Week 7 Discussion- Sustainability

Topic: Based on the articles you have read for Week 7, please discuss recommended frameworks for sustainable tourism development in fragile areas such as mountains or coastal areas (elaborate on at least three points). Please refer to concepts from the readings (articles provided for Week 7 – under Modules) to support your points.

lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Corporate sustainability reporting index and baseline data for the
cruise industry

Ma Jesús Bonilla-Priego a, Xavier Font b,*, Ma del Rosario Pacheco-Olivares a

aDepartamento de Economía Financiera y Contabilidad I, Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
b International Centre for Research in Events, Tourism and Hospitality, School of Events, Tourism & Hospitality, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK

h i g h l i g h t s

� We present and test a cruising industry corporate social responsibility index.
� Cruising is a late adopter of reporting e in numbers and content.
� Companies disclose more management than performance data.
� Companies disclosing less information focus on soft, easy to mimic indicators.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 7 June 2013
Accepted 7 February 2014

Keywords:
Social
Environmental
Responsibility
Legitimization
Stakeholder
Global reporting initiative

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1138125609.
E-mail addresses: xfont01@gmail.com, x.font@leed

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.03.004
0261-5177/

a b s t r a c t

Sustainability policies and corporate reports demonstrate the impacts cruise companies acknowledge as
their responsibility, and the actions put in place to address them. This paper develops a corporate social
responsibility index based on the Global Reporting Initiative, with industry specific additions including
labor and human rights, health and safety, and environmental and economic aspects. Companies disclose
more management than performance data, which is typical of early stages of development. Companies
disclosing less information focus on soft indicators which are easy to mimic and demonstrate posturing.
Items disclosed tend to be marginal to the core of the business, have a positive economic impact or pre-
empt sector regulation. Reports echo the voice of the corporations and not the demands of stakeholders.
Institutional isomorphism has not influenced a homogenization in reporting, with only the largest firms
reporting at this stage.

1. Introduction

There is a well-established but growing demand on corpora-
tions to perform not only financially but to be good citizens as “the
social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal,
ethical and discretionary expectations that society has of organi-
zations at a given point in time”(Carroll, 1979:500). As society’s
stakeholders become more concerned with staff welfare, the
impact on the environment and local communities, they will put
pressure on the most visible corporations to address the issues.
Taking responsibility is therefore the process of accepting the ex-
pectations placed by society (Goodwin, 2011), and accountability is
the duty of providing an account for meeting those expectations
(Gray, Colin, Owen, Evans, & Zadek, 1997). While accounting of
financial responsibilities is well established (but not without its

smet.ac.uk (X. Font).

loop holes), the requirements for reporting “additional” but real
responsibilities develop according to society’s expectations. As
either issues (e.g. carbon) or sectors (e.g. extractive industries)
become recognized for their potential harm, industry leaders
develop mechanisms to respond.

Cruising is increasingly being called to scrutiny. The significant
growth in the last two decades has been explained by the attrac-
tiveness of the affordable fares, product quality and both product
and destination diversification (ECC, 2012; ICCA, 2012). Yet larger
vessels, corporate visibility and negative media coverage of envi-
ronmental impacts, limited positive economic impact on destina-
tions, poor labor conditions and the 2012 Costa Concordia accident
have raised industry awareness of the need to legitimize how the
sector is taking responsibility for society and the environment. This
has resulted in increased corporate social reporting and industry
wide promotional efforts.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices are intended to
have many positive effects such as improving social and

mailto:xfont01@gmail.com

mailto:x.font@leedsmet.ac.uk

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.tourman.2014.03.004&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.03.004

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160150

environmental performance and constituting an instrument to
manage stakeholder relations (Kaptein & Wempe, 1998). However,
they have not always satisfied this intention as CSR reports do not
always represent a genuine attempt to account for negative as well
as positive aspects of all material impacts (Adams, 2004). There are
different practices that undermine the benefits of transparency and
credibility, and a wide range of theories about why and how
companies report.

Voluntary disclosure theory claims that firms are willing to
disclose good news to differentiate themselves following a
resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991; Branco & Rodrigues,
2006; Healy & Palepu, 2001), often tested by suggesting a positive
relation between financial and sustainability performance
(Campbell, 2007; Garay & Font, 2012). In contrast, stakeholder and
legitimacy theory see disclosure as a response to social and political
pressures and is therefore reactive, predicting a negative relation
between environmental performance and voluntary environmental
disclosure (Adams, Hill, & Roberts, 1998; Deegan, 2002;
Hooghiemstra, 2000). Since legitimacy relies on meeting social
systems’ expectations, this approach lends itself well to explain
Carroll’s definition in the first paragraph, although there are those
claiming that market-driven stakeholder accountability will pro-
duce reports that are in the organization’s best interests (Gray et al.,
1997).

Reputation risk management and impression management are
commonly the intended purpose behind corporate social reporting
(Bebbington, Larrinaga, & Moneva, 2008; Hooghiemstra, 2000).
Evidence suggests that environmental managers determine the
contents of their CSR reports based on their understanding of the
relative importance of different stakeholders (Cormier, Gordon, &
Magnan, 2004). Firms prefer to disclose major environmental
events when they feel threatened by stakeholders, and disclose by
defending what has been done about it retrospectively as a means
of maintaining or restoring legitimacy (Elijido-Ten, Kloot, &
Clarkson, 2010). Deegan (2002) summarizes some of the possible
reasons for disclosure as economic rationality, acceptance of
accountability responsibilities, and meeting requirements of or
preventing pressure from various stakeholders including govern-
ment, lenders, buyers, suppliers, industry associations, amongst
others. Companies disclose more according to their size, ownership
e publicly traded or government owned-, low levels of debt, age of
fixed assets, environmental footprint and risk (Cormier, Magnan, &
Van Velthoven, 2005; Eng & Mak, 2003; Jose & Lee, 2007).

Academics call for fine tuned metrics to capture sustainability
disclosure so it better reflects performance (Jose & Lee, 2007;
Morhardt, 2010), since CSR reports do not always demonstrate
accountability. Companies often use CSR reporting as a public

Table 1
Company characteristics and CSR reporting practices (Group 1 e CSR reports and websit

Parent company Company Headquarters Flag country

Carnival Corporation Princess Cruises US Bermuda
Holland America Line US Netherlands
Costa Cruises Italy Italy
P&O Australia Australia Liberia
Carnival Cruise Lines US Panama
AIDA Germany Italy
Yachts of Seabourn US Bahamas
Carnival UK Cunard UK UK Bermuda

P&O UK UK Bermuda
TUI Travel UK Malta

RCI Royal Caribbean US Bahamas
Celebrity Cruises US Malta
Azamara US Malta
Disney Cruise Line US Bahamas

Source: authors.

relations exercise to manage impressions and improve their
reputation (O’Dwyer, 2003), but also to provide internal sustain-
ability accounting data for management purposes. The breadth of
this data will depend on the corporate priorities, often focusing on
environmental aspects that lead to operational savings, or in the
more advanced cases ranging the triple bottom line of environ-
ment, society and economy. Stakeholders need meaningful and
comparable information which comprises externally verified data
and methodologies which can utilize that data. Triple bottom line
reporting requires an index for measuring and reporting corporate
performance. However, in cruising we are still at the stage of
cataloging and categorizing impacts to form a sector specific list of
indicators.

The contribution of this paper is two-fold. First, it proposes an
index to measure and report corporate performance by adapting
generic reporting systems to the cruise industry characteristics.
Second, it conducts primary research on the level of responsibility
accepted by the cruise industry by analyzing their CSR reports.

This index results from adapting reporting systems such as the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Carbon Disclosure Program
and other international initiatives together with literature specific
to the cruise industry to develop a sector specific instrument. These
metrics encompass both the setting up of management systems
and the development of specific performance indicators. This in-
cludes assessing management indicators such as having de-
partments, management positions, committees and stakeholder
involvement (Adams, 2008). It also requires independent verifica-
tion of the credibility of company reports (Laufer, 2003). GRI in-
cludes both items and validates the level of disclosure achieved, but
fails to require external audits. While these are important elements
of the literature review, they apply to all industries and for brevity
reasons cannot be described in detail here.

The index will require industry adaptation. For example, as a
result of the registration policy, a ship is considered the territory of
the country in which it is registered and this is why many vessels
are registered in countries without stringent laws or the capacity to
monitor safety and working conditions and investigate incidents.
When the ship is in international waters, it comes under the
jurisdiction of the flag registry plus international laws (covering
only some environmental standards, and not socio-economic). Ship
Safety Certificates are given out by private classification societies
and the worse the conditions of the ship, the more likely they are to
choose a less demanding society (Doherty, 2012, see also
Tables 1 and 2). Having clarified this industry specific issue, the
remainder of the literature review outlines cruise industry impacts
and efforts to respond to them, subsequently used in the
methodology.

e content).

n� Ships Max capacity

Average
capacity

Sustainability
report

Experience
(report number)

17 45,506 2677 2009 1st
15 30,292 2019 2009 1st
14 37,118 2651 2010 6th
4 7500 1875 2010 2nd

23 74,007 3218 2009 1st
8 14,210 1776 2011 3rd
4 1074 268 2009 1st
3 6960 2320 2010 2nd
7 16,678 2383
5 7020 1404 2010 3rd

22 72,074 3276 2010 3rd
11 27,166 247

2 1388 694
4 12,800 3200 2010 3rd

Table 2
Company characteristics and CSR reporting practices (Group 2 e website content
only).

Company Headquarters Flag country n�

ships
Max
capacity

Average
capacity

Crystal Cruises US Bahamas 2 1992 996
Norwegian CL US Bahamas/USA 12 29,632 2469
Hapa Lloyd Germany Bahamas 5 1970 394
Genting HK China Bahamas/Panama 5 7238 1448
MSC Cruises US Panama 12 31,840 2653
Orion Australia Bahamas 1 106 106
SilverSea Monaco Bahamas 6 2028 338
Windstar US Bahamas 3 606 202
Uniworld US Netherlands 17 2069 122
Fred Olsen Norway Bahamas 4 3963 991
Tauck US Switzerland 4 472 118
Avalon Switzerland Germany 19 2822 148
Scenic tour Australia Malta 6 957 159
Compagnie

du Ponant
France France 4 856 214

Iberocruceros Spain Portugal 3 5104 1701
Lüftner Austria Germany 11 1656 151
Paul Gauguin Bahamas 1 332 332
Hurtigruten Norway Norway 12 7721 643

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160 151

The literature suggests that corporate social reports are valid
instruments to understand how companies acknowledge certain
responsibilities in relation to given stakeholder pressures (Kaptein,
2007; Krippendorff, 1980). Many of these studies focus on
analyzing the selection of issues and the type of information pro-
vided. This selection would help to uncover the issue of the inclu-
sivity of stakeholders in the reporting process and the use of the
social report as a legitimization tool (Adams, 2004). It is worth
noting that in keeping with similar exploratory studies, this study
measures CSR reporting (what impacts companies accept and how
they deal with them), and not CSR performance (to which extent
their actions actually deal appropriately with the impacts). We
analyze CSR reporting using a typology format, developing an index
and then attributing scores to whether companies report on taking
action on each indicator, which allows for numerical comparison
and categorization (Kolk & Mauser, 2002; Morhardt, 2010).
Focusing on a single industry allows us to provide some insights on
the corporate characteristics conditioning social reporting worthy
of further research.

We provide a justification for the index in the remainder of the
literature review, before testing it through a content analysis of the
publicly available data from the 29 out of a population of 80 cruise
companies that report CSR practices. Some 11 of these publish
corporate social responsibility reports, and 18 make some state-
ments on their website. The content of the reports are classified
according to the type and format of data disclosed, according to
environmental and socio-economic, hard and soft, management
and performance variables. These are then compared against
company characteristics e size, reporting experience and whether
they produce CSR reports or disclose on their website. The patterns
are then analyzed in the Discussion section against the literature
outlined above on the motivations for CSR disclosure e this shows
the industry has not reached a mimetic behavior, but disclosure
depends on company size, practices disclosed follow beyond
compliance theory reputation risk management, with little
commitment to change the core of the business. The consequences
for the maturity of CSR reporting in the cruise industry are th

summarized in the conclusions.

2. Environmental impacts

Environmental impacts are most commonly described by in-
ternational organizations such as the IMO (International Maritime

Organization) through MARPOL (International Convention for the
prevention of Pollution from Ships), first adopted in 1973 and
continuously updated through the years. They are also recognized
by the European Union (COM, 2007). Impacts will be reviewed
following the GRI format: materials, water, biodiversity, emissions/
effluents/waste, and products and services.

The first two environmental aspects listed under the GRI are the
consumption of materials and water. Large cruise ships are luxury
floating cities with more comfort than a population of that size
requires: resources consumed approach 1.5 times normal con-
sumption patterns (Véronneau & Roy, 2009), and overconsumption
creates pressure in areas where there is a shortage of fresh water. In
either aspect there is no literature specific to the cruise industry.
Sustainable supply chain management approaches would be
needed to both reduce the consumption and wastage, as well as to
consider the origin of the materials used and the impact of over-
using water (Font, Tapper, Schwartz, & Kornilaki, 2008).

The third aspect is biodiversity, from at least two operational
areas in addition to the impacts resulting from constructing the
ships. The impact on biodiversity from consumption onboard the
ship would be similar to that of hotels (IUCN, 2008), for example
the type of food and other produce used. The impact from dis-
charges is specifically of concern, as cruises usually operate in
highly valued coastal water and marine ecosystems. Two examples
are covered here. First, many ships use hull coatings, also called
anti-fouling systems, as a surface treatment to control or prevent
attachment of unwanted organisms that would result in increased
fuel requirements and spread invasive species around the world.
However, some anti-fouling coatings contain hazardous chemicals
which can be harmful to marine organisms. There are biocides with
a low risk biological accumulation, and some other possible solu-
tions (EMEC, 2010).

A more widespread biodiversity impact occurs from carrying
ballast water to keep cruises stable in the water. The IMO noted the
negative impact of non-indigenous organisms transported in the
ballast water back in 1970. In 2004 the IMO adopted the Interna-
tional Convention for the Control and Management on Ship’s
Ballast Water and Sediments to protect waters from non-
indigenous aquatic organisms and pathogens that can be harmful
to ecosystems. Although this convention did not enter into force as
it was only signed by 33 states by January 2012 (IMO, 2011), the
harm from ballast water is well recognized (Gollasch, Lenz,
Dammer, & Andres, 2000; Williams, Griffiths, Van der Wal, &
Kelly, 1988). For example U.S. regulation sets standards for dis-
charges within three miles of the shoreline and California requires
ships to treat ballast water before dumping it in ports or coastal
waters (Klein, 2011) through various technologies (EMEC, 2010).

The fourth, and most detailed GRI aspect is emissions, effluents
and waste. A cruise vessel generates and disposes of millions of
gallons of liquid waste in the form of gray and black water which
not only threatens shellfish beds, coral reefs and other marine
ecosystems, but also human health (EPA, 2004). Gray water is the
wastewater from sinks, showers or laundry and is not covered by
international regulations; while black water is the waste from
cruise ships toilets and medical facilities e and is regulated. Cruise
ships that comply with legislation and are under international
regulation (Annex IV MARPOL), may still discharge comminuted
and disinfected sewage using a system approved by its flag
administration at a distance of more than three nautical miles from
shore. A ship may discharge untreated sewage at a distance of more
than twelve nautical miles and when the vessel is traveling at a
speed of no less than four knots. Untreated black water is dis-
charged under the assumption that oceans can dilute any pollution.
Two treatment systems are used, the traditional type II marine
sanitation device and the most advanced water treatment systems,

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160152

which still generate important impacts (Klein, 2011). Therefore, to
be able to claim environmental responsibility, companies should
use an advanced system consistently, not just depending on the
jurisdiction.

In tonnage terms, the most important pollutant resulting from
shipping operations is oil (Gard, 2011). MARPOL allows discharges
(within twelve miles from shore) of bilge water through an oily
water separator which generates an effluent with an oil content
that does not exceed 15 parts per million. It also requires all
vessels to maintain a sludge tank to store oil wastes, which can be
incinerated or pumped ashore since it is considered a hazardous
waste.

The emissions caused by a cruise ship depend on many vari-
ables, for example the size and age of the vessels, which determine
the power needed and the type of fuel used. Most cruise ships use
residual oil, also known as heavy fuel oil, a thick, highly sulfurous
fuel (EC, 2009). Additionally, carbon dioxide is the most important
greenhouse gas emitted by ships, both in terms of quantity and of
global warming potential. However, emissions are also created by
the burning of waste onboard. There are different ship-based fa-
cilities that can be installed to reduce NOx, SOx and particulate
matter. However, the best way to reduce impacts from emissions is
to use less combustible or replace them with less harmful power
sources such as natural gas, solar panels or wind-powered systems
(ECC, 2011). In fact, MARPOL Annex VI regulations include caps on
the sulfur content of fuel oil to control SOx and PM emissions. This
Annex was reviewed in the last few years and a progressive
reduction in emissions of SOx, NOx and particulate matter was
introduced. Emissions Control Areas where the emissions limits are
further restricted were established in the Baltic and North Seas and
North America.

Most waste treated on board is pulped, ground or incinerated
and the ash is discharged overboard. Although legal under certain
circumstances, the disposal of waste overboard increases biological
and chemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, and turbidity
and nutrient levels, and also diminishes water and sediment quality
amongmany others impacts (EPA, 2008). Incinerators on board also
increase air emissions and other impacts when ash is dumped into
the sea, except ashes from plastic products whichmay contain toxic
or heavy metal residues which cannot be dumped. Solid waste
management practices should reduce, recycle and process before
discharging onshore. Because of the pressure on changeover day,
recycling often occurs at intermediate ports (Véronneau & Roy,
2009).

3. Socio-economic impacts

While there are environmental impacts specific to the cruise
industry, socio-economic impacts are not dissimilar to those caused
by large scale resorts. They differ however in their concentration in
time and space, their location in high pressure areas, and the
compliance with regulations of the country where the ship is
registered.

Following the GRI structure, the index includes labor conditions
such as employment, labor management relations, occupational
health and safety, training and education, diversity and equal op-
portunity. Additional indicators on the accommodation and work-
ing conditions of staff and working hours were added based on the
literature. Work conditions differ considerably from land based
staff, due to the temporary nature of contracts, working in isolation
during long periods of time, and unclear application of legislation
unfavorable to the workers due in part to the use of flags of con-
venience (Bauer, 2007; Dimitrova & Blanpain, 2010; Terry, 2009).
Intermediary and recruitment agencies in developing countries add
charges for medical examinations, visas, transport and

administration and often put workers into a level of debt that
cannot be repaid and comparable to forced labor (Klein, 2003).

The second social issue is human rights, including investment
and procurement practices, non-discrimination, freedom of asso-
ciation and collective bargaining, child labor, forced and compul-
sory labor, security practices, and indigenous rights. Indicators
generally revolve around incident reporting. There is evidence of
frequent violation of rights for disadvantaged groups with tasks
allocated and salaries paid according to nationality and cultural
background, not capability or performance (Brida & Zapata, 2010;
Terry, 2009). Labor rights in general and unionization in partic-
ular are complex since the laws of the vessel’s registration apply on
board e many workers begin work in debt to secure on board
placements, and working hours and living conditions are below
those expected on shore (Lillie, 2005). Both of these labor issues
face increased legislation since 2013 with the introduction of the
Maritime Labor Convention (Piniella, Silos, & Bernal, 2013).

The third social issue to be reviewed is the impact on society,
including community, corruption and compliance. Besides the
generic GRI indicators, it is worth mentioning cruises change the
character of harbor areas in destinations, often making them un-
attractive to local citizens (Seidl, Guiliano, & Pratt, 2007) and land-
based tourists alike (Klein, 2011). This is especially acute in small
destinationswhere the ratio to cruise passenger per resident is high
(Brida & Zapata, 2010) and is causing a “crowding-out trap” of the
stay-over tourism (Bresson & Logossah, 2011).

The final issue is product responsibility including health and
safety, while product and service labeling, marketing communica-
tions, customer privacy and compliance will be reviewed following
generic GRI indicators. Health and safety of customers and staff is
an aspect of corporate responsibility. The ShipSan Project Study
results revealed a diversity of approaches and practices in the
conduct of ship inspections, differences in the competencies of
inspectors and the legislation applied during inspections, and a lack
of communication and training among many European Union
member states (Hadjichristodoulou et al., 2011). Recognizing that
there is a need for standards, a manual was published with
guidelines and best practices (EC, 2011). The 2012 Costa Concordia
disaster has reminded us that ships may not be able to help all
passengers abandon the ship within 30 min. The International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) must be updated to
suit the modern cruise line industry since SOLAS was first pub-
lished when ships accommodated no more than 2000 passengers
(Klein, 2012).

The American Medical Association called for awareness on the
limited medical services available aboard ships (Klein, 2012).
“Keeping on top of health” appears as an industry association target
(CLIA, 2012). Medical services depend on ship size, duration,
destination of the voyage and the number of passengers and crew.
Directive 92/29/EEC on the minimum safety and health re-
quirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels
establish some requirements on sanitary personnel, medical sup-
plies and equipment. Although cruise lines remind us that this is
not just a cruise issue, the incidence of illness caused by norovirus
has increased significantly and ships traveling inwarmerwaters are
especially at risk since outbreaks often occur in closed or semi
closed communities. The cruise industry works with the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention Vessel Sanitation Program
designed for developing and implementing sanitation programs to
minimize the risk for gastroenteritis, also addressed under the
ShipSan Project. In the United Sates, the Cruise Vessel Security and
Safety Act of 2010 requires a doctor or nurse to be onboard for the
treatment of a victim sexual assault. While well intended, there are
shortfalls in enforcement, financing and prosecution (Doherty,
2012). The Standard for Training Certification and Watch Keeping

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160 153

for Seafarers is the only international maritime law establishing
some requirements (Klein, 2012).

In relation to safety and security, there are many regulatory and
legal standards that apply to onboard safety and security which
include flag state and port state laws. SOLAS is considered the most
important of all international treaties concerning the safety of
ships, which was amended in 2002 by the International Ship and
Port Facility Security (IMO, 2002). It also includes the Standards of
Training Certification and Watch Keeping and the International
Safety Management rules. Security is not only related to the pre-
vention of accidents and response systems, but also to criminality.
Most common are sexual assaults and thefts which are in many
cases related to alcohol use (Klein, 2012). The Manila Amendments
(ISF/ICS, 2011) address alcohol consumption and cruise lines should
implement an alcohol program that manages how alcohol is served
to passengers.

In addition, there are specifically economic impacts of cruising
included in the index. The cruise industry boasts of its positive
economic impacts by creating jobs and contributing to the econ-
omy of destinations visited (ECC, 2011; Klein, 2011) but there is
limited public data to substantiate this claim. In fact, low spend
cruisers are considered unproductive given the costs incurred by
the destination (Jayawardena, 2002; Larsen, Wolff, Marnburg, &
Øgaard, 2013). The duration of the visit and the number of
spending opportunities correlates with the popularity and attrac-
tiveness of the destination (PRC, 2009), but these are too short and
only allow passengers to take shore tours and do some shopping
with very little time to interact with destinations, many of which
are directly controlled by the cruise company itself. Many tourists
simply stay on board, and those disembarking are encouraged to
pay for excursions while on the ship (PRC, 2009) and are charged
rates that include considerable commissions (Cuéllar Río & Kido
Cruz, 2008), reportedly 60e100% in an additional margin
(Johnson, 2006).

Earnings from the supply chain are limited. The requirements of
cruise supply chains are complex. There is limited time to resupply,
increasingly for larger numbers of passengers, and the need to
forecast supply needs to ensure that ships do not run out of sup-
plies despite having limited space for stock. These challenges are
compounded by the added complexity of having mobile supply
points due to the seasonal nature of the industry. This has resulted
in a high concentration of suppliers via a single distribution point
for product consistency, food safety and quality control with
limited opportunities for local supply of produce, and therefore
earnings (Lois, Wang, Wall, & Ruxton, 2004; Véronneau & Roy,
2009).

Cruises differ from other large scale tourism operations in that
they have the ability to take their business away to another desti-
nation, giving them more negotiating power for concessions, fees,
and permits for docking. Destinations therefore have limited say in
whether, when and how cruise ships visit (Manning, 2006). The
cruise industry presents this resilience to economic downturns and
geo-political events as a strength (ECC, 2011). When some Carib-
bean countries have tried to introduce an environmental levy to
compensate for impacts, they have faced threats and often end up
granting further concessions (Atherley, 2003). Obviously, there is a
complex infrastructure of power relations, as Caribbean islands
depend on tourism, and this results in high competition amongst
destinations (Lester & Weeden, 2004).

4. Method

A review of the literature helped in the development of a
corporate social reporting index as a reliable proxy for a firm’s
corporate social reporting. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

sustainability reporting guidelines were developed as a way of
helping organizations to report on their environmental, social and
economic performance increasing their accountability, through the
implementation of the transparency, inclusiveness, auditability,
completeness, relevance, sustainability context, accuracy,
neutrality, comparability, clarity and timeliness principles.
Although environmental, social and economic impacts trade-offs
are not possible, and it is not realistic to compensate with a com-
pany’s environmental performance for the lack of social or eco-
nomic performance; triple bottom line reporting is a necessary
precondition for change. It can force organizations to measure and
communicate more accurately than with only traditional financial
reporting. Although the GRI has received criticism (Fonseca,
McAllister, & Fitzpatrick, 2012; Moneva, Archel, & Correa, 2006),
it is still the most relevant index and widely used in academic
analyses (Morhardt, 2010).

