Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Study of Sustainable Tourism Practices Within Selected Adventure Travel
Organizations
A Senior Project
presented to
the Faculty of the Recreation, Parks, & Tourism Administration Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science
by
Jennifer Kiesewetter
March, 2015
© 2015 Jennifer Kiesewetter
1
ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM PRACTICES WITHIN SELECTED
ADVENTURE TRAVEL ORGANIZATIONS
JENNIFER KIESEWETTER
MARCH 2015
The purpose of this study was to analyze the sustainability practices of four adventure
travel organizations across the environmental, sociocultural, and economic domains.
Adventure travel is a significant sector within the overall tourism industry and requires
attention to continue growing sustainably. A best practices questionnaire was used to
examine the websites of ROW Adventures, G Adventures, Intrepid Travel, and
Community Action Treks. The findings of the study revealed that integrating
sustainability into an organization’s operating philosophy can help lead to the
implementation of specific practices within each of the three domains. It was further
concluded that staff and guest education, as well as partnerships with destination
communities and sustainable tourism organizations, are key components in successful
sustainable adventure travel. It was recommended that in order to operate sustainably and
profitably into the future, adventure travel organizations should apply, or continue to
apply, these concepts to their businesses.
Keywords: adventure travel, sustainability, sustainable tourism, economic domain, social
domain, environmental domain, education, partnerships
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................... 4
Background of Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Review of Literature ....................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 13
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 2 METHODS ...................................................................................................... 15
Description of Context .................................................................................................. 15
Description of Instrument ............................................................................................. 16
Description of Procedures ............................................................................................. 17
Chapter 3 PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS ........................................................... 18
Overview of Selected Organizations ............................................................................ 18
Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................ 20
Trip Themes .................................................................................................................. 22
Environmental Sustainability ........................................................................................ 22
Sociocultural Sustainability .......................................................................................... 24
Economic Sustainability ............................................................................................... 26
Partnering Organizations .............................................................................................. 27
Education and Awareness ............................................................................................. 28
Chapter 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 31
3
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 31
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 32
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 40
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 41
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 43
APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 49
4
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Background of Study
People’s motivations for travel vary widely but often include one common
element: new experiences. Travel is about personal growth and discovery; it is about
meeting people, exploring new places, and defining one’s passions, beliefs, and values.
Adventure travel is one of the best ways to attain these benefits. This sector of
travel is dynamic and exciting, and it is meant to drive people into a world beyond their
comfort zone. The Adventure Travel Trade Association (ATTA) (2013) defines
adventure tourism as having three components: “physical activity, a connection to nature
and the environment, and an immersive cultural experience” (p. 2).
The adventure travel industry has grown consistently since 2009, 65% year over
year (The George Washington University School of Business, The ATTA, & Xola
Consulting, 2013, as cited in Baran, 2013). With an increasingly large market segment
relying heavily on natural and cultural resources of destinations around the world, it is
both practical from a business standpoint and mandatory from an ethical one to preserve
and respect such resources (Adventure Travel Trade Association, 2013). Sustainability
has become increasingly important in people’s daily lives, and it is no different for the
adventure travel industry.
Sustainable tourism encompasses three domains: the environment, the society,
and the economy of a destination. Since the very essence of adventure travel is active
exploration of new places, each of these domains plays an important role in the health
5
and integrity of a location, as well as the experience of an adventure-seeking traveler.
Failing to address the domains of sustainable tourism could eventually lead to the
destruction of destinations around the world. Once unique and beautiful places would
degenerate into useless pieces of land with homogenized culture, and if this happened,
there would no longer be a reason for traveling. The world would be stripped of beautiful
environments and cultures, valuable resources that are exciting and important because of
their diversity.
It is necessary to take a sustainable approach to adventure travel and enter every
destination with practices that celebrate, strengthen, and eliminate harm to environments,
cultures, and economies. Some forward-thinking adventure travel organizations have
already worked to achieve sustainable administration and operations. The purpose of this
study was to explore how these organizations practiced sustainability across the
environmental, sociocultural, and economic domains.
Review of Literature
Research for this review of literature was conducted at Robert E. Kennedy
Library on the campus of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. In
addition to books and other resources, the following online databases were utilized:
Academic Search Premier, Hospitality & Tourism Complete, PsycINFO, and Google
Scholar. The review of literature investigated the purpose and growth of the adventure
travel industry; established the demographic and psychographic profiles of adventure
tourists; defined sustainable tourism; and identified two threats to sustainability. Finally,
6
it concluded with a summary of the importance of sustainability within the adventure
travel industry.
The adventure travel industry. The adventure travel sector is difficult to define.
Priest (1999) suggested that “adventure travel is an inherently subjective activity: what is
adventure to one person, may not be to another” (as cited in The George Washington
University School of Business, The Adventure Travel Trade Association, & Xola
Consulting, 2010, p. 2). Similarly, other authors defined adventure travel as
unpredictable, variable, and existing on a continuum. They wrote that adventure tourism
varies based on individual perceptions of adventure and the ability and willingness of a
person to commit to an experience (Varley, 2006; Weber, 2001). Sung, Morrison, and
O’Leary (1996) provided a more tangible definition by arguing that the most important
components in defining adventure travel are activities, experiences, and the environment.
They established that its purpose is to provide the opportunity for potentially challenging
exploration of a natural or exotic setting. The Adventure Travel Trade Association
(ATTA) (2013) elaborated upon that view, with a comprehensive definition of adventure
tourism that included three components: “physical activity, a connection to nature and the
environment, and an immersive cultural experience” (p. 2).
Adventure tourism can be further defined by profiling the individuals who engage
in it. The majority of adventure travelers are young to middle-aged (between 35 and 47
years old), active, affluent, and incur significant expenses in preparation for a trip.
Adventure tourists are also well educated (The George Washington University School of
Business et al., 2010; Williams & Soutar, 2005). In general, they are more aware of the
environment than are mass leisure tourists (Bagri, Gupta, & George, 2009), and they tend
7
to exhibit “pro-environmental behavior” (Janockova & Jablonska, 2013, p. 50).
Adventure travelers have often been conceptualized as seeking adventure solely in
pursuit of challenge and risk. While that may be true for some, Walle (1997) identified
another purpose: the desire for knowledge and insight that comes from interaction with
the natural environment. Kerr and Houge Mackenzie (2012) also wrote of motivations
that went beyond “sensation- or thrill-seeking” (p. 656) behavior. Like Walle, the authors
found that a connection to the natural environment is one of the biggest reasons people
participate in adventure travel. They included a social component to the array of
motivational factors as well, recognizing interaction with others to be an important
influence on and benefit of the pursuit of adventure activities. Weber (2001) agreed with
the previous claims, stating that an adventure tourist seeks to understand the
environment; however, like Kerr and Houge Mackenzie, she too added a social
component by noting the importance of cultural understanding gained through “exposure
to the unknown” (p. 373). This research supported the ATTA’s (2013) three-part
definition of adventure tourism, which included personal, cultural, and environmental
discovery through novel, exciting, and active travel experiences.
