www.elsevier.

com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 962984, 2005 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/$30.00

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.11.005

TOWARDS AN ETHICS PLATFORM FOR TOURISM

Jim Macbeth Murdoch University, Australia
Abstract: Ethical distinctions inform all human actions and decisions. On inspection, however, dominant paradigms in tourism scholarship are imbued with the myth of objectivity and thus ignore the ethical dimension. Since the four platforms of scholarship were rst published in 1990, a representation of one of the most value-based concepts of this time, sustainable development, has been embraced; a fth platform has emerged to dominate the rhetoric of tourism praxis. However, this paper argues that a sixth platform, an ethics platform, is needed to interrogate the morality of the positions taken in policy, planning, development, and management. These platforms are proposed against a background of environmental ethics and global political economy. Keywords: ethics, sustainable development, sustainability, platforms of scholarship. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Resume: Vers une plateforme de lethique 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 lerudition en tourisme sont impregnes du mythe de lobjectivite et ainsi ne tiennent pas compte de la dimension ethique. Depuis la parutions des quatre plate formes de lerudition en 1990, on a embrasse la representation dun des concepts les plus bases sur les valeurs, celui du developpement durable; une cinquieme plateforme est apparue ` pour dominer la rhetorique de la praxis du tourisme. Cet article soutient pourtant quil faut une sixieme plateforme, une plateforme de lethique, pour integrer la moralite de la prise de ` position en politique, planication, developpement et gestion. Ces plateformes sont proposees contre un arriere plan dethique environnementale et deconomie politique ` mondiale. Mots-cles: ethique, developpement durable, durabilite, plateformes de lerudi tion. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The disintegrating ozone layer and warming atmosphere are making it intolerable to think of industrial growth as progress; now it appears as aggression against the human condition. Perhaps for the rst time, one can imagine that, as Samuel Beckett once put it, this earth could be uninhabited (Illich 1988/89:21). Ivan Illich was always at the radical end of the critical social, educational, and environmental spectrum. Somehow his words do not seem so radical in the 21st century; they give serious pause for thought as society contemplates the possibility that unless there is radical change
Jim Macbeth (Murdoch University, Perth 6150, Australia. Email <j.macbeth@murdoch.edu.au>) is currently doing tourism research on sustainable yield, social impacts, social capital, and regional development and planning, along with a study of planning at the local government level in three Australian States. Much of his research is funded through the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre in Australia. 962

JIM MACBETH

963

in thought and action, human societies may very well create a planet that is uninhabitable. Hence the importance of promoting sustainable practices (Farrell and Twining-Ward 2004), which in tourism means developing a specic set of standards in which ethics play a central role. The argument underlying this paper is that to foster research, planning and development suited to the needs of tomorrow, academics, consultants, planners, politicians, and developers should engage with and understand the ethics of their positions; an ethically reexive scholarship is required. That is, there is a need to interrogate and understand ethical and moral positions. This is a simple imperative for living a moral life: informing all actions are ethical distinctions and decisions, values. Thus, the social world cannot be understood completely until values and morality (ethics) are factored in. Dominant paradigms in tourism development and theory do not acknowledge ethics and values because they are still imbued with the myth of objectivity that is part of the positivistic scientic paradigm. This view is consistent with Farrell and Twining-Wards (2004) view of research and tourism being too reductionist. Yet, this eld is still dominated by a frontier ethic that seeks to extend the boundaries of development into uncharted territories (notwithstanding that such an advance is now seen to be undertaken in a more sensitive manner). According to Boulding, The image of the frontier is probably one of the oldest images of mankind [sic], and it is not surprising that we nd it hard to get rid of (1973:121). However, one of the rising challenges in the 21st century will be to nd an ethical stance that facilitates tourism scholarship moving beyond the paradigm of objectivity and frontier thinking in order to contribute to a more thoughtful, reexive, and sustainable platform. Notwithstanding that the dominant paradigms are informed by the ethical positions adopted by the various players, the myth of objectivity prevails and prevents interrogation of these ethical positions in a critical manner. With Tribe, the premise is accepted that scholarship in this eld is not an objective, value free search for . . . knowledge (1997:654). Cohen puts this similarly in asserting that while sustainability in tourism is a vague concept . . .[it] is not a neutral one and cannot be seen in isolation (2002:268). The corollary of this value free approach is that a value full research paradigm is needed and that the ethics of positions assumed and decisions taken must be interrogated. Tourism has embraced a representation of one of todays most valuebased concepts, sustainable development (SD), from which this analysis gets its underlying thread. With Holden (2003), it is argued here that tourism planners, policymakers, and operators are not yet ready to move beyond anthropocentric spaceship ethics (Shrader-Frechette 1981) to a nonanthropocentric ethic such as a living earth ethic (Hallen 2003), Hunters (1997) very strong or Duffys (2002) deep green position. Holdens pessimism about a shift to a nonanthropocentric ethic is, as he acknowledges, no reason not to work in that direction. But, as important, a central requirement of this move will be to question and sideline the rationalized, scientic and externalized view of nature

964

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

(Holden 2003:105). Thus, there is a need to recognize and conceptualize a move beyond the objectied underpinnings of Jafaris fourth platform (Low 1999b). A fth sustainable development platform, as long as it is locked in the conservation ethic in Brundtland (1987) is only a beginning. The sixth platform points toward a reexive process, aiming to move tourism praxis toward a nonanthropocentric living earth ethic. This analysis is clearly part of Tribes (1997:12) study of tourism, or scholarship (Jafari 2001), and will contribute to his rst knowing about tourism, propositional knowledge. However, the aim of propositional knowing must at some level contribute to what Tribe terms procedural knowledge, or knowing how to do tourism; in this way the scholarship can contribute to professional practice. The objective of this paper is to elucidate the need for a reexive ethical understanding in tourism research, policy, planning, and development. It will begin by revisiting Jafaris (1990; 2001) theory in light of the evolving nature of scholarship and then to propose two new platforms. The analysis also reviews selected models from environmental ethics, recent relevant research, and the concepts of SD and sustainable tourism (ST). While an ethical stance is not prescribed, certain unreexive ethical positions, including an unquestioned commitment to an anthropocentric ethic, are proscribed. That said, it is still important to listen to the other (Tully 2001).

PLATFORMS OF TOURISM SCHOLARSHIP What a theory regards and disregards determines its quality (Theodor Adorno, quoted in Harker 2002:1). It is argued here that Jafaris framework is inadequate for the 21st century because it fails to consider ethics and the concept of sustainable development. The four platforms of research and scholarship can be viewed as a theory, one that may have adequately represented the diverse views when published; in fact it provided a useful and insightful understanding of tourism scholarship (Jafari 1990, 2001). The inadequacy derives from the blind-spot toward the concept of sustainable development and the increasing need 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 reecting an increasing complexity in tourism scholarship over time: the writings and insights of the last few decades [have been] aggregated into four groups, each suggesting a distinctive form or platform of thinking, developed to represent different aspects of scholarship since World War II and also different ways of thinking about tourism (Jafari 2001:2932). The advocacy platform, subheaded the good, is about the economic prospects of the industry and the way in which key interest groups promoted its economic value, from jobs to foreign exchange. This platform also championed the role of tourism across other aspects of society, from cultural revival to preserving the environment. The cautionary platform, the bad, began to be obvious in the 70s as those researchers and interest groups with a concern for culture and nature

JIM MACBETH

965

began to seriously challenge the alls good with tourism view of the advocacy platform. The cautionary, or alerting, platform pointed to economic disbenets, including low paid and seasonal jobs, environmental destruction, and cultural commodication. These rst two platforms, chronologically, took up bipolar positions on most issues so that, inevitably, researchers developed the nuances to shift the discourse away from this primarily impacts-oriented positioning. The adaptancy platform, the how, reects an attempt to look at alternative forms of tourism that might mitigate the negative impacts and enhance the positive. Strongest initially in the 80s, this platform focused on being responsive to host communities and their needs while still providing more products to satisfy tourists. The platform is manifest in the labels, from ecotourism to cottage tourism and even ST. The knowledge-based platform, the why, reects a maturing of research and scholarship along with a recognition of the complexity and reality of the industry. The focus on impacts and development alternatives of the rst three platforms are seen as a limited view and thus a systems perspective is necessary to develop a comprehensive knowledge of the subject. This 90s position reected the increased global presence of the mega-industry and the social phenomena called tourism. But, for Jafari, central to the development of this latter platform is the importance of knowledge, though he adds that this knowledge must be both objective and scientic. It is interesting that the 2001 version of Jafaris platform theory relies heavily on the notion that the knowledge-based platform represents the scientication of tourism scholarship, a move that is applauded as evidence of maturing. This paper asserts, however, that rather than showing maturity, tourism scholarship, by becoming overly scientic in its epistemology, would be more limited and restrictive in its understanding of the world. Tribe (1997) suggests that economics followed this scientic route and simply got into a straitjacket of technical and quantitative methods. The present study argues that understanding values and the role they play is an important aspect of the maturation of tourism scholarship. Objectivity, as a key aspect of scientication, is too often a mask that restricts the ability to see the underlying values and philosophy of knowledge that restrict the interrogation of ethical positions. Putting aside ethics for a moment, a further platform has emerged since Jafari rst developed this seminal conceptualization of tourism scholarship. That the 2001 version has not moved on to incorporate the now extensive research and writing on ST is puzzling, because work based on SD concepts, while still a theoretical and research based, has added an entirely new dimension to scholarship. These concepts are highly contested politically and ethically and as a distinct platform of/for research need to be interrogated with an ethical vigor: this is the sixth platform proposed later. SD is now much more than a concept but, besides being a political statement, is increasingly a research perspective, platform or paradigm. Hardy, Beeton and Pearson (2002) take the view that the third and fourth platforms do reect the inuence of SD and ST on tourism policy, planning, and scholarship. They are correct to the degree that SD can be simply seen

966

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

as a particular knowledge and thus another part of the knowledge based platform. The present study, however, holds the contrary view that concepts of SD are of such fundamental ethical import that they represent a paradigm shift beyond simply knowledge; thus, the implications of SD are ethical and suggest two new platforms as outlined in 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 path not often followed, SD has changed the political discourse and has been part of increasing debate at all levels of environmental and social policy and theory. There has been considerable institutional learning but, arguably, institutional culture has yet to shift far enough. At the same time, Jacobs (1999) sees it as a bonus that SD can appeal to the ultra-greens and the conservatives at the same time. Yet, there is an argument that this dangerously masks the real agendas of governments 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 signicant that to adequately foreground these concepts, Jafaris theory should evolve to include a fth platform: one that would eventually incorporate sustainability as a paradigm. Tourism scholarship and development are now well imbued with the concept of SD (Cohen 2002; Collins 1998; Hardy, Beeton and Pearson 2002; Harrison 1996; Holden 2003; Hunter 1997; Teo 2002). This wide literature and the everyday rhetoric of Western discourse is part of the justication for the assertion that it is time to argue for recognition that a fth platform is already informing much of the current research and scholarship. This platform needs to be labeled if for no other reason than that no theory can now afford to disregard sustainability as a core concept and still claim to be comprehensive. Tribe asserts that tourism scholarship tends to be crystallizing around the business interdisciplinary approach (1997:653) because of the clustering of theories and praxis that provide a critical mass of theories and knowledge. This type of scholarship does omit too many disciplines to be seen as adequate; thus, it is possible to see the platform of knowledge informing the concept(s) of SD as providing a 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, when integrated into policy and development decisionmaking, provide a holistic approach to the question of how societies should develop (Macbeth 1994). First, ecological sustainability requires that development be compatible with the selfmaintenance and selfdirection of ecological processes, biological diversity, and biological resources. The second is social sustainability, a requirement that development increase peoples control over their lives; and that maintains and

JIM MACBETH

967

strengthens community identity and cohesion. Third, cultural sustainability requires that development preserve and foster the cultural meanings and practices of the societies in which it takes place. Finally, economic sustainability requires that development be economically efcient and that the benets and costs arising from it be shared equitably. Common to each dimension and underlying the concept of sustainability is the imperative of inter- and intragenerational equity. This ethical position has obvious and complex ramications for decisionmaking 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 level of analysis. That is, while the vocabulary is now common among governments, nongovernmental organizations, and business, the core meanings are still being debated. SD is a contested political concept and as such is both complex and normative. There are two levels of meaning that are obvious in contemporary discourse and debates. The rst level of understanding is vague and unitary; that is, it can be expressed in a short denition such as that in the previous paragraph (and those following later). The second level of meaning is where the contest occurs: political argument over how the concept should be interpreted in practice (Jacobs 1999:25). Hardin puts it slightly differently: it is when the hidden decisions are made explicit that the arguments begin (1973:136). An example of a common dilemma in this regard is the justication principle used by the International Commission on Radiological Protection to justify radiation risks such as Chernobyl. This rather utilitarian principle justies risks to particular people if there are benets to society (Shrader-Frechette 1999). Similarly, throughout the world, codes of practice have been developed to guide agencies, operators, and tourists (Dowling 1991; Fennell 1999; LaPlanche 1995; Malloy and Fennell 1998; Richardson 1993; Wood and House 1992). But these codes are themselves part of what Sharpley refers to as a vigorous debate . . .[that reects] a lack of clarity and consensus concerning its meaning or objectives (2000:1). Further, other writers 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 often happens, deep political and ethical controversies make the denition of the concept [of sustainable development] a contested area (Sachs 1999:29). Yet, the term has already been appended to a wide body of research and scholarship that has given it a very high prole. Sustainable development assumes survival of the human species is important. While not explicit, most discourse on SD assumes this anthropocentric perspective (Holden 2003) and eschews the concept of limits to growth by positing economic development and environmental protection as partners. This is a macro (or holistic, whole world) concept that promotes a longterm approach or perspective, assuming a reasonable standard of living for all people without regard to race, gender, class, ethnicity, religion, and so forth. It has a social justice dimension but, paradoxically, is ethnocentric, formulated by

968

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

Western, developed nations, by the North. As an ethical position, SD is anthropocentric and inherently conictual, with consensus unlikely. The paradigm involves power and inequality, is political, and lends itself to slogan misuse. This is not unlike the history of the term ecotourism (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 social actor, the we, these debates do take place in the context of the global. Therefore, it is useful to place the discussion in the wider global political economy and its ethical positioning, in this case the construct of the North and the South. These concepts arise from the imperialist colonial activities of (mostly) northern European countries since Columbus. Duffy (2002) asserts that tourism, even the supposed most green type, ecotourism, is linked to global political economy, and hence to political ideology. Stablers concern is that while the ethic of sustainability might be acceptable, the ethics of attaining it globally may not. His example reinforces Duffys, noting that achieving sustainability may be . . . unethical because it benets some . . . while the costs are borne by others, usually the lower income groups or poorer nations (Stabler 1997:3). Yet Clancy (1999) suggests that this dependency interpretation has been superseded by a theoretical tussle between neoliberal and statist approaches to understanding tourism development in underdeveloped countries (Teo 2002). No matter how regarded, 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 is essentially anthropocentric (aims to serve humankind; see also Stabler 1997), one aim here (and by writers such as Hunter 1997) is to move the discourse on SD a la tourism beyond the instrumental and conservation orientation (Holden 2003) of this high prole stand. Clearly the political economy of tourism is anthropocentric. On the other hand, an ecological approach is susceptible to social indifference, and risks imposing the green ideals of the North upon the rest of the world, who have yet to attain the formers level of afuence, such that they too may look beyond the limits of human survival to smell the owers. It is impossible here to thoroughly address issues of power and political economy, or of the place of tourism vis-a-vis globalization. However, it is important to recognize the element of ideology because it is the ideological, or ethical, positions that direct resource use and inuence which social actors benet and which are disadvantaged (Stonich 1998:29). Sachss (1999) discussion, under the The Horns of the Dilemma heading, is instructive in placing ST in the context of world debates post 1972 and the United Nations Conference on the Environment. The crisis of justice [from the Souths perspective] and the crisis of nature [from the Norths perspective] stand, with the received notion of development, in an inverse relationship to each other (Sachs 1999:28). That is, the dilemma is that one cannot solve both crises at once, 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 old growth forests or allowing more tourism on pristine land and seascapes. The North embraces the crisis of nature while the South points to justice. That said, this ags an important consideration for the Western tendency to believe that it can set policy and planning guidelines for non-Western countries and other cultures. The West should not be ethnocentric and prescriptive, or, in the not uncommon phrasing, should recognize and avoid the neocolonial aspect of this global industry (France 1997). The North must not assume that it speaks for the South, or in its best interests. This is particularly poignant when noting to what degree the North lives off other peoples nature, the degree to which its ecological footprint intrudes on other peoples nature (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) and Collins (1998), one wonders how theory has not engaged with the critical discourse on SD. Even key theorists in tourism, such as Jafari (1990;2001), have not drawn signicantly upon this literature. Hunters approach sits well with aspects of the later discussion of environmental ethics. The language of ST is consistent with ecological modernization, the notion that economic development and environmental protection are synergistic. Davison explores this as the cultural project of ecomodernism, a concept located in what he terms the second wave of environmental concern (2001:15). This is epitomized by Our Common Future (Brundtland 1987), as it rejected the limits arguments of the Club of Rome (Meadows 1972) in favor of a developmental approach to increasing world equity, a belief that growth and expansion must be sustained. Contrary to this, Leslie cites Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, in imploring researchers not to create a g leaf for the status quo in their use of the language of SD (1994:34). If sustainable development is an oxymoron in being captured by this ecomodernist quest for growth with a gloss of equity, then the concept of ST is nothing more than a disguise for business as usual. Clarkes (1997) assertion of a convergence notwithstanding, her segmentation of ST into two interpretationsa business orientation and a social slantis 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 argument, he posits four positions on a SD spectrum (Table 1), ranging from the very weak anthropocentric economic growth model to what could be termed the radical ecological that is probably consistent with a deep ecology philosophy. This table nicely illustrates Jacobs (1999) earlier point about the two levels of understanding sustainability: there is ready agreement on the language but the details and praxis are contested. That said, even this table contains a vocabulary that will lead to further contestation as denitions of individual terms are negotiated. It also includes indicative linking to the following discussion on

970

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

Table 1. Hunters Sustainable Development Spectrum Compared

Holdens Environmental Perspectives Ethic of Instrumentalism Anthropocentric Metaphors Merchants Taxonomy Duffys Environmental Political Ideologies Blue green Hunters Sustainability Position Very Weak Hunters Dening Characteristics

Frontier, overlaps with Lifeboat

Egocentric

Conservation ethic Anthropocentric

Lifeboat, overlaps with Spaceship

Egocentric

Blue green/ Red green

Weak

Libertarian Extension Non-anthropocentric

Spaceship overlaps with Living Earth

Homo-centric

Red green

Strong

Ecological Extension Non-anthropocentric

Living Earth

Ecocentric

Deep green

Very Strong

Anthropocentric and utilitarian; growth oriented and resource exploitative; free-markets and consumerism; economic growth and technological innovation Anthropocentric and utilitarian; resource conservationist; growth managed; concern for distribution of development costs, intra and inter generational; rejection of innite substitution of human and natural capital; some natural system critical. Sustainable development following Brundtland (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 Bioethical and ecocentric; resource preservationist to the point where utilization of natural resources is minimized; natures 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 ShraderFrechette (1981).

metaphors, Merchants (1992) typology, and the work of Holden (2003) and Duffy (2002). Gerkens (1988) four principles for achieving sustainable tourism t well with Hunters very strong sustainability position and, while somewhat utilitarian, it is worth noting that Mullers (1997) work is contained in a book (France 1997) that leans towards a red-green philosophy (Duffy 2002). Hall, Jenkins and Kearsley (1997) outline assumptions, planning definitions, methods, models, and literature for ve planning traditions: boosterism, economic, physical/spatial, community, and sustainable. None of these planning traditions effectively grapples with the issues raised latterly by, for example, Hunter (1997) and Davison (2001). Nonetheless, their approach is important in engaging the debate about different approaches. In these, as in Hunters, there are embedded environmental ethical stances that can be understood in relation to the metaphors outlined later. Stonichs (1998) analysis of the political

JIM MACBETH

971

ecology of development in Honduras provides numerous examples of unsustainable tourism policies that cause detrimental environmental and social consequences. She (unknowingly) provides examples of the frontier ethic at work, including promoting growth in spite of the consequences. Hunter proposes what he calls an array of theoretical interpretations within which there are four potential development pathways that may be legitimized according to circumstance (1997:859). That is, local circumstances need to be taken into account and balanced. A key point, one consistent with the position taken here on ethics, is that what is crucial is that development decisionmaking should be both informed and transparent (1997:857). First, his tourism imperative is a very weak SD position, because it is a boosterism approach to fostering development. It aims to satisfy tourists and operators and is thus more oriented toward ST narrowly dened than to SD more broadly understood. The second is product-led tourism, a weak position that subordinates the environment to the development imperative. It is anthropocentric and also weak in relation to the other aspect of a SD model. Environment-led tourism is the third position. As the name implies, the paramount concern is for the environment. While there is still a product focus to a degree, it is proposed to work in harmony with, not compete with, other sectors. Growth is still assumed but alongside a conservation ethic. Hunters fourth is that of neotenous tourism, an industry that takes a very strong sustainability position, suggesting that there are times and places where tourists should be excluded. It is here also where planners should restrict the growth in already popular areas. The ethic reects the denition of the root word, neoteny: to possess juvenile qualities, to be retained undeveloped. Hunter does not see neotenous tourism as very common but does see it as an important model to help force those whose SD horizons are still locked in a development mode to see there are alternative ways of thinking. This reects this authors long-held interest and belief in the value of deviance; it is often the deviant cases that hold the next truth. However, an aside here is an important reminder that what the North calls wilderness, indigenous people may call home. Thus, while a neotenous position may not refer only to wilderness areas, 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 dominate goes some way toward understanding the praxis of a neotenous alternative. This position puts in relief the conict between the crises of environment and social justice. While Hunter usefully aims to reconnect, conceptually, the concerns 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. Hunters types of ST conceptualize four different models of how ST might contribute to a wider concept of SD. He sees each matching weak and strong approaches to sustainable development, but

972

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

in the nal analysis they all accept the growth-leaning stance of SD found even in the position now taken by Brundtland herself (Hunter 1997). In 1994, she argued against reductions in Western consumption (standard of living), a weak interpretation of sustainable development. Illich conrms this in his statement that for Ms Brundtland . . . the underlying critique of the concept of development still remains outside her thinking (1988:21). The strongest position taken by Hunter, to be fair, is his pragmatic hope that his fourth approach, a very strong sustainability approach, will also serve as an antidote to those whose sustainability horizons barely extend beyond an unquestioning belief in the needs of tourists and operators, and the right of the industry to expand indenitely (Hunter 1997). He sees this neotenous tourism approach as politically feasible, at least for environmental management purposes. But, there is still no clear environmental ethic and, further, this conceptualization hardly addresses wider issues of SD: cultural, social, and economic. Hunters emphasis on ST as an adaptive paradigm may be appropriate, but the exibility possible within this approach can be all too easily coopted by those with power and a motive for political and/or economic opportunism. Stabler provides reinforcement for this fear by his belief that the generality of the concept of SD leaves it open to being hijacked and applied to whatever purpose is thought t (1997:14). But, this is political reality, so policymakers and development controllers need the tools and conceptualization necessary to cut through the fog of opportunists rhetoricopportunists who have no commitment to ST, let alone SD. Hunters model goes some way in this direction, but the lack of an ethical dimension to that decisionmaking process is apparent. The Sixth Platform: A Value-Full Tourism Scholarship The positivistic scientic paradigm views knowledge as objective, as value-free. It also assumes that scientists, researchers, and analysts are themselves objective and value-free. Further, ethical and moral principles are not factual and thus cannot be veried as scientic or technical truths, while the actions of people are largely normative. . . (Fennell 1999:246): is this a dilemma for science? According to Shrader-Frechette,
Since moral principles cannot be conrmed by empirical data, ethical statements are often relegated to the realm of what is subjective, while scientic statements are said to be objective. This oversimplication and misrepresentation of the relationship between science and 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 scientic and technological activities are often ignored (1981:31).

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

JIM MACBETH

973

have dominated the Norths approach to knowledge and decisionmaking about the environment and global economy, face sustained scrutiny by other research paradigms, including interpretive, critical and feminist perspectives. Further, even most scientists, including economists, will acknowledge that their personal ideologies and social locations (political, religious, cultural, class) will affect the questions they ask and the answers they see. This conceptual baggage (Kirby and McKenna 1989) includes their ethical stances and will reect to which metaphor they are most closely aligned. Even a slight acquaintance with the theorizing on research methods, along with an acceptance of a value-full science, leads to a confronting conclusion: the frailty of objectivity leaves the fourth and fth platforms wanting. To nd this same concern within the literature of SD reinforces the need to explore this in tourism. As Davison (2001) attests, there is no true sustainability unless material lives are viable and they intersect with moral lives. Tourism policymaking by governments (and practice by nongovernmental organizations and business) is an area where moral considerations must be addressed along with the possibilities provided by science and technology, money, and powerand the responsibilities to shareholders and other legitimate constituencies. Tourism policy and planning decisions have impacts on nature and on human society(s) and thus cannot be determined solely by what is technically feasible or politically desirable. If the industry and its attendant research centers, nongovernmental organizations, power brokers and governments are serious about SD, then it must combine a moral position with the scientic, technical positions currently invoked. Harrisons muddy pool (1996) lacks clarity in part because, while hinting at moral issues, he does not take the next step to point out the ethical dimensions of his examples. Of course, while using a rigorous ethical analysis to understand the dilemmas of a SD proposal may clear the pool of mud, it is unlikely to remove the conict. Again, Tribes (1997) two forms of knowing about tourism are useful. While the boundaries between these two ways of knowing are not hard, it can be assumed that the policymakers and practitioners mentioned in the previous paragraphs rely on procedural knowledge to carry out their functions and tasks. On the other hand, the job of scholarship is to develop the quality of propositional knowledge about tourism in order to inform the socalled practitioners. The aim of the sixth platform is clear: to develop the selfawareness of scholars and practitioners with regard to their ethical positions and the implications of those positions 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 and accounted for. Recognizing this is one of the central purposes in proposing that scholarship (and praxis!) requires either a sixth platform or an integrated underlay of ethics and values through which researchers/theoreticians can make clear their fundamental philosophical positions. Without this identication and acknowledgment, tourism will be unable to effectively come to terms with the needs of sustainable

974

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

development. This is the case because a good deal of the confusion, contradictions, and argument is actually about a conict of value positions. Further, those who would argue for ST as an issue separate from SD (a tourism-centric view) are doing so from a particular ethical stance, probably frontier but possibly lifeboat. After Hunter, the ve platforms can be used as a starting point for detailed analysis of SD and ST. However, this can only be done if one recognizes and understands the ethical and values positions as the key to decoding the conicts. With Shrader-Frechette, it can be argued that:
While humankind is competent in the areas of science and technology, we are tragically incompetent in ethical thinking and decisionmaking. We do not know how to deal with problems requiring value judgments about personal and social goods (1981:31).

It may be more complete to acknowledge, however, that power and political relationships in late capitalism are equally important to decisionmakers incompetence in forcing into the background the hard, ethical questions. Thus, it follows that the sixth position is a platform that scholarship must embrace to meaningfully engage with the challenges of SD (Hunter 1997); it is needed so that scholars and practitioners can recognize and acknowledge the ethical stance assumed in their research or their projects/developments. Knowledge without ethics is analytically and morally neutered while the debates with those using other platforms need to be informed by an ethical awareness. Jafaris platforms were in part a chronological description of the course of tourism scholarship and research and partly a model to represent an analysis of the way in which scholarship and research had been approached. The fth platform can be similarly located, that is, its concept follows from an historical analysis of tourism scholarship and, as do the other four, describes the state of the discipline. However, the sixth platform is prescriptive, not descriptive. Tourism, if it is to contribute seriously to any level of SD, needs to understand its ethical positions. Hence, there are six platforms for understanding tourism 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 Jafaris, but also does, to some degree, represent historical and discipline factors. While many would argue for a particular ethical position in the sixth platform, the key point in this model is to create a platform that forces an engagement with these fundamental ethical issues. Hopefully, scholars, policymakers, and practitioners will each be helped by this place, this platform, to think about and understand the nature and implications of their attitudes to development. Hopefully, also, the fact that this goes beyond a sustainable tourism platform is an obvious and logical extension of the previous analysis. ST has many ethical positions within its many contemporary cloaks, and plenty of daggers for an ethical awareness to understand and uncover. It remains for a future paper to uncover the daggers

JIM MACBETH

975

and outline an ethical matrix for a nonanthropocentric, intergenerational ethic. However, to round off this discussion, it is still necessary to briey discusses some aspects of the way that environmental concerns might inform an ethics platform. This is a minor introduction to some of the work being done to understand ethics and tourism, some of the work that will inform each person in understanding their own 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 ethical to endeavor to attain it, or that the means of doing so are ethical. . .(Stabler 1997:2)

Environmental ethics is a rich discourse and is nding its way into tourism theorizing (Holden 2003; Hunter 1997; Lea 1993). In this analysis, metaphors are used initially to represent certain ethical positions partly because the visual nature of metaphors is accessible. The aim is to provide an alternative visualization to that of Collins (1998), Duffy (2002), Holden (2003), Hunter (1997), and others. An important caveat: this discourse is primarily environment-centered and tends to include only limited reference to other ethical issues such as social justice, equity, and indigenous land rights. The sixth platform must also address these ethical issues as it comes to terms with the implications of a value-full sustainable development, Stablers sustainability ethic. While this paper foregrounds environmental ethics, it is obvious from the discussion, especially of political economy, that wider issues of social justice must be included. For example, Leas 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 to it. In fact, too, Leas discussion of the social and cultural impacts of tourism in the third world resonates with Jafaris cautionary platform. Hultsmans (1995) Just Tourism uses the adjectival meaning of a just, or an ethical tourism. However, this social phenomenon is simply tourism until business and economics become predominant over the experiential, at which point it becomes an industry. The point of just tourism as a model is the need for the inclusion of ethical considerations within its practice, in particular in education. Hultsman, however, avoids saying anything about an actual ethical position or positions appropriate to tourism. This falls to other authors, such as Holden (2003) who is very clear that a new environmental ethic is needed, one that is not anthropocentric, centered on humankind. Holden advocates an ethic of stewardship, but this position can only be reached by understanding how humans relate to the world; no more scientic data on adverse effects are needed, only a change in ethics. Holden usefully juxtaposes environmental ethics with business or bioethics that are anthropocentric and that thus do not help an approach to the real issues owing from the unrelenting consumer economy.

976

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

Holden goes on to usefully explore the antecedents of current attitudes to nature, something that is beyond the scope of this present study. He frames two anthropocentric environmental ethical perspectives in instrumentalism and conservation, both of which see nature as being for the benet of humankind. In contrast, the libertarian extension perspective accords intrinsic value to both sentient and nonsentient entities. His fourth perspective is clearly not anthropocentric in its ecosystem focus: ecological extension (2003:97101). Another way to understand the distinction between anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric ethics is Nashs (1989) polar positions. On the one hand, an environmental ethic can demand protection of nature in order to protect human interests (most global warming discussion ts here), while, on the other hand, it can take a radical, subversive position and assign intrinsic rights to nature, to the ecosystem. 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 of an acceptable environmental policy (cited in Stenmark 2002:81). While Nash (1989) indicates that ethical considerations for nature go back some centuries, the public debates and conicts on politics and ethics have a more recent history. Ecology, like sociology, may be seen as a subversive science, as it implies an environmental ethic that questions human attitudes and activities toward nature (Nash 1989). While the discussion of ethics in policy and planning is not simply about the physical environment, tourisms relationship to the environment is an important 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 history of ethics in human discourse from a narrow focus on humans to an ecocentric focus on ecosystem integrity. This is a revolution in thinking. It removes humans from a central pinnacle and demands a move beyond the restrictive view of positivistic, value-free science and a narrow concept of objective scientic data. Sustainable development grew out of concerns that the use of the environment was unsustainable and that both quality and quantity of human life were threatened. In translating these concerns into a model for decisionmaking, what are essentially ethical decisions have to be made. For example, the dominant models of SD owing from the Brundtland Report contain imperatives for inter- and intragenerational equity, an ethical statement of profound signicance to policy and planning, notwithstanding that they may be seen as anthropocentric (Stabler 1997). In this context, it should be acknowledged that serious attempts to conceptualize and act on environmental issues existed prior to the Brundtland work but, as Holden points out, a conservation ethic is developing in tourism post-Brundtland, but not one that accepts the intrinsic rights of nature (2003:102). Further, it is worth noting the difference between the Club of Romes limits to growth (Meadows 1972) and Brundtlands 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 to moral and practical questions and theories adopted to explain social

JIM MACBETH

977

phenomena, such as tourism. While a robust debate is raging in the mainstream literature on SD, much of the discourse on ST neither addresses nor debates the underlying philosophical positions. While this paper is not developing a particular ethical stance, it is arguing that ethics underlie every decision and, in particular, the concept of SD. In this respect, it is important to understand not only the ethical positions that such approaches state or imply, but also the ethical positions they exclude. Fortunately, some useful frameworks have been developed that help in identifying the ethical positions underlying such approaches to tourism as SD. Following from the work of Shrader-Frechette (1981) and Hallen (2003), four metaphorical models of environmental ethics can be articulated, two of which may be considered dominant and destructive. These metaphors, referred to earlier, are used here because of the spread of values they represent in a coherent form. First, frontier or cowboy ethics, is the dominant model under which imperialism and economic development have been conducted and has provided the West/North its moral justication in seeking to colonize the socalled primitive cultures and relentlessly exploit natural resources that went/go with this. It is built on three basic premises: that humans are separate from and superior to nature; that nature is here for humans to exploit, as a standing reserve; and that nonhuman entities have no inherent rights that need be respected. This ethic depends on the myth of superabundance, of innite resources in a nite world (Udall 1963). Second, lifeboat ethics, developed by Garret Hardin (1974), aimed to counter the frontier myth of innite resources and its planetary despoliation and resource depletion. It is based on the notion of the planet as an ocean or sea. There are numerous lifeboats, each with resources and people. In Hardins metaphor, people from poor countries are in the overcrowded lifeboats, are falling out, and are swimming over to the resource-rich, uncrowded lifeboats. The policies suggested from this metaphor included mandatory population control, management of common resources, strict immigration control, and not contributing to world food banks. This metaphor ts well with Sachs contest perspective that includes the assumption that development will have to remain spatially restricted, but can be made durable for the richer parts of the world (1999:30). In spaceship ethics, the third metaphor, Shrader-Frechette (1981; after Bouldings 1973 economics of the spaceship earth) proposed an ethics metaphor based on a spaceship, one that became possible to visualize upon seeing the picture of earth from the Apollo space missions of the 60s, that nite ball upon which life on earth depends for everything but sunlight. This is a closed system model with nite resources. Spaceship earth includes an ethical stance towards onboard resources, including sociopolitical structures such as cooperation, self-sufciency, interdependence, and hierarchical authority structures which are not necessarily democratic. The metaphor is useful because it so effectively foregrounds the nature of the closed system. Sachs (1999) astronaut model of the earth

978

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

as a scientic and political object, dened and managed by the scientists and politicians of the North, is a complementary view to spaceship ethics and helps to understand the technical and political paradigms that underlie this view of the earth. Fourth, Hallens living earth ethics, while accepting the basic premise of the spaceship model, asserts that we need a Living Earth ethics which throbs with the pungent breath of the whale (2003:60). This ethical position recognizes people as part of nature, as both dependent upon it and continuous with nature. As ecological beings, humans are as much embedded in nature as is the whale and the forest tree. This metaphor explicitly respects and values indigenous cultures, particularly as they ground all huminity in nature, yet for it to move ethics beyond the present it needs to be clearly nonanthropocentric. Stenmarks biocentric ethic does this by holding that living creatures, and only they, have intrinsic value or have moral standing . . . (2002) But, Stenmarks ecocentric ethic does go further by assigning intrinsic value to the biosphere and to the ecosystem as wholes. These four metaphors are just that: metaphors. They are ways of seeing, of interpreting ethical positions, yet they must be seen as conceptual aids, not answers. They are outlined here without the cogent critiques offered for each. Following is a different way to think about moral positioning, these are called models, as they do not have the visual power of the metaphors. Merchant (1992) suggests a taxonomy of three ethical models for understanding the positions taken by various interest groups in the struggles over land and resource use, environmental, and quality of life issues: egocentric (grounded in the self), homocentric (grounded in society), and ecocentric (grounded in the cosmos). Merchants ecocentric ethical position shares with the spaceship and living earth metaphors a belief in the interconnected nature of a system and a need to understand holistically the interaction of humans, environment, and economy. It is consistent with a strong sustainability position as outlined by Hunter (1997) and in essence is an environmental ethic that respects the integrated systems approach relevant to SD and ST. However, the taxonomy is apolitical and, while it provides a useful listing of positions, needs to be read in conjunction with the political economy of globalization and North/South relations. Duffy (2002) helps to foreground the political through a political economy view of the role of ecotourism development within the South with her three main 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 South Wales government in Australia while acting contrary to State laws and without an environmental impact assessment (MacDonald 2004). Second: Cloud seeding is a major interference with nature (Cox 2004) illustrates the blue green faith in articial capital over natural capital. Third, Drok reports that it is argued by scientists that if the

JIM MACBETH

979

government wants to achieve sustainable development for the future, it should support the scientic community and focus research efforts on enabling technologies such as fuel cells (2003:4). These views of weak sustainability are in contrast to red green policies of ecosocialists who argue for a radical break with economic rationality and capitalism (. . . with prot as the goal) (Duffy 2002:7). Crucial to this view of environmental protection is the critique of the overaccumulation of goods and the search for new markets to sell ever more goods. For ecosocialists, an end to overconsumption is crucial for the maintenance of an environment capable of supporting human life, and this will mean 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, economic and political structures in order to give environmental protection the highest priority (2002:8). Not surprisingly, deep greens are politically closer to red greens than to blue greens. There is a light green position that argues with some aspects of the deep greens while accepting that humans should not have special license to exploit or dominate nonhuman nature (2002:8). Deep greens are similar to ecocentric and strong sustainability positions. While Clancy (1999) provides a different theoretical interpretation of tourism development in the third world, Duffy and Clancy share a theoretical perspective that insists on locating development within wider theoretical debates on environment, political economy, and the role of the state. CONCLUSION
[I]n essence, the means of achieving sustainability may be considered unethical because it benets some, perhaps higher income groups or those in richer countries, while the costs are borne by others, possibly the majority, who are in lower income groups or in poorer nations. (Stabler 1997:3)

The debate between lifeboat and spaceship ethics hinges overmuch on questions of population control and thus tends to underplay the role of government regulation and control as exercised already over a wide range of human activities. That is one reading. On the other hand, Shrader-Frechette is a strong advocate for the liberal, democratic stance of spaceship ethics compared to the coercive, authoritarian practice of Hardins lifeboat ethics. This aspect of the debate highlights how an ethical approach is more complicated than simply respecting nature there is a complex web of beliefs and values involved, including that underpinning Western concepts of freedom and democracy. After Falk it can be argued that ST could be part of a humane global governance [that is] both functional and normative (2001:221). That is, the functional dimension should respond to the practical need for global governance to have any hope of meeting SD imperatives. At the same time, though, a normative dimension to global governance

980

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

would adopt the ethics implied in the word humane, according to Falk, fairness, sustainability, and democracy. Again, though, the implications of some aspects of SD models, especially intergenerational equity, empowerment, and ecological integrity can take a tourism policy development ethic to a seriously subversive level. So, how can policy analysts and policymakers use these ethical debates? There are a number of approaches, with underlying need for a sophisticated and reexive understanding of ethical issues by policymakers, planners, and developers, as well as by critics and social commentators. Each can begin by understanding the meaning and ramications of the (now) six platforms, or paradigms, of tourism research and scholarship. This is then supported with an understanding of at least the basic dimensions of the four part SD model as outlined earlier. As each person develops an understanding of the value implications of the four (or more) metaphors on environmental ethics, each can position their own ethical stance on the continuum created by these or other metaphors. From this they can develop a clear mental map of the four sectors of Hunters array of theoretical interpretations (1997:859). Then, one needs to be prepared to argue for no tourism! More precisely, treat this industry like any other development option and assess its viability to contribute to the wider sustainable development of the region, the state, the country, and the living earth, but without ignoring the political economy of the North-South divide in the early 21st century. Moving on to where Holden (2003) feared to tread, tourism planners and developers will need to adopt a nonanthropocentric ethic, take A conceptual shift in the belief system upon which decisionmaking is currently made, notably away from a rationalized, scientic and externalized view of nature, to a more inclusive and spiritual one(2003:105). To this, however, dimensions of the SD modelintergenerational equity in social and cultural termsshould be added. These are minor steps 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 sustainable tourism, an ethical stance must be developed before responding to its development crisis. In this view, ethical action would be to attempt to open up possibilities, to enrich the world . . . not an attempt to respond 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, Cheney and Westons notion that ethics is pluralistic, dissonant, discontinuous (1999:118; italics in original) is a challenge to the status quo that now drives ST development and industry funded research, is a challenge to business as usual under a new sustainable banner (made of recycled cotton). The sixth platform demands an exploration of ethics and praxis, 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 parochial nature of ST discourse, without a clearly articulated and utilized ethical stance, it will simply serve the interest of short-term development and

JIM MACBETH

981

prot takers. Further, given the nature of corporate culture at the turn of the century (the spectacular failures of Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, Xerox and some of the dot.com companies), there can be little optimism about tourism as sustainable. Policymakers, planners, and developers can no more afford to ignore the globalization of environmental ethics (Low 1999a) than the globalization of political economy. So, the discussion comes to a point of contradictory optimism and pessimism. Yes, the culture and discourse of ecomodern greed in todays corporations and governments, when placed with the sixth platform, is a call to pessimism. Yet, the discourse on environmental ethics and on strong sustainability gives rise to optimism when placed into the fth platform.
AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to thank colleagues Patsy Hallen, Aidan Davison, Jeremy Northcote, and Mick Campion for their invaluable help with development of the ideas and of this manuscript. The author wishes to dedicate this paper to his postgraduate student Lisa Jones who died in the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 and for whom the passion for sustainable community tourism led her to her eld site in Thailand at the wrong time.

REFERENCES
Boulding, K. 1973 The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. In Toward a Steady-State Economy, H. Daly, ed., pp. 121132. San Francisco: Freeman. Brundtland, G. 1987 Our Common Futures: World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cheney, J., and A. Weston 1999 Environmental Ethics as Environmental Etiquette: Toward an EthicsBased Epistemology. Environmental Ethics 21:115134. Clancy, M. 1999 Tourism and Development. Evidence from Mexico. Annals of Tourism Research 26:120. Clarke, J. 1997 A Framework of Approaches to Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5:224233. Cohen, E. 2002 Authenticity, Equity and Sustainability in Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10:267276. Collins, A. 1998 Tourism Development and Natural Capital. Annals of Tourism Research 25:98109. 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: State University of New York Press. Dowling, R. 1991 The Ecoethics of Tourism: Guidelines for Developers, Operators and Tourists. In Ecotourism: Incorporating the Global Classroom 1991. Inaugural International Ecotourism Symposium pp. 237243. Canberra: University of Queensland.

982

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

Drok, K. 2003 Cleaning up Our Act. Cite: The Magazine of the Curtin University of Technology (Summer):46. Duffy, R. 2002 A Trip Too Far. Ecotourism Politics and Exploitation. London: Earthscan. Falk, R. 2001 Humane Governance and the Environment: Overcoming Neo-Liberalism. In Governing for the Environment: Global Problems, Ethics and Democracy, B. Gleeson and N. Low, eds., pp. 221236. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Farrell, B., and L. Twining-Ward 2004 Reconceptualizing Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31:274295. Fennell, D. 1998 Ecotourism in Canada. Annals of Tourism Research 25:231235. 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. Kearsley 1997 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 5:150166. 2003 The Art of Impurity 8(1):5760. Hardin, G. 1973 The Tragedy of the Commons. In Toward a Steady-State Economy, H. Daly, ed., pp. 133148. San Francisco: Freeman. 1974 Living on a Lifeboat. BioScience 24:561568. Hardy, A., R. Beeton, and L. Pearson 2002 Sustainable Tourism: An Overview of the Concept and its Position in Relation to Conceptualisations of Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10:475496. Harker, D. 2002 In Perspective: Theordor Adorno <www2.huberlin.de/fpm/texte/harker3.htm> (23 October). Harrison, D. 1996 Sustainability and Tourism: Reections from a Muddy Pool. In Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States, L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wall, eds., pp. 6989. London: Pinter. Holden, A. 2003 In Need of New Environmental Ethics for Tourism? Annals of Tourism Research 30:94108. Hultsman, J. 1995 Just Tourism: An Ethical Framework. Annals of Tourism Research 22:553567. Hunter, C. 1997 Sustainable Tourism as an Adaptive Paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 24:850867. Illich, I. 1988/89 The Shadow Our Future Throws. New Perspectives Quarterly 4(4): 2024. Jacobs, M. 1999 Fairness and Futurity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jafari, J. 1990 The Basis of Tourism Education. The Journal of Tourism Studies 1:3341. 2001 The Scientication of Tourism. In Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of The 21st Century, V. Smith and M. Brent, eds., pp. 2841. Elmsford: Cognizant Communications.

JIM MACBETH

983

Kirby, S., and K. McKenna 1989 Experience Research Social Change: Methods from the Margins. Toronto: Garamond Press. LaPlanche, S. 1995 Stepping Lightly on Australia: A Travellers Guide to Ecotourism. Sydney: Angus and Robertson. Lea, J. 1993 Tourism Development Ethics in the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research 20:701715. Leslie, D. 1994 Sustainable Tourism or Developing Sustainable Approaches to Lifestyle. World Leisure and Recreation 36(3):3036. 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. 115. 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 Development 31:4245. MacDonald, I. 2004 Cloud Seeding Trial Set to Start in Snowys. Australian Broadcasting Commission. Sourced <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1093085. htm> (26 April). Malloy, D., and D. Fennell 1998 Codes of Ethics and Tourism: An Explanatory Content Analysis. Tourism Management 19:453461. 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 Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism, L. France, ed., pp. 2935. 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 Political Anatomyh of an Oxymoron. In Environmental Politics as Cultural Discourse, F. Fischer and M. Hajer, eds., pp. 2341. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sharpley, R. 2000 Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8:119. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1981 Environmental Ethics. Pacic Grove: Boxwood Press. 1999 Chernobyl, Global Environmental Injustice and Mutagenic Threats. In Global Ethics and Environment, N. Low, ed., pp. 7089. London: Routledge. Stabler, M. 1997 An Overview of the Sustainable Tourism Debate and the Scope and Content of the Book. In Tourism and Sustainability, M. Stabler, ed., pp. 121. Wallingford: CAB International. Stenmark, M. 2002 Environmental Ethics and Policy Making. Aldershot: Ashgate. Stonich, S. 1998 Political Ecology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 25:2554. Teo, P. 2002 Striking a Balance for Sustainable Tourism: Implications for the Discourse on Globalisation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10:459474.

984

AN ETHICS PLATFORM

Tribe, J. 1997 The Indiscipline of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24:638657. Tully, J. 2001 An Ecological Ethics for the Present: Three Approaches to the Central Question. In Governing for the Environment. Global Problems, Ethics and Democracy, B. Gleeson and N. Low, eds., pp. 147164. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Udall, S. 1963 The Quiet Crisis. New York: Avon. Wood, K., and S. House 1992 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