Sustainable tourism destinations: the importance of cleaner production

Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313–323www.cleanerproduction.net

Sustainable tourism destinations: the importance of cleanerproduction

Kian Foh Lee*

International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, P.O. Box 196, Lund 22100, Sweden

Received 14 December 1999; accepted 9 August 2000

Abstract

“Sustainable tourism destination” is an emerging term used in recognition schemes to promote sustainable development at desti-nations. This concept, which is still being developed, has the potential to stimulate the implementation of sustainable developmentthrough an interdisciplinary, holistic and integrative approach which combines different aspects of existing tools. This article willdiscuss the following:

O conceptual definitions for sustainable tourism destinations

O the need to integrate different approaches and tools for developing sustainable tourism destinations

O the role which Cleaner Production plays in terms of developing sustainable tourism destinations

Cleaner production has an important role, to ensure that “prevention” is built into the concept of sustainable tourism destinations.It contributes by providing both a general strategy and specific experiences which may enhance other existing tools, concepts andpolicies. These can be integrated in a synergistic manner to achieve sustainable tourism destinations. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reserved.

Keywords:Cleaner production; Sustainable tourism destinations; Recognition schemes; Environmental management systems; Eco-labelling; LocalAgenda 21

1. Introduction

This article is based on a M.Sc. thesis entitled “Sus-tainable Tourism Destinations: Approaches and Method-ologies” [1] for the Environmental Management and Pol-icy programme at the International Institute for IndustrialEnvironmental Economics at Lund University.

Sustainable tourism destination is a complex term thathas emerged from the need to develop tourism desti-nations in a sustainable manner, and therefore the needto recognise the efforts to develop destinations accord-ingly.

* Tel.: +46-46-222-0200; fax:+46-46-222-0210.E-mail address:[email protected] (K.F. Lee).

0959-6526/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0959-6526 (00)00071-8

2. Background

The emerging practice of giving recognition, eco-lab-els and awards for exceptional environmental perform-ance in the tourism industry is considered to be the mostpromising among voluntary approaches [2]. Examples ofthese awards and eco-labels are the European Prize forTourism and Environment, Green Globe Award, BritishAirways Tourism for Tomorrow Award, European Sus-tainable City Award, Blue Flag Award and Green Suit-case Award. While these awards and eco-labels arebased on criteria that relate to various aspects of sus-tainable tourism, there is a particular group that focuson destinations. This article considers awards and eco-labels in the tourism industry for destinations as recog-nition schemes, because of their recognition for environ-mental protection and improvement.

314 K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313–323

The focus on destinations represents an importantinnovation within the area of recognition schemes,because it considers, at the integrated and holistic level,the issues of sustainable development. Recognising sus-tainability of a destination reiterates and reinforces othersustainable development concepts that have been appliedto destinations such as life cycle of tourism areas [3] oftourism destinations and carrying capacity [4] of tour-ism destinations.

Recognition is given only to destinations that haveachieved and demonstrated the implementation of sus-tainable tourism. Hence it brings sustainable develop-ment issues beyond the scope and responsibilities ofprivate organisations or local authorities as individualentities. Such form of recognition requires all stake-holders within the tourism industry in a community toco-ordinate and integrate their efforts. It fits into a newconcept of partnership between stakeholders at the locallevel, that promotes value to shareholders and society[5].

2.1. Sustainable tourism destinations

Awards and eco-labels that focus on sustainabledevelopment at destinations provide incentives in termsof recognition for efforts in sustainable development.Much of the conceptual and practical work for these rec-ognition schemes for destinations are still under develop-ment. Projects of developing sustainable tourism desti-nations are conducted locally and independently. Mostschemes and guidelines pursue the same goals, asrevealed at the project conferenceChallenging Diversity:New Conceptual Guidance Towards Improved Environ-mental Performance in the Nordic Tourism Industry, 3–4 September 1999, Virum, Denmark, in which the keyactors from the Nordic regions participated. A prelimi-nary review of some of the recognition schemes showsfundamental similarities in objectives and strategies [6].Table 1 provides some examples of recognition schemesand guidelines that focus on destinations.

3. Conceptual definitions for sustainable tourismdestinations

At the moment there is no standard definition for “sus-tainable tourism destinations”. Since destinations are

Table 1Examples of recognition schemes and guidelines for destinations

Recognition Schemes Promoter

Green Globe 21 Green Globe 21Destination 21 Danish Tourism Board, Outdoor Council, Tourism Development CentreGuidelines PromoterGRIP Guidelines “GRIP” (Foundation for Sustainable Production and Consumption) (Green Management Programme)

NorwayBaltic 21 Guidelines Baltic Marine Environment Protection Comission (HELCOM) and Baltic Sea Commission (BTC)

unique, so are sustainable development issues in thesedestinations. Performance measures and indicators forsustainable development in these destinations wouldtherefore relate specifically to the issues of the desti-nation. Criteria for sustainable tourism destinations dif-fer, depending on the different recognition schemesbecause these are conceived to meet the objectives ofdifferent schemes.

