Perspective Chapter: Rethinking Tourism for the Benefit of All in a Postnormal between Space

Abstract

There is considerable evidence that many of the systemic features and issues of the present global condition—including how we consider both globalization and sustainability—are problematic in a postnormal world that is complex, chaotic and contradictory. The numerous uncertainties generated by the postnormal suggests that humanity and our social institutions are now decoupled from a dominant, Westernized narrative that finds it difficult to navigate an indeterminate between space. Nowhere is this failure of shared narrative and institutional disfunction more evident than in the global tourism complex. It seduces us into accepting the unsustainable premises of low cost and high volume that underpin its offerings, whilst ensuring that the vast majority of benefit for the same goes to technological platforms and those that package and transport. The consequence is a world of ‘overtourism’, which continues to destroy habitats, marginalize communities and minimize benefit to local workforces, all the while shifting infrastructure costs to local governments. This chapter will explore how tourism-dependent societies can create sustainable benefit for both habitat and the environment, whilst at the same time deliver better visitor experiences. It will assert the case for both systemic enquiry and navigation-centric practice in a future of pluriversal world making.

1. Introduction

To many, what we think of as ‘globalisation’ and even ‘sustainability’ seems abstract. As ideas they are difficult to define, complex in nature and seemingly disconnected from our everyday lives. Further, more precise definitions of these particular human social arrangements are complicated by the situation in which they are being discussed, and more often than not, influenced by the world views of those implicated and impacted by the conversation at hand. This level of abstraction and multidimensionality of understanding makes it difficult to coherently ringfence the ecological, economic, societal and social issues that they raise, unless they are more specifically linked to particular manifestations of the effects and issues in question. In this sense, both the abstract (the models and narratives being expounded) and the particular (the confrontation of particular instances) need addressing together. It is the intent of this chapter to try and do both, whilst recognising that, because we, as humans, have created the essentially westernised conditions, as well as the issues around both, we cannot (in a sense) stand apart from them, because we are completely immersed in the systems and system effects they have created. In other words, we need to try and resolve what are potentially existential issues for humanity through dealing with what at best can only be described as a partial understanding of particular instances.

Based on these premises, and without pretending that what follows is in any way a complete or even partial solution, this chapter proposes, as an instance of the particular, to explore issues of globalisation and sustainability (or the lack thereof) as they relate to the global tourism industry complex. It is defined and complex because it has many facets and it operates at many levels with inconsistencies and differences that create layers of contradiction within the complexity. Through several case studies, this chapter suggests potential options that might go some way to addressing issues of globalisation and sustainability as they relate to this modernised technological packaging of tourism; or what used to be called ‘visitation’. It begins by exploring a number of critical conceptual foundations whilst unpicking a number of implicit assumptions embedded in common, though rarely examined, definitions. It then briefly canvases the sources for a number of critical arguments. These arguments include assertions that there is a misunderstanding and misreading of the context in which we must address tourism; that many of the problems that exist in what is now called ‘overtourism’ [1] are because economic, technological and social arrangements have decoupled from each other [2]; that issues in the tourism complex cannot be resolved if we simply maintain expectations, orientations and systems that created the problems in the first place; and finally, that in conditions of ever-increasing uncertainty, new models, offerings and narratives require both development and rapid deployment, in the process creating new meanings about what we call ‘globalisation’, all the while slowly changing the trajectory of unsustainable activity, upon which we have become dependent.

Based on these arguments, it is suggested that tourism—as is true for many other parts of the human condition—needs a new narrative of transformational systemic change. This should inform a rapid migration from current ‘universal and western-centric models’ that concentrate benefit in the hands of the few, to ‘pluriversal’ offerings (the making of many worlds) [3] that deliver enduring sustainable benefit for both people and environments. This will necessitate an abandonment of the culture of end-focused and growth-obsessed goal setting, which privileges universalism and a scarcely undifferentiated sameness that destroys flora and fauna, cultures and community dignity. This chapter asserts that, in its place, a new ‘learning by navigation’ narrative is needed; one that blends both local offerings and the entire global tourism sector into a sustainable network within which each part, through the quality of its relationship with the others, looks to add value and sustainable benefit, rather than competing—or even outcompeting—with each other.

2. Foundational intelligence

In arguing a case for change, it is important to set out the reasons as to what it is that needs resolving at what might be termed a ‘second order change level’. ‘First order change’ is that which can be accommodated into an existing system. ‘Second order’ is that which requires change to the system itself. This rationale might be called ‘foundational intelligence’. After exploring in more detail the nature of what has been described as the tourism complex, and why change is required in that sphere (among others), there are three other important concepts that require canvassing. Firstly, it is asserted that the context and conditions that created global tourism—and on which its current business model depend—no longer exist. In their place is what has come to be known as the ‘postnormal’ [4]. Secondly, it is asserted that what we understand by ‘contemporary globalisation’ is a narrative that is unravelling in the face of meta shocks, and as a set of human arrangements and institutions, is proving incapable of solving the multiple problems it is creating. This includes significant issues of sustainability that cannot be resolved through local action alone. Thirdly, all of this is set in a situational chaos that we are deeply immersed within. In reality, we can never stand aside from it. This inability to be truly objective (one of the foundations of both science and policy development) is what Timothy Morton has described as ‘Hyperobjectivity’ [5]. Hyperobjectivity completely changes the manner in which we think about how change might, and could, occur, and is perhaps the most important piece of intelligence we can possess. It requires us to think about things in a systemic—rather than simply a systematic—way and in so doing, challenges problem solving as we have understood it. The value of Hyperobjectivity (I argue) is that its foundational enquiry makes visible the implicit assumptions and meanings that words or concepts discreetly carry; meanings that can potentially get in the way of both understanding the scale at which enquiry might occur, and/or the potential resolution of critical issues.

2.1 The global tourism complex

In many senses, the global tourism system and its co-dependent twin, the global aviation sector, is an evident poster child of contemporary globalisation practice and the broader sustainability challenges that threaten humanity. What makes confronting the many issues it contributes to is that both suppliers and customers are deeply implicated and invested in its continuation. Now, on a post-Covid recovery path, the World Travel and Tourism Council estimates its value as north of US$10 trillion; and that it accounts for around 10% of all jobs globally [6]. More importantly, its dominant narrative is that it will continue to grow—and indeed, it needs to. There is foundational to a narrative that produces an unhealth dependence and over reliance for many economies, including small islands, resource poor communities and emerging middle income nations. This dependence creates a fragility that relies on the current model. Egypt, for instance, has plans to triple the size of the tourism sector, which would inflate tourism’s share of the nation’s GDP to (by some estimates) more than 60% [7]. In the Maldives, tourism is already 82% of GDP, with much of the labour being supplied by migrants, who make up around one third of the Maldives population in the process insulating them and isolating them from the wider communities who have little contact with the tourist islands. Because these migrants are seen as outsiders or others they become vulnerable to unacceptable levels of exploitation in communities indifferent to their plight [8]. Further complicating the issues around tourism are the emergence of Russian and Chinese diaspora communities that thrive in conclaves, delivering little benefit to the local workforce, economies and communities in question [9]. However, the sheer scale and impact of the sector cannot be ignored, and any change to the system and models will be problematic.

2.2 Fragility and meta shocks

What the recent COVID crisis made visible was the high level of dependence that the tourism complex has on the present model of globalisation (i.e., the free movement of goods, service and people without hinderance). There are some commentators, though, who maintain that, just as with other phases of globalisation, this phase is also coming to an end. If this is the case then the arteries that facilitate tourism flows may not be available to facilitate the growth that is expected.

Changes in the global flow of services through changes in technology could also have an impact especially for those known as global nomads. A recent Cato Institute argues that globalisation is morphing away from goods to services [10], but that begs the question of how and when AI will reframe the services model. The Future of Life Institute, for instance, frames the problem as follows:

The trajectory of AI development thus points to the emergence of asymptotically comprehensive, superintelligent-level AI services that— crucially—can include the service of developing new services, both narrow and broad, guided by concrete human goals and informed by strong models of human (dis)approval. The concept of comprehensive AI services (CAIS) provides a model of flexible, general intelligence in which agents are a class of service-providing products, rather than a natural or necessary engine of progress in themselves [11].

If this is the case and AI becomes a counter to the low-cost labour model, then the whole system of goods and services as we now understand it will be reframed. When this fast-moving AI disruption is added to the unexpected consequences of severe disruptive events on a planet approaching, or probably past, 1.5 degrees of climate shift, then it is reasonable to assume that both globalisation as we understand it, and sustainability as we practice it, are fragile propositions upon which to build future success for anything and that includes tourism.

2.3 Unsustainable models

Notwithstanding the potential meta shocks outlined above, most of the present activity is based on a low-cost, high-volume model facilitated by technological platforms and other intermediary devices (bank fees and usurious exchange rates, IP charges from global hotel chains) which have three important consequences. The first is that the reach of these platforms is completely pervasive in a globalised world reliant on connected devices. This ‘platforming of access to facilities and experiences’ enables the vast majority of the profits to be channelled to source countries, leaving the bare minimum in destinations to supply the services offered. By some estimates, more than 30% of every dollar (and sometimes more) spent by onshore tourists in many destinations is repatriated offshore. In a recent World Trade Organisation Symposium it was reported that, through what is known as leakage, the “average leakage for most developing countries today is between 40 and 50 percent of gross tourism earnings for small economies and between 10 and 20 percent for most advanced and diversified developing countries” [12]. The second is that this same process lends itself to the packaging of experiences in ways that are disconnected from each other. For instance, there is no way for tourists who visit Cairo’s Museum of Antiquities to know that one of the world’s oldest potteries is a mere 400 metres away, or that some of the world’s oldest bars are right across the road. In other words, the technology privileges the singular packaging of experience rather than the development of an ‘ecology of experiences’ that are both less structured and likely to bring increased benefit to a more diverse community. The third consequence is that the cost/volume model is driving what is known as ‘overtourism’, which is undermining both the quality of experiences and, more importantly, many of the habitats upon which particular offerings depend.

2.4 The emergence of the postnormal

As COVID graphically illustrated, the global tourism complex is reliant upon a relative stability in source countries and destinations, and in its infrastructure. Any kind of disruption, and the uncertainty it creates, shifts the market’s attention to seemingly more stable offerings. The critical theorist Zia Sardar argues that, in fact, the conditions of certainty are becoming rare in the face of global conditions that are increasingly complex, chaotic and contradictory [13]. He asserts that these might be described as an ever-present postnormal to which humanity must now become accustomed. He is not alone in this view. Recently, the eminent economists King and Kay wrote that we now face a time of radical uncertainty, where we cannot rely on the models and templates that were constructed in more certain times, and that the only way forward is to develop and build new shared narratives [14]. Similar views also emerge in the works of Notwotny [15] and Gowing [16]. As canvassed earlier, it is possible that even the present era of globalisation is at the beginning of its end and that other disruptions similar to COVID might occur. If that was to come to pass, then the levels of uncertainty would increase astronomically.

2.5 What is globalisation?

Given that the concept of globalisation is one of the central themes of this book, it is perhaps useful to spend a little time considering what it is that we actually mean by the term. For some it has economic connotations and is generally used to describe flows of goods and services based on a neoclassical approach to economy, with competition based on low-cost labour at its heart. The consequence has been an insidious form of economic neocolonialism, where the majority of benefit flows to wealthier, so-called developed, nations. Facilitating this vast, globalised economic expansion has been a dramatic reduction in communication costs through, firstly, a digital revolution in the 1990s, and more latterly (circa 2007 onwards), through both a mobile technology and network revolution. It is worth noting that both of these might well be upended by the emergent AI revolution, which will essentially destroy the advantage of low-cost labour in many communities that have benefitted from the current phase of globalisation. All of this has culminated in the rise of mega cities—tourist destinations in their own right— that are essentially cosmopolitan complexes with enormous ecological and energy footprints that function not only as centres for the flow of goods, but also for both information and people. As their power and influence increases, they act to preserve their own interests, and in so doing, undermine the nation state of the prime unit of organisation. There are in addition many other kinds of globalisation—of pandemics and diseases; of knowledge of cultures; and of niche groups, perversions, criminal activity and opinion—each being amplified in its own technological echo chamber. If there is a common thread in these many manifestations of globalisation, it is that conceptually and in actuality, narratives and institutions that have supported previously accepted definitions of success and globalisation are unravelling quickly in front of us.

2.6 Beyond a sustainability of convenience

The concept of the Anthropocene argues that humans have modified the planet at an ecological scale in the same way the planet was previously modified by extreme weather, asteroids or other factors [17]. It is what might be called a globalised sustainability crisis, in which the inhabitants of this unguided spaceship are destroying the very things that keep it functioning for the benefit of its human inhabitants [18]. Many eminent climate change and ecological theorists would also assert that humanity is in postnormal conditions as a consequence, because the life systems upon which humans in our present socio-economic condition depend have either crossed, or are about to cross, thresholds that will make them something else entirely [19]. Of concern in the science and among scientists are the unknown (but mostly negative effects) of interacting feedback loops and the variability in ecological time spans that govern these systems. All of this confuses and confounds what we mean by ‘sustainability’. Firstly, one of the initial definitions of sustainability, articulated by the Bruntland Commission (meeting the needs of the present without compromizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [20]) is unavailable, because even if the world was to meet its 2050 CO2 emission reduction targets (which currently seems unlikely), life systems have already changed to an extent that it is not possible to make available the same types and levels of resources that the current generation have enjoyed. Secondly, particularly in the case of both aviation and tourism more generally, it is not possible to promote both a cost/volume growth model and to be sustainable at the same time. In other words, the journey towards sustainability will require the tourism complex to be completely reinvented complete with levels of change that few who are invested in its continuation care to contemplate.

2.7 Hyperobjectivity

The idea of hyperobjectivity is, in some ways, linked to the concept of complexity at the core of the postnormal proposition. It draws from, and is part of, a wider philosophical argument that suggests that the basis for considering the relationship between things, and people and things, should be to see all as objects in relation to the other [21]. As many recent philosophers have suggested [22], this Object Oriented Ontology, or OOO as it is sometimes known, marks a radical departure from the Cartesian and Kantian self/other premises upon which the western knowledge system is based. Hyperobjectivity suggests that many systems that affect both human and life-giving arrangements are so large and so complex that we can never truly stand outside of them, and thus we cannot see them objectively. The nature of the cosmos, the interaction of life systems on earth, the global socio-political relationships of nations, and the global economic system are examples of these complex hyperobjects. One might argue that many megacities also could be considered that way, as could the global tourism complex. Just as we experienced with COVID, in hyperobject situations we can only deal with what appear to be local manifestations of issues that arise for humans; we really have no idea what the result of our actions or solutions might be.

A recent scientific discovery provides a useful illustration as to how problem solving changes if and when we can stand outside of any system. In the late 1970s two satellites—Voyager I and II—were launched by NASA. However, it wasn’t until 2012 that Voyager, just before it crossed into what we now call interstellar space, sent signals back of unusual invisible disturbances. These data helped to prove the theory of the heliosphere, or solar waves protecting the solar system. Until that point, no human controlled device had ever been outside of the solar system [23].

The sustainability journey in the tourism complex is still very much at the edges of sustainability consciousness. Indeed, it seems to be almost unthinkable and unspeakable except where egregious localised instance of poor practice can no longer be ignored. Dave Keating, in a recent opinion piece [24], noted that there were no tourism specific speakers at the recent COP 28 conference in Dubai, nor were the any at the previous COP 27 event. This is despite global tourism being an estimated 10% of the global economy and the knowledge that a staggering 80% of tourists visit only 10% of destinations (overtourism). He argues that this is in part because tourism issues and impacts are cross sectoral in nature and therefore not obvious and easy to tackle. In that sense he could be arguing about sustainability more generally.

If we consider the tourism complex with all its interrelationships to be a hyperobject the challenge both for policy makers and institutional strategists become obvious. Firstly, few have models or approaches that can cope with the fluidity and ambiguity that hyperobjectivity necessitate, nor do they have conversational frameworks that even consider the conversation that hyperobjective situations require. These for the most part sit outside most institutional experience. They require what Helga Novotny described as the embrace of the cunning of uncertainty; “a wholesome counterforce to the false uncertainties induced by hubris and over-reliance on the assumptions that people think they know” [25]. The recognition of this situation is a necessary precondition to the emergence of a sustainable tourism model.

3. Understanding the kinds of knowledge we need and the nature of the change that is required

Where the core tenets of foundational intelligence collide together in the tourism complex space we can find a number of propositions. These include the following.

1. Moving beyond disciplinary thinking. The resolution of the issues that are immediately evident cannot be resolved through the application of any one knowledge base or disciplinary approach. This requires a bias towards transdisciplinary practice and the use of what both Gregory and Nora Bateson describe as warm data. This is

   The interrelational processes between and among systems. It can involve recognizing how patterns repeat and reflect each other among multiple contexts and across multiple systems – recognizing that many of these systems’ maintenance and renewal is critical in the coming decades. The underlying premise is to address and experiment with how we perceive [26].

2. Creating new narratives in a time of radical uncertainty. It has been argued that the Tourism complex, as with many other systems, cannot sustain itself in its current format unless it wishes, in the next few decades, to be completely overwhelmed by the unsustainable outcomes of its prosecution. This is because, for the most part, the type of “successful” change being advocated for and pursued in the current mechanistic model only concerns itself with actions that require measurable adjustment and adaptation to systems that already exist. The current plans for transition to renewable fuels in aviation are a useful example of this [27]. This incrementalism is insufficient for the level of renewal that is required.

3. Developing a navigation rather than a destination mindset in the Between Space. There is now an emerging understanding that many of the systems upon which humanity has relied are insufficient for the challenges at hand. Yet, while recognising a cynical and broad trend that appeals to base instincts and nostalgia [28] and despite the many advocacies of potential transition such as those of James Martin [29] or Lester Brown [30], to name but two, most societies have yet to agree on ‘where to next’. This inability to see the ‘other shore’ is disconcerting to those that believe in the abilities of humans to solve everything through technology, and tourism is not immune from that effect. However, in this between space which may exist for a short, or for a very long time, all societies and sectors must learn to navigate what seems to be emerging and perhaps learn something about what the future might be like in the process. Thus, the very definition of ‘change’ and ‘change theory’ is reframed. It moves from considering change as a process of adapting to broadly agreed external forces, to one where the focus is on strengthening the capacity and ability of any entity or network to navigate. It requires constantly adjusting and coexisting (perhaps by navigating away from) alongside the manifestations of uncertainty, asymmetry and volatility that now define our existence.

3.1 Pluriversal rather than universal thinking

Perhaps the most difficult proposition to accept is that the hyperextension of the western model has created the situation that humanity now faces. By hyperextension, I and others [31] mean that universally we have over-privileged individualism at the expense of all other kinds of relational forms; put society in the service of economy rather than the other way around; created unnecessary dualisms that establish false dichotomies; and, as Morton argues, wrongly sustained a belief that rationalism and technology can solve everything. The prosecution of this model has made mostly invisible other ways of thinking, and on occasion, colonised and adopted it (think yoga as practiced in the western model) in ways that make it almost unrecognisable. This is not to argue that everything western is somehow wrong, but rather that it should play a role—not the role—in the contest of ideas as we contemplate the place of unknowing; what the Greeks described as abyss, in front of us. This will allow for what Arturo Escobar [3] calls pluriversal thinking: the making of many worlds rather than just clones of one world. In a slight recasting of Raworth’s Doughnut Economics [32], and as indicated in Figure 1, this many-world making must foster the rebuilding of ecologies on the planet and ensure that people and communities receive an equitable share.

Figure 1.

The sustainable tourism doughnut (source: K Raworth, doughnut economics).

3.2 An ecology of minds

Given this vast interconnectedness and the levels of dependence many people and societies have upon it, the trajectory of tourism requires a new ecology of minds. In Batesonian terms this means:

Changes of thought that will impact upon our government, economic structure, educational philosophy and military stance because the old premises are deeply built into all these sides of our society. [While] nobody can predict what new patterns will emerge from these drastic changes, we hope that the period of change may be characterised by wisdom rather than by either violence or the fear of violence [33].

4. Navigational possibilities and potential trajectories for the tourism complex

In this ‘between space’ there are no certainties about the way forward. Navigating will require a clarity of intent, a preparedness to learn and a high level of knowledge humility. Core to the process will be a recognition that overtourism is in no-one’s interest, and therefore any viable future requires different ways or models of tourism that ensure that the benefits of tourism flow both equitably and sustainably to all those that participate, and all those things that are involved. However, none of this can occur unless there is a new kind of resilience built into the tourism complex. This is necessary to facilitate the management of increasing uncertainties (as was the case with COVID) and other kinds of volatility (as is the case with both the Ukraine invasion and the current Palestinian conflicts). This will require the development of new pluriversal narratives that move away from a world of cloned offerings; that inform the design of ecologies of experiences and build new kinds of systems that marginalise the dark underbelly of the global tourist system.

Before exploring what kind of system transformation interventions might be necessary, it is perhaps useful to summarise the many differences between the present system and what a more sustainable system might look like. As Table 1 shows, the difference is stark and one that can be distinguished from the kinds of sustainability practices that can be contemplated inside the current system with in any meaningful way changing is unsustainable effects. This kind of quasi sustainability practice includes lower emissions travel and tourism practices, reusable and recycling systems and perhaps more support for localism and more sustainable food practises. While this are worthy and perhaps useful they are not sufficient to change the trajectory of the system.

	Overtourism model	Sustainable benefit tourism
Business model	Low cost/high volume/extractive	Fair cost/value constrained/pluriversal distributed/beneficial world making
Dominant world view	Neo classical economic growth dependency	Doughnut Economics (Raworth)
Information technology facilitation	Global platforms dominant choice and access	Global—local AI networks showcase experiences with different benefit flows
Travel technology facilitation	Cost & volume in air travel comes from lower cents /passenger KM. In cruising cost is created through scale with very high ecological footprints	More richly curated experiences that come together to create more isolated visits in concentrated locations.
Policy orientation	Increased dependency on tourism and foreign exchange at expense of more diverse economies	Tourism is additive to, integrated and facilitative of other local economic community and cultural experiences
Tourism activity effects	Measurable and detrimental reduction of urban, rural and costal spaces. Tourism induced (and more recently long term stay induced) real estate speculation	Restorative practice funded through tourism of urban, rural and coastal spaces. Constrained tourism footprints.
Long term impacts	Reduction of local quality of life, community cohesion (which increases tourismphobia) and loss of cultural distinctiveness	Primacy of local distinctiveness shapes tourism choices Pro community orientation (recoupling) Cultural re-invigoration.

Table 1.

Characteristics of current globalised tourism complex and a potential post normal sustainable system.

While concerns about excessive visitation are not new there seems to be a reluctance to address root causes and rethink in a systemic way. As economies increase rather than decrease their reliance on tourism, with all the benefits and issues that this brings the belief has been that “all problems can be solved by exerting greater effort and demanding greater efficiency within the status quo of continued growth and consumption” [34]. Scant regard is paid its monocultural nature, the destruction of other forms of more integrated economic activity, its dislocation and isolation from local communities and the fact that the reality of any growth focused system will always be the bottom line. The consequence is that, despite a few stand out cases where sustainable tourism and tourism policy has been shown to a better and more enriching kind of tourism, management and policy making with respect to the complex is “unable to reduce tourism related tensions without a profound shift in the underlying structure of the global tourism economy” [35].

The necessity to explore systemic change is not just a good thing to do; it is as vital to tourism as the shift from fossil fuels is to the global energy system.

4.1 Recoupling the tourism complex with ecology and humanity

It was asserted earlier that one of the reasons why systems fail to work is that they are decoupled. The alternative is to develop tourism offerings and models that recouple ecology, society, culture and economy. There are two important design considerations here. The first is to treat the non-human as having as much right to benefit (or perhaps even more) as humans. In this instance, for example, what would a tourism experience look like from the point of view of a world heritage forest? This is not as fanciful as it sounds. Some argue that, indeed, forests can think, and this opens up the way for an anthropology that goes beyond the human [36]. Interestingly, in New Zealand there is by law already a river and a mountainous area that have standing in the courts as persons in their own right [37]. The second is to make visible where current benefits are flowing to, as the basis for redesigning those flows. Again, there are small case studies everywhere that point to this possibility; visitor fees for restored historical sites, levies on sports people such as fly fishermen and an increasing intolerance of accommodation practices and cruise ships that promote tourism at the expense of community (e.g. Air BNB in Barcelona) and their habitats (as in Venice).

4.2 Beyond decoupling

Decoupling is at the core of the tourism system that increasingly offers cloned offerings that are increasingly isolated from the communities in which they situate themselves. It privileges the tourism experience over everything else. In places like Bali, Phuket in Thailand and the Maldives this manifests itself in an astonishing number of almost identical hotel resorts where many ‘vacationers’ relax without ever leaving the premises. In what was a small fishing town in Cambodia, Shianoukville is now completely overwhelmed by casino-based offerings owned by and run for Chinese gamblers [38]. The US$7.7 billion global cruise ship industry (with its estimated growth of over 11% per annum) represents another extension of the model; one that perhaps takes decoupling to the extreme. It creates a kind of ‘Disneyland effect’ where, if there is interaction with communities—‘the strange other’—then it is at a distance and on a schedule dictated by the ship. The fact that the industry expects some 58% of first-time vacationers to use this offering in the next few years should be a cause for alarm [39].

4.3 Redesigning benefit flows

The challenge is to counter this trend with the design of experiences which are more attractive whilst also perhaps developing stronger policy approaches that change the benefit flows. In Phuket, for instance, there is a refuge for mistreated elephants where the interest of the elephants is at the centre of the offering, and the interests of the tourists are designed around it. This allows for experiences such as safely walking with giants, where those involved see and learn how elephants in their habitat actually forage, and on occasion, the invasion of the bar by one or two of the inhabitants who enjoy the company of humans [40]. The second challenge is to design situations and experiences where the unplanned, the accidental and the unexpected enhance the experience. This design ethos is presently being built into what is known as gastronomy, or food, tourism where participants not only experience great food but also mingle with locals in the process. Popular motorbike tours of street food in Vietnam and the development of locally-oriented cooking classes, are great examples. Current research shows that authentic experiences rank highly with Millennials, who are now emerging as the largest cohort of tourists [41]. Given that they are still very young, authenticity should now be fundamental to design.

As Figure 2 demonstrates, without such information metrics, it is difficult for the system to make decisions about itself and its future.

Figure 2.

Information metrics (source: www.sbtinitiative.org).

4.4 New place-spaces, new stories

While there is a need for meta narratives in the global tourist complex, there is also a need for more localised narratives. Nowhere is this more evident than in the competitive market of large city tourism; a set of places, spaces and activities that are increasingly vital to the economies of many. The challenge for them all is that previous key differentiators were the nature (and price) of the retail experience, the food experience and perhaps the night life. Now, in a world of online shopping, globalised sourcing and ubiquitous branding, with perhaps the exception of nightlife, none of these are key differentiators. While some are building identity around their role as a key gateway with all the overtourism challenges that presents, few are clear about the image they want to project, and thus, the story they want told about them. These narrative images are likely to be a set of specialised offerings, each being a fragment of the future image.

4.5 Curation of difference

Again, using food as an example of curated specialisation, in the present system there are a few indicators of possibility that point to a new kind of city tourist design. While the island state of Singapore is curating its image as an epicurean melting pot, it is doing so through creating and highlighting interesting urban spaces that both reflect vitality and incorporate the culture of the people living there [42]. In Singapore’s case, it is the love of food that is central to Singaporean culture and community. Encouraging tourists to experience its diversity in place and space creates interactive spaces wherein both the tourist and the community are present and share common interests. The conception of a marketplace of experiences is a powerful antidote to the packaged approach. It brings together spatial perceptions that are psychologically, sociologically and aesthetically functional, providing both a foundation for identity and a new narrative [42].

However, positive perceptions of this kind are difficult to sustain in those tourist nations where control by the state, oligarchs and/or criminals influences interaction and activity at a micro level.

4.6 Resilience requires the system to understand how it takes decisions about itself

In order to design, project and promote this new kind of tourism system, it will also be necessary in the transition to develop intelligence, strategies and new kinds of networks in order to cope with increasing levels of uncertainty and volatility, particularly at local levels. Typically, sector information is historical and is mostly about arrivals departures, spend and economic contribution. As Figure 3 shows, significantly more nuanced information flows are required.

Figure 3.

Tourism stocks and flows (source: www.sbtintiative.org).

4.7 Paradigm shifts

The above discussion on potential trajectories are summarised in Table 2, They underpin the argument that sustainability cannot be achieved in the current business model and the system that it supports. From this, three important principles emerge: firstly, that the focus and conversation must be systemic not systematic (the latter is where the focus on measurables often takes us); secondly, that potential trajectories need to coexist and synergise at international, national and local levels; and thirdly, that what we might change, and what we need to change, is something we need to collectively learn about. The intent should be to create an everchanging portfolio of learning options and an increasing number of viable, actionable and scale-able options that will facilitate the change we think needs to be made.

Frames for framing and shaping Potential System transformation
Create shared meta, national and localised narratives about the role of tourism and place -spaces
Redesigning the tourism complex to rebalance and equally benefit the ecology and humanity
Decouple tourism from monocultural (or cloned practice), over reliance on its economy and its global intermediaries
Recouple tourism to better integrate it into the lived experiences of its peoples and communities and design it for restorative purposes
Change the benefit flows throughout the system to better reflect how and where value is delivered
Create conversations around shared space-maps of what a system looks like and where and how one might intervene.

Table 2.

Summary of system acupuncture points that can change the nature of the tourism complex system.

5. Social system visuospatial space maps

To enable a shared view of what is occurring and what is required, the conversations among all stakeholders is greatly enhanced if they have a shared map of the nature of the system they are looking at. Nowhere is this more important than in those circumstances where the imperative for transformation and renewal is significant. Remembering that the map is never the territory, these visuospatial maps, even if they are not completely accurate, act as a shared reference point for exploring what might exist in any given space, and where possibility might lie. These representations provide a common, or shared, understanding of ‘what is going on here.’ Similarly, as Figure 4 shows, they can also be used in any tourism complex dialogues alluded to above. In this diagrammatic example, taken from the work of the Chôra Foundation [43], in a number of post-COVID tourism system interventions—both tourist-lived experiences and the available resources, both human made and natural—were used to create the horizontal axis. A vertical axis was then designed around how any human system takes decisions about itself and how it looks to intervene in that system. Contextual influences or system shapers were then mapped and wrapped around the system itself. In sum, the graph provides understanding of who is (or should be) involved, what is involved, how change might occur and what outside influences affect any system.

Figure 4.

Illustration of a tourism stencil or space map (source: Chôra foundation. www.chôra.org). Note: the figure presents an imagination of the tourism space that can be contextualised with location-specific data.

Having established a representation of the system space, enquiry then needs to turn to what is inside that space. These might be called ‘areas of interest’, ‘learning spaces’ or even warm data locations. They are the places in a system where the necessary level of transformation can or should occur. Some of the potential warm data locations have been canvassed earlier in this chapter. Many of the potential learning spaces have also been described earlier in this chapter. Detailed visualisations can then be developed for every component of the space in ways that can be location-specific, and that will go on to inform a portfolio of learning options.

6. Final thoughts

Seeing a way to navigate towards a truly sustainable tourism future without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the level of experiences that have been available to the present generation seems both bewildering and problematic, given the multiplicity of interconnected ecological, socio-economic and cultural issues that now confront us all.

This chapter has asserted on a number of occasions the systemic nature and the difficulties of transition for policy makers, suppliers and indeed the tourists themselves. The 2023 Bookings.Com Sustainability Report [44] is illustrative. It highlights both the debate about transformation and the initiatives being taken to achieve that transformation. This is in line with that organisations stated goals to get to net zero emissions by 2040. Whether that includes the activities of customers using the platform is not clear. The report found that over 75% of its customers were conscious about the need to take positive action to save the planet now and that, as a consequence, they wanted to travel more sustainably. They also noted that over 50% believed that sustainability choices were difficult to find and that they were also unacceptably more expensive when available. These findings highlight the global dilemma and perhaps gives new meaning to the ‘between space.’ On the one hand, most are now acutely aware that time has run out for remedial action and that adaptive strategies are now the only option. But, and it is a big but, few are prepared to accept the costs and make short term changes to their lifestyles to facilitate that adaptation and are not prepared to support at any level of government the policies and framings that are needed. The consequence is a world in stalemate, where the costs of inaction continue to rise inexorably in both short-term and long-term ways while continued, and arguably cynical, investment in the existing model makes it increasingly likely that the worst-case sustainability scenarios come to pass. In that sense, the global tourism complex is both what we have become and what we are becoming. It mirrors what we are.

Yet in the unexpected discontinuity of COVID, the global tourism sector has stared into the abyss of a post-globalised world that undermines its business model. It is still recovering and fervently hoping that nothing will derail a business-as-usual recovery. The mantra of its various peak bodies simply amplifies that view. At the same time, it is also acutely aware of the mounting evidence that its practises rarely align with sustainable maintenance or restoration. Still, it chooses to pursue future paths that deny both, instead of usefully instigating effort and time to rethink, resign and reposition itself. While these may seem like harsh words, there is little evidence to the contrary. If the tides of change are truly upon us and humanity is now in an in-between space, then this is a dangerous assumption upon which to build a future, and this might be regarded as an absence of stewardship and leadership for the many people and things that depend on its continuance.

If indeed the tourism complex is by definition a hyperobject the challenge is considerable because the knowledge and approaches required are for the most part foreign to those invested in the model. Those invested in potential futures might perhaps adopt a curiosity and knowledge humility that comes with that when travelling to places where what is known provides almost no compass. In such circumstances it is hard to set aside the accumulation of supposed wisdom in favour of relentlessly pursuing the difficult conversations that must be had.

It will be difficult, given the entrenched and vested interests of many stakeholders, to agree on any kind of future goal, or even a shared narrative about what it might become. Perhaps the alternative may be found in navigating a way through and past the many issues that confront the sector. This wayfinding begins with bringing alternatives into focus through considered questions and conversations that make visible all kinds of knowledge in a transdisciplinary fashion. It will be greatly aided if there are visuospatial maps of what it is we think we are talking about. It continues with the redesign of benefit flows, places, spaces and experiences to create an authenticity that is often absent in current cloned models, which tend to create separateness rather than togetherness. This authenticity should also embrace the principle that the natural resources that are used as attractors are not there simply to be used and abused. Rather, they need nurturing, and where necessary, be provided restorative care. This ‘reanimation’ is a relational reorientation that is fundamental to the sustainability dialogue.

Over time this wayfinding provides the fragments of narratives of difference; possibilities both tourists and providers can draw upon as the sector reaches limits that cannot be sustained anymore in any shape or form. These narratives should show those whose entire lives are dependent on sustainable tourism a sense that things can continue, albeit in a slightly different way.

The journey to rethink, redesign and remake the tourist experience is simply one component of the wider transition that humanity must undertake because of the fundamental shifts to life systems that have been caused by neglect, disinterest and cynical exploitation. It mirrors what we have become and what we are becoming. It is helpful to keep it in focus, because it is so visible; if we care to look.