GRI helped classify the aspects into environmental and socio-
economic, and provided most of the indicators, unlike other
studies that only focus on environmental aspects (Clarkson, Li,
Richardson, & Vasvari, 2008; Ramus & Montiel, 2005). This study
differs by focusing on a single industry, adding specific cruise sector
indicators extracted from Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria; the
GRI tour operators supplement; the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from ships (MARPOL); international
legislative proposals like the Maritime Labour Convention
(International Labour Conference, 2006) and specialized cruise in-
dustry literature as outlined earlier in this article.

Early studies suggest that the collection of process or manage-
ment data is usually easier both for the company to gather and for
stakeholders to understand, while outcome data collection is
complex and more open to interpretation (Ilinitch, Soderstrom, &
Thomas, 1999). However the literature has evolved placing more
demand on tangible data in two ways applied here. First, this study
classifies the indicators into soft and hard to test mimetic behavior.
“Hard categories”, include information items related to objective
data and measures “that cannot easily be mimicked by poor envi-
ronmental performers” and “soft categories” that include infor-
mation items related to claims that are not easily verifiable
(Clarkson et al., 2008:309). This is similar to de Grosbois’ attempt to
compare initiatives against performance measurements for the
hotel industry (2012). Second, this study classifies the indicators
into management and performance to test the level of maturity of
their reporting systems. Management (or leading) indicators pro-
vide information on the organization’s capabilities and efforts in
managing matters such as training, legal requirements, resource
allocation and documentation (Olsthoorn, Tyteca, Wehrmeyer, &
Wagner, 2001). Management efforts are a means to an end e that
is, to influence an organization’s performance. They often precede
the disclosure or improvement of performance indicators (lagging
indicators), which include specific actions related to procurement,
production process and disposal as well as outputs such as emis-
sions and water consumption (Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Kolk &
Mauser, 2002).

4.1. Items classification

An annex downloadable from the journal’s website provides the
full set of indicators used in the CSR index, classified as soft/hard
and management/performance, to encourage usage by other aca-
demics. The disclosure index consists of seven environmental cat-
egories (A1eA7), six social categories (B1eB6) and one economic
category (C1).

Categories A1 and B1 focus on hard management disclosures
related to a firm’s governance structure and management systems
put in place with respect to environmental protection and social

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160154

responsibility (Jose & Lee, 2007). A1 scores the existence of an
environmental or pollution prevention department and B1 scores
the existence of a social responsibility department assessing issues
such as human rights, occupational health and safety, product
safety and impacts on destinations respectively. A2 and B2 focus on
credibility, covering issues such as external awards and certification
in environmental or social management systems (ISO 14001, SA
8000).

Environmental performance indicators are included in the A3
heading while B3 covers management and performance indicators
related key social aspects such as labor and decent work, human
rights, society, and product responsibility which include most
relevant safety and security issues. A4 and B4 report on financial
indicators arising from more proactive environmental initiatives,
R&D spending, fines and employee education. All of these items are
easily verifiable and difficult for poor performers to mimic
(Clarkson et al., 2008).

However, headings A5eA7 and B5eB6 are all considered soft
items and include statements about a firm’s environmental and
social policy, strategy, codes of conduct, commitment to comply
with current and future legislation, etc. Some consist of parts of
environmental or social management systems which are not al-
ways integrated into the whole strategy of a company (Bonilla-
Priego, Najera, & Font, 2011) and are the easiest practices to mimic.

Heading C1 is dedicated to economic indicators encompassing
generic economic performance category, and economic impact on
destinations. All seven indicators are labeled as hard, following the
previous reasoning, since they refer to economic data easily veri-
fiable and difficult to mimic, or specific measures implemented in
destinations.

4.2. Sample

The population consisted of 80 cruise companies in the mem-
bership data of the principal cruise line associations as of October
2011 [Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) and Florida-
Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA) in USA and Canada, Euro-
pean Cruise Council (ECC) in Europe and finally International Cruise
Council Australasia (ICCA) and Japan Oceangoing Passenger Ship
Association (JOPA) in Asia]. Within the sample of 80 cruise com-
panies we searched for any CSR information in company reports,
internet websites or other public documents. Three companies
were dropped as all the informationwas in Japanese or German.

provided some sustainability or environmental responsibility in-
formation, but NYK Group was dropped since it is made up of lo-
gistics firms with just three cruise ships out of 827 vessels. Our
“sampling unit” is therefore data from 29 cruise companies in
Autumn 2011, consisting of sustainability reports, website infor-
mation and additional reports available as redirects from the
company’s main website (for example, Carbon Disclosure reports).
The date is important because several companies were reporting
for the first time, but afterwards they reported as a group and not
independently, hence it provides useful baseline data. Table 1
shows the 11 companies that had CSR reports (from now on,
Group 1) and Table 2 shows the 18 companies that only had in-
formation on their website (Group 2). Group 3 is the 51 cruise
companies that did not report any aspect of sustainability, which is
worth bearing in mind but will not be the focus of this study.

4.3. Data analysis

Content analysis is used in this article to analyze corporate
sustainability reporting practices of cruise companies as is
considered the dominant research method for collecting empirical
evidence in the field of social and environmental accounting and

reporting (Guthrie & Abeysekera, 2006; Parker, 2005; Silverman,
2009; Steenkamp, 2007). We developed a coding sheet and a set
of rules for coding texts. The information published by companies
was codified according to the following rules. If the information
found in publications of a specific company is relative to one of the
items included in a specific category, we assign “1” to that item. If
information related to a specific item was not found in specific
company publications, we assigned “0” to that item- we reiterate
that as this is a disclosure index, we did not set out to test whether
the information provided shows a high level of performance, sim-
ply if the company publicly acknowledges what they are doing in
respect to each issue. We did not analyze the level of performance,
weigh the importance or intensity of indicators (Abbott & Monsen,
1979; Font, Walmsley, Cogotti, McCombes, & Häusler, 2012;
Wiseman, 1982), although the instrument was originally designed
to capture data intensity as well as availability, following Clarkson
et al. (2008), because the available reported data did not make
this possible.

Actions were taken to assure validity and reliability (Milne &
Adler, 1999; Morhardt, 2010). Semantic validity was assured by
means of precise operative definitions of every one of the analytic
categories and items that we analyzed. A large part of these cate-
gories has a generally accepted definition supplied by GRI and in-
ternational organizations linked to tourism and maritime
navigation. Categories without previous definition were set by us
based on existing literature. Structural validity was assured by a
detailed description of the steps followed, decision making rules,
and process of making inferences, outlined in the results when
necessary. In terms of reliability, we could not measure accuracy as
there are no CSR reference units in the cruise sector recognized as
optimal or appropriate to benchmark against. However, coding
consistency was achieved by two researchers independently coding
reports using the same recording instructions to the same units of
analysis.

5. Results

We analyze the level (how much information is provided),
verifiability (hard/soft data) and breadth of disclosure (range of
aspects addressed in the reports). We also consider the impact of
reporting disclosure against reporting experience and company
characteristics. Table 3 presents the results of the cruising corpo-
rate sustainability reporting index, presenting average and indi-
vidual results for Group 1 and Group 2 companies.

Category A1 reaches the highest score as all companies have an
environmental department, but just a few cases link executive
compensation to environmental performance. Most have ISO 14001
certification andmany apply environmental terms to suppliers and/
or customers and make environmentally-related donations. How-
ever, credibility (category A2) has a considerably lower score,
because although most companies claim to follow GRI reporting
guidelines to report on sustainability and have received an envi-
ronmental award, only the Costa report has GRI verification; few
involve stakeholders in the disclosure process and only Tui and
Disney are included in the FTSE4Good and Dow Jones sustainability
indexes.

Category A3 is especially relevant since environmental perfor-
mance is the result of the environmental practices adopted. No
companies reported on the consumption of materials or biodiver-
sity impacts. Instead most information is focused on energy con-
sumption and emissions, although scores were low due to a failure
to report complete information on emissions from indirect energy
consumption or the methodology used. Many describe their use of
advanced water treatment systems to explain waste-water
discharge while few report on their ballast wastewater

Table 3
CSR disclosure (in % from total of indicators per category and aspect) (Group 1 e CSR reports and website content).

Category (number of indicators) All
companies
(29)

Group 1
(11)

Group 2
(18)

Princess
Cruises

Holland
America
Line

Costa
Cruises

P&O
Australia

Carnival Aida
Cruises

Yachts of
Seabourn

Carnival
UK

Royal
Caribbean

TUI
Travel
plc

Disney
Cruise

Total 16 39 3 53 52 48 46 45 40 38 32 26 26 22
Environment: total (84) 18 42 3 50 50 54 50 50 46 38 32 32 32 27
Soft disclosure (13) 24 51 8 38 77 62 62 54 31 54 23 69 62 31
Hard disclosure (71) 17 41 3 52 45 52 48 49 49 37 34 27 28 27
Management (37) 20 43 6 38 54 54 38 46 30 35 32 49 62 41
Performance (47) 16 41 1 60 47 53 60 53 60 43 32 21 11 17

A1 Governance structure and
management systems

29 66 6 71 71 71 57 57 43 29 57 86 100 86

A2 Credibility 19 35 9 30 30 70 10 50 30 30 30 20 70

A3 Environmental performance

indicators
16 41 1 60 47 53 60 53 60 43 32 21 11 17

Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water 24 64 0 100 67 100 100 100 100 100 33 0 0 0
Biodiversity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Emissions, effluents and
waste

19 48 1 69 54 60 69 60 69 46 40 26 11

Products and services 21 45 6 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 50 50 50
A4 Environmental financial

indicators
5 14 0 14 29 0 14 14 14 14 29 14 14 0

A5 Vision and strategy claims 35 68 15 33 83 100 83 67 50 83 17 100 83 50
A6 Environmental profile 16 39 2 33 67 0 67 33 0 33 67 67 33 33
A7 Environmental initiatives 14 34 1 50 75 50 25 50 25 25 0 25 50 0

Total 16 39 3 53 52 48 46 45 40 38 32 26 26 22
Socio-economic: total (110) 14 34 2 51 48 38 40 37 32 35 29 17 17 15
Soft disclosure (23) 13 31 3 52 39 30 52 26 22 35 9 26 22 26
Hard disclosure (87) 14 34 1 53 53 43 37 40 34 36 37 15 17 14
Management (61) 13 30 3 38 41 34 39 28 23 30 18 21 30 23
Performance (49) 15 38 0 72 61 47 41 49 43 43 47 12 4 8

B1 Governance structure and
management systems

16 39 1 33 33 67 17 33 33 33 17 33 67 67

B2 Credibility 17 36 6 42 42 50 8 33 42 50 17 33 50 25
B3 Key social indicators 13 33 1 58 55 35 41 41 32 34 39 13 7 8
Labor and decent work 18 48 0 83 77 63 47 70 53 53 53 7 7 13
Human rights 8 22 0 31 23 38 23 15 38 8 46 0 8 8
Society 9 22 2 12 62 0 50 38 12 12 25 0 25 0
Product responsibility 9 23 1 55 40 5 40 15 5 30 20 35 0 5

B4 Social spending 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B5 Vision and strategy claims 31 68 8 83 83 100 83 83 67 83 17 50 50 50
B6 Social profile 12 27 2 60 40 20 40 20 20 40 0 20 20 20
C1 Economic indicators 6 16 1 22 22 22 67 0 0 0 22 0 11 11
Economic performance 5 12 0 33 33 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Economic impact on
destinations

7 18 1 17 17 33 67 0 0 0 33 0 17 17

Source: authors.

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160 155

management practices e average scores are therefore low despite
addressing some of the issues. TUI, Disney and Royal Caribbean
provide no information on water discharge. The first two report on
cruising as part of their global portfolio of activities, dedicating less
space to sector specific aspects. In spite of reporting on emissions,
there is limited information on efforts and technologies adopted
such as fuel alternatives and shore-side power. Despite most
companies reporting on solid waste generation, the average score is
near 50% as scarce information is provided on ashes and safe hull
coatings.

A4 is the last hard data category, devoted to monetary infor-
mation related to environmental spending and environmental
fines. The score comes mainly from information related to the
number and the amount spent on sanctions. Categories A5eA7
record soft environmental indicators. We record high scores in both
as even companies without a sustainability report declare a
commitment to protect the environment (A5 vision and strategy
claims) and many describe future environmental goals (A7 envi-
ronmental initiatives).

Governance structures and management systems score lower in
the social than environmental dimensions (39%e66%). A CSR

department or similar organizational body is not widely found in
cruise lines, especially in Group 2 companies. For those that do have
them, few details about the recruiting systemwere provided, while
the most reported aspects are those of employment and training.
However, there is much less information about sensitive issues
such as labor management relations and occupational, health and
safety. With the exception of highly risky areas such as child
compulsory labor, indicators included in other social dimension
areas (human rights, society and product responsibility) show a low
score. When looking at communities, the indicator related to
describing policies on selecting destinations is the best rated in-
dicator, but only the economic implications, like changing itiner-
aries to reduce fuel consumption, are described. Although 63%
disclose practices related to customer satisfaction and the results of
surveys, few identify which flag they are sailing under and never
indicate the reason and process for choosing a particular country.

The economic dimension is by far the least addressed. Reports
rarely provide their own economic data, and far fewer discuss
specific economic impacts in destinations andmeasures to improve
local communities’ economic development. The most reported in-
dicator relates to creating infrastructure for community

Table 4
CSR disclosure (in % from total of indicators per category) (Group 2 e website content only).

Category (number of indicators) Group 2
(18)

Crystal
Cruises

Norwegian
CL

Hapa
Lloyd

Genting
HK

MSC
Cruises

Orion SilverSea Windstar Uniworld Fred
Olsen

Tauck Avalon Scenic
tour

Compagnie
du Ponant

Iberocruceros Lüftner Paul
Gauguin

Hurtigruten

Total 3 8 8 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Environment: total (84) 3 11 11 6 2 5 4 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Soft disclosure (13) 8 15 23 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 0 8 8
Hard disclosure (71) 3 10 8 6 1 6 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
Management (37) 6 16 22 5 5 5 8 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 3 5 3 3 3
Performance (47) 1 6 2 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

A1 Governance structure and
management systems

6 29 29 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0

A2 Credibility 9 20 30 10 10 10 20 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 0 0
A3 Environmental performance

indicators
1 6 2 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

A4 Environmental financial
indicators

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A5 Vision and strategy claims 15 17 33 17 17 0 17 17 17 17 17 0 17 17 17 17 0 17 17
A6 Environmental profile 2 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A7 Environmental initiatives 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3 8 8 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Socio-economic: total (110) 3 5 5 4 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Soft disclosure (23) 8 9 9 13 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
Hard disclosure (87) 3 5 3 1 5 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Management (61) 6 10 5 5 8 3 2 3 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 0
Performance (49) 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B1 Governance structure and
management systems

6 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B2 Credibility 9 17 8 0 25 17 0 17 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 8 0 0
B3 Key social indicators 1 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B4 Social spending 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B5 Vision and strategy claims 15 17 17 33 17 0 0 0 0 17 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 17 0
B6 Social profile 2 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C1 Economic indicators 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: authors.

M
.J.Bonilla-Priego

et
al./

Tourism
M
anagem

ent
44

(2014)
149

e
1

156

Table 5
CSR disclosure ratios.

Ratios Group 1 Group 2

Environmental hard/soft 0.8 0.4
Environmental performance/management 0.9 0.2
Socio-economic hard/soft 1.1 0.3
Socio-economic performance/management 1.3 0

Source: authors.

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160 157

development. Cruise lines refer to providing equipment for
educational, health or sanitation facilities e in effect charitable
donations. And all too often they were providing infrastructure
help only at their home ports, many in the United States, but not in
their destinations communities.

6. Discussion

Cruising lacks the normative and cultural institutions to incen-
tivize industry wide CSR (Campbell, 2007). The industry has not yet
reached mimetic behavior (Ramus & Montiel, 2005) and cruising is
unusual in having few top scorers e industries with more CSR
experience have a fairly linear decline in reporting scores
(Morhardt, 2010). This suggests that with data from 2010, the cruise
industry would not be ready to accept CSR industry self-regulation
andwould resist government intervention (Campbell, 2007). Group
1 reports on 38% of the indicators, showing that producing corpo-
rate sustainability reports significantly improves the level of
disclosure (Table 3). Group 2 seems to react to sector wide pres-
sures by making weak public declarations of commitment (3%
environment and 2% socio-economic indicators) (Table 4). Yet the
bulk of companies do not report (Group 3), similarly to what was
found in the hospitality industry (de Grosbois, 2012).

We are at a stage of conservative social accounts reflecting the
voice of the cruise companies, not their stakeholders. Tables 3 and 4
showa greater disclosure of environmental aspects that lead to cost
savings and cost avoidance (water; emissions, effluents and waste;
products and services) in line with “beyond compliance theory”
(Reinhardt, 1999), suggesting that stakeholder influence is still
limited at this stage. In the social dimension, regulation seems to be
the main stakeholder as that is the basis for companies acting. But
there is scarce information about how these businesses are getting
ready to deal with sensitive issues forthcoming by regulation such
as the management of recruitment agencies, hours of work and
rest, confirmation of contractual conditions in writing, all
addressed by the Maritime Labour Convention which only entered
into force in 2013, but with a low likelihood of being implemented
in full (Piniella et al., 2013). Meanwhile, Community and Economic
indicators have the lowest scores of all in our study, and these are
considerably lower than in other sectors with 45% claiming com-
munity involvement (Jose & Lee, 2007).

Both legitimacy and stakeholder theory would suggest that the
groups least mentioned or addressed are those with the least po-
wer (Cormier et al., 2004; Elijido-Ten et al., 2010; Henriques &
Sadorsky, 1999; O’Dwyer, 2002). Stakeholder theory will tell us
about the responsibilities accepted by cruise companies, while
accountability theory will focus on those moral rights to informa-
tion needs not met due to power asymmetries (Gray et al., 1997).
Service sector employees did not believe that their companies were
implementing sustainability practices as strongly as in other sec-
tors (Ramus &Montiel, 2005), and cruise companies involving staff,
customers and suppliers in environmental management systems is
much lower than average (Jose & Lee, 2007). The results confirm
that cruises are in a position of strength in dictating how destina-
tions will cater to their needs (Lester & Weeden, 2004), while
destinations cannot contest cruises’ self-reported legitimacy.

As a result of this limited stakeholder pressure, there is little
commitment to changing practices that would affect the core of the
business. For example sustainable supply chain management pol-
icies, which should impact on Materials or Biodiversity (A3 in
Tables 3 and 4), are absent from every company. Equally the choices
of itineraries are justified in these CSR reports by fuel cost or in
some cases security (RCI) but not by destination impacts such as
avoiding crowding, as no company scored on the indicator SO.2,
and SO.3 scored up to 18%. This is typical of other industries that

downplay responsibility towards suppliers or through the supply
chain and prefer to mention issues not affected by their activities
(Maignan & Ralston, 2002) as CSR policies tend to deal with the
edges of business (Laufer, 2003; Ramus & Montiel, 2005). Envi-
ronmental policies that do not have an economic benefit are less
likely to be applied (Ramus & Montiel, 2005) e which is consistent
with disclosureeperformance gaps found in the hospitality sector
(Font et al., 2012; de Grosbois, 2012).

We also find that company size is directly related to CSR
disclosure for the cruise industry (see Tables 1 and 2) as it is pri-
marily brands within Carnival and Royal Caribbean that report.
Disney Cruise Lines and Tui (through ThomsonCruise Lines) are
small cruise operators, but belonging to corporations already
reporting on CSR, and some of their scores are the result of
company-wide practices that may not be specifically applied to
their cruise sector. Surprisingly we still find large companies not
reporting (Norwegian and MSC Cruises for example, see Tables 2
and 4). Company size and environmental risk increase the level of
reporting (Morhardt, 2010). With the environmental threat being
similar for all cruise companies, company visibility and stakeholder
pressures would explain the level of corporate commitment to
reporting (Adams et al., 1998). However, our research did not find
that country where the company is headquartered impacts on CSR
reporting (Tables 1 and 2), as happens in other industries (Maignan
& Ralston, 2002). We attribute this to the globalized nature of these
firms, applying laws from the countries where their ships are
registered and not necessarily where the corporations are head-
quartered. Our data did not allow us to test if fixed assets agee how
old cruise lines areewould influence CSR disclosure (Cormier et al.,
2005), although intuitively it is clear that newer ships are more
efficient and lend themselves to good public relations, often to
counteract the fact that they are considerably larger.

There is a clear relationship between the amount of disclosure
and the aspects disclosed, as shown in Table 5. Companies
disclosing less information (Group 2) are proportionally more likely
to focus on soft and management indicators. Group 2 companies
report on some credibility systems in place (A2, B2) and make
general statements (A5, B5) before providing performance data.
Fig. 1 shows this behavior in relation to environmental soft/hard
disclosure. The amount of hard indicators is higher for the com-
panies that overall report more, although for Group 1 companies
the soft indicators show a more volatile behavior consistent with
the fact that are easier to mimic and less relevant for better per-
formers who can also provide hard data. For Group 1 companies,
the reasons for focusing on them can respond also to different types
of reports and company structures. For example, Tui and Royal
Caribbean may well report on more soft indicators because Tui is
reporting for the whole group where cruising is of limited impor-
tance, while Royal Caribbean reports on the cruise activity of three
cruise lines (RC, Celebrity and Azamara). This pattern was similar
when comparing other ratios which for space reasons are not dis-
played in this article but can be calculated from Tables 3 and 4. The
behavior is consistent with the literature, showing that companies
are likely to publish broad statements but not make specific com-
mitments when they feel the need to legitimize their behavior
(Adams et al., 1998; Clarkson et al., 2008). Ramus and Montiel

–

Pr
in

ce
ss

C
ru

ise
s

Ho
lla

nd
A

m
er

ic
a

Li
ne

Co
st

a
Cr

ui
se

s
P&

O
A

us
tr

al
ia

Ca
rn

iv
al

Ai
da

C
ru

ise
s

Ya
ch

ts
o

f S
ea

bo
ur

n
Ca

rn
iv

al
U

K
Ro

ya
l C

ar
ib

be
an

TU
I T

ra
ve

l p
lc

Di
sn

ey
C

ru
ise

Cr
ys

ta
l C

ru
ise

s
N

or
w

eg
ia

n
CL

Ha
pa

Ll
oy

d
Ge

n
ng

H
K

M
SC

C
ru

ise
s

O
rio

n
Si

lv
er

Se
a

W
in

ds
ta

r
U

ni
w

or
ld

Fr
ed

O
lse

n
Ta

uc
k

Av
al

on
Sc

en
ic

to
ur

Co
m

pa
gn

ie
d

u
Po

na
nt

Ib
er

oc
ru

ce
ro

s
Lü

ne
r

Pa
ul

G
au

gu
in

Hu
r

gr
ut

Environm so

Environm hard

Total score

Fig. 1. Environmental soft/hard disclosure (Group 1 and Group 2 companies).
Source: authors.

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160158

(2005) show that service sector firms are just as likely to commit
but less likely to implement environmental policies, evidenced also
in the hospitality industry (de Grosbois, 2012).

In addition Table 5 also shows how companies disclosing less
information (Group 2) disclose more management than perfor-
mance data. If we apply Kolk and Mauser’s (2002) argument that
management indicators are leading and therefore visible in the
organization earlier than the performance or lagging indicators, we
would expect that in the early years of reporting we would have a
higher proportion of the management indicators. Once companies
report (Group 1) the difference is no longer evident ewe find some
cruise companies in their third report with a disproportionately
higher percentage of soft and management indicators that fail to
communicate what difference these make to performance, while
several Carnival companies reporting for the first time have more
hard and performance indicators (see Tables 1 and 3).

Currently, experience in reporting does not impact on the level
of CSR disclosure (see Table 1). Costa reports on 47% of indicators
and ranks third despite being the most experienced company and
having the only report validated by GRI. Instead, three of the top
five companies are reporting for the first time, and TUI, Royal
Caribbean and Disney all report between 26% and 22% of indicators
despite being in their third year of reporting. It is important to fully
understand the period studied as it was the beginning of the cruise
industry’s acceptance of CSR reporting as standard practice as
explained by institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Institutional isomorphism will influence group-think in the con-
tents and style, both improving and standardizing reporting
(Ramus & Montiel, 2005). The subsequent 2010 Carnival Corpora-
tion Sustainability Report brings together data from all their com-
panies, yet lacks detail on what each company does- longitudinal
analysis is needed to further test how companies vary against our
baseline data.

The current increase in sustainability reporting in cruising may
be attributed towhat Benoit called image restoration (1995), which
will be expected to be triggered in part by the Costa Concordia
accident and increasing legislation. The International Labour
Organization’s 2006 Maritime Labour Convention only came to
force in August 2013, updating and unifying multiple international
norms; as well as the Manila Amendments to the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which focus on training and
rest hours requirements and which entered gradually into force in
July 2012 (ISF/ICS, 2011). This may be an attempt towards changing

perceptions but not behavior in an attempt of reputation risk
management, or it may be a genuine attempt to take responsibility
(Bebbington et al., 2008). A discourse analysis approach to the
content may be able to complement quantitative measures in
analyzing the more recent reports.