There are three main components to the definition ofsustainable tourism destinations — sustainable develop-ment, tourism and destinations. Hence the main elementsof the definition would depend on:

O definition of boundaries of tourism destinationsO scope of sustainable tourism destinationsO definition and strictness of sustainable development

3.1. Definition of boundaries of tourism destination

Setting the boundary is a matter of determining theappropriate size of the destination to be meaningful andpractical. For instance, setting boundaries at the countryor city level may be problematic, because the area islarge and issues are too complex. On the other hand,setting the boundary too narrowly would reduce thevalue of the analysis because small tourism sites wouldnot include all the impacts and issues for a “holistic” or“systems” approach. However, small tourism sites couldbe considered as part of the destination. In setting bound-aries, the following considerations may be useful:

O A physical boundary that is meaningful for the man-aging of sustainable tourism and sustainable develop-ment.

O The destination should be under a “local authority,municipality or administrative group from which localrepresentatives are elected, and through whichnational and regional planning, fiscal and other legalrequirements are carried out on behalf of local resi-dents — including local Agenda 21 programmes” [7].

O It should provide an area with accommodation facili-ties for tourists. This is to ensure that the site is sig-nificant as a tourist destination, instead of just a touristattraction where tourists just stop-over for a day.

315K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313–323

3.2. Scope of sustainable tourism destination

Currently, there is no standard definition for sus-tainable tourism destinations with respect to its scope.It may take alimited definition, to cover the scope ofmanagement of all resources that are devoted to and areinvolved in tourism. This limited definition only focuseson the needs of tourists and communities involved intourism. If the holistic definition is taken, then scopewould consider the overall sustainable development ofthe destination. Fig. 1 illustrates the limited definitionon the left, and holistic definition on the right. In prac-tice, the scope would be determined by the recognitionschemes. It is likely that the scope would be betweenthe two defintions.

3.3. Definition and strictness of sustainabledevelopment

The meaning of sustainable tourism destination alsodepends on how strict the definition of sustainable devel-opment is applied. There are many definitions ofsus-tainable development, and many share the sameelements. The commonly referred to definition by theBruntland Report is “sustainable development is devel-opment that meets the needs of the present without com-promising the ability of the future generations to meettheir own needs” [8].

The European Commission also provided other defi-nitions that placed emphasis on ecosystems for dis-cussions related to sustainable development in cities [9].Two of these definitions are by the World ConservationUnion, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP),and World Wide Fund for Nature — “sustainable devel-opment means improving the quality of life while livingwithin the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems”[10], and by the International Council for Local Environ-mental Initiatives — “sustainable development is devel-opment that delivers basic environmental, social andeconomic services to all residents of a community with-out threatening the viability of the natural, built and

Fig. 1. Definitions of sustainable tourism destinations.

social systems upon which the delivery of these servicesdepend” [11]. In a way, tourism destinations, like cities,could also be considered from the ecosystem perspec-tive.

As there are different definitions for sustainable devel-opment, there are different models of sustainability. Wel-ford provides 6 examples of models of sustainable devel-opment for business [12]. These models could also beused to define the process to achieve sustainability in thetourism destination as they spell out different prioritiesand issues for sustainable development for business,which could be applied to tourism destinations. Similarto companies, destinations would also need to look intoethics, objectives, organisation, corporate and com-munity culture and communication in deciding the goalsof sustainable development.

It is assumed that in principle sustainable developmentis a long term goal for which short-term and mediumterm targets could be set and used as milestones forreaching sustainability. However, it should also beacknowledge that depending on how goals are set, sus-tainable development could be considered as an idealand “moving” goal that would never be achievedbecause of constant changes within the system. Further-more, different destinations are in different stages ofimplementing sustainable development activities. Forinstance, in the early stages some short term and mediumterm goals could have been achieved. In the mature/latestages the long term goals would be achieved.

In a strict sense the term “sustainable tourism desti-nation” would be used only if the destination has achi-eved the “long term goals” of sustainable development.This is because it is assumed that in principle it is poss-ible to achieve the “long term goals” of sustainabledevelopment. When applying a “less strict” definition,there would at least exist some minimum criteria to con-sider a destination as sustainable. These criteria wouldbe the short term or medium term goals of the desti-nation. The criteria would be decided upon by recog-nition schemes. Fig. 2 illustrates the different meaningsdepending on the scope of sustainable tourism (x-axis),and also the strictness of the interpretation for sus-tainable development (y-axis).

Fig. 2. Meanings of sustainable tourism destinations.


The shaded domains of (1) and (3) would apply forstrict conditions of sustainable development, where the“long term goals” of the destinations are achieved. Theshaded domains of (2) and (4) would apply for less strictconditions, where destinations are in the process ofachieving sustainable development. These destinationswould have met certain minimum criteria that qualifythem as “sustainable”.

Recognition schemes would consider, when decidingthe level of strictness to be applied, the current stage ofsustainable development at the destination. For instanceit would be too demanding to impose the strict definitionof sustainable development for a destination which hasonly begun to implement sustainable development. Thelevel of strictness to be applied would probably be bal-anced with the potential of meeting the criteria thatare set.

