Sustainable Tourism: An Introduction

In the last couple of posts, we’ve been exploring the impacts tourism can have on the environment, both on a local and a global scale. These have not gone unnoticed, and in this blog post the responses to these damaging environmental impacts - most notably the idea of ‘sustainable tourism’ - are going to be introduced and explored.

What is Sustainable Tourism?

Sustainable tourism… ecotourism… responsible tourism…

You’ve probably come across loads of terms like these and more - and found that they’ve all blended into one big blur in your mind. So what do they all mean? How are they distinct from each other? Well, despair no longer my discombobulated reader, for herein lies all the answers…

The United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO, 2013: 17) defines sustainable tourism as “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities.”

In other words, sustainable tourism is about applying the principles of sustainable development more generally to the tourism sector. In this sense, sustainable tourism isn't exactly a special form of tourism for a niche market, but instead a goal to make all types of tourism in all destinations more sustainable (UNEP, 2005). Given the dramatically increasing number of tourist arrivals in the late 20^th century, sustainable tourism isn’t understood as an alternative to mass tourism; well-managed mass tourism can and should be as sustainable as smaller-scale tourism (UNEP, 2005).

On the other hand, ecotourism and responsible tourism do refer explicitly to niche forms of tourism. Ecotourism, for example, specifically involves visiting relatively undisturbed natural areas whilst encouraging conservation and environmental awareness, usually in small groups (UNEP, 2005).

I'm not sure the elephants' idea of 'getting close to nature' was what the ecotourists had in mind... (Source)

What does Sustainable Tourism Involve?

Regarding the environment, sustainable tourism aims to “make optimal use of environmental resources that constitute a key element in tourism development, maintaining essential ecological processes and helping to conserve natural resources and biodiversity” (UNWTO, 2013: 17).

Right, well that’s all well and good, but in reality achieving this goal is pretty difficult and complex.

Let’s go back to the first definition of sustainable tourism – “addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities” (UNWTO, 2013: 17). As this quote exemplifies, many different stakeholders engage with the tourism sector, or influenced by it. All these groups have different interests and levels of influence on the industry. Yet a critical requirement in sustainable tourism's success is for stakeholders to collaborate effectively in management of the sector, making their roles and relationships in the implementation of sustainable tourism very important. This requires organised coordination and partnerships, both at the local and national destination levels (UNWTO, 2013) - often easier said than done. Figure 1 gives an overview of just a small number of the stakeholders involved in the industry and what their roles could be in achieving sustainable tourism.

Figure 1. Different stakeholders in the tourist industry and their suggested roles in delivering sustainable tourism. Adapted from UNWTO, 2013.

Alright – so we’ve gone over the need for stakeholder coordination in achieving sustainable tourism – so what actually needs to be done? What actions can go about making “optimal use of environmental resources” and “maintaining essential ecological processes”? (UNWTO, 2013). Well, there isn’t really a straightforward answer to this…

The UN World Tourism Organisation identifies measures like planning controls, financial incentives and certification as ways to promote sustainable tourism in a destination (UNWTO, 2013). But do these actually work? Buckley (2012) argues that so far, attempts made by the private sector to achieve sustainability, such as self-regulation and ecocertification have been pretty much ineffectual. This is for a number of reasons. Private companies often opt for environmental self-regulation in order to avoid stricter external government regulation (Núñez, 2007). In this way, they can carry on with environmentally unsustainable practices under the guise of sustainable tourism (Buckley, 2012). Furthermore, Mair and Jago (2010) argue few tourists themselves choose between services specifically based on their sustainability; instead they generally expect good environmental practice to be incorporated into services as routine. As an avid traveller I’d say I have to agree – I can't say I've ever chosen a particular airline or hotel purely based on its environmental performance.

Instead, it has been suggested that environmental policies, management measures and technologies have greater potential to reduce the environmental impacts of tourism (Buckley, 2009; UNEP, 2011). For example, advances in energy efficiency can help reduce waste generation and resource consumption locally (Buckley, 2012). Furthermore, although most environmental damage linked to tourism is caused by private companies and tourists, governments should take a leading role in achieving sustainable tourism (UNEP,2005; Buckley, 2012). Strong leadership is needed because the tourism sector is really fragmented and coordination between stakeholders for an effective sustainable tourism strategy. Governments have the necessary authority to implement strict environmental regulation and economic incentives on private businesses, which Buckley (2012) argues is the main driver for improvement. For example, improved sustainability in hotels can be driven by measures such as local government regulation for planning, external impact assessment and pollution control (Buckley, 2012). Similarly, NGOS have an important role in coordination and getting the voices of less powerful stakeholders heard – such as the local community, smaller businesses and tour operators (UNWTO, 2013).

The Future...

Lastly, the need for quantitative and widely applicable sustainability indicators for the tourist sector has long been recognised. This article in the Guardian from a couple of years ago argues it is the role of local governments and authorities to collect this globally comparable quantitative information on the environmental impacts of tourism in particular destinations. It is this lack of precise information on destinations which hinder the development of direct targets.

Regardless of who is responsible for collecting the data, coming up with the indicators is a difficult task – how would you define a sustainability indicator? What would you include in it? Nevertheless, establishing quantitative and comparable environmental performance measures should be a key priority for sustainable tourism research (Buckley, 2012).

Tourism and Coral Reefs: What's the Damage?

Tropical coral reefs cover less than 1% of the ocean, yet rival only rainforests as the most diverse ecosystems on Earth, providing vital services such as home and nursery to a quarter of all marine fish species. They are of utmost importance to humans and our economy, with 500 million people dependent on them for livelihoods. Healthy coral reefs are especially important for local tourism, through providing appeal for diving tours and fishing trips; furthermore, businesses based near reef systems such as hotels provide millions of jobs and income globally (Figure 1). Yet the latest global coral reef assessment states an estimated 19% of coral reefs are now dead and lost, and the tourism industry is far from guilt-free.

Figure 1. The breakdown of component values that contribute to the global annual economic value of coral ecosystems. Source.

Over these last three decades (e.g. 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s much of the research on tourism’s impact on coral reefs has centred on recreational activities, particularly snorkelling and scuba diving.

For example, a recent paper (Gil et al., 2015) based in Akumal Bay in Mexico, found that increasing snorkeller numbers generally have a significantly negative impact on coral cover. Coral reefs' structure and functioning centres on the balance between corals and algae, with which corals have to compete for benthic substrate.

A survey of the bay’s benthic community in 2013 compared sites in a snorkeller-intense zone with those at a proximate control zone featuring 13 times lower tourist numbers (Figure 2). The results show lower coral cover across all coral morphologies in the high-tourism zone, (although this effect was only significant for plating coral cover). Furthermore, tourism-intense sites featured significantly increased dead coral cover (a 50.5% increase from control to tourism sites; p < 0.05), and a greater abundance and number of taxa of benthic algae, although this was not significant.

Figure 2. May 2013 Mean (+/- 95% confidence intervals) percentage cover of corals and numbers of algal taxa/fishes, from the control zones (light bars) and the tourism-intense zones (darker bars). Source.

The study focuses on the increasing number of snorkellers as the causative variable for reductions in coral cover in the high-tourism zones. I agree that the presence of snorkellers and SCUBA-based reef tourism can drive coral reef degradation. Indeed, similar results are found in a number of different studies throughout the years. You can imagine why – to describe just a couple of mechanisms: direct, physical contact of snorkellers with corals (trampling, touching) can easily degrade coral skeleton and tissue, and snorkellers can cause localised water column sediment re-suspension, reducing recruitment and survival of corals through choking them. *

However, Gil et al.’s (2015) use of variables such as ‘no. of tourists in water’ and ‘number of snorkellers’ effectively lumps together all activities associated with snorkelling – from the individual snorkellers to the dive boats and anchors and their associated impacts. Because of this, I was sceptical as to whether the reductions in coral cover in the high-tourism zone (Figure 2) were really down to individual snorkellers, or whether there could be other tourism-related activities associated with the increasing numbers of snorkellers driving that difference, which was encapsulated within their metric of ‘number of snorkellers’, but not quite specified.