7. Conclusions

The contribution from this article resides in the creation of an
index to measure CSR in the cruise industry, for which data was
collected at a point in time significant to the evolution of the sector
providing a basis for comparison. The voluntary nature and the lack
of standardization of the content of these reports leads to a need to
examine what circumstances make companies report different
practices. This study contributes to the debate on how to measure
and classify corporate disclosures by applying index indicators
beyond the environmental disclosure where most theory has been
developed. The classification as hard/soft and management/per-
formance has provided an additional level of depth to the analysis
to explain behavior.

The application to a specific sector helps further understand not
only what is reported, but to suggest reasons for the practices re-
ported. Already well-established in the corporate reporting litera-
ture, legitimization theory has proven useful. The results suggest
that the cruise industry is in the early stages of accepting re-
sponsibility. This is demonstrated by the small numbers of com-
panies reporting dominated by the major international brands,
while for the laggards there is an overall focus on soft indicators,
the development of management systems with a limited disclosure
of performance and the focus on indicators away from the core
business practices. Recording sector specific baseline data will
allow tracking progress in further stages.

This study only presents a first step in the development of a
disclosure index. Improved company performance and a better
understanding of the literature will eventually allow the grading of
performance to create benchmarks, allowing the rating of practices
according to the recording systems we had outlined in the meth-
odology section, which had to be dropped as current cruise prac-
tices were too limited to create meaningful scales. In addition,
further research on factors conditioning reporting should be un-
dertaken to better understand the reporting process. Although the
literature focuses on corporate characteristics, little research has
examined internal factors such as the process of reporting and the

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160 159

attitudes of key players (Adams, 2002) which will go deeper in the
stakeholder consultation process and governance structures.

References

Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social re-
sponsibility: self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate
social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 501e515.

Adams, C. A. (2002). International organizational factors influencing corporate so-
cial and ethical reporting. Beyond current theorizing. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 15, 223e249.

Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance
portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17, 731e757.

Adams, C. A. (2008). A commentary on: corporate social responsibility reporting
and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
21, 365e370.

Adams, C., Hill, W. Y., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in
Western Europe: legitimating corporate behaviour? British Accounting Review,
30, 1e22.

Atherley, K. A. (2003). Cruise industry e Related challenges facing Caribbean desti-
nations. Report prepared for Organization of American States. (CIDI/CIP/doc.
135.03).

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17, 99e120.

Bauer, P. J. (2007). Maritime labour convention: an adequate guarantee of seafarer
rights, or and impediment to true reforms. Chicago Journal of International Law,
8, 643e655.

Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and
reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21,
337e361.

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Sears’ repair of its auto service image: image restoration
discourse in the corporate sector. Communication Studies, 46, 89e105.

Bonilla-Priego, M. J., Najera, J. J., & Font, X. (2011). Environmental management
decision-making in certified hotels. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19, 361e382.

Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-
based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 111e132.

Bresson, G., & Logossah, K. (2011). Crowding-out effects of cruise tourism on stay-
over tourism in the Caribbean: non-parametric panel data evidence. Tourism
Economics, 17, 127e158.

Brida, J. G., & Zapata, S. (2010). Cruise tourism: economic, socio-cultural and envi-
ronmental impacts. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 1,
205e226.

Campbell, J. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways?
An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 32, 946e967.

Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497e505.

Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation
between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an
empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 303e327.

CLIA. (2012). Cruise industry policies. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Cruise Lines International
Association. http://www.cruising.org/regulatory/cruise-industry-policies.

COM. (2007). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. An
Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union (COM (2007) 575 final).
Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Cormier, D., Gordon, I. M., & Magnan, M. (2004). Corporate environmental disclo-
sure: contrasting management’s perceptions with reality. Journal of Business
Ethics, 49, 143e165.

Cormier, D., Magnan, M., & Van Velthoven, B. (2005). Environmental disclosure
quality in large German companies: economic incentives, public pressures or
institutional conditions? European Accounting Review, 14, 3e39.

Cuéllar Río, M., & Kido Cruz, M. T. (2008). Perfil y análisis del gasto del crucerista: el
caso de Bahías de Huatulco (México). Cuadernos de turismo, 47e78.

Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental
disclosures e a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 15, 282e311.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American So-
ciological Review, 48, 147e160.

Dimitrova, D. N., & Blanpain, R. (2010). Seafarers’ rights in the globalized maritime
industry (Vol. 75). Kluwer Law International.

Doherty, W. H. (2012). Oversight of the cruise ship industry: Are current regulations
sufficient to protect passengers & the environment. Washington: U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Testimony before the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Russell Senate
Office Building. Room 253. March http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?
a¼Files.Serve&File_id¼46b676e1-48c3-4b3e-b44f-f0fc0830090a.

EC. (2009). Tourist facilities in ports. The environmental factor. Directorate General for
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. Brussels: European Commission.

EC. (2011). European manual for hygiene standards and communicable diseases sur-
veillance on passengers ships. EU SHIPSAN TRAINET project work package 5.
Directorate General for Health and Consumers. Brussels: European Commission.

ECC. (2011). European Cruise Council 2010/11 Report. London: European Cruise
Council. http://www.europeancruisecouncil.com/content/ecc_report_2010_
2011 .

ECC. (2012). European Cruise Council 2012/13 Report. London: European Cruise
Council. http://www.europeancruisecouncil.com/content/ECC%20Report%
202012-13 .

Elijido-Ten, E., Kloot, L., & Clarkson, P. (2010). Extending the application of stake-
holder influence strategies to environmental disclosures: an exploratory study
from a developing country. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23,
1032e1059.

EMEC. (2010). Green Ship Technology Book. Existing Technology by the marine
Equipment Industry: A contribution to the Reduction of the Environmental Impact
of Shipping (2nd ed.). Brussels: European Marine Equipment Council. April.

Eng, L. L., & Mak, Y. T. (2003). Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure.
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22, 325e345.

EPA. (2004). An Ocean Blue Print for the 21st Century. U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. Final Report. Washington D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. (2008). Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report (Assessment Report), published
on December 29, 2008. Reference number EPA 842-R-07-005. Washington D.C.:
Environmental Protection Agency.

Fonseca, A., McAllister, M. L., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2012). Sustainability reporting among
mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach. Journal of
Cleaner Production. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050.

Font, X., Tapper, R., Schwartz, K., & Kornilaki, M. (2008). Sustainable supply
chain management in tourism. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17,
260e271.

Font, X., Walmsley, A., Cogotti, S., McCombes, L., & Häusler, N. (2012). Corporate
social responsibility: the disclosureeperformance gap. Tourism Management,
33, 1544e1553.

Garay, L., & Font, X. (2012). Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility
reasons, practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enter-
prises. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 328e336.

Gard, A. S. (2011). Marpol Annex I. Regulation from the prevention of pollution by oil. A
selection of articles previously published by Gard AS. June. Oslo: Gard AS.

Gollasch, S., Lenz, J., Dammer, M., & Andres, H.-G. (2000). Survival of tropical ballast
water organisms during a cruise from the Indian Ocean to the North Sea. Journal
of Plankton Research, 22, 923e937.

Goodwin, H. (2011). Taking responsibility for tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.
Gray, R., Colin, D., Owen, D., Evans, R., & Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the praxis

of social accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures. Ac-
counting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10, 325e364.

de Grosbois, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility reporting by the global hotel
industry: commitment, initiatives and performance. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 31, 896e905.

Guthrie, J., & Abeysekera, I. (2006). Content analysis of social, environmental
reporting: what is new? Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 10,
114e126.

Hadjichristodoulou, C., Mouchtouri, V. A., Martinez, C. V., Nichols, G., Riemer, T.,
Rabinina, J., et al. (2011). Surveillance and control of communicable dis-
eases related to passenger ships in Europe. International Maritime Health,
62, 138e147.

Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure,
and the capital markets: a review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal
of Accounting and Economics, 31, 405e440.

Henriques, I. Y., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental
commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy
of Management Journal, 42, 87e99.

Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management e
new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal
of Business Ethics, 27, 55e68.

ICCA. (2012). Cruise Industry Report. Australia 2011. Belrose: International Cruise
Council Australasia. http://www.cruising.org.au/filelibrary/files/Australian%
20Cruise%20Industry%20Printed%20Report%20lo-res .

Ilinitch, A. Y., Soderstrom, N. S., & Thomas, T. E. (1999). Measuring corporate
environmental performance. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 17,
383e408.

IMO. (2002). Amendments to the annex to the International Convention for the Safety
of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974. Contained in Resolutions 1, 2, 6 and 7 and including
International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. London: International
Maritime Organization.

IMO. (2011). Status of Conventions Summary (31/10/2011). London: International Mari-
timeOrganization. http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/
Pages/Default.aspx.

International Labour Conference. (2006). Maritime Labour Convention. http://www.
ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/—normes/documents/
normativeinstrument/wcms_090250 .

ISF/ICS. (2011). Manila amendments to the STCW convention. A quick guide for sea-
farers. London: International Shipping Federation and International Chamber of
Shipping.

IUCN. (2008). Biodiversity: My hotel in action. A guide to sustainable use of biological
resources. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Jayawardena, C. (2002). Mastering Caribbean tourism. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14, 88e93.

Johnson, D. (2006). Providing ecotourism excursions for cruise passengers. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 14, 43e54.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref1

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref2

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref3

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref4

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref5

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref6

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref7

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref8

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref9

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref10

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref11

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref12

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref13

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref15

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref16

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref17

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref18

http://www.cruising.org/regulatory/cruise-industry-policies

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref20

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref21

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref22

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref23

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref24

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref25

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref26

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve%26File_id=46b676e1-48c3-4b3e-b44f-f0fc0830090a

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref28

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref29

http://www.europeancruisecouncil.com/content/ecc_report_2010_2011

http://www.europeancruisecouncil.com/content/ECC%20Report%202012-13

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref32

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref33

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref34

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref35

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref36

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref38

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref39

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref40

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref41

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref42

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref43

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref44

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref45

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref46

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref47

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref48

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref49

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref50

http://www.cruising.org.au/filelibrary/files/Australian%20Cruise%20Industry%20Printed%20Report%20lo-res

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref52

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref53

http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/—normes/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_090250

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref56

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref57

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref58

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref59

M.J. Bonilla-Priego et al. / Tourism Management 44 (2014) 149e160160

Jose, A., & Lee, S.-M. (2007). Environmental reporting of global corporations: a
content analysis based on website disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics, 72,
307e321.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic
management system. Harvard Business Review, 74, 75e85.

Kaptein, M. (2007). Ethical guidelines for compiling corporate social reports. Journal
of Corporate Citizenship, 27, 71e90.

Kaptein, M., & Wempe, J. (1998). Twelve Gordian knots when developing an
organizational code of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 853e869.

Klein, R. A. (2003). Cruising e Out of Control: The Cruise Industry, The Environment,
Workers, and the Maritimes. Nova Scotia: Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives.

Klein, R. A. (2011). Responsible cruise tourism: issues of cruise tourism and sus-
tainability. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18, 107e116.

Klein, R. A. (2012). Hearings on “Oversight of the Cruise Industry”. Testimony before
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Russell
Senate Office Building. Room 253 http://www.internationalcruisevictims.org/
Senate2012 .

Kolk, A., & Mauser, A. (2002). The evolution of environmental management: from
stage models to performance evaluation. Business Strategy and the Environment,
11, 14e31.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London:
Sage Publications.

Larsen, S., Wolff, K., Marnburg, E., & Øgaard, T. (2013). Belly full, purse closed: cruise
line passengers’ expenditures. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 142e148.

Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of
Business Ethics, 43, 253e261.

Lester, J. A., & Weeden, C. (2004). Stakeholders, the natural environment and the
future of Caribbean cruise tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6,
39e50.

Lillie, N. (2005). Union networks and global unionism in maritime shipping. Re-
lations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 60, 88e111.

Lois, P., Wang, J., Wall, A., & Ruxton, T. (2004). Formal safety assessment of cruise
ships. Tourism Management, 25, 93e109.

Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and
the US: insights from businesses self-presentations. Journal of International
Business Studies, 33, 497e514.

Manning, T. (2006). Managing cruise ship impacts: Guidelines for current and po-
tential destination communities. A backgrounder for prospective destination
communities. Ottawa: Tourisk, Inc. http://www.tourisk.org/content/projects/
Managing%20Cruise%20Ship%20Impacts .

Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environ-
mental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 12, 237e256.

Moneva, J. M., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate
unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30, 121e137.

Morhardt, J. E. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting
on the Internet. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 436e452.

O’Dwyer, B. (2002). Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish
story. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15, 406e436.

O’Dwyer, B. (2003). Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of
managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16, 523e557.

Olsthoorn, X., Tyteca, D., Wehrmeyer, W., & Wagner, M. (2001). Environmental in-
dicators for business: a review of the literature and standardisation methods.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 9, 453e463.

Parker, L. D. (2005). Social and environmental accountability research: a view
from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18,
842e860.

Piniella, F., Silos, J. M., & Bernal, F. (2013). Who will give effect to the ILO’s Maritime
Labour Convention, 2006? International Labour Review, 152, 59e83.

PRC. (2009). Tourists facilities in ports. The economic factor. Carried out on behalf of
the European Commission Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fish-
eries. Brussels: Policy Research Corporation.

Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a
form of greenwashing? Business Society, 44, 377e414.

Reinhardt, F. (1999). Market failure and the environmental policies of firms: eco-
nomic rationales for “beyond compliance” behavior. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
3, 9e21.

Seidl, A., Guiliano, F., & Pratt, L. (2007). Cruising for colones: cruise tourism eco-
nomics in Costa Rica. Tourism Economics, 13, 67e85.

Silverman, H. I. (2009). Qualitative analysis in financial studies: employing ethno-
graphic content analysis. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 7,
133e136.

Steenkamp, N. (2007). Intellectual Capital Reporting in New Zealand: Refining content
analysis as a research method. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University of
Technology.

Terry, W. C. (2009). Working on the water: on legal space and seafarer protection in
the cruise industry. Economic Geography, 85, 463e482.

Véronneau, S., & Roy, J. (2009). Global service supply chains: an empirical study of
current practices and challenges of a cruise line corporation. Tourism Manage-
ment, 30, 128e139.

Williams, R., Griffiths, F., Van der Wal, E., & Kelly, J. (1988). Cargo vessel ballast water
as a vector for the transport of non-indigenous marine species. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, 26, 409e420.

Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate
annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7, 53e63.

Dr. M. Jesús Bonilla-Priego is Senior Lecturer in the Ac-
counting Department at Rey Juan Carlos University. Her
research focuses on environmental management ac-
counting and corporate social reporting for the tourism
industry.

Dr. Xavier Font is Reader at the International Centre for
Research in Events, Tourism and Hospitality at Leeds
Metropolitan University. His research focuses on under-
standing reasons for pro-sustainability behavior and mar-
ket based mechanisms to encourage sustainable
production and consumption.

Dr. Rosario Pacheco is Senior Lecturer in the Department
of Financial Economics and Accounting at Rey Juan Carlos
University. Her research interest focuses on corporate so-
cial responsibility and intellectual capital.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref60

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref61

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref62

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref63

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref64

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref65

http://www.internationalcruisevictims.org/Senate2012

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref67

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref68

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref69

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref70

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref71

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref72

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref73

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref74

http://www.tourisk.org/content/projects/Managing%20Cruise%20Ship%20Impacts

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref76

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref77

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref78

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref79

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref80

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref81

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref82

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref83

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref84

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref85

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref86

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref87

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref88

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref89

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref90

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref91

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref92

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0261-5177(14)00059-4/sref93

Corporate sustainability reporting index and baseline data for the cruise industry

1 Introduction

2 Environmental impacts

3 Socio-economic impacts

4 Method

4.1 Items classification

4.2 Sample

4.3 Data analysis

5 Results

6 Discussion

7 Conclusions

References

Scuba Diving Tourism System: A framework for collaborative
management and sustainability

Kay Dimmock a,n, Ghazali Musa b

a School of Business and Tourism, Southern Cross University, P.O. Box 157, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia
b Faculty of Business and Accountancy, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 29 October 2014
Received in revised form
11 December 2014
Accepted 16 December 2014
Available online 9 January 2015

Keywords:
Scuba diving tourism system
Sustainability
Stakeholders
Host community
Marine environment

a b s t r a c t

This paper proposes a conceptual model for the scuba diving tourism system (SDTS). A holistic view was
adopted to highlight the central elements of scuba diving tourism (SDT). Specifically, the paper examines
the key components in the SDTS along with issues which challenge the sustainability of SDT. Scuba
divers, the marine environment, the host community and the scuba diving tourism industry (including
all associated industries) are fundamental elements of the SDTS. Notably, the host community is often
overlooked as a key stakeholder in the management and sustainability of SDT at the destination. A
systems approach used to conceptualise the SDTS highlights the need for adaptive management and
leadership to encourage future orientated thinking and the integration of stakeholder concerns and
perspectives to ensure the sustainability of marine resources and experiences.

1. Introduction

The popularity of recreational scuba diving has increased in
recent decades to an extent that scuba diving and the business
activity supporting it have become important tourism sectors
stimulating a billion dollar global industry [2]. Ongoing demand
for scuba diving has been driven by divers’ desire to witness and
experience marine nature [3,4]. At the same time greater access to
appealing underwater sights through advances in technology,
training, education, and equipment have created a thriving Scuba
Diving Tourism (SDT) industry that supports diving activity [5].
There is now a proliferation of destinations and tourism enter-
prises working to accommodate and serve scuba diving tourists
who seek access to marine environments and wildlife. Now, scuba
diving tourists travel throughout the world visiting coral reefs in
91 countries [6].

A growing number of publications in recent years have alerted
to the many issues and concerns relevant to scuba diving tourism.
A review of research since 2005 reveals some 16,000 publications
with scuba diving as their focus. This research comprises a broad
enquiry extending from marine environment impacts through to
human physiology, health and safety, and diver motivation and
satisfaction. Many of these studies support an effort to understand
the issues in scuba diving and related tourism, yet less than 30 per

cent integrate multiple stakeholders and perspectives in a holistic
or systematic way.

Research has been linear with attention primarily given to scuba
diving tourists and impacts. Little research has included the scuba
diving industry, host communities or efforts towards sustainability.
Research has, for example, examined the profile and motivations of
divers [7], diver satisfaction [8,9] and diver experiences [4,10,11].
Study of divers’ experiences has drawn on the detail of personal
narratives of being immersed in the underwater world [11,12]. In
doing so, researchers have grappled with the multi-dimensional
and multi-disciplinary nuances of the human–environment phe-
nomenon drawing from environmental, social and psychological
factors [10,13,14]. These endeavours have conceptualised scuba
diving experiences as place attachment, in-water comfort and
responsible underwater behaviour. Together they offer insight and
detail of human experiences in a marine leisure context revealing
fulfilment and happiness, comfort, constraint or negotiation and
responsible underwater behaviour [10,13,14].

Scuba diving tourism is an economically important industry
evidenced by the number of locations promoting their marine
resources in efforts to become scuba diving destinations and scuba
diving hotspots. This is witnessed in the popularity of Koh Tao in
Thailand, Layang Layang and Sipadan in Malaysia and the Great
Barrier Reef, Australia as ‘must dive’ places widely promoted in
social and other media [15–17]. This is supported by research
assessing the economic value of scuba diving tourism for indus-
tries and destinations [18–20]. Tourist demand for scuba diving
has resulted in the global emergence of a niche sector which
represents high-yield tourism [4].

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Marine Policy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.008
0308-597X/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 2 66203981.
E-mail address: kay.dimmock@scu.edu.au (K. Dimmock).

Marine Policy 54 (2015) 52–58

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0308597X

www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.008

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.008&domain=pdf

mailto:kay.dimmock@scu.edu.au

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.008

A range of research has also examined the environmental impacts
of diving on marine ecosystems [7,15,21,22]. Atkins et al. [23], for
example, noted that frequency and diversity of use is changing
marine habitats and landscapes. Research has also highlighted the
fragility of ecosystems used for tourism and noted the importance of
ongoing assessment of ecological, social and economic factors to
inform discussions of sustainability [24,25]. Meanwhile, Liu [26]
argues that change in environmental resources at a destination does
not render sustainability a failure, as some impacts are unavoidable.
Scuba diving in sensitive and fragile locations requires effective
management to protect ecological and cultural values. In the search
for sustainable approaches, there is a need to understand the
intersections between social and environmental systems as the
critical points from which to advance sustainability goals [27]. Thus
to achieve sustainable outcomes, effective tourism management
must integrate both social and ecological systems [28–30].

Other research challenging the sustainability of scuba diving
tourism highlights the importance of stakeholders within the
destination [31]. For example, Wongthong and Harvey collected
host community members perceptions of the diving industry in
Thailand. Their research suggested that there were opportunities for
improved relations between the scuba diving sector, marine-based
tourism operations and those responsible for governance and
management to achieve more sustainable outcomes. Meanwhile,
Hillmer-Pegram [31] found that scuba diving operators in the US
Virgin Islands experienced a lack of social and political support at
the destination that challenged broader efforts to be sustainable. In
other research, scuba diving tourism destination stakeholders in
some Malaysian island locations had varying perceptions towards
the sustainability of scuba diving tourism. Particularly evident were
environmental concerns raised by industry stakeholders which were
not a priority for non-diving stakeholders who, on the other hand,
supported growth and development and a focus on economic
outcomes generated by scuba diving and related industry activity
[32]. This body of research concluded that achieving sustainable
outcomes needs an approach which draws the views and concerns
of multiple stakeholders together to integrate social and ecological
issues in scuba diving tourism. To this end, a systems approach is
advantageous to understand elements, relationships and issues
within a given tourism system and to explore how these can be
managed to improve sustainable outcomes [26,33,34].

A whole system approach is considered important to unravel the
complexity of tourism activity and guide effective management and
sustainability [28,30,35–37]. A systems approach can clarify the
relationships between stakeholders and reveal the different perspec-
tives, priorities and values of each. Systems approaches enable multi-
ple stakeholders, and their needs and issues, to be acknowledged and
included in decision-making processes [38]. In this way, systems
approaches represent holistic alternatives to more linear approaches,
which might exclude the concerns of particular people and contexts
[37]. Further, processes of change and interactions between humans
and their environment can be better understood from a systems
standpoint [39]. For example, Atkins et al. [23] used a systems
perspective to study human induced influences on marine ecosystems
and recommended policy-level decisions incorporating all stake-
holders from the resource users’ community in addressing usage
impacts and sustainability goals. As Plummer and Fennell [30] note, a
systems approach provides new understandings while enabling more
opportunities for sustainable management through collaboration and
shared responsibility in the co-management of social and ecological
resources.

In this paper, a whole systems approach is used to propose a
conceptual model of the scuba diving tourism system (SDTS). Con-
ceptual models help to explain complex phenomena and processes in
tourism [28,40]. They can, for example, highlight key elements and
simplify important associations in otherwise complex stakeholder

relationships that influence tourism development processes and out-
comes [4,40,41]. This paper takes a holistic view to clarify the key
elements in the SDTS and explore patterns in the relationships
between stakeholders involved in scuba diving tourism.

2. The Scuba Diving Tourism System

The central elements in the Scuba Diving Tourism System (SDTS)
are considered to be: the marine environment, scuba divers, the
scuba diving tourism industry and the host community (represented
in Fig. 1 and explained below).

As the proposed conceptual model shows, the core elements of
the SDTS include divers, marine environments, the scuba diving
tourism industry and the host community. The marine environ-
ment is located at the core of the SDTS since the marine environ-
ment is the key element on which all stakeholders in the system
depend. Key stakeholders involved in the operation of the SDTS
include scuba divers (demand), and suppliers of scuba diving
tourism services (scuba diving operators, charter operations, scuba
diving education and training, as well as associated service and
tourism industries such as accommodation, transport, food ser-
vices, retail and other services catering for scuba divers). Other key
stakeholders include the host community who provide social and
cultural resources and governments, policy makers and resource
managers who manage and provide access to valued marine
environments. In the context of SDT, the use of fragile ecological
environments adds complexity to stakeholder relations [37,44,45].
At the same time, stakeholders prioritise resources and functions
according to their needs and make decisions based on those
priorities [42].

To varying degrees, each stakeholder operating within this system
has their own roles and responsibilities, yet they also interact with,
and are dependent on, the other system stakeholders. Thus areas of
overlapping function require collaboration and accommodation of
roles, agendas and perspectives. Collaboration helps different stake-
holders to recognise other stakeholders’ unique perspectives at the
local level as well as provide a process for exchange and greater
collective understanding [43]. As a social construct, system bound-
aries are flexible and when applied to the local context each
stakeholder is identified highlighting their responsibility for influen-
cing the system.