4. Approaches for developing sustainable tourismdestinations

Currently there exist tools that address specific aspectsand issues of sustainable tourism. Examples of the toolsthat are used by different stakeholders to address sus-tainable tourism are environmental management systems(EMS), eco-labels, the concept and framework of LocalAgenda 21, and cleaner production (CP). These areapplied, normally, within the traditional scope of thetools. For instance, tour operators would implementEMS for their business; hotels would implement EMS,obtain eco-labels, and apply cleaner production stra-tegies in their management; and local communitieswould adopt Local Agenda 21 guidelines. Hence, at thedestination level, these tools would need to be integratedto achieve sustainable development.

In terms of implementing sustainable tourism desti-nations, these tools contribute to different aspects ofachieving sustainable development at destinations. EMSprovides a management system at the destination level,and at the company level to achieve sustainable tourism.Eco-labelling provides the approach to develop recog-nition criteria for the destinations. Local Agenda 21(LA21) provides the approach for overall integration andcoordination at the local level to achieve sustainabledevelopment, and CP provides an overall implemen-tation strategy to achieve the goals that are set.

The contribution of these four tools and approachesfor promoting sustainable tourism destinations are illus-trated in Fig. 3.

Integrating the use of these tools and approaches maynot be sufficient for implementing sustainable tourismdestinations, but they cover areas that are considered asthe strategic imperatives for sustainable development ofthe Bruntland Report: political system, economic sys-tem, social system, technological system and inter-

Fig. 3. Tools and concepts for sustainable tourism destinations.

national system [13]. In a general LA21, being a conceptthat is used by communities and local authorities, it pro-vides political and social elements. Eco-labelling pro-vides social and economic elements as it promotes con-sumer environmental awareness and reflects consumers’preference in the tourism market. Thus it provides incen-tives for companies to improve environmental perform-ance. EMS provides economic and production elementstraditionally used by companies and organisations foraddressing environmental issues that could also beapplied by local authorities. Cleaner production, on theother hand, provides elements for technological andeconomic systems. These tools are described in sub-sequent sections.

4.1. Environmental management systems

EMS is a common tool that is used for managing theenvironmental matters of a company in a systematic andcomprehensive manner. EMS is a useful tool for sus-tainable tourism destinations in many ways. The processof auditing (internal and external) within EMS audits hasthe following potential: identification of problems, for-mulation of environmental policy, setting environmentalgoals, measuring environmental impacts, measuring per-formance, confirming environmental management sys-tem effectiveness, and providing a database for correc-tive action, future plans, developing the company’senvironmental strategy and communications [14].

The form and approach of EMS has been adopted toaddress sustainable tourism issues. For instance inAgenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry:Towards Environmentally Sustainable Developmentbythe World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), WorldTourism Organisation (WTO) and the Earth Council[13], the EMS approach was applied to address the chap-ters of Agenda 21 that are relevant to the tourism indus-try.

Although EMS provides a foundation for environmen-


tal management it is incomplete and insufficient as a toolto achieve sustainable tourism destinations, unless it isadapted for destinations. This is because:

O the traditional scope of EMS is restricted to businessorganisations which are components of a tourism des-tination (hotels, tour operators, etc.), instead of thedestinations as a whole, although it is possible;

O EMS covers only environmental issues — hence lim-iting the targets and objectives to environmentalaspects;

O it does not prescribe any particular implementationstrategy;

O there is no obligation to meet the targets and objec-tives, including criteria for sustainability, for the des-tination.

The EMS approach could combine elements from othertools/concepts, such as eco-labelling, Local Agenda 21and Cleaner Production, to better meet the needs of man-aging sustainable destinations. The EMS approach canbe applied to tourism at two levels. Conventionally amanagement system is used by companies and organis-ations. In destinations EMS is slowly being adopted asa tool for local governments and small and medium sizecompanies for managing the environmental welfare [16].In order to develop destinations that are sustainable, thescope should be widened. As a tool for sustainable tour-ism destinations, EMS is helpful in terms of setting poli-cies and defining the objectives and targets of sustainabledevelopment for the destination.

4.2. Eco-labelling

Eco-labels are “tools” used to provide information tothe consumers that products or services have met certainlevels of environmental performance. Since eco-labelsare voluntary, these act as soft policy instruments, comp-lementing the more traditional command-and-controlmandates [17]. Recognition schemes such as eco-labelshelp educate tourists, influence consumer behaviour, andprovide incentives for organisations to improve environ-mental performance. Compared to other forms of volun-tary instruments, such as codes of conduct, some formsof eco-labels are more credible, because the performanceof products of these eco-labels are endorsed and verifiedby independent parties.

The eco-labelling of products and services requiresthat these products and services meet certain levels ofenvironmental criteria. The approach and process for set-ting criteria used for eco-labels are normally adapted forsustainable tourism at destinations. This means that fordestinations, relevant criteria for economic and socialsustainability are included.

