sb08

ECOTOURISM CERTIFICATION TOOLS WHAT IS THEIR ROLE NOW AND IN THE FUTURE
Dominique Hes PhD1 Ceridwen Owen PhD2
1 2

Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia dhes@unimelb.edu.au School of Architecture and Design, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia

Keywords: ecotourism, certification tools, regenerative tourism, sustainability

Summary
This paper will explore EcoTourism tools and their role in supporting the uptake in sustainability in tourism activities. In a world looking to minimise its ecological footprint, will travelling to far flung corners of the world to have the eco experience be justifiable, and can tools help with this? Will the EcoTourism offerings need to adapt and offer more than access to pristine mature and minimal impact. With this in mind the benefits and short comings of EcoTourism certification tools are explored with a view of looking towards future development opportunities. This is done in the context of the lessons learned by green building tools such as LEED, BREEAM and GreenStar. Finally this paper asks the question about the ability of rating tools to lead to a sustainable future and makes the argument that a shift to regenerative tourism will provide both a new framework for the rating tools and an offering that justifies our ecological investment.

Introduction - ecotourism and certification

Tourism is a sector of the economy that is both large and has a large impact. Ecotourism is a concept from the 1980s that came from an awareness of this impact and the need to protect fast disappearing ecologically sensitive areas. By the early 1990s it was starting to be seen as the fastest growing sector of the travel and tourism industry, Honey and Stewart (2002a:2) describe Ecotourism as: a multifaceted concept that involves travel to fragile, pristine and usually protected areas. It strives to be low impact and usually small scale; helps to educate the traveller, provides funds for conservation, directly impacts economic development and political empowerment of the local communities; and fosters respect for different cultures and human rights. Yet within this potential many researchers have found a miss-use or miss-understanding of the concept of ecotourism (Buckely 2001b, Preece et al. 1995, Fennel 2003, Caldicott and Fuller 2005), some even pointing to deliberate greenwash (Honey 1999, Weaver 2001, Wright 1993, Synergy 2000, Font 2001b). This drove the need for certification of these types of initiatives, resulting in the proliferation of labels, rating tools, certification schemes and guidelines. The World Tourism Organisation (WTO) in 2002, reported some 500 voluntary certification initiatives of which 59 were regarded as "comprehensive" schemes (Pina 2005a). Rating tools, certification and labelling Rating, certification and labelling tools are terms often used interchangeably, a rating tool rates a project based on the achievement of certain criteria; examples are Green Star, LEED, energy ratings on appliances and so forth. These tools are widely used for housing, commercial buildings, appliances and products, but tend not to be used for Ecotourism facilities. A certification tool assesses a project based on set criteria which may be a demonstration of intent or performance. Based on this the project either passes and gets certified or does not. This is the type of tool most favoured in the Ecotourism industry. Labels can be used with both types of tools; with a rating tool the label shows stars or some other mark indicating a level of achievement, where as the certification label will just show that that certification has been achieved. There has also been some merging of the certification and rating tools, for example Green Globe (a certification tool) now has a bronze, silver and gold label to signify the level of commitment and action taken. However, this still does not identify actual performance. Volumes have been written on the ecotourism certification, labelling and rating tools1. The aim of this paper is to briefly outline certification tool types, as these are most used and discuss whether they are indeed helping the consumer to reduce their ecological footprint. From the literature, the consumers and users of the certification and labelling tools require:
1

For further reading on specific tools see Font and Buckley 2001, Honey 2002, Buckley 2003 and Schianetz et al 2007 for a review on tool approaches

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1

www.sb08.org

<

Back

Home

Contents

2336

Authors Index

Program Index

>

Forward

sb08
transparency and public accessibility to information; global relevance but local implementation; auditing real and relevant categories, targets, performance etc.; technical detail and diversity scale, types, locations, etc.;

both guts and teeth rigor in the assessment and methodology and consequences for not meeting requirements for example procedures that ensure labels are awarded when levels are achieved and taken away if performance decreases, potentially with penalties; maturity and penetration they are used by the majority of the industry and have acceptance within the market as demonstrating a level of environmental responsibility; a tiered structure from an easy accessible level of certification through to worlds best practice; simple yet thorough frameworks with clear threshold requirements; and, third party verification, auditing and certification.

