Arquitectura tecnológica

Swarbrooke’s (1999:13) definition of sustainable tourism reads as follows:

Tourism which is economically viable but does not destroy the resources on which the future of tourism will depend, notably the physical environment and the social fabric of the host community.

The above definition implies that sustainable tourism is a concept that advocates the management of all resources in such a way that the environment, and economic and social needs, can be satisfied, while, simultaneously, cultural integrity and ecological preservation are maintained (Hansmann et al., 2012). In relation to the above, the principle of sustainable

tourism is that “we do not inherit earth from our forefathers, but we borrow it from our children”

(Swarbrooke, 1999:1).

The above, according to Chinyama et al. (2012), means that all tourism developments must always be future-oriented. Such a forward-looking orientation relates to Liatamaki, Hechavarria, Tada, Liu, Setyady, Vatacharasoonntorn and Zheng’s (2016) assertion that sustainable tourism is a practical approach to tourism management and development, as well as a viable philosophy of tourism destination management. Illankoon et al. (2016) advance the idea that sustainable tourism is a multifaceted concept within the tourism industry.

Ritchie and Crouch (2003), in concurring with the above-mentioned belief, highlight that a number of factors/issues that influence, or that are influenced by, sustainable tourism are, currently, a subject of debate among such multifaceted stakeholders, within the scope of sustainable tourism. The factors concerned are influenced by the principle of sustainable tourism, including the role of public sector planning (Felicite, 2017), and the role of the industry in tourism development (Trawoger, 2014).

Some studies highlight such crucial issues around sustainable tourism as: the concept of carrying capacity (CC) (Keyser, 2009); visitor management (Marvel & Watkins, 2005); an emphasis on the physical environment (Khazaei et al., 2015); ecotourism and tourist education (Katukiza et al., 2012); and the green tourist (Illankoon et al., 2016; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003).

Ritchie and Crouch (2003) advance the idea that some of the sustainable issues of a contentious nature relate to tourist taxes and the fair pricing of tourism offerings, and to the ethics and practicalities of conservation. Ritchie and Crouch (2003:37) consider such factors as being linked to sustainable tourism, in a two-way directional relationship. Sustainable tourism is a concept involving a spectrum of activities (Isunju, Schwartz, Schouten, Johnson & Van Dijk, 2011) and a collaboration of heterogeneous stakeholders, with varying interests in relation to a form of development that equally affects them (Hansmann et al., 2012).

Ritchie and Crouch (2003) call for a meticulous and critical planning and implementation of sustainable tourism strategies, so as to close all the possible gaps that might, otherwise, sabotage the smooth running of sustainable tourism actions (Hansmann et al., 2012). According to Ritchie and Crouch (2003), such issues as the role of the public sector, visitor management, ecotourism, transportation, the concept of carrying capacity (CC), and the role of the industry are some of the key issues to be looked at within the sustainable tourism research.

Swarns (2000) believes that sustainable tourism can be successfully implemented without affecting all the other factors around it, when stakeholders define the purpose of, and formulate, objectives that suit everyone involved. In the light of the above, UNEP and UNWTO’s (2005) report, “Making tourism more sustainable: A guide for policy makers”, highlights the 12 aims of sustainable tourism, which they advise the relevant stakeholders to take cognisance of when planning for sustainable tourism.

According to UNEP and the UNWTO (2005), the above-mentioned aims include: economic viability; local prosperity; employment quality; social equity; visitor fulfilment; local control;

the sense of community well-being; cultural richness; physical integrity; biological diversity;

resource efficiency; and environmental purity. UNEP and the UNWTO (2005) comment that such aims apply in any kind of tourism development, ranging from mass tourism to various forms of niche tourism. The complex requirements entailed in fulfilling the related aims, however, are irrefutable (UNEP & UNWTO, 2005). Illankoon et al. (2016) indicate that one of the main challenges in the above regard is, perhaps, the contesting interests of the stakeholders concerned as to which components of sustainable tourism to prioritise over the others.

