1.docx

1

Responsible Tourism and Sustainability: The Case of Kumarakom in Kerala, India Authors: Dr Angelique Chettiparamb, Senior Lecturer, School of Real Estate and Planning, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6UD. and Dr Jithendran Kokkranikal, Senior Lecturer, Department of Marketing, Events and Tourism; Business School; University of Greenwich; London, SE10 9LS Abstract: This paper discusses the notion of ‘responsible tourism’ and its current use within the tourism literature. We argue that the concept as used currently means everything and therefore adds nothing to the conceptual terrain of tourism trends and nomenclatures. We then introduce our own understanding of the concept arguing that while responsible tourism is linked to sustainability initiatives such as alternative tourism, ecotourism, ethical tourism, green tourism, soft tourism, pro-poor tourism, geo tourism, integrated tourism, community-based tourism, etc it also demarcates an analytical realm of its own. We suggest that the practical use of the term in areas where it has been adopted (such as South Africa and Kerala for instance) suggests a rather restricted use. We identified this realm as the tourism sector specific manifestation of the CSR agenda. Following Flyvberg’s (2006) call for exemplars and paradigmatic case studies to advance knowledge in a particular domain, the responsible tourism initiative in Kumarakon, Kerala is presented. Discussion of the case study traces the particular governance context of Kerala and the position of tourism in the state economy. The responsible tourism initiatives at state level and local level are then described highlighting the ‘how’ of the implementation and the impact that it has produced. Generic, non-prescriptive principles that could be said to be necessary in some form for the successful translation of responsible tourism principles to practices are then identified. Such an approach is contrasted with one that places faith in the voluntary adoption of ‘responsible’ practices by the private sector on its own. It is argued that responsible tourism can make a contribution to practice provided that the conceptual terrain is delineated against other forms of tourism and if research within the terrain can unpack the particular forms of challenges that are thrown up by the delineation itself.

1

2

Key words: responsible tourism, pro-poor tourism, corporate social responsibility, sustainable tourism, Kerala, Kumarakom. Introduction

The concept of responsible tourism has been present in the tourism literature since the early eighties (Smith, 1990; Cooper and Ozdil, 1992). Seminal works by deKadt (1980) and Krippendorf (1987), for instance, raised concerns over the impacts of tourism on the environment and destination communities. In response to increasing instances of social and environmental problems of tourism, a range of sustainability initiatives such as alternative tourism, ecotourism, ethical tourism, green tourism, soft tourism, pro-poor tourism, geo tourism, integrated tourism, community-based tourism, etc. emerged in the tourism literature. Responsible tourism is closely linked to these concepts. These sustainabilityoriented alternatives to mass tourism seek to promote environmental conservation, cultural integrity, socioeconomic development and the welfare of communities, especially the disadvantaged sections, living in tourism destinations (TIES, 1990; Scheyvens and Momsen, 2008; Oliver and Jenkins, 2003; Blackstock, 2005; Cawley and Gilmour, 2008; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2009; Weeden, 2002; Hall, 2008). Even though such initiatives help promote the principles of sustainable tourism (Sharpley, 2000), a range of political, economical and commercial challenges such as differing priorities of the national/regional economy, the structure and incentives of the public administration system, overcommercialisation, the structure of the international tourism system to name but a few, make implementation difficult in practice (Tosun 2001). This paper examines a fairly successful case study of planning and implementation of ‘responsible tourism’ in the village of Kumarakom in Kerala, India. Though the case study itself is interesting for the practice of sustainable/responsible tourism, it also presents an opportunity to critically evaluate the conceptual and practical contribution that the concept of ‘responsible tourism’ might make in tourism studies.

The next section discusses the notion of ‘responsible tourism’ and its current use within the tourism literature. We show that the concept as used currently means everything and therefore adds nothing to the conceptual terrain of tourism trends and nomenclatures. We conclude this section with our own understanding of the concept. In the next section we elaborate upon this arguing that our understanding while remaining broad based identifies 2

3

distinctive areas of concern that clarifies the conceptual focus and thus the contribution made to tourism studies. The next section discusses the methodology which in turn is followed by a discussion of the case study itself. The contribution of the concept of ‘responsible tourism’ as we have defined it is then discussed. Finally, the policy contributions of the case study is presented. The conclusions summarise the main arguments presented in the paper.

The Concept – ‘responsible tourism’

The sustainability orientation of responsible tourism is stressed by Smith (1990:480), who defined responsible tourism as “a form of tourism which respect the host’s natural, built and cultural environments and the interest of all parties concerned”. Besides the absence of a distinction between responsible tourism and sustainable tourism that this view prompts, the controversies surrounding ‘sustainable tourism’ also gets imported into the debates of responsible tourism. For instance, the sustainability debate is often criticized for its lack of conceptual clarity (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010); has been characterised as a flawed and inadequate concept that is based on misconceptions on the role of tourism demand, the nature of tourism resources, the imperative of inter and intra-generational equity, sociocultural integrity, measurement and forms of sustainable development (Liu, 2003); and for offering micro solutions to what is essentially a macro problem of unsustainable growth in tourism (Wheeler, 1991). Wheeler (1991) is critical about the growing number of seemingly environment-friendly tourism initiatives and argues that responsible tourism cannot be a solution for the problems of tourism, as long as the volume of global tourism is on the increase. Any increase in tourism volume will necessarily have a corresponding increase in negative impacts. Therefore responsible development of tourism will require reducing the scale and volume of tourism. Wheeler (1991:96) views responsible tourism as “a pleasant, agreeable, but dangerously superficial, ephemeral and inadequate escape route for the educated middle classes unable, or unwilling, to appreciate or accept their/our own destructive contribution to the international tourism maelstrom.”

Many authors argue that reform of and more carefully planned and managed mass tourism could be a realistic way of dealing with the problems of mass tourism (Cohen, 1987; Butler, 1990; Wheeler, 1994). Sustainable forms of tourism thus generally propose small scale 3

4

destinations and tourism activities. The shrinking of scale could however threaten tourism’s economic and environmental viability as lower numbers would create negligible financial returns. Further, an increase in smaller destinations could invite environmental harm to more locations if the demand for tourism locations remains high (Butler, 1990; Cater, 1993; Sharpley, 2009). The new interest in environment and sustainability in general could also threaten vulnerable and fragile locations as they become new products of sustainable tourism (e.g. eco tourism) thus making them vulnerable to the perils of tourism development, and businesses (MacLellan, 1997; Wight, 1993). However, though consensus on its efficacy is still elusive, the sustainability debate has helped draw attention to the need for a balance between commercial and environmental interests in tourism, and has resulted in many good practices of energy-saving and recycling in the tourism industry (Wall, 1997).

Responsible tourism has similarities with pro-poor tourism (PPT) too. This is another form of value oriented tourism that emerged in the late 1990s. It has the aim of linking tourism and poverty alleviation by focusing on the interests of the poor in tourism destinations (Ashley et. al. 2001; Hall, 2008). PPT focuses on the re-distributive dimensions of sustainable tourism trying to ensure that tourism yields more net benefits to the poor (Scheyvens and Momsen, 2008). PPT too however, has been criticised for its theoretical impreciseness, failure to consider the importance of markets and the need for commercial viability, and for ignoring the existing PPT features and potential of mass tourism (Harrison, 2008).

The definition for responsible tourism used by the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), considers responsible tourism as ‘tourism that promotes responsibility to the environment through its sustainable use, responsibility to involve local communities in the tourism industry; responsibility for the safety and security of visitors and responsible government, employees, employers, unions and local communities’ (DEAT, 1996, 4 cited in Merwe and Wocke, 2007, 1). There is an attempt here to promote the concept as signifying everything without really laying down precise parameters for distinguishing the added contribution that this new term might bring to the already crowded conceptual terrain of different forms of tourism. Goodwin (2011:31) from the International Centre for Responsible Tourism exemplifies this fuzziness when he argues that ‘responsible tourism is about everyone involved taking responsibility for making tourism more sustainable’. The exhortation to everyone taking responsibility for everything only 4

5

serves to weaken the concept as it does not really add any conceptual clarity to tourism studies.