Despite difficulties in defining adventure tourism and motivations of adventure
travelers, the sector is healthy and exhibits a history of growth. In 1992, Hall and Weiler
introduced the concept of adventure tourism as being marked by “a distinct shift away
from mass tourism towards more individualized and special-interest tourism experiences”
(as cited in Williams & Soutar, 2005, p. 251). Even some twenty years ago, adventure
tourism was emerging as an exciting new way to experience the authenticity of a
destination. Recent studies have shown that the demand for adventure travel has
8
increased, even during challenging financial periods (The George Washington University
School of Business et al., 2010; Williams & Soutar, 2009). During the financial crisis in
2009, the adventure travel sector was estimated to be an $89 billion dollar industry (The
George Washington University School of Business et al.). Since then, it has grown
consistently, 65% year over year (The George Washington University School of Business
et al., 2013, as cited in Baran, 2013). This data suggests that even during economic
downturns, adventure tourism is a viable industry. The conclusions of the 2009 report
were confirmed in a 2013 study, which placed a value of $263 billion dollars on the
adventure tourism market. The study highlighted the industry growth trend and
demonstrated that an increasing number of companies are offering adventure travel
opportunities (Baran).
The literature suggested that adventure tourism has become a significant market
that is continuing to grow and develop. Adventure travel can foster meaningful and
authentic connections and experiences, stimulate personal growth, and enhance
environmental and cultural understanding (Swarbrooke, 2003; The George Washington
University School of Business et al., 2010). As a form of alternative tourism, deliberate
adventure travel is small-scale, inconspicuous, and intended to support local economies,
respect cultures, and remain unobtrusive to the environment (Weaver, 2006). In contrast
to these positive impacts, some scholars believe that adventure travel, which emphasizes
the culture of a destination, may be construed as patronizing of other countries, especially
those less developed than the traveler’s home country. The social, cultural, and economic
differences often present between tourists and locals can sometimes cause friction and
resentment, rather than friendship and understanding (Buckley, 2012; Weaver).
9
Furthermore, the trending nature of adventure travel, while positive for business, can
create additional cultural, environmental, and economic stress. This includes: community
disruption; destination overcrowding; rapid change or modernization; increased and
unregulated waste; inflation caused by an influx in external tourist dollars; and unfairly
distributed wealth (Ghazall, Hall, & Higham, 2004).
Defining sustainable tourism. Adopting a sustainable approach to tourism can
help the industry avoid such issues. Success in sustainable tourism requires a balance
between tourist satisfaction (Buckley, 2012; CREST, 2012; The Travel Foundation,
2015; UNEP & UNWTO, 2005) and the three areas of sustainability: the environmental
domain, the economic domain, and the sociocultural domain. It also demands constant
management and policy adaptation to avoid negatively impacting destination
communities (Buckley). In order to guide development and management of tourism
destinations, the industry uses indicators that measure levels of sustainability within each
domain (HwanSuk & Sirakaya, 2006; Miller, 2001; UNWTO, n.d.). Because sustainable
tourism is an “adaptive paradigm capable of addressing widely different situations, and
articulating different goals” (Hunter, 1997, p. 864), a variety of indicators exist
depending on the destination. A discussion of each domain of sustainability and relevant
indicator categories follows.
Sustainability in the environmental domain requires awareness of the natural
world in developing and conducting tourism activities. Environmentally sensitive
development maintains natural resources and biodiversity and minimizes disruption of
ecological processes and habitats (CREST, 2012; UNEP & UNWTO, 2005). To ensure
such resources are preserved for future tourists and locals alike (HwanSuk & Sirakaya,
10
2006), these are areas often used as indicators of a destination’s environmental
sustainability (Denman, Vereczi, & Stein, 2007; UNWTO, n.d.). Another component
important to the environmental domain is education. It can be beneficial for organizations
to share with tourists an interpretation of the natural resources and environments that they
experience. Awareness helps to shape individuals’ mentalities and educate them on
becoming responsible travelers and stewards of the destinations they visit (Hudson,
2003).
Tourism must also be economically sustainable because it is an economic venture.
Economic sustainability means “optimizing the development growth rate at a manageable
level with full consideration of the limits of the destination environment” (HwanSuk &
Sirakaya, 2006, p. 1274). In addition to keeping a destination’s development within its
means, tourism-related revenue should benefit the destination community. Economic
sustainability can be measured in categories including the opportunity for local
employment, patronage of the local economy and business people (CREST, 2012;
Denman et al., 2007; HwanSuk & Sirakaya; UNEP & UNWTO, 2005), and the “retention
of tourism income in the area and spread of economic benefits” (Denman et al., p. 22).
Finally, tourism activities should not alter or disrupt the local culture and heritage.
Instead, they should celebrate a destination and people’s history, values, and way of life
and promote cross-cultural respect and understanding (CREST, 2012; UNEP & UNWTO,
2005). Allowing for local people to maintain pride in their traditions and control of their
communities (HwanSuk & Sirakaya, 2006) is based in ethics, as well as the necessity of
ensuring local cooperation with and openness towards tourists. Sustainability in the
sociocultural domain can be measured in categories such as preservation of cultural
11
heritage (Denman et al., 2007; UNWTO, n.d.) and the level of community involvement in
tourism planning and development (HwanSuk & Sirakaya).
Threats to Sustainability. There is a multitude of factors – of which this review of
literature examined two – threatening the success of sustainable tourism. One is a lack of
awareness and education, a deficiency that was especially apparent with regards to the
environmental domain. Among industry scholars and tourism providers, there exists an
inconsistency in interpretation of the meaning of sustainability. Some lean towards
“protecting” the environment, while others choose terms such as “conservation” or
“preservation” (Hunter, 1997, p. 857). Miller, Rathouse, Scarles, Holmes, and Tribe
(2010) found travelers to have limited understanding of “how tourism relates to the
environment...[which was] perhaps a consequence of a generally low level of awareness
about the environment and global issues” (p. 635). Transportation was one of the most
underestimated threats, with respondents indicating limited concern towards flight-related
pollution. This was especially troubling, seeing as air travel is one of the largest
environmental offenders in terms of carbon emissions (Hollenhorst, Houge Mackenzie, &
Ostergren, 2014).
Ostrom, Burger, Field, Norgaard, and Policansky (1999) also stressed the
important role education plays in the success of sustainable tourism. They wrote that
visitor awareness is crucial in communicating the necessity of sustainable development
and use of a destination (as cited in Briassoulis, 2002). Similarly, Sirakaya, Jamal, and
Choi (2001) claimed in order to generate awareness of and interest in sustainable travel
and development, tourism industry stakeholders have to provide information and
12
education to visitors and locals alike. Education tends to make people more receptive to
the idea of sustainable tourism and is essential to ensuring responsible travel behavior.