The verification process of eco-labels is like a formof compliance audit. Certification for EMS requires

compliance to the standards such as ISO14000 andEMAS, whereas eco-labels require compliance with pro-duct specifications, according to product category. Theformer is process related, and the latter is product andperformance related. In terms of sustainable tourism des-tinations, the compliance is against the criteria for sus-tainable tourism destinations which is set by the recog-nition schemes. Various recognition schemes fordestinations are still in the early stages in terms of settingcriteria for destinations, [5] mainly because it is a rela-tively new development.

The criteria for destinations is normally multidiscipli-nary, reflecting the complexity of sustainable develop-ment covering environmental, social and economicaspects. In order to decide criteria that are credible andacceptable, views would be gathered from many sourcesincluding local authority representatives, sociologists,biologists, ecologists, economists, business and industryrepresentatives. These criteria could then be used asobjectives of the management system for destinations.By integrating both tools, performance indicators forthese criteria could be used as targets for the manage-ment system of the destination. Some of the proposedcharacteristics of criteria for sustainable tourism desti-nations are as follows:

1. considers both sustainable resource utilisation andimpacts on environment, economy and social system;

2. combines qualitative and quantitative criteria;3. combines result-oriented criteria and process-oriented

(like IS014000) standards;4. reflects local conditions, because sustainable develop-

ment has normative elements;5. considers trade-off between environment, social and

economic aspects;6. considers continuous improvement;7. is clearly motivated and transparent in terms of how

actions are prioritised according to the sustainabledevelopment issues.

The main difference between recognition for desti-nations and eco-labelling is that performance criteria fordestinations are not standardised, whilst in conventionaleco-labelling criteria are often standardised by productcategory. It is obvious that paths to achieve sustainabledevelopment for destinations, as well as their targets andgoals, are different. To some extent, the criteria andstrictness for sustainable tourism destinations wouldneed to be specific for the destination.

4.3. Local agenda 21 (LA21)

The concept of Local Agenda 21 is relevant for sus-tainable tourism destinations, because it is used forimplementing Agenda 21 at the local community level.There is a need for local officials to consult citizens and


community, business and industrial organisations toform consensus on sustainable development strategies,to help shape local programmes and policies, to set sus-tainable development criteria and adapt laws and regu-lations to achieve Agenda 21 objectives.

The principles of LA21 planning would provide aframework for destinations to achieve consensus amongstakeholders. The International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives (ICLEI) suggested that LA21planning and partnership mechanisms in cities and localcommunities be applied in the process of sustainabletourism planning and tourism development [18]. Thelocal community of Calvia` is often quoted as an examplefor a destination that has used LA21 as a driving forceto regenerate its tourism industry. It uses sustainabilityas an integrating factor between tourism and local devel-opment. The sustainability of the local community is acrucial component of sustainable tourism destinations,and hence LA21 is a necessary approach that needs tobe integrated.

Many tools could be integrated with the LA21 prin-ciples. For instance, there are opportunities for integrat-ing company-based environmental management systemswith the development of local and regional areas [19].The broadening of the scope of EMS to cover desti-nations at the macro level would need concepts includedin LA21. For instance, the Municipality of Whistler, apopular ski resort destination in Canada, was able tocombine LA21 with elements of EMS [20]. It has usedboth tools to identify the need for a long range view fordevelopment and to define its own vision — Whistler2002. This vision is based on extensive stakeholderinput. Strategies as well as prioritised action plans havebeen drawn up to achieve the vision. In terms of environ-mental management, the Whistler Environmental Strat-egy addresses issues like an eco-system based approachtowards land-use, environmentally sustainable transpor-tation, water supply and waste water management, solidwaste reduction and re-use, energy conservation, and animplementation strategy that involves stakeholders.

4.4. Cleaner production

A fairly general definition of Cleaner Production (CP)is “the continuous improvement of industrial processes,products and services to reduce the use of naturalresources, to prevent — at source — the pollution ofair, water and land and to reduce waste generation — atsource — in order to minimise risk to human populationand the environment” [21]. CP as a concept is seen asa problem solving strategy that leads to the solution,rather than a solution in itself. Being a concept or generalstrategy it could be applied in the tourism industry,including hotels and accommodation, restaurants andcuisine, construction and buildings.

Traditionally, CP focuses on certain components of

the environmental issues within an organisation, mainlythe industrial aspects: minimising the use of resourcesand improving eco-efficiency in terms of energy and rawmaterial; preventing and reducing waste and emissions;reducing the overall environmental burden in the lifecycle of the product. Preventive strategies such as CPcould be applied to the service companies and organis-ations [22]. Local community and companies at the des-tination could adopt CP as a strategy in addressing areassuch as waste and resource use (water, energy, land) intheir production process as well as procuring public ser-vices. Most of the priorities set out by the WTTC, WTOand Earth Council publicationAgenda 21 for the Traveland Tourism Industrywould require some form of CPapproach (waste minimisation, reuse, recycling, energyefficiency) [15]. CP could be applied by organisationsof all sizes and is thus a very helpful approach. However,the result or the improvement depends on the level oftechnology as well as on how CP is applied into every-day processes and aspects of tourism activities.

In addition to environmental issues, the preventiveapproach of CP could also be applied to the social andeconomic aspects of tourism such as to address impactson local culture and customs, architecture and incomedistribution. Sustainable tourism destinations, being aservice based system, may probably benefit more fromCP compared to production/manufacturing systems. It isuncertain due to lack of research and comparison of ser-vice based systems that involve participation of customer(tourist) and local community [22] with purely indus-trial systems.

5. Integrating approaches for achieving sustainabletourism destinations

All the components in Fig. 3 are inter-related andshare some common features. Individually each contrib-utes towards the goal of sustainable development. Inte-grating these approaches combines the strength of exist-ing tools. There are opportunities to compensate for theirweaknesses by adopting approaches from other tools andconcepts. Fig. 4 offers an example of a framework fordeveloping sustainable tourism destinations that inte-grates these tools and concepts. It provides a briefdescription of tasks for each step.

Integrating these tools will not be easy although it isclear that combining these tools would bring significantbenefits. Introducing recognition schemes for sustainabletourism destinations may help shape and form the inte-gration of these tools because such schemes help createa platform for capacity building to integrate these tools.

Table 2 outlines the steps of Fig. 4 in greater detail,breaking down each step into smaller tasks and illustrat-ing these tasks by relating them to the tools and conceptsdiscussed in the earlier sections. By reading across the


Fig. 4. Framework: Steps.

columns along a row of a “step” within the table, therelationships as well as the potential for integration ofthe tools and concepts are shown.

5.1. Develop the concept of sustainable tourismdestinations

The development of the concept for sustainable tour-ism destinations would be undertaken by developers ofrecognition schemes, national tourism authorities orlocal authorities at destinations. The development andunderstanding of this concept could be motivated byintentions to design a recognition scheme for sustainabletourism destinations, to participate in a recognitionscheme, or simply to achieve sustainable development.Conceptual development would involve definitionissues, some of which have been covered in previoussections. Concepts such as cleaner production and carry-ing capacity could be included in this process.

Based on the agreed understanding of the concept ofsustainable tourism destinations, criteria for recognitionof sustainable tourism destinations would then bedeveloped, together with performance indicators thatreflect these criteria. It would be similar to the criteriasetting process for eco-labelling. The process involvesconsensus building between all stakeholders in the desti-nation and the committee that sets the criteria. CPoptions could be considered during this process.

In terms of meeting the criteria, the EMS approachcould be used to set objectives and targets that arealigned to the criteria according to environmental, socialand economic aspects of the sustainable tourism desti-nation. LA21 principles could also be applied in termsof engaging local stakeholders during the process ofdeveloping the concept and its criteria. At the localgovernment level, integrating criteria of sustainable tour-ism destinations into the planning process of the localcommunity will ensure the goals are included in the pol-icy and activities of local government.

5.2. Implement sustainable tourism destinations

As described in the previous section, the implemen-tation of sustainable tourism destinations assumes thatstakeholders have reached consensus on the form of sus-tainable development and its criteria. In terms ofimplementation, consensus building, formulation of sus-tainable development policy, and commitment by all thestakeholders to specific plans of action are crucial. Theseare based on the definition and criteria that have beenagreed upon.

During the implementation stage, EMS and the con-cept of CP could be introduced as management toolsboth for local authority and companies. The use of EMSwould ensure that roles and responsibilities are assignedamong relevant stakeholders for meeting the criteria. Theallocation of roles and responsibility should also fit intothe LA21 framework. EMS could be used as a tool formanaging activities, in a systematic manner, to meet thetargets and objectives that are aligned with the criteriaof the recognition scheme. CP options could be used asan approach for implementing certain activities withinthe destination.

The challenging aspects of implementation are relatedto the design of the management system that involvesmultiple stakeholders. In certain cases, this could be con-sidered as a long term process because some destinationsrequire time to build capacity in using these tools effec-tively. The monitoring of performance is also importantat this stage, in order to provide information fordecision making.

5.3. Verification

The verification process could be taken as a “pass orfail” assessment against achieving the criteria that havebeen set. It should be carried out after the period ofimplementation. In order to be credible, this processshould be conducted in an independent manner to dem-onstrate that it is objective and also to ensure that thecriteria for recognition reflect sustainable developmentissues of destinations. National tourism authorities thatwish to develop a credible recognition scheme shouldinclude mechanisms such as verification by third-party.


Table 2Matrix of framework steps

Steps/approaches and tools CP and others Eco-labeling EMS LA21

Develop the concept of sustainable tourism destinations —by national or state tourism authorityI understand the sustainable understanding CP,development issues of destination tourism destination life

cycle, carrying capacity,etc.

I set criteria bear in mind CP adopt criteria setting align criteria with adopt a partnershippossibilities and process similar to eco- objectives and targets of approach for localpotentials labelling sustainable development concerted actions

policyI develop performance indicators base performance develop performance

indicators (PI) on indicators for objectivescriteria set by and targetsrecognition scheme

Implement sustainable tourism destinations —by stakeholders of tourism industryI build consensus at destination level awareness of CP concept apply LA21 planning

principles and guidelinesI formalise sustainable tourism policy include carrying capacity refer to criteria set for identify SD aspects, set as above

concept sustainable tourism objectives and identifydestinations targets

I agree on roles and responsibilities I adopt EMS approach as aboveI design management system for include CP concepts and I adopt EMS approach as abovesustainable tourism destinations optionsI implement initiatives and monitor rely on the management as aboveprogress system for SDVerification — by independent partyI independent verification against consider verification consider verificationcriteria set for sustainable tourism methods as eco-labelling methods as EMSdestinationsPromotion —to all stakeholdersI promote to local stake-holders, tour adopt a logooperators, etc.

The verification process is similar to the EMSapproach of auditing. Auditing provides an opportunityfor destinations to review the effectiveness inimplementing sustainable tourism destinations. There-fore, it also allows a destination to learn about its per-formance relative to the targets that are set against thecriteria. This provides opportunities for continuousimprovements as an important part of an internal man-agement process.

5.4. Promotion

The promotion of sustainable tourism destinationsneeds to be conducted in a credible manner. In order togain credibility, destinations should participate in recog-nition schemes that have a reputation for being inde-pendent and unbiased, and those which are accepted inthe tourism industry to signal excellence in terms of per-formance in sustainable development. Much effort isrequired to build a good reputation in order to realisethe benefits of marketing tourism destinations that havedemonstrated efforts in promoting and achieving sus-tainable tourism.

6. The role of cleaner production for sustainabletourism destinations

Although CP as a strategy only applies to environ-mental aspects, its general approach which is based uponthe principle of “prevention” has powerful implicationsand applications even in social and economic terms,since most of the environmental effects also have socialand economic impacts, and vice versa. Examples ofsocial–economic issues closely related to environmentalquestions are health, safety, and resource utilisation forshort term and long term economic growth. Hence CP,in addition to its value as an implementation strategy,has an important role to play in terms of introducing theprecautionary principle.

6.1. Introducing CP for sustainable tourismdestinations

The following are some suggestions for applying andpromoting CP in sustainable tourism destinations:


6.1.1. Awareness of CPThe awareness of CP is essential in bringing the mess-

age across to the local community, tourismentrepreneurs, and also the tourist, that there is a needfor prevention. Communicating this concept can prim-arily help avoid and minimise negative environmental,social and economic impacts. Ideally, the preventiveapproach serves as the “best case scenario” fordeveloping tourism destinations. Best practices pro-moted by the International Centre for Integrated Moun-tain Development (ICIMOD) Mountain TourismResource Centre have elements that are based on CP[23]. It promotesZero Waste Targetto minimise garbageby employing the 4R principles: Replace (substitute),Reduce, Reuse, Recycle; and the application of the con-cept ofcarrying capacity. Both forms are related to CP,the first in terms of preventing waste, and the secondin terms of increasing carrying capacity by preventingdegradation of the environment. The examples aboveimply that the concept of CP may not necessarily beexplicitly promoted.

6.1.2. Introduction of CP strategiesCP provides strategies for optimising products sys-

tems. Similarly tourism destinations can be consideredas a system in which these strategies could be adopted.Tourism as a service also depends on processes, and theuse of products. Various lessons learnt and case studieswhich are developed and documented from CP practicecould be applied. The strategies described in Hansen’sarticle [24] are:

O reformulation of user requirements, to find newinnovative solutions;

O improvement in performance efficiency of the pro-duct;

O substitution or elimination of whole product systemor its parts;

O optimisation of processes and operation of each sys-tem unit.

There are many examples of how CP strategies havebeen applied in tourist destinations and in eco-tourism.In the Annapurna Conservation Area Projects in Nepal,improving fuel efficiency is a priority to reduce theimpacts of deforestation [20], [25]. Efforts in the Annap-urna Conservation Area Projects are based on strategiesof resource substitution and optimisation of processeswith the use ofback-boiler water heaters, and BijuliDeckchiheat storage cookers. In Ghandruk, Nepal, theuse of electricity, hydroelectric, solar and kerosene, andother fuel efficient end-use devices to reduce consump-tion of firewood are forms of resource substitution. TheBijuli Dekchi is a low wattage, energy-efficient cookerdeveloped in Nepal. Water takes an estimated two hoursto fully heat up and the cooker can be used for cooking

rice, meat, and other boiled food although it cannot beused to fry food. Theback-boiler water heateris usedto convert waste heat from cooking to heat water. Thissimple technology of attaching circulatory pipes to thedrum used for cooking has the potential of saving 40%of fuel wood consumption.

6.1.3. Integration of CP into management systems forsustainable tourism

CP could be integrated and internalised into manage-ment systems for sustainable tourism to achieve betterresults.

Although using CP as an implementation strategydoes not constitute a management system in itself, com-paring elements of the implementation process of CPstrategies and programmes shows that these and EMSshare a number of features [26]. It is obvious that thereis no equivalence (e.g. the question of emergency is notgiven the same focus by CP as by EMS) but manyelements coincide and both approaches remain comp-lementary. CP implementation requires a managementsystem focused on efficiency. Similarly, CP implemen-tation provides different explicit tools to understand andmeasure waste, discharges and emissions, in addition tothe simple internalisation of CP issues such as properhouse-keeping. In other words, CP provides a means formanagement systems to achieve sustainable develop-ment in terms of processes, products and services, andtherefore has an important role in implementing sus-tainable tourism destinations.