A drift towards tourism businesses is evident in George and Frey’s (2010, 12) description of responsible tourism as ‘managing the business in a way that benefits its local community, natural and business environment and itself’ (added emphasis). We shall argue that ‘responsible tourism’ must be seen as a tourism sector specific manifestation of the wider CSR agenda in the business world. The CSR agenda and ‘responsible tourism’ CSR practices grew as a response to pressures arising from changing ethical values of consumers and increasing demands from multiple stakeholders for businesses to be more ethical (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). CSR relates to a company’s obligation to be accountable to all of its stakeholders in its operations and activities with the aim of facilitating sustainable development (Dodds and Joppe, 2005). CSR practices can then, in principle, help businesses introduce environmentally friendly operational practices that help them reduce cost, ensure better employee satisfaction and gain consumer support as an ethical business (Malovics, et. al. 2008). A raft of initiatives fall within their scope as for instance ethical sourcing, waste reduction and non-exploitative waste disposal, equitable employment, honest advertisement, fair pricing, community partnerships, responsible resource management, etc.

Businesses however are ultimately driven by profit motives (Welford, 1997). Their investment decisions are typically dictated by profit, not by altruism, and therefore any trade-off at the expense of commercial viability generally requires either targeted public policies or a consumer demand that favour particular businesses practices (Henderson, 2007). Thus CSR practices are normally adopted for its modified, but still profit oriented business value that result from either requirements for legal/policy compliance or public relations and estimations of long term commercial value (Pearce and Doh, 2005; Miller and Twining-Ward, 2005; Inoue and Lee, 2010). For example, Business in the Community (BITC), a business-led coalition in the United Kingdom set up to promote corporate social responsibility, lists the benefits of CSR as: reputation management, risk management, 5

6

employee satisfaction, innovation and learning, access to capital, and financial performance (BITC, 2003).

As with other business sectors, tourism businesses have also embraced CSR practices declaring their environmental and social commitment (Bohdanowicz, 2007). Its advocates contend that CSR initiatives can help enhance a tourist destination’s competitiveness and image (Williams, et. al. 2007; Bohdanowicz, 2005). However, as mentioned earlier, the ability of the private sector in tourism to direct and coordinate their actions towards wider goals of sustainability, business ethics, pro-poor development etc, will need to be steered. As an industry that is fragmented and made up of large numbers of small and medium enterprises, with a range of potential effects that are in the main, wide ranging and diverse, corporate social responsibility within the tourism sector takes on sector specific nuances with specific challenges and opportunities. We suggest that responsible tourism initiatives can be seen to be the policies and practices that embody an extension of the CSR agenda in tourism. As such then, it relates to encouraging, regulating and steering private actors in tourism to adopt a wider broad based CSR agenda through legal intervention, public policy, voluntary action or social mobilisation. The central role of tourism businesses in responsible tourism policies is demonstrated by the various Declarations in responsible tourism such as the Cape Town Declaration (2002), the Kerala Declaration (2008), the Alberta Declaration (2011), etc and the experience of South Africa in introducing the South African National Responsible Tourism Guidelines and that of Kerala in introducing the Responsible Tourism initiative through local governments. In all of the above, facilitating ‘responsible’ behaviour of the private sector through CSR related practices targeting wider socio-economic- cultural issues is the focus. The concept of responsible tourism then overlaps significantly with related concepts of sustainable tourism, ethical tourism, pro-poor tourism and integrated tourism. Sustainable tourism is defined by Middleton, (1998, ix, cited in George and Frey, 2010, 13) as ‘achieving a particular combination of numbers and types of visitors, the cumulative effect of whose activities at a given destination together with the actions of the servicing businesses, can continue into the foreseeable future, without damaging the quality of the environment on which the activities are based’. While ethical tourism can be thought of as emphasising the ethical dimension of sustainable tourism and pro-poor tourism can be thought of as emphasising the re-distributive dimensions of sustainable tourism, the concept of integrated 6

7

tourism brings inter-sectoral linkages into the equation and emphasises broad cross– linkages in tourism that allows it to become sustainable. Responsible tourism, as we have defined it, can then be seen as distinct from all of the above in its focus on the role of private sector and the CSR agenda in achieving all of the above more normative goals. Responsible tourism has now been officially adopted by many important tourism destinations and tourism businesses. The concept has also been actively promoted by academic centres of study such as the International Centre for Responsible Tourism1; and International Conferences2. Though perhaps not yet a ‘movement’, responsible tourism is increasingly being pursued by states and city governments as a means to engage with the private sector. The international appeal of the concept can be partly explained by the centrality of the private sector in managing impacts of tourism and the increased wider interest in CSR activities in general. Thus, besides offering a normative appeal, ‘responsible tourism’ also offers a pragmatic appeal in managing tourism for after all, the private sector is the major provider of tourism experiences and services in most destinations worldwide and is a fast growing presence in the tourism sector. Studies in responsible tourism can be expected to both draw upon and contribute to the wider CSR literature. However actual case study based accounts of experiences in the implementation of responsible tourism have only just started appearing in the academic tourism literature. Some early reports on South Africa have now emerged (George and Frey 2010; Merwe and Wocke 2007). This paper is an early case study based contribution to this nascent and emerging field of study. The methodology used to document this case is explained below. Research Methods A case study based research approach is adopted. As stated by Yin (1981) one of the most distinguishing characteristics of case study research is the fact that phenomena are studied in their real-life context. The research strategy therefore is particularly apt for studies of phenomena that can only be understood and explained through its context – the particular actors, institutions, imageries and the happenings therein - because of which, and through 1

http://www.icrtourism.org such as the five ‘International Conferences on Responsible Tourism in Destinations’ held at Cape Town, South Africa; Cochin, Kerala, India; Belmopan, Belize, Central America; Muscat, Oman; and Alberta, Canada. 2

7

8

which, particular practices and phenomena emerge. It has been argued that such context based learning is essential for professionals to make their transition from scientific rulebased knowledge dominated by analytical rationality typical of ‘beginners to ‘virtuoso experts’ capable of understanding and appreciating the non-rule based complexities involved in practice (Flyvberg, 2006). This then is also a call for the study of exemplars in advancing knowledge, for as Flyvberg citing Kuhn, (1987) remarks: a discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and that a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one. (Flyvberg, 2006, p.242).

Flyvberg further defines a ‘paradigmatic case study’ (p.232). This is a case that aims ‘to develop a metaphor or establish a school for the domain that the case concerns’ (Flyvberg, 2006, 229). Paradigmatic cases thus highlight particular features of the domain of enquiry and as such need not be typical or even remarkable. It is not possible consistently, or even frequently, to determine in advance whether a given case Geertz’s (1973) cockfights in Bali, for instance—is paradigmatic. Besides the strategic choice of case, the execution of the case study will certainly play a role, as will the reactions to the study by the research community, the group studied, and possibly, a broader public. The value of the case study will depend on the validity claims that researchers can place on their study and the status these claims obtain in dialogue with other validity claims in the discourse to which the study is a contribution (Flyvberg, 2006, 233).

There are thus few guidelines for the selection of such cases, and the literature suggests a retrospective justification more or less along the lines of the saying ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’.

The case study chosen here can be claimed to be atypical in the sense that it is situated in the state of Kerala in India, which has come to be known for relatively high (amongst developing regions) levels of social development, social movements and active citizenship (Parayil, 2000, Heller, 1996, Heller, et al, 2007). The state has also instituted far reaching institutional changes that allow for direct citizen participation in bottom-up planning, against which local budget allocation takes place (Chettiparamb, 2005, 2006). Innovative programmes such as the Kudumbashree in poverty alleviation have also been reported 8

9

(Williams et al, 2010). The responsible tourism initiative is a relatively new venture of the Government of Kerala.

The atypical nature of the case poses an interesting context for this paper. If responsible tourism is to be re-conceptualised and understood as an extension of the CSR agenda as we have suggested, then it is worthwhile to investigate the operation of the scope of this conceptualisation to encapsulate, while clarifying current understandings of the term ‘responsible tourism’. A detailed study of the concept of responsible tourism in Kerala then has value for it has the potential to evolve into a ‘paradigmatic case study’ in that it could provide the empirical arguments that allow for pinning down the rather nebulous concept of ‘responsible tourism’ to a CSR agenda in tourism.

