Concepts and tools for comprehensive sustainability assessments for tourism destinations: a comparative review

This paper reviews a wide range of tools for comprehensive sustainability assessments at whole tourism destinations, covering socio-cultural, economic and environmental issues. It considers their strengths, weaknesses and site specific applicability. It is intended to facilitate their selection (and combination where necessary). Tools covered include Sustainability Indicators, Environmental Impact Assessment, Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Audits, Ecological Footprints, Multi-Criteria Analysis and Adaptive Environmental Assessment. Guidelines for evaluating their suitability for specific sites and situations are given as well as examples of their use.

The Learning Tourism Destination: The potential of a learning organisation approach for improving the sustainability of tourism destinations

Globalisation, increasing complexity, and the need to address triple-bottom line sustainability has seen the proliferation of Learning Organisations (LO) who, by definition, have the capacity to anticipate environmental changes and economic opportunities and adapt accordingly. Such organisations use system dynamics modelling (SDM) for both strategic planning and the promotion of organisational learning. Although SDM has been applied in the context of tourism destination management for predictive reasons, the current literature does not analyse or recognise how this could be used as a foundation for an LO. This study introduces the concept of the Learning Tourism Destinations (LTD) and discusses, on the basis of a review of 6 case studies, the potential of SDM as a tool for the implementation and enhancement of collective learning processes. The results reveal that SDM is capable of promoting communication between stakeholders and stimulating organisational learning. It is suggested that the LTD approach be further utilised and explored.

Reconceptualising social sustainability in urban development

Although the social dimension is often cited as the third leg of triple bottom line sustainability, there is at present general agreement on the difficulty of saying just what social sustainability is and how it can be related to enivironmental sustainability. This paper proposes that a sociotechnical understanding of the relationship beween human behaviour and technical developments provides a way of making the social dimension accessible to engineers, designers and developers. We draw on early work in master planned urban developments to show how a sociotechnical model, married to a life cycle assessment approach can help us understand and design for effective and efficient implementation of sustainability systems

A framework to monitor sustainability in the grains industry

Community awareness of the sustainable use of land, water and vegetation resources is increasing. The sustainable use of these resources is pivotal to sustainable farming systems. However, techniques for monitoring the sustainable management of these resources are poorly understood and untested. We propose a framework to benchmark and monitor resources in the grains industry. Eight steps are listed below to achieve these objectives: (i) define industry issues; (ii) identify the issues through growers, stakeholder and community consultation; (iii) identify indicators (measurable attributes, properties or characteristics) of sustainability through consultation with growers, stakeholders, experts and community members, relating to: crop productivity; resource maintenance/enhancement; biodiversity; economic viability; community viability; and institutional structure; (iv) develop and use selection criteria to select indicators that consider: responsiveness to change; ease of capture; community acceptance and involvement; interpretation; measurement error; stability, frequency and cost of measurement; spatial scale issues; and mapping capability in space and through time. The appropriateness of indicators can be evaluated using a decision making system such as a multiobjective decision support system (MO-DSS, a method to assist in decision making from multiple and conflicting objectives); (v) involve stakeholders and the community in the definition of goals and setting benchmarking and monitoring targets for sustainable farming; (vi) take preventive and corrective/remedial action; (vii) evaluate effectiveness of actions taken; and (viii) revise indicators as part of a continual improvement principle designed to achieve best management practice for sustainable farming systems. The major recommendations are to: (i) implement the framework for resources (land, water and vegetation, economic, community and institution) benchmarking and monitoring, and integrate this process with current activities so that awareness, implementation and evolution of sustainable resource management practices become normal practice in the grains industry; (ii) empower the grains industry to take the lead by using relevant sustainability indicators to benchmark and monitor resources; (iii) adopt a collaborative approach by involving various industry, community, catchment management and government agency groups to minimise implementation time. Monitoring programs such as Waterwatch, Soilcheck, Grasscheck and Topcrop should be utilised; (iv) encourage the adoption of a decision making system by growers and industry representatives as a participatory decision and evaluation process. Widespread use of sustainability indicators would assist in validating and refining these indicators and evaluating sustainable farming systems. The indicators could also assist in evaluating best management practices for the grains industry.

Program sustainability of a community-based intervention to prevent falls among older Australians

Multi-strategy interventions have been demonstrated to prevent falls among older people, but studies have not explored their sustainability. This paper investigates program sustainability of Stay on Your Feet (SOYF), an Australian multi-strategy falls prevention program (1992-1996) that achieved a significant reduction in falls-related hospital admissions. A series of surveys assessed recall, involvement and current falls prevention activities, 5 years post-SOYF in multiple original SOYF stakeholder groups within the study area [general practitioners (GPs), pharmacists, community health (CH) staff shire councils (SCs) and access committees (ACs)]. Focus groups explored possible behavioural changes in the target group. Surveys were mailed, except to CH staff and ACs. who participated in guided group sessions and were contacted via the telephone, respectively. Response rates were: GPs. 67% (139/209); pharmacists, 79% (53/67); CH staff, 63% (129/204); SCs, 90% (9/10); ACs, 80% (8/10). There were 73 older people in eight focus groups. Of 117 GPs who were practising during SOYF 80% recalled SOYF and 74% of these reported an influence on their practice. Of 46 pharmacists operating a business during SOYF, 45% had heard of SOYF and 79% of these reported being 'somewhat' influenced. Of 76 community health staff (59%) in the area at that time, 99% had heard of SOYF and 82% reported involvement. Four SCs retained a SOYF resource, but none thought current activities were related. Seven ACs reported involvement, but no activities were sustained. Thirty-five focus group participants (48%) remembered SOYF and reported a variety of SOYF-initiated behaviour changes. Program sustainability was clearly demonstrated among health practitioners. Further research is required to assess long-term effect sustainability.