important part

J. ELIGH, R. WELFORD AND B. YTTERHUS

of the EU’s Fifth Environmental Action Pro-gramme. It brings with it tensions and conflictsbut if well managed has the potential to act as asignificant driver to improved regional devel-opment. This, of course, needs to be done inan environmentally sensitive way, while at thesame time fulfilling the needs of stakeholdersinvolved in the industry.

The consequences of a rapidly growingtourism industry are plain to see. Pollutionassociated with travel, impacts of destinationgrowth on wildlife and biodiversity and the‘Disneyfication’ of local culture are all exam-ples of problems that are easy to see. Nev-ertheless, tourism provides great experiencesfor tourists and provides employment (albeitsometimes seasonal) and incomes to peoplewho might otherwise be worse off. There areimportant trade-offs to consider therefore. Inthis paper we attempt to demonstrate howthese issues can be dealt with in an effectiveway by reference to literature and two exam-ples from Norway.

Since space and place are basic componentsof the lived world, they are therefore central toany study of tourism. Three major elementsof place are identified by Agnew (1987).These are locale, location and a ‘sense’ ofplace. Locale refers to the settings in whichsocial relations are created, while locationrefers to the geographical area encompassingthese settings, as defined by socio-economicand political processes operating at a muchwider scale (Duncan, 1994). A sense of placerefers to the sensory qualities of a particularlocality as experienced by an inhabitant overa prolonged period of time. In this era ofrapid globalization, sustainable developmentand, more importantly in terms of this article,sustainable tourism development, are heavilyreliant upon the successful integration of thesethree factors–the so-called ‘trinity of place’.

‘Placeness’ and the quality of places haveonce again become the object of socio-politicaland environmental concern, although, as apoint of fact, one cannot say that places areobjects in the first-order literal sense of the

word. They are social constructs in muchthe same way that all other things are (e.g.language, natural resources, philosophy).

THE CONSTRUCTION OF ASUSTAINABLE TOURISM STRATEGY

Debate surrounding the meaning and properintentions of a sustainable tourism strategyhas been intense and has generally tendedtoward the preservation of the cultural andecological qualities of destinations through theattempted management of controls over cur-rent trends and practices (Pearce, 1995; Henryand Jackson, 1996). Prescriptions for the imple-mentation of value shifts, methodologies andmanagement ‘tools’ to invoke such fundamen-tal change have been varied (Likorish, 1991;Ding and Pigram, 1995; Todd and Williams,1996; Warnken and Buckley, 1998). Who oughtto be the initiator of this emerging develop-mental paradigm has also been the subjectof much scrutiny. From legislated action tovoluntary measures (Forsyth, 1995; Sirakayaand McClellan, 1998), and from local (so-calledbottom-up) approaches to supranational ini-tiatives, there are competing views as to howthis thorny sustainability process ought to bepursued (Muller, 1994). Hence, before one canbegin to examine ‘best case’ scenarios relatingto examples of sustainable tourism develop-ment in practice, it first must be necessaryto accurately define the phenomenon underinvestigation.

An examination of but a few of the hundredsof definitions reveals a series of particularlypopular thematic overtones. Bramwell andLane (1993, p. 2) define sustainable tourism as

A positive approach intended to reducethe tensions and friction created by thecomplex interactions between the tourismindustry, visitors, the environment and thecommunities which are host to holidayma-kers. . . [it] is not anti-growth, but itacknowledges that there are limits to

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 10, 223–234 (2002)

224

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM IN NORWAY

growth [which] vary considerably fromplace to place, and according to manage-ment practices.

Their allusion to spatial differences withregard to the placeness of developmental suc-cess raises the issue of the fundamental impor-tance of scale. This is a point also considered byButler (1998) and Welford and Ytterhus (1998)in the successful application of such a tourismstrategy. This notion of locality (especially inthe aftermath of Agenda 21) remains a broadmotivator in many pragmatic approaches tosustainable development research (Eder et al.,1998; Welford, et al., 1999).

