Challenges of Sustainable Tourism Development in the Developing World: the case of Turkey

Challenges of Sustainable Tourism Development in the Developing World: the case of Turkey

Assoc.Prof.Dr.Elif Hatun KILICBEYLI

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of the challenges to sustainable tourism development in developing countries with special references to Turkey as a part of the developing world. It was found that the factors that have emerged as challenges to sustainable tourism development related to priorities of national economic policy, the structure of public administration, an emergence of environmental issues, over commercialisation, and the structure of international tourism system. It concludes that although the principles of sustainable tourism development are beneficial, their implementation is an enormously difficult task to achieve and owing to the prevailing socio-economic and political conditions in the developing world. Hence, any operation of principles of sustainable tourism development necessitates hard political and economic choices, and decisions based upon complex socio-economic and environmental trade-offs. Moreover, it states that implementation of these hard decisions may not be possible unless international organisations encourage and collaborate with governments of developing countries to implement the principles of sustainable tourism development.

Author Keywords: Sustainable development; Sustainable tourism development; Challenges; The developing world; Turkey

1. Introduction

Following the popularisation of sustainable development as an environmental management concept by the publication of the World Commission on the Environment and Development’s (WCED) ‘Our Common Future’ in the late 1980s (WCED, 1987), a growing proportion of the tourism research literature has focused on the principles and practice of sustainable tourism development. ‘The term sustainable tourism has come to represent and encompass a set of principles, policy prescriptions, and management methods’ ( Hunter, 1997, p. 850). It is interesting to note that this literature has originated from developed countries ( English Tourist Board, 1991; Globe’90, 1991; D’Amore, 1992; Owen, Witt & Susan, 1993; Harris & Leiper, 1995, etc.). Consequently, the principles of sustainable tourism development appear to have been established by developed countries without taking into account conditions in the developing world. They fail to provide a conceptual vehicle for policy formulation to progress sustainable tourism development in those countries owing to limitations that originate from the structure of developing countries and the international tourism system.

The main objective of this article is to examine challenges to sustainable tourism development in the context of the developing world with special references to Turkey. However, it should be noted here that it may not be possible to find evidence to strictly support every contention about challenges of sustainable tourism development because of formidable difficulties to obtain information from public and private sources and non-availability of written material about sustainable development issues in many developing countries where almost every kind of information is treated as confidential. Therefore, this paper may reflect in part a polemic

based upon the author’s observation. Following a review of the underpinnings of development, sustainable development and sustainable tourism development, the paper then considers challenges to sustainable tourism development in Turkey. A major conclusion is that sustainable tourism development is an enormously difficult task to achieve in developing countries without the collaboration of the international tour operators and donor agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

2. Sustainable development

Definitions of sustainable development have two components: the meaning of development and the conditions necessary for sustainability (Miltin, 1992). Generally, development implies a process that makes an effort to improve the living conditions of people ( Bartelmus, 1986). In the words of Dudley (1993, p. 165), ‘Development is not just about increased wealth. It means change; changes in behaviour, aspirations, and in the way which one understands the world around one’. ‘Economic growth does not by itself constitute development. Development is ‘round’; it includes human and institutional change as well as economic growth’ ( Hapgood, 1969, p. 20). It involves broader concerns of the quality of life such as life expectancy, infant mortality, educational attainment, access to basic freedoms, nutritional status and spiritual welfare ( Pearce, Barbier & Markandya, 1990). That is to say, development should not be regarded and treated as a technical engineering exercise and more attention should be paid to historical, cultural, social, economic and political realities ( Stiefel & Wolfe, 1994). Additionally, the emphasis of sustainable development is to carry developmental achievements into the future in such a way that future generations are not left worse off ( Department of Environment, 1989; Pearce et al., 1990; WCED, 1987). In this context, sustainable development is defined by the United Nations’ World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) (1987, p. 42) as a ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own need’. Repetto (1986: 15, cited in Pearce et al., 1990, p. 4) has reflected the above broad concern of sustainable development as follows: Sustainable development is a development strategy that manages all assets, natural resources, and human resources, as well as financial and physical assets, for increasing long-term wealth and well-being. Sustainable development, as a goal rejects policies and practices that support current living standards by depleting the productive base, including natural resources, and that leaves future generations with poorer prospects and greater risks than our own. Examining the above context of sustainable development reveals several main points as yardsticks. First, sustainable development is predominantly considered as a long-term strategy to preserve and conserve the environment, though the present is not ignored. Second, it proposes an inter- and intra-generational balanced level of welfare. Third, it is perceived as a universally valid prescription, which is supposed to be applicable to all countries without considering their level of development, socio-cultural and political conditions.

3. Sustainable tourism development

Sustainable tourism development should be seen as an adaptive paradigm, a part of the parental concepts of development and sustainable development, and it should aim at contributing to objectives of sustainable development and development in general by determining specific principles in the light of its parental concepts. That is to say, sustainable tourism development should be ‘accepted as all kinds of tourism developments that make a notable contribution to or, at least, do not contradict the maintenance of the principles of

development in an indefinite time without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their own needs and desires’ (Tosun, 1998a, p. 596). In this manner, Butler’s (1993, p. 29) definition of sustainable tourism development appears to be a substantial contribution to unify the concept of sustainable tourism development with its parental terms. Butler stated that:

…sustainable development in the context of tourism could be taken as: tourism which is developed and maintained in an area (community, environment) in such a manner and at such a scale that it remains viable over an indefinite period and does not degrade or alter the environment (human and physical) in which it exists to such a degree that it prohibits the successful development and well-being of other activities and processes. That is not the same as sustainable tourism, which may be thought of as tourism which is in a form which can maintain its viability in an area for an indefinite period of time. It is worth emphasising that Butler has distinguished sustainable tourism development from sustainable tourism. Although this distinction seems not to be widely recognised, it is important. Sustainable tourism development has been also reviewed comprehensively by other several researchers such as Bramwell and Lane (1993), Owen et al. (1993), Murphy (1994), Harris and Leiper (1995), Tosun (1996), Mowforth and Munt (1998) and Tosun (1998a) etc. For the purpose of this article it may be useful to identify some basic principles of sustainable tourism development by taking into account conceptual arguments for development, sustainable development and sustainable tourism development (STD). These principles may be stated as follows: • STD should contribute to the satisfaction of basic and felt needs of those hitherto excluded in local tourist destinations. • STD should reduce inequality and absolute poverty in local tourist destinations. • STD should contribute to the emergence of necessary conditions in tourist destinations which will lead local people to gain self-esteem and to feel free from the evils of want, ignorance and squalor (see Goulet, 1971 ; Thirlwall, 1989 ). That is to say, STD should help host communities be free or emancipated from alienating material conditions of life and from social servitude to nature, ignorance, other people, misery, institution, and dogmatic beliefs (see Todaro, 1994 ).• STD should accelerate not only national economic growth, but also regional and local economic growth. This growth must be shared fairly across the social spectrum. • STD should achieve the above objectives or principles in an indefinite period of time without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own need. The above principles of sustainable tourism development remind the reader that ‘the remit of sustainable tourism development is extended to consider the role of tourism in contributing to sustainable development more generally’ (Hunter, 1997, p. 860). In this regard, sustainable tourism must be regarded as an adaptive paradigm capable of addressing widely different situations and articulating different goals. This implies that sustainable tourism development, as an adaptive paradigm is a multi-disciplinary and broad concept. Hence, it touches upon a wide range of issues such as economic development policy, environmental matters, social factors, structure of the international tourism system, etc. Generally speaking, sustainable tourism development appears to be beneficial. If applied, most of the negative effects of mass tourism may be eradicated and many alternative forms of tourism might be induced. However, there seems to be several limitations to moving towards a sustainable tourism development in a developing country such as Turkey. These are the priorities of a national economy, a lack of a contemporary tourism development approach, the structure of the public administration system, the emergence of environmental matters and over-commercialisation, and the structure of the international tourism system. These variables are termed as ‘challenges of sustainable tourism development’ in the context of the developing world. It should be noted that some of these challenges are inter-related, and, thus, are not completely exclusive. In the following sections they will be examined with special references to Turkey as a developing country to exemplify those points made under the given broad context of sustainable development and principles of sustainable tourism development.

