Monitoring Destination Sustainability: The Case of Hawaii by: Daniel M. Spencer, Ph.D. Professor of Tourism School of Travel Industry Management University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, HI USA 96822 Paper presented at the 44 th Annual International Conference of the Travel and Tourism Research Association Kansas City, MO June 22, 2013
Monitoring Destination Sustainability: The Case of Hawaii Daniel M. Spencer School of Travel Industry Management University of Hawaii at Manoa ABSTRACT This paper presents a case study of identifying, assembling, and monitoring indicators of the sustainability of tourism in Hawaii. The selected indicators represented each component of the triple bottom line of economic viability, sociocultural acceptability, and environmental integrity as related to tourism in the Aloha State. Furthermore, since the sustainability of tourism in Hawaii is inextricably linked to the sustainability of Hawaii in general, which, in turn, is inextricably linked to the sustainability of the world, separate sets of macro-, meso-, and micro- indicators of the sustainability of the world, of Hawaii, and of tourism in Hawaii, respectively, were monitored. The results for each such set of indicators were generally mixed, with trends in some indicators displaying upward trajectories and others the opposite. However, on balance the analysis suggests a gradual deterioration in the sustainability of tourism in the state. Keywords: Tourism, sustainability, monitoring, indicators, impacts, Hawaii. INTRODUCTION Any destination seeking sustainable tourism within its borders must identify and monitor key indicators of the sustainability of this activity (Weaver and Lawton, 2010). Although many case studies of developing such indicators have been published (e.g., United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2004), there is always room for improvement in conceptualization and technique. The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of identifying, assembling, and analyzing a set of valid and reliable indicators of the sustainability of tourism in Hawaii that will hopefully stimulate and facilitate further work in this area. METHODS Sustainability in a destination can be achieved only if the tourism-related businesses within it are profitable, the host community supports their operations, and the environmental integrity of the destination is maintained (Weaver, 2006). Accordingly, indicators of the triple bottom line of economic viability, sociocultural acceptability, and environmental integrity of tourism in Hawaii were sought. Furthermore, since the sustainability of tourism in Hawaii is inextricably linked to the sustainability of Hawaii in general, which, in turn, is inextricably linked to the sustainability of the world, separate sets of macro-, meso-, and micro- indicators of the sustainability of the world, of Hawaii, and of tourism in Hawaii, respectively, were created (Figure 1).
A list of all indicators and their sources is provided in Table 1. To permit comparisons of trends in indicators measured in differing units, the values comprising a given indicator were converted to index numbers, or percentages of a given indicator s base year values, prior to being plotted. In the legends of trend graphs, statistics are reported on average annual change (AAC) to summarize the rate of change in each trend. AAC is the same as the amount of compound interest necessary to get from the starting point to the ending point of a trend. These same AAC statistics are referenced in the narrative using phrases to the effect that a given indicator during the period studied changed at an average annual rate of x%. Whenever possible, a base year of 1995 was used. However, in the case of some analyses a lack of older data for some indicators necessitated a base year of 2004. RESULTS Trends in macro-indicators were mixed. During 1995-2011, global international visitor arrivals and nominal global international tourist receipts increased at average annual rates (AARs) of 4.0% and 6.1%, respectively, outpacing world population and real global GDP per capita, which grew at AARs of 1.3% and 1.5%, respectively (Figure 2). The NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme Climate-Change Index grew at AARs of 1.3% and 5.2%, respectively. The real price of oil imported into the U.S. outpaced all other trends with an AAR of 9.1%. While increases in international tourist receipts at rates in excess of population growth and real GDP per capita bode well for Hawaii s visitor industry, the increases in indicators of global warming are cause for concern. Trends in meso-indicators were also mixed. On the positive side, pounds of fish landed per commercial fisher increased at an AAR of 1.9%, while pounds of toxic chemicals released and mean sea levels declined at AARs of 3.9% and 9.7%, respectively (Figure 3). (Mean sea levels in Hawaii for 1980-2011 show repeated oscillations and an AAC of -0.4%.) On the negative side, de facto population and number of vehicle-miles traveled increased at AARs of 1.0% and 1.3%, respectively; real GDP per capita declined at an AAR of 0.2%; real fossil fuel expenditures increased at an AAR of 3.6%; the number of threatened or endangered species in Hawaii increased at an AAR of 2.9%; and Monk Seal births declined at an AAR of 3.6%. Trends in micro-indicators were more negative than positive (Figure 4). Although the percentage of Hawaii s visitors that rated their experience excellent increased at an AAR of 1.6%, aggregate attraction attendance and real air visitor expenditures declined at