The WTTC et al. (1995, p. 30) define sustain-able tourism in a manner that echoes the toneof the ‘sustainable development’ effort:

Sustainable tourism development meetsthe needs of present tourists and hostregions while protecting and enhancingopportunity for the future. It is envisagedas leading the management of all resourcesin such a way that economic, social,and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled whilemaintaining cultural integrity, essentialecological processes, biological diversity,and life support systems.

This definition, based on that adopted by theWorld Tourism Organisation, highlights thethematic interconnectedness between sustain-able tourism objectives and those of sustainabledevelopment. Principally, the intrinsic notionsof futurity and equity, broadly placed withinthe economic and physical environment frame-works in situ at destinations, are addressed.The conceptual compartmentalization of sus-tainable development requirements in general,and those of sustainable tourism in particular,within the confines of these four principles hasreceived much considered attention. Welford(1995) and Welford and Gouldson (1993) haveelaborated extensively upon the necessity of anideological shift within business organizationsin general in concert with these four develop-mental attributes.

Developing concepts around sustainable tourism

The destination, or so-called ‘host’ community,and the associated developmental effects oftourism has become a focal point for muchresearch–especially that which is premisedupon the thematically similar (yet, semanti-cally different) disciplinary foci of eco-, alter-native, nature, cultural, ‘soft’, and ‘green’tourism. However these modal lines of inquiry,while institutionally divided, remain funda-mentally premised upon one or more of thekey thematic characteristics surrounding theconstruction of sustainable tourism.

Much research has been produced concern-ing a destination place-centred approach totourism development (Laws, 1995; Davidsonand Maitland, 1997; Welford and Ytterhus,1998; Welford et al., 1999). Hunter (1995, p. 159)accepts the level of destination as an adequateterm of reference for sustainable tourism devel-opment initiatives, stating

Much can be achieved by local manage-ment and action to balance the needs oftourism activity with environmental con-cerns. Indeed, a local focus is a must,given the widely accepted need to involvelocal communities in tourism developmentappraisal and the parallel need to capturelocal knowledge and priorities in decision-making.

However he continues (Hunter, 1995, p. 159)with a warning, stating

While concerns, needs and priorities withinsuch small areas must be considered, thesemust not be enshrined in development pol-icy and planning without recourse to theirbroader geographical implications. Highlylocalized issues need to be addressedwithin a wider, sub-national context toensure that what one might term ‘geo-graphical equity’ of access to the economicand environmental costs and benefits oftourism development is achieved as far asis possible.


225


In essence then, these destination nodesof sustainable tourism ought to retain asense of broader socio-political and geo-graphical integration within their developmen-tal frameworks.

It is important to note as well that whilea place-oriented focus directed at identifyingand mitigating the various environmentaleffects of tourism is certainly seen as a desirableapproach, with respect to the global agenda ofsustainable development and its relation to thetourism industry in particular there can, dueto the inherent nature of tourism (i.e. to travel)be a significant aspect of a local destination’soverall environmental impact that it cannotaffect. In other words, a destination may beable to significantly reduce (and, in somecases, even eliminate) some or all of theperceived impacts related to the operation ofits tourism industry. In most cases it cannotto any significant degree however mitigate theenvironmental impacts incurred by its guestsin their journey to and from the destination.Thus a significant portion of the overall localindustrial impact remains unattended. Butler(1998) therefore argues that, while many localexamples are promoted as sustainable tourismconduct, in the absence of much broader globalmeasures in place to mitigate the travel impactsof tourism there can be no truly completeexample of sustainable tourism development.In the absence of these measures, he states(Butler, 1998, p. 31)

tourism in a specific area may have movedsome way towards being sustainable andin reality that may be the best that canbe achieved.