A second threat to sustainability is community disruption and corporatization of
destinations. Hunter (1997) argued that sustainable tourism must take place in the
presence of “strong local (including regional) authority and planning and development”
(p. 864). Rather than forcing out local businesses and community leaders, tourism
operators can focus on building partnerships. Decision-making that includes all
stakeholders fosters a positive environment for businesses and visitors and empowers the
local community, enabling leaders to protect their culture and support their economy
(Forum for the Future & The Travel Foundation, 2012; HwanSuk & Sirakaya, 2006). In
developing destination partnerships, “all parties…look at how they can work together to
achieve a common goal of sustainability” (Forum for the Future & The Travel
Foundation, p. 17), making sustainable efforts more efficient and successful.
Summary. The literature has demonstrated that sustainable tourism is relevant to
adventure travel companies in two ways. First is the ethical component of adventure
tourism. Adventure travelers approach their trips with an inherent respect for and
curiosity about the destinations they visit. They seek insight (Walle, 1997; Weber, 2001),
often traveling to discover a place and gain a deeper understanding of themselves in the
process. They are interested in responsible travel that facilitates personal connections to
the local environment (Kerr & Houge Mackenzie, 2012; Walle) and culture (Weber). A
sustainable approach matches the attitude of the majority of adventure travelers;
sustainable tourism is the means that can allow for and protect the connections developed
through adventure travel.
13
Sustainable adventure tourism is also practical from a business standpoint. The
market for adventure travel has experienced rapid and consistent expansion in past years,
and it is expected to continue growing in popularity around the world. For a business that
relies heavily on cultural and environmental resources and faces growing demand, it is
necessary to protect and preserve those resources in order to continue operating and
profiting into the future (Hunter, 1997; Williams & Soutar, 2005). In addition, an
increasing number of people have adopted sustainable mindsets and expect sustainable
practices. The majority of adventure travelers are interested in environmentally and
culturally responsible products and services, and it was suggested that sustainable
practices have become “more mainstream within the tourism industry” (Center for
Responsible Travel, 2012, p. 4). Furthermore, adventure tourists are typically
environmentally conscious and tend to exhibit “pro-environmental behavior” (Janockova
& Jablonska, 2013, p. 50). They seek interactive cultural experiences that utilize local
resources and involve local businesses. These factors call for sustainable practices that
protect environmental, economic, and sociocultural resources. A sustainable mindset is at
the core of adventure travel, and taking a sustainable approach to adventure tourism can
help ensure continued success of the industry.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the sustainability practices of four
adventure travel organizations across the environmental, sociocultural, and economic
domains.
14
Research Questions
This study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. How integral is sustainability to the operations of the selected adventure travel
organizations?
2. What are the selected adventure travel organizations doing to practice
environmental sustainability?
3. What are the selected adventure travel organizations doing to practice
sociocultural sustainability?
4. What are the selected adventure travel organizations doing to practice
economic sustainability?
5. How are the selected adventure travel organizations generating awareness of
sustainable tourism?
15
Chapter 2
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to analyze the sustainability practices of four
adventure travel organizations across the environmental, sociocultural, and economic
domains. This chapter includes the following sections: description of context, description
of instrument, and description of procedures.
Description of Context
In recent years, adventure travel has grown to become an important sector in the
tourism industry. As of 2013, the market for adventure travel was valued at $263 billion
dollars (The George Washington University School of Business et al., 2013, as cited in
Baran, 2013), and adventure tourism was demonstrated to be a worldwide trend that is
expected to continue growing (The George Washington University School of Business et
al., 2010). Research suggested that in order to protect destinations and continue
expanding and profiting into the future, the adventure travel industry should embrace
sustainable travel practices.
Best practices in sustainability were examined for four adventure travel
organizations around the world: ROW Adventures (ROW), G Adventures, Intrepid
Travel, and Community Action Treks (CAT). These four businesses were selected
because they varied in size and operated out of different countries, offering a chance for
study and comparison of sustainable practices among a variety of adventure travel
organizations. In addition, each offered trips and programs that satisfied the Adventure
16
Travel Trade Association’s (ATTA) (2013) definition of adventure travel, which consists
of “physical activity, a connection to nature and the environment, and an immersive
cultural experience” (p. 2). They were also recognized on a national or international level
for their quality of adventure programs and their efforts in sustainable tourism.
Description of Instrument
The instrument utilized in this study was a best practices questionnaire developed
by the researcher (see Appendix A). It consisted of a series of yes/no and open-ended
questions in the following areas: (1) organization mission, vision, and values; (2) trip
offerings; (3) educational and awareness practices; and (4) community initiatives. The
questions provided sustainability indicators that allowed the researcher to analyze how,
and to what extent, each of the four selected adventure travel organizations achieved
sustainable operations across the environmental, sociocultural, and economic domains.
The questionnaire was pilot-tested on two adventure travel companies chosen for their
similarities to the four organizations selected for the study. Both offered an array of trips
and programs that fulfilled the ATTA’s definition of adventure travel, and they were
recognized for their sustainable initiatives. As a result of the pilot test, a few changes
were made to the questionnaire in order to better tailor it to the study. Two questions
were eliminated to avoid redundancy, and a question about how trips were categorized on
the organizations’ websites was also added.
17
Description of Procedures
Best practices in sustainability were examined for four adventure travel
organizations – ROW, G Adventures, Intrepid Travel, and CAT – from February 10 to
February 20, 2015. The researcher used a best practices questionnaire to analyze
information and resources related to sustainability found on each organization’s website.
Results were then qualitatively analyzed to assess similarities and differences among the
selected organizations.
18
Chapter 3
PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to analyze the sustainability practices of four
adventure travel organizations across the environmental, sociocultural, and economic
domains. A best practices approach was utilized to examine ROW Adventures (ROW), G
Adventures, Intrepid Travel, and Community Action Treks (CAT). This chapter includes
the following sections: an overview of the selected organizations, guiding principles, trip
themes, environmental sustainability, sociocultural sustainability, economic
sustainability, partnering organizations, and education and awareness.
Overview of Selected Organizations
ROW Adventures was a for-profit business headquartered in the United States.
The company began in 1979 with the mission of “Sharing Nature ~ Enriching Lives.”
Owner and founder Peter Grubb (n.d.) wrote that everyone at ROW “[works] hard to
provide the best in adventure travel within a framework that embraces sustainable,
socially responsible travel and business practices,” and the company was acknowledged
for its sustainable efforts with many awards. In 2012, ROW won the Tour of a Lifetime
Award from National Geographic, based on criteria that included sustainable and cultural
elements. In 2010, the company was praised on a local level during the Inland Northwest
Tourism Awards. It won the “Near Nature, Near Perfect” category for offering trips that
best utilized the environmental and cultural resources of the region. In 2008, National
19
Geographic recognized ROW as one of the best adventure travel companies on Earth;
qualifications included education, sustainability, and standard of service.
G Adventures was a for-profit business based in Canada. It was founded in 1990
by Bruce Pontoon Tip, who hoped that “other travellers would share [his] desire to
experience authentic adventures in a responsible and sustainable manner” (G Adventures,
n.d.). G Adventures won multiple awards on a national and international level, including
the 2009 World Savers’ Award, which recognized the company’s outstanding
commitment to corporate social responsibility and support of developing communities
through its non-profit, Planeterra. In 2008, G Adventures won the Environmental
Industry Award from Flight Center North America for working to reduce environmental
impacts. The company was also recognized by Ethics in Action for its commitment to
ethical business and responsible travel.