6.1.4. CP-based criteria for sustainable tourismdestinations (eco-labelling)

The setting of criteria for eco-labels may consider CP-based options, due to the continual improvement processto achieve higher environmental standards [27]. CP as aconcept is more rational than pollution control or end-of-pipe solutions. Hence setting criteria that consideredCP options would result in improved efficiency.

In order to accelerate this process, policy makers,pressure groups as well as local community stakeholdersand authorities at destinations could ensure that CP isadopted, or at least reflected in the criteria-setting pro-cess of recognition schemes for destinations. Thisreinforces the effectiveness of using CP as a strategy,and its integration into management systems. It wouldensure that there is a commitment to the preventiveapproach at destinations that is required by criteria.

In fact, among existing recognition schemes, it isunlikely that consumers demand CP-related criteria. Intheory, the local community naturally have the long-termself-interest to promote sustainable development, com-pared to the interest from tourists. There is reason there-fore to encourage new, progressive and proactive desti-nations to reflect CP in their criteria because this would


improve sustainability and hence competitiveness in thelong run.

In other words, instead of expecting CP-based criteriaas the result of continual improvement of criteria stan-dards of eco-labels, these progressive destinations wouldensure that CP is actively integrated in the setting oftargets (short, medium and long term). It is, however,uncertain how these criteria would be expressed: inresult-oriented standards, or process-oriented standards.

6.1.5. CP and Local Agenda 21In order to raise public awareness of the potential of

this approach, it is important to introduce the principlesof CP into the arena of LA21. This provides a basis toapply and internalise CP into stakeholder decision mak-ing at all levels (company, and local community). Fromthis perspective, CP is a part of the “process-aidingmethod” for local sustainability. Components such aspartnership, awareness and participation are needed forlocal sustainability [28]. Awareness and capacity-build-ing in CP prepares the destination to implement CP asa strategy, in management systems as outlined above andduring the decision-making process.

For instance, in Banff and Canmore, two towns fromthe Bow Valley Corridor in Canada, the concept of CPwas applied in the implementation of the CanadianWater Resources Association’s Sustainable Principlesfor Water Management [29]. In both the towns, the keysuccess factors are demand side management (such aswater-metering), use of economic instruments, and theuse of sustainability principles in decision making. InBanff, charging for water consumption was implementedby investing in the installation of water meters, and con-servation equipment such as tap aerator heads, low flowshower heads, and toilet tank savers. It was estimatedthat savings amounted to 16,000 litres per toilet per year.In Canmore, water related issues were addressed by leakdetection and reduction, a water conservation educationprogramme, additional water conservation methods anduse of water meters. These show that CP could beapplied by local authorities as well as by industries.

6.2. Benefits of cleaner production

The key benefits of integrating CP into efforts forachieving sustainable tourism destinations are in termsof:

O building awareness along the lines of the precaution-ary principle, and promoting a preventive approach,which is beneficial for implementation of sustainabletourism destinations;

O complementing conventional management systems byproviding a strategy for implementation;

O reinforcing eco-label aspects of recognition schemes

for destinations, through the introduction of CP-related criteria.

7. Analysis and conclusion

Developing sustainable tourism destinations is thenext step forward towards sustainable tourism. It looksbeyond individual performance by businesses, compa-nies, local authorities, and other organisations, to theholistic and integrated level, where individual perform-ance contributes to the greater goal of sustainable devel-opment of the destination. The development of recog-nition schemes for sustainable tourism destinationsrequires the integration of different tools, approachesand concepts.

This article provides a general outline of the relevantissues in terms of its conceptual definition. It also pro-vides arguments to integrate different tools andapproaches for reaching the goals of sustainable devel-opment at tourism destinations, and a general frameworkthat promotes a systems approach.

CP, at first glance, appears to be only a general con-cept. At a closer consideration, however, introducing CPwould contribute to sustainable tourism destinations bothas a concept, and in terms of the practical experiencefrom CP implementation. In essence, CP acts as a“cementing agent” or a “common factor” that links allof the tools and concepts mentioned in this article. CPembodies the precautionary principle, making it anintuitive concept which appeals to common sense. Itrewards and encourages stakeholders in destinations tobecome more sustainable and changes their mindset tothat of a strategic focus for long term sustainability.

In terms of interdependence between the variousapproaches needed to implement sustainable tourismdestinations, CP implementation programmes and EMSshare common elements; CP provides strategies forimproving sustainable development for destinations; CPcould be applied in criteria setting for recognitionschemes, and CP elements complements LA21 develop-ment.

Therefore, in the general framework suggested above,CP contributes to the implementation of sustainable tour-ism destinations in many ways. This supports the argu-ment advanced in this article that an integrated approach,which adopts and adapts components of eachtool/concept, is needed.