The work of Welford and Ytterhus (1998),in particular, provides us with some guidancerelating to conditions for sustainable tourism.In recognising that the term ’eco-tourism’ hasbeen interpreted in a number of different ways,and at times in ways that are not terriblyenvironmentally conscious, they define a set ofconditions that could help to manage a tourism

destination in ways that are consistent withsustainable development. Although tourismis a source of economic development, theprotection of the environment and culture andthe maintenance of social cohesion at the locallevel are identified as important as well. Itis suggested that tourism development at thedestination level needs to be appropriatelymanaged with an emphasis on local actioninvolving a number of different stakeholders.These conditions can be summarized as tenbroad principles:

(i) parallel economic and environmental deve-lopment;

(ii) taking a long term view of development;(iii) consumer education;(iv) fiscally neutral local taxation;(v) promotion of conservation;

(vi) the management of the change process;(vii) building on strong cohesion;

(viii) participation by stakeholders;(ix) supply chain management and(x) destination management, policy and strat-

egy.

These sorts of guideline are reasonably indica-tive of many other similar types of approach,many coming from the industry itself. How-ever, as noted by Welford et al. (1999) they areonly part of the process of ensuring the successof destination management strategies.

The environmental stance and related prac-tical measures employed by business in thepost-Brundtland years thus have been influ-enced in part by this doctrine. However, theeconomics of doing business in this post-modern age have been influenced as greatlyby the fallout from high-profile industrial dis-asters (e.g. the Love Canal, Bhopal, ExxonValdez and Chernobyl disasters), which ledto increased development and enforcement oflegislative environmental requirements, andthe perception of a concomitant growth in‘green’ consumer demand (and, thus, a desirefor competitive advantage). Hence the financial


226


(and, in some cases, social) necessity of corpo-rate environmental change has been increas-ingly recognized.

As in many industries, voluntary mea-sures have been organized in the context oftourism. Tourist operators are increasinglypromoting themselves and/or their productsas being ’green’ or environmentally friendly.Specific tourism charters, seals and standardshave been created, alongside the increasingapplication by tourism operators of availablemanagement systems and labels. Tourism-specific management approaches have twomotivations–structural, and aesthetic. Struc-turally, they assist the business (e.g. a hotelor restaurant) and/or destination in reorga-nizing along environmental lines such that itmay be better placed to command financialrewards through reduced resources-use andwaste production, and competitive ‘greener’marketing advantages. This structural changethen may lead to aesthetic changes in thephysical appearance of both the companyand the destination to reflect this new greenstance. Thus these tools may be used asa means to brand (or re-brand) a tourismbusiness or destination in order to appealto the perceived recent growth in consumerenvironmentalism.

Destination image construction (and thatof individual operators, for that matter) hasbeen a line of tourism research inquiry rapidlydeveloped over the last decade. Destinations(i.e. communities, or places) have increas-ingly become viewed in terms of their con-sumptive value as products, and concertedeffort is being expended on redefining theseproducts and identifying them within anever-emerging ‘green’ marketplace. The des-tination as product has been deconstructedand thus viewed as (Murphy et al., 2000,p. 44)

an amalgam of individual products andexperience opportunities that combine toform a total experience of the area visited.

In other words, the image that is perceivedof a destination-place can be illustrated as thesum of beliefs, ideas and impressions of [the]place held by consumers and inhabitants alike(Kotler et al., 1993). This implies that gooddestination management has to have a realfocus around a manageable and cohesive area.We might hypothesize that, this being the case,size may well be very important.

NORWAY: TWO EXAMPLES OFMOVEMENT TOWARD SUSTAINABLETOURISM DEVELOPMENT

Norwegian identity is founded upon anembedded pride in nationalized notions ofnature, culture and ‘greenness’ (Eriksen, 1993).As the home of Gro Harlem Brundtland, andone of the world’s leading countries withrespect to socio-environmental action, it hasa vested interest in the political ideologyof sustainability. The discourse of sustain-able development has promulgated attemptsto construct not just enterprises and indus-tries addressing these issues, but a restructureddemand/supply relationship leading eventu-ally to the prescribed interconnectedness ofthese elements within local and regional eco-nomic and sociocultural spheres (Eder et al.,1998; Welford et al., 1999). Scandinavian coun-tries in general, and Norway in particular, haveinitiated a great deal of research into realizingpractical examples of this post-modern devel-opmental archetype. While measures havebeen adopted that address all sectors of theNorwegian economy, we reflect here uponthose specifically targeted at the Norwegiandomestic tourism industry.

Though no complete measurements havehistorically been recorded, it is estimated thatthe Norwegian tourism industry is secondlargest to that of oil in scale. The travelindustry alone accounts for 4.3% of GDP and6.8% of employment (Skalpe, 2000). Whileconflicting accounts exist as to the direct grossdomestic product (GDP) contribution of the


227


whole tourism industry (Huse et al., 1998),it is recognized as a significant generator offoreign exchange bringing in an estimatedUSD2.3 billion in 1996 (OECD, 1997). Between1990 and 1999 guest nights rose by 40% to over15 million (Skalpe, 2000). As a whole industry,it employs in excess of 18% of the nationalworking population. Over the next decadea further 12% growth is predicted (RoyalNorwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1998).

In response to the European Union’s FifthFramework identification of tourism as animportant environmental problem, and inrecognition of the value that the natural envi-ronment possesses with regard to the Norwe-gian tourism industry, the GRIP Senter forBærekraftig Produksjon og Forbruk [Centrefor Sustainable Production and Consumption](GRIP) has produced a variety of examina-tions on tourist trade-related issues. Theirresearch into the Norwegian tourism sector hasinvolved environmental profiling and auditstrategies for hotels and restaurants (GRIP,1998a), as well as an increasing interest inimproving the production and consumptionprofile of local destination areas (GRIP, 1998b).Recently GRIP launched an initiative targetedspecifically at developing an effective eco-efficiency tourism strategy that could be imple-mented by organizations and at the localdestination level. This initiative involved theparticipation of distinct destination locationsand locales throughout Norway in a case-study process. It was charged with identifyingeffective environmental procedures that couldbe employed at the community level and bylocal operators in order to organize the localindustry in a way more consistent with pat-terns of sustainable tourism production andconsumption.

Case destinations were selected by GRIPfrom candidate applications. Each location wasallocated a fixed level of initiative funding.A local steering committee was establishedby each place and charged with establish-ing and directing the two-year local profilingaspect of the project. The actions of each local

steering group were directed by a chair (inmost cases, someone in the employ of thelocal tourist association). During the profilingphase, the steering committees (consisting ofrepresentatives from local tourism businessesand organizations, local and regional govern-ment, and concerned citizens) identified per-ceived areas of local environmental pressurethat required action, and proposed plans forredressal. GRIP, along with the respective localauthorities, supplied a fixed level of initia-tive funding for the project along with pre-liminary guidelines and reporting deadlinesfor project participants. While some additionalnon-financial assistance was available uponrequest from the GRIP, the project’s overallprogress, application and results were left tothe destinations to determine. We address herethe preliminary findings of two of the partici-pating destinations.

Example 1: Rauland, Telemark

Rauland is a small and dispersed highlandcommunity found in the Telemark region ofSouthern Norway and is governed by theVinje local authority. The Vinje region has apopulation of 3932, a land area of 2929 km2

and a population density of 1.3 km−2 (StatisticsNorway, 1998). It is typified geographically byits alpine features and the spatial dispersionof its inhabitants, and economically throughits emphasis upon the year-round draw of thetourism industry.

Example 2: Ulvik, Hordaland

Ulvik is a highland community located uponthe Ulvik Fjord in the Hordaland region. Ithas a population of 1232, a land area of682 km2 and a population density of 1.8 km−2

(Statistics Norway, 1998). Its economic baseis founded principally upon the travel andtourism industry. It is almost exclusively asummer destination and invests a great dealof its appeal on the aesthetic quality of itsoutdoor settings.


228


COMMON FEATURES: DRIVERS ANDBARRIERS TO LOCAL INDUSTRIALCHANGE

As a result of their individual project expe-riences, the destination steering committeesof Ulvik and Rauland established specificareas of local environmental pressure thatrequired attention. These could be dividedinto (i) actions required by the destination and(ii) actions required by local businesses. Exam-ples of such actions are given in Figure 1.

