THE IMPACT OF TOURISM IN SMALL ISLANDS: A GLOBAL COMPARISON*

Jerome L. McElroy

Professor of Economics

Department of Business Administration and Economics

Saint Mary’s College

Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-5001 USA

Introduction

Without an early warning system in place, island decision-makers rush to embrace

the varied economic benefits of tourism but fail to anticipate the destructive intrusions

of mass tourism practice: in particular, how the interplay of inadequate facility, infra-

structure, and amenity planning and management, with the high-volume propensity of

capital-intensive travel interests, tends to cumulatively overrun the delicate insular

carrying capacity. (McElroy and de Albuquerque, 1998: 164)

Two postwar forces have transformed the world of small islands, roughly speaking those less than one million in population and 20,000 km2 in area. They are the global spread of international tourism and the restructuring of insular economies. Since 1950 tourism has grown

about five percent per year into the largest global industry representing ten percent of world GDP and employment and seven percent of capital spending (Vellas and Bercherel, 1995). This same

period has witnessed the reorientation of small tropical island economies away from traditional export staples like sugar and copra toward mass tourism development, related construction and financial services.

Nowhere has this transformation proceeded further than in the Mediterranean, Caribbean and Northern Pacific destinations, the so-called “Pleasure Periphery” of Europe, North America and Japan (Turner and Ash, 1976). Recent research, however, has emphasized the socio-environmental damage of over-rapid mass tourism development particularly in the smaller more accessible and popular resort islands (Briguglio and others, 1996). In the Mediterranean, such negative impacts have included deforestation, beach alteration, near-shore pollution and reef destruction (Priestly and others, 1996; Williams and Shaw, 1991)., and paralyzing summer crowding and other socio-cultural intrusions that threaten insular lifestyles and identity (Lanfant and others, 1995). In the Caribbean, the scarring of mountains with condominium developments and road networks has caused widespread erosion and wildlife extinction (McElroy and others, 1990). The concentration of large infrastructure and resort complexes along delicate coastlines has destroyed mangroves and beaches and caused lagoon pollution from sand mining, dredging, and sewage dumping (Wilkinson, 1989). In popular Pacific destinations, delicate mangroves have been harvested for construction material and reefs severely damaged by visitor trampling and collecting (Lobban and Shefter, 1997).

______________________________________________________________________________

*Entretiens de Port Cros Biodiversity and Tourism Symposium, “Placing Tourism in the Landscape of Diversities:

A Dialogie between Nature and Culture,” TOTAL Foundation, Port Cros, French Mediterranean (20-23 September 2000).

Scope

Such experiences question whether island tourism is sustainable or a self-destruct process that will end another short-lived chapter in the long boom-bust history of tropical island economies. This paper focuses on the nexus between tourism and bio-cultural diversity. As a working definition taken loosely from the basics of the Bruntland Report (WCED, 1967), it assumes what could be called tourism’s four-cornered “Diamond of Sustainability”: (1) durable natural and cultural assets, (2) improved host life quality, (3) enduring visitor enjoyment, and (4) long-term enterprise profitability.

The paper contains three major parts. The first background section (1) provides a justification for focusing on small, tourism-dependent islands, (2) presents a brief assessment of ecosystem and biodiversity threats in the insular Caribbean, Pacific and Indian oceans, and (3) reviews the major causes of tourism’s overrun, including the absence of a comprehensive measure of tourism’s socio-economic and environmental impacts, i.e. an early warning signal. The second and main body of the study develops this signal, the so-called Tourism Penetration Index, and applies it to 47 islands across the globe. The index clusters these destinations into three groups: most and least penetrated and those in between. The final section discusses the planning challenges appropriate to each stage of tourism penetration and offers some broad guidelines for achieving the so-called “Sustainability Diamond.”

Background

About three-fourths of small countries are islands of less than one million inhabitants (Hein, 1990). Small islands suffer from a constellation of limitations. These include lack of diversification because of resource scarcity, income volatility because of extreme openness and export concentration, and an inability to generate self-sustained growth because of capital shortage and small market size (Demas, 1965). Remote islanders also suffer reduced real income and basic services because of high transport costs associated with dependence on essential imports and scale diseconomies exacerbated in archipelagic states like Bahamas, Maldives and Kiribati (World Bank, 2000). As a result, island economies are among the world’s most vulnerable, i.e. susceptible to potential adverse external shocks beyond their control (Crowards and Coulter, 1998).