To conclude, CP is shown to be a necessary elementfor the development of recognition schemes to promotesustainable tourism at the level of destinations, by virtueof its general approach, and by its contributions in comp-lementing and enhancing the effectiveness of other tools,such as management systems, eco-labelling and LocalAgenda 21. The relevance of CP in developing sus-


tainable tourism destinations demonstrates that CP doesnot only promote pollution prevention but also contrib-utes to efforts in sustainable development when appliedin an integrative manner with other tools and concepts.Indirectly it implies that CP objectives are dependent onother means, tools and instruments.

Acknowledgements

Appreciation is expressed to the Swedish MalaysiaScholarship Fund (SMSF) for sponsoring my M.Sc. inEnvironmental Management and Policy, as this articlehas been written based on the thesis of the M.Sc. pro-gramme.

References

[1] Lee, K. Sustainable Tourism Destinations: Approaches and Meth-odology. M.Sc. thesis, International Institute for IndustrialEnvironmental Economics, Lund University, 1999.

[2] UNEP-IE, Eco-labels in the Tourism Industry, 1998.[3] Butler R. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: impli-

cation for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer1980; XXIV(1): 5–12.

[4] Martin BS, Uysal M. An examination of the relationship betweencarrying capacity concept and the tourism lifecycle: managementand policy implications. Journal of Environmental Management1990; 31: 327–33.

[5] Nelson J. Building competitiveness and communities: How worldclass companies are creating shareholder value and society value.Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, 1998.

[6] Lissinger, J. Comparative study of recognition schemes for desti-nations: Sweden, Denmark and Norway. M.Sc. thesis, Depart-ment of Ecology: Lund University, 1999.

[7] Middleton V, Sieber W. Tourism and the environment at the Eur-opean level — a management report prepared for the EuropeanEnvironment Agency, 1999.

[8] Bruntland Report — World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, Our Common Future. Oxford University Press,1997.

[9] European Commission. European Sustainable Cities, Report bythe Expert Group on the Urban Environment. DGXI Environ-ment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, 1996.

[10] World Conservation Union, UNEP, and World Wide Fund forNature. Caring for the Earth. IUCP/UNEP/WWF, Gland, 1991.

[11] International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. LocalAgenda 21 Participants Handbook — Local Agenda 21 Model

Communities Programme. Local Environmental Initiatives,ICLEI, Toronto. 1994.

[12] Welford R. Hijacking Environmentalism. London: EarthscanPublications Ltd, 1997.

[13] Lang I. Environmental management and sustainable develop-ment. In: Nath B, Hens L, Devuyst D, editors. EnvironmentalManagement, vol. 3, Instruments for implementation. Brussels:VUB University Press, 1993.

[14] Netherwood A, Shayler M. Role of environmental managementsystems in local government. In: Welford R, editor. CorporateEnvironmental Management, 2nd ed., Book 1 – Systems and Stra-tegies. 1998.

[15] WTTC, WTO and Earth Council, Agenda 21 for the Travel andTourism Industry, 1997.

[16] Welford R. Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Develop-ment. Routledge, 1995.

[17] Salzman J. Informing the Green Consumer: The debate over theuse and abuse of environmental labels. Journal of Industrial Ecol-ogy 1997; 1(2): 11–21.

[18] International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Sus-tainable tourism: a local authority perspective. Background paper#3, prepared for the Commission on Sustainable Development,7th Session, New York, April 1999.

[19] Roberts P. Environmentally Sustainable Business: A local andregional perspective. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd,1995.

[20] Mountain Agenda. Mountains of the World: Tourism and Sus-tainable Mountain Development. For the Commission on Sus-tainable Development (CSD), Spring Session on Tourism, 1999.

[21] van Berkel R. Cleaner Production in Practice — IVAM Environ-mental Research. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1996.

[22] Kisch P. Preventative Environmental Strategies in the ServiceSector. International Institute for Industrial Environmental Eco-nomics (IIIEE), Sweden (due for publication in May 2000).

[23] International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development(ICIMOD) internet web-site(http://www.icimod.org.sg/susFoptions/bpFtour.htm on 1 March2000).

[24] Hanssen OJ. Preventive environmental strategies for product sys-tems. Journal of Cleaner Production 3(4):1996.

[25] Gurung C, De Coursey M. The Annapurna Conservation AreaProject: a pioneering example of sustainable tourism? In: CaterE, Lowman G, editors. Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? JohnWiley and Sons with Royal Geographical Society, 1994.

[26] Fresner J. Cleaner production as a means for effective environ-mental management. Journal of Cleaner Production 1998; 6:171–90.

[27] Hale M. Eco-labelling and cleaner production: principles, prob-lems, education and training in relation to the adoption ofenvironmentally sound production processes, Journal of CleanerProduction 1995; 4: 85–95.

[28] Selman P. Local Sustainability: Managing and Planning Ecologi-cal Sound Places. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996.

[29] Draper D. Tourism development and water sustainability, Journalof Sustainable Tourism 1997; 5(3): 183–212.

Documents

Sustainable tourism destinations: the importance of cleaner production