A bit of digging later, I found an excellent (albeit slightly dated!) study quantifying the degree to which separate tourism activities individually impact on coral reefs. Two of these impacts - dropping anchors and their chains on reefs and physical diver contact – both could have been encapsulated in Gil et al.,’s (2015) variables ‘no. of tourists in water’ and ‘number of snorkellers’ and thus driven the reductions in coral in the high tourism zone (as an increasing number of snorkellers could also entail an increasing number of dive boats dropping anchor). The results of this study took me by surprise; given the volume of research on the impacts of snorkelling and SCUBA diving on coral reefs, I assumed the greatest impact on coral cover would be from physical diver contact. However, anchors and their chains (from dive boats) had a whopping mean coral cover damage of 7.11% in contrast to a very moderate diver contact mean of 0.67%. Dropped anchors can break live portions of a coral colony into fragments, gouging out large chunks of coral skeleton and tissue – which often die and turn into rubble clouds, choking the surrounding corals. In contrast, the model results indicate that SCUBA divers and snorkelers tend to damage coral reefs on a smaller, individual scale. This would suggest that perhaps ‘number of snorkelers’ is a slightly simplistic metric when advising management, as it largely overlooks the difference in impact between separate activities associated with rising snorkeler numbers. A manager reading Gil et al.’s (2015) paper may focus on educating snorkelers on coral damage – when in fact they should be focusing on initiatives such as designated mooring lanes for dive boats to reduce coral damage!

Furthermore, the focus on snorkelling and SCUBA diving in the wider field of tourism-related coral disturbance research fails to appreciate the more indirect impacts of coastal tourism development on reefs. Such development increases land-based runoff events that drive nutrient enrichment (a global problem which can occur for example where hotel sewage is allowed to enter the coastal system) and sedimentation, promoting benthic algal domination over corals. Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA)’s ranking of major threats to coral reefs ecosystems by region shows that coastal development and runoff poses a high priority threat in 10/14 regions of the world, as opposed to only 1/14 for tourism and recreation (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Ranking of major threats to coral reef ecosystems by region. Source.

A recent experimental study based on coral reefs in the Gulf of Panama showed that coral loss and algal growth induced by overfishing was magnified and accelerated when sediment addition or nutrient enrichment was combined with overfishing (Figure 4). It has been argued that overfishing is the fundamental factor driving community shifts to algal-dominated tropical coral reefs. This indicates that coastal tourism development can play a major role in coral reef degradation through exacerbating the pressures already being placed on coral reefs, such as overfishing.

Figure 4. Change in benthic composition over the experimental period. Changes in percent cover from initial values displayed in separate panels for different community members. Lines, styles and colours indicate the effects of different combinations of stressors: overfishing = dashed lines; sediment addition = yellow lines; nutrient enrichment = blue lines; both nutrient enrichment and sediment addition = green lines. Source.

An overall point of this post is that the localised impacts of tourism on coral reefs often co-occur, and damage cannot be attributed to divers alone. A final take-home point is that these local impacts are always experienced in the presence of global anthropogenic stressors, such as increased sea surface temperatures and ocean acidification, and regional-scale natural disturbances to coral reefs such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation or hurricanes, which could also see shifts in their regimes in the near future due to climate change. In fact, this year’s El Nino event may even outdo the peak event of 1997-98, meaning that coral die-off in 2016 could be particularly severe as the bleaching event causes them to lose their algal coating. The tourism industry itself is increasingly contributing to these global pressures, for example through releases of greenhouse gases associated with increasing air travel (see my previous post!). This is important because the background effects of climate change are expected to generally reduce ecosystem resilience, increasing the impact of tourism’s local stressors.

This online photo gallery dramatically illustrates some of the horrific effects of human impacts on coral reefs discussed in this blog post.

*For more info on the direct impacts of snorkelers and SCUBA divers on coral reefs – check out this blog!

Invasive Species: Global Hitchhikers of Tourist Flows

Greetings to all the wonderful, magnificent curious readers out there!