2.1. Divers

There are reportedly millions of certified scuba divers world-
wide [2,4]. However, many of them experience diving as part of a

Fig. 1. The Scuba Diving Tourism System – key elements.

K. Dimmock, G. Musa / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 52–58 53

holiday or once-only activity [46]. Consequently, there is high
demand for basic safety and skill development by new divers.
Regulated by government and industry bodies [5], the develop-
ment of diving competence continues throughout an individual’s
diving career as they seek more challenging underwater experi-
ences and landscapes [6].

Divers seek opportunities to view and experience diverse under-
water sites and landscapes [17]. They create demand for SDT through
their motivations and expectations of marine environments. Personal
factors influence motivation to engage, and a broad literature (as
previously noted) helps to understand the inner state of divers’
intentions and drivers [47]. Factors motivating divers include the
thrill of diving and seeing marine flora and fauna [13]. Divers are
interested in viewing underwater landscapes and marine life parti-
cularly when size, variety and abundance of species are distinctive
[18,48,49].

Scuba diving markets are heterogeneous, with Garrod [2]
noting that the market varies according to diving experience and
demography, aspirations and needs. This can extend to the
physical requirements of disabled divers [50]. Motivation to dive
in a particular site is influenced by several factors such as location,
diver demography, gender and level of diving specialisation [47].
Over time, and with increased diving frequency, divers’ motiva-
tions change as skills and competence improve [51]. More complex
diving and specialisation is often sought including photography,
wreck or cave diving [7,52].

The ecological impact divers may have on underwater sites is
an area of some concern. While research has been inconclusive to
date, some studies suggest that more experienced divers show
greater concern for the quality of marine flora compared with
those less specialised [16,51]. On this basis, ecological impacts at
scuba diving sites have been linked to diver experience and
technical competence [53–55]. However, negative impacts also
occur at highly concentrated diving locations and sites used by
experienced divers [4,24].

Negative impacts can occur to ecosystems from contact with
divers, diver equipment and fins, as well as from poor buoyancy
control [17]. Buoyancy control is one of the most important factors
producing divers’ impacts [56]. Reports show that most impacts
occur at the start of the dive, as divers settle and become familiar
with aquatic conditions [57]. Impacts may also be more common
among novice divers [13]. Opportunities to build diver awareness
and knowledge are important as many new divers are often
unaware of the consequences of their impacts [58]. The diving
tourism industry plays a key role here as dive masters can
influence underwater conduct and behaviour by sharing informa-
tion that encourages low impact diving practices [49,53].

The marine environment is the focus of diver attention, whether
on arrival at a destination, at the outset of training and equipment
familiarisation, or underwater in the pursuit of satisfying diving
experiences. Yet, the SDTS works because of the industry organisa-
tions and business relations which support divers.

2.2. The scuba diving tourism industry

Scuba divers are generally highly dependent on a wide range of
industry operators to deliver accessible and satisfying scuba diving
experiences. The SDT industry, therefore, centres on the suppliers
of scuba diving services (scuba diving operators, charter opera-
tions, scuba diving education and training, dive specific retail
services, souvenirs, etc.). However, SDT is also reliant on a wide
range of associated service and tourism industries that provide
access and essential tourism related services (such as information
providers, marketers, travel agents, accommodation, transport,
food and beverage services, souvenir outlets, retail services,
medical services, other services catering for scuba divers and

tourists more generally) [19,28]. These industry providers are
located not only in destination regions but in transit routes and
generating regions around the world, as well as increasingly
online. Consequently, the vast range of industries and operators
supplying SDT services and products can be overlooked in policy
and planning processes where a systems approach is not used.

There is great diversity and specialisation amongst these
industry stakeholders. Larger organisations are more likely to be
involved in shaping broader policy and training, while small to
medium sized operators tend to be involved in localised and
specialised services [70]. The interactions between such large
numbers of organisations can be challenging. The SDTS relies on
successful relations and co-ordination between these industry
sectors and destination stakeholders [19]. Within the scuba diving
tourism industry, substantial cooperative inter-organisational
activity is necessary in the supply and provision of SDT experi-
ences [4]. Achieving co-operation requires organisations from
these diverse sectors to develop relations and partnerships that
build opportunities for collective and sustainable outcomes and a
systems approach can be advantageous in this regard.

The purchase of an experience of SDT involves a contract
between the diver and scuba diving operators, with the industry
supplier required to provide a level of care and responsibility for
safety and risk management. Legislation reinforces these respon-
sibilities [59]. The industry plays an important role in training of
skills and competence development. However, the current stan-
dardised approach to training and certification may not be
sufficient to ensure low impact diving given the diversity of diver
skills and experiences across the international community [6,60].
Cardwell [61] noted that the development of scuba diving compe-
tence requires competent instructors with a broad range of
experiences. Nevertheless, large numbers of divers with different
skill levels can make it challenging for operators to satisfy a broad
market and competency base [15].

Beyond training, diving industry services can include a charter
boat ride to the site and underwater management of divers which
must be carried out with due care and skill [59]. In this way dive
operators control the real risks while managing and tempering
perceived risks, allowing divers to retain the thrill and adventure
they seek [62]. Thirumoorthi et al. [63] noted that operators who
focus on professionalism and attention to safety and security
during the scuba diving excursion give divers a greater sense of
trust and confidence. These features also contribute markedly to
satisfaction with the operator as part of the service delivery.
MacCarthy et al. [64] referred to these features as peripheral
aspects of scuba diving experiences which include operator service
and functionality along with camaraderie formed between divers
within the diving group.

Thus, diver satisfaction can be related to both tangible and
intangible aspects [19,56]. Building all aspects of diver safety into
the marine encounter includes using ‘the buddy system under-
water, where individuals are trained to dive in pairs or groups and
monitor each other for reasons of safety and comfort. Issues of
trust and social comfort play a role in satisfaction and can
contribute to ongoing diving participation [65].

Ultimately, a great deal of satisfaction associated with scuba
diving is dependent on quality experiences within the marine
environment [63,66]. However, some aspects of the marine
environment are beyond the service provider’s control [63]. For
example, divers anticipate experiencing high quality marine flora,
fauna, good weather and ocean conditions [67], and in adverse
conditions satisfaction can decline. In fact, Dimmock [68] found
the impact of externalities such as weather and ocean conditions
were significant environmental issues which can hinder scuba
diving excursions and challenge scuba diving operators in meeting
their business goals and the divers’ satisfaction.

K. Dimmock, G. Musa / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 52–5854

Interaction between divers and the industry is assisted by the
increasing use of technology, including social media which has
helped to meet demand and improve diver education and net-
working throughout the diving community. Social media extends
word-of-mouth marketing and promotes awareness and percep-
tions towards diving destinations, sites and underwater experi-
ences through dynamic platforms [19,69].

2.3. The host community

Newly emerging economies and developing nations are increas-
ingly sought after by divers in the search for new dive sites. The Coral
Triangle of Southeast Asia is arguably the world’s leading recreational
scuba diving destination, combining accessibility and recognition for
outstanding dive quality [17]. In fact, regions along the equatorial
zone are popular for their diving sites and newly emerging econo-
mies. Hence, there is a potential for ecotourism activities, such as
scuba diving, to open new destinations and enable host communities
to benefit [71].

Host communities play a critical, yet often overlooked, role in SDT.
Regular demand and supply of scuba diving tourism services gen-
erates patterns of interaction between environmental and social
systems involving host communities [72]. For communities with
pristine natural resources these interactions have high potential to
create positive livelihood benefits for residents [26]. For example, the
scuba diving tourism industry can provide local opportunities for
training and employment as boat skippers, underwater guides or
dive masters. Related tourism service industries can also provide
opportunities for employment and enterprise development. Employ-
ment may transform a community by dispersing significant income
within the locality and creating potential beneficial opportunities for
residents [73,74]. In a similar way, divers’ willingness to pay to access
areas such as protected marine reserves or pristine resources can
provide finances and salaries for marine park managers and other
marine guardianship roles [75].

How destination communities respond to changes in the social
fabric created by tourism is an indicator of management and
sustainable goals [72]. For example, the tourism model applied to
scuba diving tourism in the US Virgin Islands raised concerns
about the equity of the industry’s economic impact and broader
connection with the destination [31]. As well, Daldeniz and
Hampton [76] found different environmental and economic prio-
rities among dive industry stakeholders in Malaysia, highlighting
opportunities for collaboration to support positive social outcomes
across the destination [70].

It is important to understand and monitor the benefits to host
communities [27] and a systems approach can facilitate this. Oppor-
tunities can be missed if the SDT sector is not working closely with
the host community, as Hillmer-Pegram’s [31] research found. It has
been suggested that positive responses from divers to a destination
can lead to further investment in the destination, but that does imply
broader management and community involvement and benefits [54].
For example, ownership of scuba diving tourism operations from
outside the community can lead to economic leakage and external
influence on business decisions, particularly in developing locations,
constraining the development potential of the host community [70].
In fact, Daldeniz and Hampton, [76] found substantially low levels of
host community participation in scuba diving tourism and supporting
businesses in some Malaysian islands. In that study local ownership
was small scale with external business ownership predominating
through external investment in destination infrastructures.

Community based projects like the Shark Reef marine reserve
in Fiji attest to the potential for change in lifestyle practices which
favour conservation and protection of marine species [77]. The
conservation of marine species and local ownership of shark
diving tourism operations led to the host community becoming

custodians of an internationally recognised dive tourism destina-
tion which can empower and benefit the community. In South
Africa, studies on socio-economic impacts of SDT have drawn host
community attention to the conservation value of natural
resources, including marine flora and fauna which helped to
develop a tourism niche for shark diving [78]. However, financial
benefits for locals are often not achieved [79]. Consequently, there
are calls for improved opportunities for local residents – ones that
generate work opportunities, sustainable livelihoods and positive
socio-cultural outcomes [26,76,80].

2.4. Marine environments

The SDTS depends on the accessibility, careful management
and responsible use of the marine environment. The industry’s
reliance on quality marine environments is evident in the regular
use of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) which are a significant
attraction because of the quality of underwater sights they offer.
However, MPAs are established primarily to conserve marine flora
and fauna [18,81], and therefore protection from human impacts is
critical. Meanwhile, evidence of poorly managed marine protected
areas has been noted, especially in tropical locations with devel-
oping economies [82]. In Curacao, poor state-based governance of
marine parks led private sector marine conservation organisations,
including scuba diving tourism operators, to assume greater
responsibility for reef protection [83].

Scuba diving tourism may offer financial support to enable
marine conservation in many locations. Local governments are
also able to invest in monitoring marine environments, encoura-
ging research and preventing overfishing and other negative
impacts [84]. Negative impacts on marine resources from diving
have received attention for some time with early recognition of
the potential for mass diving tourism to damage ecosystems [85].
For divers and diving industry operators, marine environmental
management strategies include improving underwater behaviour,
particularly ensuring the absence of contact (fins, body, cameras)
with benthic systems and removing boat anchors from substrate.
Meanwhile, ongoing research remains alert to trends in diver
behaviours and impacts with reports noting that divers cause less
harm to marine ecosystems than poor land-use practices and
other social activity in host localities [17,86]. These broader
environmental impacts create vulnerable marine environments
through excessive construction and infrastructure development
with increasing pressure from population [87].

3. Discussion

Ensuring the sustainable future of scuba diving tourism requires
an understanding of the issues which arise from divers’ desire to
maximise their experiences, the industry efforts to enable these
experiences while achieving commercial goals, the host community
needs and priorities, and the imperatives to preserve pristine
environments and conservation values in the long term. These
complex and sometimes competing goals can challenge the multiple
stakeholders who utilise, manage and value marine environments
[30,35,37]. It is also evident that Scuba Diving Tourism (SDT)
in marine environments can create issues which have consequences
in local, regional, national and global contexts [29,30]. Yet STD
requires sustainable principles and practices if fragile marine
resources and quality scuba diver experiences are to be available
in the future [19].

There are many advantages in using of a systems approach to
encourage the use of sustainable principles and practices in the
management of SDT. Firstly, a systems approach can ensure that
important ecological and social elements (like marine ecology and

K. Dimmock, G. Musa / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 52–58 55

the host community) are integrated into policy and management
decisions. Additionally, a systems approach reveals the complexity of
SDT activities and the multiple stakeholders involved in its delivery.
This, in turn, encourages integration of the views and needs of
multiple stakeholders into policy and decision making in a holistic
and systematic way. Incorporating the different views and concerns
of multiple stakeholders to address issues enhances creativity and
innovative responses and enhances the potential for greater accep-
tance and commitment by different sectors of the SDTS.

More narrowly focused or sector specific approaches can
exclude the concerns of particular people and contexts in ways
that hamper sustainability goals [37]. Scuba diving operators, for
example, can experience a lack of social and political support
which challenges their efforts to operate sustainably [31]. How-
ever, a systems approach provides greater opportunities for
stakeholder collaboration and shared responsibility, and an active
role in the co-management of social and ecological resources [30].
A systems approach is also advantageous because it encourages
policy-level decisions that incorporate all stakeholder views, and
encourages commitment from all stakeholders in addressing
issues and sustainability goals [23]. In this way, a systems
approach can also lead to improved relations between those
with a stake in scuba diving tourism, especially marine-based
tourism operators and those responsible for governance and
management.

Nevertheless, incorporating the concerns of diverse stake-
holders can add a layer of complexity in decision making. For
example, environmental concerns prioritised by some stake-
holders may not be a priority for other stakeholders who instead
support growth and development and are focused on economic
outcomes [32]. The diverse and interdisciplinary nature of stake-
holder perspectives which underpin the proposed ecological and
socio-ecological model of the Scuba Diving Tourism System (SDTS)
can inevitably create tensions produced by differing values and
priorities. Such tensions do not necessarily mean conflict, and can
be a catalyst for greater awareness and innovation, providing
foundations for improved management practices and sustainable
futures. Each stakeholder in the proposed model has different
agendas which can challenge sustainable goals. This highlights the
need for co-operative relations [33,44].

Thus, a systems approach requires greater commitment to the
inclusion of differing viewpoints and the development of more
holistic and sustainable solutions. This is sometimes considered a
disadvantage of using a systems approach since greater time and
resources are often required [28]. However, it is becoming clear
that a more inclusive framework to ensure all views are heard and
valued is an important step in ensuring the effective management
and sustainability of SDT [28,30,35,36].

Practices which encourage multi-stakeholder participation and
adaptive management approaches can benefit the SDTS, given
diverse perspectives and priorities across the range of stakeholders
[26,30,35]. Adaptive management can provide iterative processes
which recognise that environmental resource systems are only
partially understood and the whole range of stakeholders have to
contribute to sustainable management in some degree. Collabora-
tion can ensure that the whole SDTS is focused towards common
and agreed upon goals. Through communication and knowledge
sharing, as part of future focused outcomes, adaptive management
involves tracking resource conditions by sharing information
decision-making processes [88]. This information exchange between
stakeholders benefits the system. Adaptive management aims at
integrating the complexity of stakeholder knowledge and expertise
through an evolving process which incorporates social, economic
and environmental specialisations [89]. Such an approach relies on
connecting the three key dimensions of policy, problem-solving and
practice [89]. Meanwhile the process of achieving consensus among

system stakeholders can use a value-focused process to increase
informed and broadly accepted decisions [93,94].

Though there can initially be differences among stakeholder
perspectives, ongoing commitment to achieve agreement is impor-
tant. Sustainability leadership can contribute to this goal as it
involves a collective shift in consciousness and efforts to re-
engineer processes [95]. Differing views are commonwithin systems;
however effective leadership can help integrate stakeholder views in
ways that benefit the whole system [96]. In this way, there can be a
sense of collective responsibility shared by all stakeholders in the
system [97]. Redekop [98] points out that part of the challenge lies in
overcoming personal and immediate needs at the expense of future
goals, for the greater good. The idea is to encourage future-oriented
behaviour at all levels.

For the diving industry, leadership can help to engage the host
community in a range of adaptive management opportunities, and to
encourage participation and build inclusion. For the destination, the
natural resource is a source of livelihood which involves both
constraints and opportunities. Through collaboration and community
involvement there is potential for improvements towards sustainabil-
ity. Specific examples include industry-driven initiatives for whale
shark diving in the Seychelles, which effectively created opportunities
for stakeholders, including economic outcomes linked to conservation
values [99]. In Mexico community-based whale shark tourism also led
to collaborative management and codes of practice which were then
adopted in multiple destinations across the country [100]. Identifying
issues and changes that can be collaboratively managed is essential to
sustaining the SDTS [25]. Many problems which confront society
involve the complex interactions between ecological and social
systems from the global to a local level.

4. Conclusion

The model presented in this conceptual paper proposes the key
elements of the Scuba Diving Tourism System (SDTS). Important to
the system is a focus in the marine environment on which all
stakeholders, including the host community, are dependent. A
sustainable future for SDT requires inclusion, collaboration and
collective responsibility between all key stakeholders. It also requires
effective policy, problem solving and practice to which all stake-
holders are committed. A systems approach to the SDTS may be a
powerful collective platform for improved policy and management
practices. It represents an innovation that has the potential to build
sustainable futures for marine ecologies, scuba divers, scuba diving
operators, tourism interests and host communities.

Scuba diving in sensitive and fragile scuba diving locations
requires effective management to protect ecological and cultural
values and ensure the sustainable use of resources. Marine environ-
mental sustainability is a critical global issue which, nonetheless, has
the potential to be a strategic business opportunity for host com-
munities and the scuba diving tourism industry that seeks to attract
tourists to a destination. In the search for sustainable approaches,
understanding and integrating social and environmental systems,
and the needs and issues of all stakeholders involved in the SDTS,
will be important in both policy and practice. This conceptualisation
of the SDTS represents a critical point from which to advance these
sustainability goals.

Future research might apply this model to specific locations and
contexts. It could be used, for example, to understand stakeholder
concerns and interactions, improve management and planning
processes, review current issues and devise solutions, or analyse
the barriers and benefits of using a systems approach. Further
research is also needed to refine the model and analyse its efficacy
in ensuring SDT has a sustainable future.

K. Dimmock, G. Musa / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 52–5856

References

[2] Garrod B. Market segments and tourist typologies for diving tourism. In:
Garrod B, Gössling S, editors. New frontiers in marine tourism: diving
experiences, sustainability, management. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008.
p. 31–48.

[3] Cater C, Cater E. Marine ecotourism: between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Wallingford: CABI; 2007.

[4] Musa G, Dimmock K, editors. Scuba diving tourism: contemporary geogra-
phies of leisure, tourism and mobility. UK: Routledge; 2013.

[5] Dimmock K, Cummins T. History of scuba diving tourism. In: Musa G,
Dimmock K, editors. Scuba diving tourism: contemporary geographies of
leisure, tourism and mobility. UK: Routledge; 2013. p. 14–28.

[6] Johansen K. Scuba diving education and training. In: Musa G, Dimmock K,
editors. Scuba diving tourism: contemporary geographies of leisure, tourism
and mobility. UK: Routledge; 2013. p. 81–96.

[7] Edney J. Diver characteristics, motivations and attitudes: Chuuk Lagoon. Tour
Mar Environ 2012;8(1–2):7–18.

[8] Musa G. Sipadan: a SCUBA-diving paradise: an analysis of tourism impact,
diver satisfaction and tourism management. Tour Geogr 2002;4(2):195–209.

[9] Musa G, Kadir SL, Lee L. Layang Layang: an empirical study on SCUBA divers’
satisfaction. Tour Mar Environ 2006;2(2):89–102.

[10] Dimmock K. CCN: towards a model of comfort, constraints and negotiation in
recreational SCUBA diving. Tour Mar Environ 2010;6(4):145–60.

[11] Dimmock K, Wilson E. Risking comfort? The impact of in-water constraints on
recreational scuba diving Ann Leis Res 2009;12(2):173–94.

[12] Kler BK, Tribe J. Flourishing through SCUBA: understanding the pursuit of dive
experiences. Tour Mar Environ 2012;8(1–2):1–2.

[13] Ong TF, Musa G. An examination of recreational divers’ underwater behaviour
by attitude–behaviour theories. Curr Issues Tour 2011;14(8):779–95.

[14] Kler B, Moskwa E. Experience, interpretation and meanings. In: Musa G,
Dimmock K, editors. Scuba diving tourism: contemporary geographies of
leisure, tourism and mobility. UK: Routledge; 2013. p. 134–51.

[15] Dearden P, Bennett M, Rollins R. Perceptions of diving impacts and implica-
tions for reef conservation. Coast Manag 2007;35(2–3):305–17.

[16] Salim N, Bahauddin A, Badauddin M. Influence of scuba divers’ specialization
on their underwater behaviour. Worldw Hospit Tour Themes 2013;5
(4):388–97.

[17] Lew A. A world geography of recreational scuba diving. In: Musa G, Dimmock
K, editors. Scuba diving tourism: contemporary geographies of leisure, tourism
and mobility. UK: Routledge; 2013. p. 29–51.

[18] Davis D, Tisdell C. Economic management of recreational SCUBA diving and
the environment. J Environ Manag 1996;48:229–48.

[19] Dimmock K, Cummins T, Musa G. The business of scuba diving. In: Musa G,
Dimmock K, editors. Scuba diving tourism: contemporary geographies of
leisure, tourism and mobility. UK: Routledge; 2013. p. 161–73.

[20] Rudd MA, Tupper MH. The impact of Nassau grouper size and abundance on
scuba diver site selection and MPA economics. Coast Manag 2002;30
(2):133–51.

[21] Harriott V, Davis D, Banks SA. Recreational diving and its impact in marine
protected areas in eastern Australia. Ambio 1997:173–9.

[22] Zakai D, Chadwick-Furman NE. Impacts of intensive recreational diving on reef
corals at Eilat, northern Red Sea. Biol Conserv 2002;105(2):179–87.

[23] Atkins JP, Burdon D, Elliott M, Gregory AJ. Management of the marine
environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the
DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Mar Pollut Bull 2011;62(2):215–26.

[24] Hawkins JP, Roberts CM. Effects of recreational scuba diving on coral reefs:
trampling on reef-flat communities. J Appl Ecol 1993:25–30.

[25] Lacitignola D, Petrosillo I, Cataldi M, Zurlini G. Modelling socio-ecological
tourism-based systems for sustainability. Ecol Model 2007;206(1):191–204.

[26] Liu Z. Sustainable tourism development: a critique. J Sustain Tour
2003;11(6):459–75.

[27] Farrell BH, Twining-Ward L. Reconceptualizing tourism. Ann Tour Res 2004;31
(2):274–95.

[28] Leiper N. Tourism management. 3rd ed.. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia;
2004.

[29] Dredge D. Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. J Sustain Tour
2006;14(6):562.

[30] Plummer R, Fennell D. Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism:
prospects for adaptive co-management. J Sustain Tour 2009;17(2):149–68.

[31] Hillmer-Pegram K. Understanding the resilience of dive tourism to complex
change. Tour Geogr 2013;16:598–614.

[32] Haddock-Fraser J, Hampton MP. Multistakeholder values on the sustainability
of dive tourism: case studies of Sipadan and Perhentian Islands, Malaysia. Tour
Anal 2012;17(1):27–41.

[33] Mayaka M, Akama J. Systems approach to tourism training and education: the
Kenyan case study. Tour Manag 2007;28:298–306.

[34] McIntosh RW, Goeldner CR. Tourism: principles, practices philosophies. 5th
ed.. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1986.

[35] Dimmock K, Hawkins ER, Tiyce M. Stakeholders, industry knowledge and
adaptive management in the Australian whale watching industry. J Sustain
Tour 2014;22(7):1108–21.

[36] Allison H, Hobbs R. Science and policy in natural resource management. In:
Allison HE, Hobbs RJ, editors. Science and policy in natural resource manage-
ment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 1.

[37] Strickland-Munro JK, Allison HE, Moore SA. Using resilience concepts to
investigate the impacts of protected area tourism on communities. Ann Tour
Res 2010;37(2):499–519.

[38] Kast FE, Rosenzweig JE. General systems theory: applications for organization
and management. Acad Manag J 1972;15(4):447–65.

[39] Keen M, Brown VA, Dyball R, editors. Social learning in environmental
management: towards a sustainable future. UK: Routledge; 2005.

[40] Reynolds P, Braithwaite D. Towards a conceptual model for wildlife tourism.
Tour Manag 2001;22:31–43.

[41] Mair J, Jago L. The development of a conceptual model of greening in the
business events tourism sector. J Sustain Tour 2010;18(1):77–94.

[42] Johnson BL. Introduction to the special feature: adaptive management –

scientifically sound, socially challenged. Conserv Ecol 1999;3(1):10.
[43] Ku KC, Chen TC. A conceptual process-based reference model for collaboratively

managing recreational scuba diving in Kenting National Park. Mar Policy
2013;39:1–10.

[44] Carlsen J. A systems approach to island tourism destination management.
J Syst Res Behav Sci 1999;16:321–7.

[45] Sessa A. The science of systems for tourism development. Ann Tour Res
1988;15(2):219–35.

[46] Wilks J. Introductory SCUBA diving on the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Parks
and Recreation. Summer. 1992. 18–23.

[47] Wong KM, Thirumoorthi T, Musa G. Scuba diving satisfaction. In: Musa G,
Dimmock K, editors. Scuba diving tourism: contemporary geographies of
leisure, tourism and mobility. UK: Routledge; 2013. p. 107–16.