Lessons from other certification and labelling tools In the building industry there are some very successful rating tools, rather than certification tools, that have begun to create a market shift to more sustainable buildings. These tools have built up the credibility and integrity to be taken up by industry, and though voluntary, are used by government and industry as a measure for requiring a specific standard of design and potential performance. The tools, though developed around a similar timeline as the Ecotourism certification tools, seem to be more mature. For this reason this paper briefly touches on these tools and the ways in which they are expected to develop in the future as a potential input to the development of ecotourism certification tools. It is clear that the building rating tools, such as LEED, Green Star and BREEAM, have been effective at one level, which is to raise awareness, create a language and a market for green rated buildings. This is demonstrated by the fact that recent US Green Building Council figures show a tenfold increase in membership since 2000, and have over 3,500 registered buildings. On another level though, rating tools seem to be only partly effective, achieving varying levels of incremental improvement in energy use, as well as addressing limited social and indoor environment improvements and providing some financial benefits (Hes 2007, Hes and Syndercombe 2008). Yet, in creating awareness they are an important part of the increased uptake of sustainability in our built environment. The lessons that could be taken up from these tools are (Hes 2007, Hes and Syndercombe 2008): reducing cost and time needed for carrying out rating; streamlining the assessment process; working towards a performance based tool; working towards and international standard with regional variations; and improvement of indicators.

Issues related to ecotourism certification tools Certification programs tend to have either process or performance requirements and lately some have been incorporating both (Honey and Stewart, 2002b). The process approach requires the development of an environmental management system, such as ISO 14000, that guides the way a facility is run. The performance programs require that certain targets be set and reported against. Depending on the program these can be based on internal benchmarking or targets set at the certifier level. Both can include environmental, social and economic sustainability criteria. Research conducted by Honey and Stewart (2002b:59 quoting Synergy 2000) concluded that the combined approach is the most successful because it: encourages business to establish comprehensive environmental management systems that deliver systematic and continuous improvements, include performance targets and also encourage business to invest in technologies that deliver the greatest economic and environmental benefits within a specific region. Many of the current certification programs are still based in the process framework; for example Green Globe, Green Flag for Green Hotels, ECOTUR in Spain and Green Key in Denmark (Font 2001a, Font and Buckley 2001, Honey and Steward 2002b:54). The reasons for staying away from performance certification are that it is difficult to have verified and accessible criteria that are relevant across the multitude of ecotourism products and regions. This presents a problem in that many of these programs end up with more of a commitment to improve practice and do so against their own benchmarks, rather than providing concrete improvements based on standard performance levels. This leads to some scepticism on the part of the consumer (Synergy 2000).