Intrepid Travel was founded in 1988 in Melbourne, Australia by two friends who
were passionate about travel and adventure. It was a for-profit company that offered
international trips to over 100,000 adventure-seeking travelers each year. Intrepid was
awarded the Green Lifestyle Award in 2012 for taking steps towards building a more
sustainable world and was the winner of the Global Tourism Business Award in 2011 for
sustainability within a large company. It also received the Best Low Carbon Initiative
from Virgin Holidays’ Responsible Travel Awards for reducing travel-related carbon
emissions.
CAT was a non-profit organization founded by Doug Scott in the late 1980’s. An
avid mountaineer, Scott was inspired to start a company that facilitated sustainable travel
committed to environmental, economic, and social integrity.
20
CAT’s objectives were to: provide memorable experiences for guests; ensure fair
treatment and safe working conditions for porters and guides; and give back to
destination communities. In 2009, the company was a finalist in the Community Benefit
Category of the World Travel and Tourism Council’s Awards for its contributions to
cultural heritage and commitment to sustainable development. CAT also received an
Award for Responsible Tourism from Virgin Holidays in 2008.
Guiding Principles
One of the research questions posed in this study was, “How integral is
sustainability to the operations of the selected adventure travel organizations?” To
investigate the topic, part of the study focused on the organizations’ mission, vision, and
values, as well as the companies’ goals and motivations stated on their websites. For this
reason, the Guiding Principles section will discuss results based on the selected
organizations’ business philosophies. This section will be followed by a review of
specific sustainable practices in the environmental, sociocultural, and economic domains.
ROW’s mission was “Sharing Nature – Enriching Lives,” and its vision was to
“provide life-changing travel experiences that have a positive impact on guests, guides,
and the people and places they visit.” Company values included meaningful
interpretation, respect for the earth, conservation, and giving back to local and destination
communities. ROW’s website included a section on sustainable travel ethics, in which it
was stated that ROW was “dedicated to sustainable travel and [adhered] to the highest
standards of stewardship for the environment and the local people and cultures in the
areas [they operated]” (ROW Inc., n.d.). The website also noted ROW’s goal of
21
connecting guests with the destinations they visited, helping to foster both an
appreciation for those places and a desire to protect them.
G Adventures’ vision was to offer authentic and sustainable adventures around
the world. Values included leading with service to the community, embracing unique and
different cultures, and ethical business. G Adventures’ website stated that the company
was driven by the desire to operate in a way that allowed future generations the
opportunity to explore the world. The leaders of G Adventures believed that “travel is an
exchange, not a commodity,” (G Adventures, n.d.), and company goals included: to give
more than take from destination communities; to preserve cultures and protect natural
environments; and to better the lives of local people. The company also noted the value
of social and environmental health from both a business and ethical standpoint.
Intrepid Travel emphasized its commitment to responsible travel practices and
philosophies and used a written sustainable policy to guide decision making in the
sociocultural, economic, and environmental domains. Intrepid’s values included integrity,
responsibility, innovation, and passion, and the company’s most important goal was to
practice responsible business and develop tourism in a sustainable way. Intrepid expected
employees and guests to engage in sustainable travel, and staff were evaluated annually
on their level of social and environmental sustainability.
Community Action Treks (CAT) did not have an explicit mission and vision
statement or values available online. However, it was mentioned that CAT was focused
on community involvement and improvement, environmental conservation and integrity,
and economic development. The company strived to give back to and positively impact
local communities and chose to operate with a “strong ethical stance and approach to
22
responsible tourism” (Community Action Treks Ltd., n.d.). CAT existed as a nonprofit in
order to benefit local communities and its sister charity, Community Action Nepal, which
conducted community projects in the Himalayas.
Trip Themes
Several itineraries were viewed at random for each of the selected companies. All
of the organizations described their trips using similar keywords. They were designed to
emphasize elements including: cultural and natural history; native plants and animals;
modern culture and local life; adventure and outdoor activities; local traditions and
cuisine; local guides; education and interpretation; cultural immersion and authenticity;
discovery and understanding; and insight into local life.
Environmental Sustainability
All four companies traveled in small groups to minimize their impact. They also
used locally sourced food and supplies as often as possible, reducing the amount of
pollution associated with transporting those resources. ROW minimized use of motorized
travel, instead staying within a small geographic area to reduce carbon emissions. When
using motorized transportation, ROW chose local operators with the most fuel-efficient
vehicles. ROW also implemented the ‘leave no trace’ philosophy on all camping trips,
and CAT used a similar ‘pack-in pack-out’ philosophy to minimize environmental
degradation.
Both CAT and Intrepid practiced carbon offsetting; Intrepid was carbon neutral
beginning in 2010. The company’s latest alternative energy project was the Alize
23
Cameski wind farm in Turkey, which produced wind-generated electricity and prevented
the production of tens of thousands of tons of greenhouse gases. Intrepid also encouraged
the use of refillable water bottles and recycling on trips. G Adventures’ efforts in
environmental sustainability featured the Lares Trek community-owned campsite in Peru,
which included composting toilets, solar showers, and waste management. The company
also abided by and publicized government-imposed environmental regulations, such as
those for the Inca trail; this included limiting visitation to 500 individuals per day.
ROW, G Adventures, Intrepid, and CAT also worked towards environmental
sustainability in their offices. All four organizations recycled and practiced energy
conservation. Intrepid used 100% green power energy in its offices and retail stores and
purchased Forest Stewardship Council sustainably sourced paper. The company also used
double-sided printing, and it hosted an annual tree-planting day to offset paper usage
from office business and brochures. Intrepid composted, educated staff on environmental
issues, and used a Carbon Management Plan to offset business emissions and guest
flights. Both Intrepid and G Adventures encouraged employees to use public
transportation or alternative means, such as biking or walking, to get to work. To further
promote this initiative, G Adventures payed for a portion of public transportation costs
for its staff.
Like Intrepid, CAT practiced composting and carbon offsetting. CAT’s offsetting
practices were conducted through Climate Care. The company encouraged guests to use
this website and subscribe to offset the emissions associated with their transportation to a
destination. CAT further practiced local environmental sustainability by operating in an
office space that made maximum use of natural light and recycled water. Outside the
24
office, ROW practiced environmental sustainability through active involvement in river
and other conservation groups in the American West. ROW was one of the largest
supporters of Idaho Rivers United, and it used a pass-through program to encourage
guests to donate to and support the river conservation organization.
Sociocultural Sustainability
All four companies traveled in small groups to reduce community disruption.
They employed local guides to foster connections between travelers and residents, and
they used local businesses, products, and services whenever possible. Company-specific
examples included ROW, which was active in the Galapagos Islands by involving the
local community in tourism activities and planning and by supporting the International
Galapagos Tour Operator’s Association (IGTOA). The company also helped local fishing
boat operators by financing the purchase of four-stroke engines, and it supported the
Pescado Azul Women’s Association on Isabela Island. The objective of this organization
was to increase the standard of living for fishermen and their families in Puerto Villamil.