[48] Anderson LE, Loomis DK. Normative standards for coral reef conditions: a
comparison of SCUBA divers by specialization level. J Leis Res 2012;44
(2):257–74.

[49] Howard JL. How do scuba diving operators in Vanuatu attempt to minimize
their impact on the environment? Pac Tour Rev 1999;3(1):61–9.

[50] Walsh C, Haddock-Fraser J, Hampton MP. Accessible dive tourism. In: Buhalis
D, Darcy S, Ambrose I, editors. Best Practice in accessible tourism: inclusion,
disability, ageing population and tourism. Bristol, UK: Channel View; 2012.
p. 180–91.

[51] Todd S, Graefe A, Mann W, Differences in SCUBA diver motivations based on
level of development. In: Todd SL, editor. Proceedings of the 2001 north-
eastern recreation research symposium. Report no. NE-289. Newtown Square,
PA: USDA, Forest Service; 2002. p. 107–14.

[52] Ditton RB, Osburn HR, Baker TL, Thailing CE. Demographics, attitudes, and reef
management preferences of sport divers in offshore Texas waters. ICES
J Mar Sci: J du Conseil 2002;59:S186–91.

[53] Barker NH, Roberts CM. Scuba diver behaviour and the management of diving
impacts on coral reefs. Biol Conserv 2004;120(4):481–9.

[54] Rouphael AB, Inglis GJ. Impacts of recreational scuba diving at sites with
different reef topographies. Biol Conserv 1997;82(3):329–36.

[55] Thapa B, Graefe AR, Meyer LA. Moderator and mediator effects of scuba diving
specialization on marine-based environmental knowledge-behavior contin-
gency. J Environ Edu 2005;37(1):53–67.

[56] Ince T, Bowen D. Consumer satisfaction and services: insights from dive
tourism. Serv Ind J 2011;31(11):1769–92.

[57] Hawkins JP, Roberts CM, Kooistra D, Buchan K, White S. Sustainability of scuba
diving tourism on coral reefs of Saba. Coast Manag 2005;33(4):373–87.

[58] Uy FA, Caindec VEC, Perez JLD, Dy DT. Impacts of recreational scuba diving on
a marine protected area in central Philippines: a case of the Gilutongan
marine sanctuary. Philipp Sci 2005;42:144–58.

[59] Wilks J, Davis RJ. Risk management for scuba diving operators on Australia’s
Great Barrier Reef. Tour Manag 2000;21(6):591–9.

[60] Lindgren A, Palmlund J, Wate I, Gössling S. Environmental management and
education: the case of PADI. In: Garrod B, Gössling S, editors. New frontiers in
marine tourism: diving experiences, sustainability, management. Amsterdam:
Elsevier; 2008. p. 115–38.

[61] Cardwell K. Formal, informal, and incidental learning: how recreational-diving
instructors achieve competency. In: Midgley W, Tyler M, Danaher PA, Mander
A, editors. Beyond binaries in education research. Routledge research in
education. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2011. p. 221–31.

[62] Coxon C, Dimmock K, Wilks J. Managing risk in tourist diving: a safety-
management approach. In: Garrod B, Gössling S, editors. New frontiers in
marine tourism: diving experiences, sustainability, management. Amsterdam:
Elsevier; 2008. p. 201–21.

[63] Thirumoorthi T, Wong KM, Musa G. Scuba diving satisfaction. In: Musa G,
Dimmock K, editors. Scuba diving tourism: contemporary geographies of
leisure, tourism and mobility. UK: Routledge; 2013. p. 152–8.

[64] MacCarthy M, ONeill M, Williams P. Customer Satisfaction and SCUBA diving:
some insights from the deep. Serv Ind J 2006;26(5):537–55.

[65] Dimmock K. Finding comfort in adventure: experiences of recreational SCUBA
divers. Leis Stud 2009;28(3):279–95.

[66] Coghlan A. Linking natural resource management to tourist satisfaction: a
study of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. J Sustain Tour 2012;20(1):41–58.

[67] Meisel-Lusby C, Cottrell S. Understanding motivations and expectations of
scuba divers. Tour Mar Environ 2008;5(1):1–14.

[68] Dimmock K. Managing recreational SCUBA experiences: exploring business
challenges for New South Wales dive tourism managers. Tour Rev Int
2004;7(2):67–80.

[69] Rangel MO, Pita CB, Gonçalves JMS, Oliveira F, Costa C, Erzini K. Developing
self-guided scuba dive routes in the Algarve (Portugal) and analysing visitors’
perceptions. Mar Policy 2014;45:194–203.

K. Dimmock, G. Musa / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 52–58 57

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref2

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref3

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref4

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref5

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref6

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref7

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref8

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref9

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref10

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref11

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref12

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref13

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref14

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref15

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref16

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref17

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref18

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref19

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref20

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref21

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref22

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref23

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref24

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref25

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref26

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref27

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref28

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref29

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref30

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref31

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref32

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref33

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref34

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref35

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref36

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref37

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref38

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref39

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref40

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref41

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref42

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref43

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref44

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref45

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref46

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref47

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref48

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref49

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref50

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref51

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref52

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref53

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref54

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref55

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref56

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref57

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref58

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref59

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref60

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref61

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref62

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref63

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref64

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref65

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref66

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref67

[70] Townsend C. Dive tourism, sustainable tourism, and social responsibility: a
growing agenda. In: Garrod B, Gössling S, editors. New frontiers in marine
tourism: diving experiences, sustainability, management. Amsterdam: Else-
vier; 2008. p. 140–52.

[71] Clifton J, Benson A. Planning for sustainable ecotourism: the case for research
ecotourism in developing country destinations. J Sustain Tour 2006;14
(3):238–54.

[72] Schianetz K, Kavanagh L. Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: a
complex adaptive systems approach using systemic indicator systems.
J Sustain Tour 2008;16(6):601–28.

[73] McMinn S, Cater E. Tourist typology observations from Belize. Ann Tour Res
1998;25(3):675–99.

[74] Vianna GMS, Meekan MG, Pannell DJ, Marsh SP, Meeuwig JJ. Socio-economic
value and community benefits from shark-diving tourism in Palau: a sustain-
able use of reef shark populations. Biol Conserv 2012;145(1):267–77.

[75] Thur SM. User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected
areas: an application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Mar Policy 2010;34
(1):63–9.

[76] Daldeniz B, Hampton MP. Dive tourism and local communities: active
participation or subject to impacts? Case studies from Malaysia Int J Tour
Res 2013;15(5):507–20.

[77] Brunnschweiler JM. The Shark Reef Marine Reserve: a marine tourism project
in Fiji involving local communities. J Sustain Tour, 18; 2010. p. 29–42.

[78] Dickens ML. Socioeconomic aspects of the Sodwana Bay SCUBA diving
industry, with specific focus on sharks. Afr J Mar Sci 2014;36(1):39–47.

[79] Dickens ML. Socioeconomic aspects of boat-based ecotourism during the
sardine run within the Pondoland Marine protected Area, South Africa. Afr
J Mar Sci 2010;32(2):405–11.

[80] Kokkranikal J, McLellan R, Baum T. Island tourism and sustainability: a case
study of the Lakshadweep Islands. J Sustain Tour 2003;11(5):426–47.

[81] Asafu-Adjaye J, Tapsuwan S. A contingent valuation study of scuba diving
benefits: case study in Mu Ko Similan Marine National Park, Thailand. Tour
Manag 2008;29(6):1122–30.

[82] McClanahan TR. Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical
countries? Coral Reefs 1999;18(4):321–5.

[83] de Groot J, Bush SR. The potential for dive tourism led entrepreneurial marine
protected areas in Curacao. Mar Policy 2010;34(5):1051–9.

[84] Cripps G, Harris A. Community creation and management of the velondriake
marine protected area. (Available at: dlist-asclme.org). London: Blue Ventures
Conservation; 2009.

[85] van Treeck P, Schuhmacher H. Mass diving tourism – a new dimension calls
for new management approaches. Mar Pollut Bull 1999;37(8):499–504.

[86] Lucrezi S, Saayman M, Van Der Merwe P. Perceived diving impacts and
management implications at a popular South African reef. Coast Manag
2013;41(5):381–400.

[87] Harriott VJ. Marine Tourism Impacts and Their Management on the Great
Barrier Reef. (Report number 46). Australia: CRC Reef Research Centre.
Townsville; 2002.

[88] Williams BK. Adaptive management of natural resources – framework and
issues. J Environ Manag 2011;92(5):1346–53.

[89] Brown V. Turning the tide: integrated local area management for Australia’s
coastal zone. Australia: Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories.
Canberra; 1995.

[93] Failing L, Horn G, Higgins P. Using expert judgement and stakeholder values to
evaluate adaptive management options. Ecol Soc 2004;9(1):13.

[94] Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS. Unpacking
‘participation’ in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a
critical review. Ecol Soc 2006;11(2):39.

[95] Galpin T, Whittington JL. Sustainability leadership: from strategy to results.
J Bus Strategy 2012;33(4):40–8.

[96] Ferdig M. Sustainability leadership: co-creating a sustainable future.
J Change Manag 2007;7(1):25–35.

[97] Hall CM. The future and sustainability of scuba diving tourism. In: Musa G,
Dimmock K, editors. Scuba diving tourism: contemporary geographies of
leisure, tourism and mobility. UK: Routledge; 2013. p. 194–201.

[98] Redekop B. Leadership for Environmental Sustainability. UK: Routledge; 2010.
[99] Rowat D, Engelhardt U. Seychelles: a case study of community involvement in

the development of whale shark ecotourism and its socio-economic impact.
Fish Res, 84; 2007. p. 109–13.

[100] Cardenas-Torres N, Enríquez-Andrade R, Rodríguez-Dowdell N. Community-
based management through ecotourism in Bahia de los Angeles, Mexico. Fish
Res 2007;84(1):114–8.

K. Dimmock, G. Musa / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 52–5858

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref68

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref69

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref70

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref71

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref72

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref73

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref74

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref75

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref76

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref77

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref78

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref79

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref80

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref81

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref82

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref83

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref84

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref85

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref86

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref87

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref90

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref91

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref92

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref93

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref94

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref95

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref96

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-597X(14)00345-5/sbref97

Scuba Diving Tourism System: A framework for collaborative management and sustainability

Introduction

The Scuba Diving Tourism System

Divers

The scuba diving tourism industry

The host community

Marine environments

Discussion

Conclusion

References

A
R
R
A

E
E
E

“
l
a
h
i

U
i
c

(
a

i
r

u
T
u
A

0
h

Land Use

olicy 31 (2013) 460– 47

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

j our na l ho me p age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

rom coastal management to environmental management: The sustainable
co-tourism program for the mid-western coast of Sardinia (Italy)

iuseppe Ioppolo ∗, Giuseppe Saija, Roberta Salomone
epartment SEA, University of Messina, Italy

r t i c l e i n f

rticle history:
eceived 2 July 201

eceived in revised form 5 August 2012
ccepted 17 August 2012

eywords:
ntegrated Coastal Zone Management

a b s t r a c t

The Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) principles in the Mediterranean represent a guideline
identifying an appropriate way of linking environmental best practices to local development. The Province
of Medio Campidano (Sardinia, Italy) has a unique coastline eco-system, with a high level of conservation
policy (according to the Habitats Directive) with the presence of 5 Sites of Community Importance (SCIs).
In this sense, a pro-active approach was encouraged by the local administration, gaining the participation
of representative stakeholder groups in order to define a common local development strategy. This paper

nvironmental territorial management
nvironmental governance
co-tourism program

synthesizes the results of the Sustainable Development and Eco-tourism Program (PSSE in Italian), an
economic–environmental planning tool completed in January 2012. The PSSE implemented a road map for
sustainable actions; these are the results of negotiated decisions. Indeed, after a diagnosis of the territorial
system, using a multicriteria approach, new forms of integrated territorial management were suggested,
using the coastline resource to launch a new economy, linking together ecotourism and environmental

protection.

ntroduction

The European Environment Agency’s Report 4/2009, entitled
Progress towards the European 2010 biodiversity target” high-
ights how biodiversity has been halved over the last two centuries
nd how Europe now retains only 45% of its species, the others
aving become extinct, and human activity means that this trend

s ongoing and indeed accelerating (EEA, 2009).
In annex III of Directive 92/43/EEC “Habitats”, the European

nion identified the selection criteria for sites of environmental
mportance, outlining the methodology to be followed in order to
onstruct the European network called “Natura 2000” (EEC, 1992).
he combined provisions of the “Habitats” and “Birds” Directives
EEC, 1979) impose on all EU Member States the duty to protect
nd recover natural areas with high value eco-systems and at high
isk of biodiversity loss (Ledoux et al., 2000). Areas of particular
nterest have been divided into zones with the introduction of
estrictions and actions aimed at maintaining and/or recovering
atural habitats with the relevant species native to Europe, partic-
larly threatened by phenomena of fragmentation and extinction.
he Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are thus a mosaic made

p of Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) and Special Protection
reas (SPAs) for which detailed environmental planning is needed.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 090 771548; fax: +39 090 6764920.
E-mail address: giuseppe.ioppolo@unime.it (G. Ioppolo).

264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.08.010

In line with the provisions of art. 6, paragraph 1, of the Habi-
tats Directive for Special Areas of Conservation, the Member States
decide the necessary conservation measures, which in certain cases
implicate the introduction of a specific instrument known as a Man-
agement Plan (MP).

Moreover, the environmental management aspects are closely
tied to the functionality of the habitat and to the presence of
the species for which the site was proposed and, thus, need to
be widened within a planning strategy capable of balancing the
phenomena of both direct and indirect interference (human, eco-
nomic, social), aiming at the creation of compatible development
scenarios in the medium-term (Daily et al., 2000; Mörtberga et al.,
2007).

Currently, there is an overlap of territorial instruments in use
in Italy: for example, between the MP and instruments such as
the Regional Landscape Plan, the Hydrographic District Manage-
ment Plan, the Regional Forestry Plan, the Regional Game Fauna
Plan, Provincial and Municipal Urbanization Plans and all other
forms of planning that require regulation within the relevant pro-
tected areas. Thus, there seems to be a need to achieve an adequate
level of integration, both vertical (national, regional, provincial and
local instruments) and horizontal (planning and evaluation instru-
ments on the same scale) in order to optimize the use of resources
(including financial resources) (Zoppi and Lai, 2013). From this per-

spective, in accordance with Italian Presidential Decree no. 357/97,
which enacts the Habitat Directive in Italian law, the Regional
authorities are given legal and regulatory responsibility in this
field. The Region can limit itself to performing the administrative

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.08.0

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648377

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

mailto:giuseppe.ioppolo@unime.it

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.08.010

se Policy 31 (2013) 460– 471 461

f
l
t
o

w
e

m
a
m
i
–

•

I
s
c
c
e

i
a
t

S
o
i
g
t
a
i
t

Table 1
Preliminary SWOT analysis of the Arbus area (Medio Campidano Province – Sardinia,
Italy).

Strong points Weak points

• High environmental value
• High value of cultural heritage

and local community identity
• Peculiarity of the landscape
• Historical and cultural

attractions linked to mining
activities (mining archeology)

• High concentration of artisans’
workshops

• Existence of a significant food
and wine heritage

• Poor integration with
surrounding territories
(Guspinese and Villacidrese
areas)

• Poor conditions of roads within
the coastal area (70 km of
unsurfaced roads)

• Inadequate public transport
(both rail and road)

• Lack of a tourist port
• Inadequate primary

infrastructure in coastal towns
(e.g. inadequate integrated water
cycle or internet connections)

Opportunities Threats

• Incentives for coastal protection
• Availability of national and

European funding
• Expansion of foreign tourism tied

to ecotourism
• Training opportunities directly

linked to a process of
enhancement of existing
heritage through ecotourism

• Incentives for the recovery of

• Deficit of the local
socio-demographic system

• Further reduction of the already
very low level of
entrepreneurship

• Failure to intervene to improve
local infrastructure

• Direct competitors in the
ecotourism market

G. Ioppolo et al. / Land U

unctions assigned under regulations, or it can create its own legis-
ation in this field. In the latter case, by adopting specific legislation,
he Region can delegate particular planning powers to Provincial or
ther local authorities.

On this basis, the Province of Medio Campidano (Sardinia, Italy),
hich has a unique coastline ecosystem, 47 km in length, situated

ntirely in the municipality of Arbus, including 5 Special Areas of
onservation (SACs), which have been classified as Sites of Com-
unity Importance (SCIs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in

ccordance with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), decided to for-
ulate its own strategic vision and adopt an ad hoc operational

nstrument: the Programma di Sviluppo Sostenibile ed Eco-turistico
PSSE (Sustainable Development and Eco-tourism Program).

This local economic–environmental planning tool is composed
f three documents, results of three related phases:

Report on the State of the Arbus coastal area (RSAC), which is the
result of a diagnosis of the territorial system (Phase 1).
Master Plan, which is a concerted document, on strategic choices,
for the purpose of a benchmarking analysis (external compet-
itiveness) and an analysis of the potential of the local system
(evaluation of the internal system in relation to the load capacity
and future prospects) (Phase 2).
Concluding Report containing feasibility studies of the priority
initiatives (Phase 3).

Finally, this instrument must necessarily be part of a process of
ntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM), which is now con-
idered “the most appropriate process for dealing with long-term
hallenges”, being a “proactive policy process aimed at addressing
onflict, interests for coastal space and resources” (Gonzàlez-Riancho
t al., 2009; Koutrakis et al., 2011).

This paper synthesizes the results of the PSSE, completed in
anuary 2012; the general objective is to highlight new forms of
ntegrated territorial management, using the coastline resource as

strongpoint for launching a new economy with an eye to eco-
ourism and environmental protection (Gössling, 1999).

The paper is structured in the following sections:

. “Introduction” section, in which the general aim of the paper and
its structure are presented.

. “Theory and methods” section, in which the PSSE instrument
is examined, analyzing both the relevant territorial-coastal sce-
nario, and the connected eco-tourism processes.

. “Results and discussion” section, in which we discuss the strong
points emerging from the PSSE and translate them into a
roadmap for the sustainable development of the Arbus coastline.

. “Conclusions” section, in which it is shown how the regulations
created by the Management Plans lead to the achievement of
a unitary objective of territorial environmental development,
which generates a program of compatible economic–social
development around the coastal system.

heory and methods

he PSSE: operating method and area of reference

The Province of Medio Campidano, following a preliminary
WOT analysis of its coastal system (see Table 1), adopted a PSSE in
rder to unify the various diagnostic-planning instruments already
n place. In particular, the PSSE aims to monitor and manage the
rowth of human development in particularly fragile areas, both

hrough integrated and interdisciplinary management of public
reas with high numbers of tourists, and limiting human impact
n order to favor eco-sustainable and eco-tourism development
hat enhances the local wealth of biodiversity (Lanza and Randazzo,

property linked to the mining
industry

2011; Pearce and Moran, 1994; Tintorè et al., 2009; Turner et al.,
1999; Vallega, 1995a,b).

The PSSE applies to territory within the Province of Medio Camp-
idano, specifically to the coastline in the municipality of Arbus
(Sardinia, Italy), about 47 km in linear length, from the promon-
tory of Capo Frasca to the north, as far as Capo Pecora to the south.
This coastline is characterized by alternating rocky stretches and
large dune systems which require adequate protection and man-
agement (Rhind and Jones, 2009). The whole area subject to the
program covers about 320 km2. This coastal area of the municipal-
ity of Arbus includes 5 of the 8 Sites of Community Importance to
be found in the Province; the starting point for the program is the
acquisition and integration of documents relating to the various
Management Plans (see Fig. 1 and Table 2).

The PSSE, like the Local Action Plans, by interpreting the dynam-
ics of compatible territorial development, is aimed at identifying an
integrated system of actions that can be compared and measured
and which guarantee sustainable territorial development from an
ICZM perspective (Forst, 2009; Koutrakis et al., 2011).

The methodology of the PSSE consists in a series of activities
divided into three phases (see Fig. 2):

• The first phase is diagnostic and is aimed at supplying the Provin-
cial authorities with a clear overview of the State of the Coastal
Environment, through a Report (RSAC) drawn up following a pro-
cess of collecting and analyzing territorial, environmental and
socio-economic data, as well as by comparing local requirements.
The data was processed in a dynamic (geo-referenced) database
(Douven et al., 2003), then weighted and put in order according
to priority, as a result of participatory dialogue with the sys-
tem of governance, including all stakeholders. On the basis of the
“Methodology for the creation of the Map of Physiographic Units

of Italian Landscapes”, using the modus operandi proposed by
the Agency for Environmental and Territory Protection (APAT),
now the Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambien-
tale (ISPRA, 2010), for the classification of types of landscape,

462 G. Ioppolo et al. / Land Use Pol

icy 31 (2013) 460– 471

Fig. 1. Area of Sustainable Development and Eco-tourism Program (PSSE in Italian) – coastal of Arbus (Sardinia, Italy).

Table 2
Management Plans approved by Decrees issued by the Department for Environmental Protection.

Code and Decree numbers Name of the SCI Description of the Sites of Community Importance (SCIs)

Cod.ITB030032 n. 18 of 28/02/2008 Stagno di Corru S’ittiri Characterized by wetlands of international importance (as identified by the
Rasmar Convention) with various distinct environmental elements, including
the presence of phytocenoses typical of lacustrine, marshland and semiarid
salse areas

Cod.ITB032229 n. 20 of 28/02/2008 Is Arenas S’Acqua e S’Ollastu A coastal desert area characterized by dune habitats of various kinds, areas of
Mediterranean scrub and areas characterized by “Posidonia prairies”. There is
also the presence of Astragalus verrucosum Moris, classified as a plant species
of community importance, as well as ornithic and herpetic species, also of
community importance

Cod.ITB040031 n. 13 of 13/02/2009 Monte Arcuentu e Rio Piscinas, Elements of interest include the volcanic Mount Arcuentu, part of the rio
Gutturru and Flumini catchment basin, the rio Piscinas catchment basin, the
Costa Verde schistose system, the disused mining areas of Ingurtosu,
Montevecchio Ponente and Montevecchio Levante, and the rio Montevecchio
Sitzerri alluvial system. The stretch of coastline is characterized by very high
sand dunes, along with thick Mediterranean scrub. There are also lithologies of
enormous importance for understanding the geological history of Sardinia and
three original herds of Sardinian deer

Cod.ITB040071 n. 56 of 30/07/2008 Da Piscinas a Riu Scivu The dunes here have been declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. They
cover an area about 3 km long and contain 5 different dune habitats, posidonia
prairies and various animal species of Community importance

Cod.ITB040030 n. 66 of 30/07/2008 Capo Pecora Characterized by considerable biodiversity of coastal and land environments,
the presence of various plant species typical of sandy and rocky environments

T
C

maps have been drawn of similar landscape areas of the Medio
Campidano coastline, known as “Unità Fisiografiche di Paesag-

gio Costiero – UFPC” (Physiographic Units of Coastal Landscape),
which are the fundamental elements of the Carta della Natura
system. Each landscape area is a portion of territory possess-
ing typological homogeneity or topological uniqueness (Antrop,

able 3
lassification of the Physiographic Coastal Landscape Units – UFPC (in Italian).

UFPC number Name Length of coast (km)

1 Capo Pecora 5.7

2 Piscinas/Riu Scivu 8.4

3 M. Arcuentu/Riu Piscinas 7.0

4 Arbus 14.4

5 Is Arenas S’Acqua e S’Ollastu 1.9

6 Stagno di Corru S’Ittri 24.0

Total Study area 61.4

and the presence of native species of great phytogeographical interest, such as
the Palestine Oak. The area is also populated by Sardinian deer and is an ideal
habitat for birds such as the Peregrine falcon and the European shag

2005). These characteristics make it unique and distinguish it
from the surrounding areas. In other words, we can describe the

UFPC as a portion of territory that is geographically defined and
identifiable as a physiographic unicum, distinguished by a char-
acteristic set of physical, biotic and human features, meaning it
is “structurally” homogeneous (see Table 3) (Bin et al., 2009).

Perimeter (km) Ground area (kmq) Sea area (kmq)

17.47 11.10 23.57
21.90 16.76 2.58
21.46 18.79 37.57
29.60 24.95 27.58
10.38 3.05 20.28
56.01 48.27 9.36

– 199.06 120.94

G. Ioppolo et al. / Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 460– 471 463

Start

Phase 1

Phas e 2

• Data and research analysis;

• Withdrawals and direct

surveys;

• Macrotrends analysis;

• SWOT analysis;

• Benchmarking analysis;

• Physiograph ic Coas tal

Land scape Units;

• Mul tilevel an alysis.

Report on the State of
the Arbus Coastal
Area (RSAC in italian)

• Aims and objectives;

• Meas ures an d actions;

• Alternative scenarios;

• Pre-budg eting;

• Susta inable targets.

Mast er Plan

• Feasibility planning;

• Economic and social

feasibility;

• Financia l feasibility;

• Legal and institution al

feasibility;

• Coherence with the

environm ental po licies
(local and over local).

