Turismo ÉticaMacbeth

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 962–984, 2005� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/$30.00
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.11.005www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

TOWARDS AN ETHICSPLATFORM FOR TOURISM

Jim MacbethMurdoch University, Australia

Abstract: Ethical distinctions inform all human actions and decisions. On inspection, how-ever, dominant paradigms in tourism scholarship are imbued with the myth of objectivity andthus ignore the ethical dimension. Since the four platforms of scholarship were first pub-lished in 1990, a representation of one of the most value-based concepts of this time, sustain-able development, has been embraced; a fifth platform has emerged to dominate the rhetoricof tourism praxis. However, this paper argues that a sixth platform, an ethics platform, isneeded to interrogate the morality of the positions taken in policy, planning, development,and management. These platforms are proposed against a background of environmental eth-ics and global political economy. Keywords: ethics, sustainable development, sustainability,platforms of scholarship. � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resume: Vers une plateforme de l’ethique pour le tourisme. Les distinctions ethiques con-tribuent a toutes les actions et decisions humaines. Pourtant, en regardant de pres, les para-digmes dominants de l’erudition en tourisme sont impregnes du mythe de l’objectivite etainsi ne tiennent pas compte de la dimension ethique. Depuis la parutions des quatre plate-formes de l’erudition en 1990, on a embrasse la representation d’un des concepts les plusbases sur les valeurs, celui du developpement durable; une cinquieme plateforme est apparuepour dominer la rhetorique de la praxis du tourisme. Cet article soutient pourtant qu’il fautune sixieme plateforme, une plateforme de l’ethique, pour integrer la moralite de la prise deposition en politique, planification, developpement et gestion. Ces plateformes sontproposees contre un arriere –plan d’ethique environnementale et d’economie politiquemondiale. Mots-cles: ethique, developpement durable, durabilite, plateformes de l’erudi-tion. � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

The disintegrating ozone layer and warming atmosphere are makingit intolerable to think of industrial growth as progress; now it appearsas aggression against the human condition. Perhaps for the first time,one can imagine that, as Samuel Beckett once put it, ‘‘this earth couldbe uninhabited’’ (Illich 1988/89:21).Ivan Illich was always at the radical end of the critical social, educa-

tional, and environmental spectrum. Somehow his words do not seemso radical in the 21st century; they give serious pause for thought associety contemplates the possibility that unless there is radical change

Jim Macbeth (Murdoch University, Perth 6150, Australia. Email <[email protected]>) is currently doing tourism research on sustainable yield, social impacts, socialcapital, and regional development and planning, along with a study of planning at the localgovernment level in three Australian States. Much of his research is funded through theSustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre in Australia.

962

JIM MACBETH 963

in thought and action, human societies may very well create a planetthat is uninhabitable. Hence the importance of promoting sustainablepractices (Farrell and Twining-Ward 2004), which in tourism meansdeveloping a specific set of standards in which ethics play a centralrole.The argument underlying this paper is that to foster research, plan-

ning and development suited to the needs of tomorrow, academics,consultants, planners, politicians, and developers should engage withand understand the ethics of their positions; an ethically reflexivescholarship is required. That is, there is a need to interrogate andunderstand ethical and moral positions. This is a simple imperativefor living a moral life: informing all actions are ethical distinctionsand decisions, values. Thus, the social world cannot be understoodcompletely until values and morality (ethics) are factored in. Dominantparadigms in tourism development and theory do not acknowledgeethics and values because they are still imbued with the myth of objec-tivity that is part of the positivistic scientific paradigm. This view is con-sistent with Farrell and Twining-Ward’s (2004) view of research andtourism being too reductionist. Yet, this field is still dominated by a‘‘frontier’’ ethic that seeks to extend the boundaries of developmentinto uncharted territories (notwithstanding that such an advance isnow seen to be undertaken in a more sensitive manner). Accordingto Boulding, ‘‘The image of the frontier is probably one of the oldestimages of mankind [sic], and it is not surprising that we find it hard toget rid of’’ (1973:121).However, one of the rising challenges in the 21st century will be to

find an ethical stance that facilitates tourism scholarship moving be-yond the paradigm of objectivity and frontier thinking in order to con-tribute to a more thoughtful, reflexive, and sustainable platform.Notwithstanding that the dominant paradigms are informed by theethical positions adopted by the various players, the myth of objectivityprevails and ‘‘prevents’’ interrogation of these ethical positions in acritical manner. With Tribe, the premise is accepted that scholarshipin this field is ‘‘not an objective, value free search for . . . knowledge’’(1997:654). Cohen puts this similarly in asserting that while ‘‘sustain-ability in tourism is a vague concept . . .[it] is not a neutral one’’ andcannot be seen in isolation (2002:268). The corollary of this value freeapproach is that a value full research paradigm is needed and that theethics of positions assumed and decisions taken must be interrogated.Tourism has embraced a representation of one of today’s most value-

based concepts, sustainable development (SD), from which this analysisgets its underlying thread. With Holden (2003), it is argued here thattourism planners, policymakers, and operators are not yet ready tomove beyond anthropocentric spaceship ethics (Shrader-Frechette1981) to a nonanthropocentric ethic such as a living earth ethic (Hallen2003), Hunter’s (1997) ‘‘very strong’’ or Duffy’s (2002) deep green po-sition. Holden’s pessimism about a shift to a nonanthropocentric ethicis, as he acknowledges, no reason not to work in that direction. But, asimportant, a central requirement of this move will be to question andsideline the ‘‘rationalized, scientific and externalized view of nature’’

964 AN ETHICS PLATFORM

(Holden 2003:105). Thus, there is a need to recognize and conceptual-ize a move beyond the objectified underpinnings of Jafari’s fourth plat-form (Low 1999b). A fifth sustainable development platform, as long asit is locked in the conservation ethic in Brundtland (1987) is only abeginning. The sixth platform points toward a reflexive process, aimingto move tourism praxis toward a nonanthropocentric living earth ethic.This analysis is clearly part of Tribe’s (1997:1–2) ‘‘study of tourism’’, orscholarship (Jafari 2001), and will contribute to his first ‘‘knowing’’about tourism, propositional knowledge. However, the aim of proposi-tional knowing must at some level contribute to what Tribe terms pro-cedural knowledge, or knowing how to ‘‘do tourism’’; in this way thescholarship can contribute to professional practice.The objective of this paper is to elucidate the need for a reflexive

ethical understanding in tourism research, policy, planning, and devel-opment. It will begin by revisiting Jafari’s (1990; 2001) theory in lightof the evolving nature of scholarship and then to propose two new plat-forms. The analysis also reviews selected models from environmentalethics, recent relevant research, and the concepts of SD and sustain-able tourism (ST). While an ethical stance is not prescribed, certainunreflexive ethical positions, including an unquestioned commitmentto an anthropocentric ethic, are proscribed. That said, it is still impor-tant to listen to the other (Tully 2001).