G Adventures was active in the sociocultural domain through its nonprofit, the
Planeterra Foundation, which will be discussed in a later section on partnering
organizations. Projects conducted by the foundation benefitted the social, as well as
economic, domains of sustainability. One example was the Egypt Women’s Sewing
Cooperative, which gave women the opportunity to continue a culturally important craft
for fair wages. Intrepid ensured sociocultural sustainability through interpretation; the
company trained guides in safety and social issues so they could pass knowledge of
customs, culture, and religion onto their guests. Intrepid also adopted a Human Rights
25
Policy and educated staff on its stance on human rights issues. Last, the company was
involved in several research projects. These included a two-year study with Victoria
University and the Australian government to measure impacts of their trips on rural
destinations and a project with a community based tourism researcher to investigate
impacts of tourism in the Sacred Valley, Peru.
Similar to G Adventures, CAT practiced sociocultural sustainability through
involvement in a number of community improvement projects. These included building a
hostel for school-kids, building classrooms in Purano Duwar, and improving the water
supply and plumbing at the Chiti Tilahar School. The company was involved in the
International Porter Protection Group to make sure that staff was payed a fair wage and
had safe, healthy working conditions. CAT also fed and clothed porters, ensured the
weight they carried did not exceed the safe limit, and established an emergency fund for
staff and their families. In addition, the company provided health insurance and training
for staff and used a contract to ensure quality employment for porters. CAT also abided
by The Trekker’s Code, which provided guidelines for sustainable interaction with local
communities. This included respecting local traditions and customs and refraining from
giving donations, which can create dependency and community division.
26
Economic Sustainability
To benefit their destinations’ economies, all organizations employed local guides
and used local resources as often as possible. For CAT, this meant employing local
porters. For ROW, it meant employing fishermen in the Galapagos to help them
transition to a tourism-based economy. ROW also supported the International Galapagos
Tour Operator’s Association (IGTOA). With the company’s involvement, guests donated
over $35,000 U.S. dollars to IGTOA. Each company also chose to use local transport and
small-scale, independent accommodations. Intrepid encouraged guests to contribute to
the local economy by suggesting they visit local restaurants and stores, and the company
patronized many businesses to widen the economic impact felt by the community.
Intrepid also supported renewable energy projects, such as the Alize Cameski wind farm
in Turkey, which created employment opportunities for residents. G Adventures
partnered with the Multilateral Investment Fund of the Inter-American Development
Bank to create community-based tourism programs with economic benefits in destination
communities. This initiative included grants dedicated to developing sustainable tourism
solutions and involving communities in tourism planning and development. Last, CAT
provided fair wages and supported healthy working conditions for its local staff by
clothing and feeding porters on treks. The company also exercised these employment
standards when choosing partners in other countries to ensure that they upheld similar
social and economic policies.
27
Partnering Organizations
Each company was partnered with one or more organizations. ROW supported the
following: the Clark Fork Coalition, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, IGTOA, Idaho
Rivers United, Leave No Trace, Save Our Wild Salmon, and Sustainable Travel
International. Each of these organizations focused on environmental protection, and
Sustainable Travel International was associated with ecotourism and preservation of
cultural heritage. G Adventures had its own nonprofit, the Planeterra Foundation.
Established in 2003, it was founded to help tourism communities benefit from tourism
activities and development. Planeterra’s mission was to minimize tourism’s impact and
support sustainable social, economic, and environmental solutions in tourism
destinations. Projects included: a community-operated restaurant in the Sacred Valley,
Peru; New Hope Cambodia Vocational Training Restaurant; and a Mayan community
homestay in Guatemala.
Intrepid was partnered with many organizations. One of these was the Intrepid
Foundation, which was founded in 2002. This foundation contributed to human rights,
environmental conservation, wildlife protection, sustainable development, and health and
education through a number of community projects. Intrepid encouraged guests to
participate in the foundation’s efforts and provided links to the organization’s website for
guests to learn more and make donations. Intrepid was also involved in: ECOCLUB,
which promoted social and environmental development in tourism; the International
Ecotourism Society, a nonprofit that promoted ecotourism; the International Institute for
Peace through Tourism, which believed that travelers were international ambassadors and
could promote peaceful relations between nations; and Climate Friendly, which worked
28
with Intrepid to support carbon offsetting projects. Intrepid was also a member of the
United Nations Global Compact, which helped ensure member organizations’ operations
and business strategies were aligned with human rights and environmental sustainability.
The final organization, CAT, operated as a nonprofit organization and had a sister
charity, Community Action Nepal. CAT was involved with Climate Care, which assisted
with carbon offsetting associated with transportation emissions. All team member travel
was offset, and CAT encouraged guests to participate in this sustainable initiative as well.
The company also supported the International Porter Protection Group, which ensured
fair wages and safe working conditions for porters and local guides.
Education and Awareness
Each organization included a page or section on its website that was dedicated to
sustainable tourism. For all the businesses, interpretation provided by guides was a large
part of educating guests and promoting awareness regarding sustainable tourism. ROW
employed well-educated guides with knowledge of their destinations. The company
empowered these employees by offering continued guide education and clinics and by
sending guest educators on trips. International guides were usually bilingual and often
local. Over 75% of ROW’s domestic guides were certified through the National
Association of Interpretation, which meant they could communicate knowledge of an
area’s cultural and natural environment to their guests. Additional educational efforts
included providing links to sustainability pages and organizations on the ROW website.
The company encouraged guests to visit these sites to learn about responsible travel and
current issues in sustainable tourism.
29
G Adventures also used experienced interpreters, whom they called Chief
Experience Officers. These guides provided knowledge and insight into a destination.
Like ROW, G Adventures provided links to the websites of partner organizations, such as
Planeterra, which included information about and encouraged support of destination
communities and environments. Owner and founder Bruce Pontoon Tip was active in
promoting sustainable tourism as well. He spoke in 2006 about G Adventures’
sustainable tourism practices at the World Trade Organization’s Ethics in Tourism
Conference. He also made a sustainability presentation on behalf of World Bank and
UNESCO in the People’s Republic of China.
Intrepid defined sustainable travel on its sustainability page and provided links to
documents including: the sustainable travel code of conduct, responsible travel tips, and
porter policies. The company organized presentations at its stores and offices to generate
awareness in regards to social sustainability, and like ROW and G Adventures, Intrepid’s
website included links to organizations with whom the company was partnered.
Information on carbon emissions and carbon offsetting and the meaning of economic and
sociocultural sustainability was also included in the sustainable tourism section of
Intrepid’s website.