AARs of 1.4% and 1.7%, respectively. Moreover, the estimated percentage of the resident population that agreed with the telephone survey statement, this island is being run for tourists at the expense of local people increased at an AAR of 0.8%. The Hawaii Tourism Impact Index included in Figure 4 was created on an exploratory basis to simultaneously monitor components of the triple bottom line of tourism sustainability in Hawaii and each of its main islands. Drawing initial inspiration from McElroy and de Albuquerque (1998), the index was conceptualized as per capita economic benefits minus per capita sociocultural and environmental costs, adjusted for variations in the sizes of the six main inhabited Hawaiian islands (Kauai, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, Oahu, and the Big Island of Hawaii). For a given island, economic benefits were estimated as real visitor spending per
resident and environmental costs were estimated as the number of accommodations units (of all types) per square kilometer (sq. km.). Since Native Hawaiians tend to have less favorable attitudes toward tourism than other ethnic groups in Hawaii (OmniTrak Group, 2009), sociocultural costs for a given island were separately estimated as average daily visitors per 1,000 Native Hawaiians per sq. km. and average daily visitors per 1,000 non-native Hawaiians per sq. km. Since these variables were measured in different units, to construct the HTII the raw data for a given variable were first normalized into values between 0.0 and 1.0 using the Min-Max method. The minimum value was set to 0.0, the maximum value was set to 1.0, and the normalized value was computed as the original value minus the minimum, divided by the range of values. After normalizing the variables, the HTII was constructed for each island using the following formula: HTII = normalized (real visitor spending/resident) - ((normalized avg. daily visitors/1,000 Native Hawaiians)/km 2 ) - ((normalized avg. daily visitors/1,000 non-native Hawaiians)/km 2 ) - (normalized accommodations units of all types/km 2 ) The results revealed that none of the islands tourism sustainabilities, as conceptualized and operationalized above, have fluctuated dramatically in recent years. They further revealed that sustainability was highest on the island of Hawaii, lower on Maui, Kauai, and Molokai, and lowest on Lanai and Oahu (Figure 5). These levels of sustainability correspond roughly to those reported in a non-scientific survey of opinion leaders conducted by National Geographic Traveler (Tourtellot, 2007), lending a degree of face validity to the findings. Work is currently underway to test the effects of alternative methods of normalization and to externally validate the index using scientific survey data. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Space constraints permit discussion of only a couple of noteworthy study limitations. First, the visitor-to-resident ratio, although widely used in the tourism field, is a very crude indicator of social impacts. The spatial distribution of tourists within a destination area, the types of activities in which they participate, and the cultural differences between tourists and residents obviously affect the depth and breadth of such impacts (Christ, et al., 2003). Second, in some cases the impacts of tourism may have been so lagged that the effects were not apparent during the time periods selected for study. For example, the impact of tourism on coral reef ecology may take years to develop (Dahl, 1981). Neither significant progress nor failure in achieving sustainable tourism in Hawaii is evident from this analysis, but on balance the results suggest a gradual deterioration in the sustainability of tourism in the state. Thus, tourism in Hawaii may not be in crisis but it does appear to be in trouble. The state s visitor industry can choose to construe the absence of crisis either as license for complacency or an opportunity to invest further in sustainability before increasing international competition, peak oil, rising sea levels, bad publicity from species extinctions, loss of resident aloha, and other problems simultaneously confront it.
REFERENCES Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S., and Sweeting, J. (2003). Tourism and biodiversity: Mapping tourism s global footprint. Washington, D.C.: Conservation International. Dahl, A. L. (1981). Coral Reef Monitoring Handbook. Noumea: South Pacific Commission. Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. 2010. 2009 The State of Hawai i data book: A statistical abstract. Hawai i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism: Honolulu. Hawaii Tourism Authority. 2010. 2010 annual visitor research report. Hawai i Tourism Authority: Honolulu. McElroy, J. and de Albuquerque, K. (1998). Tourism penetration index in small Caribbean islands. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1): 145-168. OmniTrak Group. 2009. Resident sentiment survey. Prepared for Hawai i Tourism Authority. OmniTrak Group, Inc.: Honolulu. Tourtellot, J. (2007, November/December). Places rated: 111 islands. National Geographic Traveler, 109-127. United Nations World Tourism Organization (2004). Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destinations: A guidebook. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organization. Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism: Theory and practice. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd. Weaver, D. and Lawton, L. (2010). Tourism Management. 4 th edition. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons Australia.