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1

www.sb08.org

<

Back

Home

Contents

2337

Authors Index

Program Index

>

Forward

sb08
The large numbers of tools that are available are another well documented problem influencing the effectiveness of the tools in attracting consumer uptake (Honey 2003, Kahlenborn and Domine 2001, Schianetz et al. 2007, Butler 1998, Buckley 2001a, Pina 2005a, Font 2001a). The tourists who are the targets of ecolabels are often more put off than attracted by the vast number of schemes available to them. Not knowing which scheme to trust, a large number of them probably ignore these schemes all together. (Kahlenborn and Domine 2001:247) Also tools need maturity and penetration, this means that consumers need to understand the consequences of an ecotourism facility not having a label as clearly as if it had one. Further, maturity is achieved by continual re-evaluation and a re-certification over time as technology and knowledge advances (Buckley, 2001a). There is a call, therefore, for tools to be integrated and for greater consistency and collaboration between them, their organisations and their countries (Font 2003, Honey 2003, Schianetz et al. 2007, Butler 1998, Pforr 2004). Yet complete integration is not possible. The research of Schianetz and colleagues (2007:3815) found that certification tools not only differ between process or performance, but also by being retrospective or prospective; have global or site specific assessment criteria; be based in the technosphere or ecosphere; and, can focus on different effects (triple bottom line, cumulative, dynamic etc.). They conclude that there is no single tool that brings together all these elements and that the final scheme should ideally combine a variety of these tools to ensure a comprehensive assessment and path to sustainability. This research then did not provide what this final scheme could be as they concluded that the choice of mix of tools needs to be project dependent. The critique of the effectiveness of the certification tools are summarised by Buckley (2001a:259): Criticisms of tourism ecolabels are that they are expensive, they require time, usually they focus on hotels or ecotourism providers, the ecolabel organiser has limited marketing power, and the criteria focus on environmental management, not environmental performance. The above all suggest that the tools may not be as effective as hoped in moving the industry to sustainability. Further, when looking specifically at whether these tools have actually led to a decrease on ecological impacts, even just carbon footprint, the literature is strangely silent. In part this is because many of the schemes have not required public reporting. More telling though is the research by Sasidharam and Font (2001:105) that concludes: Despite the potential benefits from ecolabels, to date no conclusive evidence exists to support their assertive claims that ecolabels improve the environmentSocial science research suggests that environmental education of consumers does not stimulate environmentally responsive purchasing behaviour. One of the main reasons provided as to why the education of the consumer through certification has such limited impact, if at all, is the small percentage of the decision making process that is influenced by ecological consciousness. Location, cost, value for money, availability, convenience, and so forth have a much higher priority (Font 2001a). This may have changed with the swell of environmental consciousness created in the wake of Al Gores crusade on Climate Change and the Stern report, but no literature has been found at the writing of this paper to counteract the above claims. Buckley (2001c:195) describes the Nordic Ecolabel for Hotels as having the greatest potential of delivering assured results. In summary he concludes this is because it grew out of a mature, high penetration labelling scheme called the Nordic Swan and it has quantitative environmental performance criteria, e.g. for energy consumption per capita, wastewater quality etc which apply uniformly across the entire schemes. This gives assurance and leads to consumer trust which results in the label being well accepted and thriving. Yet Buckley also shows that the label has low penetration and thus its ability to lead to a reduction in impact is similarly limited. From the review carried out it can be concluded that certification of ecotourism cannot be said to have a significant impact on the ecological impact of its users (Synergy 2000, Pina 200a/b, Sasidharam and Font 2001, Buckley 2001b, Font 2001a). Most ecolabels mention the protection of environmental resources as their objective, yet little evidence is available on whether these objectives are met. Advocates of tourism ecolabels will emphasise that these minimise the damage, a more realistic aim than avoiding it, yet critics say that the certification of tourism products is endorsing the use of fragile natural resources. (Font 2001a:14) The problem may lie in the fact that we are trying to solve a problem our unsustainability within the framework of what has created the problem in the first place. We are using labels and certification that will only work while they present a benefit to the user as they differentiate them within the market (Pina 2005 a and b). Most of the schemes are trying to make the process as simple and implementable as possible without real public reporting and responsibility (Synergy 2000). Further, due to the costs of certification often