CAT encouraged guests to develop relationships with their porters and learn about
their lives and cultures. The organization also provided a link to the Trekker’s Code, a
comprehensive educational document that raised awareness of environmental, social, and
economic issues in trekking regions. The Trekker’s Code also provided information about
the people and culture of the regions, and it encouraged visitors to respect local customs
and learn about the area, language, and culture before visiting. The “Treading Lightly”
30
section of the document directly defined and addressed sustainable tourism. It encouraged
people to participate in sustainable development and gave advice on how to do so in each
of the three domains. This included respecting the local culture and religion, participating
in and supporting the local economy, and minimizing environmental impacts by packing
out waste. Furthermore, CAT’s website included a section called “Preparing for Your
Trek,” which provided links to the Himalayan Tourist Code. This code educated guests
on ways to protect the natural environment and culture and how to contribute sustainably
to the economy.
31
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study was conducted to examine sustainable practices in the adventure travel
industry. The concluding chapter will include the following: a summary of the study, a
discussion of the findings, limitations, conclusions based on research questions,
implications of the findings, and recommendations for future research.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to analyze the sustainability practices of four
selected adventure travel organizations across the environmental, sociocultural, and
economic domains. Adventure travel includes physical activity, as well as cultural and
environmental components. The majority of adventure travelers are young, active, well
educated, and affluent. They are environmentally conscious and seek knowledge and
insight through interaction with nature and exposure to other cultures. The adventure
sector has demonstrated consistent growth in recent years, even during challenging
financial times, and it represents a large portion of the tourism industry overall. With
rapid growth comes the need to regulate development of adventure travel in a way that is
sustainable for the economy, environment, and society of tourism destinations.
Sustainable tourism requires careful use of natural resources, limited disruption of
ecological processes and habitats, and economic growth that benefits local communities.
It also requires development that does not infringe upon the culture and values of a
destination, but rather celebrates those elements and involves residents in tourism
32
activities and planning. A variety of factors threaten the success of sustainable adventure
travel, including a lack of education and corporatization of tourism destinations. It is
critical for adventure travel operators to understand these threats and implement a range
of sustainable practices to ensure the future of their organizations.
In order to examine sustainable practices in adventure travel, a best practices
study was conducted on four adventure travel organizations: ROW Adventures, G
Adventures, Intrepid Travel, and Community Action Treks (CAT). A questionnaire
consisting of yes/no and open-ended questions in four areas was used to analyze the
organizations’ websites. This questionnaire was created to examine how, and to what
extent, each organization practiced sustainability in the environmental, sociocultural, and
economic domains.
Data demonstrated that each organization’s mission, vision, and values, or goals
and statements of purpose, reflected the domains of sustainability. Trips were designed
and described with a focus on local cultural and environmental elements. A number of
sustainable practices were also identified. These included: employment of local guides
and patronage of local businesses; recycling, wise energy use, and locally-sourced
supplies; provision of natural and cultural interpretation; carbon offsetting; involvement
in sustainable travel organizations; and support of community based tourism projects.
Discussion
The adventure travel organizations included in this study demonstrated a desire to
operate responsibly. They approached business with a sustainable philosophy that was
reflected either by their mission, vision, and value statements or by the goals and
33
statements of purpose included throughout their websites. These statements demonstrated
that sustainable adventure travel requires commitment and effort, and they acted as a
framework that guided the organizations towards sustainable solutions. ROW, G
Adventures, Intrepid, and CAT were founded out of a love of travel and adventure. The
information on their websites communicated their goals of providing sustainable travel
opportunities and authentic experiences. It also indicated their choice to operate in a way
that minimized cultural impacts, respected the environment, and contributed to home and
destination communities. Company-specific examples included Intrepid, which operated
from a written sustainable policy to ensure business decisions remained in line with
responsible tourism guidelines. A second example was CAT, which chose nonprofit
status in order to benefit the environmental, economic, and social climate of destination
communities. The selected organizations further reflected their sustainable mentalities by
offering trips that emphasized: education and interpretation; adventure and outdoor
activities; cultural and natural history; interaction with the local community and the
natural environment; exploration and discovery; and authentic experiences with a unique
perspective into the local life and area.
The importance of a sustainable mindset within adventure travel organizations
was reflected in the literature; it was noted that sustainable tourism requires constant
management and adaptation to avoid negatively impacting destination communities
(Buckley, 2012). For this management and adaptation to occur successfully, the
foundation of an organization must be grounded in sustainability. This suggested that
intentionally adopting a sustainable tourism approach is the first step to implementing
34
specific sustainable practices within the environmental, economic, and sociocultural
domains.
Education and awareness (of travelers, adventure travel organizations, and
destination communities) were also identified as key to the success of sustainable
adventure travel. The literature demonstrated that a lack of education amongst tourism
providers can result in an inconsistency in tourism planning and development (Hunter,
1997). Findings from the current study revealed that to combat this issue, organizations
provided educational opportunities for their staff. ROW offered continued guide
education in the form of special guide clinics and by sending guest educators on trips.
Intrepid also used extensive guide training to ensure staff was educated on safety and
social issues. A second topic highlighted in the literature was that uneducated travelers
are unaware of the effects they have on the natural and cultural environments of
destinations (Miller et al., 2010). The selected organizations addressed this problem by
educating their guests in sustainable tourism practices. In doing so, they ensured that
travelers were aware and active participants in tourism destinations, which fostered
respect and responsibility with regards to the culture, economy, and environment of local
communities.
The findings of this study demonstrated that guest education took two main
forms; one of these was information provided on the organizations’ websites. Each
website had a page dedicated to sustainability, where the organizations defined the
importance of sustainability to their company and described efforts they made to operate
sustainably. Each organization’s sustainable travel page also included links to websites of
partner organizations and educational documents such as the Trekker’s Code, a
35
responsible travel code of conduct, and sustainable travel tips. In each case, the
sustainability page acted as a call to action; it advertised the benefits of sustainability and
encouraged guests to participate in sustainable tourism and support related organizations.
The literature supported these educational efforts, noting that tourism industry
stakeholders are responsible for providing information and education in order to promote
awareness and generate interest in sustainable travel (Sirakaya, Jamal, & Choi, 2001).
Another common educational practice was interpretation, noted in the literature to be
especially beneficial to the environmental domain (Hudson, 2003). ROW, G Adventures,
Intrepid, and CAT employed local guides who were knowledgeable about their
destination’s cultural and natural history. These guides provided a local lens through
which guests could view and interact with the destination, while developing an
understanding and appreciation of it and a desire to protect it. One of the components of
adventure travel was noted to be “an immersive cultural experience” (ATTA, 2013, p. 2),
and the practice of employing local guides helped to foster connections between locals
and tourists.
Guest education perpetuated the idea and value of sustainability. By defining
sustainable tourism, discussing sustainable practices on their websites, and providing
interpretation on trips, the organizations helped to enforce the idea of sustainability in
employees’ and guests’ minds. In order to enhance staff and tourists’ engagement in
sustainability, it is recommended that other adventure travel organizations adopt similar
practices and make sustainability awareness a top priority. Only with education and
promotion can the concept of sustainable tourism spread, and deliberate, informed
participation in sustainable tourism is key to its success.