3.1. Priorities of national economy

When the balance of payments and external debt of Turkey are examined, it is clear that the country requires foreign currency earning in the short and long term. The balance of payments current account deficit increased from 0.6 per cent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 1992 to 3.9 per cent of GDP in 1993. In 1993, the current account deficit of US$6.4 billion and debt repayment of US$4.4 billion were largely financed by foreign borrowing. For 1994, foreign debt service was some US$9.5 billion. The downgrading of Turkey’s sovereign credit rating in January 1994 limited new foreign borrowing to US$721 million. The immediate mechanical effect of the depreciation of the Turkish Lira (TL) was to raise the foreign debt burden. Consequently, the increase in the debt service ratio raised concerns about Turkey’s ability to meet its external commitments without debt rescheduling. Further, the dominant feature of the labour market in Turkey is the rapid growth of the working-age population and the large proportion of lower-age groups — implying that strong job creation is needed merely to hold the unemployment rate steady (OECD, 1995 and OECD, 1996).

Worker remittances are an important contribution to the balance of payments of the country, but the second and third generations of Turkish workers abroad have a tendency not to spend or invest their money in Turkey. When this tendency is taken into account, tourism seems to be one of the few main alternative sources of foreign currency earning. These economic necessities have forced decision-makers to encourage tourism development without considering principles of development and sustainable development.

Consequently, Turkey saw tourism as an easy, effective and relatively cheap instrument to achieve export-led industrialisation as a core principle of the free market economy formulated by international donor agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Tosun, 1999). The government in 1982 enacted the Tourism Encouragement Law No. 2634 to accelerate mass tourism development. This Law has induced many private and public entrepreneurs to undertake large amounts of fixed investment in tourism by building hotels, yacht ports, swimming pools, etc. The Tourism Encouragement Law No.2634 provided a wide range of fiscal and monetary incentives. It also appropriated State-owned land for tourism development, reduced bureaucratic formalities for tourism investors, relaxed restrictions on the employment of foreigners in the tourism sector, introduced vocational education and training development projects, and gave precedence in telephone, telegram and postal services. These incentives were given to tourism investments that took place in tourism regions, tourism zones and tourism centres as determined by the Tourism Incentive Act No.2634. This ushered in spatial concentration at the expense of regional balanced development. It is argued that the incentives that were given to the tourism sector are a result of the adoption of a liberal capitalist economic policy. This has created a ‘get-rich-quick’ mentality coupled with dubious practices in fiscal and monetary policies (Sezer & Harrison, 1994; Tosun, 1998a). Additionally, it was claimed that there were cases where incentives were given on the basis of inner party courtesy or intimacy of friendship and relationship rather

than entrepreneurial capability ( Kusluvan, 1994). This seems to be a reflection of the haphazard system in Turkey for resource allocation by the state authorities and the preferential access to state decision-making bodies that is extremely important for success in business ( Ayata, 1994).

This may suggest that patron–client relationships have become a tool to achieve national objectives at the expense of local communities in those local tourist destinations, widening intra-generation inequity and unbalanced regional development alongside wider socio- economic and political concerns. That is to say, the pattern of tourism development was shaped by the generous tourism incentives that reflect concerns of central government while, it is argued here, environmental, equitable or similar societal considerations have been deemed as being secondary. These issues in the context of Turkish tourism have also been discussed in details elsewhere (Sezer & Harrison, 1994; Tosun & Jenkins, 1996; Tosun, 1998a).

It is not realistic to expect that a sector of the economy of a developing country will contribute to sustainable development of that country without a significant change in both the overall socio-economic structure and the public administration system (Tosun, 2000). Sustainable tourism development requires equity both inter-and-intra generational, which seems to be incompatible with the interests of those people who invested their capital in the tourism industry. It appears to be very difficult, if not impossible, to formulate a tourism policy which contradicts the investors’ interests. Thus, it is unrealistic to achieve sustainable tourism development and expect tourism ‘to promote greater equality in the distribution of the benefits of that industry, if the forces making for inequality are left a free rein in their society and if policies aimed at the eradication of poverty are not vigorously pursued’ ( de Kadt, 1979, p. 45).

The implication of the Turkish tourism development policy is clear. The opportunity to derive foreign exchange from tourism export and employment created by the tourism industry are opportunities not easily ignored. Thus, tourism is too important to leave to the lower level of governmental bodies rather than cabinet level. Not surprisingly, tourism as a primary source of foreign currency earning and employment generation is perceived as a national priority that pre-dominates over secondary objectives and wider issues such as preserving cultural heritage, environment, fair distribution of economic growth, etc. all of which comprise the principles of sustainable tourism development.

3.2. Lack of a contemporary tourism development approach

The tourism sector has been represented at a ministerial level for more than 30 years in Turkey, but a contemporary approach to tourism development has not developed (Tosun, 1998b). Although enacting the legislation of the Tourism Incentives Law No. 2634 appears to have provided a more detailed structure for the tourism development; it was not the objective to create sustainable tourism development. Rather, the main objective was to achieve tourism growth in volume and value terms, in both demand and supply-side aspects. In the words of Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997, p. 77); ‘The plans have essentially consisted of volume/value objectives designed to be achieved through an allocation of state-owned resources and the provision of a range of incentives to help facilitate the achievement of these goals’. In the broader context of sectoral development planning, these activities in relation to tourism growth in Turkey are not effective planning and do not reflect the concerns of contemporary development approaches to tourism development. Obviously, these activities are a part of overall economic growth policy to achieve centrally determined objectives driven by not only the need of the country, but also by dominant business interests. Yet it may be said that in the absence of a fair distribution of the fruits of economic growth across the social