Tourism often involves gatherings of multiple flows of individuals, vehicles and sea vessels from geographically wide-ranging parts of the world, providing a source of non-native (and potentially invasive) propagules including seeds and spores. Thus tourism creates key paths for transport of non-native species, a problem projected to increase in importance with further expansion of the sector.

This blog post was largely sparked off by a study hot off the press. It represents the first global meta-analysis of the link between tourism activities and the arrival of non-native species.

The results of the study show that globally non-native species are more abundant in areas featuring intensive tourism activity, with an overall significant large positive effect size (0.879, p>0.001) in sites where tourist-related recreation activities occurred. Although both land- and aquatic-based recreation activities pose a significant and large influence on non-native species abundance (Figure 1), their abundance is higher in aquatic environments, with boats having a greater effect than the other two vectors (horses and visitors/trails). 

Figure 1. Meta-analysis forest plot (+confidence intervals) displaying the mean effect size of overall and different recreational tourist activities on abundance of non-native species. Effect size values greater than 0 indicate non-native species abundance was greater at sites featuring recreational tourist activity occurred than in the controls. Confidence limits overlapping the dashed line are not significant. Source.

Across the meta-analysis the abundance of several types of aquatic non-native species, from seaweeds to bryozoans, was significantly greater in sites where tourism-related boating and yachting took place than control sites. Similar to national parks, marine reserves attract high tourist visitation rates and tourism-related recreational activities. This leads to the concentration of potential invasive species transport vectors such as diving equipment, boat ballasts and anchors and fouled hulls. Thus despite the terrestrial focus of the majority of studies on invasive species and tourism, recreational boating/angling is believed responsible for over 1/3 of non-natives pathways into Europe. For example the zebra mussel’s  spread into Ireland has been attributed particularly to vessels that are not regularly maintained and berthed for long periods, such as private cruisers used for tourism.

Nature-based Tourism and Invasive Species

Whilst tourism may not be the main way invasive species are spread (with shipping and industry being the two major pathways, it is one of the only pathways capable of introducing them to extremely remote parts of the world. Nature-based tourism (involving outdoor recreation and wildlife viewing) and new forms of “extreme/adventure tourism” are key growth areas in the sector. These are commonly based in comparatively pristine and high biodiversity sites such as national parks, and often in developing countries. Therefore as such forms of tourism continue to increase in popularity, an associated increase in the tourism-assisted passage of non-native species to these remote locations could have catastrophic consequences to local biodiversity. Flora and fauna residing in these habitats are often endemic and have evolved in isolation, and as such are likely to be less resilient to new pressures such as non-natives and any associated pathogens.

Aconcagua Provincial Park in Argentina is a protected area on a mountain region that experiences high levels of endemism, providing essential ecosystem services to the lowlands. It is a popular tourist destination amongst European hikers, and in the last 2 decades visitation has increased at approximately 10% annually, with > 6000 visiting hikers in 2011. A recent study recorded at least 21 non-native plant species in the Aconcagua region, with 16 of these only recorded within the park between 2001-2011, in tandem with increasing visitor numbers. All species were native to Europe and 8 are considered international invasive environmental weeds. Due to the very limited vehicle access and previous human use and isolated nature of the park, it is probable that tourists were the main vectors of non-native seed dispersal. Such propagules were likely carried in on their clothes, shoes and personal mountaineering equipment (which they may have previously used outside South America), and in the dung and fur of pack animals which can create microhabitats favourable for establishment of invasives in harsh environments. Furthermore, the dominance of European non-native species could reflect the increasing tourist flows from developed countries to remote natural habitats in developing countries through increased popularity in nature-based tourism.

Non-native plants were recorded more frequently in disturbed vegetation (52%) than in natural vegetation (38%), particularly those areas heavily trampled by hikers and pack animals. Popular recreational activities including hiking, off-road driving and mountain biking can cause habitat disturbance acting to destroy the flora and fauna of a site, changing species' niche dynamics and opportunities.  Non-native species often have particular success in disturbed areas as features such as their faster growth and reproduction rates allow them to rapidly colonise disturbed habitats. In this case, trampling on and off trails by tourists and pack animals favoured non-native establishment through reductions in native vegetation cover and increased soil erosion. Figure 2 shows how the occurrence of non-native species is concentrated along the main hiking pathways for mountaineers, where the maximum disturbance occurs.