To address the above problem, the stakeholders must ensure that sustainable tourism is:

ecologically bearable in the long run (Khazaei et al., 2015); based on the economic opportunities offered by the host community, rather than by the external stakeholders (Katukiza et al., 2012); a means of employment opportunities for the locals (Liatamaki et al., 2016); aware of its impact on the heritage and culture of the host community (Illankoon et al., 2016); and an active engager with all the (in) directly affected stakeholders, taking cognisance of their experiences and views on tourism in terms of their offerings. In other words, sustainable tourism should implement the ST (Shen et al., 2017), and it should improve the prevailing quality of life (Jukka et al., 2016).

Inasmuch as the concept of sustainable tourism appears to be a plausible phenomenon, it is not, conversely, without challenges in relation to its implementation (Hansmann et al., 2012).

Usually, the different governments tend to prioritise improving the economic well-being of the citizens through the development of tourism, while ignoring the principles of environmental conservation involved (Felicite, 2017; Swarbrooke, 1999). In such a case, Hansmann et al.

(2012) indicate that tourism is pursued due to its potential to pull foreign direct investment and foreign exchange, which can result in dire consequences for the well-being of the environment concerned (Holden, 2016).

Another challenge that is involved could be the structural one, with 80% of African countries relying on tourism as a top economic activity (UNWTO, 2015a). As such, most of the countries lack a proper direct policy, or framework, into which tourism development can fit (New Zimbabwe, 2010). The WTTC (2012) highlights that, in some cases, inasmuch as tourism is considered as the only choice for economical enhancement, there is evidence of a weak institutional framework, with inadequate control mechanisms.

Furthermore, Hansmann et al. (2012) raise the concern that there is a general lack of understanding of the phenomenon of tourism, which has resulted in a lack of commitment by the tourism stakeholders in terms of safeguarding the principles of sustainable tourism in their communities (Swarbrooke, 1999), thereby reducing their chances of maximising the potential of their tourism offerings (Chinyama et al., 2012). Another challenge, highlighted by Katukiza et al. (2012), is that most communities are exploited, due to the fact that the goal of tourism has been pursued without being accompanied by an understanding of its implications, in terms of the three pillars of sustainability.

Such social impacts as cultural exploitation, staged authenticity and loss of cultural pride (Keyser, 2009) are a few of the countless negatives of unplanned tourism development for the host community involved. The negatives concerned usually exist where tourism has been imposed on the host community at a certain destination by its political leaders, business groups or a dominant tourist market (Illankoon, 2015). In such a situation, adopting an ST is key to addressing the challenges involved, for there is the need for an integrated approach to be taken to tourism planning and to management to achieve sustainability (Khazaei et al., 2015).

Implementing an ST in sustainable tourism allows for the process to start from the ground level up, with all the stakeholders, both the fringe and the core, being engaged with before any kind of development takes place (Felicite, 2017). In addition, embracing an ST would then permit the successful practical implementation of the sustainable tourism principle in terms of the actual STD. The STD theory is discussed in the following subsection.

2.3.2 Sustainable tourism development (STD)

Illankoon et al. (2016) indicate that STD principles are believed to be applicable to all forms of tourism developments. However, the fostering of STD requires the meticulous consideration of the ecological, economic and social aspects involved (Hansmann et al., 2012). The overall objective of developing and managing tourism offerings is to promote sustainability (Waligo et al., 2013). The STD theory formed the basis of the current study, in the sense that the study

sought to address the issue of tourism development in Zimbabwe from a stakeholder perspective, with the sole purpose of proposing a framework of recommendations towards its achievement.

In other words, the concept of STD was central to the current study. Waligo et al. (2013) ascertain that STD, and its successful implementation, is an emerging and important goal for destinations. Oyola et al. (2012) further the notion that STD makes tourism offerings more environmentally, socially and economically profitable than they might otherwise be. Other studies, from Gossling et al. (2012), Bramwell and Lane (2013) and Sharpley and Telfer (2015), suggest that there is unanimous agreement amongst academic, political and industrial environments that tourism development plans, policies and strategies should be formulated with the overall aim of achieving STD.

In the above regard, STD can be viewed as careful and sensitive economic development that is implemented without devastating the natural resources that are required by both the present and the future generations (Swarbrooke, 1999). Cernat and Gourdon (2012) establish that any definition of STD tends to emphasise the environmental, social and economic elements of the tourism system involved. Thus, STD means developing a form of tourism that is economically viable, without destroying the environment on which tourism depends, notably the natural and the physical environments of the host communities concerned (Ruhanen, 2013).

Waligo et al. (2013) argue that the sustainability of tourism offerings is dedicated to improving the quality of life of those concerned. The above means that the STD seeks to optimise the benefits of tourism for the tourists, the tourism businesses, and the host communities concerned (Kir et al., 2017), while, simultaneously, minimising the impacts of tourism development on the environment (Felicite, 2017).

STD, therefore, entails that the key stakeholders involved should identify, develop and promote their related tourism offerings (Waligo et al., 2013), so as to ensure the provision of socio-economic benefits (Edgell, 2006) and the maintenance of environmental integrity (Hall, 2013).

Such benefits, according to Sharpley and Telfer (2015), are likely to be reaped in the present, without jeopardising the future participants’ chances of reaping them, too. Mirimi et al. (2013a) contend that the sustainability of tourism offerings is a contested concept, and one that is socially constructed, reflecting the interests of everyone involved.

Mirimi et al. (2013a) also emphasise that the interests concerned are served by the promotion of STD by all who are dependent on such offerings, on a long-term basis. Hall, Scott and

Gossling (2013) highlight that STD is a process of developing tourism offerings in a way that addresses such critical issues as socio-economic and environmental fairness. Fairness, in the above respect, takes the form of the equal distribution of resources and spinoffs between individuals and groups in today’s society, and between present and future generations.

In principle, STD is an inseparable concept from that of ST, with it having to be initiated, planned for, and implemented with the consultation and help of community members (Gomulya

& Mishina, 2017; Katukiza et al., 2010, 2012; Morupisi & Mokgalo, 2017). STD must be shown to be equitable amongst the affected stakeholders (Garrido et al., 2017a; Illankoon et al., 2016), and to provide equal employment opportunities to members of the community (Quyen et al., 2017; Swarbrooke, 1999). Such development should also establish the linkage between tourism businesses and tourism (Shen et al., 2017), having a tourism sector strategy and relevant tourism policies at all levels of the government (Holden, 2016). Education and training in tourism must also be provided so as to improve the management of tourism resources (Hansmann et al., 2012; Poudel et al., 2016).

Illankoon et al. (2016) testify that, for STD to be achieved, a bottom-up approach must be implemented, meaning that the tourism planners involved must start with looking at what can be achieved at the local level, before widening the scope of tourism development to the whole country (Illankoon et al., 2016). Accordingly, achieving STD can be seen as a continuous process starting from grass level, and moving upwards to ensure that high levels of tourist satisfaction are maintained (Li, 2017b; Ritchie & Crouch, 2004), a meaningful experience of tourist is felt (Noonan & Rizzo, 2017; Stumpf et al., 2016), sustainable tourism awareness issues are raised (Liatamaki et al., 2016), and STD practices are promoted to all concerned (Gronau, 2017; Katukiza et al., 2010; Poudel et al., 2016).

Based on the above assertions, Keyser (2009) argues that STD is a concept that requires a management structure to ensure that it is implemented successfully for the benefit of everyone involved. In view of this school of thought being advanced upon by Keyser (2009), many studies (Albayrak et al., 2016; Stumpf et al., 2016) have undoubtedly supported the notion that, instead of three pillars of sustainability, STD has four pillars upon which it builds, with the additional fourth pillar being that of governance.

The governance pillar is concerned with the management systems and processes that facilitate the efforts of all stakeholders in their endeavour to accomplish their predetermined goals, in terms of each of the three sustainable pillars (environment, economic and social), respectively.

Governance, as a pillar of sustainability, advocates the importance of stakeholder involvement in tourism development, and, hence, relates to the objectives of the current study.

In view of the four pillars of STD, Dinica (2009), Goeldner and Ritchie (2009), Page and Connell (2009), Isunju, Schwartz, Schouten, Johnson and Van Dyk (2011), as well as Felicite (2017), conceive that achieving STD, through the mere stating of the environmental, economic and social aspects that are present in all development, is not a spontaneous stunt. The NSSD (2006:6) states:

These conditions only emerge through deliberate strategic and operational interventions by government to achieve long term durability of its policy programs aimed at reshaping society in a more desired form. … These four integrated dimensions of sustainability must be clarified before one can develop a strategy to achieve sustainability.

The school of thought described here regards the environmental, economic and social aspects of STD as being the intertwined components of sustainability that are embedded within the different prevailing systems of governance (NSSD, 2006). Therefore, governance is central to all the plans, policies and strategies that are aimed at achieving STD (Felicite, 2017; Goeldner

& Ritchie, 2009; Shen et al., 2017). Hansmann et al. (2012) advance that the most important aspect of STD is about how it is planned for, strategised, implemented and monitored by the stakeholders involved. The above understanding supports the assertion that ST and STD are inseparable concepts.

The success that is achieved in the above regard assists in addressing the challenges that are associated with STD. Such challenges might include, among many others: the existence of conflict amongst the different tourism stakeholders (Stumpf et al., 2016); the complexity of simultaneously maximising the diversified goals (environment, economic and social) (Illankoon et al., 2016); and the stimulating of stakeholders at different levels, while trying to set a wide spectrum of goals (Hansmann et al., 2012).

The objectives of the current study, in summary, were: to explore the stakeholder profiles and the roles that they played: to determine their views and attitudes towards tourism offerings; to ascertain the current tourism offerings from a stakeholder perspective; and to determine the variables influencing the development of tourism offerings. The ST and the STD that were discussed in the current chapter are regarded as intertwined concepts that assist in achieving the set objectives. The above is so mainly because the ST helped to identify the relevant tourism stakeholders (Business Analyst Learnings, 2013; Kokemuller, 2017; Poudel et al., 2016), in as far as the current study was concerned, while the principle of STD underscored the need for the

identified stakeholders to drive tourism development towards sustainability as the ultimate goal for any development (Felicite, 2017; Poudel et al., 2016).

In addition, most studies (Manjengwa, 2007; Mhlanga, 2009; Poudel et al., 2016; Tefera &

Govender, 2017) concur that sustainability has become of great significance in relation to tourism planning and development. In that regard, for sustainability to be achieved, the tourism stakeholders have been identified as the key drivers of the process (Burger & Niles, 2017;

Gomulya & Mishina, 2017; Ramus & Vaccaro, 2017). This is so because the ST helps in identifying the relevant stakeholders whose roles, once fulfilled, should definitely result in the achieving of sustainability. An ST also guides how tourism planners and developers should involve various stakeholders in achieving STD (Kokemuller, 2017).

Furthermore, Poudel et al. (2016), Kokemuller (2017) and Morakabati et al. (2017) define STD from a stakeholder perspective, holding that it is a process in terms of which tourism is developed to cater for the economic, social and environmental benefits of the affected stakeholders, ensuring that there are mutual benefits among the different stakeholder groups, both in the present and in the future. Therefore, the two concepts, namely ST and STD, trigger one another, making it impossible to separate them (Poudel et al., 2016), especially in the context of the current study.

Conclusively, the ST and STD theories were incorporated as the basis for the current study, whose aims were centralised on determining the stakeholder reflection of urban tourism offerings in Zimbabwe, so as to propose a framework of recommendations, based on the reflections, and on how Zimbabwe should steer its tourism planning and development towards sustainability. As indicated by Freeman (2010), the stakeholder views are critical for the predicting of needs for the future, and for the adopting of proactive strategies that should assist with the achieving of sustainability.

In the above regard, the first chapter of the current study identified the lack of an empirically based study in the public domain with a focus on stakeholder views on the urban tourism offerings in Zimbabwe, providing a unique opportunity to undertake a study to redress the challenge. The ST and STD theories, therefore, fit in with the current study, because they both advocate the incorporation of stakeholder views in the planning for successful developments in the long run. Hence, the two theories were united to assist with solving the research gap identified.