spectrum, such a policy may be counter-productive. Examining seven Five-Year Development Plans (FYDPs) reveals that the main concerns of tourism development have not changed much since the first such plan in 1963. These tourism plans have focused merely on maximising foreign tourists’ receipts and thus increasing the supply capacity of the tourism industry. In this context, the main shortcomings of tourism development approach in Turkey are determined as follows: (1) a lack of flexibility and decentralisation, (2) some lack of comprehensiveness and integration (3) lack of community perspective, (4) being driven by an industry dominated by international tour operators, multinational companies, major domestic business interests and central government and (5) lack of consistency, co-ordination and co-operation (Tosun, 1996; Tosun, 1998b). That is to say, sectoral planning is done in isolation. Co-ordination, two-way communication and co-operation between and amongst related bodies are very weak and in most cases do not exist. Turkey has a traditional powerful bureaucracy that dominates legislative and operational processes. Any approaches that conflict with this traditional bureaucracy are not acceptable to the powerful bureaucrats. This is an obstacle to establishing co-ordination and co-operation between and among the various bodies. Moreover, there is competition among public bodies to increase this traditional bureaucratic structure in order to enlarge their area of influence. Ultimately, these structural and historical problems in the public administration system are an important limitation to the planning process. Furthermore, the planning approach lacks a time dimension. The short-term issues have dominated the planning process. The nature of the tourism sector has increased the domination of the short-term planning approach and policies. The State Planning Organisation (SPO) has failed to create clear solutions to sectoral problems. There is a belief that to be important is to be successful which leads the need to maximise foreign currency earning in the present tourism season. This short-term thinking has increased the level of dependency on foreign tour operators. One of the main obstacles in this regard is political instability, which ushered in inconsistent tourism policies and planning practices. It is interesting to note that in a 75 year history of the Turkish Republic 56 governments have been in power. The average span of duty of every government was 1.3 years. According to the Ministry of Tourism (1997), between 1963 and 1996, 30 ministers were appointed to this position. The average span of duty of each Minister of Tourism (MT) was 1.1 years, a span too short to achieve anything, particularly at national level. Because of this, ‘the historical position of the Turkish state with respect to tourism has been fairly inconsistent’ ( Sezer & Harrison, 1994, p. 82). Furthermore, ministers and even general directors have a tendency to change the personnel in their departments when they are appointed to a new post. The Ministry of Tourism is not exceptional in this regard. Naturally, high personnel turnover rates decrease efficiency, continuity and thus the effectiveness of tourism development plans in particular and state bureaucracy in general. As Brotherton, Woolfenden and Himmetoglu (1994) noted, the change in government gave birth to something of a political hiatus and re-ordering of priorities, changes in policies and personnel. These unstable policies have caused uncertainty, which has led to the emergence of a laissez-fairel approach to tourism development. To sum up, it may be said that these common shortcomings of the current tourism development approach pose challenges to sustainable tourism development in Turkey. It would be naive to expect that truly sustainable tourism development will be achieved under the guidance of such an ad hoc, short-term and narrow tourism development approach. Indeed, under this given climate of uncertainty, it seems to be improbable to sustain sound tourism development. It is therefore evident that alternative approaches are required to achieve the goal of sustainable tourism development.

3.3. Structure of public administration system

Turkey as a unitary state contains a network of local officials who are centrally appointed and closely related to locally elected bodies. In this unitary state, ‘power is devolved to subordinated area units, but central authority always retains the sovereignty and the right to determine the degree of autonomy that is enjoyed by these units’ (Harper, 1987, p. 15). That is to say, Turkey could not establish local governments as separate corporate entities ( Ersoy, 1992). Consequently, local governments were never permitted to develop independent policies free from the strict central government control ( Ersoy, 1992; Koker, 1995). Therefore, historically, Turkey has a strong central government that has practised administrative tutelage on local government. This tutelage practice of the central government has precluded an emergence of responsive, effective and autonomous institutions at the local level. Ultimately, this has ushered in non-participation or pseudo-participation of local people in their own affairs. Not surprisingly, the public administration system in Turkey seems to be too bureaucratic to respond to public needs effectively and efficiently. As a two-stage survey sponsored by the International Republican Institute (IRI) illustrated, an overwhelming majority of urban settlers are very dissatisfied with the service delivery system by the municipalities and overwhelmingly express feelings of being left out of the political process (IRI, 1995). In this regard, Carkoglu (1997, p. 89) stated that ‘there is no reason to believe the situation should be any better at that administration level’.

The above argument in relation to public administration system in Turkey reveals that Turkey evidently has a weak local government with lack of financial resources and authority to defend the interest of local people in their constituencies. In the words of Ersoy (1992, p. 336), the most important structural problem is that ‘no relationship has been established between the functions and responsibilities of municipalities and their income structures. …one of the most important aspects of the problem is persistently ignored’. Consequently, any approach to sustainable tourism development in the absence of strong local planning authority and involvement of local communities in the planning process to some degree seems to be very difficult.

In turn, therefore, local governments in popular local tourist destinations seem to have failed to meet local people’s needs and have not, for example, addressed issues like the migration of large numbers of tourists and second-home owners into those local holiday resorts. For example, the Municipal Governor of Kusadasi (a well-known coastal resort on the Aegean Sea), stated that the population of Kusadasi has been dramatically increased due to the new jobs in the tourism sector and those who settled here to spend the rest of their lives — mainly retired people. Moreover, the population has been further increased during the summer season.

Every person who moves into a second home for 3–4 months [and every tourist visiting Kusadasi for one or two weeks] during the summer adds to the existing burden on the shoulders of Kusadasi Municipal Government. The range and cost of services have increased. In spite of this, the revenues of the municipal government have not increased to be able to meet the additional demand for services. In grants extended by Ministries and other bodies…to the Municipalities, population is a criterion besides other characteristics of the town (Suyolcu 1980, pp. xii–xiii).

It is also reported that Bodrum (a well-known coastal resort on the Aegean Sea) has grown from a small fishing village to a centre of tourism explosion which houses nearly 100,000 tourists even though its population capacity is around 10,000. This has taken not only Bodrum by surprise but Turkey itself. Bodrum has become the hottest tourist spot in Europe (Lamar, 1988).

The statements regarding Kusadasi and Bodrum seem to be still valid for many local tourist destinations in Turkey, owing to the fact that not much progress has been made in the decentralisation of the public administration system since 1980. Moreover, ‘…decentralisation practices created an opposite move towards centralisation in the 1980s’ (Tosun & Jenkins, 1996, p. 528) and local bodies have been organised in a way that can still be used by the ruling party. Hence, if central and local government are not in the same political party, this creates conflict and further problems in terms of flexibility, simply because of partisanship.

Given the lack of financial resources and authority to make independent decisions at local level, it seems to be very difficult for mayors of these resort towns to respond effectively to the needs of tourists and residents simultaneously. As a result, the power structure and patron–client relations in these tourist destinations have led local governments to respond primarily to the needs of tourism entrepreneurs and tourists, and thus ignoring the needs felt by permanent residents. It is clearly observable in many local tourist destinations in Turkey that there seem to be two different communities. One consists of tourists, tourism entrepreneurs and second homeowners. This community is well organised and has a leading role in local politics owing to its members’ financial power and client-relations with central government. Most members of this community do not live permanently or educate their children in those local administrative units. This mobile community to a large extent belongs to high-income groups or educated elites at the national level.

Moreover, access of indigenous people to beaches in front of luxury hotels and holiday villages has been prevented via physical barriers such as fences. Additionally, luxury hotels have hired security guards to stop access of non-hotel guests onto beaches. These attitudes and mistreatment by hoteliers are against the Coastal Law dated 04. 04. 1990, No. 3621 and the 1982 Constitution according to which, coastal areas including beaches are under the protection of State. The coastal areas are public properties accessible free for everybody and with no limitation (see Kalkan, 1991). Somehow, there appears to be no political will, opposition and legal action against the misuse of beaches and mistreatment by hoteliers. This may be due to the fact that local people do not have much knowledge and information about the relevant law and regulation. On the other hand, it may also be a reflection of a weak local government that finds it difficult to protect the interests of the local communities by taking legal action against the rich business elites. The second community is composed of indigenous people and local civil servants (teachers, nurses, police, postmen, etc.). This immobile community (permanent settlers) is separated from the mobile (seasonal) or temporary community. Members of this community live at the rear of the developed local holiday destinations, where components of basic infrastructure are very poor or at a primitive level. The settlements of the indigenous people are in the form of slum housing, most of which do not have hot water systems, inside toilet, proper bath, etc. Naturally, there seems to be a very limited and negligible relationship in primitive form between members of these two communities during the peak season: local people work for the temporary community as cleaners, waiters, night-keepers of hotels and luxury second homes, dishwashers, gardeners, etc. These jobs are, by nature, low paid and do not have high social status. Moreover, these jobs do not create opportunities to accumulate skills and qualifications that can be transferable to other employment areas. Thus, when tourism disappears, the jobs will also disappear. The above discussion and author participant observation suggest that tourism development in prime local tourist destinations has brought powerful and organised business interests into the powerless, unorganised indigenous communities. In the course of time, the business interests have become dominant power holders and served their self-interest at the expense of indigenous people who live on the margin of their felt-needs. This seems to be largely due to ‘the formation of local government in Turkey [that] has been initiated by the state, reflecting administrative and fiscal concerns of the centre, and has not been a source of democratic citizen participation in a public space’ (Koker, 1995, p. 61). In this regard, tourism development appears to have ignored intra-generation equity by catering for tourists and tourism entrepreneurs’ needs at the expense of indigenous local people. It should be kept in mind that transferring public resources to tourism investors via the noted generous tourism incentives has accelerated this process. In brief, tourism continues to be driven by central government and its clients, rather than community interests in Turkey. This reveals that tourism development in many local tourist destinations in Turkey and elsewhere in the developing world contradicts principles of sustainable tourism development as stated at the outset of this study. Thus, it is extremely difficult to achieve sustainable tourism development in Turkey without the political will to re-structure the public administration system towards decentralisation and community empowerment.