Actions required by the destination

The actions required by the destination (i.e.therefore by all actors within the location,

including inhabitants, governments, local busi-nesses, and guests) centre upon aesthetic andstructural issues related to the destination’splaceness. They are designed to promote aspecific destination-centred tourist gaze; oneinvested in the preservation of local ecologicaland cultural aesthetics, and founded upon adirected perspective of ‘green’ idyll, in orderto sustain local economic benefits.

Actions required by local businesses

The actions required of local businesseswere principally economic in nature. Therewas a drive in both instances towards thepreservation of current tourism economic

DESTINATION ACTIONS

Primarily focusedupon mitigating and

controlling behaviourof destination inhabitants

and operators

Structurally-based

· encourage guests to car-pool· introduction of public transport shuttle scheme· education of employees in service organisations· introduction of ‘activity’ theme weeks· address land-use issues between owners/tourists

Aesthetically-based

· re-organisation and re-laying of trails· controls on activities at outdoor activity sites· a change of and increase in signage· construction of natural barbecues· delineation of different trail uses

To Address Issues of:

· creating a “healthier” environmental attitude· better service of and for guests· increasing economic impact of guests (e.g. longer stays)· encouraging/controlling more guest/folk interaction· creating a stronger cultural/natural/traditional profile· host education· land-use conflict

To Address Issues of:

· localising the flow of guests, and channelling their use-patterns within the destination and its environs· “eyesores” in the countryside· minimising contact between guests and ecologically- important areas within the destination· ‘environmentally-friendlier’ material as signage· accumulation of waste from guest materials· trespassing and other minor illegal activities· conflict between different trail users· guest education

Primarily focusedupon mitigating and

controlling behaviourof consumers

Figure 1. Rauland/Ulvik tourism destination environmental actions


229


input, and a desire to pursue means of increas-ing tourism revenue locally. Hence, the busi-ness actions tend to fall into two sub-categories:(i) those aimed at reducing current expensesand (ii) those directed toward improving thequality of tourists’ destination experienceswith an aim of creating longer stays and morerepeat visits.

It is apparent that location and sense of placeattributes have figured prominently in thedestination experiences. The perpetuation ofthe local perceptions of a ‘green’ idyll throughthe construction of a controlled tourist gazedesigned to sustain ecological characteristicswhile promoting commerce was indicative ofeach destination’s approach. The creation ofthis idyllic presentation of local nature waspursued jointly through efforts at controllingboth the local tourism industry provision andconsumption factors.

Each regional approach attempted to addressperceived aesthetic environmental inadequa-cies through a series of directed provisionand consumption controls. The consumptiveactions of guests were seen as a threat tothe perceived ecological aesthetic and werethus controlled through user-directed schemes,while future production opportunities (prin-cipally economic in nature) for organizationswere highlighted, in the Rauland case, througha resource-use and auditing exercise.

Preliminary results suggest that the strongenvironmental stance of the national gov-ernment had significantly shaped the twolocal communities in terms of their recep-tion towards engaging in ‘new’ environmentalventures–especially considering that the localauthorities in each case were eager to meetthe national government’s ‘call for action’ con-cerning local environmental initiatives. Theingrained Nordic ‘nature’-based attitude andthe established presence of a strong local cul-tural identity, identified by Eriksen (1993), wasconsidered an essential motivating factor in theparticipation of the local authorities. It wasthese governing bodies that sought to pur-sue action with regard to addressing local

environmental issues, but required externalfinancial investment before beginning any suchprogramme. Hence participation was directlyrelated to the proposed available fundingby GRIP.

Interview data collected for this studystrongly support these statements. They sug-gest that the presence of funding was the pri-mary factor in determining participation (byboth destinations and their constituent busi-nesses). One participant, in echoing the viewsof many of the others, stated that

without the [external] monies the projectwould not have happened like this.