PLATFORMS OF TOURISM SCHOLARSHIP

‘‘What a theory regards and disregards determines its quality’’ (The-odor Adorno, quoted in Harker 2002:1). It is argued here that Jafari’sframework is inadequate for the 21st century because it fails to con-sider ethics and the concept of sustainable development. The four plat-forms of research and scholarship can be viewed as a theory, one thatmay have adequately represented the diverse views when published; infact it provided a useful and insightful understanding of tourism schol-arship (Jafari 1990, 2001). The inadequacy derives from the blind-spottoward the concept of sustainable development and the increasingneed to account for ethics in decisionmaking.Jafari (2001) sees all four platforms as co-existing in this century, as

he did in 1990 when he conceptualized each as reflecting an increasingcomplexity in tourism scholarship over time: ‘‘the writings and insightsof the last few decades [have been] aggregated into four groups, eachsuggesting a distinctive form or platform of thinking’’, developed torepresent different aspects of scholarship since World War II and alsodifferent ways of thinking about tourism (Jafari 2001:29–32).The advocacy platform, subheaded ‘‘the good’’, is about the eco-

nomic prospects of the industry and the way in which key interestgroups promoted its economic value, from jobs to foreign exchange.This platform also championed the role of tourism across other aspectsof society, from cultural revival to preserving the environment. Thecautionary platform, ‘‘the bad’’, began to be obvious in the 70s as thoseresearchers and interest groups with a concern for culture and nature

JIM MACBETH 965

began to seriously challenge the ‘‘all’s good with tourism’’ view of theadvocacy platform. The cautionary, or alerting, platform pointed toeconomic ‘‘disbenefits’’, including low paid and seasonal jobs, environ-mental destruction, and cultural commodification. These first two plat-forms, chronologically, took up bipolar positions on most issues sothat, inevitably, researchers developed the nuances to shift the dis-course away from this primarily impacts-oriented positioning. Theadaptancy platform, ‘‘the how’’, reflects an attempt to look at alterna-tive forms of tourism that might mitigate the negative impacts and en-hance the positive. Strongest initially in the 80s, this platform focusedon being ‘‘responsive to host communities’’ and their needs while stillproviding more products to satisfy tourists. The platform is manifestin the labels, from ecotourism to cottage tourism and even ST. Theknowledge-based platform, ‘‘the why’’, reflects a maturing of researchand scholarship along with a recognition of the complexity and realityof the industry. The focus on impacts and development alternatives ofthe first three platforms are seen as a limited view and thus a systemsperspective is necessary to develop a comprehensive knowledge ofthe subject. This 90s position reflected the increased global presenceof the mega-industry and the social phenomena called tourism. But,for Jafari, central to the development of this latter platform is theimportance of knowledge, though he adds that this knowledge mustbe both objective and scientific.It is interesting that the 2001 version of Jafari’s platform theory relies

heavily on the notion that the knowledge-based platform representsthe ‘‘scientification’’ of tourism scholarship, a move that is applaudedas evidence of maturing. This paper asserts, however, that rather thanshowing maturity, tourism scholarship, by becoming overly ‘‘scientific’’in its epistemology, would be more limited and restrictive in its under-standing of the world. Tribe (1997) suggests that economics followed thisscientific route and simply got into a straitjacket of technical and quanti-tative methods. The present study argues that understanding values andthe role they play is an important aspect of the maturation of tourismscholarship. Objectivity, as a key aspect of scientification, is too often amask that restricts the ability to see the underlying values and philosophyof knowledge that restrict the interrogation of ethical positions.Putting aside ethics for a moment, a further platform has emerged

since Jafari first developed this seminal conceptualization of tourismscholarship. That the 2001 version has not moved on to incorporatethe now extensive research and writing on ST is puzzling, because workbased on SD concepts, while still a theoretical and research based, hasadded an entirely new dimension to scholarship. These concepts arehighly contested politically and ethically and as a distinct platformof/for research need to be interrogated with an ethical vigor: this isthe sixth platform proposed later. SD is now much more than a con-cept but, besides being a ‘‘political statement’’, is increasingly a re-search perspective, platform or paradigm. Hardy, Beeton andPearson (2002) take the view that the third and fourth platforms do re-flect the influence of SD and ST on tourism policy, planning, andscholarship. They are correct to the degree that SD can be simply seen


as a particular knowledge and thus another part of the knowledgebased platform. The present study, however, holds the contrary viewthat concepts of SD are of such fundamental ethical import that theyrepresent a paradigm shift beyond simply knowledge; thus, the impli-cations of SD are ethical and suggest two new platforms as outlinedin this paper.

The Fifth Platform: A Sustainable Paradigm for Tourism?

Sustainable tourism is the slogan of the moment and is ‘‘attached’’to government policies throughout the world. While it may be a pathnot often followed, SD has changed the political discourse and hasbeen part of increasing debate at all levels of environmental and socialpolicy and theory. There has been considerable institutional learningbut, arguably, institutional culture has yet to shift far enough. At thesame time, Jacobs (1999) sees it as a bonus that SD can appeal tothe ultra-greens and the conservatives at the same time. Yet, there isan argument that this dangerously masks the real agendas of govern-ments and businesses and of capitalism in the North (Fennell 1999;Macbeth 1994; Stabler 1997).It is important to demonstrate that the complexity, popularity, and

importance of the concepts encompassed by SD are so significant thatto adequately foreground these concepts, Jafari’s theory should evolveto include a fifth platform: one that would eventually incorporate sus-tainability as a paradigm. Tourism scholarship and development arenow well imbued with the concept of SD (Cohen 2002; Collins 1998;Hardy, Beeton and Pearson 2002; Harrison 1996; Holden 2003; Hunter1997; Teo 2002). This wide literature and the everyday rhetoric of Wes-tern discourse is part of the justification for the assertion that it is timeto argue for recognition that a fifth platform is already informingmuch of the current research and scholarship. This platform needsto be labeled if for no other reason than that no theory can now affordto disregard sustainability as a core concept and still claim to be com-prehensive. Tribe asserts that tourism scholarship ‘‘tends to be crystal-lizing around the business interdisciplinary approach’’ (1997:653)because of the clustering of theories and praxis that provide a criticalmass of theories and knowledge. This type of scholarship does omit toomany disciplines to be seen as adequate; thus, it is possible to see theplatform of knowledge informing the concept(s) of SD as providinga counterbalance to a business approach to understanding tourism.The concept of SD may thus provide a bridge to help scholarship

deal with these realities. SD encompasses four dimensions that, whenintegrated into policy and development decisionmaking, provide aholistic approach to the question of how societies should develop(Macbeth 1994). First, ecological sustainability requires that develop-ment be compatible with the selfmaintenance and selfdirection ofecological processes, biological diversity, and biological resources.The second is social sustainability, a requirement that developmentincrease people’s control over their lives; and that maintains and

JIM MACBETH 967

strengthens community identity and cohesion. Third, cultural sustain-ability requires that development preserve and foster the culturalmeanings and practices of the societies in which it takes place. Finally,economic sustainability requires that development be economicallyefficient and that the benefits and costs arising from it be shared equi-tably. Common to each dimension and underlying the concept of sus-tainability is the imperative of inter- and intragenerational equity. Thisethical position has obvious and complex ramifications for decision-making at all levels of society.These four dimensions form a concept that, as Jacobs (1999) and