3.4. Emergence of environmental matters

In the 1980s hard currency bottlenecks were serious problems for Turkey. It was very difficult for the government in power to find short-term foreign loans at even relatively steep interest rates, due to the serious socio-economic and political crisis that brought on the last military intervention. This caused Turkey to lose its credibility in the international financial market. Therefore, the government decided to develop the tourism industry without considering its opportunity costs. Soon after, it prepared all necessary legislation that gave generous incentives to develop the tourism sector in order to secure foreign currency earnings. Moreover, natural resources, historical sites and cultural heritage have been conceived as idle and cost-free instead of a long-term asset.

Not surprisingly, the negative impact of tourism on the physical environment has appeared, following the phase of more or less uncontrolled development during the 1980s. In the absence of pro-active, comprehensive and integrated planning approaches, development has concentrated in a spatially unbalanced manner. It is interesting to note that successive governments have encouraged this spatial concentration by deliberately channelling generous tourism incentives to pre-determined tourism regions, tourism areas and tourism centres. Unbalanced and geographical concentration of tourism development has created environmental problems in various forms at different local tourist destinations.

First, uncontrolled hotel construction has emerged on the coastal areas. To Alipour (1996) and Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997, p. 77), ‘these tourism facility developments in the prime Aegean and Mediterranean coastal regions took place to a large extent in a haphazard way’. Although physical land-use planning and development guidelines were prepared for these regions (Southwest Turkey Touristic Investment Areas) by the Ministry of Tourism, implementation of these guidelines have not been controlled. Moreover, it is stated that ‘Even if they are operating in the official economy, Turkish businessmen specialise in getting round the rules’ ( The Economist, 1996, p. 13). This implies that unless there is a strong control mechanism, implementation of the land-use planning regulations will be ignored easily by private entrepreneurs.

As a result, Aegean and Mediterranean coastal strip development has taken place, which may reflect the absence of comprehensive and integrative planning approaches to tourism development. Moreover, many hotels and holiday villages violated construction regulations and the Coastal Law No. 3621. The construction of hotels and other facilities has not been integrated into traditional or dominant architectural styles. This haphazard building and polluting of resources has endangered sustainable tourism development. Thus, the final output is architectural pollution and an example of construction site syndrome.

Second, environmental pollution has become an important problem at these popular local tourist destinations due to the lack of measures to cope with the generation of new or increased waste residues. Sewage disposal systems were installed solely according to local residents’ needs without taking into account tourism development in many if not all tourist destinations in Turkey. The carrying capacity of sewage disposal systems have been exceeded due to a rapid increase in numbers of hotels and second-homes construction in addition to the migration of significant numbers of people from less-developed regions of the country to work in the construction of hotels and second homes. These people who worked in the construction industry then remained in the labour force as gardeners, dishwashers, waiters and the like. On the other hand, some hotels outside the main settlements have not linked their sewage disposal system to the main system because of installation costs. Moreover, since there was no strict control and regulation that would have prevented hoteliers from polluting the environment, particularly at the initial stage of tourism development, it is possible that non-solid waste finds its way into natural water supplies. Hence, there may be pollution of underground and surface water. Yacht tourism also has created considerable water pollution at some local tourist destinations on the coastal areas. For example, yachts have polluted seawater around the yacht port in Kusadasi by discharging dirty water into the sea without any pre-treatment. Solid waste such as cans and bottle, etc. are thrown into the sea from yachts in the area. Third, overcrowding, traffic jams and noise have created discomfort for local people. It can be clearly observable in prime local tourist destinations such Kusadsi, Bodrum, Marmaris, Urgup, etc. that buses carrying tourists unnecessarily use their horns. Some leave the main road, passing through the local residential streets. In particularly both early in the morning and late at night these buses have created an unacceptable disturbance for local residents whilst transporting tourists from hotels to airport or vice versa. Moreover, some bars, discos, nightclubs remain open, playing loud music late at night. This disturbs local residents who have to rise early in order to work on the farms, etc. Traffic congestion seems to have become a problem particularly in the region of Cappadocia during the peak tourist season. For example, this problem can be observed in front of the main rock churches that are on the main road. At times there are 4 or 5 buses bringing visitors to the rock churches and underground towns. The visitors stay 2–3 hours visiting some main attractions, and tend to leave at the same time. The traffic congestion keeps tourists and residents waiting which consequently create discomfort. However, the traffic problem appears to be due to an uncontrolled and disorganised traffic system in addition to overcrowding. If some arrangements were to be put in place, the problem could be solved, at least in the short term. On local market-days (halk pazari), overcrowding has become an unmanageable problem in the public open-market areas in many local tourist destinations since these areas were designed and arranged according to local people’s needs. Open public markets appear to be very attractive for foreign tourists as they create a natural shopping atmosphere in a traditional form and the shopping is relatively cheap. However, sellers seem to pay so much attention to foreign tourists that they sometimes ignore local residents’ shopping needs. Local people feel humiliated by the lack of attention accorded to them. Shop owners find it more profitable to deal with foreign tourists who are likely to buy more without bargaining as local people do. Fourth, the most detrimental impact of tourism development and tourists has been on both the unique and highly fragile natural and man-made resources. This could be observed in Pamukkale and in the region of Cappadocia since the mid-1980s. Pammukkale has become very attractive for tourists and, thus, for tourism entrepreneurs, owing to the fissure-ridge and terraced-mound travertines created over the last 400,000 years as a result of deposition from thermal waters that spring at 35°C from within active fissures and faults. Many of these fissures travertine are up to 10 m wide. The actively accumulating travertine attracts visitors to Pamukkale in increasing numbers. Consequently, urbanisation of the areas has accelerated since the 1980s. Such uncontrolled urbanisation has given rise to two main problems: (1) Hotels and motels have been extracting subsurface thermal waters to supply private swimming pools and baths. Pumping has led to a fall in the water table and is beginning to exhaust some of the natural hot springs. (2) Some open fissures are being filled by domestic waste from adjacent municipalities, hotels and motels. Surface waters collecting in these fissures will wash pollutants into the main thermal-water reservoir. This will bring two major problems. Firstly, the polluted thermal waters will precipitate unclean travertine of unsightly appearance and, secondly and more importantly, the polluted thermal waters will pose a threat to human health where they continue to be used supplying baths, swimming pools and even medicinal drinking water. (Altunel & Hancock, 1994, p. 129).