Figure 2. Location of sites surveyed for the intensively used trails of the Horcones Valley in Aconcagua Provincial Park, Angentina. Sites with non-native species (black cirlces) and only native speces (white circles) are shown. Source.

Similarly, a study in 2014 found that survival of the invasive non-native species Poa annua was 33% higher on Antarctic sites with disturbed soils. P. annua competed with the native plant species for resources and space, having significantly negative effects on their photosynthetic performance and biomass. The authors suggest that disturbed soils contain higher levels of nutrients, so that like the mule dung in Aconcagua, human disturbance through tourism may generate microhabitats more favourable to the non-native species. This example is particularly worrying as Antarctica’s severe environmental conditions and isolation meant researchers thought it was pretty much immune to invasives. But – where there’s a will, there’s a way – and tourism has found that way! The non-native species recorded in Antarctica, such as Poa annua – are mainly found near scientific bases and tourism cruise landing areas. During the 21^st century, Antarctic visitor numbers have increased dramatically, mainly due to tourism, and now roughly 40,000 people - mostly tourists - visit each year. All the clothes, luggage and scientific equipment of Antarctic visitors may carry non-native seeds/spores, and an article in the National Geographic stated that, worryingly, on average tourists to Antarctica in 2007 each carried 2-3 seeds, and that 49-61% of these foreign plant materials were cold-adapted species. The limited species richness and simple community structures make Antarctica's ecosystems especially vulnerable to changes in plant communities occurring with non-native species establishment.

Of course the role of tourism in facilitating non-native species access to remote locations is not restricted to terrestrial environments. Whilst not necessarily linked to nature-based forms of tourism, long-distance yachting is potentially one of the very few transport vectors able to introduce non-native species to marine environments around highly remote ocean islands: ecosystems for which non-native introductions are believed to be the primary threat for biodiversity loss. For example, Palmyra Atoll, a remote island in the Pacific, holds one of the very last near-pristine reef ecosystems remaining globally. However in 2011, a study recorded 5 non-native invertebrate and algal introductions. Leisure-related yachts arriving from harbours like Hawaii, where all 5 of these species have been recorded as non-native, are the most probable source. In particular, the red alga Acanthophora spicifera was most likely transferred to Palmyra through small vessels’ hull fouling, as private yachts can enter Palmyra’s lagoons without standard checks for invasive hitchhikers. This and other algal invaders pose an ecological problem as they have the potential to alter the coralline algal dominated reef terrace environments.

Some Last Thoughts

The map below shows the location of the 32 studies included in Anderson et al.’s (2015) global meta-analysis. As you can see, a lot of them seem to be concentrated in North America, Europe and Australia. Furthermore, the number of studies included for calculating the effect size tourist activities in marine environments (n=8) was less than terrestrial environments (n=11) (Figure 1).

Map showing location of the 32 studies of invasive species included in Anderson et al.'s (2015) global analysis. Green dots = land; blue dots = marine and freshwater habitats. Source. 

In the above discussion, I hoped to rectify this bias somewhat towards developed countries and terrestrial environments in Anderson et al.’s (2015) study which highlights a wider problem of bias in the research field of tourism-related transport of non-native species. The examples I’ve drawn upon ultimately show that even isolated, high-elevation specifically protected areas, the coldest and driest places on Earth, and islands pretty much in the middle of nowhere, are susceptible to plant invasions, specifically via tourism.

Love this post but want more on those pesky little hitchhikers? Totally understandable. Check out my friend Ben’s blog, especially this post for a great insight into the impact invasives have on ecosystems!

Tourism's Environmental Impacts Part II: An Update

Greetings and salutations to all the curious minds out there!