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1

www.sb08.org

<

Back

Home

Contents

2338

Authors Index

Program Index

>

Forward

sb08
the few who choose to pay extra for the piece of mind of a responsible holiday are subsidising those who do not (Buckley 2001b) Moreover, if sustainability is about more than the competitive advantage, if it is about sustainment, reduction of impact or even net benefit then it should be something embraced by all tourism offerings in contradiction to the fundamentals of certification. For this reason Pina and others (Pforr 2004, Pina 2005a and b, Griffin 2002, Buckley 2001b, Wright 1998) argue that the standard environmental and sustainable performance of tourism should be regulated: whereas some erosion and pollution of resources is caused by great numbers of visitors, most environmental damage is caused by lack of plans, policies, and action Tourism cannot be blamed for environmental deterioration caused by bad decisions rather than real visitor impacts. (Wright 1998:75) Though labelling may have a small influence on buyer behaviour, it results in piecemeal and incremental improvement rather than sustainability (Pina 2005b). Pforr (2004) agrees with Pina that sustainability is a key public policy driver and that fundamental reforms of the tourism industry need to be led by the public sector because of current ecotourism certification shortcomings are: its highly fragmented and little co-ordinated nature, a lack in information exchange and often unclear responsibilities. Pforr (2004:85) adds though, that the traditional machinery of government may not be able to deal effectively with the complex and dynamic agenda of sustainability and tourism. Something in-between is needed and he argues that this may be rethinking tourism and redirecting it based on the concept of sustainable development. As argued in this paper, due to the contested nature of sustainable development and to a certain extent its subversion into efficiency rather than improvement, this change in placement of the industry might achieve more for the long term if set within a regenerative tourism framework (Owen 2007). Regenerative tourism framework So how far has this approach to sustainability lead us? It is around 45 years since Rachel Carsons Silent Spring was published, warning of the chemicals we were using. Kenneth Bouldings Spaceship Earth came out in 1966 reminding us that we only have one planet, yet currently we seem to be happy with the fact we are using more chemicals and the equivalent of over four earths in resources (in Australias case). In 1972 the Club of Rome published Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972). The Brundtland Commission Our Common Future came out fifteen years later (WCED, 1987); 1992, Agenda 21 was presented at the Earth Summit in Rio (UNCED, 1992). A more worrying demonstration of our current way of thinkings failure to deal with these problems is that over 100 year ago Svante Arrhenius (1896) calculated that increasing carbon dioxide emissions from human activities will lead to global warming, sixty-eight years since Guy Callendar (1938) warned that global warming is already underway. It is 17 years since the first report from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (1990) came out, yet our greenhouse gas emissions have gone up. In fact, the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report concluded that: the results of human activity are putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planets ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005:2). They showed that nearly two-thirds of the essential services provided to us by nature air, water, resources, etc. are in such decline that collapse is likely. With increased awareness of ecological issues and the use of certification and rating tools, why are we still depleting our resources at such a great rate? One of the reasons is based in the Cartesian logic that places humans outside of nature, in opposition to it; the reductionist approach to sustainability and the attempt to solve problems within the same framework that has created them. There is a need for a paradigm shift away from this type of thinking, a need echoed by many researchers and commentators for example Schumacher, 1974; Naess, 1995; Sachs, 1995; Devereux, 1996; Capra, 1996 and 2002; Bossel, 1998; AtKisson, 1999; Kumar, 2002; du Plessis 2006. The regenerative framework stems from the above call for change and by the fact that even with these more mature tools (LEED etc.) are we really on a path to reducing out ecological footprint? These tools seem to be a good start but are they sufficient in scope or tempo of take up to achieve a move to the more sustainable world before we reach a critical tipping point? Is this incremental slow rate of improvement a result of trying to find solutions within the same framework that created the problem? If they are, should we be looking at doing things differently and what could this look like? To understand how we could approach sustainability differently, regeneratively, we need to understand what we currently mean by the term. Sustainability, depending on who you speak to, is about sustaining. Most of us approach it with a view to keeping things as they are or not letting them get worse. The problem, and the cause of its contestability lies in what people are trying to sustain - the use, misuse and consequent renegotiation of this term has resulted in a reduction of its potency. In particular, its connection with the conceptually divergent goals of economic growth and production under the popularised Brundtland definition of sustainable development has led to scepticism of the value and meaning of this term. Furthermore, the framework of minimising impacts, or perhaps even more problematically offsetting impacts, is seen as both ineffective and presumptuous since it continues to grant indulgences on behalf of the planet.