Roadmap for sustainable
and ecotourism
develop ment

Cockpit

Conference

2° Intermediate

Conference

PSS E

Mod el
Projects

1° Intermediate

Conference

3° Intermediate

Conference

Final

Conference

Phas e 3

Conclusion

YES

Phas e • Process and Activity Produ ct Public

Presentat ion

Legend of

methodolog ical

outline:

Put in action

F gram
i

ig. 2. Methodological outline of the Sustainable Development and Eco-tourism Pro
ts related activity.

The choice of this limitation, both regarding the physiographic-
landscape units and the width of the buffer zone, was determined
by the following evaluations. Due to the considerable length of
the coastline, the results already obtained from the above men-
tioned SCI Management Plans were integrated, overcoming the
limitations of interpretations of a purely administrative (munici-
pal or maritime boundaries, planning restrictions, etc.) or purely
ecological (area covered by coastal ecosystems, Mediterranean
scrub, woodland or thermophilic prairie, dunes, etc.) nature, in
order to produce a systemic revision of information according
to a bottom up–top down cross-approach (from local manage-
ment tools toward those on a regional, national and European
level and vice versa) (Jeftic, 1996). In the maritime area, choices
were not made on a purely administrative criterion (navigation
or fishing areas, restricted areas, etc.) either and a purely eco-
logical criterion was used, linked to the isobath of the maximum
depth at which the Posidonia oceanica lives. Subsequently land
use in the Province of Medio Campidano was analyzed using
the Corine Land Cover (CLC) table (EEA-ETC/TE, 2002; Feraneca
et al., 2007; Hadley, 2009). Studying the territory allowed the
development of a series of alphanumerical matrices in GIS for-
mat, so as to represent the various types of land covering and
their relative representativeness, within the physiographic unit
and in absolute terms, within the whole territory in question
(Guisan and Zimmermann, 2000). The GIS is a useful aid to
interpreting the environmental variables when making deci-
sions (Geneletti, 2004; Ioppolo et al., 2012; Marotta et al., 2011;
Pernice et al., 2004). Moreover, according to Parravicini et al.

(2012) understanding the relationships between multiple human
pressures and the status of ecosystems is crucial to develop spa-
tial plans whose main goal is the cartographic visualization of the
results of different management alternatives (Douvere, 2008). In

(PSSE). This figure describes the results of each phase, putting together process and

particular, Table 4 summarizes the distribution of the various
types of land, in terms of covering, within the various Physio-
graphic Coastal Landscape Units.

• The second phase was a planning phase in which a new sys-
tem of territorial governance was established (Sampford, 2002;
O’Riordan et al., 2008; Stojanovic and Ballinger, 2009) and a
core project was developed, transforming the collectively stake-
holders desiderata into a program which, in line with the RSAC
results, set out to promote local development through sustainable
tourism (Fletcher, 2007). With this in mind, the PSSE reinterprets
each form of tourism, according to the real load capacity of the
territory. The product of this phase is a Master Plan (MP).

• The third and final phase was a bridging action between program-
ming aspects and aspects of planning for the interventions that
had been decided previously. The Program was used to select
a series of “model projects” and, above all, to formalize a new
permanent form of territorial governance. The infrastructures
and services that could be put in place as a priority were eval-
uated qualitatively and quantitatively (specific feasibility studies
for each project), contributing positively and in a balanced way
to economic development and to citizens’ well-being (Falaleeva
et al., 2011).

This diagnostic process, with the help of a multi-criteria recon-
naissance of the coastal environmental system, was the basis for
defining the various possible scenarios for compatible development
(Zoppi, 2007).

The whole program is supported by continuous reporting and

comparison of results from each phase in order to construct a
new form of local eco-governance (Ioppolo, 2010, 2012; Renn,
2006; Soma and Vatn, 2009). Public participation and stakeholder
involvement is essential in ICZM processes, not only in terms of a

464 G. Ioppolo et al. / Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 460– 471

Table 4
Percentage quantitative structure of terrestrial area exclusively by individual Physiographic Coastal Landscape Units – UFPC (in Italian).

Corine Code Type of land use according to CLC UFPC1 UFPC2 UFPC3 UFPC4 UFPC5 UFPC6

3.2.4.1 Transitional woodland scrub 0.25% 0.37% 0.74% 1.20% 0.00% 10.54%
2.4.4 Agro-forestry areas 6.90% 1.38% 0.02% 1.36% 0.96% 1.30%
1.2.1.2 Commercial units 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.00% 0.05%
3.3.3 Sparsely vegetated areas 33.83% 17.30% 0.15% 0.08% 0.00% 1.63%
3.3.1.1 Areas of dunes not covered by vegetation of a width > 50 m 0.00% 1.83% 1.08% 0.75% 5.22% 0.22%
1.2.1.1 Industrial units 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.07%
2.4.3 Land principally occupied by agriculture with significant

areas of natural vegetation
1.39% 0.00% 0.04% 1.11% 0.00% 0.59%

1.4.2.1 Sports and leisure facilities 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
1.1.2.2 Small towns and villages 0.00% 0.03% 0.06% 0.02% 0.11% 0.33%
3.2.2.1 Mainly holm oak and/or cork oak forest covering 10–20% 1.38% 0.00% 2.28% 0.65% 0.28% 0.95%
3.1.1.1 Macedonian oak forest 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 1.18%
3.1.1 Broad-leaved forest 0.09% 0.13% 1.78% 37.84% 47.14% 18.86%
3.1.3 Mixed broad-leaved and coniferous forest 0.00% 0.00% 1.03% 1.70% 1.55% 0.00%
1.3.3 Construction sites 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06%
1.1.2.1 Isolated houses 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.22% 0.00% 0.28%
2.4.1.3 Annual crops associated with permanent crops 1.13% 0.35% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% 0.00%
3.3.1.3 Sand plains > 2 ha (not on the shoreline) 0.00% 1.56% 0.65% 0.03% 0.00% 0.12%
5.1.2.2 Artificial water bodies 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.08%
3.3.1.5 Water courses wider than 25 m 0.00% 0.00% 0.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
3.2.3.1 High scrubland 25.49% 13.62% 68.76% 36.00% 22.59% 16.55%
3.2.3.2 Low garrigue scrubland 13.84% 55.62% 20.89% 11.55% 0.00% 11.61%
5.2.3 Seas and oceans (included in the UFPC) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03%
4.1.1 Inland marshes 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.14%
4.2.1 Salt marshes 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.06%
3.2.1 Natural grassland-pastures and prairies 2.87% 0.17% 0.37% 0.83% 0.28% 0.88%
1.2.2.1 Road and rail networks and associated land 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
3.3.2 Bare rocks, cliffs, crags, outcrops 2.62% 0.61% 0.00% 0.78% 0.00% 1.31%
2.1.2 Permanently irrigated arable land autumn–winter crops 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.64%
2.1.1.1 Non-irrigated arable land autumn–winter crops 10.23% 6.19% 0.35% 4.49% 9.20% 21.01%
2.4.2 Complex cultivation patterns 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00%
3.3.1.1 Beaches of width > 50 m 0.00% 0.84% 1.14% 0.05% 1.19% 0.22%
4.2.3 Intertidal flats 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07%
1.1.1.1 Continuous urban fabric 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

d
o
2
t
o
v
a
t
d
e
e
o
t
2

•

c
t
a
i

1.1.1.2 Discontinuous urban fabric

Total

emocratic approach, but also from a technical–instrumental point
f view, in order to reduce decisional conflicts (Johnson and Dagg,
003; Koutrakis et al., 2011). Reconnaissance and enhancement of
he contributions and expectations of the actors involved is carried
ut in three ways: desk analysis, on field research and audit (inter-
iews with actors/privileged observers) according to a bottom-up
pproach (Marin et al., 2009). It is also important to underline how
he system of governance perceives the geographical context, the
egree of criticality of the areas for intervention, ex ante, from an
nvironmental, social, economic and infrastructure viewpoint, the
stablished functional mix and, finally, the relationships between
bjectives of conservation and those of finding new forms of sus-
ainable consumption as a whole (D’Ayala, 1992; Milligan et al.,
009; Treby and Clark, 2004).

The reference scenarios respond to the following guiding crite-
ia:

identifying the structural and stable functional elements which
must remain in any future options;
understanding which guiding forces act and interact with the
various environmental–territorial factors (specific relationship
between forms of tourism and load capacity of the system);
identifying points of uncertainty, discontinuity, turning points,
risk factors which bring about exogenous changes that affect
future opportunities.

The final aim was that of analyzing and evaluating the “absolute”

ompetitive potential of the territory, the distinctive values that
he territory (coastal area) can offer as strategic opportunities with

wider view of the territorial limitations of the intervention area,
dentifying local development plans/programs/projects which fully

0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.90% 11.41% 0.21%

0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

and compatibly exploit the opportunities existing in activities that
are already rooted in the local context, in other words the basis of
resources and competence in the local system.

Sustainable development and eco-tourism strategies to support
the PSSE

The intervention framework was designed taking into consid-
eration both internal and external variables capable of influencing
the position of the Medio Campidano system in comparison to other
systems and “destinations” with similar characteristics and market
aspirations.

Regarding the internal “structure” of the territory, the analysis
made particular reference to:

• the territorial and environmental context;
• the social context;
• the economic context;
• the level of local planning and leadership.

The territorial analysis was carried out with particular attention
to the environmental areas at greatest risk of vulnerability, given
the context of high environmental value, and the result was then
synthesized in the relational SWOT analysis.

The relational (or “dynamic”) SWOT cross-references in a table
all the elements highlighted in the SWOT, making comparisons by

pairs and grading the reciprocal influence of the elements from −2
to +2. In particular, when comparing the horizontal and vertical ele-
ments, the attribution of points to the box which cross-references
them takes on the following meaning (see Table 5):

G. Ioppolo et al. / Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 460– 471 465

Table 5
Dynamic-relational SWOT of PSSE coastal zone.

, in red

e
t

r
t
e
c
p

e
t

o
b

o
i
i
e
u
a

Note: In blue are presented the three best impact results

−2 = the horizontal element is strongly impeded, or even canceled
out, by the vertical one;
−1 = the horizontal element is impeded by the vertical one, but
manages to have some effect, albeit in a limited form;
0 = the two elements are independent of one another;
+1 = the horizontal element has increased effect thanks to synergy
with the vertical element;
+2 = the horizontal element has much increased effect thanks to
the vertical element.

As the reciprocal influence of the pairs of elements is not sym-
etrical, the matrix is square and not triangular and, in order to

valuate it, the values of all boxes must be considered, except for
hose of the main diagonal.

Table 5 shows the reciprocal evaluations of influence (vertically)
nd importance (horizontally) among the elements.

Looking at the results, the most revealing positive aspect
egarding the impact of a single element on the strategic terri-
orial framework, in other words, the influence exercised by the
lement in question, evaluated by adding the results in the verti-
al columns, is territorial features, high environmental value and
otential quality ties between tourism and agriculture.

From a negative point of view, the risks are those of uncontrolled
xploitation, progressive depopulation and the conflict between
he requirements of mass tourism and those of naturalistic tourism.

Using a process of negotiation, the representative group picked
ut a set of variables, based on questionnaires results, to define the
enchmarking analysis (Forester, 1999).

The position of the coastal area was determined on the basis
f a benchmarking analysis, which allows us to make compar-
sons with cases of excellence or best practices in national and

nternational territories that have experienced significant tourism-
nvironmental development (see Fig. 3). This analysis provides
seful indications for the eco-tourism development of the Arbus
rea, widening the development scenario for the whole of the

the three worst impact results.

Province (Tsaur et al., 2006; Weaver and Lawton, 2007). The cases
taken into consideration, held to be significant on the basis of vari-
ables relevant to the development of ecotourism (Boyd and Butler,
1996), were the Province of Rimini, the coastal areas of the Province
of Teramo, the Cinque Terre Park, the Ionian Eco Villagers on the
island of Zante, in Greece and South West Tourism in the United
Kingdom. A deliberate choice was made to use a mixture of suc-
cessful cases, involving public administrations, alone or jointly,
public–private partnerships and purely private initiatives.

The variables taken into consideration in the benchmark, aggre-
gated by “macro-areas”, are:

Regarding the context:

• accessibility;
• the environmental value of the territory.

Regarding the current state of tourism development:

• the level of tourism and service infrastructures;
• promotional policies.

Regarding the spread of sustainable development:

• environmental policies;
• natural resources;
• investment and innovation;
• economic and social impact on the territory;
• activation of networks;
• involvement of private actors.

The result provided by the RSAC is not only limited to useful
indications for further evaluation of a strategic nature, but also, per-
mitted the intervention framework on which the strategic choices
adopted in the MP are based.

466 G. Ioppolo et al. / Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 460– 471

In relatio n to the co ntext In relatio n to the spread of sustainable deve lopment

In relation to the tourism development

Territor y
Accessibi lity

Rimi ni

5 Terre Park

Soud-West Engl and

Coast of Teramo

Zante

ARBUS

Envir onmental
value of th e territor y

High

Low

Leve l of tou rism
and service
infrastructures

Promotio nal Po licies

High

High
Low

Low

Rimini

5 Terr e Park

Soud -West Eng land

Zante

Coast of Teramo

ARBUS

High

High
Low

Low

Investment s
and in novatio ns

Econo mics and so cial
impacts on th e territor y

ARBUS

Zante

Rimini

5 Terr e Park

Soud -West Eng land

Coast of Teramo

High

High
Low

Low

Activation of
network

Involvement of
private actors

5 Terr e Park
Rimini

Soud-W est Eng land

ARB US

Coast of Teramo

Zante

Rimi ni Zante

ARBUS

5 Terre Park

Soud-West Engl and Coast of Teramo

High

High
Low

Low

Envir onmental
Policies

Natura l resou rce s

F ARBU
e effort

r
e

•
•

a
d
t
o
S
r
w
G
u

d
(
q
a
a
a
a

ig. 3. Benchmarking analysis of PSSE. This figure represents the actual position of
co-tourism competitors), and it helps the reading of the direction of the necessary

The territory in which the development initiatives are to be car-
ied out is characterized by a high degree of distinctive natural and
nvironmental value, which can be summarized thus:

in terms of the possible impact of the planned intervention;
in terms of what the territory has to offer, given that, in this spe-
cific case, the territory of the municipality of Arbus contains a
large portion of the entire natural heritage of the Province of
Medio Campidano.

The coastal system of the Province of Medio Campidano, as has
lready been said, is characterized by native species and unique bio-
iversity, which makes it exceptional within the overall scenario of
he Italian coastline, in terms of concentrated quantity and quality
f the territory. Moreover, the presence of the Parco Geominerario
torico e Ambientale della Sardegna (Sardinian Historical and Envi-
onmental Geo-mining Park), an emblematic example of the new
orldwide network of Geosites/Geoparks, set up by the UNESCO
eneral Conference, increases the potential, wealth, charm and
niqueness of the territory.

On the basis of the results of the RSAC and following a phase of
iscussion among all local and non-local actors and stakeholders
lasting more than a year), according to Q methodology (combining
ualitative and quantitative research characteristics by exploring

nd identifying a number of ‘viewpoints’ or ‘discourses’ concerning

specific theme – Barry and Proops, 1999; Brown, 1980; McKeown
nd Thomas, 1988; Stephenson, 1953), a methodology that has
lready been used to reveal discourses on the effectiveness of the

S territorial system in comparing with representative eco-tourism areas (possible
to improve or maintaining this strategic position.

Mediterranean Action Plan (Frantzi et al., 2009), certain factors
critical for success emerged on which to build shared future devel-
opment:

• Low level of human settlement: the ruggedness of the terrain,
which has limited settlement in the past, has guaranteed protec-
tion of the Arbus landscape and its biodiversity, conserving a great
heritage for the present generation. The limited human pres-
sure (a distinctive and rare trait for a present day Mediterranean
tourist destination) allows the planning of economic enhance-
ment activities with low impact on the natural balance of the
coastal area.

• Territorial features: the particular morphological and geograph-
ical characteristics of the area, which stretches over more than
47 km of coastline, with beautiful sand dunes that have also been
declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site, represent an undoubted
strongpoint for the distinctive value of the area in terms of attrac-
tiveness, uniqueness and quality of the natural environment
(Rhind and Jones, 2009).

• Considerable amount of arable land and quality produce: this
aspect highlights a local potential that strengthens economic
sustainability linked to quality and characterization of Medio
Campidano. Indeed, this local characteristic could set off a pos-
itive process of strategic value for the building of ties between

tourism and agriculture, capable of amplifying growth in both
sectors by adopting new tools such as Product Oriented Environ-
mental Management System – POEMS, based on the Life Cycle
Assessment use to analyze the agri-food impacts (van Berkel et al.,

se Po

•

a
e
t
b
m

t
m
k
s
I

•

t
A
u
(

•
•
•

G. Ioppolo et al. / Land U

1999; Salomone and Ioppolo, 2012; Salomone et al., 2011). The
Provincial authorities have committed themselves to a project
(“Vivere la Campagna”) which promotes sustainable agriculture,
allows for rational and reasonable use of natural resources and
of rural spaces and the return of these spaces to farmers. The
enhancement of these territorial management choices through
forms of “rural” tourism, would permit greater social, environ-
mental and local economic benefits to be achieved.
Strong characterizing cultural identity of the territory: this strong-
point is aimed at maintaining socio-cultural models, traditions,
rural villages, local feast days as opportunities for asserting col-
lective identity, for increasing opportunities for tourism with
a view to a new dynamic and integrated form of production.
Indeed, all these elements must be integrated and enhanced
through adequate territorial resource management, with the aim
of identifying an Area Brand, which has the double advantage of
protecting local cultural identity and generating economic effects
necessary for protecting the identity of areas otherwise subject to
the risk of depopulation, impoverishment and cultural distortion.
Provincial sustainable development policies: the Province of Medio
Campidano has realized the need for land use planning in order to
combat the main threats to natural habitats, with a view to lasting
sustainability that produces territorial growth without impover-
ishing resources, controlling threats, such as human settlement
in particularly fragile areas. For this reason, the Province has
adopted a series of instruments in support of this strategy (LIFE,
projects on renewable energy and on integrated coastal manage-
ment, etc.). The Province’s planning activities are an important
strongpoint in the attempt to seize sustainable development
opportunities in the Arbus coastal area.

This natural and archeological heritage is a strategic factor of
ttraction for an important segment of the tourism market, namely
cotourism, characterized by high pro-capita spending. Attracting
his kind of tourism to the area would generate economic and social
enefits throughout the Province (increased services and employ-
ent).
In view of the decline of “traditional” tour operators, it is impor-

ant to understand how the market is evolving, unpredictable as it
ay be. If we focus our attention on the “ecological tourism” mar-

et in Italy, considering the data supplied by Coldiretti in 2010, the
ector recorded an increase in presences and turnover rate of 8% of
talians who chooses the “green holiday” (Swg-Confesercenti data).

After seaside and mountain holidays, Italians express a prefer-
nce for holidays characterized by the following elements:

contact with nature (38%); relaxation and tranquility (13.7%); cul-
tural traditions, folklore and traditional food and wine (12.6%);
opportunities for sporting activities (10.3%); open-air activities
such as trekking, mountain biking, bird-watching, skiing, horse-
riding, climbing (9.9%).

This data was in line with the VII National Report on tourism-
ature presented at Ecotur 2009.

The Report, drawn up by the Ecotur Observatory Study Cen-
er, in collaboration with the University dell’Aquila, Istat, the
bruzzo Regional government, Enit and the “In Fiera” Study Center,
nderlines certain encouraging data for tourism linked to nature
Osservatorio Turismo Natura, 2010):

a 29% increase in ecotourism overnight stays from 2005 to 2009;
a 2% increase in farm holiday overnight stays from 2007 to 2008;
a 40% increase in the farm holiday share of ecotourism from 2005
to 2008.

licy 31 (2013) 460– 471 467

This data is in contrast with that of traditional overnight hotel
stays, which experienced a 19.9% fall from 2005 to 2008. It should be
considered that in 62.9% of cases, the average stay does not exceed
one week-end.

The Ecotour Report outlined a profile of an eco-tourist which
points to somebody between 16 and 30 years old, a good level
of education and a preference for organizing holidays indepen-
dently (62%). The prices of ecotourism holidays are of secondary
importance among the reasons for choosing this kind of holiday,
and the fundamental factor is the quality and authenticity of the
products offered. The spending power of these tourists for each
holiday corresponds to the price of ecotourism holidays available
on the market. The keystone of ecotourism is food and wine: typ-
ical local products are discovered and guide tourists around the
territory (wine and food routes, etc.). The Report also shows how
a “farm situated near a Protected Area or a Nature Park makes
it significantly attractive to tourists on a national and interna-
tional level”. The trend is toward offering holidays based on sport
(for 46.4% of tourists), food and wine (15.2%) and local traditions
(12.7%). Eco-tourists also want other activities available on their
holiday: walking and trekking, cycle touring (mountain bikes and
road bikes), wildlife observation, horse-riding, etc. regarding the
place of origin of tourists in the target segment, against the back-
ground of a general decline in foreign visitors to Italy in almost all
areas of tourism, the foreign visitor share of ecotourism is stable
(37.4%), with a slight decline in visitors from Europe, compensated
by an increase in those from the rest of the world. Finally, the data
presented at the International Nature Tourism Exchange indicate
that 2009 saw a turnover of 10.7 billion euros, up 0.2% compared
to 2008.

The ecotourism development of a territory is capable of acti-
vating different sources of income that may soften the impact of a
decline in visitor numbers due to international crises. Indeed, so-
called other income (diversification of farm activities) represents a
buffer against the economic–financial shock that has also affected
the tourism industry over recent years.

Cross-referencing this analysis of the ecotourism macro trend
with the results collected in the RSAC, new scenarios were created
for the sustainable development of the Medio Campidano system
which activate a new economic driving force for the local system
(Wunder, 2000).

Results and discussion

The PSSE was completed in January 2012; using the RSAC results
it was possible to clusterize the impacts of activities other than
tourism (agriculture, zootechnics, second home building, sailing,
fishing, etc.), which have medium and long term effects. At the
same time, through a process of informing the public, an attempt
was made to increase the sense of responsibility and begin to build
a collective vision of compatible actions (setting up a website, con-
ferences, focus groups, etc.) (Armitage et al., 2009) (see Fig. 4).

On the basis of the information acquired on the area of inter-
vention and preliminary reflections, as well as the high degree
of protection already in place and the positive results from the
indicators (RSAC), it emerged that conservation may become a
territorial development opportunity, transforming the view of pro-
tection from one of restriction to one of opportunity, also through
the possible setting up of a Protected Marine Area (Geneletti and
van Duren, 2008; Gerhardinger et al., 2009; Ojeda-Martínez et al.,
2009).

However, to date, the restriction laid down by the Management
Plans is perceived as being a block to exploiting and developing the
coastal areas of the territory and it is thus essential to set in motion
a series of actions, in order to inform and educate the public and to

468 G. Ioppolo et al. / Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 460– 471

Knowledg e to supp ort decisions Being heard befo re decisions Having an influence on decisions Forming/Agreeing to dec isions

From LOW

Cohesion

To HIGH

Cohesion

• Publ ic Information;

• Pub lic Hearings ;

• Website;

• Conferences.

• Task forces;

• Advisory Group s;

• Facilitat ion;

• Interactive Works hops;

• Focus Group .

• Collaborat ive Problem

Solving;

• Themat ic tab les;

• As sisted N egotiation;

• Conciliation.

• Mediation;

• Join De cision Making.

Private Actor s:

• Individuals and weak social groups,

no-profit organizations, collective

economic actors, bank s, firms, etc.

HOW

realizes

partecipat ion

WHAT

needs to

decide

WHO

is inv olved

Public Act ors:

• Local Authorities, Regional

Gov ernament, Institutions, Publ ic

Authorities, etc.

Citizens hip:

• Families, children, scholarship s,

stud ent s, etc.

Multidisciplinary Multistakeholdes Pragmatic App roach

F gure s
t and h

p
c
l
m
d
t

v
m
e
a

A
t
e

t
p

a
e

b
l
m
i
o
t
m
a
u
i

w
w
h
o
t
a

i
g
p
t
o
e
r
o

ig. 4. A synthetic guideline for a collaborative participation adopted in PSSE. This fi
o pass from low cohesion to high cohesion: who is involved, what needs to decide

romote correct management and use of the territory. Regarding
ommunication and resource management actions, these can pub-
icize and promote the site both externally and locally, so as to

ake the local population and visitors aware of the positive impacts
eriving from eco-compatible activities in the coastal area and from
he development of eco-tourism (Skewgar et al., 2009).

The overall result shows the need to move beyond isolated inter-
entions in particular sectors in order to respond effectively to the
ulti-dimensional problems of the local context, transforming the

nvironmental, social and cultural resources of the Arbus coastal
rea into recognizable assets for economic development.

Moreover, the integrated action of diversifying tourism in the
rbus coastal area, promoting the rapid development of eco-

ourism on the domestic and international market, may set off an
mployment multiplier effect, increased by the creation of eco-
ourism activities, also promoted and/or managed by the local
opulation, with the aim of recovering local identity and crafts,
llowing the local people to share in the income generated by the
co-tourism industry.

