Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

www.cleanerproduction.net

Sustainable tourism destinations: the importance of cleaner

production
Kian Foh Lee

International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, P.O. Box 196, Lund 22100, Sweden
Received 14 December 1999; accepted 9 August 2000

Abstract
Sustainable tourism destination is an emerging term used in recognition schemes to promote sustainable development at destinations. This concept, which is still being developed, has the potential to stimulate the implementation of sustainable development
through an interdisciplinary, holistic and integrative approach which combines different aspects of existing tools. This article will
discuss the following:

conceptual definitions for sustainable tourism destinations

the need to integrate different approaches and tools for developing sustainable tourism destinations

the role which Cleaner Production plays in terms of developing sustainable tourism destinations

Cleaner production has an important role, to ensure that prevention is built into the concept of sustainable tourism destinations.
It contributes by providing both a general strategy and specific experiences which may enhance other existing tools, concepts and
policies. These can be integrated in a synergistic manner to achieve sustainable tourism destinations. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cleaner production; Sustainable tourism destinations; Recognition schemes; Environmental management systems; Eco-labelling; Local
Agenda 21

1. Introduction

2. Background

This article is based on a M.Sc. thesis entitled Sustainable Tourism Destinations: Approaches and Methodologies [1] for the Environmental Management and Policy programme at the International Institute for Industrial
Environmental Economics at Lund University.
Sustainable tourism destination is a complex term that
has emerged from the need to develop tourism destinations in a sustainable manner, and therefore the need
to recognise the efforts to develop destinations accordingly.

The emerging practice of giving recognition, eco-labels and awards for exceptional environmental performance in the tourism industry is considered to be the most
promising among voluntary approaches [2]. Examples of
these awards and eco-labels are the European Prize for
Tourism and Environment, Green Globe Award, British
Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Award, European Sustainable City Award, Blue Flag Award and Green Suitcase Award. While these awards and eco-labels are
based on criteria that relate to various aspects of sustainable tourism, there is a particular group that focus
on destinations. This article considers awards and ecolabels in the tourism industry for destinations as recognition schemes, because of their recognition for environmental protection and improvement.

* Tel.: +46-46-222-0200; fax: +46-46-222-0210.

E-mail address: kianfoh@hotmail.com (K.F. Lee).

0959-6526/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 6 5 2 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 1 - 8

314

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

The focus on destinations represents an important

innovation within the area of recognition schemes,
because it considers, at the integrated and holistic level,
the issues of sustainable development. Recognising sustainability of a destination reiterates and reinforces other
sustainable development concepts that have been applied
to destinations such as life cycle of tourism areas [3] of
tourism destinations and carrying capacity [4] of tourism destinations.
Recognition is given only to destinations that have
achieved and demonstrated the implementation of sustainable tourism. Hence it brings sustainable development issues beyond the scope and responsibilities of
private organisations or local authorities as individual
entities. Such form of recognition requires all stakeholders within the tourism industry in a community to
co-ordinate and integrate their efforts. It fits into a new
concept of partnership between stakeholders at the local
level, that promotes value to shareholders and society
[5].
2.1. Sustainable tourism destinations
Awards and eco-labels that focus on sustainable
development at destinations provide incentives in terms
of recognition for efforts in sustainable development.
Much of the conceptual and practical work for these recognition schemes for destinations are still under development. Projects of developing sustainable tourism destinations are conducted locally and independently. Most
schemes and guidelines pursue the same goals, as
revealed at the project conference Challenging Diversity:
New Conceptual Guidance Towards Improved Environmental Performance in the Nordic Tourism Industry, 3
4 September 1999, Virum, Denmark, in which the key
actors from the Nordic regions participated. A preliminary review of some of the recognition schemes shows
fundamental similarities in objectives and strategies [6].
Table 1 provides some examples of recognition schemes
and guidelines that focus on destinations.
3. Conceptual definitions for sustainable tourism
destinations
At the moment there is no standard definition for sustainable tourism destinations. Since destinations are

unique, so are sustainable development issues in these

destinations. Performance measures and indicators for
sustainable development in these destinations would
therefore relate specifically to the issues of the destination. Criteria for sustainable tourism destinations differ, depending on the different recognition schemes
because these are conceived to meet the objectives of
different schemes.
There are three main components to the definition of
sustainable tourism destinations sustainable development, tourism and destinations. Hence the main elements
of the definition would depend on:
definition of boundaries of tourism destinations
scope of sustainable tourism destinations
definition and strictness of sustainable development

3.1. Definition of boundaries of tourism destination

Setting the boundary is a matter of determining the
appropriate size of the destination to be meaningful and
practical. For instance, setting boundaries at the country
or city level may be problematic, because the area is
large and issues are too complex. On the other hand,
setting the boundary too narrowly would reduce the
value of the analysis because small tourism sites would
not include all the impacts and issues for a holistic or
systems approach. However, small tourism sites could
be considered as part of the destination. In setting boundaries, the following considerations may be useful:
A physical boundary that is meaningful for the managing of sustainable tourism and sustainable development.
The destination should be under a local authority,
municipality or administrative group from which local
representatives are elected, and through which
national and regional planning, fiscal and other legal
requirements are carried out on behalf of local residents including local Agenda 21 programmes [7].
It should provide an area with accommodation facilities for tourists. This is to ensure that the site is significant as a tourist destination, instead of just a tourist
attraction where tourists just stop-over for a day.