Duffy (2002) assert, is widely accepted at a general or framework levelof analysis. That is, while the vocabulary is now common among gov-ernments, nongovernmental organizations, and business, the coremeanings are still being debated. SD is a contested political conceptand as such is both complex and normative. There are two levels ofmeaning that are obvious in contemporary discourse and debates.The first level of understanding is vague and unitary; that is, it canbe expressed in a short definition such as that in the previous para-graph (and those following later). The second level of meaning ‘‘iswhere the contest occurs: political argument over how the conceptshould be interpreted in practice’’ (Jacobs 1999:25). Hardin puts itslightly differently: ‘‘it is when the hidden decisions are made explicitthat the arguments begin’’ (1973:136). An example of a common di-lemma in this regard is the justification principle used by the Interna-tional Commission on Radiological Protection to justify radiation riskssuch as Chernobyl. This rather utilitarian principle justifies risks to par-ticular people if there are benefits to society (Shrader-Frechette 1999).Similarly, throughout the world, codes of practice have been developedto guide agencies, operators, and tourists (Dowling 1991; Fennell 1999;LaPlanche 1995; Malloy and Fennell 1998; Richardson 1993; Wood andHouse 1992). But these codes are themselves part of what Sharpley re-fers to as a ‘‘vigorous debate . . .[that reflects] a lack of clarity and con-sensus concerning its meaning or objectives’’ (2000:1). Further, otherwriters suggest that these codes simply are not embraced by researchers(Fennell 1999).Ethical positions of stakeholders inform this debate in practice, that

is, what each values and how each prioritizes those values. ‘‘As so oftenhappens, deep political and ethical controversies make the definitionof the concept [of sustainable development] a contested area’’ (Sachs1999:29). Yet, the term has already been appended to a wide body ofresearch and scholarship that has given it a very high profile.Sustainable development assumes survival of the human species is

important. While not explicit, most discourse on SD assumes thisanthropocentric perspective (Holden 2003) and eschews the conceptof limits to growth by positing economic development and environ-mental protection as partners. This is a macro (or holistic, wholeworld) concept that promotes a longterm approach or perspective,assuming a reasonable standard of living for all people without regardto race, gender, class, ethnicity, religion, and so forth. It has a socialjustice dimension but, paradoxically, is ethnocentric, formulated by


Western, developed nations, by the ‘‘North’’. As an ethical position, SDis anthropocentric and inherently conflictual, with consensus unlikely.The paradigm involves power and inequality, is political, and lends it-self to slogan misuse. This is not unlike the history of the term ecotour-ism (Fennell 1998).Questions of ethics arise at micro and macro, local and global, levels

of analysis. While much of this analysis implies the micro or the socialactor, the ‘‘we’’, these debates do take place in the context of the glo-bal. Therefore, it is useful to place the discussion in the wider globalpolitical economy and its ethical positioning, in this case the constructof the ‘‘North’’ and the ‘‘South’’. These concepts arise from the impe-rialist colonial activities of (mostly) northern European countries sinceColumbus.Duffy (2002) asserts that tourism, even the supposed most ‘‘green’’

type, ecotourism, is linked to global political economy, and hence topolitical ideology. Stabler’s concern is that while the ethic of sustain-ability might be acceptable, the ethics of attaining it globally maynot. His example reinforces Duffy’s, noting that ‘‘achieving sustainabil-ity may be . . . unethical because it benefits some . . . while the costs areborne by others’’, usually the lower income groups or poorer nations(Stabler 1997:3). Yet Clancy (1999) suggests that this dependencyinterpretation has been superseded by a theoretical tussle betweenneoliberal and statist approaches to understanding tourism develop-ment in underdeveloped countries (Teo 2002). No matter how re-garded, tourism is deeply political.That said, concepts such as SD are of limited value until they move

beyond an anthropocentric ethic. While the Brundtland concept isessentially anthropocentric (aims to serve humankind; see also Stabler1997), one aim here (and by writers such as Hunter 1997) is to movethe discourse on SD a la tourism beyond the instrumental and conser-vation orientation (Holden 2003) of this high profile stand. Clearly thepolitical economy of tourism is anthropocentric. On the other hand,an ecological approach is susceptible to social indifference, and risksimposing the ‘‘green’’ ideals of the North upon the rest of the world,who have yet to attain the former’s level of affluence, such that they toomay look beyond the limits of human survival to ‘‘smell the flowers’’. Itis impossible here to thoroughly address issues of power and politicaleconomy, or of the place of tourism vis-a-vis globalization. However,it is important to recognize the element of ideology because it is theideological, or ethical, positions ‘‘that direct resource use and influ-ence which social actors benefit and which are disadvantaged’’ (Sto-nich 1998:29).Sachs’s (1999) discussion, under the ‘‘The Horns of the Dilemma’’

heading, is instructive in placing ST in the context of world debatespost 1972 and the United Nations Conference on the Environment.‘‘The crisis of justice [from the South’s perspective] and the crisis ofnature [from the North’s perspective] stand, with the received notionof development, in an inverse relationship to each other’’ (Sachs1999:28). That is, the dilemma is that one cannot solve both crises atonce, whether it be across the North/South divide of developed/devel-

JIM MACBETH 969

oping nations or the debate over jobs in the context of clear-felling oldgrowth forests or allowing more tourism on pristine land and sea-scapes. The North embraces the crisis of nature while the South pointsto justice. That said, this flags an important consideration for the Wes-tern tendency to believe that it can set policy and planning guidelinesfor non-Western countries and other cultures. The West should not beethnocentric and prescriptive, or, in the not uncommon phrasing,should recognize and avoid the ‘‘neocolonial’’ aspect of this globalindustry (France 1997). The North must not assume that it speaksfor the South, or in its best interests. This is particularly poignant whennoting to what degree the North lives off other people’s nature, the de-gree to which its ‘‘ecological footprint’’ intrudes on other people’s nat-ure (Sachs 1999; Jacobs 1999).This does not mean, however, that the North has no right or ability

to make judgments. As Clancy (1999) has noted, tourism researchers’failed to engage with political economy. Along with Hunter (1997) andCollins (1998), one wonders how theory has not engaged with the crit-ical discourse on SD. Even key theorists in tourism, such as Jafari(1990;2001), have not drawn significantly upon this literature. Hun-ter’s approach sits well with aspects of the later discussion of environ-mental ethics.The language of ST is consistent with ‘‘ecological modernization’’,

the notion that economic development and environmental protectionare synergistic. Davison explores this as ‘‘the cultural project of eco-modernism’’, a concept located in what he terms the ‘‘second waveof environmental concern’’ (2001:15). This is epitomized by ‘‘OurCommon Future’’ (Brundtland 1987), as it rejected the limits argu-ments of the Club of Rome (Meadows 1972) in favor of a developmen-tal approach to increasing world equity, a belief that growth andexpansion must be sustained. Contrary to this, Leslie cites MauriceStrong, Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environmentand Development, in imploring researchers not to create a ‘‘fig leaf forthe status quo’’ in their use of the language of SD (1994:34). If sustain-able development is an oxymoron in being captured by this ecomod-ernist quest for growth with a gloss of equity, then the concept of STis nothing more than a disguise for business as usual. Clarke’s (1997)assertion of a convergence notwithstanding, her segmentation ofST into two interpretations—a ‘‘business orientation’’ and a ‘‘socialslant’’—is not very optimistic in light of global political economy.Hunter (1997) is highly critical of research and theorizing of ST

within the context of sustainable development. As part of his argu-ment, he posits four positions on a SD spectrum (Table 1), rangingfrom the very weak anthropocentric economic growth model to whatcould be termed the radical ecological that is probably consistent witha deep ecology philosophy. This table nicely illustrates Jacobs’ (1999)earlier point about the two levels of understanding sustainability: thereis ready agreement on the language but the details and praxis are con-tested. That said, even this table contains a vocabulary that will lead tofurther contestation as definitions of individual terms are negotiated.It also includes indicative linking to the following discussion on

Table 1. Hunter’s Sustainable Development Spectrum Compared

Holden’s

Environmental

Perspectives

Metaphors Merchant’s

Taxonomy

Duffy’s

Environmental

Political Ideologies

Hunter’s

Sustainability

Position

Hunter’s Defining

Characteristics

Ethic of

Instrumentalism

Anthropocentric

Frontier,

overlaps

with Lifeboat

Egocentric Blue green Very Weak Anthropocentric

and utilitarian; growth oriented

and resource exploitative;

free-markets and consumerism;

economic growth and

technological innovation

Conservation ethic

Anthropocentric

Lifeboat,

overlaps

with Spaceship

Egocentric Blue green/

Red green

Weak Anthropocentric and utilitarian;

resource conservationist;

growth managed; concern for

distribution of development costs,

intra and inter generational;

rejection of infinite substitution

of human and natural capital;

some natural system critical.