In the light of the dynamic-relational SWOT results and the
enchmark considerations, carry out that all the impacts are closely

inked to one another; indeed, aiming for the development of
ass tourism, with consequent increase in numbers and lower-

ng of service quality in favor of quantity, has a knock-on effect
f uncontrolled exploitation of the territory (for example, uncon-
rolled building of second homes to be rented out in the summer

onths) and impoverishment of natural resources in the coastal
rea. Indeed, the naturalistic system of Arbus is fragile, in partic-
lar the dunes, and inappropriate exploitation would compromise

ts ability to regenerate.
The protection of this system requires a series of adjustments

hich could easily be transformed into tourist attractions, such as
ooden walkways and guided routes for tourists. “Unmanaged”
uman pressure, on the other hand, could cause the loss or decline
f the ecosystems in this area, with a reduction in biodiversity or
he disappearance of target species, which are strong elements for
ttracting “natural” or “eco-sustainable” tourism”.

The “external” threats to the territory become more significant
f read in conjunction with the territory’s weak points: demo-
raphic decline, linked to the threat of depopulation, the weak
roduction system and poor entrepreneurship in turn influence
he poor links between tourism and agriculture, abandonment

f the land and the loss of local knowledge and identity. The
xisting restrictions placed on the territory of Arbus need to be
eflected on as a whole, so that an overall strategy can be devel-
ped for all variables; indeed, isolated interventions on individual

ynthesizes, in a strategic map useful to a decision making process, three key points
ow realizes participation.

elements may prove to be ineffective or even counterproductive
and damaging.

The greater difficulty of access to the Arbus coastline, in com-
parison to other “sun and sea” tourist destinations, clearly indicates
the contradiction of choosing a “mass tourism” strategy for this
destination, which would prove to be strategically wrong and
unsustainable in the medium term, as it would involve the “con-
sumption” of local resources without effective and stable territorial
development. Over the long term the effect would be that of loss of
the natural and landscape features which are the most important
factors for attracting tourists.

In this regard, territorial communication and marketing can
advertise and promote the site both externally and locally, in order
to make visitors and locals aware of the positive impacts deriving
from eco-compatible activities along the coastline and the from the
development of ecotourism. In the territorial environment analysis
(RSAC) certain scenarios were hypothesized. Phase 2 saw the iden-
tification, through public debate, with the help of an online forum,
of the scenario most coherent with both the characteristics of the
territory (synthesized above) and with the declared commitment
of the Provincial authorities to sustainable development that pro-
tects environmental quality and, at the same time, has a positive
economic and employment impact on the whole Medio Campidano
area (Himes, 2007). This scenario was defined as “optimal manage-
ment of territorial resources for the sustainable development of the
coastal system”.

Pursuing this scenario brings the following advantages:

• capacity to attract of ecotourism, constantly growing and much
sought after for its greater spending capacity; this segment is
characterized by a choice of destinations demonstrating high lev-
els of environmental quality, with a strong historical–cultural
identity, and offering typical local hospitality, crafts, food and
drink (Weaver and Lawton, 2007);

• better positioning in relation to competitors for the same tourism
segments, due to the coherence of strategic choices with aspects
of value and the characteristic natural resources of Arbus;

• guarantee of important growth potential, even in the short term,
for the territory of Arbus and in the Medio Campidano, and
widespread entrepreneurial opportunities with resulting qual-
ity employment, which favors stable and widespread income
growth;

• development of tourism–agri-food ties, thus linking the two main
strongpoints of the territory (naturalistic quality of the coast-
line and specialized quality agricultural produce), along with
enhancement of the cultural heritage;

se Po

•

i
i
a

•

t
p

•

G. Ioppolo et al. / Land U

protection of native species and of the landscape mosaic
(natural-flora, fauna; human-arable land use, villages,
historical–archeological heritage, etc.);
promotion of a qualified and prestigious image of the Medio
Campidano at a national and international level.

This choice obviously involves an adequate budget in terms of
nvestment and management, the lack of which could be an imped-
ment to achieving the planned objectives. Certain effects linked to

lack of economic resources may be:

the quality tourism policy remains on paper only and is not trans-
lated into concrete and effective actions; this lack of action risks
paralyzing territorial management without generating develop-
ment, thus devaluing the sustainable tourism policy in the eyes
of the local population;
Provincial and municipal authorities do not succeed in taking
coherent and rapid action in support of the environmen-
tal/territorial policy undertaken;
lack of operational capacity to choose the investments to be made
in order to realize the vision of quality tourism.

The conditions for achieving a scenario of environmen-
al/territorial quality can be expressed as contextual conditions and
rocess conditions.

The contextual conditions are the following:

widespread political consensus and consensus among the popu-
lation regarding the choice of a policy of sustainable development
through the growth of environmental tourism linked to the
resources of the Medio Campidano; this consensus requires:
◦ continuous dialogue, involvement and communication with

the population of both Arbus, and of the other towns in the
Province, achievable by listening, but also by promoting the
project convincingly, with all the necessary flexibility;

◦ capacity to negotiate and involve economic operators and those
proposing interventions so that these become coherent with
the overall vision of sustainable development of the territory;

◦ strong and conscious leadership from politicians and adminis-
trators, so as to develop a positive declination to their function
of promotion and driving force, creating the contextual condi-
tions for coherent investments;

strong involvement and commitment from economic operators
in the Province, who are called on to invest, create jobs and
income, within the sustainable development framework laid
down by the authorities, through social dialogue;
involvement of the Sardinian Regional Government and national
and European authorities, who contribute, according to their
respective roles, to the creation of a favorable climate for invest-
ment coherent with preservation of the environmental quality of
the territory;
improvement of the image and rating of the coastal protected
areas of the Medio Campidano, strengthening their territorial
management and control tools with a view to conservation and
enhancement for the purposes of ecotourism development;
the implementation of policies for the promotion of and invest-
ment in quality accommodation and restaurant facilities which
generate entrepreneurial and employment growth, using the
already existing excellent facilities as a benchmark;
the development of policies for public mobility toward the coast,
along with limitations to private mobility, with the aim of reduc-

ing environmental pressure on protected areas;
the implementation of public policies to reward actions coher-
ent with the scenario of sustainable development of high quality
environmental tourism.

licy 31 (2013) 460– 471 469

The process conditions are the following:

• the creation of well identified niche tourism products, character-
ized by the quality offered by the territory, and by a close tie with
the local agri-food sector, but also with the cultural heritage of
the Province;

• a marketing campaign targeted on the specific segments of
ecotourism and environmental tourism, in coherence with the
tourism products created;

• investments for creating ties with the agri-food sector and
for safeguarding and enhancing the cultural heritage, starting
with the Geo-mining Park and the widespread heritage of the
Province;

• systematic and continuous training for those operating in local
tourism and their employees, in order to provide tourists with a
unique service coherent with the territory’s resources;

• optimal use of targeted sources of finance both for public invest-
ments and for private investments in business activities relating
to accommodation and those aimed at providing tourists with a
high quality experience;

• interventions to be started up rapidly, both because response
speed is a necessary condition for the success of the quality strat-
egy and in order to have positive employment and income effects
which would show that the strategy works and thus generate
wider consensus for the chosen strategy among the local popu-
lation.

The project scenario is based on certain strong features:

• consolidation of the protected area system around Arbus with the
new marine reserve and the other protected areas in the Province,
for a better contribution to the protection and improvement of
the coastal area and its natural heritage;

• integration of the Arbus coastal area with the rest of the Campi-
dano territory, so that the whole territory can develop and move
from being an area in crisis and demographic decline to being a
driving force for the whole Province;

• investment aimed at strengthening and qualifying the peculiar
characteristics of the production, service and cultural system of
the Campidano area, through new integration services with the
coastal area (product clubs in which operators from different sec-
tors compare notes, food and wine routes, cultural routes, etc.);

• plurality of services and functions (typical of areas experienc-
ing growth and development toward a service and knowledge
based society) which allows cross fertilization among the vari-
ous activities of hospitality, tourism services, services for the local
population. This exchange and interaction may set off a virtuous
circle thanks to economies of proximity and the rich informal
intersectorial exchange which is a driving force for innovation,
thanks to cross fertilization; the more complex the range of func-
tions and relations, the greater the capacity for system innovation
and growth of a society capable of generating income and stabi-
lizing the population;

• respect for the vocations of the various parts of the territory of
the Medio Campidano area:
◦ tourism-accommodation in settlements already existing along

the coastline or which can be converted for this purpose;
◦ tourism-accommodation in the center of the town of Arbus, but

also in other surrounding villages and rural areas, which already

boast facilities of high quality which set an example for other
operators;

◦ agri-food production on the Campidanese plain;
◦ crafts and services for towns in the Medio Campidano;

4 se Pol

•

T
f
a
p
P
r
c
e

(
d
i
f
p
i
t
e

s
t
p
v
p
1
a
e
i
p
p

a
e
i
i
p
p
i
t
o
t
p
i
t
I
o
t

70 G. Ioppolo et al. / Land U

◦ environmental education for potential structures in the pro-
tected areas, and also for environmental associations operating
in the various towns of the Medio Campidano;

optimal enhancement of the limited available spaces through
a process of regeneration of built-up areas (currently under-
utilized) to be used for new prestigious functions, transforming
them into strongpoints for re-launching the territory;
promotion of innovative tourism services, within a context of
environmental management of the territorial system (for exam-
ple, adoption of EMAS, ISO 14001 certifications to improving the
competitive performance of the registered organizations – Iraldo
et al., 2009; Petrosillo et al., 2012).

These strong points represent a roadmap for sustainable and
cotourism development.

onclusions

This paper proposes a right direction to integrated management.
he PSSE aims to identify the most coherent actions and the best
orms of partnership for transforming ecotourism promotion into
n economic driving force for the territory, in line with ICZM princi-
les and by means of territorial diagnosis using active Management
lans (Mc Kenna et al., 2008). The concrete effect of these actions
emains to be seen from the viewpoint of unitary protection of
oastal environmental resources linked to development of the local
conomic system.

Long term commitment to the new system of eco-governance
by government, policymakers, practitioners, stakeholders, aca-
emics, etc.) will be the real lasting result of the PSSE, guaranteeing

ts implementation and positively facing up to possible causes of
ailure (Shipman and Stojanovic, 2007). This highlights the com-
lexity of human decision-making (Parker et al., 2008), which

ncreases in relation to the rank, role, competence and number of
hose participating in decision-making processes (Fontalvo-Herazo
t al., 2007).

With regard to public authorities, questions linked to biodiver-
ity can be faced by adopting appropriate policies and strategies,
hrough exchange of knowledge and experience, the forming of
artnerships, correct management of land use, monitoring of biodi-
ersity and optimal use of resources, or reducing consumption, and
romoting environmental certifications, such as EMAS and/or ISO
4001 (Thompson et al., 2008). Local authorities undoubtedly have

central role to play in the protection of biodiversity and this strat-
gy is successful above all when the authorities show strength by
nvolving stakeholders in a credible environmental improvement
roject and activating a transparent and effective communication
olicy.

The PSSE sets out to achieve its functional aim by becoming
n innovative format in local development processes. Indeed, as
arly as Phase 1 of the PSSE, new-governance has moved its prior-
ty interest from possible new infrastructures and services to the
dea of constructing a territorial unicum, in which all social parties
lay a role of guarantor of environmental quality. The eco-tourism
rogram requires the development of a territorial conscience that

s aware of the negative effects of resource impoverishment on
he local economy and quality of life. This indicates development
f a new image which identifies itself with environmental attrac-
iveness and with related chains of production, seen as the best
rocess of interaction. In conclusion, the PSSE seeks to implement

nnovative actions in Sardinia as a possible way of developing a

erritorial environmental ‘brand’, but above all tries to transpose
CZM themes onto the local context, indicating them as elements
f competitiveness and promoting their harmonization throughout
he territory.

icy 31 (2013) 460– 471

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible through the support of the
Province Administration of Medio-Campidano and Studio FC&RR
Associati S.r.l. with the support of ApriAmbiente SpA. Studio FC&RR
Associati S.r.l. is a company specialized in Environment Planning
and Management tools for territory development. Studio FC&RR
Associates S.r.l., has developed the “Sustainable Development and
Eco-tourism Program (PSSE in Italian)”. This Program, in which
Giuseppe Ioppolo (first author of this paper) is the Scientific
Coordinator, during the third edition of the Convergence nell’ICMT-
Information, Communication & Media Technology, received from
Confindustria Innovative and Technological Services, a special
mention for “best management of environmental variables and
economic and social processes of local development through the
innovative use of ICT”.

References

Antrop, M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape
and Urban Planning 70, 21–34.

Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J.,
2009. Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 7, 95–102.

Barry, J., Proops, J., 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology.
Ecological Economics 28, 337–345.

Bin, C., Hao, H., Weiwei, Y., Jinkeng, W., Jinlong, J., 2009. Marine biodiversity conser-
vation based on integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) – a case study in
Quanzhou Bay, Fujian, China. Ocean & Coastal Management 52, 612–619.

Boyd, S.W., Butler, R.W., 1996. Managing ecotourism: an opportunity spectrum
approach. Tourism Management 17, 557–566.

Brown, S.R., 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q-Methodology in Political
Science. Yale University Press, New Haven/London.

D’Ayala, P.G., 1992. Islands at a glance. Environmental Management 16, 565–568.
Daily, G.C., SÖderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P.R., Folke, C.,

Jansson, A., Jansson, B.-O., Kautsky, N., Levin, S., Lubchenco, J., Mäler, K.-G., Simp-
son, D., Starrett, D., Tilman, D., WalkerF B., 2000. The value of nature and the
nature of value. Science 289, 395–396.

Douven, W.J.A.M., Buurman, J.J.G., Kiswara, W., 2003. Spatial information for
coastal zone management: the example of the Banten Bay seagrass ecosystem,
Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management 46, 615–634.

Douvere, F., 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing
ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy 32, 762–771.

EEA, 2009. Progress Towards the European 2010 Biodiversity Target. Office for Offi-
cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg.

EEA-ETC/TE, 2002. CORINE Land Cover Update. I&CLC2000 Project. Technical Guide-
lines., http://terrestrial.eionet.eu.int

EEC, 1979. Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds. Office
for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxemburg.

EEC, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and
of Wild Flora and Fauna. Office for Official Publication of the European Commu-
nities, Luxemburg.

Falaleeva, M., O’Mahony, C., Gray, S., Desmond, M., Gault, J., Cummins, V., 2011.
Towards climate adaptation and coastal governance in Ireland: integrated archi-
tecture for effective management? Marine Policy 35, 784–793.

Feraneca, J., Hazeub, G., Christensenc, S., Jaffraind, G., 2007. Corine land cover change
detection in Europe (case studies of the Netherlands and Slovakia). Land Use
Policy 24, 234–247.

Fletcher, S., 2007. Influence on stakeholder representation in participatory coastal
management programmes. Ocean & Coastal Management 50, 314–328.

Fontalvo-Herazo, M.L., Glaser, M., Lobato-Ribeiro, A., 2007. A method for the par-
ticipatory design of an indicator system as a tool for local coastal management.
Ocean & Coastal Management 50, 779–795.

Forester, J., 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Forst, M.F., 2009. The convergence of integrated coastal zone management and the

ecosystems approach. Ocean & Coastal Management 52, 294–306.
Frantzi, S., Carter, N.T., Lovett, J.C., 2009. Exploring discourses on international

environmental regime effectiveness with Q methodology: a case study of the
Mediterranean Action Plan. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 177–186.

Geneletti, D., 2004. A GIS-based decision support system to identify nature conser-
vation priorities in an alpine valley. Land Use Policy 21, 149–160.

Geneletti, D., van Duren, I., 2008. Protected area zoning for conservation and use:
a combination of spatial multicriteria and multiobjective evaluation. Landscape
and Urban Planning 85, 97–110.

Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.A.S., Jones, P.J.S., 2009. Local ecological knowledge and
the management of marine protected areas in Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Manage-
ment 52, 154–165.

Gonzàlez-Riancho, P., Sanò, M., Medina, R., Garcìa-Aguilar, O., Areizaga,
J., 2009. A contribution to the implementation of ICZM in the

se Po

H
H

M
M

G. Ioppolo et al. / Land U

Mediterranean developing countries. Ocean & Coastal Management 52,
545–558.

össling, S., 1999. Ecotourism: a means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem
functions? Ecological Economics 29, 303–320.

uisan, A., Zimmermann, N.E., 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecol-
ogy. Ecological Modelling 135, 147–186.

adley, D., 2009. Land use and the coastal zone. Land Use Policy 26S, S198–S203.
imes, A.H., 2007. Performance indicators in MPA management: using question-

naires to analyze stakeholder preferences. Ocean & Coastal Management 50,
329–351.

oppolo, G., 2010. I sistemi di gestione integrata a supporto dell’ecogovernance. In:
Ioppolo, G. (Ed.), Integrazione di competenze a supporto dei sistemi di ges-
tione costiera. Il caso Fish-Gate: Progetto Integrato di Gestione delle Risorse.
FrancoAngeli, Milan, pp. 151–154 (in Italian).

oppolo, G., Saija, G., Salomone, R., 2012. Developing a Territory Balanced Scorecard
approach to manage projects for local development: two case studies. Land Use
Policy 29, 629–640.

raldo, F., Testa, F., Frey, M., 2009. Is an environmental management system able
to influence environmental and competitive performance? The case of eco-
management and audit scheme (EMAS) in the European union. Journal of Cleaner
Production 17, 1444–1452.

SPRA, 2010. Sistema Carta della Natura. Tipi fisiografici di Paesaggio.,
http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/site/it-it/Servizi per l%27Ambiente/Sistema
Carta della Natura/Carta della Natura alla scala 1 250.000/Tipi e Unit%C3%A0
Fisiografiche/

eftic, L., 1996. Integrated coastal and marine areas management (ICAM) in
the Mediterranean Action Plan of UNEP. Ocean & Coastal Management 30,
89–113.

ohnson, D.E., Dagg, S., 2003. Achieving Public Participation in Coastal Zone Environ-
mental Impact Assessment. Journal of Coastal Conservation 9, 13–18.

outrakis, E., Sapounidis, A., Marzetti, S., Marin, V., Roussel, S., Martino, S., Fabiano,
M., Paoli, C., Rey-Valette, H., Povh, D., Malvárez, C.G., 2011. ICZM and coastal
defence perception by beach users: lessons from the Mediterranean coastal area.
Ocean & Coastal Management 54, 821–830.

anza, S., Randazzo, G., 2011. Improvements to a Coastal Management Plan in Sicily
(Italy): new approaches to borrow sediment management. Journal of Coastal
Research 64, 1357–1361.

edoux, L., Crooks, S., Jordan, A., Turner, R.K., 2000. Implementing EU biodiversity
policy: UK experiences. Land Use Policy 17, 257–268.

arin, V., Palmisani, F., Ivaldi, R., Dursi, R., Fabiano, M., 2009. Users’ perception anal-
ysis for sustainable beach management in Italy. Ocean & Coastal Management
52 (5), 268–277.

arotta, L., Ceccaroni, L., Matteucci, G., Rossini, P., Guerzoni, S., 2011. A decision-
support system in ICZM for protecting the ecosystems: integration with the
habitat directive. Journal of Coastal Conservation 15, 393–405.

c Kenna, J., Cooper, A., O’Hagan, A.M., 2008. Managing by principle: a critical anal-
ysis of the European principles of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).
Marine Policy 32, 941–955.

cKeown, B.F., Thomas, D.B., 1988. Q Methodolgy. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
illigan, J., O’Riordan, T., Nicholson-Cole, S.A., Watkinson, A.R., 2009. Nature con-

servation for future sustainable shorelines: lessons from seeking to involve the
public. Land Use Policy 26, 203–213.

örtberga, U.M., Balforsa, B., Knol, W.C., 2007. Landscape ecological assessment: a
tool for integrating biodiversity issues in strategic environmental assessment
and planning. Journal of Environmental Management 82, 457–470.

’Riordan, T., Nicholson-Cole, S.A., Milligan, J., 2008. Designing sustainable coastal
futures. Twenty-First Century Society 3, 145–157.

jeda-Martínez, C., Casalduero, F.G., Bayle-Sempere, J.T., Cebrián, C.B., Valle, C.,
Sanchez-Lizaso, J.L., Forcada, A., Sanchez-Jerez, P., Martín-Sosa, P., Falcón, J.M.,
Salas, F., Graziano, M., Chemello, R., Stobart, B., Cartagena, P., Pérez-Ruzafa, A.,
Vandeperre, F., Rochel, E., Planes, S., Brito, A., 2009. A conceptual framework for
the integral management of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Manage-
ment 52, 89–101.

sservatorio Permanente sul Turismo Natura, 2010. 8◦ Rapporto Ecotur sul turismo

natura. Edagricole, Il Sole 24 Ore, Milano (in Italian).

arravicini, V., Rovere, A., Vassallo, P., Micheli, F., Montefalcone, M., Morri, C., Paoli,
C., Albertelli, G., Fabiano, M., Bianchi, C.N., 2012. Understanding relationships
between conflicting human uses and coastal ecosystems status: a geospatial
modeling approach. Ecological Indicators 19, 253–263.

licy 31 (2013) 460– 471 471

Parker, D.C., Hessl, A., Davis, S.C., 2008. Complexity, land-use modeling, and the
human dimension: fundamental challenges for mapping unknown outcome
spaces. Geoforum 39, 789–804.

Pearce, D., Moran, D. (Eds.), 1994. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. IUCN,
Cambridge.

Pernice, G., Placenti, F., Spina, A., 2004. Long-term analysis (1863–2002) of envi-
ronmental change in the Capo Feto area (Mediterranean Sea). Chemistry and
Ecology 20, S185–S193.

Petrosillo, I., De Marco, A., Botta, S., Comoglio, C., 2012. EMAS in local authorities:
suitable indicators in adopting environmental management systems. Ecological
Indicators 13, 263–274.

Renn, O., 2006. Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land
Use Policy 23, 34–43.

Rhind, P., Jones, R., 2009. A framework for the management of sand dune system in
Wales. Journal of Coast Conservation 13, 15–23.

Salomone, R., Ioppolo, G., 2012. Environmental impacts of olive oil production: a
Life Cycle Assessment case study in the province of Messina (Sicily). Journal of
Cleaner Production 28, 88–100.

Salomone, R., Clasadonte, M.T., Proto, M., Raggi, A., Arzoumanidis, I., Ioppolo,
G., Lo Giudice, A., Malandrino, O., Matarazzo, A., Petti, L., Saija, G., Supino,
S., Zamagni, A., 2011. Product-oriented environmental management sys-
tem (POEMS): a sustainable management framework for the food industry.
In: Proceedings of the Life Cycle Management Conference 2011, Berlin,
http://www.lcm2011.org/papers.html

Sampford, C., 2002. Environmental governance for biodiversity. Environmental Sci-
ence & Policy 5, 79–90.

Soma, K., Vatn, A., 2009. Local democracy implications for coastal zone management
– a case study in southern Norway. Land Use Policy 26, 755–762.

Shipman, B., Stojanovic, T., 2007. Facts, fictions, and failures of integrated coastal
zone management in Europe. Coastal Management 35, 375–398.

Skewgar, E., Simeone, A., Dee Boersma, P., 2009. Marine Reserve in Chile would
benefit penguins and ecotourism. Ocean & Coastal Management 52, 487–491.

Stephenson, W., 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and its Methodology.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Stojanovic, T.A., Ballinger, R.C., 2009. Integrated coastal management: a comparative
analysis of four UK initiatives. Applied Geography 29, 49–62.

Tintorè, J., Medina, R., Gòmez-Pujol, L., Orfila, A., Vizoso, G., 2009. Integrated and
interdisciplinary scientific approach to coastal management. Ocean & Coastal
Management 52, 493–505.

Thompson, M.H., Dumont, C.P., Gaymer, C.F., 2008. ISO 14001: toward interna-
tional quality environmental management standards for marine protected areas.
Ocean & Coastal Management 51, 727–739.

Treby, E.J., Clark, M.J., 2004. Refining a practical approach to participatory decision
making: an example from coastal zone management. Coastal Management 32,
353–372.

Tsaur, S., Lin, Y., Lin, J., 2006. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the inte-
grated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism Management
27, 640–653.

Turner, R.K., Adger, N., Crooks, S., Lorenzoni, I., Ledoux, L., 1999. Sustainable coastal
resources management: principles and practice. Natural Resources Forum 23,
275–286.

Vallega, A., 1995a. Towards the sustainable management of the Mediterranean Sea.
Marine Policy 19 (1), 47–64.

Vallega, A., 1995b. Regional level implementation of Chapter 17: the UNEP
approach to the Mediterranean. Ocean & Coastal Management 29,
251–278.

van Berkel, R., van Kampen, M., Kortman, J., 1999. Opportunities and constraints
for Product-oriented Environmental Management Systems (P-EMS). Journal of
Cleaner Production 7, 447–455.

Weaver, D.B., Lawton, L.J., 2007. Twenty years on: the state of contemporary eco-
tourism research. Tourism Management 28, 1168–1179.

Wunder, S., 2000. Ecotourism and economic incentives – an empirical approach.
Ecological Economics 32, 465–479.

Zoppi, C., 2007. A multicriteria-contingent valuation analysis concerning a coastal

area of Sardinia, Italy. Land Use Policy 24, 322–337.