Table 1
Examples of recognition schemes and guidelines for destinations
Recognition Schemes

Promoter

Green Globe 21
Destination 21
Guidelines
GRIP Guidelines

Green Globe 21
Danish Tourism Board, Outdoor Council, Tourism Development Centre
Promoter
GRIP (Foundation for Sustainable Production and Consumption) (Green Management Programme)
Norway
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Comission (HELCOM) and Baltic Sea Commission (BTC)

Baltic 21 Guidelines

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

3.2. Scope of sustainable tourism destination

Currently, there is no standard definition for sustainable tourism destinations with respect to its scope.
It may take a limited definition, to cover the scope of
management of all resources that are devoted to and are
involved in tourism. This limited definition only focuses
on the needs of tourists and communities involved in
tourism. If the holistic definition is taken, then scope
would consider the overall sustainable development of
the destination. Fig. 1 illustrates the limited definition
on the left, and holistic definition on the right. In practice, the scope would be determined by the recognition
schemes. It is likely that the scope would be between
the two defintions.
3.3. Definition and strictness of sustainable
development
The meaning of sustainable tourism destination also
depends on how strict the definition of sustainable development is applied. There are many definitions of sustainable development, and many share the same
elements. The commonly referred to definition by the
Bruntland Report is sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet
their own needs [8].
The European Commission also provided other definitions that placed emphasis on ecosystems for discussions related to sustainable development in cities [9].
Two of these definitions are by the World Conservation
Union, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP),
and World Wide Fund for Nature sustainable development means improving the quality of life while living
within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems
[10], and by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives sustainable development is development that delivers basic environmental, social and
economic services to all residents of a community without threatening the viability of the natural, built and

Fig. 1. Definitions of sustainable tourism destinations.

315

social systems upon which the delivery of these services

depend [11]. In a way, tourism destinations, like cities,
could also be considered from the ecosystem perspective.
As there are different definitions for sustainable development, there are different models of sustainability. Welford provides 6 examples of models of sustainable development for business [12]. These models could also be
used to define the process to achieve sustainability in the
tourism destination as they spell out different priorities
and issues for sustainable development for business,
which could be applied to tourism destinations. Similar
to companies, destinations would also need to look into
ethics, objectives, organisation, corporate and community culture and communication in deciding the goals
of sustainable development.
It is assumed that in principle sustainable development
is a long term goal for which short-term and medium
term targets could be set and used as milestones for
reaching sustainability. However, it should also be
acknowledge that depending on how goals are set, sustainable development could be considered as an ideal
and moving goal that would never be achieved
because of constant changes within the system. Furthermore, different destinations are in different stages of
implementing sustainable development activities. For
instance, in the early stages some short term and medium
term goals could have been achieved. In the mature/late
stages the long term goals would be achieved.
In a strict sense the term sustainable tourism destination would be used only if the destination has achieved the long term goals of sustainable development.
This is because it is assumed that in principle it is possible to achieve the long term goals of sustainable
development. When applying a less strict definition,
there would at least exist some minimum criteria to consider a destination as sustainable. These criteria would
be the short term or medium term goals of the destination. The criteria would be decided upon by recognition schemes. Fig. 2 illustrates the different meanings
depending on the scope of sustainable tourism (x-axis),
and also the strictness of the interpretation for sustainable development (y-axis).

Fig. 2. Meanings of sustainable tourism destinations.

316

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

The shaded domains of (1) and (3) would apply for

strict conditions of sustainable development, where the
long term goals of the destinations are achieved. The
shaded domains of (2) and (4) would apply for less strict
conditions, where destinations are in the process of
achieving sustainable development. These destinations
would have met certain minimum criteria that qualify
them as sustainable.
Recognition schemes would consider, when deciding
the level of strictness to be applied, the current stage of
sustainable development at the destination. For instance
it would be too demanding to impose the strict definition
of sustainable development for a destination which has
only begun to implement sustainable development. The
level of strictness to be applied would probably be balanced with the potential of meeting the criteria that
are set.

4. Approaches for developing sustainable tourism

destinations
Currently there exist tools that address specific aspects
and issues of sustainable tourism. Examples of the tools
that are used by different stakeholders to address sustainable tourism are environmental management systems
(EMS), eco-labels, the concept and framework of Local
Agenda 21, and cleaner production (CP). These are
applied, normally, within the traditional scope of the
tools. For instance, tour operators would implement
EMS for their business; hotels would implement EMS,
obtain eco-labels, and apply cleaner production strategies in their management; and local communities
would adopt Local Agenda 21 guidelines. Hence, at the
destination level, these tools would need to be integrated
to achieve sustainable development.
In terms of implementing sustainable tourism destinations, these tools contribute to different aspects of
achieving sustainable development at destinations. EMS
provides a management system at the destination level,
and at the company level to achieve sustainable tourism.
Eco-labelling provides the approach to develop recognition criteria for the destinations. Local Agenda 21
(LA21) provides the approach for overall integration and
coordination at the local level to achieve sustainable
development, and CP provides an overall implementation strategy to achieve the goals that are set.
The contribution of these four tools and approaches
for promoting sustainable tourism destinations are illustrated in Fig. 3.
Integrating the use of these tools and approaches may
not be sufficient for implementing sustainable tourism
destinations, but they cover areas that are considered as
the strategic imperatives for sustainable development of
the Bruntland Report: political system, economic system, social system, technological system and inter-

Fig. 3. Tools and concepts for sustainable tourism destinations.

national system [13]. In a general LA21, being a concept

that is used by communities and local authorities, it provides political and social elements. Eco-labelling provides social and economic elements as it promotes consumer environmental awareness and reflects consumers
preference in the tourism market. Thus it provides incentives for companies to improve environmental performance. EMS provides economic and production elements
traditionally used by companies and organisations for
addressing environmental issues that could also be
applied by local authorities. Cleaner production, on the
other hand, provides elements for technological and
economic systems. These tools are described in subsequent sections.
4.1. Environmental management systems
EMS is a common tool that is used for managing the
environmental matters of a company in a systematic and
comprehensive manner. EMS is a useful tool for sustainable tourism destinations in many ways. The process
of auditing (internal and external) within EMS audits has
the following potential: identification of problems, formulation of environmental policy, setting environmental
goals, measuring environmental impacts, measuring performance, confirming environmental management system effectiveness, and providing a database for corrective action, future plans, developing the companys
environmental strategy and communications [14].
The form and approach of EMS has been adopted to
address sustainable tourism issues. For instance in
Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry:
Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development by
the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), World
Tourism Organisation (WTO) and the Earth Council
[13], the EMS approach was applied to address the chapters of Agenda 21 that are relevant to the tourism industry.
Although EMS provides a foundation for environmen-

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

tal management it is incomplete and insufficient as a tool

to achieve sustainable tourism destinations, unless it is
adapted for destinations. This is because:
the traditional scope of EMS is restricted to business
organisations which are components of a tourism destination (hotels, tour operators, etc.), instead of the
destinations as a whole, although it is possible;
EMS covers only environmental issues hence limiting the targets and objectives to environmental
aspects;
it does not prescribe any particular implementation
strategy;
there is no obligation to meet the targets and objectives, including criteria for sustainability, for the destination.
The EMS approach could combine elements from other
tools/concepts, such as eco-labelling, Local Agenda 21
and Cleaner Production, to better meet the needs of managing sustainable destinations. The EMS approach can
be applied to tourism at two levels. Conventionally a
management system is used by companies and organisations. In destinations EMS is slowly being adopted as
a tool for local governments and small and medium size
companies for managing the environmental welfare [16].
In order to develop destinations that are sustainable, the
scope should be widened. As a tool for sustainable tourism destinations, EMS is helpful in terms of setting policies and defining the objectives and targets of sustainable
development for the destination.
4.2. Eco-labelling
Eco-labels are tools used to provide information to
the consumers that products or services have met certain
levels of environmental performance. Since eco-labels
are voluntary, these act as soft policy instruments, complementing the more traditional command-and-control
mandates [17]. Recognition schemes such as eco-labels
help educate tourists, influence consumer behaviour, and
provide incentives for organisations to improve environmental performance. Compared to other forms of voluntary instruments, such as codes of conduct, some forms
of eco-labels are more credible, because the performance
of products of these eco-labels are endorsed and verified
by independent parties.
The eco-labelling of products and services requires
that these products and services meet certain levels of
environmental criteria. The approach and process for setting criteria used for eco-labels are normally adapted for
sustainable tourism at destinations. This means that for
destinations, relevant criteria for economic and social
sustainability are included.
The verification process of eco-labels is like a form
of compliance audit. Certification for EMS requires

317

compliance to the standards such as ISO14000 and

EMAS, whereas eco-labels require compliance with product specifications, according to product category. The
former is process related, and the latter is product and
performance related. In terms of sustainable tourism destinations, the compliance is against the criteria for sustainable tourism destinations which is set by the recognition schemes. Various recognition schemes for
destinations are still in the early stages in terms of setting
criteria for destinations, [5] mainly because it is a relatively new development.
The criteria for destinations is normally multidisciplinary, reflecting the complexity of sustainable development covering environmental, social and economic
aspects. In order to decide criteria that are credible and
acceptable, views would be gathered from many sources
including local authority representatives, sociologists,
biologists, ecologists, economists, business and industry
representatives. These criteria could then be used as
objectives of the management system for destinations.
By integrating both tools, performance indicators for
these criteria could be used as targets for the management system of the destination. Some of the proposed
characteristics of criteria for sustainable tourism destinations are as follows:
1. considers both sustainable resource utilisation and
impacts on environment, economy and social system;
2. combines qualitative and quantitative criteria;
3. combines result-oriented criteria and process-oriented
(like IS014000) standards;
4. reflects local conditions, because sustainable development has normative elements;
5. considers trade-off between environment, social and
economic aspects;
6. considers continuous improvement;
7. is clearly motivated and transparent in terms of how
actions are prioritised according to the sustainable
development issues.
The main difference between recognition for destinations and eco-labelling is that performance criteria for
destinations are not standardised, whilst in conventional
eco-labelling criteria are often standardised by product
category. It is obvious that paths to achieve sustainable
development for destinations, as well as their targets and
goals, are different. To some extent, the criteria and
strictness for sustainable tourism destinations would
need to be specific for the destination.
4.3. Local agenda 21 (LA21)
The concept of Local Agenda 21 is relevant for sustainable tourism destinations, because it is used for
implementing Agenda 21 at the local community level.
There is a need for local officials to consult citizens and

318

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

community, business and industrial organisations to

form consensus on sustainable development strategies,
to help shape local programmes and policies, to set sustainable development criteria and adapt laws and regulations to achieve Agenda 21 objectives.
The principles of LA21 planning would provide a
framework for destinations to achieve consensus among
stakeholders. The International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) suggested that LA21
planning and partnership mechanisms in cities and local
communities be applied in the process of sustainable
tourism planning and tourism development [18]. The
local community of Calvia` is often quoted as an example
for a destination that has used LA21 as a driving force
to regenerate its tourism industry. It uses sustainability
as an integrating factor between tourism and local development. The sustainability of the local community is a
crucial component of sustainable tourism destinations,
and hence LA21 is a necessary approach that needs to
be integrated.
Many tools could be integrated with the LA21 principles. For instance, there are opportunities for integrating company-based environmental management systems
with the development of local and regional areas [19].
The broadening of the scope of EMS to cover destinations at the macro level would need concepts included
in LA21. For instance, the Municipality of Whistler, a
popular ski resort destination in Canada, was able to
combine LA21 with elements of EMS [20]. It has used
both tools to identify the need for a long range view for
development and to define its own vision Whistler
2002. This vision is based on extensive stakeholder
input. Strategies as well as prioritised action plans have
been drawn up to achieve the vision. In terms of environmental management, the Whistler Environmental Strategy addresses issues like an eco-system based approach
towards land-use, environmentally sustainable transportation, water supply and waste water management, solid
waste reduction and re-use, energy conservation, and an
implementation strategy that involves stakeholders.
4.4. Cleaner production
A fairly general definition of Cleaner Production (CP)
is the continuous improvement of industrial processes,
products and services to reduce the use of natural
resources, to prevent at source the pollution of
air, water and land and to reduce waste generation at
source in order to minimise risk to human population
and the environment [21]. CP as a concept is seen as
a problem solving strategy that leads to the solution,
rather than a solution in itself. Being a concept or general
strategy it could be applied in the tourism industry,
including hotels and accommodation, restaurants and
cuisine, construction and buildings.
Traditionally, CP focuses on certain components of

the environmental issues within an organisation, mainly

the industrial aspects: minimising the use of resources
and improving eco-efficiency in terms of energy and raw
material; preventing and reducing waste and emissions;
reducing the overall environmental burden in the life
cycle of the product. Preventive strategies such as CP
could be applied to the service companies and organisations [22]. Local community and companies at the destination could adopt CP as a strategy in addressing areas
such as waste and resource use (water, energy, land) in
their production process as well as procuring public services. Most of the priorities set out by the WTTC, WTO
and Earth Council publication Agenda 21 for the Travel
and Tourism Industry would require some form of CP
approach (waste minimisation, reuse, recycling, energy
efficiency) [15]. CP could be applied by organisations
of all sizes and is thus a very helpful approach. However,
the result or the improvement depends on the level of
technology as well as on how CP is applied into everyday processes and aspects of tourism activities.
In addition to environmental issues, the preventive
approach of CP could also be applied to the social and
economic aspects of tourism such as to address impacts
on local culture and customs, architecture and income
distribution. Sustainable tourism destinations, being a
service based system, may probably benefit more from
CP compared to production/manufacturing systems. It is
uncertain due to lack of research and comparison of service based systems that involve participation of customer
(tourist) and local community [22] with purely industrial systems.

5. Integrating approaches for achieving sustainable

tourism destinations
All the components in Fig. 3 are inter-related and
share some common features. Individually each contributes towards the goal of sustainable development. Integrating these approaches combines the strength of existing tools. There are opportunities to compensate for their
weaknesses by adopting approaches from other tools and
concepts. Fig. 4 offers an example of a framework for
developing sustainable tourism destinations that integrates these tools and concepts. It provides a brief
description of tasks for each step.
Integrating these tools will not be easy although it is
clear that combining these tools would bring significant
benefits. Introducing recognition schemes for sustainable
tourism destinations may help shape and form the integration of these tools because such schemes help create
a platform for capacity building to integrate these tools.
Table 2 outlines the steps of Fig. 4 in greater detail,
breaking down each step into smaller tasks and illustrating these tasks by relating them to the tools and concepts
discussed in the earlier sections. By reading across the

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

319

In terms of meeting the criteria, the EMS approach

could be used to set objectives and targets that are
aligned to the criteria according to environmental, social
and economic aspects of the sustainable tourism destination. LA21 principles could also be applied in terms
of engaging local stakeholders during the process of
developing the concept and its criteria. At the local
government level, integrating criteria of sustainable tourism destinations into the planning process of the local
community will ensure the goals are included in the policy and activities of local government.
5.2. Implement sustainable tourism destinations

Fig. 4.

Framework: Steps.

columns along a row of a step within the table, the

relationships as well as the potential for integration of
the tools and concepts are shown.
5.1. Develop the concept of sustainable tourism
destinations
The development of the concept for sustainable tourism destinations would be undertaken by developers of
recognition schemes, national tourism authorities or
local authorities at destinations. The development and
understanding of this concept could be motivated by
intentions to design a recognition scheme for sustainable
tourism destinations, to participate in a recognition
scheme, or simply to achieve sustainable development.
Conceptual development would involve definition
issues, some of which have been covered in previous
sections. Concepts such as cleaner production and carrying capacity could be included in this process.
Based on the agreed understanding of the concept of
sustainable tourism destinations, criteria for recognition
of sustainable tourism destinations would then be
developed, together with performance indicators that
reflect these criteria. It would be similar to the criteria
setting process for eco-labelling. The process involves
consensus building between all stakeholders in the destination and the committee that sets the criteria. CP
options could be considered during this process.

As described in the previous section, the implementation of sustainable tourism destinations assumes that
stakeholders have reached consensus on the form of sustainable development and its criteria. In terms of
implementation, consensus building, formulation of sustainable development policy, and commitment by all the
stakeholders to specific plans of action are crucial. These
are based on the definition and criteria that have been
agreed upon.
During the implementation stage, EMS and the concept of CP could be introduced as management tools
both for local authority and companies. The use of EMS
would ensure that roles and responsibilities are assigned
among relevant stakeholders for meeting the criteria. The
allocation of roles and responsibility should also fit into
the LA21 framework. EMS could be used as a tool for
managing activities, in a systematic manner, to meet the
targets and objectives that are aligned with the criteria
of the recognition scheme. CP options could be used as
an approach for implementing certain activities within
the destination.
The challenging aspects of implementation are related
to the design of the management system that involves
multiple stakeholders. In certain cases, this could be considered as a long term process because some destinations
require time to build capacity in using these tools effectively. The monitoring of performance is also important
at this stage, in order to provide information for
decision making.
5.3. Verification
The verification process could be taken as a pass or
fail assessment against achieving the criteria that have
been set. It should be carried out after the period of
implementation. In order to be credible, this process
should be conducted in an independent manner to demonstrate that it is objective and also to ensure that the
criteria for recognition reflect sustainable development
issues of destinations. National tourism authorities that
wish to develop a credible recognition scheme should
include mechanisms such as verification by third-party.

320

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

Table 2
Matrix of framework steps
Steps/approaches and tools

CP and others

Eco-labeling

EMS

Develop the concept of sustainable tourism destinations by national or state tourism authority
understand the sustainable
understanding CP,
development issues of destination
tourism destination life
cycle, carrying capacity,
etc.
set criteria
bear in mind CP
adopt criteria setting
align criteria with
possibilities and
process similar to eco- objectives and targets of
potentials
labelling
sustainable development
policy
develop performance indicators
base performance
develop performance
indicators (PI) on
indicators for objectives
criteria set by
and targets
recognition scheme
Implement sustainable tourism destinations by stakeholders of tourism industry
build consensus at destination level
awareness of CP concept
formalise sustainable tourism policy
agree on roles and responsibilities
design management system for
sustainable tourism destinations
implement initiatives and monitor
progress
Verification by independent party
independent verification against
criteria set for sustainable tourism
destinations
Promotion to all stakeholders
promote to local stake-holders, tour
operators, etc.

include carrying capacity refer to criteria set for

concept
sustainable tourism
destinations
include CP concepts and
options

LA21

adopt a partnership
approach for local
concerted actions

apply LA21 planning

principles and guidelines
identify SD aspects, set as above
objectives and identify
targets
adopt EMS approach as above
adopt EMS approach as above

rely on the management as above

system for SD
consider verification
consider verification
methods as eco-labelling methods as EMS

adopt a logo

The verification process is similar to the EMS

approach of auditing. Auditing provides an opportunity
for destinations to review the effectiveness in
implementing sustainable tourism destinations. Therefore, it also allows a destination to learn about its performance relative to the targets that are set against the
criteria. This provides opportunities for continuous
improvements as an important part of an internal management process.
5.4. Promotion
The promotion of sustainable tourism destinations
needs to be conducted in a credible manner. In order to
gain credibility, destinations should participate in recognition schemes that have a reputation for being independent and unbiased, and those which are accepted in
the tourism industry to signal excellence in terms of performance in sustainable development. Much effort is
required to build a good reputation in order to realise
the benefits of marketing tourism destinations that have
demonstrated efforts in promoting and achieving sustainable tourism.

6. The role of cleaner production for sustainable

tourism destinations
Although CP as a strategy only applies to environmental aspects, its general approach which is based upon
the principle of prevention has powerful implications
and applications even in social and economic terms,
since most of the environmental effects also have social
and economic impacts, and vice versa. Examples of
socialeconomic issues closely related to environmental
questions are health, safety, and resource utilisation for
short term and long term economic growth. Hence CP,
in addition to its value as an implementation strategy,
has an important role to play in terms of introducing the
precautionary principle.
6.1. Introducing CP for sustainable tourism
destinations
The following are some suggestions for applying and
promoting CP in sustainable tourism destinations:

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

6.1.1. Awareness of CP
The awareness of CP is essential in bringing the message across to the local community, tourism
entrepreneurs, and also the tourist, that there is a need
for prevention. Communicating this concept can primarily help avoid and minimise negative environmental,
social and economic impacts. Ideally, the preventive
approach serves as the best case scenario for
developing tourism destinations. Best practices promoted by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) Mountain Tourism
Resource Centre have elements that are based on CP
[23]. It promotes Zero Waste Target to minimise garbage
by employing the 4R principles: Replace (substitute),
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle; and the application of the concept of carrying capacity. Both forms are related to CP,
the first in terms of preventing waste, and the second
in terms of increasing carrying capacity by preventing
degradation of the environment. The examples above
imply that the concept of CP may not necessarily be
explicitly promoted.
6.1.2. Introduction of CP strategies
CP provides strategies for optimising products systems. Similarly tourism destinations can be considered
as a system in which these strategies could be adopted.
Tourism as a service also depends on processes, and the
use of products. Various lessons learnt and case studies
which are developed and documented from CP practice
could be applied. The strategies described in Hansens
article [24] are:
reformulation of user requirements, to find new
innovative solutions;
improvement in performance efficiency of the product;
substitution or elimination of whole product system
or its parts;
optimisation of processes and operation of each system unit.
There are many examples of how CP strategies have
been applied in tourist destinations and in eco-tourism.
In the Annapurna Conservation Area Projects in Nepal,
improving fuel efficiency is a priority to reduce the
impacts of deforestation [20], [25]. Efforts in the Annapurna Conservation Area Projects are based on strategies
of resource substitution and optimisation of processes
with the use of back-boiler water heaters, and Bijuli
Deckchi heat storage cookers. In Ghandruk, Nepal, the
use of electricity, hydroelectric, solar and kerosene, and
other fuel efficient end-use devices to reduce consumption of firewood are forms of resource substitution. The
Bijuli Dekchi is a low wattage, energy-efficient cooker
developed in Nepal. Water takes an estimated two hours
to fully heat up and the cooker can be used for cooking

321

rice, meat, and other boiled food although it cannot be

used to fry food. The back-boiler water heater is used
to convert waste heat from cooking to heat water. This
simple technology of attaching circulatory pipes to the
drum used for cooking has the potential of saving 40%
of fuel wood consumption.
6.1.3. Integration of CP into management systems for
sustainable tourism
CP could be integrated and internalised into management systems for sustainable tourism to achieve better
results.
Although using CP as an implementation strategy
does not constitute a management system in itself, comparing elements of the implementation process of CP
strategies and programmes shows that these and EMS
share a number of features [26]. It is obvious that there
is no equivalence (e.g. the question of emergency is not
given the same focus by CP as by EMS) but many
elements coincide and both approaches remain complementary. CP implementation requires a management
system focused on efficiency. Similarly, CP implementation provides different explicit tools to understand and
measure waste, discharges and emissions, in addition to
the simple internalisation of CP issues such as proper
house-keeping. In other words, CP provides a means for
management systems to achieve sustainable development in terms of processes, products and services, and
therefore has an important role in implementing sustainable tourism destinations.
6.1.4. CP-based criteria for sustainable tourism
destinations (eco-labelling)
The setting of criteria for eco-labels may consider CPbased options, due to the continual improvement process
to achieve higher environmental standards [27]. CP as a
concept is more rational than pollution control or endof-pipe solutions. Hence setting criteria that considered
CP options would result in improved efficiency.
In order to accelerate this process, policy makers,
pressure groups as well as local community stakeholders
and authorities at destinations could ensure that CP is
adopted, or at least reflected in the criteria-setting process of recognition schemes for destinations. This
reinforces the effectiveness of using CP as a strategy,
and its integration into management systems. It would
ensure that there is a commitment to the preventive
approach at destinations that is required by criteria.
In fact, among existing recognition schemes, it is
unlikely that consumers demand CP-related criteria. In
theory, the local community naturally have the long-term
self-interest to promote sustainable development, compared to the interest from tourists. There is reason therefore to encourage new, progressive and proactive destinations to reflect CP in their criteria because this would

322

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

improve sustainability and hence competitiveness in the

long run.
In other words, instead of expecting CP-based criteria
as the result of continual improvement of criteria standards of eco-labels, these progressive destinations would
ensure that CP is actively integrated in the setting of
targets (short, medium and long term). It is, however,
uncertain how these criteria would be expressed: in
result-oriented standards, or process-oriented standards.
6.1.5. CP and Local Agenda 21
In order to raise public awareness of the potential of
this approach, it is important to introduce the principles
of CP into the arena of LA21. This provides a basis to
apply and internalise CP into stakeholder decision making at all levels (company, and local community). From
this perspective, CP is a part of the process-aiding
method for local sustainability. Components such as
partnership, awareness and participation are needed for
local sustainability [28]. Awareness and capacity-building in CP prepares the destination to implement CP as
a strategy, in management systems as outlined above and
during the decision-making process.
For instance, in Banff and Canmore, two towns from
the Bow Valley Corridor in Canada, the concept of CP
was applied in the implementation of the Canadian
Water Resources Associations Sustainable Principles
for Water Management [29]. In both the towns, the key
success factors are demand side management (such as
water-metering), use of economic instruments, and the
use of sustainability principles in decision making. In
Banff, charging for water consumption was implemented
by investing in the installation of water meters, and conservation equipment such as tap aerator heads, low flow
shower heads, and toilet tank savers. It was estimated
that savings amounted to 16,000 litres per toilet per year.
In Canmore, water related issues were addressed by leak
detection and reduction, a water conservation education
programme, additional water conservation methods and
use of water meters. These show that CP could be
applied by local authorities as well as by industries.
6.2. Benefits of cleaner production
The key benefits of integrating CP into efforts for
achieving sustainable tourism destinations are in terms
of:
building awareness along the lines of the precautionary principle, and promoting a preventive approach,
which is beneficial for implementation of sustainable
tourism destinations;
complementing conventional management systems by
providing a strategy for implementation;
reinforcing eco-label aspects of recognition schemes

for destinations, through the introduction of CPrelated criteria.

7. Analysis and conclusion

Developing sustainable tourism destinations is the
next step forward towards sustainable tourism. It looks
beyond individual performance by businesses, companies, local authorities, and other organisations, to the
holistic and integrated level, where individual performance contributes to the greater goal of sustainable development of the destination. The development of recognition schemes for sustainable tourism destinations
requires the integration of different tools, approaches
and concepts.
This article provides a general outline of the relevant
issues in terms of its conceptual definition. It also provides arguments to integrate different tools and
approaches for reaching the goals of sustainable development at tourism destinations, and a general framework
that promotes a systems approach.
CP, at first glance, appears to be only a general concept. At a closer consideration, however, introducing CP
would contribute to sustainable tourism destinations both
as a concept, and in terms of the practical experience
from CP implementation. In essence, CP acts as a
cementing agent or a common factor that links all
of the tools and concepts mentioned in this article. CP
embodies the precautionary principle, making it an
intuitive concept which appeals to common sense. It
rewards and encourages stakeholders in destinations to
become more sustainable and changes their mindset to
that of a strategic focus for long term sustainability.
In terms of interdependence between the various
approaches needed to implement sustainable tourism
destinations, CP implementation programmes and EMS
share common elements; CP provides strategies for
improving sustainable development for destinations; CP
could be applied in criteria setting for recognition
schemes, and CP elements complements LA21 development.
Therefore, in the general framework suggested above,
CP contributes to the implementation of sustainable tourism destinations in many ways. This supports the argument advanced in this article that an integrated approach,
which adopts and adapts components of each
tool/concept, is needed.
To conclude, CP is shown to be a necessary element
for the development of recognition schemes to promote
sustainable tourism at the level of destinations, by virtue
of its general approach, and by its contributions in complementing and enhancing the effectiveness of other tools,
such as management systems, eco-labelling and Local
Agenda 21. The relevance of CP in developing sus-

K.F. Lee / Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (2001) 313323

tainable tourism destinations demonstrates that CP does

not only promote pollution prevention but also contributes to efforts in sustainable development when applied
in an integrative manner with other tools and concepts.
Indirectly it implies that CP objectives are dependent on
other means, tools and instruments.

[12]
[13]

[14]

Acknowledgements
[15]

Appreciation is expressed to the Swedish Malaysia

Scholarship Fund (SMSF) for sponsoring my M.Sc. in
Environmental Management and Policy, as this article
has been written based on the thesis of the M.Sc. programme.

[16]
[17]

[18]

References
[1] Lee, K. Sustainable Tourism Destinations: Approaches and Methodology. M.Sc. thesis, International Institute for Industrial
Environmental Economics, Lund University, 1999.
[2] UNEP-IE, Eco-labels in the Tourism Industry, 1998.
[3] Butler R. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implication for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer
1980; XXIV(1): 512.
[4] Martin BS, Uysal M. An examination of the relationship between
carrying capacity concept and the tourism lifecycle: management
and policy implications. Journal of Environmental Management
1990; 31: 32733.
[5] Nelson J. Building competitiveness and communities: How world
class companies are creating shareholder value and society value.
Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, 1998.
[6] Lissinger, J. Comparative study of recognition schemes for destinations: Sweden, Denmark and Norway. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Ecology: Lund University, 1999.
[7] Middleton V, Sieber W. Tourism and the environment at the European level a management report prepared for the European
Environment Agency, 1999.
[8] Bruntland Report World Commission on Environment and
Development, Our Common Future. Oxford University Press,
1997.
[9] European Commission. European Sustainable Cities, Report by
the Expert Group on the Urban Environment. DGXI Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection, 1996.
[10] World Conservation Union, UNEP, and World Wide Fund for
Nature. Caring for the Earth. IUCP/UNEP/WWF, Gland, 1991.
[11] International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Local
Agenda 21 Participants Handbook Local Agenda 21 Model

[19]

[20]

[21]
[22]

[23]

[24]
[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]
[29]

323

Communities Programme. Local Environmental Initiatives,

ICLEI, Toronto. 1994.
Welford R. Hijacking Environmentalism. London: Earthscan
Publications Ltd, 1997.
Lang I. Environmental management and sustainable development. In: Nath B, Hens L, Devuyst D, editors. Environmental
Management, vol. 3, Instruments for implementation. Brussels:
VUB University Press, 1993.
Netherwood A, Shayler M. Role of environmental management
systems in local government. In: Welford R, editor. Corporate
Environmental Management, 2nd ed., Book 1 Systems and Strategies. 1998.
WTTC, WTO and Earth Council, Agenda 21 for the Travel and
Tourism Industry, 1997.
Welford R. Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development. Routledge, 1995.
Salzman J. Informing the Green Consumer: The debate over the
use and abuse of environmental labels. Journal of Industrial Ecology 1997; 1(2): 1121.
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Sustainable tourism: a local authority perspective. Background paper
#3, prepared for the Commission on Sustainable Development,
7th Session, New York, April 1999.
Roberts P. Environmentally Sustainable Business: A local and
regional perspective. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd,
1995.
Mountain Agenda. Mountains of the World: Tourism and Sustainable Mountain Development. For the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), Spring Session on Tourism, 1999.
van Berkel R. Cleaner Production in Practice IVAM Environmental Research. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1996.
Kisch P. Preventative Environmental Strategies in the Service
Sector. International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Sweden (due for publication in May 2000).
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
(ICIMOD)
internet
web-site
(http://www.icimod.org.sg/susFoptions/bpFtour.htm on 1 March
2000).
Hanssen OJ. Preventive environmental strategies for product systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 3(4):1996.
Gurung C, De Coursey M. The Annapurna Conservation Area
Project: a pioneering example of sustainable tourism? In: Cater
E, Lowman G, editors. Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? John
Wiley and Sons with Royal Geographical Society, 1994.
Fresner J. Cleaner production as a means for effective environmental management. Journal of Cleaner Production 1998; 6:
17190.
Hale M. Eco-labelling and cleaner production: principles, problems, education and training in relation to the adoption of
environmentally sound production processes, Journal of Cleaner
Production 1995; 4: 8595.
Selman P. Local Sustainability: Managing and Planning Ecological Sound Places. New York: St. Martins Press, 1996.
Draper D. Tourism development and water sustainability, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism 1997; 5(3): 183212.