Continuing, she stated that the local author-ity wanted to do something with regard tothe environment, but ‘they needed the [addi-tional] money’. In addition, it was felt that therelatively small size of each destination was amitigating factor in the success of the project,with further interview data suggesting that,alongside the presence of start-up funding, theleadership action of the local authority and the‘local’ nature of the project planning processwere important factors leading to the successof both destination schemes. While the project‘wouldn’t have happened at this scale withoutcouncil pushing for some action’, the projectgroups will probably continue (even thoughthe formal project phase, and thus funding, hasceased) because the process was ‘interesting’and ‘we have seen that we can save money’.It will however require the continued presenceof a project leader as this was seen as a ‘neces-sary’ and ‘valuable’ component in organizingthe destination issues at hand.

Finally, perceived consumer demand byhotel guests and local visitors had an influencefor some businesses. Without an environmen-tal policy and established actions they werelosing these potential clients to competitors(who had these voluntary environmental mea-sures in place). The co-operation of local busi-nesses was directly encouraged through thefinancial incentives given by the GRIP, and an


230


enthusiastic local authority–qualities that wereconsidered essential. Further, the realization ofincreased savings through consumer/suppliereducation and various waste reduction mea-sures was an influential factor as most hotelswere already considering ways of achievingthese savings (e.g. through decreased productuse). One local hotel operator stated that, inresponse to many guest queries

we were going to do something environ-mental anyway. . . to save some money. . .

[but] with the project, we were getting paidto do it.

Hence, some operators saw this venture asa financial incentive to pursue cost-saving ini-tiatives already internally proposed, a moti-vating factor which is not uncommon inthe environmental management experiences ofother industries.

Common characteristics

Generally speaking, the factors attributed bylocal actors as having been influential forthe success of the project are summarized inTable 1. However, it is fair to state that theproject would not have occurred in the absenceof any of the following characteristics:

(i) a strong and active leader within theparticipatory process;

(ii) external funding;

(iii) the actions of the national and localauthorities in creating a supportive cul-tural climate and

(iv) the perception of consumer demand andsubsequent supplier revenue.

The small-scale nature of these destinationsalongside a strong local authority and theavailability of funding allowed for a fairly rep-resentative participation rate by local tourism-oriented businesses. Locale and location weremotivating factors in the desire of these localparticipants to generate specific measures thatwould both encourage local commerce andperpetuate a ‘green’ nature idyll fostered fromtheir own sense of Nordic placeness. A largerdestination would have entailed a greateramount of seed funding, and quite possiblya greater number of conflicting views based onlocale/location interpretations.

Local socio-cultural attributes were certainlyinfluencing factors. The strong environmentalethic present in both communities, and fos-tered from that of the national government,was cited as the principal motivator for thetwo local authorities in their quest to seekfunds for action–a point previously stronglynoted by Welford and Ytterhus (1998). In addi-tion, environmental actions taken by the twolocal communities were also influenced con-siderably by local cultural factors related toregional heritage and socio-ecological biases.Through the steering-group consultation pro-cess, the members sought measures that wouldpromote/preserve their views of their own

Table 1. Some requisite factors for initial success

1. National government’s strong environmental stance as evidenced by a history ofpolicy and action.

2. Local authority’s strong desire to generate some local environmental initiatives.3. Presence of a strong local/national cultural and physical infrastructure capable of

accommodating and promoting environmental ventures.4. Perception by local operators of consumer demand for such action.5. Perception by local operators of costs-saving through waste reduction, reduced

product use, etc.6. The presence of a strong and active local project leader.7. Financial commitment by government and NGO actors to fund the local programme.


231


place. Hence they addressed those factors thatthey considered detrimental to the preserva-tion of their own perception of locale and local-ity. These actions were undertaken in order tomitigate perceived present and future impacts.However, they also succeeded in underliningthose aesthetic notions of placeness culturallyembedded within each locale.