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1

www.sb08.org

<

Back

Home

Contents

2339

Authors Index

Program Index

>

Forward

sb08
This paradigm shift to regenerative development, starts by looking at things as a whole, as a set of interconnected and interdependent relationships. Solutions cannot be linear and cannot be simple, and this new thinking is being supported by current scientific development in quantum physics, complexity theory and complex adaptive systems, and the science of ecology. This means moving away from our Cartesian way of thinking of humans as apart from and in competition with nature. Called the ecological paradigm by Du Plessis (2006:12) this requires that our definition of development shifts from the successful domination of nature, forcing it to follow ideas of order that ignore its inherent systemic properties, to embracing nature and participating in and co-evolving through its processes (Lyle, 1994; Eisenberg and Reed, 2003). The second requirement in this shift is a move away from seeing humans as takers. Rather linked to the above point, tourists become not only partakers but also adders of value. This is the key and the pivotal point for this change. Tourists can become a regenerative force in the system, seeing how each activity can add value, leaving the earth better than when arriving. The premise is simple that our actions should result in net benefits to our ecological and social environments. The application is more complicated, but it is based on what William Reed has described as building capacity rather than things. This is becoming known as Regenerative Development and for the purpose of tourism, Regenerative Tourism (Owen 2007). This is not a new concept with many leading thinkers also approaching this problem and providing concepts such as regenerative design (Lyle 1994), interdependence (McDonough, 1998), resilience, symbiosis and positive development (Bikeland, 2007). Moving beyond Ecotourism to Regenerative Tourism, does not mean that ecotourism need abandon those aspects that support sustainability principles such as energy and water efficiency. It means for the purposes of this paper: 1 Adding value - The first point of differentiation between ecotourism and the concept of regenerative tourism is the key issue that is universally shared amongst all proponents of regenerative development. It looks at whether it is possible to develop positively, adding capacity and capital rather than taking and diminishing our resources (Birkeland 2007). 2 Working with nature as a partner of equal value - Regenerative tourism looks for inspiration in the complexity and symbiosis of nature. Regenerative tourism should move to reconcile the historically constructed division between humans and nature. That is to start looking at issues as a whole, as a set of interconnected and interdependent relationships. 3 Socio-political aspects inclusion - Much of the Cartesian problem is based in the need to quantify and control. However, there are so many things for which science cannot account. In particular, the socio-political dimension requires value judgements which can never be quantified. Ecotourism does not exclude the sociopolitical dimension, but it defines it as a distinct realm; one of the four pillars or three legs depending on how the pie is sliced. Conversely, regenerative tourism is concerned with the complex web of relationships that form an integrated whole that cannot so easily be dissected. This is an aspiration rather than a reality and unfortunately social relationships are too readily glossed over or presented as universal and homogenous. One notable point of difference is Steven Moores work on regenerative design, through an analysis of the Laredo Blueprint Farm in Texas, in which he explores the inter-relationships between the success of environmental initiatives and the politics of ownership, production and education (Moore 2004).

Regenerative tourism and tools

Having discussed what the issues are with current ecotourism certification tools, and having looked at the need to move to a regenerative tourism framework, this section briefly looks at the consequence this may have for how tools develop in the future. 1 Adding value - There are two aspects to supporting this, the first relates to the opportunity for the tourists to add value, the second is for the facility itself to add capital. Certification tools need to support visitors and stakeholders within the facility to be able to contribute actively. This might be through active promotion of the voluntourism aspects of the area, or through the design and planning of the tourism experience to allow active engagement with the context of the facility. Meanwhile, following Birkelands concepts of positive development, ensuring that the facility actively contributes through its design; for example, using passive techniques, ensuring that green roves, solar panels, water collection, waste recycling and reuse are all part of the operations of the building. Particularly ensuring that there is no taking of the capital, and where possible adding to it through adding to fresh air, native flora and fauna habitat and food production. 2 Working with nature as a partner of equal value - Tools can move towards instilling a partnership with nature by highlighting the interconnectedness of all aspects of a tourism facility. Firstly, this needs to be reflected in an ability to see all parts of the certification as important and not trading off say water efficiency with energy efficiency. Secondly, it is about providing educational and experiential opportunities for the tourist to be able to engage with nature and as such gain a richer appreciation and connectedness with the place they are visiting. 3 Socio-political aspects inclusion - This aspect is the most difficult to put into concrete actions that could be taken by certifying tools as this is centred on equality for all participants. A tool could represent this by ensuring education, participation and ownership is addressed among all stakeholders. Educational opportunities for the local inhabitants as well as education of other stakeholders of the traditional inhabitants