36
Partnerships are also crucial to the success of sustainable adventure travel. These
emerged as especially important within the sociocultural and economic domains, and they
occurred on two levels: destination-organization and organization-organization. The very
essence of the sociocultural and economic domains of sustainable tourism lies in the idea
of partnerships and collaboration. The literature noted that both domains require local
participation in provision of tourism activities (CREST, 2012; Denman et al., 2007;
HwanSuk & Sirakaya, 2006; UNEP & UNWTO, 2005) and tourism planning and
development (HwanSuk & Sirakaya). The literature also suggested that a major threat to
sustainable tourism is corporatization of local communities. As a result it was suggested
that local authority and control are important (Hunter, 1997), as they allow for positive
social and economic impacts (Forum for the Future & The Travel Foundation, 2012;
HwanSuk & Sirakaya).
These ideas were reflected in the current study’s findings, which demonstrated
that ROW, G Adventures, Intrepid, and CAT were active in supporting and collaborating
with their destination communities. By implementing a number of practices, the
organizations strived to avoid negative impacts such as friction between tourists and
locals (Buckley, 2012; Weaver, 2006), community disruption, unfairly distributed wealth,
and rapid change or modernization (Ghazall, Hall, & Higham, 2004). Practices included
sourcing local food and supplies, employing locals, and patronizing a number of local
tourism providers, accommodations, and transportation services. All of these yielded a
more authentic, less intrusive trip that benefitted the local society by empowering the
community. As noted in the literature, these practices also resulted in community
retention of tourism revenue, preservation of the local cultural heritage, and community
37
involvement in the provision, planning, and development of tourism activities (CREST,
2012; Denman et al., 2007; HwanSuk & Sirakaya, 2006; UNEP & UNWTO, 2005).
Inter-organization partnerships further contributed to sustainable development
within the economic, sociocultural, and environmental domains. Collaboration
maximizes resources and boosts innovation, helping organizations to achieve wider
sustainable impacts. ROW, G Adventures, Intrepid, and CAT were all actively involved
in and supported a number of sustainable tourism organizations. A few had non-profit
organizations of their own. G Adventures created Planeterra in 2003; it was the primary
means by which the company practiced environmental, economic, and social
sustainability through work on various community based projects. Intrepid’s foundation
was also a vehicle for work in the three domains. The Intrepid Foundation operated a
number of projects that protected wildlife, conserved natural resources, and provided
health services and education to tourism destination communities. CAT was established
as a nonprofit and partnered with its sister charity, Community Action Nepal (CAN); all
profits were directed to CAN to support social work in CAT’s trekking destinations.
Involvement with these partners not only maximized sustainable impacts but also helped
to promote awareness of responsible tourism. ROW, G Adventures, Intrepid, and CAT all
advertised their involvement in these organizations and provided links to their websites,
encouraging guests to visit them and support their respective causes. Partnerships, both
with destinations and other organizations, helped to achieve a maximum level of
sustainability in each of the three domains (Forum for the Future & The Travel
Foundation, 2012). For this reason, it is recommended that adventure travel organizations
collaborate with other industry stakeholders and their destination communities.
38
Like the sociocultural and economic domains, the environmental domain of
sustainability was sometimes addressed through collaborative, community-based projects
and partnerships with other organizations. One example was ROW’s involvement with
river conservation groups that worked to maintain natural environments and habitats. The
literature suggested the importance of environmentally sensitive adventure travel, noting
the value of maintaining natural resources and minimizing disruption of ecological
processes and habitats (CREST, 2012; UNEP & UNWTO, 2005). The study’s findings
also revealed, however, that apart from partnerships, many environmental benefits also
stemmed from an individual organization’s practices. These included small group travel,
which minimized community disruption and destination overcrowding (Ghazall, Hall, &
Higham, 2004), two negative impacts of tourism noted in the literature. Other practices
adopted to benefit home and destination environments were recycling, energy
conservation, the ‘leave no trace’ policy, and carbon offsetting. This particular practice
was unique to CAT and Intrepid, but still very important. The selected organizations
generated a significant amount of transportation-related carbon emissions, which the
literature recognized as one of tourism’s largest environmental offenders (Hollenhorst et
al., 2014). Therefore it was a step forward for the organizations to recognize the issue and
take steps to address it by offsetting their emissions.
Despite these findings, there were some limitations to the study. As data
collection was confined to online sources, the information collected was limited to what
the organizations chose to include on their websites. In addition, the study was conducted
during a short period. This precluded the possibility of tracking sustainability projects
and practices over time. The timeframe also limited research into sources of information
39
other than organizational websites. These additional sources might have included
documents such as social media sites, organizational reports, and guest reviews.
The study revealed four important findings relevant to sustainable adventure
travel. First, sustainability is a mentality that should be integrated into an organization’s
operating philosophy. Each of the selected organizations demonstrated a common interest
in and understanding of sustainable operations. Second, education and awareness are key
to the development and diffusion of sustainable tourism practices. The selected
organizations accomplished this initiative via informational websites, interpretation on
trips, and involvement in sustainable tourism organizations. Third, partnerships are key to
making sustainable tourism a success for organizations and destination communities.
Collaboration allowed organizations to implement a range of sustainable practices,
particularly within the sociocultural and economic domains. Fourth, environmental
efforts were sometimes made in conjunction with other organizations, but they more
often stemmed from an individual company’s actions and practices.
This study of ROW Adventures, G Adventures, Intrepid Travel, and Community
Action Treks analyzed best sustainable practices adventure travel. This is an important
area of study, because adventure travel was suggested to be a viable industry, even during
challenging financial periods (The George Washington School of Business et al., 2010;
Williams & Soutar, 2009). Adventure travelers seek knowledge and insight from
interaction with the environment, cultures, and other people (Kerr & Houge Mackenzie,
2012; Walle, 1997; Weber, 2001). These motivations result in a form of travel that can
foster meaningful connections, stimulate individual growth, and develop respect for and
an understanding of environments and cultures. Therefore, it is important for adventure
40
tourism to expand sustainably for two reasons. First, adventure travel relies on cultural
and environmental resources, and this necessitates protection and preservation of those
resources for future business viability and profit. The second reason is based in ethics,
and the value that lies in the uniqueness of peoples and cultures around the world. The
selected organizations demonstrated a desire to act sustainably within the three domains
because they felt it was right to protect these peoples and cultures. ROW, G Adventures,
Intrepid, and CAT used the practices discussed in this study in an effort to minimize their
impact on nature, contribute to and protect destination communities, and facilitate
unmatched experiences for their guests. They expressed a commitment to sustainable
adventure travel, and the data demonstrated that they have lead the adventure travel
industry in sustainable practices.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Sustainability was an integral component in the operating philosophy of
ROW, G Adventures, Intrepid Travel, and Community Action Treks.
2. The selected organizations implemented environmental practices including:
recycling and wise energy use; carbon offsetting; sourcing local supplies;
small group travel; abiding by the “leave no trace” philosophy; and educating
guests about the natural environment.
3. Each organization made efforts in the sociocultural domain by: traveling in
small groups; providing interpretation and education for guests; employing the
services of local businesses; and supporting community-based tourism
41
projects through collaboration with destination communities and sustainable
tourism organizations.