Tourists, both foreign and domestic, have tended to behave in an irresponsible way. Visitors appear to have carelessly left solid waste such as cans, bottles and cigarette butts on the travertine. This has contributed to the deterioration of this fragile and unique natural resource. In brief, the urbanisation of the Pammukkale travertine plateau, and tourists themselves have progressively impaired the attractive environment that visitors come to view. There are too many people in too small an area.

The Cappadocia region is arguably one of the most attractive and fragile sites in the world due to its unique cultural heritage and natural volcanic beauty. The geological history of the region dates from Oligocene times, 38 million years ago or so (Bowen and Bowen). The geological structure of volcanic origin has formed, by wind erosion, bizarre formations that are known as the ‘fairy chimneys’. The first inhabitants date back to 3000 BC. in the Cappadocia plateau. Cappadocia provided an asylum to early Christians who had selected the Goreme Valley and Urgup for building churches in the year 53 AD, thus laying the foundations of Christianity in this part of the World. The broken valleys, which were formed by erosion, sheltered the Christians fleeing Roman oppression. Christians built a multitude of churches by hollowing into the rocks in the Valley of Goreme. The rock churches were decorated with impressive religious frescoes (Turizm Bankasi, 1986; Nevsehir Il Turizm Mudurlugu, 1995).

The unique scenery, geological structure, religious relics and historical sites are the primary attractions for tourists. They distinguish the Cappadocia region from other local tourist destinations in Turkey. However, those tourists who do not have an interest in religious relics and natural attractions have damaged these antique human and natural resources by behaving in an irresponsible way. Some of the rock houses have been used as tea gardens, bars, etc.; and some have been bought by foreigners, who visit the region every year, to use as accommodation during their stay in Cappadocia. Moreover, since there were no strict planning regulations or local authorities with power to implement existing regulations, ribbon development has occurred along the scenic routes and in areas of volcanic beauty. There are some examples of integrated building styles in the environment, but generally there has been a failure to integrate the superstructures of the tourism industry with the natural volcanic beauty, which in the words of Pearce (1978), is ‘architectural pollution’.

The Ministry of Tourism has become aware of the environmental matters and has taken some measures to prevent environmental damage through tourism development. For instances, the most significant attractions (Goreme, Derinkuyu, Ihlara Valley, Zelve, etc.) were taken under State protection, which can play an important role to keep Cappadocia a world-class site. However, measures have not been taken in time to stop this environmental erosion in some other parts of the region such as in Urgup and Ortahisar. Turkey has successfully implemented an Environmental Protection program to save Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas, which are a species of sea turtle, on a small part of the Mediterranean Sea. This project was strongly supported by the central government because of international pressure, but exceptional cases should not be generalised. The report of the special professional group of tourism (Devlet Planlama Teskilati (State Planning Organisation), 1995), which had been taken as the basis for tourism sector development planning, seems to have failed to provide a comprehensive legislative guideline to stop environmental deterioration due to the tourism development. However, the report of the special professional group for environment ( Devlet Planlama Teskilati, 1994) highlighted the gap between legislation and implementation. Consequently, the Seventh FYDP ( State Planning Organisation, 1995, p. 206) clearly pointed out that ‘It is required that the articles of the Constitution which are directly or indirectly concerned with environmental matters should be amended in line with the principles of a sustainable economic development’. More specifically, it was suggested that the Environmental Law No. 2872, the Law on Forests No. 6831, the Law No. 2634 on Encouraging Tourism, the Law of Resettlement No. 3194, the Law of Coasts No. 3621 and the Law on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Entities No. 2863 should be updated and amended according to the requirement of sustainable development. The relevant governmental documents in review reveal that some professional groups in Turkey have already become aware that new legislative measures are necessary to preserve, protect and improve natural and man-made resources. However, there is still not a comprehensive plan to cope satisfactorily with environmental matters that have appeared through tourism development. It is clear that the present level of legal action and measures in respect to environmental codes appear to be insufficient. That is to say, planning lags behind change, as it often does in Turkey as a developing country, and change brings the destruction of much of the country’s rich historical heritage. Hence, this matter is one of the dominant threats to tourism development in Turkey. Perhaps, as the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) stated, ‘Turkey may need international help and support in the years immediately ahead’ to deal with this serious problems of tourism development in Turkey.

3.5. Emergence of over commercialisation

Utilising culture as a tourism resource is a critical issue. Culture should not be manipulated or exploited particularly as an instrument for tourism development. In the past, several studies emphasised the negative impact which unplanned and irresponsible tourism development may have on the indigenous culture of a region (Jafari, 1974; Young, 1973; Ritchie & Zins, 1978). However, it is claimed that cultural heritage and traditional values were manipulated and exploited for the sake of economic benefits of tourism development by placing the Ministry of Culture under the umbrella of tourism in Turkey ( Sosyal, 1982).

Although the Ministry of Culture and Tourism was separated into two separate ministries in 1989, the current circumstances in many local tourist destinations reflect Soysal’s concern. Local cultural values in many local tourist destinations have become a part of the tourism product. They have been used as a commodity and marketing tool to increase the average length of stay of the tourists and maximise foreign currency earning. Consequently, a ‘get- rich-quick’ mentality has emerged in the tourism industry. Hoteliers, and other tourism- related entrepreneurs, have tried their best to use everything available to maximise their profit margin without considering the consequences of their activities even for their future business. Traditional ceremonies, folk dances, etc. have been performed as part of the entertainment activities in hotels, bars, discos and restaurants. For example, the author personally witnessed that a circumcision feast has been presented in such a way that it created fear in boys who would be circumcised. To be paraded in front of so many foreign people with different language and colour should not be allowed and it becomes an additional stress factor for those boys kept waiting for the sake of tourists and money. It is not only uncomfortable for these boys, but the content of the circumcision feast has become exaggerated that it is inconsistent with reality. Another example, in this regard, is the performance of ‘Turkish Nights’. Eroglu (1995) stated that Nevsehir School of Tourism and Hotel Management established a team specially educated to perform folk dance and folk drama in restaurants and hotels in Cappadocia, but hoteliers and restaurant operators have not accepted the specially educated team because of its relatively high cost, and prefer cheaper, unprofessional teams at the expense of the destruction of cultural values. Eroglu (1995) particularly emphasised that some of the folk dramas have been performed in forms that have humiliated the local communities from where the dramas and dances originated.

Additionally, it can be argued that traditional handicrafts have become a matter of mass production without paying much attention to their origins owing to the ‘get-rich-quick’ mentality that has been brought by over-commercialisation. Moreover, a tourist may wonder whether he or she is in a Turkish town. Shops, bars, discos and even tourism employees use foreign version of their names: Zafer is changed to Victor, Cevat to Gerald, Meryem to Mary, Isa to Jesus, etc. It is not surprising to see shops named as the Irish Bar, English Bar, Elegant Wear, Leather Jacket Shop, etc. Even 10–15 years old children speak some words in English, French, German, etc. They prefer greeting foreign tourists with a foreign language without knowing their nationalities while they are polishing tourists’ shoes.

Using cultural values at the wrong place, wrong time with the wrong standard has created in turn a misleading and damaging image about local communities in those tourist destinations. Overtime, it may become increasingly difficult to discern difference between commercially inspired and authentic cultural shows, thereby compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their own needs.

3.6. Structure of the international tourism system

The structure of the international tourism industry in developing countries is characterised by the domination of Transnational Tourism Corporations (TTCs) from relatively advanced wealth industrialised countries (Britton, 1982; Ascher, 1985; WTO, 1985; Dieke, 1988; Jenkins, 1994). It is argued that these industrialised countries generate tourist demand for most developing countries, and the large foreign firms from these generating countries dominate the flow patterns ( Jenkins, 1994). Particularly, in the absence of unique attractions, tourist demand is largely externally determined ( Jenkins, 1980). That is to say, significant decisions as to which destination regions are to be favoured with tourism developments are frequently exercised by travel intermediaries based, not in destination regions, but in the tourist generating countries. ‘Given such external control over the fortunes of the tourism industry in destination regions it must be concluded that tourism is too fragile and unpredictable an industry on which to base total economic development of destination regions’ ( Hall, 1994, p. 119 quoting Goodall, 1987, p. 72).

This argument regarding dependency of tourism development in developing countries suggests that type and scale of tourism development in the developing world is at the mercy of the international tour operators to a large extent. In this regard, it may not be wrong to claim that developing countries are decision-takers, rather than decision-makers regarding the tourism development that has taken place in their territories. There is evidence that international tour operators and multinational companies in the tourism industry have shaped and directed the tourism development in Turkey and elsewhere in the developing world (Ascher, 1985; Dieke, 1988; Kusluvan, 1994). It is noted that investment in promoting Turkey as a tourist destination has a very minor impact on international tourist flows to Turkey ( Uysal & Crompton, 1984). Moreover, it is also reported that ‘it is rather difficult to claim that the popularity of Turkey as a tourist destination is not the result of conscious and well planned marketing and promotional efforts of the MT and other related organisations’ ( Ozturk, 1996, p. 278). The current pattern of international tourism demand for Turkey supports these statements. The EIU (Economic Intelligence Unit) (1993, p. 82) found that, ‘over 55 per cent of all visitors to Turkey travel on all inclusive tour packages tour and 15 per cent on a part organised basis… Eighty five per cent of all charter passenger arrivals travelled by using the companies which are owned and operated by foreigners’. In 1996 60 per cent of foreign tourists who visited Turkey arranged their trips through tour operators ( State Institute of Statistics, 1997).

A closer look at the international tourist arrivals in Turkey illustrates that tourism development is reasonably dependent on a small number of origin countries. In 1996 60.35 per cent (5.2 million) of Turkey’s arrivals originated from OECD countries and 25.77 per cent (2.2 million) from East European (see Table 1). The largest single tourist arrivals in 1996 were from Germany, which accounted for 25 per cent of all arrivals. The top three markets accounted for about 52 per cent of total international arrivals to Turkey in 1996 (see Table 2).

Table 1. Origin regions for international tourist arrivals in Turkey, 1996a

Table 2. International tourist arrivals in Turkey by major origin country, 1996a

It should be noted that the 2.2 million visitors (26 per cent of all arrivals) from East European countries could not be regarded as tourists in the real meaning of the word. The vast majority of these visitors were ‘suitcase traders’ who aimed at to sell goods brought from their own country in the streets. If these visitors were excluded, the top two markets, Germany and the UK, would account for 45 per cent of total arrivals to Turkey in 1996.

In this vein, the proportion of tourists who travelled on all inclusive tour packages may have been higher than the given 60 per cent. Under the given high level of market dependency of tourism development, and the badly needed foreign currency earning (particularly in the short term), it appears to be very difficult for Turkey to make a radical move to change the current pattern of tourism development (Tosun, 1999). Hence, in a developing country such as Turkey, the government’s role is to develop ad hoc strategies for tourism to cope with the high bargaining power of international tour operators and adjust policies to the changes caused by external factors. As Tosun (1997) argues, it is very difficult for Turkey to develop a pro-active planning approach by which to decrease or eradicate the influences of the external factors on the tourism development due to the nature of the international tourism system. This suggests that the structure of the international tourism system has led Turkey to create a tourist infrastructure of facilities based on Western standards even in relatively underdeveloped local areas to provide the mass tourist with ‘the protective ecological bubble of his accustomed environment’ ( Cohen, 1972, p. 171) while local people in these areas have difficulty in satisfying their felt-needs such as those of housing, education and health. The type, direction, volume and impact of international tourism in Turkey are being determined by external factors to a large extent. In this context, it may be stated that tourism is an industry developed and run by foreigners for foreigners.

The above argument may suggest that the structure of international tourism seems to be an obstacle to making decisions to move towards a more sustainable tourism development in the developing world. It has left no choice for Turkey to consider except the current mass tourism development, which is driven by the international tour operators and appears to contradict principles of sustainable tourism development. Thus, it has become imperative for Turkey to accept and support certain scale and types of tourism development in certain geographic locations in her territory at the expense of environmental degradation and worsening intra and inter-generational-equity. In this context, it may be said that under the current imperfect market conditions, Turkey as a cheap popular tourist destination has two choices. First, to accept the current type, scale and direction of tourism development that seems to contradict principles of development and sustainable development. Second, to reject the current type, scale and direction of tourism development and accept a certain type and scale of tourism development that will contribute to sustainable development. This second option seems not to be acceptable in terms of current political preferences and economic priorities. In fact, the first option may be the only choice for Turkey.

4. Conclusion

Although arguments regarding the challenges to sustainable tourism development have been raised with special reference to Turkey as a part of the developing world, they may be valid for many developing countries that have adopted a similar tourism development approach and experienced similar difficulties. Hence, it may be possible to draw several general conclusions.

First, like many other developing countries, Turkey has chronic and severe macro economic problems such as a high rates of unemployment, rapid growth of the working-age population, high rate of inflation and interest, an increasing rate of deficits in the current account of balance of payments and an increasing debt: service ratio. In the short term many developing countries do not have alternatives to tourism to find sources of foreign currency earnings and to create jobs for the rapidly growing working-age population. Thus, developing world governments do not have much option other than to support current tourism development even though it may not be compatible with the principles of long-term sustainable development. The development of tourism is essentially built on long-term investment, but for short-term benefits. Sustainability as a long-term objective can only have relevance if it can gather the support of present day beneficiaries. These macro-economic imperatives suggest that unless developing countries find additional sources of foreign currency earning and employment generation, they will support whatever forms of tourism development are available to them, including those that are unsustainable.

