توسعه شاخص ها برای گردشگری سازگار با محیط زیست : نتایج یک مطالعه دلفی از محققان گردشگری

This paper presents the results of a two round Delphi survey conducted into expert opinion on the development of indicators to measure the movement of the tourism product at a company/resort level towards a position of greater or lesser sustainability. This research forms part of a wider project to develop indicators that consumers can use in the selection of their holidays and promote a more sustainable form of tourism. The results of this expert survey show considerable disagreement over “sustainability” and where the borders of the concept exist. In addition, the research identified contrasting views over the use of qualitative versus quantitative indicators and the role that consumer pressure can play. The use of the Delphi technique to address complex and uncertain issues is also explored.

“It is when the hidden decisions are made explicit that the arguments begin” (Hardin, 1969, p. 1244). The aim of this research is to develop indicators that can be used by consumers to assist in their choice of holidays and promote a more sustainable form of tourism. This paper presents the results of the first stage of that research. The aim of this paper is to identify what expert opinion believes constitutes sustainable tourism, what criteria are necessary for successful indicators and which indicators can promote a more sustainable form of tourism. Later research will seek to identify industry and consumer opinion. Hart (1997) simply describes an indicator as “something that helps you to understand where you are, which way you are going and how far you are from where you want to be”, while the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS, 1999) more simply states the “aim of indicators is to produce what is measurable and show us something”. Indicators today have an increasing resonance in politics, with a seemingly endless desire to measure the previously unmeasured and to compare the performance of different providers of service. Schools are monitored for the value they add, health services for the standard of care they provide, and transport for the punctuality and quality of provision. The increased need for transparency of investment and consumer involvement has fuelled much of the need to measure what may previously have been considered too subjective. The list of acronymic organisations involved in this development of indicators of sustainable development (ISD) is long and impressive. The European Environment Agency (EEA), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), The World Bank, World Watch Institute, International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD), New Economics Foundation (NEF), United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD), WTO (World Tourism Organisation) and nationally Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) and Department for Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR, 1999) are just the main organisations. In addition, industry in non-tourism sectors has increasingly developed indicators for use at all levels, right down to the individual production unit. Yet, the common theme to all indicators, whoever is using them, is that they can be criticised. The EEA concedes of its own indicators “in the view of the agency…(they) have had little success in arriving at meaningful tourism indicators” (quoted in DCMS, 1999). The subject is relatively new, the concept that it is trying to measure is difficult and there are a myriad of perspectives to take. ISD can therefore be classified on any number of alternative bases, yet what is important is how the ISD are selected, Rutherford (1998, p. 156) comments, “…the best indicators conceptually may not be available in practice, either because basic data are not selected or because the methodology to turn available data into indicators of the desired type is unavailable….On the other hand…indicators that really do catch the attention of policy and decision makers will be chosen not by those who advocate logical frameworks, but rather by the decision makers themselves because they are perceived to be useful for monitoring something that is important”. The essence then, of indicator selection, is to make open and explicit the criteria used for indicator selection and decision taking. The review below seeks to make common criteria more explicit.

Although it seems paradoxical to develop indicators for ST when no satisfactory definition of the concept exists, the process of developing the indicators does help in determining the important tenets of the concept. Further, if ISD, and indeed the concepts of SD and ST are to be accepted and understood by the general public then they must be relevant to the public. This paper has sought to determine expert opinion on the nature of the indicators, the breadth of their concern and what the role of the consumer could be in promoting a more sustainable form of tourism. Future research will focus on what the industry can provide and then what the consumer wants from ISD. It is expected that this future research will reveal large gaps between the theoretical and practical aspirations. This research has identified that, although there is general agreement on the need for ST to focus on the long term, there is little agreement on what policies we should employ over this time period. This disharmony is reflected in the varying opinions expressed on the range of possible indicators presented. Similarly there is a spread of opinion as to who should be responsible for mitigating impact. This in turn has led to disagreement over the extent to which qualitative measures are appropriate. Criticism of resident attitude surveys centred on the lack of information that locals possess to perform this task accurately. Yet the survey also identified a strong core of support for local involvement in the development of tourism. This is a dichotomy that urgently needs to be addressed. The issue of equity was also one that proved divisive, is “equity” part of the drive for sustainability, or simply an “add-on” which only serves to confuse the debate and weaken the significance of the term? What is the value of an indicator that is an admitted simplification of a complex issue and should we use indicators when they cannot provide us with a complete picture even if the partial image is a greater sight than presently enjoyed? Are customer satisfaction, staff training and environmental awareness relevant issues in measuring progress towards sustainability? These and other questions have been considered by this research and the answers have shown a spread of opinion. If tourism is to progress in a united manner rather than follow the traditional piecemeal approach, then some or all of these questions need answers. The answers may vary from location to location, for we need to capture what is specific to individual locations and what is also common to tourism in general, but at the very least we should begin to ask these critical questions in a more formal way.