The cross-cultural applicability of this ofthese cases, however, would depend signifi-cantly upon the locale and location characteris-tics inherent within each destination-place. Thepresence of sufficient initiative funding, enthu-siastic local (and national) government sup-port, the perception of both consumer demandand ‘something (financial) to be gained’ bylocal businesses and the presence of an estab-lished local physical infrastructure that is ableto accommodate the demands of an approachlike this (with regard to public transport, wastedisposal, water monitoring etc.)–all of which, itmust be noted, are absent from many develop-ing country destinations–would be of funda-mental importance in embedding similar ‘bestpractice’ measures toward sustainable tourismdevelopment.

Certainly this scheme may be applicable toother Norwegian destinations, and perhaps itmay even be applicable to other industrializedlocations that share similar locale and locationcharacteristics. However, its success remainsdependent upon the presence or absence ofthose factors detailed above. Thus it remainsvery limited and dependent upon the socio-economic and political development level of aparticular destination-place, region and nation.These two examples would tend to suggestthat the successful implementation of ‘besttourism practice’ in approaching the broadaims of sustainable development–and, thus,those of sustainable tourism–rests principallywith local actors (e.g. local authorities, opera-tors and ‘folk’) and their place-driven actionswithin the parameters of these principles. Itwas the presence of these attributes that wasof fundamental importance to the success ofthese management initiatives; and thus, whose

absence would strike up a significant barrierto requisite improvement measures to a des-tination’s tourism consumption and produc-tion profile.

CONCLUSIONS

We have argued that any consideration ofsustainable tourism development has to con-sider carefully concepts of place, location andlocality. Indeed, as was found in the twoexamples from Norway, the size and coher-ence of the destination seem to be importantsuccess factors in promoting sustainable devel-opment strategies. Location and sense of placeattributes have figured prominently in thesetwo destination experiences.

The examples from Norway are useful insupporting many of the conceptual conclu-sions reached by Welford and Ytterhus (1998).Here we argue that there are some particularlyimportant common characteristics that seemto be part of the critical success factors forany destination management strategy. Theseinclude strong leadership within the partici-patory process, external funding by supportagencies (and particularly the actions of thenational and local authorities in creating a sup-portive cultural climate) and the importanceof consumer demand and subsequent supplierrevenue generation.

Tourism is not unlike many other indus-tries in pushing environmental issues alongthe supply chain. Nevertheless, size and scaleare important issues and destination manage-ment strategies do seem to work well in smalldestinations. Whether such strategies work aswell in larger rapidly growing areas (partic-ularly in developing countries) needs furtherinvestigation.

REFERENCES

Agnew JA. 1987. Place and Politics: the GeographicalMediation of State and Society. Allen and Unwin: Boston,MA.


232


Bramwell B, Lane B. 1993. Sustainable tourism: anevolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism1: 1–5.

Butler R. 1998. Sustainable tourism–looking backwardsin order to progress? In Sustainable Tourism: aGeographical Perspective, Hall CM, Lew AA (eds).Longman: London; 25–34.

Davidson R, Maitland R. 1997. Tourism Destinations.Hodder and Stoughton: London.

Ding P, Pigram J. 1995. Environmental audits: anemerging concept in sustainable tourism development.Journal of Tourism Studies 6: 2–10.

Duncan J. 1994. Place. In The Dictionary of HumanGeography, Johnston RJ, Gregory D, Smith DM (eds).Blackwell: Oxford, 442.

Eder P, Grabher A, Krotscheck C, Wallner P, Naro-doslawsky M. 1998. City hinterland relations–envi-ronmental responsibility as a guiding concept. Paperpresented at the Regions–Cornerstones for SustainableDevelopment Symposium, 28–30 October, Graz.

Eriksen TH. 1993. Being Norwegian in a shrinkingworld: reflections on Norwegian identity. In Continuityand Change: Aspects of Modern Norway, Kiel AC (ed.).Scandinavian University Press: Oslo; 20–31.

Forsyth T. 1995. Business attitudes to sustainabletourism: self-regulation in the UK outgoing tourismindustry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3: 210–231.