Second, in developed countries, approaches to tourism development planning have moved from a historical, narrow consideration of demand, supply and physical requirements to more comprehensive, integrated and environmentally sensitive approaches, which are sine qua non for sustainable tourism development. However, this evolutionary process has not had much opportunity to be applied in developing countries. Thus, on the one hand, contemporary approaches to tourism development such as community involvement, comprehensive, integrative and system approaches appear to be essential to achieve a better tourism development, if not sustainable tourism development, in the developing world. But, on the other hand, adopting those planning models and approaches developed in and for developed countries to solve the problems of tourism in developing countries requires considerable effort, financial resources and expertise, all of which may not be available in those countries. Even if these models are financially and technically feasible, it may not be feasible in terms of ‘politics’. In other words, decision-makers may not accept such a model since it may be contrary to their interests. Any planning model should be both politically acceptable and desirable in developing countries if it is to be implemented. Adapting the techniques and approaches developed by others does not necessarily meet developing countries’ needs. Hence, it is suggested that developing countries need to develop their own contemporary tourism development approaches by taking into account their own socio-economic, political and legislative conditions to cope with the unplanned and uncontrolled tourism development that has emerged as a challenge to sustainable tourism development. Third, centralisation of public administration functions has brought the dangers of concentration of power in too few hands in developing countries. This public administration structure has catered for business interests as clients of decision-makers at the expense of indigenous communities in many local tourist destinations. This suggests that there is much truth in the German proverb ‘stadtluft macht frei’ (town air makes man free). It is argued ‘in support of the conception that local bodies know local problems and feelings, and so what is suitable, better than the central authorities possibly can’ (Allum, 1995, p. 413). Hence, local governments should be re-organised to defend, protect and reflect concerns and interests of local people in their administrative territories. Obviously, without financial resources, local governments cannot provide services to their constituencies. Consequently, local government should be empowered not only politically and legally, but also financially. Additional financial resources should be made available for local governments to be used particularly for community development projects. For example, a community development tax or community compensation tax can be collected to raise financial resources for this purpose. This may encourage local government to find ways of empowering those who live in its area. However, re-organisation and empowerment of local governments may move patron-client relations to provincial level. In this vein, a cautionary approach is needed. New measures should ensure the equality of treatment of all residents and should avoid creating other problems or shaping the form of prevailing problems rather than solving them. Fourth, there is a need to establishing quality standards for handicrafts so as to distinguish those handicrafts that are made in accordance with their origins from those that are not. A special trademark or symbol can be developed to represent this quality standard. When buyers see this special trade mark or symbol, they can be more confident about the quality of the products. The quality standard marks should be publicised in tour operators’ brochures and via tourism information centres. This measure may be a means to counter over-commercialisation and protect consumers. Similarly, entertainers such as folk dance performers, Turkish night organisers, etc. should be controlled via a certification program. The Ministry of Culture or relevant organisation should certify those entertainers who perform folk dances and organise traditional animation programs and only certificate holders should be permitted to organise entertainment programmes. This may also help government to collect more taxes. For example, many entertainment organisers are not registered as self- employed in Turkey and therefore many of them do not pay taxes. There is now considerable evidence that tourism does have definite but variable impacts on communities and the wider society in developing countries. It should be noted that, as Harrison (1992) postulates, there may be something quite patronising in the suggestion that the culture of many developing countries may be weak and require protection from outside influences. The cost of achieving some economic advancement by adopting international mass tourism must be measured against the loss of cultural heritage, which can be observed in many developing countries as the result of the modernisation process. As tourism is part of this modernisation process, it is important to anticipate and manage the negative social, cultural, economic and environmental problems arising from tourism. It should be kept in mind that it is not the modernisation that attract tourists, but the traditional and authentic cultural values that are the main sources of attraction alongside other socio-economic factors and natural resources in a tourist destination. Fifth, environmental codes should be developed and enforced to protect unique and fragile natural resources and cultural heritage. Necessary rules and regulations should be enacted for this. These measures should be strict and free of misinterpretation and misuse. If necessary, international agencies should be approached to collaborate to protect these non-renewable resources. Additionally, signboards should be put in place to advise tourists of restrictions. Through booklets and newsletters tourists can be informed how these fragile resources can be easily damaged. Tourist guides should be educated about environmental issues. Tourist guides should be responsible to introduce to tourists relevant environmental codes and give, free of charge, relevant booklets and newsletters to tourists in their groups. Most importantly, there should be control to implement these environmental codes via empowering local government, non-governmental organisations and local communities. If those codes are ignored for any reason there should be significant monetary fines that can be additional sources of finance to improve and the protect the relevant environment. Sixth, the Turkish tourism experience reveals that the form and scale of tourism development that has taken place in developing countries is shaped by international tour operators. Intense competition between identical tourist destinations in terms of price, rather than product differentiation and quality, and increasing the supply of almost identical commodity tourist destinations increase the dependency of destination countries on the international tour operators. This high level of market dependency puts the developing world in a position of a decision-taker, rather than decision-maker. In other words, because of the nature of tourism and its reliance on the international market it was a sector over which the host community and governments could exercise only limited control. Given the structure of the international tourism system, developing countries cannot afford to reject or oppose decisions of the international tour operators owing to the real possibility of losing substantial economic benefits from international tourism for which they have already made massive and largely irreversible fixed investment. Additionally, there is often a desperate need for international tourism receipts as a main source of foreign currency earning. The structure of the international tourism system and economic imperatives in the developing world suggest that moving towards a more sustainable tourism development option is largely at the mercy of the international tour operators and donor agencies. That is to say, unless the international tour operators are willing to collaborate with developing countries to take careful measures for sustainable tourism development and international donor agencies contribute to the solution of the macro-economic problems of these countries, there seems to be a real danger of losing the option of sustainable tourism development forever. Finally, this article suggests that the principles of sustainable tourism development have originated from and have been developed by advanced industrial countries that experienced the basis of the pre-industrial phase last century, and where far better economic, legislative and political structures are in operation than in the developing world. Therefore, arriving at sustainable tourism development requires re-structuring the public administration system, and a re-distribution of power and wealth, for which hard political choices and logical decisions based on cumbersome social, economic and environmental trade-off are sine qua non. This cannot be achieved within the present conditions of many developing countries without the assistance of international organisation.

This study proposes that future research should focus on how international organisations including the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, European Union, United Nations, International Tour Operators, etc. can have a role in implementation of the principles of sustainable tourism development in developing countries. It should be noted that economically advanced countries need to protect and preserve both the environment, and peace in the developing world since people of these countries have already accepted cross- border holidays as part of their felt-need.

References

Alipour, H., 1996. Tourism development within planning paradigms: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management 17 5, pp. 367–377. Allum, P., 1995. State and society in Western Europe, Polity Press, Cambridge. Ascher, F., 1985. Tourism transnational corporations and cultural identities, UNESCO, Paris.

Altunel, E., & Hancock, P. L. (1994). Pollution of the Pamukkale travertine as a consequence of urbanisation: What future for a unique natural Turkish Monument? 47 Turkiye Jeoloji Kurultayi 1994 Bildiri Ozleri; Cevre Jeolojisi Oturumu. Izmir/Turkey: Dokuz Eylul Universitesi.

Ayata, A.G., 1994. Roots and trend of clientelism in Turkey. In: Roniger, L. and Ayata, A.G., Editors, 1994. Democracy, clientelism and civil society, Lynne-Rienner-Pblisher, London, pp. 49–63. Bartelmus, P., 1986. Environment and development, Allen and Unwin, Boston.

Bowen, R., 1987. Geology and the conservation of antique monuments in Turkey. Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 9 2, pp. 71–84. Bowen, R., 1990. The future of the past at Goreme in Turkey. Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 16 1, pp. 35–41. Bramwell, L. and Lane, B., 1993. Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 1, pp. 6–16. Britton, S.G., 1982. The political economy of tourism in the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research 9 3, pp. 331–358. Brotherton, B., & Himmetoglu, B. (1997). International Tourism Report, Turkey. Travel and Tourism Intelligence (pp 59–81). Brotherton, B., Woolfenden, G. and Himmetoglu, B., 1994. Developing human resources for Turkey’s tourism industry in the 1990s. Tourism Management 15 2, pp. 109–116. Butler, R.W., 1993. Tourism — An evolutionary perspective. In: Nelson, J.G., Butler, R. and Wall, G., Editors, 1993. Tourism and sustainable development: monitoring, planning, managing, Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, pp. 26–43.

Carkoglu, A., 1997. The Turkish general election of 24 December 1995. Electoral Studies 16 1, pp. 86–95. Cohen, E., 1972. Towards a Sociology of International Tourism. Social Research 39, pp. 164– 182.

