Tourism and the Precautionary Principle

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 23 November 2014, At: 12:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Tourism and the Precautionary PrincipleDavid A. Fennell & Kevin EbertPublished online: 29 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: David A. Fennell & Kevin Ebert (2004) Tourism and the Precautionary Principle, Journal of SustainableTourism, 12:6, 461-479, DOI: 10.1080/09669580408667249

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580408667249

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09669580408667249

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580408667249

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Tourism and the Precautionary Principle

David A. Fennell and Kevin EbertDepartment of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, St.Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1

The precautionary principle is an emerging norm of international environmentalpolicy affirmed in many treaties and laws. The principle, congruent to the ideal ofsustainable development, is a controversial future-focused planning and regulatorymechanism which mandates that to protect against threats of serious and irreversibledamage, precaution should be exercised even before harm can be scientifically demon-strated. The intent of this paper is to provide a literature review of the precautionaryprinciple, examine the fundamental concepts underlying the principle and present anintroductory discussion regarding its applicability to the tourism industry. Time andagain numerous direct and indirect impacts are produced by the tourism industry, yetthe potential for integrating precaution into tourism planning has not been examined.The authors consider the critical elements of the principle (uncertainty, risk, cost-benefit analysis and science) in relation to the tourism industry, and provide examplesof reference to the principle in the policy documents of non-governmental tourismorganisations. An adapted framework is proposed for incorporating the precautionaryprinciple into better tourism-industry decision-making. The precautionary principle ispredicated as a viable tourism development tool and planning mechanism that safe-guards environmental and human health by anticipating and controlling for futureimpacts of tourism.

Keywords: recautionary principle, tourism, environment, sustainability

IntroductionOver the past 40 years the tourism industry has exhibited remarkable change,

innovation and development. More efficient transportation and technologicaladvancements, coupled with growing affluence, have increased the desire fortravel abroad. Over these years, the prospects of increased foreign revenue andhigher levels of income and employment, as well as greater public sector reve-nues, have been attractive forces catalysing governments to develop newdestinations (Archer, 1996). Unfortunately, such unprecedented growth hasoften been conceived as short-term financial gain, without due regard forlong-term environmental or socio-cultural implications. Hence the paradox oftourism has been revealed: economic gain at the expense of the natural world andlocal identity and traditional cultures (Convention on Biological Diversity[CBD], United Nations Environment Programme, 2001). In recognising theseproblems, there has been a sustained call for better planning and managementwithin the tourism industry, at all levels (Inskeep, 1991).

One planning instrument that has received a great deal of attention recently isthe precautionary principle, a concept which has provided guidance on debatesregarding health and safety, as well as on environmental and resource-management issues. For example, ‘precaution’ is often applied in circumstances

JOST 468

0966-9582/04/06 0461-19 $20.00/0 © 2004 D.A. Fennell & K. EbertJOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 12, No. 6, 2004

461

Tourism and the Precautionary Principle

JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

where chemicals have potentially toxic or bio-accumulative effects, and whereusage could lead to serious physical harm to humans or the environment. It hasthus become an increasingly powerful mechanism for environmental groups toamass political and public support. Intuitively, ‘precaution’ appeals to our senseof controlling risks and detrimental outcomes, designed to address scientificuncertainty in areas where failure to act may lead to future harm or disaster(Kaiser, 1997). Just like sustainable development, precaution puts the onus on thepresent population to address current actions that might involve potential risksand detrimental consequences for future generations. However, although exam-ined in detail in the aforementioned fields, it has received little attention in therealm of tourism. With this in mind, it is the aim of this paper to: (1) provide areview of literature on the precautionary principle, (2) explore the fundamentalconcepts that underlie the precautionary principle, and (3) discuss its applica-bility to tourism.

The Precautionary PrincipleO’Riordan and Cameron (1994) define the precautionary principle as ‘a cultur-

ally framed concept that takes its cue from changing social conceptions about theappropriate roles of science, economics, ethics, politics and the law in pro-activeenvironmental protection and management’ (p. 12). In this regard, precautionhas been extended to include six basic concepts, including (1) preventative antici-pation, (2) safeguarding ecological space, (3) restraint adopted is not undulycostly, (4) duty of care, or onus of proof on those who propose change, (5) promo-tion of the cause of intrinsic natural rights, and (6) paying for past ecological debt.More concisely, precaution is grounded in the need for a ‘premium on a cautiousand conservative approach to human interventions in environmental sectorsthat are (a) usually short on scientific understanding, and (b) usually susceptibleto significant injury, especially irreversible injury’ (Myers, 1993: 74). Vander-Zwaag (1994: 7) writes that there are a number of core elements associated withthe precautionary principle, including:

• a willingness to take action (or no action) in advance of formal scientificproof;

• cost-effectiveness of action that is, some consideration of proportionality ofcosts;

• providing ecological margins of error;• intrinsic value of non-human entities;• a shift in the onus of proof to those who propose change;• concern with future generations;• paying for ecological debts through strict/absolute liability regimes.

The precautionary principle was conceived in Germany (Vorsorgeprinzip,meaning precautionary principle) during the 1970s for the purpose of exercisingforesight in matters of environmental policy and resource protection (seeBoehmer-Christiansen, 1994). It was introduced internationally in 1984 at theFirst International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea (Tickner &Raffensberger, 1998). Since then, the principle has been extended into nationaland international environmental policy by more than 40 countries, and is now

462 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

affirmed in many international treaties and laws (e.g. 1990 Bergen Declaration;1992 Rio Declaration; 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union; The Conven-tion on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna(Dickson, 1999; Ellis, 2000; Freestone & Hey, 1996; Rogers et al., 1997; Tapper,2001)). In 1992, the precautionary principle was incorporated in the EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro. Principle 15 states that:

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall bewidely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there arethreats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certaintyshall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures toprevent environmental degradation. (Van Dyke, 1996: 10)

In a response to this document, VanderZwaag (1999) feels that phrases such as‘according to their capabilities’ are wide open to interpretation. He also ques-tions how threats are to be determined, the role of scientific assessments, whowill make such determinations, and to what extent economic costs should beweighed against environmental benefits. There is also the question of how prin-ciples are to be refined into practice, in much the same way as decision-makershave grappled with how to operationalise the principles of sustainable develop-ment.