Sustainable development

following Brundtland

Libertarian

Extension

Non-anthropocentric

Spaceship

overlaps with

Living Earth

Homo-centric Red green Strong (Eco)systems perspective; resource

preservationist; recognizes primary

value of maintaining the functional

integrity of ecosystems over and

above secondary value through

human resource utilization;

interests of the collective over

the individual; adherence to inter

and intra generational equity; zero

population and economic growth

Ecological

Extension

Non-anthropocentric

Living Earth Ecocentric Deep green Very Strong Bioethical and ecocentric; resource

preservationist to the point where

utilization of natural resources is

minimized; nature’s rights or

intrinsic values in nature

encompassing nonhuman living

organisms and even abiotic

elements under a literal

interpretation of Gaianism;

anti-economic growth and

reduced human population

Adapted from Duffy (2002), Hallen (2003), Holden (2003), Hunter (1997:853), and Shrader-Frechette (1981).


metaphors, Merchant’s (1992) typology, and the work of Holden(2003) and Duffy (2002). Gerken’s (1988) four principles for achievingsustainable tourism fit well with Hunter’s very strong sustainability po-sition and, while somewhat utilitarian, it is worth noting that Muller’s(1997) work is contained in a book (France 1997) that leans towardsa red-green philosophy (Duffy 2002).Hall, Jenkins and Kearsley (1997) outline assumptions, planning def-

initions, methods, models, and literature for five planning traditions:boosterism, economic, physical/spatial, community, and sustainable.None of these planning traditions effectively grapples with the issuesraised latterly by, for example, Hunter (1997) and Davison (2001).Nonetheless, their approach is important in engaging the debate aboutdifferent approaches. In these, as in Hunter’s, there are embeddedenvironmental ethical stances that can be understood in relation tothe metaphors outlined later. Stonich’s (1998) analysis of the political

JIM MACBETH 971

ecology of development in Honduras provides numerous examples ofunsustainable tourism policies that cause detrimental environmentaland social consequences. She (unknowingly) provides examples ofthe frontier ethic at work, including promoting growth in spite ofthe consequences.Hunter proposes what he calls ‘‘an array of theoretical interpreta-

tions’’ within which there are four potential development pathwaysthat ‘‘may be legitimized according to circumstance’’ (1997:859). Thatis, local circumstances need to be taken into account and balanced. Akey point, one consistent with the position taken here on ethics, is that‘‘what is crucial is that development decisionmaking should be both in-formed and transparent’’ (1997:857). First, his tourism imperative is a‘‘very weak’’ SD position, because it is a boosterism approach to foster-ing development. It aims to satisfy tourists and operators and is thusmore oriented toward ST narrowly defined than to SD more broadlyunderstood. The second is product-led tourism, a ‘‘weak’’ position thatsubordinates the environment to the development imperative. It isanthropocentric and also ‘‘weak’’ in relation to the other aspect of aSD model. Environment-led tourism is the third position. As the nameimplies, the paramount concern is for the environment. While there isstill a product focus to a degree, it is proposed to work in harmonywith, not compete with, other sectors. Growth is still assumed butalongside a conservation ethic. Hunter’s fourth is that of ‘‘neotenous’’tourism, an industry that takes a very strong sustainability position, sug-gesting that there are times and places where tourists should be ex-cluded. It is here also where planners should restrict the growth inalready popular areas. The ethic reflects the definition of the rootword, neoteny: to possess juvenile qualities, to be retainedundeveloped.Hunter does not see neotenous tourism as very common but does

see it as an important model to help force those whose SD horizonsare still locked in a development mode to see there are alternative waysof thinking. This reflects this author’s long-held interest and belief inthe value of deviance; it is often the deviant cases that hold the next‘‘truth’’. However, an aside here is an important reminder that whatthe North calls ‘‘wilderness’’, indigenous people may call ‘‘home’’.Thus, while a neotenous position may not refer only to wildernessareas, it must be considered that sustainability is not attainable until‘‘[we] overcome our need to dominate’’ (Hallen 2000:159). Arguably,recognizing indigenous practices while resisting the urge to dominategoes some way toward understanding the praxis of a neotenous alterna-tive. This position puts in relief the conflict between the crises of envi-ronment and social justice.While Hunter usefully aims to ‘‘reconnect, conceptually, the con-

cerns of sustainable tourism with those of sustainable development’’(1997:851), the aim in the present paper is to go a step further by‘‘connecting’’ to the fundamental question of ethics, in particular,environmental. Hunter’s types of ST conceptualize four different mod-els of how ST might contribute to a wider concept of SD. He sees eachmatching weak and strong approaches to sustainable development, but


in the final analysis they all accept the growth-leaning stance of SDfound even in the position now taken by Brundtland herself (Hunter1997). In 1994, she argued against reductions in Western consumption(standard of living), a weak interpretation of sustainable development.Illich confirms this in his statement that for ‘‘Ms Brundtland . . . theunderlying critique of the concept of development still remains outsideher thinking’’ (1988:21). The strongest position taken by Hunter, to befair, is his pragmatic hope that his fourth approach, a very strong sus-tainability approach, will also serve as an antidote to those whose sus-tainability horizons barely extend beyond an unquestioning belief inthe needs of tourists and operators, and the right of the industry to ex-pand indefinitely (Hunter 1997). He sees this ‘‘neotenous tourism’’approach as politically feasible, at least for environmental managementpurposes. But, there is still no clear environmental ethic and, further,this conceptualization hardly addresses wider issues of SD: cultural, so-cial, and economic.Hunter’s emphasis on ST as an adaptive paradigm may be appropri-

ate, but the ‘‘flexibility’’ possible within this approach can be all tooeasily coopted by those with power and a motive for political and/oreconomic opportunism. Stabler provides reinforcement for this fearby his belief that the generality of the concept of SD leaves it opento being ‘‘hijacked and applied to whatever purpose is thought fit’’(1997:14). But, this is political reality, so policymakers and develop-ment controllers need the tools and conceptualization necessary to‘‘cut through the fog’’ of opportunist’s rhetoric—opportunists whohave no commitment to ST, let alone SD. Hunter’s model goes someway in this direction, but the lack of an ethical dimension to that deci-sionmaking process is apparent.

The Sixth Platform: A Value-Full Tourism Scholarship

The positivistic scientific paradigm views knowledge as objective, asvalue-free. It also assumes that scientists, researchers, and analysts arethemselves ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘value-free’’. Further, ethical and moralprinciples are not ‘‘factual’’ and thus cannot be verified as scientificor technical truths, while ‘‘the actions of people are largely norma-tive. . .’’ (Fennell 1999:246): is this a dilemma for science? Accordingto Shrader-Frechette,

Since moral principles cannot be confirmed by empirical data, ethicalstatements are often relegated to the realm of what is ‘‘subjective,’’while scientific statements are said to be ‘‘objective.’’ This oversimpli-fication and misrepresentation of the relationship between scienceand ethics encourages a concern for what is said to be ‘‘objective’’and a disavowal of what is thought to be ‘‘subjective.’’ As a result,the ethical consequences of certain scientific and technological activ-ities are often ignored (1981:31).

Objectivity is destructive because of its mythical power and qualitiesand, thus, because it serves to mask the values underlying decisions andthe exercise of power. The basic tenets of positivistic science, which

JIM MACBETH 973

have dominated the North’s approach to knowledge and decisionmak-ing about the environment and global economy, face sustained scru-tiny by other research paradigms, including interpretive, critical andfeminist perspectives. Further, even most ‘‘scientists’’, including econ-omists, will acknowledge that their personal ideologies and social loca-tions (political, religious, cultural, class) will affect the questions theyask and the answers they ‘‘see’’. This ‘‘conceptual baggage’’ (Kirbyand McKenna 1989) includes their ethical stances and will reflect towhich metaphor they are most closely aligned. Even a slight acquain-tance with the theorizing on research methods, along with an accep-tance of a value-full science, leads to a confronting conclusion: thefrailty of objectivity leaves the fourth and fifth platforms wanting. Tofind this same concern within the literature of SD reinforces the needto explore this in tourism. As Davison (2001) attests, there is no truesustainability unless material lives are viable and they intersect withmoral lives.Tourism policymaking by governments (and practice by nongovern-

mental organizations and business) is an area where moral consider-ations must be addressed along with the possibilities provided byscience and technology, money, and power—and the responsibilitiesto shareholders and other legitimate constituencies. Tourism policyand planning decisions have impacts on nature and on human soci-ety(s) and thus cannot be determined solely by what is technically fea-sible or politically desirable. If the industry and its attendant researchcenters, nongovernmental organizations, power brokers and govern-ments are serious about SD, then it must combine a moral positionwith the scientific, technical positions currently invoked. Harrison’s‘‘muddy pool’’ (1996) lacks clarity in part because, while hinting atmoral issues, he does not take the next step to point out the ethicaldimensions of his examples. Of course, while using a rigorous ethicalanalysis to understand the dilemmas of a SD proposal may clear thepool of mud, it is unlikely to remove the conflict.Again, Tribe’s (1997) two forms of knowing about tourism are use-

ful. While the boundaries between these two ways of knowing are nothard, it can be assumed that the policymakers and practitioners men-tioned in the previous paragraphs rely on procedural knowledge tocarry out their functions and tasks. On the other hand, the job of schol-arship is to develop the quality of propositional knowledge about tour-ism in order to inform the socalled practitioners. The aim of the sixthplatform is clear: to develop the selfawareness of scholars and practitio-ners with regard to their ethical positions and the implications of thosepositions for SD and tourism.One solution to this contentious issue is to accept a value-full science

where the inbuilt bias, this conceptual baggage, is acknowledged andaccounted for. Recognizing this is one of the central purposes in pro-posing that scholarship (and praxis!) requires either a sixth platformor an integrated underlay of ethics and values through which research-ers/theoreticians can make clear their fundamental philosophical posi-tions. Without this identification and acknowledgment, tourism willbe unable to effectively come to terms with the needs of sustainable


development. This is the case because a good deal of the confusion,contradictions, and argument is actually about a conflict of value posi-tions. Further, those who would argue for ST as an issue separate fromSD (a tourism-centric view) are doing so from a particular ethicalstance, probably frontier but possibly lifeboat.After Hunter, the five platforms can be used as a starting point for

detailed analysis of SD and ST. However, this can only be done ifone recognizes and understands the ethical and values positions asthe key to decoding the conflicts. With Shrader-Frechette, it can be ar-gued that:

While humankind is competent in the areas of science and techno-logy, we are tragically incompetent in ethical thinking anddecisionmaking. We do not know how to deal with problems requir-ing value judgments about personal and social goods (1981:31).

It may be more complete to acknowledge, however, that power andpolitical relationships in late capitalism are equally important to deci-sionmakers’ ‘‘incompetence’’ in forcing into the background the hard,ethical questions. Thus, it follows that the sixth position is a platformthat scholarship must embrace to meaningfully engage with the chal-lenges of SD (Hunter 1997); it is needed so that scholars and practitio-ners can recognize and acknowledge the ethical stance assumedin their research or their projects/developments. Knowledge with-out ethics is analytically and morally neutered while the debates withthose using other platforms need to be informed by an ethicalawareness.Jafari’s platforms were in part a chronological description of the

course of tourism scholarship and research and partly a model to rep-resent an analysis of the way in which scholarship and research hadbeen approached. The fifth platform can be similarly located, that is,its concept follows from an historical analysis of tourism scholarshipand, as do the other four, describes the state of the discipline. How-ever, the sixth platform is prescriptive, not descriptive. Tourism, if itis to contribute seriously to any level of SD, needs to understand its eth-ical positions. Hence, there are six platforms for understanding tour-ism scholarship, research, policy and planning: advocacy, cautionary,adaptancy, knowledge-based, sustainability, and ethics platforms.This listing does not imply cumulative nor sequential development,

as neither did Jafari’s, but also does, to some degree, represent histor-ical and discipline factors. While many would argue for a particular eth-ical position in the sixth platform, the key point in this model is to‘‘create’’ a platform that forces an engagement with these fundamentalethical issues. Hopefully, scholars, policymakers, and practitioners willeach be helped by this ‘‘place’’, this platform, to think about andunderstand the nature and implications of their attitudes to develop-ment. Hopefully, also, the fact that this goes beyond a ‘‘sustainabletourism platform’’ is an obvious and logical extension of the previousanalysis. ST has many ethical positions within its many contemporarycloaks, and plenty of daggers for an ethical awareness to understandand uncover. It remains for a future paper to uncover the daggers

JIM MACBETH 975

and outline an ethical matrix for a nonanthropocentric, intergenera-tional ethic. However, to round off this discussion, it is still necessaryto briefly discusses some aspects of the way that environmental con-cerns might inform an ethics platform. This is a minor introductionto some of the work being done to understand ethics and tourism,some of the work that will inform each person in understanding theirown position on the sixth platform.

Ethics: Metaphors and Models

[I]t is possible to conceive of there being a ‘‘sustainability ethic’’which is not the same as considering whether, as a goal, it is ethicalto endeavor to attain it, or that the means of doing so are ethi-cal. . .(Stabler 1997:2)

Environmental ethics is a rich discourse and is finding its way intotourism theorizing (Holden 2003; Hunter 1997; Lea 1993). In thisanalysis, metaphors are used initially to represent certain ethical posi-tions partly because the ‘‘visual’’ nature of metaphors is accessible. Theaim is to provide an alternative visualization to that of Collins (1998),Duffy (2002), Holden (2003), Hunter (1997), and others. An impor-tant caveat: this discourse is primarily environment-centered and tendsto include only limited reference to other ethical issues such as socialjustice, equity, and indigenous land rights. The sixth platform mustalso address these ethical issues as it comes to terms with the implica-tions of a value-full sustainable development, Stabler’s ‘‘sustainabilityethic’’. While this paper foregrounds environmental ethics, it is obvi-ous from the discussion, especially of political economy, that wider is-sues of social justice must be included.For example, Lea’s ‘‘tourism development ethics in the third world’’

(1993) visits issues of political economy in its study of Goa. However,the discussion of ethics has a predominantly anthropocentric feel toit. In fact, too, Lea’s discussion of the social and cultural impacts oftourism in the third world resonates with Jafari’s cautionary platform.Hultsman’s (1995) ‘‘Just Tourism’’ uses the adjectival meaning of ‘‘ajust’’, or an ethical tourism. However, this social phenomenon is ‘‘sim-ply tourism’’ until business and economics become predominantover the experiential, at which point it becomes an industry. Thepoint of ‘‘just tourism’’ as a model is the need for the inclusion ofethical considerations within its practice, in particular in education.Hultsman, however, avoids saying anything about an actual ethicalposition or positions appropriate to tourism. This falls to otherauthors, such as Holden (2003) who is very clear that a new environ-mental ethic is needed, one that is not anthropocentric, centered onhumankind.Holden advocates an ethic of stewardship, but this position can only

be reached by understanding how humans relate to the world; no morescientific data on adverse effects are needed, only a change in ethics.Holden usefully juxtaposes environmental ethics with business or bio-ethics that are anthropocentric and that thus do not help an approachto the real issues flowing from the unrelenting consumer economy.


Holden goes on to usefully explore the antecedents of current atti-tudes to nature, something that is beyond the scope of this presentstudy. He frames two anthropocentric environmental ethical perspec-tives in ‘‘instrumentalism’’ and ‘‘conservation’’, both of which see nat-ure as being for the benefit of humankind. In contrast, the ‘‘libertarianextension’’ perspective accords intrinsic value to both sentient andnonsentient entities. His fourth perspective is clearly not anthropocen-tric in its ecosystem focus: ‘‘ecological extension’’ (2003:97–101).Another way to understand the distinction between anthropocentric

and nonanthropocentric ethics is Nash’s (1989) polar positions. Onthe one hand, an environmental ethic can demand protection of nat-ure in order to protect human interests (most global warming dis-cussion fits here), while, on the other hand, it can take a radical,subversive position and assign intrinsic rights to nature, to the ecosys-tem. Leopold took this view in the 40s. His land ethics gave primacy to‘‘the wellbeing of ecosystems or the land which is the ultimate goal ofan acceptable environmental policy’’ (cited in Stenmark 2002:81).While Nash (1989) indicates that ethical considerations for nature goback some centuries, the public debates and conflicts on politics andethics have a more recent history. Ecology, like sociology, may be seenas a subversive science, as it implies an environmental ethic that ques-tions human attitudes and activities toward nature (Nash 1989). Whilethe discussion of ethics in policy and planning is not simply about thephysical environment, tourism’s relationship to the environment is animportant ethical issue.Authors such as Nash (1989) and Stenmark (2002) provide a useful

perspective for those new to the subject by their reference to the his-tory of ethics in human discourse from a narrow focus on humans toan ecocentric focus on ecosystem integrity. This is a revolution inthinking. It removes humans from a central pinnacle and demands amove beyond the restrictive view of positivistic, value-free science anda narrow concept of objective scientific data.Sustainable development grew out of concerns that the use of the

environment was unsustainable and that both quality and quantity ofhuman life were threatened. In translating these concerns into a modelfor decisionmaking, what are essentially ethical decisions have to bemade. For example, the dominant models of SD flowing from theBrundtland Report contain imperatives for inter- and intragenera-tional equity, an ethical statement of profound significance to policyand planning, notwithstanding that they may be seen as anthropocen-tric (Stabler 1997). In this context, it should be acknowledged that seri-ous attempts to conceptualize and act on environmental issues existedprior to the Brundtland work but, as Holden points out, a conservationethic is developing in tourism post-Brundtland, but not one that ac-cepts ‘‘the intrinsic rights of nature’’ (2003:102). Further, it is worthnoting the difference between the Club of Rome’s ‘‘limits to growth’’(Meadows 1972) and Brundtland’s development and growth approach.Each person has ethical positions; whether they can articulate them

or not, these guide decisions and the positions taken in relation tomoral and practical questions and theories adopted to explain social

JIM MACBETH 977

phenomena, such as tourism. While a robust debate is raging in themainstream literature on SD, much of the discourse on ST neither ad-dresses nor debates the underlying philosophical positions. While thispaper is not developing a particular ethical stance, it is arguing thatethics underlie every decision and, in particular, the concept of SD.In this respect, it is important to understand not only the ethical posi-tions that such approaches state or imply, but also the ethical positionsthey exclude. Fortunately, some useful frameworks have been devel-oped that help in identifying the ethical positions underlying such ap-proaches to tourism as SD.Following from the work of Shrader-Frechette (1981) and Hallen

(2003), four metaphorical models of environmental ethics can be arti-culated, two of which may be considered dominant and destructive.These metaphors, referred to earlier, are used here because of thespread of values they represent in a coherent form. First, ‘‘frontieror cowboy ethics’’, is the dominant model under which imperialismand economic development have been conducted and has providedthe West/North its moral justification in seeking to colonize the so-called ‘‘primitive’’ cultures and relentlessly exploit natural resourcesthat went/go with this. It is built on three basic premises: that humansare separate from and superior to nature; that nature is here for hu-mans to exploit, as a ‘‘standing’’ reserve; and that nonhuman entitieshave no inherent rights that need be respected. This ethic depends onthe myth of superabundance, of infinite resources in a finite world(Udall 1963).Second, ‘‘lifeboat ethics’’, developed by Garret Hardin (1974),

aimed to counter the frontier myth of infinite resources and its plane-tary despoliation and resource depletion. It is based on the notion ofthe planet as an ocean or sea. There are numerous lifeboats, each withresources and people. In Hardin’s metaphor, people from poor coun-tries are in the overcrowded lifeboats, are ‘‘falling out’’, and are swim-ming over to the resource-rich, uncrowded lifeboats. The policiessuggested from this metaphor included mandatory population control,management of common resources, strict immigration control, andnot contributing to world food banks. This metaphor fits well withSachs’ ‘‘contest perspective’’ that includes the assumption that devel-opment ‘‘will have to remain spatially restricted, but can be made dura-ble for the richer parts of the world’’ (1999:30). In spaceship ethics,the third metaphor, Shrader-Frechette (1981; after Boulding’s 1973economics of the spaceship earth) proposed an ethics metaphor basedon a spaceship, one that became possible to visualize upon seeing thepicture of earth from the Apollo space missions of the 60s, that finiteball upon which life on earth depends for everything but sunlight. Thisis a closed system model with finite resources. ‘‘Spaceship’’ earth in-cludes an ethical stance towards onboard resources, including sociopo-litical structures such as cooperation, self-sufficiency, interdependence,and hierarchical authority structures which are not necessarilydemocratic.The metaphor is useful because it so effectively foregrounds the nat-

ure of the closed system. Sachs’ (1999) ‘‘astronaut’’ model of the earth


as a scientific and political object, defined and managed by the scien-tists and politicians of the North, is a complementary view to spaceshipethics and helps to understand the technical and political paradigmsthat underlie this view of the earth. Fourth, Hallen’s ‘‘living earth eth-ics’’, while accepting the basic premise of the spaceship model, assertsthat ‘‘we need a Living Earth ethics which throbs with the pungentbreath of the whale’’ (2003:60). This ethical position recognizes peo-ple as part of nature, as both dependent upon it and continuous withnature. As ecological beings, humans are as much embedded in natureas is the whale and the forest tree. This metaphor explicitly respectsand values indigenous cultures, particularly as they ground all humi-nity in nature, yet for it to move ethics beyond the present it needsto be clearly nonanthropocentric. Stenmark’s biocentric ethic does thisby holding ‘‘that living creatures, and only they, have intrinsic valueor have moral standing . . .’’ (2002) But, Stenmark’s ecocentric ethicdoes go further by assigning intrinsic value to the biosphere and tothe ecosystem as wholes.These four metaphors are just that: metaphors. They are ways of see-

ing, of interpreting ethical positions, yet they must be seen as concep-tual aids, not answers. They are outlined here without the cogentcritiques offered for each. Following is a different way to think aboutmoral positioning, these are called models, as they do not have the vi-sual power of the metaphors.Merchant (1992) suggests a taxonomy of three ethical models for

understanding the positions taken by various interest groups in thestruggles over land and resource use, environmental, and quality of lifeissues: egocentric (grounded in the self), homocentric (grounded insociety), and ecocentric (grounded in the cosmos). Merchant’s ecocen-tric ethical position shares with the spaceship and living earth meta-phors a belief in the interconnected nature of a system and a needto understand holistically the interaction of humans, environment,and economy. It is consistent with a strong sustainability position asoutlined by Hunter (1997) and in essence is an environmental ethicthat respects the integrated systems approach relevant to SD and ST.However, the taxonomy is apolitical and, while it provides a useful list-ing of positions, needs to be read in conjunction with the politicaleconomy of globalization and North/South relations. Duffy (2002)helps to foreground the political through a political economy view ofthe role of ecotourism development within the South with her threemain environmental perspectives.The ‘‘blue green’’ position, while reformist, accepts ‘‘environmental

protection within existing social, economic, and political structures’’(Duffy 2002:6). The following statements illustrate this position. First:‘‘So, we believe that if the technology [cloud seeding] is there . . .why not give it a go?’’, a statement made by a Minister of the New SouthWales government in Australia while acting contrary to State laws andwithout an environmental impact assessment (MacDonald 2004). Sec-ond: ‘‘Cloud seeding is a major interference with nature’’ (Cox2004) illustrates the blue green faith in artificial capital over naturalcapital. Third, Drok reports that it is argued by scientists that ‘‘if the

JIM MACBETH 979

government wants to achieve sustainable development for the future, itshould support the scientific community and focus research efforts onenabling technologies such as fuel cells’’ (2003:4). These views of weaksustainability are in contrast to red green policies of ecosocialists whoargue for ‘‘a radical break with economic rationality and capitalism (. . .with profit as the goal)’’ (Duffy 2002:7). Crucial to this view of environ-mental protection is the critique of the overaccumulation of goodsand the search for new markets to sell ever more goods. ‘‘For ecoso-cialists, an end to overconsumption is crucial for the maintenanceof an environment capable of supporting human life, and this willmean an inversion of capitalist logic, so that better may mean less’’(2002:7).Duffy terms her third position ‘‘deep green’’, an ethical political

conception that provides a ‘‘radical break with existing social, eco-nomic and political structures in order to give environmental protec-tion the highest priority’’ (2002:8). Not surprisingly, deep greens arepolitically closer to red greens than to blue greens. There is a ‘‘lightgreen position that argues with some aspects of the deep greens whileaccepting that humans should not have special license to exploit ordominate nonhuman nature’’ (2002:8). Deep greens are similar to eco-centric and strong sustainability positions. While Clancy (1999) pro-vides a different theoretical interpretation of tourism development inthe third world, Duffy and Clancy share a theoretical perspective thatinsists on locating development within wider theoretical debates onenvironment, political economy, and the role of the state.

CONCLUSION

[I]n essence, the means of achieving sustainability may be consideredunethical because it benefits some, perhaps higher income groups orthose in richer countries, while the costs are borne by others, possiblythe majority, who are in lower income groups or in poorer nations.(Stabler 1997:3)

The debate between lifeboat and spaceship ethics hinges overmuchon questions of population control and thus tends to underplay therole of government regulation and control as exercised already overa wide range of human activities. That is one reading. On the otherhand, Shrader-Frechette is a strong advocate for the liberal, democraticstance of spaceship ethics compared to the coercive, authoritarianpractice of Hardin’s lifeboat ethics. This aspect of the debate high-lights how an ethical approach is more complicated than simply‘‘respecting nature’’ —there is a complex web of beliefs and values in-volved, including that underpinning Western concepts of freedom anddemocracy.After Falk it can be argued that ST could be part of a ‘‘humane glo-

bal governance [that is] both functional and normative’’ (2001:221).That is, the functional dimension should respond to the practical needfor global governance to have any hope of meeting SD imperatives. Atthe same time, though, a normative dimension to global governance


would adopt the ethics implied in the word humane, according to Falk,fairness, sustainability, and democracy. Again, though, the implicationsof some aspects of SD models, especially intergenerational equity,empowerment, and ecological integrity can take a tourism policy devel-opment ethic to a seriously ‘‘subversive’’ level.So, how can policy analysts and policymakers use these ethical de-

bates? There are a number of approaches, with underlying need fora sophisticated and reflexive understanding of ethical issues by policy-makers, planners, and developers, as well as by critics and social com-mentators. Each can begin by understanding the meaning andramifications of the (now) six platforms, or paradigms, of tourism re-search and scholarship. This is then supported with an understandingof at least the basic dimensions of the four part SD model as outlinedearlier. As each person develops an understanding of the value impli-cations of the four (or more) metaphors on environmental ethics, eachcan position their own ethical stance on the continuum created bythese or other metaphors. From this they can develop a clear mentalmap of the four sectors of Hunter’s ‘‘array of theoretical interpreta-tions’’ (1997:859). Then, one needs to be prepared to argue for notourism! More precisely, treat this industry like any other developmentoption and assess its viability to contribute to the wider sustainabledevelopment of the region, the state, the country, and the ‘‘livingearth’’, but without ignoring the political economy of the North-Southdivide in the early 21st century.Moving on to where Holden (2003) ‘‘feared to tread’’, tourism plan-

ners and developers will need to adopt a nonanthropocentric ethic,take ‘‘A conceptual shift in the belief system upon which decisionmak-ing is currently made, notably away from a rationalized, scientificand externalized view of nature, to a more inclusive and spiritualone’’(2003:105).To this, however, dimensions of the SD model—intergenerational

equity in social and cultural terms—should be added. These are minorsteps on the way to developing an ethical conception of SD and ST.Taking a lead from Cheney and Weston, it appears that for a truly sus-tainable tourism, an ethical stance must be developed before respond-ing to its development ‘‘crisis’’. In this view, ethical action would be to‘‘attempt to open up possibilities, to enrich the world . . . not an attempt torespond to the world as already known’’ (1999:118, italics in original).Put another way, a truly sustainable tourism does not arise from crises,one after another. As discomforting as this call may be to some, Cheneyand Weston’s notion that ‘‘ethics is pluralistic, dissonant, discontinuous’’(1999:118; italics in original) is a challenge to the status quo that nowdrives ST development and industry funded research, is a challengeto ‘‘business as usual’’ under a new sustainable banner (made of recy-cled cotton). The sixth platform demands an exploration of ethics andpraxis, no more, no less.While sustainable tourism can be seen as an adaptive paradigm

(Hunter 1997), in the context of the critiques of SD and the parochialnature of ST discourse, without a clearly articulated and utilized ethicalstance, it will simply serve the interest of short-term development and

JIM MACBETH 981

profit takers. Further, given the nature of corporate culture at the turnof the century (the spectacular failures of Enron, Arthur Anderson,WorldCom, Xerox and some of the dot.com companies), there canbe little optimism about tourism as sustainable. Policymakers, plan-ners, and developers can no more afford to ignore the globalizationof environmental ethics (Low 1999a) than the globalization of politicaleconomy.So, the discussion comes to a point of contradictory optimism and

pessimism. Yes, the culture and discourse of ecomodern greed in to-day’s corporations and governments, when placed with the sixth plat-form, is a call to pessimism. Yet, the discourse on environmentalethics and on strong sustainability gives rise to optimism when placedinto the fifth platform.

Acknowledgements—The author wishes to thank colleagues Patsy Hallen, Aidan Davison, Jer-emy Northcote, and Mick Campion for their invaluable help with development of the ideasand of this manuscript. The author wishes to dedicate this paper to his postgraduate studentLisa Jones who died in the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 and for whom the passion for sustain-able community tourism led her to her field site in Thailand at the wrong time.

REFERENCES

Boulding, K.1973 The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. In Toward a Steady-StateEconomy, H. Daly, ed., pp. 121–132. San Francisco: Freeman.

Brundtland, G.1987 Our Common Futures: World Commission on Environment and Devel-opment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cheney, J., and A. Weston1999 Environmental Ethics as Environmental Etiquette: Toward an Ethics-Based Epistemology. Environmental Ethics 21:115–134.

Clancy, M.1999 Tourism and Development. Evidence from Mexico. Annals of TourismResearch 26:1–20.

Clarke, J.1997 A Framework of Approaches to Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustain-able Tourism 5:224–233.

Cohen, E.2002 Authenticity, Equity and Sustainability in Tourism. Journal of SustainableTourism 10:267–276.

Collins, A.1998 Tourism Development and Natural Capital. Annals of Tourism Research25:98–109.

Cox, A.2004 Cloud Seeding Trial Set to Start in Snowys <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1093085.htm> (26 April).

Davison, A.2001 Technology and the Contested Meanings of Sustainability. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Dowling, R.1991 The Ecoethics of Tourism: Guidelines for Developers, Operators andTourists. In Ecotourism: Incorporating the Global Classroom 1991. InauguralInternational Ecotourism Symposium pp. 237–243. Canberra: University ofQueensland.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1093085.htm



Drok, K.2003 Cleaning up Our Act. Cite: The Magazine of the Curtin University ofTechnology (Summer):4–6.

Duffy, R.2002 A Trip Too Far. Ecotourism Politics and Exploitation. London: Earthscan.

Falk, R.2001 Humane Governance and the Environment: Overcoming Neo-Liberal-

ism. In Governing for the Environment: Global Problems, Ethics andDemocracy, B. Gleeson and N. Low, eds., pp. 221–236. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Farrell, B., and L. Twining-Ward2004 Reconceptualizing Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31:274–295.

Fennell, D.1998 Ecotourism in Canada. Annals of Tourism Research 25:231–235.1999 Ecotourism an Introduction. London: Routledge.

France, L.1997 The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London: Earthscan.

Gerken, G.1988 Die Geburt der neuen kultur: Vom industrialismus zum light-Age.

Vienna: Duesseldorf.Hall, C., J. Jenkins, and G. Kearsley1997 Tourism Planning and Policy in Australia and New Zealand: Cases, Issues

and Practice. Sydney: Irwin.Hallen, P.2000 Ecofeminism Goes Bush. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education

5:150–166.2003 The Art of Impurity 8(1):57–60.

Hardin, G.1973 The Tragedy of the Commons. In Toward a Steady-State Economy,

H. Daly, ed., pp. 133–148. San Francisco: Freeman.1974 Living on a Lifeboat. BioScience 24:561–568.

Hardy, A., R. Beeton, and L. Pearson2002 Sustainable Tourism: An Overview of the Concept and its Position in

Relation to Conceptualisations of Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism10:475–496.

Harker, D.2002 In Perspective: Theordor Adorno <www2.huberlin.de/fpm/texte/har-

ker3.htm> (23 October).Harrison, D.1996 Sustainability and Tourism: Reflections from a Muddy Pool. In Sustain-

able Tourism in Islands and Small States, L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari andG. Wall, eds., pp. 69–89. London: Pinter.

Holden, A.2003 In Need of New Environmental Ethics for Tourism? Annals of Tourism

Research 30:94–108.Hultsman, J.1995 Just Tourism: An Ethical Framework. Annals of Tourism Research

22:553–567.Hunter, C.1997 Sustainable Tourism as an Adaptive Paradigm. Annals of Tourism

Research 24:850–867.Illich, I.1988/89 The Shadow Our Future Throws. New Perspectives Quarterly 4(4):

20–24.Jacobs, M.1999 Fairness and Futurity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jafari, J.1990 The Basis of Tourism Education. The Journal of Tourism Studies

1:33–41.2001 The Scientification of Tourism. In Hosts and Guests Revisited: TourismIssues of The 21st Century, V. Smith and M. Brent, eds., pp. 28–41. Elmsford:Cognizant Communications.

http://www2.huberlin.de/fpm/texte/harker3.htm

http://www2.huberlin.de/fpm/texte/harker3.htm

JIM MACBETH 983

Kirby, S., and K. McKenna1989 Experience Research Social Change: Methods from the Margins.Toronto: Garamond Press.

LaPlanche, S.1995 Stepping Lightly on Australia: A Traveller’s Guide to Ecotourism. Sydney:Angus and Robertson.

Lea, J.1993 Tourism Development Ethics in the Third World. Annals of TourismResearch 20:701–715.

Leslie, D.1994 Sustainable Tourism or Developing Sustainable Approaches to Lifestyle.World Leisure and Recreation 36(3):30–36.

Low, N.1999a Global Ethics and Environment. London: Routledge.1999b Introduction. Towards Global Ethics. In Global Ethics and Environment,

sb:editor>B.GleesonN. Low, ed., pp. 1–15. London: Routledge.Macbeth, J.1994 To Sustain is to Nurture, to Tolerate and to Carry On: Can Tourism?TRENDS. Special edition on Sustainable Rural Tourism Development31:42–45.

MacDonald, I.2004 Cloud Seeding Trial Set to Start in Snowys. Australian BroadcastingCommission. Sourced <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1093085.htm> (26 April).

Malloy, D., and D. Fennell1998 Codes of Ethics and Tourism: An Explanatory Content Analysis. TourismManagement 19:453–461.

Meadows, D.1972 The Limits to Growth. London: Pan.

Merchant, C.1992 Radical Ecology. New York: Routledge.

Muller, H.1997 The Thorny Path to Sustainable Tourism Development. In The EarthscanReader in Sustainable Tourism, L. France, ed., pp. 29–35. London: Earthscan.

Nash, R.1989 The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.

Richardson, J.1993 Ecotourism and Nature-Based Holidays. Marrickville: Simon & Schuster.

Sachs, W.1999 Sustainable Development and the Crisis of Nature: On the PoliticalAnatomyh of an Oxymoron. In Environmental Politics as Cultural Discourse,F. Fischer and M. Hajer, eds., pp. 23–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sharpley, R.2000 Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the TheoreticalDivide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8:1–19.

Shrader-Frechette, K.1981 Environmental Ethics. Pacific Grove: Boxwood Press.1999 Chernobyl, Global Environmental Injustice and Mutagenic Threats. InGlobal Ethics and Environment, N. Low, ed., pp. 70–89. London: Routledge.

Stabler, M.1997 An Overview of the Sustainable Tourism Debate and the Scope andContent of the Book. In Tourism and Sustainability, M. Stabler, ed., pp. 1–21.Wallingford: CAB International.

Stenmark, M.2002 Environmental Ethics and Policy Making. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Stonich, S.1998 Political Ecology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 25:25–54.

Teo, P.2002 Striking a Balance for Sustainable Tourism: Implications for theDiscourse on Globalisation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10:459–474.




Tribe, J.1997 The Indiscipline of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24:638–657.

Tully, J.2001 An Ecological Ethics for the Present: Three Approaches to the Central

Question. In Governing for the Environment. Global Problems, Ethics andDemocracy, B. Gleeson and N. Low, eds., pp. 147–164. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Udall, S.1963 The Quiet Crisis. New York: Avon.

Wood, K., and S. House1992 The Good Tourist: A Worldwide Guide for the Green Traveller. London:

Mandarin.

Submitted 16 June 2003. Resubmitted 27 January 2004. Resubmitted 4 May 2004.Resubmitted 24 August 2004. Accepted 4 November 2004. Final version 27 January 2005.Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Juergen Gnoth

Documents

Turismo ÉticaMacbeth