D’Amore, L.J., 1992. Promoting sustainable tourism — the Canadian approach. Tourism Management 13 3, pp. 258–262. de Kadt, E., 1979. Social planning for tourism in the developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 6 1, pp. 36–48. Department of the Environment. (1989). Sustaining our common future. A Progress Report by the United Kingdom on Implementing Sustainable Development. United Kingdom: Department of Environment. Devlet Planlama Teskilati. (1994). Yedinci Bes Yillik Kalkinma Plani: Cevre Ozel Ihtisas Komisyonu Raporu (Report of the Special Professional Group for Environment). Ankara: Devlet Planlama Teskilati. Devlet Planlama Teskilati. (1995). Yedinci Bes Yillik Kalkinma Plani: Turizm Ozel Ihtisas Komisyonu Raporu (Report of the Special Professional Group for Tourism). Ankara: Devlet Planlama Teskilati. Dieke, P. U. C. (1988). The development of tourism in Kenya and The Gambia: A comparative analysis. Doctoral thesis, The Scottish Hotel School, University of Strathclyde, UK. Dudley, E., 1993. The critical villager: Beyond community participation, Routledge, London. EIU (1989). International tourism report of Turkey. International Tourism Report. No:1 (pp. 35–55). EIU (1993). International tourism report of Turkey. International Tourism Report. No:3 (pp. 77–97). English Tourist Board/Countryside Commission. (1991). The green light: A guide to sustainable tourism. London. Eroglu, T. (1995). Yuksek Okul adina yapilan konusmalar. In Kapadokya Toplantilari II: Turism Endustrisi- Turizm Isletmeciligi ve Otelcilik Yuksek Okulu Isbirligi Imkanlari (pp. 30–33). Ersoy, M., 1992. Relations between central and local governments in Turkey: An historical perspective. Public Administration and Development 12, pp. 325–341. Globe’90. (1991). Tourism stream conference, action strategy for sustainable tourism development. Ottawa: Tourism Canada. Goulet, D., 1971. The cruel choice, a new concept in the theory of development, Steward Ltd, New York. Hall, C.M., 1994. Tourism and politics: Policy, power and place, Wiley, Chichester. Hapgood, D. (Ed.) (1969). The role of popular participation in development report of a conference on the implementation of title IX of the foreign assistance act, June 24–August 2, 1968. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harper, R. (1987). Devolution. The Society of Scottish Conservative Lawyers. Harris, R. and Leiper, N., 1995. Sustainable tourism: An Australian perspective, Butterworth Heinneman, Australia. Harrison, D., 1992. International tourism and the less developed countries: The background. In: Harrison, D., Editor, , 1992. International tourism and the less developed countries, Belhaven Press, London, pp. 1–19. Hunter, C., 1997. Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 21 4, pp. 850–867. International Republican Institute ( IRI). (1995). Turkey, survey result: Attitudes and priorities of citizens of urban areas, November 9–23, 1995. IRI, Washington, DC.

Jafari, J., 1974. The socio-economic costs of tourism to developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 1 7, pp. 227–262. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (7) Jenkins, C.L., 1980. Tourism policies in developing countries: A critique. International Journal of Tourism Management 1 1, pp. 36–48. Jenkins, C.L., 1994. Tourism in developing countries: The privatisation issue. In: Seaton, A.V., Editor, , 1994. Tourism the state of the art, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 1–9. Kalkan, O., 1991. Turizm Menzuatimiz (Our tourism law), Devlet Su Isleri Genel Mudurlugu Basim Evi, Ankara. Koker, L., 1995. Local politics and democracy in Turkey: An appraisal. The Annals of the American Academy of political and Social Science 540, pp. 51–62. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13) Kusluvan, S. (1994). Multinational enterprises in tourism: A case study of Turkey. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Strathclyde University, The Scottish Hotel School, Glasgow, UK. Lamar, J. V. (1988). Turkey, the hot new tourist draw. Time. June. Miltin, D., 1992. Sustainable development: A guide to the literature. Environment and Urbanisation 4 1, pp. 111–124. Ministry of Tourism. (1997). Turizm Bakanligi, 1963–1996 (34th Anniversary of Ministry of Tourism). Ankara: Ministry of Tourism. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I., 1998. Tourism and sustainability: New tourism in the Third World, Routledge, London. Murphy, P., 1994. Tourism and sustainable development. In: Theobald, W., Editor, , 1994. Global tourism: The next decade, Butterworth, Oxford, pp. 274–290. Nevsehir Turizm Il Mudurlugu (1995). Document of determining tourism potential in Cappadocia (Received by personal mail application). Nevsehir: Il Turizm Mudurlugu. OECD. (1995). Economic survey of Turkey. Paris: OECD. OECD. (1996). OECD economic surveys for Turkey 1993–1994. Paris: OECD. Owen, R.E., Witt, S.F. and Susan, G., 1993. Sustainable tourism development in Wales. Tourism Management 14 6, pp. 463–474. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (11) Ozturk, Y. (1996). Marketing Turkey as a tourist destination. Doctoral thesis, The Scottish Hotel School, University of Strathclyde, UK. Pearce, D., Barbier, E. and Markandya, A., 1990. Sustainable development, economics and environment in the Third World, Edward Elgar, Aldershot. Pearce, D.G., 1978. Form and function in French resorts. Annals of Tourism Research 5, pp. 142–156. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (12) Ritchie, J.R.B. and Zins, M., 1978. Culture as determinant of the attractiveness of a tourist region. Annals of Tourism Research 5 2, pp. 252–267. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (25) Sezer, H. and Harrison, A., 1994. Tourism in Greece and Turkey: An economic view for planners. In: Seaton, A.V., Editor, , 1994. Tourism the state of the art, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 74–83. Sosyal, M., 1982. Turistik kultur (Touristic culture). Milliyet 17 3, p. 1982. State Institute of Statistics. (1997). Haber Bulteni: Yabanci Ziyaretcile Anket Sonuclari (News Bulletin: Foreign Visitors Survey Results). Ankara: Devlet Istatistik Enstitusi. State Planning Organisation (SPO). (1995). Seventh five year development plan. Ankara/Turkey: State Planning Organisation. Stiefel, M. and Wolfe, M., 1994. A voice for the excluded popular participation in development, Zed Books Ltd, London. The Economist. (1996). A survey of Turkey. 8th June.

Thirlwall. (1989). Growth and development. (4th ed.) London: MacMillan Education Ltd. Todaro, M.P., 1994. Economic development in the Third World, Longman, New York. Tosun, C. (1996) Approaches to tourism development planning at sub-national level: A case study of Cappadocia in Turkey. Unpublished MPhil thesis, Strathclyde University, The Scottish Hotel School, Glasgow, UK.

Tosun, C. and Jenkins, C.L., 1996. Regional planning approaches to tourism development: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management 17 7, pp. 519–531. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (18) Tosun, C., 1997. Questions about Tourism development within planning paradigms: The case of Turkey. Tourism Management 18 5, pp. 327–329.

Tosun, C., 1998. Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the local level: The case of Urgup in Turkey. Tourism Management 19 6, pp. 595–610. Tosun, C. (1998b). Deficits in approaches to tourism development planning in developing countries: The case of Turkey. International conference of international travel and tourism: Policy, law and management, 19–21 April 1998. Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Northumbria.

Tosun, C., 1999. An analysis of contributions of international inbound tourism to the Turkish economy. Tourism Economics 5 3, pp. 217–250. Tosun, C., 2000. Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management 21 6, pp. 613–633.

Turizm, Bankasi. (1986). Cappadocia touristic development areas. Ankara/Turkey: Turizm Bankasi A.S. Uysal, M. and Crompton, J.L., 1984. Determinants of demand for international tourist flows to Turkey. Tourism Management 11 3, pp. 288–296.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. WTO. (1985). The role of transnational enterprises in the development of tourism. Madrid; WTO.

Young, G. (1973). Tourism: Blessing or blight? London: Penguin.

This entry was posted in Vol.4, No1-2/2011. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.