In general, precaution appears to be more heavily supported in Europe, whereit forms a basis of environmental law and policy in several European nations (e.g.United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden). In North America, Canada has along-standing history of implementing the precautionary approach in science-based programs of health, safety and natural resources protection (Governmentof Canada, 2001a). For example, discussions on the value of precaution have beentaken up in regard to oceans policy. Canada’s Oceans Act now requires theMinister of Fisheries and Oceans to develop an oceans management strategybased on: (1) sustainable development, (2) integrated management, and (3) theprecautionary approach (as cited in VanderZwaag, 1999). Although the Cana-dian government does not consider the precautionary principle to be a rule ofcustomary international law, in a recent decision of the Supreme Court ofCanada on pesticide use, it was noted that there may currently be sufficient statepractice to allow a good argument for the principle’s induction into internationallaw (Government of Canada, 2001b). In the US, Tickner and Raffensberger (1998)note that the precautionary principle is a relatively new concept, although thegeneral principle of precaution underpins much legislation.

Debating the Precautionary PrincipleIt would be fair to say that the use of the precautionary principle for regulatory

purposes is highly controversial. Although the precautionary principle isthought to make good intuitive sense, there is a current and ongoing debate as toits acceptability and implementation, especially in response to the perceptionthat it stands firmly in the way of economic productivity. The debate has focusedon issues related to uncertainty, risk, cost-benefit analysis, and science, each ofwhich will be considered below.

Tourism and the Precautionary Principle 463

JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

UncertaintyOne of the fundamental challenges facing the precautionary principle is the

fact that uncertainty is prevalent in the decisions that are made about the envi-ronment. This uncertainty can be viewed from two very different perspectives.The first and less fervent version accepts that environmental discharges causeharm that science cannot necessarily prove over time (with links to the burdenand proof of harm). The second, and more radical, version posits that scientificknowledge is indeterminate as regards the effects of humans on the environ-ment. The implications of this perspective lead us to query the level of harm thata discharge might cause as well as whether we really need the process that causesthe harm. Dovers and Handmer (1995) suggest that precaution is important inthis context because it allows us to fly the flag of ignorance and uncertainty, andthus hold the policy fort until such time as a more acceptable framework and abetter understanding are achieved. Similarly, deFur and Kaszuba (2002) observethat uncertainty addressed by the precautionary principle may be included inone of several different aspects of a situation, including: causal factors or sourcesof threats; effects or nature of the threat of harm; cause-and-effect relationships;and long-term or secondary consequences of the decision. Although essentiallyguided by data from analytical and predictive science, the precautionary prin-ciple does recognise and compensate for inherent uncertainty in natural systems,and provides a central paradigm for responsible, timely, definitive preventativeaction (Santillo et al., 1998). Precaution thus attempts to make inherent uncertain-ties explicit (Rogers et al., 1997), where more uncertainty in regards to ananthropocentric influence demands more precaution (Gollier et al., 2000).

As a case in point, Myers (1993) questions how cautious we should be in regardto the level of uncertainty about the effects that some technologies have onspecies or ecosystems. He asks the question: What is legitimate scientific caution inthe face of uncertainty, as concerns the true extinction rate . . . ? Myers observesthat conventional caution can be reckless, with a better tact to be roughly rightthan precisely wrong as regards our assessment of species numbers (at thecurrent rate, Myers suggests that 50% of species will be eliminated by the end ofthis century). His query puts into perspective the degree to which we need to becareful about the uncertainty surrounding species loss. Uncertainty, which maydefined as an event with an unknown probability (Costanza & Cornwell, 1992), isan unacceptable position when it leads to the extinction of species and the disin-tegration of ecosystems. However, if we have some sense of the knownprobability of an event (e.g. one increases the probability of death from lungcancer by one in a million for every 1.4 cigarettes that one smokes (Wilson, 1990:57)), then do we not have a better basis from which to assess harm?

RiskBodansky (1994) observes that risk is a function of the magnitude and proba-

bility of harm. It involves estimates of probabilities about whether certain eventswill occur or not, as outlined above. For example, in adventure recreation risk isnormally understood in two ways. Real risk is the true potential for loss, whereno loss means zero risk, and death relates to extreme risk (Priest, 1999). Real riskcannot be estimated with certainty at any one time. On the other hand, perceived


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

risk amounts to the best estimation of real risk. Those who have gained extensiveexperience of high-risk activities such as mountain-climbing can better under-stand the inherent risk of an activity. Inherent risks are those dangers associatedwith participation in the activity itself. For instance, inherent risks associatedwith mountain-climbing include rock-fall, hidden crevasses and steep, exposedslopes (Whittaker, 1999). Sometimes we have a higher level of confidence aboutrisk, as in the case of a one-in-six chance of dying from a game of Russian roulette;in other cases, such as mountain-climbing, there may be too many complex vari-ables (wind, weather, slope, ice conditions and the human factor) for us to beconfident. This is what makes adventure travel adventurous. These situationsare not too far removed from how we assess risk for technology, especially in caseswhere the general populace is exposed to risk from hazardous products. Thepublic does not choose to participate in Russian roulette, nor does it necessarilywant to be a candidate for a high-altitude climbing expedition. But yet, this is thebasis of what is happening in society, with large corporations choosing to exposethe population to risks without their knowledge of the effects of their enterprises.In outdoor recreation and tourism, the time frame for risk to take effect is quiteshort (seconds, minutes or hours) and observable; with toxins, the time frame isvery long (years, decades and centuries), and therefore difficult to trace. Sometypes of risk are thus quantifiable and comparable, while others are not.

Jensen (2002) points out that perceived risk of harm creates general fear withina population, and reason enough for reacting more restrictively than is required.Thus strong precautionary measures may be applied in situations where uncer-tainty about the possible harm and fear of potential impacts is prominent. Riskassessment, the process agents use to better understand risk, is comprised ofhazard identification and assessment with an exposure assessment, as suggestedin the following by Santillo et al. (1998: 942):

Hazard assessment attempts to define properties inherent in a particularsubstance or activity in quantitative terms, albeit within the limitationsimposed by the range of hazards considered and the methods employed.Risk assessment then turns upon the use of estimates of exposure to thestressor in question in order to arrive at an interpretation of the significanceof the identified hazards as threats to the environment or human health.

This process, however, is constrained by decisions about the identification ofrisks and their measurement. In the same way that an exact assessment of risks isimpossible in high altitude environments (hence the term perceived risk), thesame holds true in risk assessments for policy formulation. We simply do notknow if we have been able to isolate all of the known and potential impacts fromour activities, especially those that create direct, indirect or synergistic impacts.For example, research on toxicity in species may be constrained by the notionthat there can be tremendous variation in genetic susceptibility within popula-tions and ecosystems, not to mention the general liability of findings in labsversus the reality of the real world. The best we can do is formulate perceived riskbased on available information, just as the mountaineer formulates a perceivedrisk based on his or her understanding of the conditions and level of experience.

To this end, Thiele (2000) observes that some environmentalists are philosoph-ically against any form of risk assessment because of its misuse and propensity to


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

serve the interests of those corporations who create involuntary risks (like pollu-tion) rather than of their victims. At the same time, abstaining from an evaluationof risk assessment altogether is unwise, as it maintains status-quo values andpractices. To others such as Morris (2001), the precautionary principle is simplyan excuse for arbitrary restrictions on technologies. Citing the Greenpeacephilosophy of banning substances unless there is proof that such a product willdo no harm to the environment, Morris suggests that it is always possible todetect some level of harm from a substance no matter how slight. The conse-quences of this overreaction to some products that are disliked, according toMorris, is the stifling of technological progress that would make our lives bettermedically and agriculturally.

Cost-benefitThe debate between products deemed beneficial or not beneficial has led to

the belief that cost-benefit analysis should be employed in decisions concerningregulation. For example, the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) hascalled upon the European Union to undertake a cost-benefit analysis when usingthe precautionary principle to regulate a product before health and environmentdangers are proven (Scott, 2000). CEFIC urges policy-makers to use the precau-tionary principle only when there is reputable scientific evidence pointing toserious or irreversible damages. The European Environment Bureau, however,suggests that, in such a case, precaution should be used when there is ‘reasonablesuspicion’ that a product may cause harm.

VanderZwaag (1994) states that one of the most ambiguous aspects of theprecautionary principle is whether cost-benefit analysis is considered to bewithin the scope of the principle. In a recently published white paper on theprecautionary principle, the European Union, siding more with industry, hasmoved to add risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to more accurately gaugethe degree to which precaution must be shown (Scott, 2000).

Environmentalists, who advocate more of an ecocentric interpretation of theconcept – with more accountability on the part of proponents to guarantee noharm from their products – argue that regulators must not use financial methodsto gauge health and environment issues. Conversely, the more utilitarian orinstrumental groups, like industry, push harder for cost-benefit analysis and riskassessments.

Proponents of the precautionary principle advocate that the concept should beapplied where both the probability and the value of irreversible damage areuncertain. However, Rogers et al. (1997) argue that, without such data, a fullcost-benefit analysis is impeded, but the principle can still be applied through adefensive-expenditure approach. This approach examines how much thecommunity would be willing to pay to fund alternatives to maintain the environ-ment’s existing state. The defensive-expenditure approach is then coupled ‘withrisk simulation and the use of stochastic dominance techniques’ to provide asound framework for determining appropriate levels of precautionary action(Rogers et al., 1997: 359).

In this struggle for common ground, governments must be careful whenassessing their role in implementing the precautionary principle to avoidfollowing the conventional paths of least resistance laid down by business inter-


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ests that, because of technology, see profits grow by technology and massconsumption (Thiele, 2000). Policy-makers often avoid the uncertainty perspec-tive, as is evident in their laws and regulations, which are unambiguous andtherefore defensible, and written in absolutely certain terms (Costanza &Cornwell, 1992). These authors note that because governments are increasinglysubject to decisions that fall outside the limits of scientific certainty, uncertaintyshould be accepted as a fundamental aspect of environmental decison-making.

ScienceThe foregoing discussion suggests that science does not always produce data

or establish cause in a timely manner in order to protect human health or theenvironment (CBD, 2001). Precaution emphasises that essential biologicalsystems may be severely damaged, or even irreplaceable, if action to protect isundertaken only once scientific certainty is provided. Thus the principlemandates that once environmental damage or human health is threatened,measures should be taken to control, reduce or avoid negative effects eventhough there may still be scientific uncertainty as to the definitive outcomes ofthe activities (Caribbean Environment Programme, 1993). As a result, precau-tionary action may be undertaken even though negative outcomes may turn outto be unsubstantiated over time.

Kaiser (1997) further notes that researchers must continue to question thedegree of influence that science has on the principle’s implementation. He statesthat further clarification is required in addressing whether the principle circum-vents science and research altogether, or whether it includes the practice ofscience when implementing new rules of environmental management. Gray andBewers (1996) question the acceptance of perception or unsubstantiated suspi-cion of effects, rather than scientific evidence, as sufficient justification for theimplementation of precautionary-principle measures. The question can also beextended to consider whether precaution can be invoked in the future if asubstance is shown to have some negative effect. The authors maintain that theprinciples driving precaution need to be more firmly based on science ratherthan on unsubstantiated perceptions that certain actions might lead to negativeeffects. Thus the authors state that the principle should have a scientific basislinking harm to action before the concept is invoked. From this standpoint,science can provide more pessimistic predictions that rationalise uncertainties inthe context of a comprehensive management framework. However, it has alsobeen noted that most precautionary regulatory measures are already based onsome form of scientific risk assessment, as outlined above (European Environ-ment Agency (EEA), 2001).

Concern has also been raised about the effectiveness of laboratory experimentsin predicting the behaviour of natural systems over time (Kaiser, 1997). Forexample, management of the Canadian northern cod stock during the 1970s and1980s was based on precautionary scientific estimates. The severe underestima-tion of fishing pressure and the failure to incorporate local knowledge, coupledwith a heavy reliance on overestimated stock assessments, resulted in thenorthern cod being fished to a level of commercial extinction. Thus unrealisticexpectations and reliance on scientific conclusions have resulted in the loss of animportant industry (EEA, 2001). Today, the Canadian federal government


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

applies the precautionary approach as a distinctive way of making decisionswithin science-based risk management and ultimately guided by judgement andbased on values and priorities (Government of Canada, 2001b). The precau-tionary principle is consistent with Canadian practice in environmental pro-tection and is increasingly displayed in Canadian environmental legislation,such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

SustainabilityThe general concept of sustainability is analogous to the precautionary prin-

ciple, which Thiele (2000) acknowledges as a practical means of living under anexpanded time horizon, by advancing with circumspection and acting withrestraint. In line with sustainable tourism, the precautionary principle puts theonus on the present population to address current actions that might lead topotential risks and negative outcomes for future generations. In applying theprecautionary principle, deFur and Kaszuba (2002) suggest that concern overlong-term impacts is perhaps the most critical element of environmental deci-sion-making due to limited experience in many situations, accentuated by thefact that the modern era has encountered alterations of a scope and on a scalenever envisioned a few years ago. Similarly to the general concept of sustain-ability, the precautionary principle recognises the importance of pro-action andequity over generations. Moreover, much of the technology applied today hasthe ability to enact drastic short- and long-term changes on the environment,changes which are often not understood or planned for – thus threatening truesustainability.

In acknowledging the close links with the general concept of sustainability, itbecomes evident that adoption of the precautionary principle would fit squarelyinto the sustainable-tourism domain. The precautionary principle and sustain-able tourism are both proactive, holistic and comprehensive approaches whichacknowledge a full range of impacts as well as the rights and needs of all stake-holders affected by development, both now and in the future. However,sustainable tourism policy, much like the precautionary principle, is overtlyvalue-laden and a political issue. Myers (2002) states that the precautionary prin-ciple is more than taking precautions, it is about including values in policychoices, and represents an endorsement of explicit values. Essentially, theprecautionary principle strives to balance scientific evidence with important andwidely accepted social values, such as public health and resource conservation.Holden (2000) argues that gauging the acceptable and unacceptable levels ofenvironmental change and development from tourism will not be quantitativelyfixed, but rather determined by decision-makers. Perhaps policy-makers couldapply the precautionary principle as a stringent mechanism to measure suchlevels with reference to tourism location-specific factors and values, all the whileassessing contemporary scientific evidence and acknowledging the inherentuncertainty.

Tourism and PrecautionGiven how precaution has been applied in other fields, it is prudent to examine

the applicability of the precautionary principle to tourism. Despite its misnomer


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

as ‘the smokeless industry’, tourism has consistently been shown to have animpact on air and water quality, erode soils, create noise pollution, expand thebuilt environment, increase transport networks, disrupt species behaviour inany number of ways, and dislocate human communities – socially, politicallyand economically. The result has been the documentation of literally hundreds ofexamples where tourism has been instituted in an ad hoc fashion, with littleregard to appropriate socio-ecological planning. A classic example of poor devel-opment is Cancun, Mexico, where improper sewage management has pollutedbeaches, natural habitat has been reduced, local residents infrequently experi-ence economic benefits, changes in lifestyles and traditions occur, and increasedcompetition for resources exists (see Daltabuit & Pi-Sunyer, 1990). Governmentsand industry have thus emerged as beneficiaries in this equation, like theproducers of other anthropogenic agents as stated above.

The numerous ecological impacts stemming from tourism will only increase innumber and intensity as domestic and international travel rises. The WorldTourism Organisation’s Tourism 2020 Vision forecast predicts that one out ofevery three trips by 2020 will be a long-haul journey (WTO, 2001). Such futuretourist activities are forecast to be most intense in ‘unspoilt’ natural areas andout-of-the-way places, taking people to the most ecologically fragile parts of theearth (Holden, 2000; Martin, 2000).

Tourism development, especially when it occurs in regions unaccustomed tothe industry (e.g. Antarctica), holds many uncertainties and unknown impacts.Many of these areas are particularly sensitive to change – physically unique areasthat are extremely vulnerable to increased human impact and environmentalchange due to tourism. DeFur and Kaszuba (2002) consider the precautionaryprinciple to be an invaluable tool when policy-makers are forced to make deci-sions with little or no experience or history to draw on. Thus, the precautionaryprinciple may be most applicable in these areas of new tourism development,situations in which it might be especially difficult to predict and prove the fullrange of consequences. Adhering to the sustainability philosophy, the precau-tionary principle could be proactive in assessing impacts accruing from tourismwhile acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in these systems, instead of tryingto modify systems to cope with resulting impacts as they occur.

At present there is a dearth of literature on tourism and the precautionary prin-ciple. While some of the newest texts on tourism planning and developmentmake no mention of precaution, others mention it only in brief. For example,Tribe et al. (2000) mention the concept as a guiding principle for effective policydevelopment, along with the conservation of resources, improvement of envi-ronmental quality, preventing environmental damage, the ‘polluter-pays’principle, and incentive-based policies. A book by Kirstges (1995), in German,also mentions precaution as one of several principles that should be followed bytour operators. Under the heading of Precautionary Principle, Kirstges observesthat there should be an environmental audit for all developments that can causeany negative audits. One of the most noteworthy applications of the precau-tionary principle to tourism is that by Gössling (2001) in his work on sustainablewater use in Zanzibar. He notes that tourism development has placed a signifi-cant level of pressure on the water resources of Zanzibar, including the loweringof the groundwater table, deteriorating water quality and salt-water intrusion.


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gössling recommends a precautionary approach, where by water consumptionwould be reduced to 200 litres of water per bed space, rather than daily averageconsumption levels of 2000 to 3000 litres owing to irrigation, gardens and so on.

Apart from these few cases, precaution appears to be more frequently citedin the tourism-policy documents of various non-governmental organisations.For example, The Wilderness Society (1999) of Australia, in their Tourism andNatural Areas Policy document, make reference to precaution, under Policy 2:

(2) Provision of visitor access to natural areas must not compromise orinfringe on the environmental qualities of the area, or the normal anddesired routine of local communities. It will be determined largely by thevisitor-carrying capacity of an area or the ‘limits of acceptable change’.Where difficulties are encountered in determining visitor-carryingcapacity, the precautionary principle should apply.

The World Wildlife Fund (2002), in its tourism principles and aims, also makesreference to the precautionary principle, as follows:

WWF will promote in particular the precautionary principle; the polluter-pays principle; economic instruments; minimum standards; and environ-mentally sound technologies, especially in sustainable means of travel toreduce fuel consumption and pollution emissions.

The World Wildlife Fund (2001) believes that action must be taken to reduce and,where possible, eliminate negative impacts on natural resources and processes.These actions include limiting tourism-related pollution so as not to exceedecological carrying capacity (i.e. the robustness of habitats and their ability toreplenish extracted resources), including waste-assimilation processes. Tour-ism-related pollution and exploitation must therefore be carefully controlled andregulated, and the precautionary approach should be considered a fundamentalprinciple of tourism development.

The British Columbia Wilderness Tourism Association (2001), in their DraftCode of Practices for BC’s Wilderness Tourism Operators, state the following inreference to the precautionary principle, as the last of 22 statements: ‘Follow theideal of the precautionary principle: When in doubt – Don’t!’

Finally, the Convention on Biological Diversity (2001) has established Interna-tional Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism, for the purpose of assisting stake-holders at all levels in sustainable management. The report indicates that the actof decision making ‘should be a transparent and accountable process to approveor refuse a proposal, and it should always apply to the precautionary principle’(CBD, 2001).

The fact that none of these above-named environmentally-based organisationsfully articulates the conceptual basis of the precautionary principle suggests thatthere is either a tacit understanding of precaution, or perhaps a lack of under-standing of how it might be infused into tourism decision-making. One couldargue that principles such as low impact, sustainability, local control, responsi-bility, non-consumption, and so on, are implicit applications of the precau-tionary principle. In reality, however, what is needed is a more explicitunderstanding of how it applies in a tourism context. As such, the potential forintegrating precaution into tourism planning has yet to be examined.


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

However, in the context of urban planning and development, Counsell (1999)found that proponents of a weak sustainable development see the precautionaryprinciple as an obstacle and a threat to urban planning and development, whilethose who maintain a strong sustainable-development perspective view it asnecessary. In his study of town planning in five regions of England and Wales,Counsell found that respondents (various community stakeholders involved inplanning) were divided over the use of the precautionary principle, with manysuggesting that it has been misapplied, with others feeling that it has no place inplanning. The author attributes this to the notion that socio-economic themesand principles related to sustainable development pose many problems in a tran-sition towards sustainable development. Counsell concludes by observing that,from a planning context, the precautionary principle has a role to play in safe-guarding areas that are inviolable, in ensuring that the overall quality of theenvironment is maintained and, more specifically, in protecting environmentalassets from damaging development.

The aforementioned regard for assets and integrity holds true for communityin general. For example, Rogers et al. (1997) identify a number of cases wherelocal people have been willing to spend money defending their natural envi-ronments from damage from large developments, because they recognise thatthe benefits they receive far outweigh the costs of defence. Such attempts givenfurther credence to the notion that people need not sit idly waiting for someoneelse to decide what is in their better interest. This means that for tourism to betruly representative of a broad number of stakeholder groups, the natural envi-ronment included, many hard questions need to be addressed in regard toappropriate tourism planning, development and management, and howprecaution may guide better decision-making. Some of these questionsinclude:

• What in the community will be sacrificed for this tourism developmententerprise?

• What are the anticipated direct and indirect social, economic and ecologicalimpacts?

• Who inside and outside the community has been consulted, over whatperiod of time?

• Who will be compensated for loss (included here is the environment), andhow? Is the possibility for loss built into the proposal? How?

• What legal or policy directives exist on precaution in the region as they applyto the project?

• What is the political and industry receptivity to the precautionary principle?• How does the precautionary principle interface with other regulatory or

non-regulatory initiatives on tourism and development in the region?• How can precaution be built into these existing structures or vice versa?• What are the opportunities to implement the precautionary principle across

different spatial, political and economic scales?• How can the precautionary principle act as an agent to catalyse a better rela-

tionship between natural and social scientists, different types of science, andmultiple stakeholder groups?


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

• How can the precautionary principle ensure that these groups are allowed tohave more control through equal decision-making power as regards theinfluences on their communities?

• How can the scientific data that drives decision-making be made more acces-sible to the public?

• Have stakeholders taken into consideration the concept of reversibility?Developments should not so damage the integrity of the natural environ-ment that it cannot, over time, be reinstated to its original condition.

• Who has the knowledge to effectively plan with the interests of the commu-nity in mind?

Many of these questions, and the associated issues that are inherent in thesequeries, can be addressed through the following framework for precautionarydecision-making. This framework was initially proposed at the WingspreadConference attended by scientists, academics, policy-makers and environmentaladvocates (adapted here from Tickner & Raffensberger, 1998). Proposed stepsfor incorporating the precautionary principle for better tourism industry deci-sion-making include:

(1) Define the general duty to take precautionary action. This involves the adoptionof a corporate or industry-wide duty to take precautionary action in the faceof scientific uncertainty where there is a threat to human health or the envi-ronment. The concept of human health could be expanded to include anassessment of how tourism developments, for example, have transformativeimpacts on the ecology and customs of local communities.

(2) Set aggressive goals/vision for achieving sustainability (backcasting). This stepinvolves the establishment of clear and measurable goals from which todrive innovative best practices within the industry. The establishment ofvision statements, which cut across sectors of the tourism industry andprovide the mechanism by which to develop effective goals and objectives,should be likened to a road map that provides a way to the future.

(3) Assume responsibility for demonstrating the safety of products and processes. Tour-ism-industry stakeholders involved in the planning, development andmanagement of the tourism industry must demonstrate the safety of theiroperations before engaging in such activities. The choice of technology,materials and products is paramount in demonstrating that their activitieshave a limited impact on people and natural resources.

(4) Create criteria for decision-making under uncertainty. Companies will need tocreate and adhere to criteria that will guide decision-making where harm topeople or natural resources is a possibility. Indicators of sustainability andother such tools will need to be employed for the purpose of determiningwhat type of evidence to weigh in assessing impacts and how to do it?

(5) Use tools for implementing precautionary, preventative approaches. There arenumerous tools for carrying out precautionary policies, including; (a) cleanproduction and pollution prevention, (b) corporate product phase-outs, (c)strict standards within the firm, and (d) alternative assessments. The recentfocus on environmental management systems will provide direction in thisregard.


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(6) Use the ‘polluter-pays’ principle. This principle, which places responsibility onthe shoulders of the offending party, demands that such parties pay the costsof the damage they cause. One mechanism that has garnered a high level ofsupport is assurance bonding. Companies are required to pay a premiumbefore undertaking a project, which is based on the worst potential damagethat might occur from the development. If no damage occurs, the bond isreturned to the developer (see Box 1).


JOST 468

Costanza and Cornwell (1992) write that flexible environmental assurancebonds remove uncertainty surrounding development and technology. Thisincentive-based instrument works by:

charging an economic agent directly for known environmentaldamages and levying an assurance bond equal to the current best esti-mate of the largest potential future environmental damages. The bondwould be kept in an interest-bearing escrow account for a predeter-mined length of time. In keeping with the precautionary principle, thissystem requires a commitment of resources up front to offset the poten-tially catastrophic future effects of current activity. Portions of the bond(plus interest) would be returned if and when the agent could demon-strate that the expected worst-case damages had not occurred or wouldbe less than originally assessed. If damages did occur, portions of thebond would be used to rehabilitate or repair the environment andpossibly to compensate injured parties (p. 16–17).

Such a system transfers the burden of proof, as well as the cost of the uncer-tainty, to the resource user, as suggested by the authors, in providing anelement of corporate responsibility and accountability. Watzold (2000)suggests that such bonds are applicable in situations where the range andprobability distribution of the future effects of present actions are unknown.Who administers the bond is subject to debate, but could possibly be handledby environmental protection agencies (government), perhaps in associationwith another stakeholder group.

The authors admit that such an undertaking might favour large busi-nesses, which would be able to post the bond. Smaller companies might beruled out because of their inability to take financial responsibility for theirimpacts on the environment; they might therefore pass on the cost of thechange to the public. In defence of the small company, the authors suggestthat these entities might either band together or perhaps use more environ-mentally benign technologies that do not require large assurance bonds.While such a proposal might be difficult to implement for political and prac-tical reasons, it could be more favourably received if it were used in caseswhere developments are seen to have rather defined temporal contexts, ascompared to the introduction of, for example, new chemicals that might bedifficult to detect for years.

Box 1 Flexible environmental insurance bonds

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(7) Develop a scheme to systematically evaluate alternative activities, technologies,chemicals, etc. A systematic and comprehensive scheme must be initiated toexamine the impacts of alternatives to potentially hazardous activities. Thisinvolves an examination of the entire life cycle of the product (see Butler,1980). For example, in order to prevent one impact while creating another,developers must take care that the substitutes they use are not more harmfulthan the original product (e.g. an external wood product which althoughcheaper, is not able to withstand the conditions of the environment in whichit is used). This becomes especially salient in a tourism context, wheretourism developments have life cycles of many years.

(8) Assume a duty to monitor, understand, investigate, inform and act. Tourism busi-nesses have an obligation to continuously investigate and understand theirpotential impacts. Ignorance is unacceptable. This calls for more science bywhich to understand how developments affect people, sites, communitiesand regions. What is not measured cannot be managed. Consequently,companies should be responsible for periodic assessments and audits oftheir initiatives, over the long term. This means that communities must insistthat developers must be accountable for their projects over the long run.

(9) Employ participative corporate decision-making. Just as decision-making withina firm is enriched by many perspectives, tourism-industry developmentdecisions must be open to those who are often affected by the initiative. Thismeans involvement by the development firm, governments, communitymembers, and so on. In particular, community experience-based judgement– and the socio-ecological values inherent in such judgement – may be essen-tial in the transfer of knowledge between stakeholder groups.

DiscussionOf particular relevance to tourism planning and development is the belief that

precaution is here to stay (VanderZwaag, 1999). The breadth of discussion onprecaution and its inclusion as a principle in many international conventionsserve notice that it holds potential in standing up to the many uncertainties thatexist in human-environment relationships. However, as with sustainability,there appears to be a void between what industry, environmentalists andgovernments want. For tourism this means that the international communitywill need a period of time in order to determine the relevance, application andmeaning of the precautionary approach. Such an argument becomes moreimportant as a result of the magnitude and projected growth of the tourismindustry and its ability to act as an agent of social and ecological change.

In recognising the existence of uncertainty and change within the tourismindustry, the precautionary principle may be most applicable as it allows foridentification of the dynamic nature of systems. Hall (1995) and Faulkner (1998)argue that conventional Newtonian/Cartesian approaches to tourism researchare more in step with studying relatively stable systems, resulting in an inade-quate understanding of the dynamics of change and chaotic phases of tourismdevelopment. In contrast to the traditional reductionist approaches to researchon tourism-destination development, Russell and Faulkner (1999) suggest thatChaos/Complexity Theories provide a sound alternative perspective because


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

they recognise that systems are innately complex (i.e. non-linear), unstable anddynamic/life-like. Tourism is an integrated system in which many elements arelinked (e.g. environmental protection, economic viability) – thus changes in oneelement affect the other elements (Swarbrooke, 1999). In line with Chaos/Complexity Theories, the precautionary principle also acknowledges the possi-bility of change, instability and uncertainty in systems.

The precautionary principle does not directly offer explanations about how itshould be applied, but rather raises important questions about the level of riskthat is acceptable, what constitutes a serious/irreversible threat, and how muchuncertainty we can accommodate. The implementation of the precautionaryprinciple is thus a central issue to be resolved if the concept is going to be morewidely accepted. But implementation naturally begs a number of questions:Who will implement? How will they implement? What level of expertise isrequired to implement? This final question is especially important. After all, oneneed only look at the legacy of tourism to question process and end result. Whatpasses for ‘highly trained’ and ‘expert’ has too often reduced complex systems orentities to individual pieces for the purpose of making decisions, without anyeffort being made to ask essential questions about the whole. In the absence ofdefinitive expertise, as inferred above, politicians must still make decisions. Theycannot sit idle and thus leave themselves open to criticism about not being activeenough in policy making, spending and research and development. There comesa time for action, even though there is danger in the implications of such action.To politicians, it seems better to suffer criticism at a later date – when they mightnot be in power – than to suffer it at a time when they are attempting to consoli-date authority and popularity.

That the precautionary principle has led to a backlash is not surprising,because it accentuates the process of pulling back the reins on unfettered growth.So, while no caution is dangerous, too much caution might be equally counter-productive. This might have been the case when Greenpeace successfullyencouraged European Union environment ministers to hold-up the commercialgrowing of genetically modified crops. This came about as a result of a singlepiece of research, published in Nature, which indicated that some monarchbutterfly larvae fed with genetically modified maize died (Kellow, 1999). Oppo-nents suggested that there is a fear that, if taken too far in the other direction,science will have no role to play in qualifying the usefulness of certain products(see Cohen, 2001). Scientific proof has thus become a burden and a barrier in theprotection of the environment and people. At the same time, however, theremust be the realisation that market forces, left on their own, cannot alone run theeconomy. Slowly, and with little respect for time (time to ask the right questions,to follow process and to consider impacts over longer periods), there has been asteady erosion of a market culture, which is no longer respectful of the rule oflaw. As such, corporate actions, whether tourism or non-tourism, have signifi-cant effects on quality of life, particularly in Less Developed Countries (LDCs). Inthis regard, O’Riordan and Cameron (1994) state that it is the rich nations, whosewealth has come at the expense of LDCs, which should have a moral responsi-bility to follow a sustainable and precautionary philosophy for the betterment ofthe planet. There is no artificial surrogate for what the planet creates and main-tains naturally.


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

One of the main constraints on the implementation of precaution is that aprecise definition is far from clear, even though it has acquired the standing of apolitical/moral norm (Kaiser, 1997). Thus increased attention should be paid towhat the precautionary principle actually means to tourism, and, in particular, tohow it can be operationalised. Also, the use of the precautionary principle forregulatory purposes is highly controversial. Some stakeholders express trepida-tion about the misuse or abuse of the precautionary principle, as evidenced bythe volume of recent debate on the concept. Certain groups feel that it could beapplied to perceived risks for which there is no firm scientific foundation. ManyEuropean industries view the precautionary principle less and less as an accept-able risk-management approach, and increasingly as a tool for the more radicalenvironment and health advocates. This disenchantment is intensified both byless control over interpretation of ‘precaution’ by regulatory bodies, and byseeing the precautionary principle become a feature of arguments employed bythose with very different world views (EEA, 2001).

In contrast, other stakeholders, including public citizens and advocacygroups, liken the principle to an ‘extra measure of care’, one that can lead to morecomplete and rigorous decision-making (Government of Canada, 2001b). Propo-nents of the principle feel that by implementing it, industry will be forced to bemore creative and produce more environmentally-friendly products, pointingout that nations that use it are able to make sound business decisions. Otherspoint out that in fact the precautionary principle not only reduces regulatorycosts, but it also achieves a cleaner environment at less cost to society. Indeed, thecosts of preventative action are usually tangible, clearly allocated and oftenshort-term, whereas the costs of neglect are less tangible, less clearly designatedand usually long-term (EEA, 2001).

Depending on one’s perspective, the precautionary principle might serve oneof a few different functions in the face of uncertainty. Taking the side of an envi-ronmentalist, at its best the precautionary principle stands steadfast as amechanism that will force agents, through law and/or policy, to conform tomany emerging environmental and health standards. Taking the middleground, it may act as a heuristic devise, allowing for careful introspection overthe pros and cons of various tourism developments and products. At its worst,precaution will either get hung up and ultimately shelved as a political anachro-nism, or be forced, via corporate efforts, to be a slave to an abundance of riskassessments and cost-benefit analyses.

ConclusionAs global demands for space and resources continue to grow, the tourism

industry continues to be criticised for failing to adopt practices aimed atachieving sustainability (McCool & Moisey, 2001; Swarbrooke, 1999). This chal-lenge must be met by a variety of means, including environmental regulations,codes of conduct and action plans, as well as by convincing tourists and tourismoperators of the imperative to develop a commitment to sustainable manage-ment. The increasing pressure of tourism-related activities on water and marineresources, on land and landscape, and on wildlife and habitat (UNESCO, 2000)dictates that the tourism industry adopt planning mechanisms guided by


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

sustainability measures that control for and mitigate threats accruing fromtourism development. The precautionary principle may serve as a planning toolthat actualises the imperative of sustainability, effectively managing tourism in amore proactive, future-focused manner while acknowledging the uncertaintyinherent in tourism-related development and activities. However, the inherentconservatism of the concept may also lead to negative effects, especially in adevelopment-project-led industry. Nonetheless, the fear of conservatism issomething to bear in mind, not a reason to disregard the concept.

Since tourism development is continuously encroaching onto less populatedand more pristine environments, science is often unable to provide data or causallinks connecting action to harm in these new, unique areas. Thus the precau-tionary principle can be employed as a decision-making tool within tourismdevelopment which safeguards environmental and human health. The pro-posed framework discussed earlier for incorporating the precautionaryprinciple into better decision-making for the tourism industry illustrates the rele-vance and potential applicability of the principle.

The future prospects for the continued and increased use of the precautionaryprinciple to protect the environment and human health appear to be excellent,especially when such issues alter dramatically as a result of new knowledge(deFur & Kaszuba, 2002). Even with society’s increased thirst for scientific ratio-nale and evidence, researchers feel that science will only reduce uncertainty, andnever eliminate it, thus requiring tools and guidelines (e.g. the precautionaryprinciple) for decisions in which science is inadequate or inconclusive. At thesame time, humanity must anticipate and, in the words of O’Riordan andCameron (1994), garner a precautionary sensitivity in individuals and theiroffspring as a manner of every day life. Indeed, those who are truly future-focused will appreciate the words of Confucius, who said, ‘the cautious seldomerr’. When it comes to the well-being of tourism destinations, and the people andnatural resources that comprise these areas, the adage: ‘an ounce of prevention isworth a pound of cure’ has perhaps never been so meaningful.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Dr D.A. Fennell, Department of

Recreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario,Canada, L2S 3A1 ([email protected]).

ReferencesArcher, B. (1996) Sustainable tourism – do economists really care? Progress in Tourism and

Hospitality Research 2 (3–4), 217–22.Bodansky, D. (1994) The precautionary principle in US environmental law. In T.

O’Riordan and J. Cameron (eds) Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (pp. 203–28).London: Earthscan.

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994) The precautionary principle in Germany – Enablinggovernment. In T. O’Riordan and J. Cameron (eds) Interpreting the Precautionary Prin-ciple (pp. 31–60). London: Earthscan.

British Columbia Wilderness Tourism Association (2001) Draft code of practices for BC’swilderness tourism operators. On WWW at http://www.wilderness-tourism.bc.ca/code.html.

Butler, R.W. (1980) The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications formanagement of resources. Canadian Geographer 14 (1), 5–12.


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Caribbean Environment Programme (1993) Relevance and Application of the Principle ofPrecautionary Action to the Caribbean Environment Programme. Technical Report No. 21.On WWW at .

Cohen, B.R. (2001) The safety Nazis. American Spectator 34 (6), 16.CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), United Nations Environment Programme

(2001) Biological Diversity and Tourism: International Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism.On WWW at http://www.biodv.org/programmes/socio-eco/tourism/guidelines.asp.

Costanza, R. and Cornwell, L. (1992) The 4P approach to living with scientific uncertainty.Environment 34 (9), 12–20, 42.

Counsell, D. (1999) Sustainable development and structure plans in England and Wales:Operationalizing the themes and principles. Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement 42 (1), 45–61.

Daltabuit, M. and Pi-Sunyer, O. (1990) Tourism development in Quintana Roo, Mexico.Cultural Survival Quarterly 14 (1), 9–13.

DeFur, P. and Kaszuba, M. (2002) Implementing the precautionary principle. The Science ofthe Total Environment 288, 155–65.

Dickson, B. (1999) The precautionary principle in CITES: A critical assessment. NaturalResources Journal 39, 211–28.

Dovers, S.R. and Handmer, J. (1995) Ignorance, the precautionary principle andsustainability. Ambio 24 (2), 92–7.

Ellis, J. (2000) The precautionary principle: From paradigm to rule of law. International Law2, 127–9.

European Environment Agency, (Harremoes, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A.,Keys, J.,Wynne, B. and Guedes Vaz, S.) (eds) (2001) Late Lessons From Early Warnings:The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications ofthe European Committees.

Faulkner, B. (1998) Introduction. In E. Laws, B. Faulkner and G. Moscardo (eds) Embracingand Managing Change in Tourism: International Case Studies (pp. 1–10). London:Routledge.

Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (1996) Origins and development of the precautionary principle.In D. Freestone and E. Hey (eds) The Precautionary Principle and Environmental Law: TheChallenge of Implementation (pp. 3–12). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Gollier, C., Jullien, B. and Treich, N. (2000) Scientific progress and irreversibility: Aneconomic interpretation of the ‘precautionary principle’. Journal of Public Economics 75,229–53.

Gössling, S. (2001) The consequences of tourism for sustainable water use on a tropicalisland: Zanzibar, Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Management 61, 179–91.

Government of Canada (2001a) A Canadian perspective on the precautionary approach/principle proposed guiding principles. On WWW at http://www.ncr.dfo.ca/cppa/HTML/booklet_e.htm.

Government of Canada (2001b) A Canadian perspective on the precautionary principle/approach. On WWW at http://cppa/HTML/Pamphlet_e.htm.

Gray, J. and Bewers, J. (1996) Towards a scientific definition of the precautionary prin-ciple. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32 (11), 768–71.

Hall, C.M. (1995) In search of common ground: Reflections on sustainability andcomplexity and process in the tourism system – a discussion between C. Michael Halland Richard W. Butler. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3 (2), 99–105.

Holden, A. (2000) Environment and Tourism. London: Routledge.Hunt, J.S. and Wurdinger, S.D. (1999) Ethics and adventure programming. In J.C. Miles

and S. Priest (eds) Adventure Programming (pp. 123–31). State College, PA: Venture.Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach.

New York: Wiley.Jensen, K. (2002) The moral foundation of the precautionary principle. Journal of Agricul-

tural and Environmental Ethic 15, 39–55.Kaiser, M. (1997) The precautionary principle and its implications for science. Foundations

of Science 2, 201–5.Kellow, A. (1999) The flap over butterflies. IPA Review 51 (3), 17.


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Kirstges, T. (1995) Sanfter Tourismus (2nd edn). Munich: Oldenbourg.Martin, A. (2000) Making tourism sustainable. UNESCO Sources 120, 10–12.McCool, S.F. and Moisey, R.N. (eds) (2001) Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: Linking

Culture and the Environment. New York: CABI.Morris, J. (2001) Focus on the precautionary principle. Review – Institute of Public Affairs 53

(1), 8–9.Myers, N. (1993) Biodiversity and the precautionary principle. Ambio 22 (2–3), 74–9.Myers, N. (2002) The precautionary principle puts values first. Bulletin of Science, Tech-

nology & Society 22 (3), 210–19.O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (1994) The history and contemporary significance of the

precautionary principle. In T. O’Riordan and J. Cameron (eds) Interpreting the Precau-tionary Principle (pp. 12–30). London: Earthscan.

Priest, S. (1999) The semantics of adventure programming. In J.C. Miles and S. Priest (eds)Adventure Programs (pp. 111–14). State College, PA: Venture.

Rogers, M.F., Sinden, J.A. and De Lacy, T. (1997) The precautionary principle for environ-mental management; A defensive-expenditure application. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 51, 343–60.

Russell, R., and Faulkner, B. (1999) Movers and shakers: Chaos makers in tourism devel-opment. Tourism Management 20 (4), 411–23.

Santillo, D., Stringer, R.L., Johnston, P.A. and Tickner, J. (1998) The precautionary prin-ciple: Protecting against failures of scientific method and risk assessment. MarinePollution Bulletin 36 (12), 939–50.

Scott, A. (2000) Price the precautionary principle. Chemical Week 162 (1), 48.Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford: CABI.Tapper, R. (2001) Tourism and socio-economic development: UK tour operators’ business

approaches in the context of the new international agenda. International Journal ofTourism Research 3, 351–66.

Thiele, L.P. (2000) Limiting risks: Environmental ethics as a policy primer. Policy StudiesJournal 28 (3), 540–57.

Tickner, J. and Raffensberger, C. (1998) The precautionary principle: A framework forsustainable business decision-making. Environmental Policy 5 (4), 75–82.

Tribe, J., Font, X., Griffiths, N., Vickery, R. and Yale, K. (2000) Environmental Managementfor Rural Tourism and Recreation. London: Cassell.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2000)Sustainable tourism and the environment. Connect: UNESCO International Science, Tech-nology & Environmental Education Newsletter 25 (1), 1–3.

VanderZwaag, D. (1994) CEPA and the Precautionary Principle/Approach. Hull, Quebec:Minister of Supply and Services.

VanderZwaag, D. (1999) The precautionary principle in environmental law and policy:Elusive rhetoric and first embraces. Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 8, 355–75.

Van Dyke, J.M. (1996) The Rio principles and our responsibilities of ocean stewardship.Ocean and Coastal Management 31 (1), 1–23.

Watzold, F. (2000) Efficiency and applicability of economic concepts dealing with envi-ronmental risk and ignorance. Ecological Economics 33, 299–311.

Whittaker, P. (1999) Safe and sound. Outdoor Retailer 19 (5), 50–51.Wilderness Society (1999) Tourism in natural areas policy. On WWW at http://

www.wilderness.org.au/member/tws/projects/Policies/tourism.html.Wilson, R. (1990) Analysing the daily risks of life. In T. Glickman and M. Giugh (eds) Read-

ings in Risk (pp. 55–9). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.World Tourism Organization. (2001) Tourism 2020 Vision – Global Forecast and Profiles of

Market Segments. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.World Wildlife Fund (2001) Position statement on tourism. On WWW at http://

www.panda.org/resources/publications/sustainability/tourism/tourpp.doc.World Wildlife Fund (2002) Tourism. On WWW at http://www.Panda.org/resources/

publications/sustainability/tourism/will.html.


JOST 468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

2:42

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Tourism and the Precautionary Principle