Responsible tourism is not a special type of tourism but it should be part of every type of tourism and in every stakeholder’s mind to achieve sustainable tourism goals (Goodwin 2011; Harrison and Husbands 1996; Leslie 2012). The World Tourism Organization (WTO) organized an international seminar on ‘Alternative Tourism’ in Tamanrasset, Algeria in 1989. During this seminar WTO stated that alternative tourism at that time was a discriminatory phenomenon and it should be
59
changed. They decided that it was better to replace the term ‘Alternative Tourism’
by ‘Responsible Tourism’ and defined it as “all forms of tourism which respect the host natural, built and cultural environments and the interest of all parties concerned” (Smith 1990 480). Responsible tourism relies on individual responsible behaviour, which might be easier to put into practice than educating large groups about sustainability.
Goodwin (2016 17) confirms that “responsible tourism and sustainable tourism are not the same. Responsible tourism puts the emphasis on what individuals and groups do to address those sustainability issues which are raised in particular places, addressing local priorities, transparently reporting what is being done to address the local priorities”. The transparency it depends on is linked to the role governments play in the countries’ development. If the government is strong enough to control the influence of capitalism and globalization and their detrimental impacts, there will be a chance that the stakeholders will behave more transparently. Then one can trust that responsible tourism will happen. Thus Goodwin can argue that responsible tourism can be an answer but again there should be strong and long term support to obtain expected outcomes.
Responsible tourism would seem to be the solution to provide sustainable development. However, some of the critics say that sustainability lacks measurable indicators. Even if some indicators exist (section 2.6.3 and Table 5) how one can prove that they really measure the level of sustainability? Goodwin (2016) argues that responsible tourism more accurately reflects reality and that such changes are necessary for tourism practices, e.g. airline networks and their gas emissions.
Harrison and Husbands (1996) defined responsible tourism and established the International Institute of Responsible Tourism at Tamanrasset. Further, the idea to
“think globally, act locally” was put forward to ensure responsible tourism follows sustainability principles. They pointed out that being responsible in tourism is the way to make a healthy tourism industry. Accordingly, responsible tourism can be identified as the practical implementation of sustainable tourism.
Spenceley (2002) mentioned that responsible tourism is about tourists, tourist entrepreneurs, local communities and the benefits of tourism while it supports the
60
conservation of natural resources. New Zealand Tourism (2015) is also especially concerned with responsible tourism. It defined it as “respecting, protecting and benefiting local communities, cultures and the environment”. Summarizing all the ideas on responsible tourism Stanford (2008) has highlighted three major points.
Responsible tourism considers all the aspects (economic, cultural and environmental), covers all forms of tourism (mass tourism, nature tourism and so on) and benefits all the participants (tourists, tourism providers and local communities). However, responsible tourism cannot be established by force. It is totally voluntary (Goodwin 2011).
It is believed that establishing responsible tourism is a responsibility of the government and tour operators yet this is not always the case. This responsibility should be equally distributed among these five major groups of public, private, voluntary sectors, community and tourists. The public sector should be encouraged to practice responsible tourism for which the government can create norms or rules.
It needs to identify ways the local community can benefit and how it can help protect the environment. The private sector also should be responsible and not focus only on profits but it could be the most difficult to practice (Lovelock and Lovelock 2013; Mowforth and Munt 2016). Communities themselves have an obligation to participate responsibly in tourism.
Being responsible is not yet known as a quality of the tourism industry. This quality cannot be easily measured and it should be achieved through ethics and morals (Weeden 2014). Tourists themselves also should be honest and responsible.
Therefore, it is clear that responsible tourism should be the mark of all the types of tourism and of all stakeholders.
According to Goodwin (2011 31) “the problem is when something is everyone’s responsibility it can end up being nobody’s”. However, if the government is strong enough, responsible tourism is no more a dream. Goodwin (2011) depicts three aspects of responsibility such as accountability, capability and response.
Accountability describes that someone should be responsible for the impacts of tourism, which enables legal actions. Secondly, capability or capacity means individual or co-operative ability to do something by means of responsible tourism.
61
Response is the final aspect that enables discussions by individuals or organizations to address further issues.
Responsible tourism practices are accredited by Qualmark, founded in 1993. It proves that the Qualmark holder in New Zealand follows sustainable principles in his/her business(es). “This helps our visitors and international travel sellers to select the right tourism product to suit their needs” (TNZ 2017b) and it provides a star grading system for accommodation, venues or other tourist business providers. It is a non-profit programme which aims to upgrade the quality of the New Zealand Tourism industry. However, accreditation is often another form of greenwash (Lovelock and Lovelock 2013; Mowforth and Munt 2016).
In this research project only three major stakeholders are considered: one as belonging to the public sector (DoC officers), one to the private sector (Rotorua Canopy Tour operators) and tourists. Two other parties such as the local community and volunteers are not considered because they show no direct involvement with the tourist activities studied. Though there is a Hapu (local Maori tribe) living nearby the DRSR, they are not included in this research because of ethical considerations of the university that could not be handled within the limited timeframe of this study.
One interesting problem which arises here is whether the people interested in travelling expect pleasure and leisure i.e. do they want to relax for a few days away from their day to day responsibilities? If they are asked to behave responsibly during their holidays, they may be disappointed and it may cause them dissatisfaction. But on the other hand being responsible is currently necessary to avoid the increasing negative environmental impacts of tourism. The challenge for academics and practitioners nowadays is to identify the ways to make tourists aware about responsible tourism and its value. Efforts are needed to gather the support of all the stakeholders, so tourism development will become more (and more) sustainable in the future.