In line with the purposes of case study research in general (Yin, 1981), the investigation of the case study in this paper is exploratory and phenomenological. It aims to elicit a thick description of the ‘how’ in the implementation of responsible tourism in Kumarakom. The implementation of responsible tourism in Kumarakom is relatively well known and therefore substantial secondary information was available. Given the exploratory nature of the study, research methods were confined in the first instance to an analysis of secondary data. Besides serving as a valid research method in itself, as Cowton (1998) suggests, analysis of secondary data can also be a useful initial stage that leads on to the initiation of primary research. Though further primary research will undoubtedly help explore and enhance the conclusions suggested in this paper, we believe that the arguments we make at this stage are nevertheless of significance to tourism and planning studies.

Cowton (1998, 429) suggests a number of practical and logistical advantages for research based on secondary sources. However and more importantly (for the purpose of this paper) he suggests that due to the multiplicity of perspectives through which secondary data may have been collected, the descriptive validity of the case study can be often be better established than in (sometimes biased) narrative reporting from primary research structured around particular research questions. However, care is also needed in working with secondary sources for -

9

10

secondary data are likely to map only approximately onto the researcher's ideal research questions, hypotheses or concepts, and the researcher needs both to bear in mind the extent of that approximation and to make readers aware of it when the results are written up for publication (Cowton, 1998, 429).

Sourcing extensively across different secondary sources can then help as the multiplicity of narratives can provide a source for triangulation and multiple interpretations. Sources for secondary data used in this paper include academic publications, government publications (state and local levels), newspaper reports, and publications and websites of activist groups such as EQUATIONS and TOURISM WATCH engaged in lobbying against environmental and social issues in tourism. Descriptive background information on the context was first sought. These were categorised into information on the location (state and local); information on general governance modes and information on tourism policy. The historical and geographical policy context of the case study from the first phase informed the search and analysis of the second phase which focused on the case study itself: the formulation, implementation and impacts of responsible tourism initiatives in Kumarakom.

In the following sections, we present the governance context of the state of Kerala followed by a brief overview of the tourism sector. In the second section, we describe the implementation of responsible tourism in Kumarakom in Kerala. The third section advances our arguments and we conclude in the fourth and final section. The governance context of Kerala Kerala is located on the Southern-most tip of India on the East coast of the Arabian Sea. The population is around 33.4 million (provisional figures, 2011 census). The state has attracted the interest of development scholars mainly because it has been successful in maintaining high levels of literacy, health and gender parity alongside relatively high quality of life in spite of low economic development3. These have been argued to be an outcome of both historical factors and public intervention in the form of state policies through redistributive programmes such as land reforms, a public distribution system for food, and various welfare programmes for the socially and economically marginalised (Parayil, 2000). Social reforms led by important social leaders, the communist movement and science based people’s movements that were active in the late 19th and most of 20th century also served to instil

3

See George 1997 and Tharamanaglam, 1997 for alternate views

10

11

significant levels of civic and political activism amongst the population (Franke and Chasin, 1997). In terms of governance, a broad based bottom-up planning initiative called the People’s Planning Campaign which involves participatory budgeting was launched in 1996 and has been firmly institutionalised since (Chettiparamb, 2005, 2006, Isaac and Franke, 2000). Through the process of bottom-up planning, communities are empowered to plan local projects, prioritise the projects against a budget, and partake in implementation and monitoring of the same. The process is an annual process and presently around 25% of plan funds of the state budget (devolved to local governments in Kerala) are planned through such a process. The programme has been by and large successful, on a number of counts, particularly in rural areas. Innovative schemes have been designed and implemented and localities have had the freedom to prioritise diverse kinds of economic, social and infrastructure schemes that suit the specificities of their place (Kerala State Planning Board, 2011, Isaac and Franke, 2000). Also important for this paper is the Kudumbashree programme of Kerala. This is a state sponsored poverty alleviation programme with broader goals of women’s empowerment (realised through women’s collectives) and local economic development (realised through close integration with the local government who are themselves empowered as stated previously). The programme has a multi-dimensional view of poverty fore-fronting self help as a core strategy. The mission statement reads: ‘[t]o eradicate absolute poverty in ten years through concerted community action under the leadership of local governments, by facilitating organization of the poor for combining self-help with demand-led convergence of available services and resources to tackle the multiple dimensions and manifestations of poverty, holistically’ (Kudumbashree, n.d, a, added emphasis). The structure that delivers these objectives is closely linked to the local government system (see figure 1). Overall coordination is done by the State Poverty Eradication Mission through its District offices. The Neighbourhood groups are made up of 10-20 women members from economically backward families constituted on a spatial basis. These groups are federated to Area Development Societies at ward level and Community Development Societies at local government level. The spatial organisation allows for dove tailing of policy to specific needs 11

12

of the poor determined on a spatial basis. Through bottom-up planning, these needs become the impetus for change and multi-faceted new programme development.

Figure1: Organisational structure of the Kudumbashree Programme. Source: Author.

Projects taken up by the Kudumbashree units involve local economic development through micro-enterprises (both production and service); thrift and credit operations through microfinance; women’s empowerment initiatives through capacity building and debate; and general social development through initiatives in housing, children’s education, support for cultural activities and so on (Chettiparamb, 2011). The programme has won many awards and is generally known as an ‘exemplar’ within poverty alleviation policy circles in India (Oommen, 2008, Kudumbashree, n.d,b). While the programme has undeniably been quite successful in poverty alleviation and women’s empowerment, success in micro-enterprises has been rather patchy (Oommen, 2008; Williams, et al 2010). While there are significant numbers of successful stories, stories of business failures and struggles are also abundant. Though multiple forms of support are

12

13

provided to Kudumbashree units, marketing of produce and products remain a problem (Oommen, 2008; Pat, 2005). Tourism sector in Kerala Kerala is known for its scenic beauty and is a popular tourist destination. It was listed as the top 10 ‘paradises found’ in the millennium edition of the National Geographic magazine (Sebastian and Rajagopalan, 2009). Though almost 50% of the state's population was dependent on agriculture until the 1980s, this sector has since declined with farming becoming increasingly unprofitable (George, 1997, Kerala State Planning Board, 2011). Industrial activities in the state are also limited, due to a multiplicity of factors, not least of which was the presence of a militant trade union movement (Tharamangalam, 1997). In terms of natural and cultural assets, Kerala however has a varied portfolio of attractions such as beaches, backwaters, hill stations, festivals, ayurveda (the traditional Indian medical practice), wildlife, traditional cuisines, classical and folk art and dance forms, unique artefacts and a distinctive style of architecture (Kelly and Kokkranikal, 2010). Tourism was therefore identified as a major economic development alternative. This recognition triggered a series of tourism development and promotional activities in the late 1980s (Kerala State Planning Board, 2011).

In the second half of the 1980s, a raft of initiatives to tap the tourism potential of the state was introduced. Tourism was given an industry status in 1986, thus making the sector eligible for all public sector incentives and concessions that were extended to other industries. This was followed by the announcement of significant investment, particularly in tourism infrastructure, and the announcement of a number of performance incentives for the tourism industry. Some of the public sector interventions taken during this time include the establishment of a new tourism training institute, Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies (KITTS) in 1988; formation of District Tourism Promotion Councils in all fourteen districts, to decentralise tourism efforts and make it more spatially sensitive; a year-long campaigning for tourism awareness in 1992 to increase public awareness of tourism related issues; organisation of familiarisation tours for overseas travel trade and media and the development of international airport at Kochi as a cooperative venture. Strategically, these programmes, projects and interventions served to elevate and proclaim tourism as a high profile sector for private investment. 13

14

The late nineties and early twenties saw Kerala significantly benefitting from private sector investment in tourism. Public-private joint ventures with leading hotel chains in the country were launched by the setting up of Tourist Resorts Kerala Limited (TRKL) for the purpose. The Department of Tourism also publishes an annual calendar of indigenous cultural festivals and have been organising the Grant Kerala Shopping Festival (GKSF) annually since 2001. The state participated in major international tourism trade fairs and has organised a trade fair of its own - the Kerala Travel Mart - since 2000. This period also saw the identification and promotion of a specialised niche market in health (ayurveda) tourism by supporting traditional practitioners of ayurveda and health resorts through standardisation, education, training and marketing programmes.