Following the responses to last week’s blog, I thought it would be a great idea to look into how research on the impacts of tourism on the environment has developed since the 1970s and 80s when it was just beginning, and the new ways of thinking about these impacts. Last week we delved into some of the basic system models used to conceptualise the tourism life-cycle and categorise the environmental impacts of tourism. This week we’re fast-forwarding to the 21^st century and looking into the relationship between mass tourism/travel and globalisation, how this is linked with the rise of cheap flights and internet communication technologies, and some of the modern global environmental changes this is linked to.

Globalisation and the Tourist Industry

Globalisation refers to the increasing interconnectedness of the world through a global network of transportation, trade and communication (IMF, 2000; Dwyer, 2015). It is increasingly recognised that tourism is a globalised industry with an extended supply chain (Hall and Page, 2014).

Central to this understanding of tourism as a globalised industry is the rise of cheap air travel. Aviation comprises the primary mode of travel to numerous tourism locations, and for some can constitute 100% of international tourist arrivals (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). Tourism is a driving force in the evolution of air travel, for example in the formation of new aviation business models like charter airlines. Similarly, developments in air transport have made available novel destinations as well as forms of tourism such as long-haul trips. Since the deregulation of the European aviation industry in the late 1980s, the subsequent increase in competition meant new business models emerged, including low cost carriers (LCC) (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). LCCs offer increasingly cheap prices for flights, thus gaining significant air traffic volumes as well as new modes of tourism including short-stay city breaks (Bieger and Wittmer, 2006). Thus the increasing accessibility to cheap air transport is a major driving force in international tourism growth; this can be seen through the remarkably similar growth curves of air passengers and the international tourist arrivals (Figure 1).

Data for graph sourced from: The World Bank (Air Passenger Data) and The World Bank (Arrivals Data).

Furthermore, the Internet and social media has been a key development in this expansion of the tourism industry, as consumers can use it to collect information on potential destinations and quickly compare prices across service providers before booking online (Dwyer,2015). Thus the Internet has been important in the growth of international flights and package holidays.

In more recent years, strong economic growth in countries such as the BRICs (Brazil-Russia-India-China) can be expected to promote further increases in international tourism as their rising middle classes have more disposable income for travel. Tourism is projected to grow by 3.3% annual at least till 2030 (UNWTO, 2012), driven mainly by this economic growth. Furthermore, increasing globalisation has supported growth in the tourism industry as consumers become increasingly aware of different cultures and lifestyles, and thus more ‘international’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ in their lifestyle choices (Dwyer, 2015).

Environmental impacts associated with the modern tourist industry

During the 20^th century much research undertaken on tourism’s environmental impacts focused on impacts at the destination or on the local scale, omitting other elements of the geographical tourism system, such as the transit region and the origin area (Hall and Page, 2014). This fails to recognise the globalised nature of the tourism industry. Activity in one location can affect the entire system, particularly due to the cross-boundary nature of several environmental problems associated with the tourist industry, such as water and air pollution (Bridge, 2002). Furthermore, tourism activities can add up globally. For example, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at one location contribute to the global balance of GHGs and therefore have more than a localised effect.

In this following section I shall discuss some of these global environmental challenges associated with the rise of mass tourism and travel.

Air Pollution

Tourism related transport, particularly air travel, is a major emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) and thus contributor to global warming (Dwyer, 2015). Overall, transport is the primary factor adding to tourism-related emissions of GHGs: in fact, it can been estimated that transport accounts for a whopping 94% of the tourism sector's role in global warming (Gössling, 2002).

Emissions from aircraft need particular consideration because they’re released directly into the troposphere and bottom stratosphere, where they have a much greater effect on radiative forcing and ozone levels (IPCC, 1999). Aircraft emissions modify the Earth’s climate and radiation budget via direct emissions of radiatively active substances (e.g. CO₂ , H₂O) that trap terrestrial radiation resulting in global warming and chemical substances that alter natural greenhouse gases (NO_xand SO₂); and release of other substances (e.g. H₂O and soot) which cause cloud formation (e.g. contrails) (IPCC, 1999).

So there we have it! The tourist industry of today - huge, globalised and linked to many global environmental issues. In future blog posts, we'll look in further detail at some of these global environmental issues being exacerbated through the tourist industry. Stay tuned folks!