GRIP. 1998a. 259 Tips for en Bedre Miljøprofili Hotell- ogRestaurantbransjen. Grønt Arbeidsliv i Praksis Senterfor Bærekraftig Produksjon og Forbruk: Oslo.

GRIP. 1998b. Verdt a Vite–Om Reiseliv og Miljø 1998.Grønt Arbeidsliv i Praksis Senter for BærekraftigProduksjon og Forbruk: Oslo.

Henry IP, Jackson GAM. 1996. Sustainability ofmanagement processes and tourism products andcontexts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4: 17–28.

Hunter C. 1995. On the need to re-conceptualisesustainable tourism development. Journal of SustainableTourism 3: 155–165.

Huse M, Gustaven T, Almedal S. 1998. Tourism impactcomparisons among Norwegian towns. Annals ofTourism Research 25: 721–738.

Kotler P, Haider DH, Rein I. 1993. Marketing Places. FreePress: New York.

Laws E. 1995. Tourist Destination Management: Issues,Analysis and Policies. Routledge: London.

Likorish LJ. 1991. Developing Tourism Destinations: Policiesand Perspectives. Longman: London.

Muller H. 1994. The thorny path to sustainable tourismdevelopment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2: 131–137.

Murphy P, Pritchard MP, Smith B. 2000. The destinationproduct and its impact on traveller perceptions.Tourism Management 21: 43–52.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD). 1997. Eco-Labelling: ActualEffects of Selected Programmes. OECD: Paris.

Pearce PL. 1995. From culture shock to culture arroganceto culture exchange: ideas towards sustainable socio-cultural tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3:143–154.

Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 1998.National Report on Norway to the UN Commission onSustainable Development. Oslo.

Sirakaya E, McLellan R. 1998. Modelling tour operator’svoluntary compliance with ecotourism principles: abehavioural approach. Journal of Travel Research 36:42–55.

Skalpe O. 2000. Reiselivsbedriftenes LandsforeningsKonjunkturapport [The Confederation of Tourism Industry:Report on Business Trends in Norwegian Tourism].Confederation of Tourism Industry: Oslo (inNorwegian).

Statistics Norway. 1998. Statistical Yearbook of Norway1998. Statistisk Sentralbyra: Oslo.

Todd SE, Williams PW. 1996. From white to green:a proposed environmental management systemframework for ski areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism4: 147–173.

Warnken J, Buckley R. 1998. Scientific quality of tourismenvironmental impact assessment. Journal of AppliedEcology 35: 1–8.

Welford R. 1995. Environmental Strategy and SustainableDevelopment. Routledge: London.

Welford R, Gouldson A. 1993. Environmental Manage-ment and Business Strategy. Pitman: London.

Welford R, Ytterhus B. 1998. Conditions for thetransformation of eco-tourism into sustainabletourism. European Environment 8: 193–201.

Welford R, Ytterhus B, Eligh J. 1999. Tourism andsustainable development: an analysis of policy andguidelines for managing provision and consumption.Sustainable Development 7: 165–177.

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). 1999.Travel and Tourism: European Union Economic Impact.http://www.wttc.org.

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), WorldTourism Organisation (WTO), Earth Council. 1995.Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry:Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development.WTTC–WTO–Earth Council: London.

BIOGRAPHY

Jason Eligh is a PhD student at the Centre forCorporate Environmental Management, Hud-dersfield University Business School, Hud-dersfield, UK, and is currently undertakingresearch in Vietnam.


233


Dr Richard Welford (corresponding author)is Honorary Research Fellow at the Centre forUrban Planning and Environmental Manage-ment, The University of Hong Kong, PokfulamRoad, Hong Kong SAR, ChinaE-mail: [email protected]

Bjarne Ytterhus is Associate Professor inEnvironmental Management at the Depart-ment of Economics at the Norwegian Schoolof Management BI, Sandvika, Norway.


234

the production of sustainable tourism: concepts and examples from norway

Documents