The decline of Kashmir as a major tourist destination (due to the India-Pakistan conflict in the area) indirectly helped Kerala (Kokkranikal and Morrison, 2002). The state took this opportunity to present itself as an attractive and viable alternate tourist location thus attracting national government budgetary support. Kerala tourism is now widely acclaimed as one of the successful marketing stories in Indian tourism (Chakravarti, 2001). The state has won the national award for the ‘best performing state in the tourism sector’ several times and has been hailed as ‘the undisputed tourism hotspot of India' (Charkavarti, 2001). Tourism statistics from the mid-80s onwards has consequently seen a quadrupling of arrivals.

With all the boosterism evident in tourism policy and promotion, Kerala inevitably has also suffered from the down-side of tourism. Tourism destinations have suffered from problems such as littering and pollution resulting in adverse environmental impacts; social issues such as drug trafficking, commercial sex exploitation involving men, women, and children have arisen (Kokkranikal and Morrison, 2002); displacement of local inhabitants and competition for resources and infrastructure have surfaced; and indigenous cultural attractions such as Kathakali (a form of dance drama), theyyam (a religious festival celebrated in North Kerala temples), and other similar temple festivals have been packaged as tourist products, leading to concerns of commodification of traditional living practices. Resentment has thus grown amongst the general public with increasing concerns about the pressure exerted by tourists, on the sometimes already over-stretched infrastructure and resources in the state

14

15

(Kokkranikal, 1993). With the development of new destinations and consequent increase in marketing activities, the number of tourists to the state is only likely to increase.

The above pressures and public discontent has now induced the Government to adopt the concept of ‘responsible tourism’ as a way forward. The implementation of the concept in Kerala has however taken on a character and tone that is specific to Kerala and its development history. In the next section, we detail how this particular initiative in Kerala takes on a place based, community mediated dimension in Kumarakom, in Kerala.

Responsible tourism in Kerala A concerted effort to implement responsible tourism began with a state level consultation on the subject organised by the Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, in association with the International Centre for Responsible Tourism and EQUATIONS (a nongovernment activist organisation and ‘hard’ campaigner on tourism related issues) organised at Thiruvananthapuram, the state capital, on the 2nd and 3rd of February, 2007. Discussions were conducted in three sub-groups consisting of 1) Local self governments and civil society organisations; 2) Tourism industry and 3) State Government Departments and organisations. A series of economic, socio-cultural and environmental issues were identified by each of these sub-groups which were in turn captured in a workshop document that eventually led to the preparation of a framework for the implementation of responsible tourism. A ‘State Level Responsible Tourism Committee (SLRTC) emerged from this consisting of 40 members with representation from different groups of stakeholders. In the first meeting of SLRTC it was decided that the responsible tourism initiative should be piloted in four different types of destinations in Kerala, all chosen for their importance as tourism destinations, but differing in tourist volumes and the ecological sensitivity of the destinations. These were to be Kovalam (near saturated, coastal destination), Kumarakom (ecological fragile backwaters destination), Wayanad (dispersed settlement pattern and hill resort destination) and Thekkady (contained settlement pattern and hill resort destination). Three state-level multi-stakeholder Working Groups were then constituted for steering economic, environmental and socio-cultural aspects of tourism management in these destinations. At local level, multi-stakeholder Destination Level Responsible Tourism Committees (DLRTCs) and local level implementation cells consisting of working groups that 15

16

mirrored the state level working groups were to be formed under the local government. The DLRTCs were to have representatives from local self governments, tourism industry, NGOs, civil society organizations, academia and media. Additionally, organizations and individuals professing expertise in a range of subject areas of relevance to the management of tourism were also to be members. While the state level committees worked on preparation of guidelines for responsible tourism at destinations, local committees were to work on the specificities of implementing the guidelines in locations. Thus, the initiatives though supported by the state tourism department, were to be formulated by local governments through destination level planning, implementation and monitoring. Figure 2 below shows the proposed overall organisational structure for the implementation of responsible tourism.

Figure: 2: Proposed organisational layout for the implementation of Responsible Tourism in Kerala (adapted from http://www.keralatourism.org/rt-impactsocial.php (accessed 22nd October, 2011) 16

17

It is worth noting here that the Kerala Declaration for responsible tourism was working with a rather diffuse definition. For instance, the Kerala Declaration on Responsible tourism cosigned by the Conference Convenor Dr Harold Goodwin and the State Secretary for Tourism Affairs Dr Venu, pledges to ‘take forward the concept of Responsible Tourism into practice, focusing on local economy, well being, local culture and environment’ (Goodwin and Venu, 2008). Further the document declares that ‘one of the purposes of responsible tourism is that the benefits of tourism are equitably accessed and distributed’ (Goodwin and Venu, 2008). A major impetus for the responsible tourism initiative came when links were established to the Kudumbashree programme. As mentioned earlier, eradication of poverty through facilitation and development of entrepreneurial skills amongst women while contributing to local economic development through programme ‘convergence’ is a strong mandate of the Kudumbashree programme. The federated Kudumbashree units are also, by and large, a politically and socially forceful presence in most local government endeavours throughout the state. For the Kudumbashree programme, the responsible tourism initiatives held the potential for opening up markets for goods and services that in turn could be a spur for local entrepreneurship development and thereby poverty alleviation. Marketing of produce and services to various extents had always been an Achilles heel for the Kudumbashree entrepreneurial units (Oommen, 2008, Pat, 2005). The responsible tourism programme was therefore of great interest to them (Venu, 2008). In the state level workshop conducted in February, 2007 (mentioned earlier), a series of issues in engaging with responsible tourism practices were identified. From the rather large list of issues local food procurement by tourism providers and local level facilitation of the same, were taken up for detailed investigation. Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies (KITTS) detailed the problems in this sector through a survey of issues in local food procurement for hotels in the four destinations chosen. From this study, it emerged that hoteliers though in principle willing to procure food locally, had a number of concerns that would have to be addressed if local procurement was to become a reality. These were:  Produce requirements in practice were not steady throughout the year and supply chains would have to cater to this variability. Sudden spurts in demand were not uncommon and timeliness of supply would be needed. 17

18

 Acceptable prices needed to be negotiated. In some instance, local procurement could be more expensive with prices lower outside the locality.  Quality control of food produce was of prime importance.  Local food producers often were very small entities and hoteliers could engage in one to one transactions with each producer (Venu, 2008).

A strategy to address the above concerns was then needed. Detailing of such a strategy, as well of initiation of other initiatives in line with the spirit of responsible tourism, was left to the local governments at the destinations chosen. In the next section we detail the initiatives taken up in one destination – Kumarakom. This destination was chosen as it is widely acknowledged as ‘successful’ within Kerala. Responsible Tourism in Kumarakom Kumarakom is largely a rural society with an agrarian economy. It is located on the banks of the Vembanad Lake in South Kerala and covers an area of 51.66 square kilometers of which 24.13 square kilometres are part of the backwaters leaving just 27.54 kilometres for human habitation and farming (Shyamlal, 2008).

Paddy fields make up almost 12.5 square

kilometers. The total population of the area is around 24,900 (Shyamlal, 2008) and the main occupation of the population before the advent of tourism was agriculture, fisheries, daily wage labour and shell-mining from the backwaters. The place is known for its backwaters, paddy fields, mangroves, bird sanctuary and intrinsic inland water canals, all of which constitute a fragile backwaters ecosystem. The vast Vembanad Lake forms an integral part of this ecosystem and at Kumarakom this is capitalised as a significant tourist attraction. Tourism became a significant economic sector in Kumarakom in the early 1990s after one of India’s leading hotel chains – the Taj Goup – leased a heritage resort in 1989 from the Government of Kerala (Equations, 2007; Sebastian and Rajagopalan, 2008). This eventually led to a spontaneous (rather than planned) growth of tourism, characterised by expensive hotels/resorts for high-spending tourists, significant conversion of paddy fields to high value resort sites with consequent ecological impacts, spiralling land prices, restricted access to the lake for the local population, unwelcome socio-sexual intrusions by tourists and minimal local involvement in the economic aspects of tourism (Sebastian and Rajagopalan, 2011).

18

19

The first initiative to address problems arising from tourism in the location came in 2002, when the Panchayat (rural local self –government in India) sought help from EQUATIONS (a Bangalore based activist organisation campaigning on tourism related issues), and other locally active civil organisations to formulate a ‘People’s Charter and Draft Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism’. The Charter demanded the preparation of a Master Plan for tourism development; proposed regulations for new constructions and tourism related activities; protested against the enclavisation and exploitation of common resources, demanded effective allocation of costs of tourism to the industry itself; better distribution of the benefits from tourism and increased participation of the local community. Debate and public discussions on the social obligations of tourism industry and its corporate accountability were thus discernible quite early. The Charter also demanded the creation of institutional forums such as an expert committee to conceptualise, plan, implement and monitor tourism development within the Panchayat (Kerala Tourism Watch, n.d, Padmanabhan and Georgey, n.d). However, not much in terms of change on the ground resulted from this (Padmanabhan and Georgey, n.d). By 2004, the Grama Panchayat constituted an institutional forum called the ‘Functional Committee’ on tourism. The President (elected leader) and Secretary (chief executive officer) of the Kumarakom Grama Panchayat were to be the Chairperson and Secretary of the Committee.

Other members were all elected Panchayat members, people with

knowledge and expertise in tourism, District Town Planning Officer, environmentalists, economists, local NGOs and representatives from the tourism industry. The committee was charged with the implementation of the People’s Charter and the monitoring of tourism activities. Though initial discussions on the various aspects were held, the committee was subsequently dissolved with the dissolution of the then Panchayat (Kerala Tourism Watch, n.d). In 2005, in an effort to regulate some of the unbridled tourism activity, the state government declared the area as a ‘Special Tourism Zone’ (along the lines of special economic zones) under the Kerala Tourism (Conservation and Preservation of Areas) Act 2005 (Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, 2005a). Though guidelines for the conservation and preservation of Kumarakom were issued under this Ordinance (Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, 2005b), Sebastian and Rajagopalan (2008) report that they were not yet implemented in 2007. However, though the functional 19

20

committees no longer existed, tourism related activities were taken up by a civil forum. The civil forum was essentially a collective of civil society movements, individuals and people’s groups (Kerala Tourism Watch, 2007). This forum was active in campaigning (sometimes successfully) against issues such as reclamation of land from backwaters for parking space; illegal sand mining and environmental pollution. It demanded action on (again effectively) violation of building rules; declaration of the bird sanctuary area as a ‘community conserve’; reservation of 30% of jobs for the local population and closure of illegal massage parlours (Kerala Tourism Watch, n.d.). Thus even though public awareness on tourism related issues was strengthening in Kumarakom, the potential for institutionalised broad based economic leveraging while safeguarding the ecological and social assets had not yet been effectively realised before the responsible tourism initiative.

The lack of effective institutionalisation earlier meant that the responsible tourism initiatives that were initiated by the Kerala State Government in December, 2007 did not inspire much hope locally. As a first step therefore, the Panchayat, together with officials from the state Government, organised a local meeting in order to explain the programme, the schedule for implementation and introduce the key players in the initiative (Michot, 2010). Following the survey by KITTS mentioned earlier, the Destination Level Responsible Tourism Committee Cell (RT Cell) first worked on a strategy for encouraging local procurement by resorts. Some of the key elements of such a strategy involved  

Selected ranges of food produce would be targeted at first. Food production beyond tourism would also be targeted by including the local population in order to ensure both spare production for hotels at all times and enough demand for excess supply).



Dedicated brokering units facilitated by the local government would be established to address timeliness, quality control, fair price guarantees and access to resources (finance, land and skills).

An agricultural calendar for the locality was then prepared. This calendar mapped out the local demand from the resorts for specific produces at different times of the year and 18 hotels and resorts were cajoled (through state and local influence) into signing up to an agreement to purchase produces exclusively from the farmers of the locality (Michon,2010; Interview 2011). 20

21

The KITTS study had also identified groups of people in the locality that were economically struggling the most. Kudumbashree units of 5 members were then constituted from these groups for the cultivation of the food produces chosen. 180 such groups involving 900 women were formed with land for cultivation earmarked and fertilizers and seeds supplied by the Panchayat. Fallow land for cultivation was found through a household survey and physical reconnaissance survey. It is reported that paddy cultivation in 55 acres of and vegetable cultivation in 30 acres resulted. Further, 612 homestead farmers were motivated to take up vegetable cultivation. Organic farming practices were encouraged. The resource mapping exercise also identified 26 un-used ponds, 20 of which were restored as fish farms and 6 were restored for lotus cultivation. Initially (in 2008) 11 produces from the units were supplied to the hotels, which in 2010 has grown to 45 produces. It is estimated that at present around one third of the population of the village is involved in the production and sale of agricultural produce (Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, n.d). Other initiatives that were also started under the responsible tourism initiative were the development of microenterprises in souvenir units; the formation of art and culture groups by women and children in a number of traditional art forms; development of calendars of local festivals and celebrations that could be used for marketing and promotion by industry partners; development of tour packages of village life and experiences; environmental protection through the promotion of eco-bags instead of plastic bags; mangrove regeneration and control of backwater pollution; energy saving initiatives through the development of local green certification; and use of energy efficient street lighting. Further, a grass root level community generated multifaceted resource mapping (containing information on different kinds of resources including that of art and culture), and a destination labour directory were completed to help with planning (Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, n.d). The clientele for all of these initiatives are the tourists that come to the numerous privately owned tourist resorts in the area. Michon (2010) reports that the responsible tourism has had real and quantifiable results on the ground. He lists these as 

“Significant increase in local agricultural production



Creation of a cultivation calendar



Creation of systems for steady prices to avoid inflation and market fluctuations 21

22



Creation of 10 Karshakasamity (farmers groups), with a total of 460 people



Creation of 20 Kudumbashree units, with a total of 250 women



Creation of 5 Micro Enterprises focused on women o

1 women fish processing unit

o

1 women chicken processing unit

o

1 women Chappathy (local bread) processing unit

o

2 coconut supply units” (Michon, 2010, p.10)

Michon (2010) further reports that the responsible tourism initiative has led to the involvement of 760 women in the cultivation of local produce, 35 in retail activities, 30 in art and cultural groups, and 45 in the village tours. In line with overall Kudumbashree aims, the responsible tourism initiative has significantly contributed to an overall social agenda for women’s empowerment too.

The initiative at Kumarakom is largely acknowledged within policy circles and practitioner circles, both locally and more widely within the state, as a success. It is therefore useful to deconstruct the case study and analyse its contribution to not just practice, but also academic debates around the notion of responsible tourism. Sustainability, the CSR agenda and responsible tourism

The responsible tourism initiative in Kumarakom as detailed above can be seen as broad based and incorporating elements of a wide range of tourism sub-strands - pro-poor tourism, community participation in tourism and integrated tourism - that are normatively promoted within debates and discussions on sustainable tourism. In this section we present our case for positioning the concept of responsible tourism and linking it to the CSR agenda in tourism. Corporate Social Responsibility can be defined as ‘actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law’ (Mc Williams and Siegal, 2001, p.117). Carroll (1991) suggests a pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility wherein four different motivations for businesses to engage with CSR practices are identified. The first of these - the economic responsibility – is the base upon which the other three – legal responsibility, ethical responsibility and philanthropic responsibility – rests. This 22

23

then suggests that while economic sustainability is a fundamental motive, other motivations can also feed into it thereby strengthening the corporation social responsibility agenda of a firm. Further, Nicolau (2008) and Sheldon and Park, (2012) argue that when concern for the long-term overrides concerns for the short–term, CSR becomes a more viable strategy for firms. Many international (see the initiatives of the United Nations Global Contact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises) and national organisations

(see the

Responsible Tourism Manual for South Africa, 2002) have attempted to encourage adoption of CSR practices through the creation of standards. However, as Sheldon and Park (2012, 394) note, these remain as voluntary guidelines and ‘the various agencies authoring these initiatives are challenged to transition voluntary guidelines into meaningful and widely adopted action’.

Studies on the actual adoption of CSR practices as opposed to intentions show a very low translation rate. For instance, Sheldon and Park (2012) report that the McKinsey Quarterly Survey of 2008 show that only 30% of those who supported CSR in principle had actually taken any action. Results from Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College (2007) are also reported as similar, though less drastic. Henderson (2007) suggests that the nature of tourism and travel operations is such that an additional layer of complexity is added as society is part of the product on offer. The relationship of the industry to the environment and society is therefore necessarily different. In spite of this, the capacity of tourism to adversely affect multiple dimensions of society and the environment is rather well known. Nevertheless, he argues that there is a potential positive impact that tourism can deliver in destinations which is closely related to concepts of sustainability. But he distinguishes between these two: The principles of sustainable development have much in common with those of CSR and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. A company pursuing sustainable tourism is, by definition, socially responsible while CSR incorporates some of the fundamental tenets of sustainability. However, sustainable development seeks to embrace all the participants in the development process and give equal weight to their voices. CSR maintains a company perspective and questions of profitability remain at the forefront, not to be eclipsed by social and environmental agendas. Sustainable development implies a deeper and broader commitment and is part of a debate which is relevant to most areas of human endeavour and informs private and public sector actions. In comparison, CSR pertains only to industry members and covers a particular and voluntary aspect of activity. It therefore occupies a position near the

23

24

weaker pole of the sustainability spectrum and should be assessed within the context of that discourse (Henderson , 2007, 231).

We suggest that ‘responsible tourism’ could be the bridging concept that connects the CSR agenda in tourism business practice to the wider sustainability agenda. If it is to perform as a bridging concept, it must then retain the width of the sustainability debate – incorporating a diverse range of actors and agendas – while refocusing this on facilitative and complementary practices, provisioning of public goods, and provision of regulatory limits that allow the private sector to reach its optimum potential. This will then involve creative ways of planning and must include the design of innovative mechanisms that have the dual purpose of achieving sustainability and industry viability. Studies of CSR adoption in the travel and tourism sector is, in general, ‘somewhat sparse’ (Sheldon and Park, 2012, 394), and case study reports of the same are even more so. The case of Kumarakom is, we suggest, a paradigmatic case study that embodies certain principles for the operationalisation of ‘responsible tourism’ in destinations. We discuss these principles and their associated policy implications in the next section.

Operationalising responsible tourism: Policy implications

In this section we engage with four non-prescriptive principles for operationalising responsible tourism. They are non-prescriptive, in the sense that the elements that make up these principles will vary from case study to case study, yet they are principles as care and attention must be given to ensure the presence and operationalisation of these components in most situations. In other words, the principles are not to be used as prescriptive dictums that would hold true in all situations, but emerge as significant markers in achieving responsible tourism. We discuss the importance of coercion, information flow, local embeddedness and local leadership in this section. In Kumarakom, the knowledge, capability and the will for action for responsible tourism practices were not present initially within the industry, the state government or the local government. The issue gained political/official prominence through generalised awareness gained through the active campaigning of civil society movements and NGOs engaged in oppositional politics which also resonated with lived experiences in the locality. Once a political space was opened at state level (arguably through the accumulation of such 24

25

oppositional politics), the bureaucratic/regulatory power of the state became available for implementation. Michon (2010) highlights how the implementation of the responsible tourism initiative was fraught with non-compliance from industry partners at the start (in spite of a written agreement) due to higher costs of local produce. It was the personal involvement and unwavering insistence of top-level bureaucrats that finally coerced the industry partners to compliance and cooperation in the early days. Once implementation was streamlined, industry partners started to reap the tangible (product diversification and enhancement of tourist experience) and intangible (good-will of community, better touristhost relations and better linkages with regulators) benefits which then could lead to the longer term sustainability of the venture. The productive value of socially accepted value based coercion has to be therefore acknowledged. This may emanate from civil society, government hierarchy, consensus amongst industry partners or combinations of the above depending upon the specificities of the destination. Further as we have seen good intentions need not always translate into practice. The presence of coercion nudges good intentions in CSR practices towards higher levels of CSR adoption by helping overcome real and imagined risk barriers. Real and imagined risk can arise because of both increased capital and recurring expenditure (high prices for local produces in the case of Kumarakom) and also the need for change in business practices (delinking form existing supply chains) resulting in uncertainty and consequent inertia. However if the coercive mechanism can be streamlined into intrinsic motivational mechanisms the longer-term sustainability can arise from changed business practices which in turn could result in much less active regulation. Though coercion is highlighted as a necessary principle to get responsible tourism practices off the ground, these must remain socially accepted and value based. There is a vast literature around the why and how of collaborative planning which elaborates on the process of stakeholder interests and consensus formation to arrive at socially accepted value based agreement (Healey, 1998, 1999, Innes, 2004, Forester, 2006). Theoretically speaking, if due process has been followed, the need for coercion should not exist. However, the daily grind of business practices for small and medium businesses (which make up the bulk of tourist sector in most locations) may not allow for extensive and exhaustive participation except on the most serious of issues. Also all firms may not be always present. In Kumarakom for instance, only the major actors and players in all three sectors were invited 25

26

for the consultative workshop. However, this served as a focus group representing broad based interests in tourism, which then fed into identification of information gaps, design of institutional forums and the formulation of generic policy guidelines for responsible tourism. Information gathering practices such as carefully designed surveys, the KITTS survey on difficulties in local procurement in Kumarakom for instance, can also help in gathering information from more diverse groups such as small and medium firms or identifying target populations such as the economically backward families in a location. Directions of information flow and ensuring that interested parties are part of the decision making process through a variety of means is therefore vital. A focus on place has been claimed to have the potential to promote intersectoral joined up thinking (Healey, 1999). This is because local embeddedness admits the specificity of information required for evaluating and appropriating the strengths and weaknesses of particular initiatives within a meaningful framework of solving or creating problems. This allows the sorting and recognition of complementarities and gaps in policy formulation thus enabling appropriate ‘bundling’ of policy initiatives. Given that responsible tourism initiatives (and CSR initiatives in general) are geared towards wider impacts of industry on society, the absence of place focus can potentially result in the loss of information specificity needed for ‘truly’ responsible initiatives and the loss of meaningfulness in terms of addressing an acknowledged problem. This then has the potential to affect not just the initial uptake of the responsible tourism initiative, but can also affect the intrinsic worth of the initiative with consequent impacts on the sustainability of the initiative. Low uptake of voluntary generic guidelines for CSR practices mentioned earlier are, we suggest, partially explained by the lack of such local embeddedness. Kumarakom shows the mobilisation of destination level initiatives that are informed by local place-specific renderings of problems which in turn can draw upon the lived experiences of a broad based (including marginalised) section of the population. All sorts of knowledge – experiential, tacit, codified and ethical – can be more easily accessed when policy and practice formulation is local, making them more meaningful and problem oriented. It must be remembered that much of the activity in conducting transect walks, identifying fallow land, training and project formulation were mobilised through voluntary work of local actors. This broad based involvement can itself serve as a coercive/seductive force on industry appealing to both the business logic and civic/philanthropic motivations leading to 26

27

long term sustainability. Local embeddedness also can mobilise important networking power and improved shared understandings. However, while these can be viewed as testimony to the mobilising power of ‘meaning’ attributed to action in local place based interventions, it is also testimony to a public awareness and civic responsibility that needs to be already present or alternately built up. The realisation of the breadth of impacts that responsible tourism implies will depend not just upon an active and intervening civil society, but will necessarily also require an informed and proactive local government with capacity for local leadership. The results obtained in the survey conducted in Kumarakom report that business managers found that there were too many constraints in the environment (local food procurement for instance) which disempowered translation of positive intentions of business managers into responsible tourism practices. Due partly to the decentralised governance ethos of the Kerala state, the local government could step in and act as a leader/facilitator to manage the perceived constraints in the environment. Further, though the structure of the Kudumbashree units existed even before the responsible tourism initiative, the supply side (products from Kudumbashree micro-enterprises) had not found the demand side (tourism industry outlets) automatically. The relative marginalisation of the women and poor women in particular, could partially account for this. The intervention and helping hand of the local state is thus imperative if the productivity of marginalised labour is to be non-exploitatively joined up with the consumption needs of tourists. The local state must then act as an adept coordinator, facilitator, negotiator and problem-solver. An enabling governance climate that allows the local state to function on these lines is thus essential. We have above argued that the policy implications from the Kumarakom case study suggest that coercion, information flow, local embeddedness and local leadership are generic nonprescriptive, yet essential principles for the sustained implementation of responsible tourism initiatives. It must be said here that these are by no the only determining factors for the success of responsible tourism. For instance, the success of responsible tourism may also be mediated by place specific features such as the relative maturity of the tourism industry in the location (problems deeply embedded for more mature tourism locations thus requiring increased levels of sustained resources and sophistication in policy formulation), the type of tourism (eco-tourism, health tourism, plantation tourism, etc each of which are different in their outward orientation) the nature of the place (urban/rural/tribal), etc to name only a 27

28

few. These are agendas for future research. However, following a realist ontology, we believe that regardless of differences in empirical manifestation (due to some of the factors listed above), the arguments for paying attention to coercion, information flow, local embeddedness and local leadership will still be relevant. Conclusions In this paper we have examined the concept of responsible tourism that has now started appearing in the tourism literature. We reviewed some of the ways in which the term has been used within tourism studies and suggested that the term has come to signify everything, resulting in a blurring of the added conceptual contribution that can be claimed of it. Instead we suggested that the practical use of the term in areas where it has been adopted (such as South Africa and Kerala for instance) suggests a rather restricted use. We identified this as the tourism sector specific manifestation of the CSR agenda. While writings around responsible tourism are available and declarations of intentions and guidelines for implementing these are also available within tourism, not many case study based exemplars have been reported. We see this as a gap for as argued by Flyvbverg (2006) exemplars are necessary for a domain of knowledge to progress. The importance of a ‘paradigmatic case study’ becomes then relevant and we proposed that the case study of Kumarakom could be conceived as such as paradigmatic case study. Discussion of the case study, first traced the particular governance context of Kerala and the position of tourism in the state economy. The responsible tourism initiatives at state level, and local level were then described highlighting the ‘how’ of the implementation and the impact that it produced. Generic, non-prescriptive principles that could be said to be necessary in some form for the successful translation of responsible tourism principles to practices were then identified. These are coercion, information flow, local embeddedness and local leadership mobilised and realised in a dialectic tension of tolerance and confrontation. Such an approach is contrasted with one that places faith in the voluntary adoption of ‘responsible’ practices by the private sector on its own. Responsible tourism then can still make a contribution to practice provided that the conceptual terrain is delineated against other forms of tourism and research within the terrain seeks to unpack the particular forms of challenges that are thrown up by the delineation itself.

28

29

References: Alberta Declaration (2011) Alberta Declaration on Responsible Tourism in Destinations, International Centre for Responsible Tourism – Canada, Retrieved March 23, 2012, from http://icrtcanada.ca/?p=230 Ashley, C., Roe, D. and Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: making tourism work for the poor. Pro-Poor Tourism Report No.1 (April) for the Overseas Development Institute, London. Nottingham: Russell Press. Blackstock, K. (2005) A critical look at community based tourism Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39-49 BITC (2003) Why become a responsible business? retrieved February 12, 2012, from: http://www.bitc.org.uk/issues/why_become_a_responsible_business/index.html Bohdanowicz P. (2005), European hoteliers’ environmental attitudes: Greening the business. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46 (2), 188-204 Bohdanowicz P. (2007), A case study of Hilton Environmental Reporting as a tool of Corporate Social Responsibility. Tourism Review International 11(2), 115-131 Bond, P (2008) Social movement and corporate social responsibility in South Africa Development and Change, 39, 1037-52. Butler, R (1990) Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel Research, 28(3), 40-45 Cape Town Declaration (2002) Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism, Cape Town Conference on Responsible Tourism in Destinations – August 2002, Retrieved on March 22, 2012, from http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/tourism/Documents/Responsible%20Tourism/Toruism _RT_2002_Cape_Town_Declaration.pdf Carroll, A, B (1991) The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons 34 (4), 39-48.

29

30

Cater, E. (1993) Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems for sustainable tourism development, Tourism Management, 14 (2), 85–90 Cawley, M and Gillmor, D.A. (2008) Integrated rural tourism: Concepts and Practice, Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (2), 316-337 Chakravarti, S (2001, January 29), God’s Acre, India Today. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20010129/cover.shtml Chettiparamb, A. (2005) 'Fractal spaces in planning and governance' Town Planning Review, Volume 76(3), 317-340 Chettiparamb, A. (2006) 'Bottom-up Planning and the Future of Planning Education in India' Journal of Planning Education and Research, Volume 26(2): 185-194. Chettiparamb, A (2011) Kudumbashree Project, Kerala, India: A Meta-governance analysis, World Planning Schools Conference. Perth, 3rd - 9th July. Cohen, E. (1987) Alternative tourism - a critique. Tourism Recreation Research, 12(2), 1318 Cooper, C. P. and Ozdil, I. (1992). ‘From mass to 'responsible' tourism: The Turkish experience.’ Tourism Management, 13(4): 377-386 Cowton, C, J (1998) The Use of Secondary data in Business Ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (4), 423-434. DEAT (1996) White Paper on the Development and Promotion Of Tourism In South Africa, Department Of Environmental Affairs And Tourism, Government Of South Africa. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from http://www.environment.gov.za/PolLeg/WhitePapers/tourism96.htm DEAT (2002). Guidelines for Responsible Tourism Development. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. de Kadt, E. (1979). Tourism: Passport to development. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala (n.d.) Responsible Tourism – The Update. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.keralatourism.org/rt-keralaupdate.php

30

31

Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala (2005a) ‘Kerala Tourism (Conservation and Preservation of Areas) Act 2005’. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://www.keralatourism.org/tourismact.php Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, (2005b) ‘Guidelines for Conservation and preservation: Special Tourism Zone, Kumarakom’. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from www.keralatourism.org/tourismzone/Kumarakom.doc Dodds, R. and Joppe, M. (2005). CSR in the Tourism Industry? A Value-Chain Approach. New York: World Bank. Equations (2007) Vembanad Lake and Tourism. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.equitabletourism.org/files/fileDocuments378_uid10.pdf. Flyvberg, B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. Forester, J (2006) Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72 (4), 447-456. Franke, R. and Chasin, B.H (1997) Power to the Malayalee People, Economic and Political Weekly. 32 (48), 3061-3068 George, R. And Frey, N. (2010) Responsible tourism management: Using social marketing to create positive change, South Africa Journal of Business Management, 41(1), 11-23. George, T.J.S. (Ed.) (1997) India at 50, Chennai: Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd, Goodwin, H. (2011) Taking Responsibility for Tourism, Oxford: Goodfellow Publications Goodwin, H and Venu, V (2008) Kerala Declaration on Responsible Tourism http://www.responsibletourism2008.org/keraladeclaration.php. Accessed 28th April, 2012. Government of South Africa (1996) ‘The Development and Promotion of Tourism in South Africa’ Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.info.gov.za/whitepapers/1996/tourism.htm#3.4 Hall, C.M. (2008) Pro-Poor Tourism: Do ‘Tourism Exchanges Benefit Primarily the Countries of the South’? Current Issues in Tourism, 10 (2-3), 111-118 31