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1

www.sb08.org

<

Back

Home

Contents

2340

Authors Index

Program Index

>

Forward

sb08
could form one of the measures. Participation in decision making on the facility by all stakeholders through consultation and real representation of their voices could be another measure. Finally, instilling a sense of pride and ownership in the ideals of the facility is a third potential measure, this ownership is not intended in the financial sense, though this may be how value is attributed, but in a ability to identify and understand the ecotourism facility. Future work is needs to be done on how these can inform tool evolution, as shown by the building rating tools they need to be simple, easy to implement, internationally relevant, using representative indicators and a verifiable communication mechanism for those looking to travel responsibly. This is still required in the short to medium term. The hope is that in the long term the concept of regeneration will become part of the practice of tourism. A practice where no activity is carried out that does not add value to its context, working with nature and the community. Not only an elimination of the ecological footprint of the experience but actually productively adding capacity.

Conclusion
This paper has shown how ecotourism certification and labelling tools have been effective in raising awareness but that they have many flaws; both in the rate of uptake and influence and their ability to support sustainability. This paper also argued that the development of these tools within the framework that created the problems in the first place will not lead to their solutions. Further, this paper introduces the concept of regenerative development and regenerative tourism. It gives a brief outline of the principles and how these differ from the current way of thinking about. The roles of the tools at present seem to be as a marketing and awareness program, but as argued this does not really result in a decrease in a tourists impact on the environment nor lead to sustainability. In the future these tools could be developed to support a regenerative frame of thinking, but ultimately this will not lead to certification or a label, but a benchmark which will be fundamental to all tourism facilities.

References
Arrhenius, S. 1896, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76. p. 266. AtKisson, A. 1999, Believing Cassandra. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea: Green Publishing Company. Birkeland, J. 2007, Positive Development, Building Design Practitioners Environment Design Guide, Melbourne: RAIA. Bossel, H. 1998, Earth at a Crossroads. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Boulding, K. 1966, The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In Jarrett H. (ed.), Environmental quality in a growing economy. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Buckley, R. C. 2001b, Tourism Ecolabels. Annuals of Tourism Research, 29(1), pp.183-208. Buckley, R. C. 2001c, Turnover and Trends in Ecotourism Ecolabels. In Font X. and Buckley R. C. (eds.) Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Oxon, UK, CABI Publishing, pp. 189-212. Buckley, R. C. 2003, Case Studies in Ecotourism. CABI, Oxford UK. Buckley, R.C. 2001a, Major Issues in Tourism Ecolabelling. In Font X.and Buckley R. C. (eds.) Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Oxon, UK, CABI Publishing, pp.19-26. Butler, R. 1998, Sustainable Tourism - looking forward in order to progress. In Hall C. M. and Lew A. A. (eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A geographical perspective. Essex UK, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, pp. 25-34. Caldicott J. and Fuller D. 2005, Paper 6 - The concept and relevance of ecotourism to Indigenous economic and human development in remote Australian communities. CREDA Occasional paper September 2005, available online at: http://www.cedar.net.au/assets/pdf/Paper_6.pdf, accessed 22 January 2008. Callendar, G.S. 1938, The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64, pp. 223-240. Capra, F. 1996, The Web of Life. London: Flamingo. Capra, F. 2002, The Hidden Connections. London: HarperCollins Publishers Carson, R. 1962, Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Clarke J. 2002, A synthesis of activity towards the implementation of sustainable tourism: ecotourism in a different context. International Journal of Sustainable Development. 5(3), pp.232-250.

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1

www.sb08.org

<

Back

Home

Contents

2341

Authors Index

Program Index

>

Forward

sb08
Conroy M. E. 2002, Certification Systems for Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism: Can they Transform Social and Environmental Practices? In Honey M. (ed.), Ecotourism & Certification: Setting Standards in Practice. Washington DC, Island Press, pp.102-132. Devereux, P. 1996, Re-visioning the Earth. New York: Simon & Schuster. Du Plessis, C. 2006, Thinking about the day after tomorrow: new perspective on sustainable building. Rethinking Sustainable Construction 2006 Conference Sarasota, Florida, USA 19 22 September 2006, pp 1-24. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10204/956 accessed 7 November 2007. Ecotourism Australia & the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Sustainable Tourism (2004). Green Globe International Ecotourism Standard. August 2004. Available online at: www.greenglobe.org. PDF accessed 28 March 2008. Eisenberg, D. and Reed, W. 2003, Regenerative Design: Toward the Re-Integration of Human Systems within Nature. Article from the Pittsburgh Papers, Selected Presentations from the Greenbuild Conference 2003. Available online at: http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/gbtf/Documents/RegenerativeDesign-Reed03-1218.PDF accessed 28 March 2008. Fennell, D. 2003, Ecotourism (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Font, X. 2001a, Regulating the Green Message: the Players in Ecolabelling, In Font X. and Buckley R. C. (eds.) Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Oxon, UK, CABI Publishing, pp. 1-18.
Font, X. 2001b, Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: progress, process and prospects. Tourism Management 23(3), pp. 197-205.

Font, X. 2003, Labelling & Certification: Benefits & Challenges for Sustainable Tourism Management & Marketing. International Ecotourism Monthly. Year 5, Issue 50, July. Ecoclub. [Online]. Available: http://ecoclub.com/news/050/expert.html#1. 5 December 2003. Font, X. and Buckley, R.C. 2001, Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Oxon, UK, CABI Publishing. Griffin, T. 2002, An optimistic perspective on tourism's sustainability. In Harris R., Griffin T. and Williams P. (eds.) Sustainable Tourism: A global perspective. Oxford, Buttereworth Heinemann, pp. 24 -34. Hes, D. 2007, Perspectives on the effectiveness of rating tools and their ability to support the development of a more sustainable city. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability 3(4), pp143-152. Hes, D. and Syndercombe, E. 2008, The effectiveness of rating tools across an international perspective. Charlesworth, E. (ed.) The EcoEdge: Urban Triumph or Urban Disaster? Contemporary Discourses on Sustainable Cities. Architectural Press, Oxford, UK (in press). Honey, M. and Rome, A.. 2001, Protecting Paradise: Certification programs for sustainable tourism and ecotourism. Institute of Policy Studies, New York. Honey, M. 1999, Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who owns paradise? Island Press, Washington, DC. Honey, M. 2002, Ecotourism Certification: Setting standards in practice. Island Press, Washington, DC. Honey, M. 2003, Protecting Eden: Setting Green Standards for the Tourism Industry. Environment. Vol. 45 (6), pp. 8-21. Honey, M. and Stewart, E. 2002a, Introduction. In Honey M. (ed.), Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice. Washington DC, Island Press, pp. 1-32. Honey, M. and Stewart, E. 2002b, The Evolution of "Green" Standards for Tourism. In Honey M. (ed.), Ecotourism and Certification: Setting Standards in Practice. Washington DC, Island Press, pp.33-72. Kahlenborn, W. and Domine A. 2001, The Future Belongs to International Ecolabelling Schemes. In Font X. and Buckley R. C. (eds.), Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Oxon, UK, CABI Publishing, pp. 247-258. Kumar, S. 2002, You are therefore I am: A declaration of dependence. Dartington: Green Books. Lyle, J.T. 1994, Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. McDonough, W. 1998, Declaration of Interdependence. In Scott, A. (ed.) Dimensions of Sustainability, London: E & F Spon. McMinn, S. 1997, The challenge of sustainable tourism. The Environmentalist 17, 135-41 Meadows, D.H, Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. 1972, The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1

www.sb08.org

<

Back

Home

Contents

2342

Authors Index

Program Index

>

Forward

sb08
Millennium Assessment Programme 2005, Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Wellbeing. Statement of the Board. Online: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/BoardStatement.aspx accessed 7 November 2007. Moore, S.A. 2001, Technology and Place: Sustainable architecture and the Blueprint Farm. Austin: University of Texas Press. Naess, A. 1995, The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements: A Summary. In Sessions, G. (ed.) Deep ecology for the 21st Century. Boston: Shambala, pp. 151-155. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2003, OECD Environmental Indicators: Development, Measurement and Use. Paris: OECD. Owen C. and Hes D. 2007, Ecotourism in the architectural imagination, Paper presented at Gazing, Glancing, Glimpsing: Tourists and tourism in a visual world, 13-15 June 2007, University of Brighton, Eastbourne, UK. Owen C. 2007, Regenerative Tourism: Re-placing the Design of Ecotourism Facilities. Paper presented at The 3rd International Conference on Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, Chennai India, 3-7 January. Published in The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 3 (2), pp. 175-181. Owen C. 2007b, Regenerative Tourism: A case study of the resort town Yulara. Open House International, Special Issue on Ecolodges and Ecotourism 32 (4), pp. 42-53. Pforr, C. 2004, Policy-making for sustainable tourism. In Pineda F. D. and Brebbia C. A. (eds.) Sustainable Tourism, Southampton UK, WIT Press, pp. 83-94. Pina, R. 2005a, Ecolabels in tourism: what are they and why so many? May 2005, online at: http://www.ecoafrica.com/directors/ralphpina/ecotourism_certification_article_1.htm accessed 22 January 2008. Pina, R. 2005b, Ecolabels in tourism: do they have a future? October 2005, online at: http://www.ecoafrica.com/directors/ralphpina/ecotourism_certification_article_3.htm accessed 22 January 2008. Preece, N., van Oosterzee, P. and James, D. 1995, Two Way Track - Biodiversity Conservation and Ecotourism: an Investigation into Linkages, Mutual Benefits and Future Opportunities, Biodiversity Series Paper No. 5, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra, ACT, pp. 5-10. Reed W. 2007, Opportunities for the Near Future. Keynote: AIA National Convention May 2007. Sachs, W. 1995, Global Ecology and the Shadow of Development. In Sessions, G. (ed.), Deep ecology for the 21st Century. Boston: Shambala, pp. 428-444. Sasidharan, V. and Font X. 2001, Pitfalls of Ecolabelling. In Font X.and Buckley R. C. (eds.) Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Oxon, UK, CABI Publishing, pp. 105120. Schianetz, K., Kavanaghb, L. and Lockingtona, D. 2007, The Learning Tourism Destination: The potential of a learning organisation approach for improving the sustainability of tourism destinations. Tourism management 28(6), pp.1485 -1496. Schumacher, E.F. 1974, Small is Beautiful. London: Sphere Books Abacus. Synergy, 2000, Tourism certification: an analysis of Green Globe 21 and other certification programs. Godalming: WWF UK. Toth, R. 2002, Exploring the Concepts Underlying Certification. In Ecotourism & Certification: Setting standards and practice Honey M. (ed.). Washington DC, Island Press, pp. 73-102. UNCED, 1992, Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. Online: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm accessed 7 November 2007. WCED, 1987, Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weaver, D. 2001, Ecotourism. Australia: John Wiley & Sons. Wood, M. E. and Halpenny, E. A. 2001, Ecotourism Certification and Evaluation: Progress and Prospects. In Font X.and Buckley R. C. (eds.) Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Oxon, UK, CABI Publishing, pp. 121-140. World Tourism Organization (WTO) 2000, Sustainable Development of Tourism: A Compilation of Good Practices. Madrid:WTO. Wright, P. 1998, Tools for sustainability analysis in planning and managing tourism and recreation in the destination. In Hall C. M. and Lew A. A. (eds.) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective, Essex UK, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, pp. 75-91.

From the Proceedings of the World Conference SB08 - ISBN 978-0-646-50372-1

www.sb08.org

<

Back

Home

Contents

2343

Authors Index

Program Index

>

Forward