Unique natural and cultural patrimony constitute the one enduring insular comparative advantage. It is not thus surprising that island microstates have made mass tourism development their primary postwar modernization of choice. This strategy seems particularly germane during the present era of globalization when the colonial economy based on preferences is crumbling, and when post-cold war political realignments have resulted in significantly reduced center-periphery aid flows. However, insular environments are notoriously fragile, characterized by high endemism but weak species diversity (resistance), making them pervious to external impacts from introduced predators, overharvesting, invasive crowding and natural disasters (Brookfield, 1990). Similarly, closely interlocking insular terrestrial and marine ecosystems are

extremely vulnerable to the kinds of large-scale resort and transport infrastructure construction necessary for mass tourism to thrive. Likewise, with the decline of renewable agroforestry and fishing pursuits, traditional cultural roots have been weakened by the presence of affluent visitors and lifestyles and the lure of Western media (McMurray and Smith, 1998).

As a result, after a generation of mass tourism development, island bio-cultural diversity around the world is under siege posing a major threat to the long-run viability of tropical tourism. For example, the majority of global bird extinctions have occurred on islands. Although over one of six plant species grow on islands, one of three of all known endangered plant species grow on oceanic islands (UNEP, 1999a). This is partly the outcome of development thrusts and partly a legacy of neglect. Oceanic islands are underrepresented worldwide in protected areas (Parks Canada, 2000).

The outlook is similar in the peripheral island areas. After extensive colonial clearing of virgin forests for sugarculture and later bananas, the Caribbean, the region most dependent on tourism, bears the scars of overrun. Freshwater resources are threatened by hotel and condominium developments on steep slopes, harming watersheds, causing erosion and lagoon pollution. Nearly 30 percent of the reefs–a good barometer of environmental health–are at high risk because of runoff and sedimentation and discharges of untreated municipal and hotel waste (Bryant and others, 1998). The large number of pleasure yachts and cruise ships directly inject waste into these waters because of inadequate port reception facilities. The highest threats appear to be in the smaller Lesser Antilles, precisely those destinations most aggressively promoting and dependent upon mass tourism. Partly as a result of these intrusions, 60 species of endemic birds are endangered plus 30 mammals and 37 reptiles. Since 1985 fish catches are off nearly 50 percent in gross tonnage (UNEP, 1999b).

The situation is similar in the Indian Ocean. Heavily populated areas have been plagued by overfishing, reef harvesting for trade in rare species, sand mining for construction, as well as mangrove destruction, erosion, siltation and coastal pollution through unplanned urbanization. Deforestation in Comoros is proceeding at over five percent per annum. The natural vegetation of Mauritius has been virtually eradicated for sugarculture. Mauritius and Seychelles are ranked second and third in the world in terms of endangered native plant species (UNEP, 1999a). In some islands over half of the endemic species are threatened. In Mauritius 62 animal species (mainly birds) are extinct. In Seychelles rapid declines in rare turtle populations continue. In addition, breach-based resort and infrastructure facilities are under threat from sea level rise in Seychelles, Mauritius and Maldives.

The Pacific, in transition from subsistence to a cash economy, is undergoing over-

grazing, intense cropping on marginal hillsides, unsustainable logging and land clearing for commercial agriculture. Deforestation rates are among the most rapid in the world. The region also boasts the largest number of documented bird extinctions in the world and seven times more endangered species than the Caribbean (UNEP, 1999a). The coral reef system, most extensive and diverse in the world, is under pressure from all sides: overfishing, dynamiting, sand extraction,

fertilizer and sewage pollution, and the destruction of fringing reefs and mangroves for coastal tourist and urban development. With increasing globalization, world affluence, transport access and the demand for authenticity, pressures on island biodiversity and traditional cultural mores are expected to escalate (Singh and Singh, 1999).

Why has the short-run ‘success’ of mass tourism been allowed to jeopardize island bio-cultural diversity and the industry’s long-term future? The answer lies in the peculiar nexus between a tourist-environment scale disequilibrium and a free-market political economy. First, the imposition of a large-scale, untrammeled consumption-based international throughput economy atop a tiny, delicate, finite island ecology almost guarantees over time that insular carrying capacities will be crossed. This scale discrepancy is due to the high-volume profit imperatives of heavily capitalized airline, cruise, and hotel interests plus other secondary effects associated with rapid mass tourism development in small destinations: loss of traditional sustainable resource activities, mounting waste and crowding from on-site visitors, and environ-

mentally altering construction of large-scale resorts and infrastructure.

Second, island policy makers with short electoral time horizons are often preoccupied with increasing visitor volume instead of maximizing net local expenditure. To protect market share in the competitive global marketplace, they favor rapid growth, extending the shoulder season (Baum, 1999), and even price discounting with tour operators. Such policies place further pressure on the already stressed socio-environmental fabric and lead to increasing promotion, crowding and decay followed by declines in profit margins, visitor and vacation quality, and the resources needed to refurbish and restore (Buhalis, 1999).

A third element in the mix is the complex and dynamic nature of tourism itself. Its impacts are assymetrical. To illustrate, visible economic benefits are quick to appear and linear while socio-environmental costs are non-linear and usually surface after dangerous thresholds are reached (McElroy and de Albuquerque, 1994). This benefit-cost disjunction is partly why the “Sustainability Diamond” is rarely achieved. Normally, early in the resort cycle the needs of the visitors and the developers/travel interests take precedence, and the priorities of the host population and bio-cultural asset protection are deferred until “tourism as usual” becomes unsustainable (Lawrence, 1990).

A final problem is that tourism’s impacts are difficult to measure. They are pervasive, involving a series of products/services consumed through time, and they include difficult to quantify cultural and ecological externalities. There are no universally accepted comprehensive measures of overall tourism impact. As a result, island decision makers cannot easily assess where their destinations lie along the tourist-environment continuum, and thus they cannot proactively anticipate danger points. Constructing an early warning signal for measuring tourism penetration is the focus of this study.

Tourism Penetration Index

Methodology

Most efforts to define carrying capacity in islands have focused on qualitative definitions of saturation: infrastructure breakdown, subsistence disruption, congestion, realty inflation, rising host hostility, declining cultural values and visitor satisfaction, and the replacement of lost natural amenities with man-made attractions (Butler, 1980). Quantitative measures of tourism penetration have been relatively crude and uni-dimensional. Most have

focused singly either on economic impact (contribution to GDP and employment), or on social impact (visitors per host population), or on environmental pressure (hotel rooms per unit of land area). None have comprehensively integrated these socio-economic and environmental impacts into a single measure until recently. McElroy and de Albuquerque (1998) developed such an index constructed from variables measuring each of three impact dimensions, and successfully applied it to 20 small Caribbean islands. The so-called Tourism Penetration Index (TPI) was later extended to a larger and more heterogeneous sample of 35 small islands (McElroy and de Albu-

querque, 1999).

The present study employs the same three-variable model: (1) visitor spending per capita measures economic impact; (2) average daily visitor density per 1,000 resident population measures social penetration; and (3) number of hotel rooms per km2 of land area measures envi-

ronmental pressure. Despite their uniform estimation and widespread availability, the three annual measures suffer at least three limitations. They do not capture the seasonal concentration of visitor flows characteristic of tourism; they do not capture shoreline concentration so common in islands catering to sunlust tourism; and they fail to measure the length of a destination’s experience with and/or adaptation to tourism over time.

To operationalize the model, a global sample of island countries was selected that met two criteria: (1) the availability of published tourism data, and (2) small size defined roughly as less than one million inhabitants and 20,000 km2 in area. To ensure uniformity, all data were taken from standard and accessible sources: the tourism data from Compendium of Tourism Statistics (WTO, 1999), and the population and area figures from The World Factbook (CIA, 1999). The resulting sample of 47 islands includes 21 in the Caribbean, 15 in the Pacific, five in the Indian Ocean (Comoros, Maldives, Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles), and three apiece in the Mediterranean (Balearics, Cyprus, Malta) and Atlantic (Bermuda, Canaries, Cape Verde).

Table 1 provides 1997 background indicators for the 47 destinations. Table 2 presents calculations of three basic impact variables, the standardized indices based on these variables, and the resulting TPI scores and rankings from most to least tourism penetrated. The standardized indices were calculated by taking the value of each variable for each destination, subtracting the minimum value of that variable for the whole sample, and dividing the result by the sample maximum minus the sample minimum value according to the formula:

(X - Xmin)/(Xmax - Xmin)

The resulting standardized values or indices are presented in the right panel of Table Two.

The overall TPI scores were calculated as a simple unweighted average of the three standardized indices. This was based on the assumption that each type of separate impact–economic, social, environmental–was as important as the other two in contributing to overall tourism penetration. This equivalent impact method was used since a weighting scheme could not be established either theoretically or from the literature. However, in another experiment, visitor spending per capita was given twice the weight of the other two measures on the justification that economic impacts were the most direct and accurate measures of penetration among the three indicators. The results (not shown) were almost identical to the equivalent weight or unweighted formulation and left the basic island groups intact with only a few minor one-step changes in destination position.

Results

Although quite simple and rudimentary, the TPI scores yield results that broadly confirm what is expected from the literature and historical observation. The 47 islands are loosely ranked from most penetrated (St. Maarten) to least penetrated (Solomons). Generally, the more traditional, developed, and accessible Caribbean, Mediterranean, and Northern Pacific destinations populate the top half of the rankings while the more isolated, less visible, and recently emerging South Pacific and Indian Ocean destinations populate the bottom half. Generally, the sample divides roughly into three distinct groups based on discrete levels of penetration as revealed by the TPI: most penetrated, intermediate, and least penetrated.

The most penetrated islands form a subgroup of 11 internationally visible highly developed destinations characterized by average per capita visitor spending over $8,500 and an average daily visitor density close to 200 tourists per 1,000 residents. Tourists thus represent the rough equivalent of a 20 percent increase in the daily population. Their insular landscapes are crowded on average with nearly 50 hotel rooms per km2 of area. This cluster comprises four popular Caribbean resort areas [Aruba, British Virgins (BVI), Caymans and St. Maarten] plus Bermuda and Canaries in the Atlantic, the Balearics and Malta in the Western Mediterranean, and Hawaii, Guam and Northern Marianas in the Pacific. Such islands literally define the postwar pleasure periphery for North America, Western Europe and Japan.

These destinations represent some of the most tourist-dependent and heavily impacted islands in the world. According to Table 2, visitors to the Balearics add over 40 percent to the local population year-round. This figure rivals densities in tiny city-states like Gibralter (60%) since it understates very high seasonal summer crowding. Likewise, Malta and St. Maarten share the most tourist-built environments that approach levels in Gibralter and Macau. The uncharacteristically low per capita visitor spending levels for Malta and the Canaries may suggest the influence of heavy discounting by high-volume tour wholesalers. Finally, the BVI is

likely ranked too high because the land-based indicators of the TPI tend to overstate the impact of the dominantly sea-based nature of its yachting tourism style.

As a group, however, according to the literature (McElroy and de Albuquerque, 1992), these most penetrated destinations share a unique socio-economic and environmental profile. As mature, affluent areas advancing to the top of the resort cycle, they are characterized by high visitor and hotel room densities but slow population, tourist and room growth rates. Their market is dominated by short-staying visitors with a strong preference for hotels, large-scale (comfortable) facilities, and other man-made attractions. As indicators of their mature development and integration into the global tourist economy, they also exhibit the highest levels of hotel occupancy, promotional spending, and (for the Caribbean) cruise passenger traffic. They also usually display the lowest degree of seasonality through special year-round packages (honey-

moon weekends, carnivals, regattas etc...). These old established destinations are also among the most frequently cited in the literature for tourism-induced ecosystem damage, marine pollution, over-crowding, host tensions and declining vacation quality (Jenner and Smith, 1993).

According to the TPI (see Table 2), the least penetrated islands comprise 15 primarily Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. In contrast to the most developed destinations, their tourism impact is quite soft, placing them at the low end or beginning stage of the resort cycle. For example, as a group they average slightly over $200 in per capita visitor spending, i.e. less than three percent of the most penetrated islands’ level. Likewise, they average only 8 visitors per 1,000 population and one room per km2 of land area. They divide roughly into two subgroups. At the bottom of the scale are remote South Pacific outposts like the Solomons, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Tonga and Samoa and include the Marshalls, Cape Verde, Comoros and Trinidad. These are emerging destinations with cultures and ecosystems relatively intact. At the higher end of the least penetrated cluster is a subgroup of islands with a couple of decades of successful tourism growth: St. Vincent, Mauritius, Reunion, New Caledonia and Fiji. They are moving toward the intermediate range of tourism impact.

As an overall group, these low-impact destinations are characterized by pristine natural and cultural amenities, small-scale facilities and infrastructure (some lack jetports), and limited visitor, hotel and population growth. Many continue to experience steady emigration. They average the largest in the sample in both population size and area. In terms of economic structure, they are the most dependent on agriculture and the least anchored to tourism. They spend the least on promotion, have the lowest proportion of international (100+ rooms) hotels and occupancy rates, and the highest ratio of regional (inter-island) visitors. Their average length of visitor stay is the longest, above 10 days, and roughly two weeks in five cases (Cape Verde, Kiribati, Reunion, Solomons, Tonga). These islands have the greatest planning room to maneuver and the best potential for developing ecotourism and other sustainable tourism styles based on low-density consumption of their unique bio-cultural diversity.

The intermediate impact destinations are the most dynamic and heterogeneous. As a group their average TPI scores fall cleanly between the most and least penetrated. For example,

average per capita visitor spending is approximately $2,500 (between $8,500 and $200), average daily density is 60 visitors per 1,000 population (200 and 8), and average room per km2 is six (50 and one). In the majority of cases, these islands are characterized by very rapid visitor growth and rising rates of hotel and infrastructure construction. In contrast to the most penetrated destinations, they tend to have higher rates of seasonality and lower levels of promotional spending and cruise ship traffic.

The 21 intermediate islands fall roughly into three more or less distinct subgroups. At the high end are a cluster of seven Caribbean destinations: Anguilla, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Bonaire, Turks-Caicos and the American Virgins (USVI). Turks-Caicos and Anguilla, according to the TPI, appear most likely to advance to most-penetrated status without strong and deliberate policy intervention to control visitation. Historically (1993) the USVI has scored among the high-impact islands, but hurricanes in 1994-95 have trimmed down the hotel plant. The Freeport-Nassau complex in the Bahamas is also a high-density area, but the intermediate TPI score results from the archipelago’s large land area. Barbados is a mature tourist area but maintains a relatively balanced agro-industrial economy while a well-managed marine park has established Bonaire as a popular international diving destination.

In the middle of the intermediate range are ten destinations distinguished by their relatively diversified economies (Cooks excepted) and steady tourism growth. These include Cyprus, five Caribbean islands (Curacao, Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Kitts, St. Lucia), two Indian Ocean islands (Maldives and Seychelles), and Cooks and French Polynesia, one of the most developed destinations in the South Pacific. As a group, many of these islands are experiencing noticeable change and resource-use conflicts as labor and capital migrate from traditional pursuits to tourism. Some of the higher-growth areas are also undergoing immigration to service the labor-intensive demands of expanding tourism. However, the modest rate of change affords opportunity for anticipatory planning. In fact, Maldives and Seychelles are noted for long-range planning to control the pace of growth (Innskeep, 1994).

Finally, four islands occupy the bottom end of the intermediate range. They include two agriculturally diversified Caribbean destinations–Dominica (bananas) and Grenada (spices)–who have recently graduated from the least penetrated group. They also include tiny Niue in the Pacific and Montserrat. A popular North American retirement haven since the 1960s, Montserrat’s TPI ranking has declined because of a devastating volcanic eruption in 1995 that rendered over half of the island uninhabitable.

Planning Challenges

The special ecological and cultural diversity of island societies represents a rare fragment of the global commons where residents root and celebrate identity, visitors witness the intricate unfolding of nature with its variety of human responses, and all find physical and spiritual renewal (Parks Canada, 2000). However, the integrity of this patrimony is under threat from a generation of mass tourism and a doubling of visitation, particularly to remote areas, forecast for

the next 20 years (UNEP, 1998). This postwar development legacy suggests that sustainability can only be achieved by controlled and/or lower density use since “freedom in the commons brings ruin to all” (Hardin, 2000: 13). To reverse past market failure will require strong policy intervention, comprehensive integrated planning and improved impact monitoring.

The TPI is a preliminary step. Despite its simplicity and aggregative weaknesses, it does cluster islands into low, medium and high tourism impact groups and provides policy makers with an indirect early warning signal. The TPI further suggests broadly that planning challenges vary in emphasis along the resort cycle. This means that, given the history of island tourism development, the four elements of the “Sustainability Diamond” may not be achieved in the same degree simultaneously.

To illustrate, establishing profitability and international recognition is basic for the least penetrated islands, and this requires determining destination identity, unique assets and tourism style, the infrastructure to access them, and the utilities (water, power, sanitation, waste, communications) essential to attract visitors. Answering these fundamental questions involves a multi-year and multi-sectoral planning task under a lead government agency. It should also include community environmental and cultural education and external financial and technical assistance from regional and international organizations. Given the many conflicting uses, for example, of the coastal zone–transport, agriculture, fisheries, habitat, settlement, tourism, recreation–this is a formidable task. But there are a number of successful integrated plans and programs available, such as Bermuda (de Albuquerque and McElroy, 1995), Caymans (Ewing and Wilkinson, 1999), Maldives and Prince Edward Island (Manning and Dougherty, 1999).

The key challenge facing many intermediate destinations is controlling growth and the expansion of facility scale that usually accompanies international visibility within insular socio-economic and environmental limits. On the one hand, operational land and water use plans need to be designed to channel development toward designated tourist zones and to forestall encroach-ment on prime agricultural and fisheries resources. In addition, the government should express a preference for relatively smaller-scale resorts and the sequential phasing of larger projects not only to mitigate host-guest problems, but also to avoid exceeding the capacity of the local labor force and raw material supply. On the other hand, with the increase in resource-use conflicts common to this development stage, every effort must be made to engage residents in local resource-use decision making. It is equally important to expand the host population’s financial stake in the industry by providing tax incentives for small-scale, local labor-intensive enterprises and encouraging local produce and materials purchases by hotels/restaurants and developers respectively. Previous research (McElroy and de Albuquerque, 1992) suggests a 5-10 percent increase in local purchases (and perhaps ownership) raises the tourist income multiplier by a similar amount and can translate into a similar decline in visitor numbers while leaving net island tourism impact intact.

The key imperative for the most penetrated destinations is to sustain vacation quality. The first priority is to restore damaged biodiversity, to prevent further stress on sensitive

areas, and to assess the status of culture and its role in tourism. The second is to more efficiently manage visitor traffic and activities through dispersal in time and space in order to reduce tourist crowding and enhance host life quality. The third is to seek new policy directions to the age-old focus on raising visitor volume. For example, length of stay can be increased by designing new low-density alternatives to sunlust tourism; heritage, scientific, retirement, village, ecotourism, inter-island packages and so on. An increasing number of similar small-scale successes are appearing in the literature (Horwich and Lyon, 1999; Knights, 1993). Per capita visitor expenditure can also be increased by these new attractions in combination with establishing or raising user access fees, which both limit densities and secure ear-marked funds for asset maintenance and monitoring (Lindberg, 1991).

Conclusions

This study applied the Tourism Penetration Index as an early warning signal to islands across the world to help decision makers assess tourism’s overall pressure on fragile socio-cultural and ecological assets. It further identified the major planning challenges facing destina-tions eat each of three stages of the resort cycle for achieving sustainability. Throughout, it makes the implicit argument that the “Sustainability Diamond” is best attained when all major industry stakeholders become deeply aware of the long-term value of the insular bio-cultural patrimony, and develop an effective propensity for conservation.

Specifically, this means that islanders become major beneficiaries of tourism, cherish their biodiversity and the cultural expressions it nourishes and institutionally promise a similar legacy of opportunity and enjoyment for their grandchildren. It means that visitors identify as guests who learn to observe and participate lightly in the island milieu with hopes of returning to same intact. It means that over time governments develop a conscious commitment to long-term planning and tourism stability that favors controlling visitor numbers, activities and investments if intrusive and damaging to insular scale.

Finally, it requires that planners and developers respect the integrated nature of island processes that stabilize ecological diversity. In high volcanic islands, for example, deforesting steep slopes for infrastructure and hotel developments accelerates storm runoff, erosion and stream sedimentation and can potentially pollute lagoons and kill coral. Likewise, large-scale beach resorts and marinas can disturb wetland habitats, destabilize beach vegetation and cause coastal erosion. When reef and said mining are added, low-lying communities become more vulnerable to storm surges from the sea and to salt water intrusion. The siting and design of facilities and access nodes must fit within the natural insular buffering systems to maintain the terrestrial-marine landscape, scenic amenities and biodiversity.

If these four primary tourism actors perform their appropriate roles, tropical island tourism will be on a sustainable course. Present and future generations alike will equally enjoy island bio-cultural diversity. If not, they won’t.

References

Baum, T. and L. Hagen. 1999. “Responses to Seasonality: The Experience of Peripheral Destinations.” International Journal of Tourism Research 1(5): 299-312.

Beller, W., P. d’Ayala and P. Hein, eds. 1990. Sustainable Development and Environmental Management of Small Islands. Paris: UNESCO-Parthenon.

Briguglio, L., B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wall, eds. 1996. Sustainabale Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies. London: Pinter.

Brookfield, H. 1990. “An Approach to Islands.” In Beller and others, eds.: 23-34.

Bryant, D., D. Nielson and L. Tangley. 1998. The Last Frontier Forests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Buhalis, D. 1999. “Tourism in the Greek islands: Issues of Peripherality, Competitiveness and Development.” International Journal of Tourism Research 1(5): 341-358.

Butler, R.W. 1980. “The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources.” Canadian Geographer 24 (Spring): 5-12.

Central Intelligence Agency. 1999. The World Factbook. Washington, D.C.: CIA.

Crowards, T. and W. Coulter. 1998. Economic Vulnerability in the Developing World with Special Reference to the Caribbean. Bridgetown, Barbados: Caribbean Development Bank (Draft Report, July).

de Albuquerque, K. and J. L. McElroy. 1995. ‘Tourism Development in Small Islands: St. Maarten/St. Martin and Bermuda.” In D. Barker and D. McGregor, eds., Environment and Development in the Caribbean: Geographical Perspectives. Kingston, Jamaica: University of West Indies Press: 70-89.

Demas, W. 1965. The Economics of Development in Small Countries with Special Reference to the Caribbean. Montreal, CA: McGill University.

Ewing, G. and P. Wilkinson. 1999. Towards a More Sustainable and Competitive Caribbean Tourism Sector. Washington, D.C.: Organization of American States.

Hardin, G. 2000. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” In R. H. Stavins, ed., Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings (4^th). New York: W.W. Norton: 9-22.

Hein, P.L. 1990. “Economic Problems and Prospects of Small Islands.” In Beller and others, eds.: 35-42.

Horwich, R.H. and J. Lyon. 1999. “Rural Ecotourism as a Conservation Tool.” In Singh and Singh, eds.: 102-119.

Innskeep, E. 1994. National and Regional Tourism Planning: Methodologies and Case Studies. London:

Routlege.

Jenner, P. and C. Smith. 1992. The Tourism Industry and the Environment. London: Economist Intelligence Unit.

Knights, P. 1993. Tourism for Discovery in Senegal. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Investigation Agency.

Lanfant, M.F., J.B. Allcock and E.M. Bruner. 1995. International Tourism: Identity and Change. London:

Sage Publications.

Lawrence, A.M. 1990. “Seeking the Optimum Point.” Ski Area Management 29(1): 75-85.

Lindberg, K. 1991. Policies for maximizing Nature Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits. Washington,

D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Lobban, C.S. and M. Schefter. 1997. Tropical Pacific Island Environments. Mangilao, Guam: University of Guam

Press.

Manning, E.W. and T.D. Dougherty. 1999. “Planning Tourism in Sensitive Ecosystems.” In Singh and Singh,

eds.: 1-20.

McElroy, J.L. 1975. “Tourist Economy and Island Environment: An Overview of Structural Disequilibrium.”

Caribbean Educational Bulletin 2(1): 40-58.

McElroy, J.L. and K. de Albuquerque. 1999. “Measuring Tourism Penetration in Small Islands. Pacific Tourism

Review 3(2): 161-169.

______________________________. 1998. “Tourism Penetration Index in Small Caribbean Islands.” Annals

of Tourism Research 25(1): 145-168.

______________________________. 1994. “Island Tourist Profiles Across the Destination Life Cycle.” Insula

3(1): 12-18.

______________________________. 1992. An Integrated Sustainable Ecotourism for Small Caribbean Islands.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Center for Global Change and World Peace, Occasional Paper No. 8

Series on Environment and Development.

McElroy, J.L., B. Potter, and E. Towle. 1990. “Challenges for Sustainable Development in Small Caribbean

Islands.” In Beller and others, eds.: 299-316.

McMurray, C. and R.H. Smith. 1998. “The Epidemic of Modernization: Western Lifestyles, Health and Society

in the Pacific.” ISISA Islands V Conference, Small Islands in the Third Millennium: Abstracts.

Mauritius (July 1-5). <

Parks Canada. 2000. Conserving Ecological Integrity with Canada’s National Parks. Toronto: Parks Canada.

<ecolog.org>

Priestley, G.K., J.A. Edwards and H. Coccossis. 1996. Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences. Oxon, UK:

CAB International.

Singh, T.V. and S. Singh, eds. 1999. Tourism Development in Critical Environments. New York: Cognizant

Communication Corporation.

Turner, L. and J. Ash. 1976. The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery. New York:

St. Martin’s Press.

Vellas, F. and L. Becherel. 1995. International Tourism: An Economic Perspective. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

United Nations Environment Program. 1999a. Environmental Outlooks for the Island Countries of the Caribbean,

Indian Ocean and South Pacific. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. <

______________________________. 1999b. Global Environmental Outlook 2000. London: Earthscan

Publications. <

______________________________. 1998. Biological Diversity and Sustainable Tourism–Preparation for Global

Guidelines. Convention on Biological Ddiversity, Bratislava (May 4-15). <

Wilkinson, P. 1989. “Strategies for Tourism in Island Microstates.” Annals of Tourism Research 16(2):

153-177.

Williams, A.M. and G. Shaw. 1991. Tourism and Economic Development: European Experiences. London:

Belhaven Press.

World Bank. 2000. Small States: Meeting Challenges in the Global Economy. Report of the Commonwealth

Secretariat/World Bank Joint Task Force on Small States. <

smallstates/>

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. London: Oxford University.

World Tourism Organization. 1999. Compendium of Tourism Statistics 1993-1997 (19^th). Madrid: WTO.

Table 1: Selected Indicators for Small Islands, 1997

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Island Land Area Population Tourists Day Stay Rooms Total Spending

(km2) (000) (000) (000) (Nights) (U.S.$mill)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Anguilla 91 11 43 71 9.5 915 57

Antigua 440 64 232 309 7.0 3,185 269

Aruba 193 69 646 297 7.5 7,233 666

Bahamas 10,070 284 1,618 1,782 6.0 13,288 1,416

Balearics(2) 5,014 760 10,930 193 10.6 252,371 5,316

Barbados 430 259 472 518 10.5 6,069 717

Bermuda 50 62 380 182 6.1 4,135 478

Bonaire 311 11 63 18 8.3 1,120 44

British Virgins 150 19 244 105 8.0 1,587 210

Cape Verde 4,030 406 45 – 12.0 1,601(1) 15

Canary Is. 7,548 1,606 10,200 1,200 9.3 390,000 4,400(1)

Cayman Is. 260 39 381 867 6.9 4,501 493

Comoros 2,170 563 26 – 7.0 361 26

Cook Is. 240 20 50 – 9.0 918 50

Curacao 544 144 209 218 8.3 2,601(4) 202

Cyprus 9,240 754 2,088 161 11.5 35,742 1,639

Dominica 750 65 65 234 11.2(4) 623 40

Fiji 18,270 813 359 13 8.3 5,437 297

Fr. Polynesia 3,660 242 180 21 12.0 3,822 345

Grenada 340 97 111 257 7.4 1,775 59

Guadeloupe 1,706 421 660 470 5.7 8,530 372

Guam 541 152 1,382 8 3.0(4) 7,415 1,650(1)

Hawaii 16,760 1,180 6,876 – 8.4 71,025 10,770

Kiribati 717 86 4 4 21.0 211 2(1)

Maldives 300 300 366 – 8.9 7,063 286

Malta 320 382 1,111 127 9.6 39,183 648

Marshall Is. 181 66 7 – 5.3(4) 300 3

Martinique 1,060 412 513 387 13.0 5,690 400

Mauritius 1,850 1,182 536 22 10.5 6,809 485

Montserrat 100 5 5 1 10.0 100(1) 5

New Caledonia 18,575 197 105 34 4.7 2,059 115

Niue 260 2 2 – 14.0(4) 88 2

No. Marianas 477 69 685 10 3.6 3,881 735(1)

Reunion 2,500 718 370 – 15.8 1,831 249

St. Kitts 269 43 88 106 8.3 1,759 72

St. Lucia 610 154 248 315 8.8 3,701 282

St. Maarten 41 33 439 886 4.8 4,049 375

St. Vincent 340 121 65 135 10.3 1,272 70

Samoa 2,850 230 68 – 7.6 747 39

Seychelles 455 79 130 6 10.3 2,276 122

Solomons(6) 27,540 455 12 3 13.0 511 14

Tonga 718 109 26 9 17.2(5) 695(3) 13

Trinidad 5,130 1,102 324 32 10.0(1) 3,652 193

Turks/Caicos 430 17 93 – 8.0 1,482 118

Tuvalu 26 11 1 – 7.6 59 0.3

U.S. Virgins 349 120 411 1,717 4.2 4,406 601

Vanuatu 14,760 189 49 – 9.1(4) 717 46

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources: Compendium of Tourism Statistics 1993-1997 (WTO, 1999) and The World Factbook (CIA, 1999).

Notres: (1) Author’s estimate (4) 1995

(2) 1999 (5) 1994

(3) 1996 (6) 1993

Table 2: Construction of the Tourism Penetration Index

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Island Spending/ Density/ Rooms/ Impact Indices(2) TPI Score(3)

Pop(US$) 1,000(1) Km2 Spend. Density Rooms

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

MOST PENETRATED

St. Maarten 11,364 249 98.8 0.899 0.595 0.807 0.767

Balearics 6,995 418 50.3 0.553 1.000 0.410 0.654

Cayman Is. 12,641 246 17.3 1.000 0.588 0.141 0.576

British Virgins 11,053 297 10.6 0.874 0.710 0.086 0.557

Aruba 9,652 204 37.5 0.763 0.487 0.306 0.519

Bermuda 7,710 110 82.7 0.609 0.261 0.675 0.515

Malta 1,696 77 122.4 0.133 0.182 1.000 0.438

Guam 10,855 75 13.7 0.858 0.177 0.111 0.382

No. Marianas 10,652 98 8.1 0.842 0.233 0.065 0.380

Hawaii 9,127 134 4.2 0.722 0.319 0.034 0.358

Canary Is. 2,740 164 52.3 0.215 0.391 0.428 0.345

INTERMEDIATE

Turks/Caicos 6,941 120 3.5 0.584 0.285 0.028 0.287

Anguilla 5,182 119 10.1 0.409 0.283 0.082 0.258

U.S. Virgins 5,008 79 12.6 0.395 0.187 0.102 0.228

Bahamas 4,986