4. The selected organizations practiced economic sustainability by: employing
local guides; using local resources and services (accommodation,
transportation, and activities); and partnering with destination communities
and sustainable tourism organizations to conduct community development
projects.
5. Each organization actively educated its guests by: using its website as a
platform for resources and information on sustainability; providing
interpretation on trips; and supporting various organizations committed to
sustainable tourism.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made:
1. Continue collaboration with local communities by involving them in the
planning and provision of tourism activities and services.
2. Consider partnering with government agencies, in addition to private and
nonprofit organizations, to increase the impact of sustainable efforts and
destination community involvement in tourism planning.
3. In addition to the resources available on the organizational website, provide an
email with information on sustainable travel practices to individuals that make
trip inquiries and reservations.
42
4. Increase involvement in sustainability-related organizations that benefit home
societies, environments, and economies.
5. Through future research, examine travelers’ and destination communities’
level of interest and commitment towards sustainable tourism planning and
development.
43
REFERENCES
44
REFERENCES
Adventure Travel Trade Association. (2013). ATTA values statement. Retrieved from http://www.adventuretravel.biz/wp-content/uploads/2013/02
/Value-Statement-Consumer-English.pdf Bagri, S., Gupta, B., & George, B. (2009). Environmental orientation and ecotourism
awareness among pilgrims, adventure tourists, and leisure tourists. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 57(1), 55-68. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=toc&id_broj=4228
Baran, M. (2013). Report finds significant growth in adventure travel market. Travel
Weekly, 72(35), 8. Retrieved from http://www.travelweekly.com Briassoulis, H. (2002). Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29(4), 1065-1085. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00021-X Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism
Research, 39(2), 528-546. doi:10.1016/j.annals/2012/02/003
Center for Responsible Travel (CREST). (2012). The case for responsible travel: Trends and statistics. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent .com/search?q=cache:_ppdgfClq0sJ:www.responsibletravel.org /news/Fact_sheets/Crest_RTI_TrendStats_print_1_4%2520(3) .pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
Community Action Treks Ltd. (n.d.). Responsible tourism. Retrieved from
http://www.catreks.com/responsible-tourism/
45
Denman, R., Vereczi, G., & Stein, C. (2007). Sustainable tourism indicators and destination management: Regional workshop, Kolasin, Montenegro. Retrieved from http://sdt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/finrep.pdf Forum for the Future & The Travel Foundation. (2012). Survival of the fittest: Sustainable tourism means business. Retrieved from http://www
.thetravelfoundation.org.uk/images/media/Whitepaper_Survival_of_the _Fittest_2012.pdf
G Adventures. (n.d.). Sustainable tourism. Retrieved from https://www.gadventures
.com/about-us/sustainable-tourism/
Ghazall, M., Hall, C. M., & Higham, J. E. S. (2004). Sustainability and health impacts in
high altitude adventure, cultural and ecotourism destinations: A case study of Nepal’s Sagarmantha National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(4), 306- 331. doi:10.1080/09669580408667240
Grubb, P. (n.d.). History of ROW Adventures. In About us. Retrieved from
http://www.rowadventure.com/about-row-adventures.html
Hollenhorst, S. J., Houge Mackenzie, S., & Ostergren, D. M. (2014). The trouble with
tourism [Abstract]. Tourism Recreation Research, 39(3), 305-319. Retrieved from http://www.trrworld.org
Hudson, S. (Ed.). (2003). Sport and adventure tourism. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth
Press. Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(4), 850-867. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00036-4
46
HwanSuk, C. C. & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing
community tourism. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1274-1289.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.018 Janockova, J. & Jablonska, J. (2013). Understanding travel influences of overnight off-
trail trekking: A case study of National Park Slovensky Raj, Slovakia. Tourism,
61(1), 41-51. Retrieved from hrcak.srce.hr/turizam?lang=en
Kerr, J. H. & Houge Mackenzie, S. (2012). Multiple motives for participating in
adventure sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(5), 649-657.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.04.002
Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a
Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22(4), 351-362. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00067-4 Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2010). Public
understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 627-
645. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.002 ROW Inc. (n.d.). Sustainable travel ethics. In About us. Retrieved from
http://www.rowadventures.com/responsible-travel-ethics.html
Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T. B., & Choi, H. S. (2001). Developing indicators for destination
sustainability. In D. B. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp. 411- 432). Wallingford, UK: CABI.
47
Sung, H. H., Morrison, A. M., & O’Leary, J. T. (1996). Definition of adventure travel:
Conceptual framework for empirical application from the providers’ perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 1(2), 47-67. doi:10.1080/10941669708721975
Swarbrooke, J. (Ed.). (2003). Adventure tourism: The new frontier. Routledge.
The George Washington University School of Business, The Adventure Travel Trade Association, & Xola Consulting. (2010). Adventure tourism market report. Retrieved from http://www.adventuretravel.biz/wp- content/uploads/2010/09 /adventure_travel_market082610.pdf The Travel Foundation. (2015). What is sustainable tourism? In Welcome to the Travel
Foundation website. Retrieved from http://www.thetravelfoundation.org.uk UNEP & UNWTO. (2005). Definition. In Sustainable development of tourism. Retrieved
from http://sdt.unwto.org/content/about-us-5
UNWTO. (n.d.) Indicators of sustainability for tourism destinations. In Sustainable
development of tourism. Retrieved from http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content /indicators-sustainability-tourism-destinations
Varley, P. (2006). Confecting adventure and playing with meaning: The adventure
commodification continuum [Abstract]. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2), 173- 194. doi:10.1080/14775080601155217
Walle, A. H. (1997). Pursuing risk or insight: Marketing adventures. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(2), 265-282. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(97)80001-1 Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Butterworth
Heineman.
48
Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor adventure tourism: A review of research approaches. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 360-377. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00051-7 Williams, P. & Soutar, G. N. (2005). Close to the “edge”: Critical issues for adventure
tourism operators. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 10(3), 247-261. doi:10.1080/10941660500309614
Williams, P. & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in an
adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36, 413-438.
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.02.002
49
APPENDIX
50
Appendix A
Instrument
51
I. Organization Mission, Vision, and Values a. Do the organization’s mission, vision, and value statements (if not
available, refer to company goals/objectives or statements of purpose) reflect and support the economic, environmental, and social domains of sustainability? If yes, explain.
i. To what extent are the mission, vision, and values focused on sustainability?
II. Trip Offerings a. How are trips described? (Do they place emphasis on the environment,
activities, cultural experiences, etc.?)
III. Educational and Awareness Practices a. Does the organization’s website have a page or section dedicated to
sustainability?
b. How does the organization educate people about sustainable tourism?
i. What kinds of educational resources are made available on the organization’s website?
IV. Community Initiatives a. What organizations are partnered/affiliated with the company?
b. How does the organization interact sustainably with their destination
communities?
i. Environment:
ii. Economy:
iii. Society:
c. How does the organization interact sustainably with the community in which it is based?
i. Environment:
ii. Economy:
iii. Society:
