Sustainability and tourism

Termed in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987), sustainable development quickly resonated with the concerns of the tourism industry owing to risks posed by the overexploitation of the attractive resources on which tourism depends, leading to the emergence of the concept of sustainable tourism. In the 1990s, many social science researchers turned their attention to this multi-layered concept, seeking to define its scope and also analyse the methods of its implementation.

The emergence of the concept of sustainable tourism

Already in the 1970s, numerous warnings were issued about the risks associated with the economic models of the time (Meadows, 1972; Ward and Dubos, 1973; Sachs, 1980). However, it was not until the preparatory work for the Rio Earth Summit (1992), followed by the Johannesburg Summit (2002), that the concept of sustainable development became commonplace beyond the world of the United Nations (WCED, 1987) and gradually reached various social groups, (political leaders, NGOs, large corporations, trade unions, consumers, academic communities, general public). With Agenda 21, adopted in Rio in 1992, not specifically addressing tourism, the scale of the challenges related to the development of tourism activities led, in 1996, to the creation of a specific Agenda 21 for the travel and tourism industry on the initiative of the World Travel & Tourism Council, the World Tourism Organisation (WTO), and the Earth Council.

During the same period, several authors began to question the impacts of tourism. They gradually introduced the notion of sustainable tourism into academic literature, along with associated concepts such as alternative tourism and carrying capacity (Nash and Butler, 1990; Butler, 1993, 1999; Bramwell and Lane, 1993; Coccossis and Parpairis, 1996; McMinn, 1997). From the 1990s, the importance of preserving while also enhancing the often fragile natural and cultural resources that underpin tourism encouraged the emergence of a dedicated field of research in the social sciences (Butler, 1993, 1999; Bramwell and Lane, 1993; Priestley et al., 1997; Hunter, 1997; Bensahel and Donsimoni, 1999; Flagestad and Hope, 2001; Ritchie and Crouch, 1999, 2000, 2003; Liu, 2003; Ravix, 2004; Buckley, 2012; Hughes et al., 2015; Pickel-Chevalier, 2017).

Defining the contours of sustainable tourism

In reference to sustainable development, sustainable tourism was first defined in academic literature and by United Nations institutions (Butler, 1993, 1999; Hunter, 1997). In a work published in 1993, Butler highlighted a form of tourism that develops in a way that remains viable in the long term, without damaging the environment (human and physical) or compromising the success of other activities and processes (p. 29). Similarly, at the World Conference organised in Lanzarote in 1995 under the aegis of UNESCO, the WTO and the United Nations Environment Programme, the definition proposed was directly inspired by that of sustainable development: “Tourism development shall be based on criteria of sustainability: it must be ecologically bearable in the long term, as well as economically viable, and ethically and socially equitable” (Article 1 of the Charter for Sustainable Tourism). Definitions subsequently multiplied so quickly that, in 1998, Garrod and Fyall referred to “proliferation” on this subject. In 1993, an international journal entirely devoted to sustainable tourism was even created: Journal of Sustainable Tourism.

However, the original relationship between the concepts of sustainable development and sustainable tourism generated a number of ambiguities regarding the underlying political project, which continues to pursue the objectives of strong and sustained economic growth (WCED, 1987). It is relatively difficult to reach a universally accepted definition of sustainable tourism, as interpretations vary widely depending on the stakeholders involved (Butler, 1999).

In 2004, the WTO defined the concept of sustainable tourism based on several key principles:

• The optimal use of environmental resources,
• Respect for the sociocultural authenticity of host communities (with the notion of “authenticity” itself deserving closer examination in the light of social sciences),
• The need to ensure fairly distributed socio-economic benefits for all stakeholders,
• The capacity to maintain a high level of tourist satisfaction.

Since then, the WTO has proposed a stable, summarised definition of sustainable tourism: “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities”. On its website, (https://www.unwto.org/fr/sustainable-development, consulted on 17/08/2022), the WTO specifies that sustainable tourism should apply to all forms of tourism (including mass tourism). It pursues the objective of long-term viability through the search for a balance between economic, environmental, social and cultural dimensions. In economic terms, it contributes to wealth creation that is equitably distributed among stakeholders. In environmental terms, it enhances while also preserving the natural resources that underpin tourism development. In social terms, it favours accessibility for all, capacity-building among economic players, and equity in the distribution of revenue. In cultural terms, it respects the sociocultural authenticity of host communities, preserves their cultural assets and traditional values, and contributes to intercultural understanding and tolerance. Thus, sustainable tourism is a multi-layered concept that can be adapted to the aspects privileged: responsible or eco-responsible tourism, ecotourism, green tourism, solidarity-based or fair tourism, etc., all variations of which give rise to new branches of research (Van der Yeught, 2019). Several authors highlight the tensions, even the contradictions, that may result from the simultaneous pursuit of these objectives. Arbitration is often necessary and requires the definition of intermediate goals (Butcher, 2006; Capron & Quairel-Lanoizelée, 2010; Hughes et al., 2015). For social science researchers, sustainable tourism constitutes a complex field of research, underpinned by dimensions that interact dynamically and involve numerous stakeholders whose objectives are sometimes difficult to reconcile.

Case study: Port-Cros National Park

Port-Cros National Park is a good illustration of the tensions that a sustainable tourism policy can generate in a territory that is both attractive and vulnerable. The islands within the Park attract large numbers of visitors who wish to enjoy outdoor activities such as hiking or scuba diving (supervised or independent).

Visitor numbers are estimated at around one million per year on Porquerolles and 300,000 on Port-Cros (Bergère & Le Berre, 2011, 2013; Brécard & De Luigi, 2016). However, on certain days of the summer season, large numbers of hikers on Porquerolles can result in peaks in visitor numbers that sometimes reach 15,000. These have a negative impact on land and marine ecosystems and cause many conflicts of use.

The risk of overcrowding weighs heavily on Port-Cros National Park and threatens its character, namely the tangible and intangible elements that define its singularity and underpin its tourist appeal.

“In a highly competitive context, the image value and demanding quality associated with the ‘National Park’ designation are considered both an opportunity and a lever for improving stakeholder practices and establishing the qualification of the tourism offer built around these values”. Charter of Port-Cros National Park, 2015, p. 166.

Therefore, between 2016 and 2022, the National Park decided to conduct a longitudinal study on carrying capacity to preserve the island’s distinctive character and identify the best possible compromise between a sustainable economic activity and the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage (Brécard & De Luigi, 2016; Van der Yeught, 2018).

In 2018, a quantitative study conducted among tourists revealed a sharp decline in visitor satisfaction beyond a threshold of 4,750 visitors: the average level of disturbance remains below 26% up to 4,750 visitors, but rises to 37% at a second threshold of 6,000 visitors (Jungmann et al., 2021). These studies helped to define new access regulations for the island. As a result, since 2021, a maximum number of 6,000 passengers per day has been set for sea-shuttle transport during the summer season, with bookings required. A study carried out in 2022 and based on a wider number of surveys confirmed the 2018 results: four dissatisfaction thresholds and their causes were identified. The visitor thresholds beyond which the quality of visits is altered are the following:

• 2,250 visitors/day keeps the dissatisfaction level below 10%,
• 4,750 visitors/day causes a 26% dissatisfaction level,
• 5,750 visitors/day causes a 37% dissatisfaction level,
• and above 6,000 visitors/day, the dissatisfaction level reaches 50%.

The causes of dissatisfaction and disturbance are, in decreasing order: 1. Sharing paths with cyclists, 2. Waiting times (in parking lots, for sea-shuttles), 3. Lack of available rubbish bins, 4. Lack of public conveniences, 5. Crowded beaches, 6. Sharing swimming areas with recreational vessels, 7. Difficult sea-shuttle booking (Moisson et al. 2025).

The 2022 study also shows that regulations adopted in 2021 are starting to bear fruit. The satisfaction rate is on the rise, from 7.8/10 in 2018 to 8.3 in 2022. Conversely, the average disturbance level is decreasing, from 41% in 2018 to 31% in 2022.

Similarly, a programme to regulate recreational vessels is being rolled out to limit overnight moorings to a maximum of 750 vessels per night.

Position of Management Sciences

Within the social sciences, management sciences began engaging with the issue of sustainable tourism in the 1990s, addressing it from complementary perspectives related to managerial concerns.

The example of research in sustainable tourism management

Interest in this topic among management science researchers has increased steadily over the past decades. While a few years ago, some authors viewed sustainable tourism as a passing trend or even a utopia (Boyer, 2002), many researchers and site managers now see in the concept of sustainable tourism responses to the major threats facing humanity, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource scarcity, to which can be now be added the societal backlash against tourism associated with overtourism.

Defined as the sciences of organised collective action (Hatchuel, 2007), management sciences aim to create practical, actionable, operational-oriented knowledge (Clergeau & Peypoch, 2019). They borrow from other human and social sciences according to their many centres of interest and bring their specific expertise to shed light on issues affecting organised tourism collectives at various levels, whether companies, destinations, or other private, associative, or public organisations. Because of their plural nature, they may focus, for example, on visitors, their expectations, their satisfaction levels (marketing); on tourism business creators/creations (entrepreneurship); on employees (human resource management); on tourism development strategies of destinations or companies (strategic management); on information systems within networks (information systems); or on relationships with public authorities and local governments (public management), etc. Therefore, for management researchers, there is no single way to approach tourism (whether general or sustainable), but rather multiple entry points depending on disciplines, research objectives, interests, epistemological positioning, and the methodologies used.

The example of research in strategic and sustainable management

Thus, according to a strategic management approach, four levels of analysis can be distinguished to address the broader issue of sustainable tourism: individual decision-makers, tourism organisations, networks, and destinations.

At the individual decision-making level, management research has highlighted key characteristics that distinguish leaders who are responsible, committed, and willing to engage in sustainable tourism strategies. They differ from one another in the objectives pursued (they are not solely seeking to maximise profits, but also to ensure the successful completion of a project and the long-term viability of the organisation), their ethical motivations, and the high-level cognitive capacities required to grasp the complexity generated by multidimensional goals (Parrish, 2010).

At the organisational level, strategic management research considers sustainable tourism as a source of new competitive advantages owing to the savings it enables (raw materials, energy, water, and consumables), the opportunities it offers for strategic differentiation, and the new capacities of responsible innovation it stimulates (Van der Yeught, 2014; Van der Yeught and Bon, 2016).

At the inter-organisational level, management scholars emphasise the potential of tourism actor networks within a given territory to foster collaborative relationships that help participants overcome individual constraints along the value chain. This occurs through cooperation, learning networks, clusters, and other business ecosystems structured around a sustainable tourism project (Albrecht, 2013; Van der Yeught, 2020).

Finally, at the meta-organisational level, management research focuses on the determinants of the competitiveness and sustainability of tourism sites and destinations, whether these are the preservation of attractive resources, the development of individual and collective skills, the encouragement of innovation, or the implementation of appropriate governance mechanisms (Flagestad & Hope, 2001; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003; Vlès, 2017; Van der Yeught, 2019).

Corinne VAN DER YEUGHT

Bibliography

• Albrecht Julia N., 2013, “Networking for sustainable tourism – towards a research agenda”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol. 21, n° 5, p. 639-657.
• Bensahel Liliane et Donsimoni Myriam (dir.), 1999, Le Tourisme, Facteur de développement local. Grenoble, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 109 pages.
• Bergère Hervé, Le Berre Solenn, 2011, « Définition et étalonnage d’un système d’évaluation de la capacité de charge de l’île de Port-Cros (Hyères, France) », Scientific Reports of Port-Cros National Park. Vol. 25, p. 81-104.
• Bergère Hervé, Le Berre Solenn, 2013, « Comment évaluer la capacité de charge de son territoire ? Jusqu’où un territoire peut-il accueillir des visiteurs ? », Espaces naturels. N° 41, p. 47-48.
• Boyer André, 2002, L’impossible éthique des entreprises – Réflexions sur une utopie moderne. Paris, Éditions d’Organisation, 225 p.
• Bramwell Bill et Lane Bernard, 1993, “Sustainable tourism: an evolving global approach”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol. 1, n° 1, p. 1-5.
• Brécard Dorothée, De Luigi Christophe, 2016, « Fréquentation touristique de Port-Cros et Porquerolles : les enseignements de la base de données Bountîles ». Scientific Reports of Port-Cros National Park, Vol. 30, p. 65-94.
• Buckley Ralf, 2012, “Sustainable tourism: Research and reality”, Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 39, n° 2, p. 528-546.
• Butcher Jim, 2006, “The United Nations International Year of Ecotourism: a critical analysis of development implications”, Progress in Development Studies. Vol. 6, n° 2, p. 146-156.
• Butler Richard, 1993, “Tourism – an evolutionary perspective”, In J.L. Nelson et al. (eds) Tourism and sustainable development: monitoring, planning, managing. Chapter 2, Canada: Department of Geography, University of Waterloo.
• Butler Richard, 1999, “Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review”, Tourism Geographies. Vol. 1, n° 1, p. 7-25.
• Capron Michel et Quairel-Lanoizelée Françoise, 2010, La responsabilité sociale d’entreprise. Paris, La Découverte, 128 p.
• Clergeau Cécile et Peypoch Nicolas, 2019, « Le tourisme : enjeux et questionnements pour la recherche en gestion », dans Clergeau Cécile et Peypoch Nicolas (coord.), La Recherche en management du tourisme. Paris, Vuibert, p. 9-25.
• Coccossis Harry. and Parpairis Apostolos, 1996, “Tourism and carrying capacity in coastal areas: Mykonos, Greece”, in G.K. Priestley, J.A. Edwards and H. Coccossis (ed.), Sustainable Tourism? European Experiences. Wallingford, Oxford: CAB International, p. 153-75.
• Commission mondiale sur l’environnement et le développement (CMED), 1987, Our Common Future, traduction française Notre avenir à tous (1989), 2e éd. Montréal (Québec), Éditions du Fleuve, 432 p.
• Flagestad Arvid et Hope Christine A., 2001, “Strategic success in winter sports destinations: a sustainable value creation perspective”, Tourism Management. N° 22, p. 445-461.
• Garrod Brian et Fyall Alan, 1998, “Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism?”, Tourism Management. Vol. 19, n° 3, p. 199-212
• Hatchuel Armand, 2007, « La nature des sciences de gestion, épistémologie de l’action et genèse des sciences sociales », dans Martinet Alain-Charles (dir.), Sciences du management : Épistémique, pragmatique et éthique. Paris, Vuibert-FNEGE, p. 51 -67.
• Hughes Michael, Pforr Christof, Weaver David, 2015, “Confronting the reality of paradox in sustainable tourism”, in Hughes Michael, Weaver David, Pforr Christof (ed.), The Practice of sustainable tourism : resolving the paradox. Londres et New York, Routledge, p. 1-8.
• Hunter Colin, 1997, “Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm”, Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 24, n° 4, p. 850-867.
• Jungmann Luana, Lazorthes Benjamin, Barcelo Alain, Michel Charlotte, 2021, « Étude de satisfaction auprès des visiteurs en vue d’éclairer la capacité de charge de l’île de Porquerolles (Provence, France) », Scientific Reports of Port-Cros National Park. Vol. 35, p. 461-465.
• Liu Zhenhua, 2003, “Sustainable Tourism Development : A Critique”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol 11, n° 6, p. 459-475.
• Meadows, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1972, Rapport pour le Club de Rome, The Limits to Growth, traduction française Halte à la croissance ? Paris, Fayard, 314 p.
• Moisson C., Lazorthes B. Hatt É., Barcelo A., 2025, « Évolution de la satisfaction des visiteurs de l’île de Porquerolles (Provence, France) entre 2018 et 2022, suite à la mise en place d’un système de régulation des flux de fréquentation », Vol. 39, p. 253 à 270.
• Nash Denission et Butler Richard, 1990, “Towards sustainable tourism”, Tourism Management, septembre 1990, p. 263-264.
• Organisation Mondiale du Tourisme, 2004, Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations. Madrid, OMT, 519 p.
• Parrish Bradley D., 2010, “Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship : Principles of organization design”, Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 25, n° 5, p. 510-523.
• Pickel-Chevalier Sylvine (ed.), 2017, Tourism in Bali and the Challenge of Sustainable Development. Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
• Priestley Gerda K.,Edwards J. Arwel, Coccossis Harry, 1996, Sustainable tourism?: European Experiences. CAB International, 1996, 212 pages.
• Ravix Jacques-Laurent, 2004, « L’Éthique du tourisme » dans Durand Huguette et Spindler Jacques (dir), Le Tourisme au XXIe siècle. Paris, L’Harmattan, p. 445-463.
• Ritchie Brent J. R. et Crouch Geoffrey I., 1999, “Tourism, Competitiveness, and Societal Prosperity”, Journal of Business Research. n° 44, p. 137-152.
• Ritchie Brent J. R. et Crouch Geoffrey I., 2000, “The Competitive Destination: A Sustainability Perspective”, Tourism Management. Vol. 21, n° 1, p. 1-7.
• Ritchie Brent J. R. et Crouch Geoffrey I., 2003, The Competitive Destination : A Sustainable Tourism Perspective. Oxon UK, Cabi Publishing, 272 p.
• Sachs Ignacy, 1980, Stratégies de l’écodéveloppement. Paris, Éd. Économie et humanisme, Les Éditions ouvrières, 137 p.
• Van der Yeught Corinne et Bon Véronique, 2016, « Quand une innovation sociale produit de l’innovation responsable : une analyse par les capacités dynamiques appliquée aux petites organisations touristiques », Revue Française de Gestion. Vol. 2, n° 255, p. 27-40
• Van der Yeught Corinne, 2014, « Responsabilité sociétale et aptitude à l’innovation durable des petites organisations », Revue de l’Organisation Responsable. Vol. 9, n° 2, p. 21-45
• Van der Yeught Corinne, 2018, « Contribution des entreprises touristiques à la maîtrise de la capacité de charge de Porquerolles et au « caractère » du Parc national de Port-Cros (Provence, France) », Scientific Reports of Port-Cros National Park.  Vol. 32, p. 185-211.
• Van der Yeught Corinne, 2019, « Développement stratégique et durable du tourisme : principaux concepts et voies théoriques d’accès à la recherche », dans Clergeau Cécile et Peypoch Nicolas (coord.), La Recherche en management du tourisme. Paris, Vuibert, p. 319-333.
• Van der Yeught Corinne, 2020, « Favoriser l’émergence d’un écosystème d’affaires en tourisme durable », Revue Management & Avenir. Vol. 2, n° 116, p. 107-128.
• Vlès Vincent, 2017, « Hésitations et recompositions dans la gestion des flux de fréquentation dans les sites naturels exceptionnels ».  https://journals.openedition.org/viatourism/1816.
• Ward Barbara et Dubos René, 1973, Only One Earth. Londres, Penguin Books, 304 p.