Zoppi, C., Lai, S., 2013. Differentials in the regional operational program expenditure
for public services and infrastructure in the coastal cities of Sardinia (Italy) ana-
lyzed in the ruling context of the Regional Landscape Plan. Land Use Policy 30,
286–304.

From coastal management to environmental management: The sustainable eco-tourism program for the mid-western coast of Sard…

Introduction

Theory and methods

The PSSE: operating method and area of reference

Sustainable development and eco-tourism strategies to support the PSSE

Results and discussion

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

References

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-1

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

Framework for Sustainable Tourism Development

on Coastal and Marine Zone Environment

Lawal M. Marafa

K. C. Chau
Department of Geography and Resource Management

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Sha Tin, N.T, Hong Kong

lmmarafa@cuhk.edu.hk

ABSTRACT

Tourism in marine and coastal areas is a complex phenomenon. Tourism in coastal

areas brings along both positive and negative effects on the environment as a result of

activities exerted upon such areas by proponents and tourists. While tourism

development results in the modification of coastal environments, it can also flourish

where such environments are left unmodified as the pristine nature of the

environments attract visitors. Alternatively, in order for marine and coastal tourism to

develop and continue to attract tourists, there is the need for an integrated approach

that can be translated into a sustainable coastal tourism development. The aim of this

paper therefore, is to postulate and develop a framework and guideline to be

addressed by decision-makers for coastal areas. Frameworks for sustainable coastal

tourism development and coastal zone management (CZM) are suggested taking into

account the multifaceted nature of the coastal

environment.

Keywords: Coastal Zone Management; Frameworks; Hong Kong; Marine Tourism;

Sustainable Coastal Tourism Development

INTRODUCTION

For long, tourism has been associated with sea, sand and sun, often referred to as the

3S. The 3S’s are attributable to the coastal and marine environment. As a result of

this, tourism is also significantly associated with the coastal environment. It has been

established that tourism is environmentally dependent (Wong, 1993). Indeed, the

unique character of coastal environment gives to various types of tourism

development. While tourism is a component of integrated approaches towards coastal

and marine management, the natural environment and tourism are inextricably linked

(Mason, 2003).

Although the rise in travel and the trend of tourism development particularly the

notion of the 3S has given rise to mass tourism, the growing dissatisfaction with this

trend has resulted in tourists seeking for alternative tourism. It was the recognition of

the problems caused by conventional mass tourism activities that increased the

interest of researchers, planners and decision makers in alternative forms of

tourism.

However, the concept of alternative tourism is broad and vague. But alternative

mailto:lmmarafa@cuhk.edu.hk

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-2

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

tourism pays special attention to the environment and the needs of people coming to

enjoy such environments. Furthermore, alternative tourism is said to be considerate,

value conscious, qualitative, defensive, planned, locally controlled etc. (Jarviluoma,

1992).

The onset and promotion of alternative tourism has increasingly made the coastal

environment attractive. The coastal area, particularly the interface of land and water is

endowed with numerous aspects and opportunities for alternative tourism, specifically

adventure, marine and ecotourism. Given the significance of coastal areas and the

opportunities that they provide, their continuous use will hinge upon sustainable use

as many coastal communities depend on healthy coastal ecosystems for sustenance,

livelihood and quality of life. For this environment to be continuously maintained,

researchers and decision makers should ensure that there is no over exploitation, no

excessive pollution and that there is no irreversible damage resulting from over

exploitation, overdevelopment as well as tourism activities.

Globally, coastal areas are densely populated making the environment (both core and

peripheral) increasingly vulnerable. The vulnerability of such environments is a result

of many sources of activities of which tourism is a key player. For these areas to

continue to be useful and support such numerous activities, sustainable tourism and its

derivatives need to be encouraged and promoted. Sustainable coastal tourism

development and indeed numerous measures that will seek to integrate and manage

the coastal areas may help resolve the imminent conflict of societal demands.

Sustainable development and particularly sustainable tourism development when

properly implemented can help create long-term opportunities for coastal tourism to

prosper while enacting effective environmental protection policies. Indeed for tourism

and livelihood to continue to flourish in the coastal areas, there has to be a continuous

provision of good quality coastal ecosystems particularly coastal waters. Although as

in sustainable development there is also a number of views on sustainable tourism

(Mason, 2003), Swarbrooke (1999) suggested a number of perspectives in which it is

clear that the environment is more, or less central in the concept of sustainable

tourism.

In Hong Kong as in other coastal cities, tourism constitutes a significant factor in the

transformation of the coastal environment. In fact, the transformation experienced by

coastal cities of Asia (of which Hong Kong plays a leading role) centres in the coastal

environmental areas themselves (Yeung, 2001). Top on the list of coastal resource is

that they harbour beaches and backshore areas which provide amenity for recreation

and tourism (Beatly et al., 1994). Others include coastal scenery, habitats for flora and

fauna, geological exposures and coastal landforms. Furthermore, the coastal

environment provides a multifold of resources for water sports and a plethora of

coastal habitats some of which are important components for the viable promotion of

alternative tourism.

As most coastal areas are home to over 50% of the world population, the additional

millions of tourists visiting these areas add to the growing environmental concern.

The rapidly growing population in coastal areas and the increasing number of visitors

deserves further attention than it currently receives. Coastal environments are under

increasing pressure and their problems can no longer be avoided or deferred. For long,

coastal tourism represents the interaction of human systems (tourism and relevant

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-3

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

infrastructure development) and environmental systems (coastal and other processes)

whose interactions result in a wide array of human and environmental aspects often

resulting in many repercussions.

While there is increasing recognition of the (coastal) environment as a tourism

resource, there is also the need to consider the sustainability of that environment as it

continues to open up to the full gamut of tourism activities. This paper intends to

focus attention on sustainable tourism development in coastal areas with Hong Kong

as an example. The objective is to highlight the increasing vulnerability of coastal

environment to tourism and attempt to recommend regulatory frameworks akin to the

integrated coastal planning and management (ICPM) and integrated coastal zone

planning (ICZP) models for possible adaptation as tools for sustainable coastal zone

management with tourism as a backbone. The paper will categorize coastal resources

and identify prospects for adopting them for ecotourism, alternative tourism and

marine tourism.

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AND COASTAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

Although there are many studies on coastal tourism, they tend to emphasize on the

tourism system rather than on the interaction of the tourism and environmental

systems (Wong, 1993). As tourism is growing and diversifying into various forms of

alternative tourism, there is the need to incorporate the concept of sustainable tourism

in order to allow the tourist to enjoy the coastal environments that attracted them in

the first place.

However, the coastal environment is complex and where tourism (in any form)

constitutes a key player of the economy it fosters uncertain interactions between

environmental and socio-economic processes. The complexity in interactions and the

need for sustainability have increasingly become significant elements in the

formulation and development frameworks all over the world (Gheorghe, 2001).

Indeed complexity and uncertainty play important roles in the development of coastal

tourism and its management. The integration of environmental and socio-economic

processes where tourism flourishes will help “develop and maintain an area in such a

manner and at such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period, and does

not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which it exists to such a

degree that it prohibits the successful development and well-being of other activities

and processes” (Butler, 1993, p. 29). It is thus clear that like sustainable development,

sustainable tourism indeed evolved specifically as a result of concern for the

environment.

Earlier, Timmerman and White (1997) had indicated that coastal cities consists of two

separate and co-evolving ecosystems, one artificial and built centred on the part lived

by people and the other natural that comes with its elements and resources. While

tourism generates considerable socio-economic benefits, it can also be a source of

irreversible damage to the environment. For tourism to continue to flourish in a

coastal area, environment and tourism research need to be integrated in order to

maintain environmental integrity leading to continuous benefits as a result of from

tourism development.

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-4

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

Already, a framework for sustainable tourism development is seen as leading to the

management of all resources in such a way that it can fulfill economic, social and

aesthetic, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems

(Swarbrooke, 1999; Ross and Wall, 2001). But sustainable tourism and its other

derivatives need to be understood in the context of conceptualization, promotion and

implementation especially in coastal areas.

Sustainable coastal development implies new respect for environmental and

ecological limits, a goal of living off the ecological interest while protecting the

principal, a new orientation toward the future and toward adopting a long-term

planning and management timeframe. Indeed, sustainable coastal development

implies an attempt to promote greater livability and an equitable and just distribution

of resources and opportunities in the coastal zone (Beatley, et al., 1994). As tourism

plays an important role in most communities, it needs to be refocused. Current trends

need to be revisited, potentials need to be unraveled and alternatives need to be

created and promoted. The onus is on academics, researchers, policy and decision

makers as well as participants to make sustainable coastal tourism development

adaptable and implementable.

Furthermore, for the successful implementation of tourism in the coastal

and marine

environment, the challenges are cross-sectoral and indeed multifaceted. For a prudent

resource management, approaches have to be multidisciplinary. The bottom line of

the policy that can enhance sustainability of coastal and marine resources for tourism

activities is the need to ensure socio-economic values to the people, preservation of

rich marine biodiversity and the enhancement of quality of life.

COASTAL AND MARINE ENVIRONMENT IN HONG KONG: PARKS AND

RESERVES

Hong Kong is situated between latitudes 22o 09’ and 22o 37’N, and longitudes 113o

52’ and 114o 30’E, on the southern coast of China. The total area of Hong Kong is

about 1100 sq Km and it accommodates over 260 Islands adding up to more than 800

km of coastline with its territorial waters extending over 1827 sq Km (Liu and Hills,

1997). Some of the islands found within Hong Kong waters, particularly where there

is evidence of human habitation, can provide a wide array of attractions that can be

based on their characteristic history which is tied to the coastal area or seaward

activities and scenic coastal environments.

In addition to the numerous structures that provide convenience for tourism, Hong

Kong is endowed with natural coastal and marine resources that could be used for

provision and development of alternative tourism including marine tourism and

ecotourism. In addition to the availability of natural resources, the government had

designed and developed marine parks and created reserves for the purposes of

protection and conservation. Generally, protected coastal areas and by analogy marine

protected areas are continuously used as mechanisms for conservation of habitats and

ecosystems, research and education and increasingly for tourism and recreation.

(Orams, 1999) While all these are applicable to the context of the Hong Kong coastal

environment, in-depth studies on these resources and their contribution for sustainable

tourism has not been adequately documented.

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-5

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

Sustainable tourism in its purest sense is an industry which attempts to exert low

impact on the environment and culture of the hosting community, while helping them

to generate income, employment, and conserve the local ecosystems and cultural

heritage (Wall, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1999; UNEP, 2003) that constitutes attractions to

visitors. While Hong Kong stands out as a modern megalopolis, it similarly has the

necessary resource upon which alternative tourism can be developed that will function

on the aegis of sustainable tourism. In addition, there are about four marine parks and

one marine reserve. Although these resources are now open to the public and attract

ecotourists, nature adventurists and those seeking different experiences, it is clear that

a growing number of visitors are environmentally and ecologically conscious

(Marafa, 2003).

More and more people are now able to access more and more of the marine world

(Orams, 1997). As Orams indicated, increasing access mean increasing use which in

turn implies increasing pressure on the quality of marine resources. Although this is

the case, where marine environment falls within the ambit of protected area system, it

might provoke curiosity and generate interest in visitation making such areas similarly

vulnerable to degradation. Indeed it is this issue of deterioration of coastal and marine

ecosystem that called for the designation of such areas as natural, protected and

resource areas in Hong Kong. While bucolic rural marine environments are receiving

attention, areas that are within the built environment are subjected to development of

infrastructure for coastal and marine tourism. Projects that specifically target the

occupied coastal areas include revitalization of water fronts (Figures 1a and b),

seasonal festivals and the concentration of water based activities leading to the

enhancement of quality of life and increase in visitor numbers.

The Marine Parks Ordinance in Hong Kong was enacted in 1995 paving the way for

the establishment of the marine protected areas. It was meant to protect and manage

ecologically important parts of the marine environment for the purposes of

conservation, education and recreation (Figure 2). Up till now, four marine parks and

one marine reserve have been designated, covering areas ranging from 20 to over

1200 ha. The first batch of the marine parks and marine reserve were designated in

July 1996 and include Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park, Yan Chau Tong Marine Park, Sha

Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park and the Cape D’Aguilar Marine

Reserve

(Table 1). In addition, 32 coastal SSSIs have since been identified (Liu and Hills

1997).

Although the primary reason for the creation of marine parks and reserves in Hong

Kong was to enhance protection and conservation of biodiversity, growing interest

and visitation has exposed them to marine and ecotourism activities. Indeed the

establishment of the marine parks was needed to enhance the protection of marine

habitats, maintain biodiversity and help increase the population of endangered plants

and animals. In order for the marine parks to be sustainably managed and to continue

to provide the various functions that they were designated to serve, a framework for

multiple use approach can be adopted.

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-6

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

Table 1: The protected marine environment in Hong Kong

Name Designation Effective

date

Location Area

(ha)

Remarks

Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park July 1996 Northeast 260

Mangrove;

Coral

communities;

Yan Chau Tong Marine Park July 1996 Northeast 680 Seagrass bed;

Mangrove;

Coral

communities;

bays; rock

cliffs; sand

pits; beaches

Sha Chau and

Lung Kwu

Chau

Marine Park November

1996

Western 1200 Rich fisheries

resources;

Chinese

White

Dolphins

Tung Ping

Chau

Marine Park November

2001

Northeast 270 Hard

corals;

Reef-

associated

fishes;

Marine

invertebrates;

Brown, red

and green

algae;

geological

landforms

Cape D’Aguilar Marine

Reserve

July 1996 Southeast 20 Tuffs with

volcanic

bombs;

granodiorites;

porphyritic

rhyolites;

basaltic

dykes;

Hard and soft

corals;

gorgonian

and marine

invertebrates

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-7

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

The marine parks are located in various areas of the territory with different geological

structures. They cover areas that harbour marine life made up of coral communities

that are distinct from tropical reef species. The coastal habitats in Hong Kong range

from rocky shores, sandy beaches, mangrove-covered coastlines, coral-fringed islands

and Chinese white dolphins among others. Indeed, more than 150 commercially

important species of fish, crustaceans and mollusks, and some 50 species of corals

have been recorded in Hong Kong territorial waters.

The variations and differences in hydrography, extensive and deeply incised coastline

and a subtropical climate have all acted together and created an environment in which

there exists a great diversity of marine flora and fauna (Liu and Hills, 1999). This is

what is making these destinations attractive to visitors.

INTEGRATED FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND

MANAGEMENT

Although there is no universally accepted model for sustainable coastal tourism

development, it is clear that there is the need for adaptable frameworks to be put in

place. While the coastal area is spatially variable and complex, it is these traits that

signify the importance of designing and adopting a coastal zone management (CZM)

framework. As most tourism development initiatives are economic in nature, they

may push the coastal system beyond its resilience threshold as a result of interactions

between environmental and socio-economic processes resulting from tourism

activities. In fact where tourism has been a major issue in coastal areas and despite

differences in locale and levels of economic development, there are strikingly similar

evidences of environmental changes, mostly negative (Johnston et. al., 1991).

For tourism to continue to prosper in the context of coastal environments there has to

be a framework for symbiosis between tourism and conservation that will basically

help strike a balance between conservation and economic development both of which

can be promoted by sustainable tourism development.

Framework for sustainable coastal tourism development

The concept of sustainable tourism came out as a result of debates surrounding issues

on sustainable development. Since the debate on sustainable development became a

global issue after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, it has gradually

infiltrated the policy framework of many governments, organizations and agencies.

While governments and agencies are seeking alternative frameworks for the

maximum protection and utilization of coastal environment for tourism, it might have

to be based on a framework that could embrace the concept of the 4C’s first postulated

by Owen et al., (1993).

When slightly modified and suggested for implementation as is presented here, the

four Cs will reflect the extent to which a government can 1) compromise (by striking

a balance between tourism development and environmental conservation); 2)

commitment (by recognizing that sustainable development and indeed sustainable

tourism development requires action and less rhetoric); 3) control (by establishing a

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-8

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

framework or plan for effective regulation of the scale and pattern of development),

and 4) cooperation (by recognizing the need for partnership with both local and

international dimension).

Along the same vein, sustainable tourism borrows heavily from the theme of

sustainable development. Sustainable tourism if accepted and implemented should be

along the premise that:

 Tourism is firstly an economic activity which is desirable to most economies;

 Whether tourism is implemented or not, the physical and cultural

environments have intrinsic values which outweigh their values as tourism

assets particularly where such environments support a population on coastal

areas;

 The scale and character of tourism development should respect the character

of the area;

 Tourism development should be sensitive to the needs and aspirations of the

host community, etc.

Framework for Coastal Zone Management (CZM)

Accepting the notion of sustainable tourism and with a growing need for success,

researchers have been suggesting the need for further applying the integrated coastal

planning and management (ICPM) and integrated coastal zone planning (ICZP)

frameworks as ways of planning and managing coastal environments (Sorensen,

1993; Capobianco and Otter, 2000). As tourism is an environmental phenomenon, it

stands to be boosted and sustained by adhering to the tenets of ICPM and ICZP,

which together are referred to as coastal zone management (CZM) initiative in this

paper.

Indeed, coastal management is highly complex straddling human and environmental

systems resulting into conflicts in development as indicated earlier. The concept of

CZM has developed from the struggle to find a mechanism to balance the demands on

coastal resources, promote their sustainable use and manage individual activities

including those associated with tourism. CZM is an embracing concept which

encompasses aspects of resource management and the management of user enterprises

and services especially when tourism plays an important aspect of the area. As there is

increasing awareness of the wide range of issues facing the environment of the coastal

areas, the elements of CZM are rooted in environmental concerns and have grown in

parallel to calls for sustainable development.

As sustainable development is currently seen as a dynamic process and not a

destination, management practices under the CZM are especially important for

ensuing sustainable tourism development. They have the potential to succeed as they

are based on a multifaceted integration of numerous frameworks capable of

addressing various spheres of concern. Integrative practices and sustainable coastal

tourism will include 1) provisions for the management of coastal development; 2)

provisions to improve public access to the shoreline; and 3) provisions to protect (and

where necessary, to restore/recreate) coastal environments. The need to work in

harmony with the numerous agencies involved with the coast is therefore an important

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-9

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

element of the task of coastal tourism managers which this framework explicitly

unravels.

In order to resolve the growing conflicts in this zone, an integrated approach to

coastal and marine management is needed to consider both current and future

interests. Although many people have formulated and adapted various versions of

CZM (Wong, 1998; Kohn and Gowdy, 1999; Shi et al., 2001), an adoptable

framework could be courted as follows:

a) All levels of government must be involved in coastal management plan

(although the Hong Kong government has maintained a policy that recognizes

the importance of the coastal environment, the Civic Exchange, a non

governmental organization has recommended the formulation of an ICPM

(Willmott, 2000).

b) The nature-synchronous approach to development is especially appropriate for

the coastal environment (the recognition of protected areas along the wetland

areas and indeed the construction of the wetland park in Hong Kong are good

examples of this approach).

c) Conservation for sustainable use is a major goal of coastal resources

management

d) Multiple-use management is appropriate for most coastal resource systems

e) Multi-sector involvement is essential to sustainable use of coastal resources

where civil societies, NGOs, academics and government could all work as

partners.

CONCLUSION

This paper has highlighted the importance of the coastal area in developing

sustainable tourism. Although these coastal and marine resources clearly provide

amenities for tourism activities, there is the need to focus on practical concerns of

environmental protection if the area will continue to serve as a viable resource for

alternative tourism. Locally, although efforts have been made in designating pristine

coastal areas as parks, reserves and sites of specific scientific interests (SSSIs), there

has to be an enhanced framework for monitoring and management as suggested by

highlighting the need for sustainable tourism development and CZM plan (Wong,

1998; Liu and Hills, 1999; Willmott, 2000).

The frameworks for sustainable coastal tourism development and CZM articulated

and presented in this paper can be a starting point. Where this is not effective,

negative environmental consequences could occur as a result of uncontrolled

visitation and activities reminiscent of mass tourism. It is pertinent to note that simply

getting “protected” status for an environmentally sensitive area without proper

management offers little assurance of success (Johnston, et. al., 1991).

As many countries saw tourism as a panacea for development, many governments

embraces tourism plans based simply on economic logic. Where this was done, it

quickly produced negative long-term environmental impacts, destroying the resources

that have attracted tourists. Although tourism is undeniably on of the pillars of Hong

Kong economy, recent strategies have identified the environment as a core factor in

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-10

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

strategic plans. As a component of alternative tourism, it is indeed the diversity of

habitats and life forms especially endemic species that make Hong Kong coastal area

unique. But the ecological richness is under threat from a combination of factors of

which marine tourism and ecotourism are part of.

In Hong Kong, the designation of protected areas under the aegis of marine parks,

country parks and reserves reflected a political clout with governments backing.

Consequently conservation themes and management responses have similarly been

initiated, albeit on site specific areas. But there is need for further research as

enumerated by the integration of coastal zone management plans and sustainable

development themes. While this trend is set to continue to grow, people are now

focusing more and more on ecotourism with sustainable development and sustainable

tourism as ideal frameworks. But there is difficulty in finding a formula for

sustainable tourism. The framework suggested here, when implemented and adhered

to, could be a starting example.

REFERENCES

Beatley, T., Brower, D.J. and Schwab, A. K. (1994). An introduction to coastal zone

management. Washington, DC. Island Press, p. 186.

Capobianco, M. and H. S. Otter. (2000). Uncertainty in Integrated Coastal Zone

Management. Journal of Coastal Conservation. Vol. 6, Issue 1. 23 – 30.

Butler, R. W. (1993). Tourism-an evolutionary perspective. Pages 27-43, In J. G.

Nelson, R. Butler and G. Wall (Eds), Tourism and sustainable development:

monitoring, planning, managing. Department of Geography Publication Series No. 37,

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

Gheorghe, A. V. (2002). ASARA: As Sustainable As Reasonably Achievable.

International Journal of Sustainable Development. Volume 5, Nos. 1/2, 2 – 7.

Jarviluoma, J. (1992). Alternative tourism and the evolution of tourist areas. Tourism

Management. March, 118 – 120.

Johnston, C., J. Liu and K. Din. (1991). Coastal and Marine Tourism. Annals of

Tourism,Vol. 18, Issue 3, pp. 523 – 525.

Kohn, J and J. Gowdy. (1999). Coping with complex and dynamic systems. An

approach to a transdisciplinary understanding of coastal zone developments. Journal

of Coastal Conservation, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 163.

Liu, J. H and P. Hills. (1999). Marine Protected Areas and Local Coastal

Conservation and Management in Hong Kong. Local Environment, Vol. 2, No. 3, 275

– 297.

Marafa, L. M. (2003). Sustainable tourism and ecotourism: searching for a niche in

the Hong Kong tourism industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. Vol. 1. No. 1.

127 – 144.

Tourism, Leisure and Global Change, volume 1 (2014), p.TOCS-11

Papers from the 6th Tourism Outlook Conference, 22-24 April 2013, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Guest Speaker paper

Mason, P. (2003). Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management. Butterworth

Heinemann. London.

Morton, B. (1996). Protecting Hong Kong’s marine biodiversity: present proposals,

future challenges. Environmental Conservation, 23, 55 – 65.

Orams, M. (1997). 1996 World Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism. Tourism

Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 115 – 119.

Orams, M. (1999). Marine tourism: Development, impacts and management.

Routledge Ltd. London.

Owen, R. E., Witt, S. F. and S. Gammon. (1993). Sustainable Tourism Development

in Wales: From Theory to Practice. Tourism Management, December, 463-474.

Ross, S. and Wall, G. (2001). Ecotourism: a Theoretical framework and an Indonesian

application. In McCool, S. F. and Moisey, R. N. (eds). Tourism, recreation and

sustainability: Linking culture and the environment. 271 – 288.

Shi, C., Hutchinson, S. M., Yu, L. and S. Xu. (2001). Towards a sustainable coast: an

integrated coastal zone management framework for Shanghai, People’s Republic of

China. Ocean & Coastal Management. Volume 44, Issues 5 – 6. pp. 411 – 427.

Sorensen, J. (1993). The International Proliferation of Integrated Coastal Zone

Management Efforts. Ocean and Coastal management, 21. 45 – 80.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management. Sheffield: CABI Oxon

England; New York: CABI Pub.

Timmerman, P. and White, R. (1997). Megahydropolis: coastal cities in the context of

global environment change. Global Environmental Change, 7(3): 205 – 234.

UNEP., (2003). Tourism and Local Agenda 21 – The Role of Local Authorities in

Sustainable Tourism: Case studies and first lessons.

Wall, G. (1997). Is Ecotourism Sustainable? Environmental Management, Vol. 21,

No. 4, 483 – 491.

Willmott, E. (2000). A Comprehensive Review of Marine Policy in Hong Kong. Civic

Exchange. Hong Kong.

Wong, P. P. (1993). Tourism versus Environment: the case for coastal areas.

Dordrecht, Boston. Kluwer Publishers.

Wong, P. P. (1998). Coastal tourism development in Southeast Asia: relevance and

lessons for coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 38, Issue

2. pp 89 – 109.

Yeung, Y. M. (2001). Coastal mega-cities in Asia: transformation, sustainability and

management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44. 319 – 333.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Week 7 Discussion- Sustainability ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer