- Email: [email protected]
Thinking Economically about Sustainable Tourism
REJOINDERS AND COMMENTARY
809
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 809–811, 2001 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/01/$20.00
Thinking Economically about Sustainable Tourism Alan Collins University of Portsmouth, UK
In a brief theoretical contribution to the debate on sustainable tourism by this writer (Annals 26:98–109), a simple and straightforward analysis of tourism development was presented from the perspective of an advocate of strong sustainability criteria. The above commentary on that paper by Marina Velikova, albeit tempered by the presence of faint praise and a broad acceptance of many of the core ideas, is generally quite negative. Its main contention seems to be that the original article was not simple and straightforward enough. While it no doubt contained some stylistic flaws, a reading of Velikova’s commentary reveals, more seriously, a rather breathtaking catalogue of factual inaccuracies, overplayed repetition of particular criticisms, and instances of conceptual misunderstanding. Placing the two pieces side by side, the really key question that arises is whether these inaccuracies and misunderstandings are a result of, one, ineffectual communication of ideas in the article, or, two, superficial reading of the paper by the commentator. In order to substantiate the latter, the main errors and most serious misunderstandings evident from Velikova’s comment are highlighted. Although a more comprehensive listing of such items is possible, such an exercise would prove neither instructive nor illuminating. It is perhaps better left to the reader to decide which of these two reasons better accounts for the presence of the errors and misunderstandings in her work. However, it is maintained here that some consideration of these reasons is relevant not only to the agenda of sustainable tourism, but also in serving to cast a side light on some of the wider problems regarding the nature and scope of multidisciplinary research in tourism. Velikova asserts that the reasoning is presented “…in a rather complicated structure and language using mathematical models that are not fully explained”. Indeed this point is further reinforced where the article is criticized again for “complicated language”, failure to “define all the symbols used” and an “incomplete explanation of mathematical models” which she plainly considered confusing. The question of mathematical models is perhaps the most puzzling issue, since, having written the paper and then re-read it a number of times, it is impossible to find a single example of a genuine mathematical model anywhere in the text. Therefore, it is presumed by this point that Velikova is referring to the one simple symbolic expression (representing a requirement for positive natural capital per capita over time) and the one simple sketch diagram (showing how the demand and supply for a tourism resource may change over time). This is hardly advanced science and only requires a basic level of economic understanding. The point can confidently be rebutted in this way since the original paper has been used as reference material and in a classroom context with undergraduates in geography, land
810
REJOINDERS AND COMMENTARY
management, and hospitality and tourism studies. No one has found it a source of confusion at all. Velikova’s claim that every term in the equation has not been explained is simply untrue. They all feature in the article (p. 100). It can only be assumed that the misunderstanding relates to: 1. A problem in appreciating the distinction that was clearly made between natural capital (Kn) and natural capital per capita (Kn/N). It cannot be necessary in an academic social science journal to have to explain to the reader that per capita measures involve dividing some numerical value by the population (N). It is patently obvious after having defined the symbol for natural capital and then stating clearly that one could consider using it on a per capita basis that N must be (by definition) the population number. 2. Not understanding the delta symbol to denote a change or increment in a value. This is the universal calculus language. No academic paper finds it necessary to define that symbol. 3. A basic unwillingness to engage with the language of economics and concede to the validity of a minimal level of mathematical formalism. This is also suggestive of reluctance to participate in a genuinely multidisciplinary manner when examining tourism issues. It must surely be the case that multidisciplinary endeavor does not necessarily mean rendering subject specific contributions to the lowest common denominator of understanding. Rather, it must be an exercise in compromise, intellectually meeting half way, and sometimes acknowledgement of the comparative advantages of certain disciplines in tackling particular issues. In a discussion of the costs of environmental damage from tourism development, it would be somewhat churlish not to accept that the disciplines of economics and ecology (as well as other natural sciences) have much to say on the subject. Yet in acknowledging this, one has to accept as inevitable that they must typically operate with their distinctive languages of precision, where mathematical expression holds common currency. Hence, in a genuine spirit of multidisciplinary endeavor, the language, rhetoric, and theoretical frameworks of these subjects should be allowed to come to the fore when used to investigate such a topic. Otherwise they may be unduly constrained and place an unhelpful brake on increasingly sophisticated research output, which may (and only may!) hold the possibility of generating genuine value-added material and advances for the wider tourism research community. The article is also criticized for giving a one-line explanation of the HicksKaldor potential compensation criteria. Leaving aside the fact that the brief explanation in context is actually ten lines, what is not pointed out, is that in this deliberately brief paper two references to the concept were provided that can be found in relatively accessible introductory texts. They offer the motivated tourism researcher the opportunity to follow up the matter. Another main criticism relates to the issue of concept definition regarding natural capital. In this matter, it can be a lack of understanding of the natural capital concept and the constant natural capital rule. She briefly rehearses the old debate concerning the problems of quantifying natural capital and then seems to go on to presume that a case is being presented for first expressing natural capital in explicit monetary terms, and second using an “absolute value of natural capital” even though, as she points out, natural scientists cannot come up with one. Nowhere is this stated in the paper. Regarding the first reason, for strong sustainability to be achieved via the use of the constant natural, capital rule it is not necessary to value trees, animals or environmental quality in monetary terms at all. The rule can be readily used as a constraint outside cost-benefit analysis arithmetic. For example, if the range and quality of an
REJOINDERS AND COMMENTARY
811
existing habitat potentially affected by a project is likely to be diminished if that project goes ahead, then, either the project cannot be sanctioned, or, it can only be sanctioned if adequate ecological restitution is feasible and can be guaranteed. The price of meeting such a constraint would inevitably lead to greener project selection. There are many ways of using solely physical units or mixing such units with economic values to inform project and policy-making decisions. An interesting example, in the context of protective forestry policies, is provided by Liu, Collins and Yao (1998). Concerning the second reason why natural scientists, including this author, cannot come up with a “legitimate absolute value of natural capital” is that they see no point in trying to find one. Use of the constant natural capital rule as described above renders looking for such an “absolute value of natural capital” redundant. An appreciation of the extent, diversity, and inter-relationships of natural capital, in their natural physical units (such as numbers of a particular type of tree of a given level of maturity) would suffice. Another misrepresentation occurs with the obvious point “…that nature changes by itself anyway. How would an equation account for this natural change?” Nowhere in the paper is it suggested that the equation presented does this at all. The equation, such as it is, could only be activated by a political choice to follow the rule. Velikova also voices confusion as to whether the constant natural capital rule is the vehicle of geniune sustainability for which the case is made. The simple answer is yes, given that the argument for it occupies at least 70% of the paper. The article is further generally derided for being too “theoretical” and not giving sufficient weight to other subject areas’ perspectives on sustainability. In reply, it should be pointed out that it is indeed a principally theoretical paper, albeit supported by numerous references to empirical studies. Such a theoretical paper falls within the ambit of Annals of Tourism Research as articulated in its statement of purpose. Subsequent critical work would perhaps be more fruitful were it to focus on examining the empirical validity of the suggested demand and supply interactions. Theory provides a framework for subsequent empirical work. Velikova seems to have neglected this point. In addition, it was also explicitly acknowledged in the paper that while other perspectives on sustainability do exist, the case would be made for the primacy of ecological considerations. Hence prime attention in that direction was given. In summary, there is little merit or validity in virtually any of the stylistic or content related points in Velikova’s commentary, though there are many other aspects of the argument unfolded in the paper which are wide open to more detailed critical scrutiny and valid contention. 왎 Alan Collins: Department of Economics, University of Portsmouth, Locksway Road, Milton, Southsea, Hampshire PO4 8JF, UK. Email.
REFERENCE Liu, A., A. Collins, and S. Yao 1998 A Multi-Objective and Multi-Design Evaluation Procedure for Environmental Protection Forestry. Environmental and Resource Economics 12:225–240.
Submitted 27 April 2000. Accepted 13 May 2000. PII: S0160-7383(00)00032-3
809
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 809–811, 2001 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/01/$20.00
Thinking Economically about Sustainable Tourism Alan Collins University of Portsmouth, UK
In a brief theoretical contribution to the debate on sustainable tourism by this writer (Annals 26:98–109), a simple and straightforward analysis of tourism development was presented from the perspective of an advocate of strong sustainability criteria. The above commentary on that paper by Marina Velikova, albeit tempered by the presence of faint praise and a broad acceptance of many of the core ideas, is generally quite negative. Its main contention seems to be that the original article was not simple and straightforward enough. While it no doubt contained some stylistic flaws, a reading of Velikova’s commentary reveals, more seriously, a rather breathtaking catalogue of factual inaccuracies, overplayed repetition of particular criticisms, and instances of conceptual misunderstanding. Placing the two pieces side by side, the really key question that arises is whether these inaccuracies and misunderstandings are a result of, one, ineffectual communication of ideas in the article, or, two, superficial reading of the paper by the commentator. In order to substantiate the latter, the main errors and most serious misunderstandings evident from Velikova’s comment are highlighted. Although a more comprehensive listing of such items is possible, such an exercise would prove neither instructive nor illuminating. It is perhaps better left to the reader to decide which of these two reasons better accounts for the presence of the errors and misunderstandings in her work. However, it is maintained here that some consideration of these reasons is relevant not only to the agenda of sustainable tourism, but also in serving to cast a side light on some of the wider problems regarding the nature and scope of multidisciplinary research in tourism. Velikova asserts that the reasoning is presented “…in a rather complicated structure and language using mathematical models that are not fully explained”. Indeed this point is further reinforced where the article is criticized again for “complicated language”, failure to “define all the symbols used” and an “incomplete explanation of mathematical models” which she plainly considered confusing. The question of mathematical models is perhaps the most puzzling issue, since, having written the paper and then re-read it a number of times, it is impossible to find a single example of a genuine mathematical model anywhere in the text. Therefore, it is presumed by this point that Velikova is referring to the one simple symbolic expression (representing a requirement for positive natural capital per capita over time) and the one simple sketch diagram (showing how the demand and supply for a tourism resource may change over time). This is hardly advanced science and only requires a basic level of economic understanding. The point can confidently be rebutted in this way since the original paper has been used as reference material and in a classroom context with undergraduates in geography, land
810
REJOINDERS AND COMMENTARY
management, and hospitality and tourism studies. No one has found it a source of confusion at all. Velikova’s claim that every term in the equation has not been explained is simply untrue. They all feature in the article (p. 100). It can only be assumed that the misunderstanding relates to: 1. A problem in appreciating the distinction that was clearly made between natural capital (Kn) and natural capital per capita (Kn/N). It cannot be necessary in an academic social science journal to have to explain to the reader that per capita measures involve dividing some numerical value by the population (N). It is patently obvious after having defined the symbol for natural capital and then stating clearly that one could consider using it on a per capita basis that N must be (by definition) the population number. 2. Not understanding the delta symbol to denote a change or increment in a value. This is the universal calculus language. No academic paper finds it necessary to define that symbol. 3. A basic unwillingness to engage with the language of economics and concede to the validity of a minimal level of mathematical formalism. This is also suggestive of reluctance to participate in a genuinely multidisciplinary manner when examining tourism issues. It must surely be the case that multidisciplinary endeavor does not necessarily mean rendering subject specific contributions to the lowest common denominator of understanding. Rather, it must be an exercise in compromise, intellectually meeting half way, and sometimes acknowledgement of the comparative advantages of certain disciplines in tackling particular issues. In a discussion of the costs of environmental damage from tourism development, it would be somewhat churlish not to accept that the disciplines of economics and ecology (as well as other natural sciences) have much to say on the subject. Yet in acknowledging this, one has to accept as inevitable that they must typically operate with their distinctive languages of precision, where mathematical expression holds common currency. Hence, in a genuine spirit of multidisciplinary endeavor, the language, rhetoric, and theoretical frameworks of these subjects should be allowed to come to the fore when used to investigate such a topic. Otherwise they may be unduly constrained and place an unhelpful brake on increasingly sophisticated research output, which may (and only may!) hold the possibility of generating genuine value-added material and advances for the wider tourism research community. The article is also criticized for giving a one-line explanation of the HicksKaldor potential compensation criteria. Leaving aside the fact that the brief explanation in context is actually ten lines, what is not pointed out, is that in this deliberately brief paper two references to the concept were provided that can be found in relatively accessible introductory texts. They offer the motivated tourism researcher the opportunity to follow up the matter. Another main criticism relates to the issue of concept definition regarding natural capital. In this matter, it can be a lack of understanding of the natural capital concept and the constant natural capital rule. She briefly rehearses the old debate concerning the problems of quantifying natural capital and then seems to go on to presume that a case is being presented for first expressing natural capital in explicit monetary terms, and second using an “absolute value of natural capital” even though, as she points out, natural scientists cannot come up with one. Nowhere is this stated in the paper. Regarding the first reason, for strong sustainability to be achieved via the use of the constant natural, capital rule it is not necessary to value trees, animals or environmental quality in monetary terms at all. The rule can be readily used as a constraint outside cost-benefit analysis arithmetic. For example, if the range and quality of an
REJOINDERS AND COMMENTARY
811
existing habitat potentially affected by a project is likely to be diminished if that project goes ahead, then, either the project cannot be sanctioned, or, it can only be sanctioned if adequate ecological restitution is feasible and can be guaranteed. The price of meeting such a constraint would inevitably lead to greener project selection. There are many ways of using solely physical units or mixing such units with economic values to inform project and policy-making decisions. An interesting example, in the context of protective forestry policies, is provided by Liu, Collins and Yao (1998). Concerning the second reason why natural scientists, including this author, cannot come up with a “legitimate absolute value of natural capital” is that they see no point in trying to find one. Use of the constant natural capital rule as described above renders looking for such an “absolute value of natural capital” redundant. An appreciation of the extent, diversity, and inter-relationships of natural capital, in their natural physical units (such as numbers of a particular type of tree of a given level of maturity) would suffice. Another misrepresentation occurs with the obvious point “…that nature changes by itself anyway. How would an equation account for this natural change?” Nowhere in the paper is it suggested that the equation presented does this at all. The equation, such as it is, could only be activated by a political choice to follow the rule. Velikova also voices confusion as to whether the constant natural capital rule is the vehicle of geniune sustainability for which the case is made. The simple answer is yes, given that the argument for it occupies at least 70% of the paper. The article is further generally derided for being too “theoretical” and not giving sufficient weight to other subject areas’ perspectives on sustainability. In reply, it should be pointed out that it is indeed a principally theoretical paper, albeit supported by numerous references to empirical studies. Such a theoretical paper falls within the ambit of Annals of Tourism Research as articulated in its statement of purpose. Subsequent critical work would perhaps be more fruitful were it to focus on examining the empirical validity of the suggested demand and supply interactions. Theory provides a framework for subsequent empirical work. Velikova seems to have neglected this point. In addition, it was also explicitly acknowledged in the paper that while other perspectives on sustainability do exist, the case would be made for the primacy of ecological considerations. Hence prime attention in that direction was given. In summary, there is little merit or validity in virtually any of the stylistic or content related points in Velikova’s commentary, though there are many other aspects of the argument unfolded in the paper which are wide open to more detailed critical scrutiny and valid contention. 왎 Alan Collins: Department of Economics, University of Portsmouth, Locksway Road, Milton, Southsea, Hampshire PO4 8JF, UK. Email
REFERENCE Liu, A., A. Collins, and S. Yao 1998 A Multi-Objective and Multi-Design Evaluation Procedure for Environmental Protection Forestry. Environmental and Resource Economics 12:225–240.
Submitted 27 April 2000. Accepted 13 May 2000. PII: S0160-7383(00)00032-3