32

Harrison, D. (2008) Pro-poor tourism: a critique, Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 851-868 Healey, P (1999) Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research.19, 111-121. Heller, P (1996) Social capital as a product of class mobilization and state intervention: Industrial workers in Kerala, India. World Development, 24(6), 1055-1071. Heller, P, Harilal, K, N and Choudhuri, S (2007) Building Local Democracy: Evaluating the Impact of Decentralization in Kerala, India, World Development 35 (4), 626-648. Henderson, J, C (2007) Corporate social responsibility and tourism: Hotel companies in Phuket, Thailand, after the Indian Ocean tsunami. Hospitality Management, 26 (1), 228– 239 Higgins-Desbiolles (2010) The Elusiveness of Sustainability in Tourism: The CultureIdeology of Consumerism and its Implications, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2), 116-115 Idemudia, U (2011) Corporate Social Responsibility and developing countries: moving the critical CSR agenda in Africa forward. Progress in Development Studies, 11(1), 1-18. Innes, J, E (2004) Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1) 5-20. Inoue, Y and Lee, S (2010) Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism Management, 32(4), 790-804. Isaac, T.M. and Franke, R.W. (2000) Local Democracy and Development: People’s Planning for Decentralized Planning in Kerala. New Delhi, India: Left Word. Kerala Declaration (2008) The Kerala Declaration on Responsible Tourism, Retrieved March 22, 2012, from http://www.responsibletourism2008.org/keraladeclaration.php Kerala State Planning Board (2011) Economic Review 2010. Retrieved November 11, 2011 from http://spb.kerala.gov.in/index.php/economic-review/er-2010.html Kerala Tourism Watch (2007) Forum Kerala demands Govt to stop STZs and pay compensation to victims of irresponsible Tourism. http://www.keralatourismwatch.org/node/12. Accessed 11th November, 2011. 32

33

Kerala Tourism Watch (n.d,a) Kumarakom – A Case study of Sustainable Tourism. http://www.keralatourismwatch.org/node/87 Accessed 11th November, 2011. Kelly, C. and kokkranikal, J. (2010) “The evolution and commodification of Wellness Tourism in India: A case study of Kerala”; a conference paper for the Tourism and Travel Research Association Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 21-23 April Kerala State Planning Board (2011) Economic Review 2010. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://spb.kerala.gov.in/index.php/economic-review/er-2010.html Kerala Tourism Watch (n.d,a) Kumarakom – A Case study of Sustainable Tourism. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.keralatourismwatch.org/node/87 Kerala Tourism Watch (2007) Forum Kerala demands Govt to stop STZs and pay compensation to victims of irresponsible Tourism. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.keralatourismwatch.org/node/12. Kokkranikal, J (1993), ‘Tourism and the environment’, Kerala Calling, 13(10), .27-39 Kokkranikal, J., and Morrison, A. (2002) ‘Entrepreneurship and sustainable tourism: A case study of the Houseboats of Kerala’, Tourism and Hospitality Research, The Surrey Quarterly Review. 4 (1), 7-20 Kontogeorgopoulos, N.(2009) The Temporal Relationship between Mass Tourism and Alternative Tourism in Southern Thailand, Tourism Review International, 13 (1),1-16 Krippendorf, J. (1987) The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel, Oxford: Butterwoth-Heinemann Kudumbashree (n.d,a) The Mission Statement. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.kudumbashree.org/?q=vision Kudumbashree (n.d, b) ‘Milestones’. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.kudumbashree.org/?q=milestones Liu, Z.H. (2003) Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique. Journal of sustainable Tourism, 11 (6), 459-475. MacLellan, L.R., (1997), ‘The Tourism and the Environment Debate: From Idealism to Cynicism’, in Foley, M., Lennon, J. and Maxwell, G. (Eds.) Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Management, London: Cassell. 33

34

Málovics, G. Csigéné, N. and Kraus, S. (2008) The role of corporate social responsibility in strong sustainability. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(3), 907–918 McWilliams, A and Siegel, D (2001) Corporate Social responsibility: A Theory of the Firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, (1), 117-127. Merwe, M, V, D. and Wocke, A (2007) An investigation into responsible tourism practices in the South African hotel industry’ South African Journal of Business Management, 38(2) 1- 15. Michot, T (2010) ‘Pro-poor tourism in Kumarakom, Kerala, South India: Policy Implementation and Impacts. Journal of Alternate Perspectives in the Social Sciences. Working paper No7. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from www.japss.org/upload/Working_Paper_no._7_March_2010_FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf. Middleton, V (1998) Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Perspective, Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann Miller, G. and Twining-Ward, L. (2005) Monitoring for a Sustainable Tourism Transition: the Challenge of Developing and Using. Indicators. Oxon: CAB International Nicolau, J, L (2008) Corporate Social Responsibility: Worth-Creating Activities. Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (4), 990-1006. Oliver, T. and Jenkins, T (2003) Sustaining rural landscapes: the role of integrated tourism, Landscape Research, 28 (3), 293-307 Oommen, M, A (2008) Micro Finance And Poverty Alleviation: The Case Of Kerala’s Kudumbashree. Working Paper No 17. Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies (CSES), Kochi, Kerala, India. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://maoommen.com/images/papers/MICRO%20FINANCE%20AND%20POVERTY%20A LLEVIATION.pdf Padmanabhan, P, G and Georgey, K (n.d.) A World Class tourism centre & its host community. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from http://www.kumarakomvillage.com/aworld-class-tourism-centre-its-host-community/ Parayil, G (ed) (2000) Kerala – The Development Experience. Reflections on Sustainability and Replicability. Zed Books. London.

34

35

Pat, A, K (2005) Kudumbashree – A Poverty Eradication Mission in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly, November 26th, 4989 – 4991. Pearce, J.A., Doh, J.P. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. Sloan Management Review 46(3), 29–39. Scheyvens, R and Momsen, J.H. (2008) Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Issues for Small Island States, Tourism Geographies, 10 (1), 22-41 Sebastian, L, M and Rajagopalan, P (2009) Socio-cultural transformations through tourism: a comparison of residents’ perspectives at two destinations in Kerala, India. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 7(1), 5-21. Sharpley, R. (2000) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8 (1), 1-19 Sharpley, R. (2009) Tourism Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability, London: Earthscan Sheldon, P, J and Park, S-Y (2012) An Exploratory Study of Corporate Social Responsibility in the US Travel Industry. Journal of Travel Research, 50(4), 392-407 Shyamlal G.S (2008) Carrying Capacity Study of Coastal Tourism in Kumarakom, Kerala, Journal Ekonomi Bisnis, 13 (1), 1-15 Smith, V. L. (1990) Alternative/responsible tourism seminar. Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (3), 479-480 Tharamangalam, J., (1998) The Perils of Social Development with Economic Growth: The Development Debacle of Kerala, India, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 30 (1), Retrieved August 24, 2011, from http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=97729156 TIES (1990) What is Ecotourism? Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism Tosun, C. (2001) Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: the case of Turkey, Tourism Management, 22 (3), 289-303 Venu, V. (2008) The Kerala Responsible Tourism Initiative – A Work in Progress. Paper presented at Incredible India 2nd International Conference – Responsible Tourism, 35

36

Kochi, India, 21-24 March. Retrieved September 27, 2011, from http://responsibletourism2008.org/papers.php Wall, J. (1997) Sustainable Tourism- Unsustainable Development, in Pigram, J and Wahab, S (eds.), Tourism Development and Growth: the challenge of sustainability’, London: Routeledge Weeden, C (2001) Ethical tourism: An opportunity for competitive advantage? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8 (2), 141-153 Welford, R (1997) Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development. Earthscan: London. Wheeler, B. (1991). Tourism's troubled times: Responsible tourism is not the answer. Tourism Management, 12(2), 91-96. Wheeler, B. (1994). Ecotourism: A ruse by any other name. In C. P. Cooper and A. Lockwood (eds.). Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Williams, G, Thampi, B, Narayana, D and Bhattacharya, D (2011) Performing Participatory Citizenship - Politics and Power in Kerala's Kudumbashree Programme. In Journal of Development Studies, 47(8), 1261-1280. Williams, P., Alison, G., and Ian, P. (2007) Corporate Social Responsibility at Tourism Destinations: Toward a Social License to Operator, Tourism Review International, 11 (2), 133-144 Wight, P. (1993) Ecotourism: Ethics or Eco-Sell? Journal of Travel Research, 21 (3), 3-9. Yin, R.K. (1981) The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (1), 58-65

36