We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists

4,000+

Open access books available

116,000+

International authors and editors

120M+

Downloads

Our authors are among the

Top 1%

most cited scientists

12.2%

Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

### Interested in publishing with us? Contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected. For more information visit www.intechopen.com

## **Meet the editor**

Dr. Murat Kasimoğlu is a professor of management. He received doctorate degree from Istanbul University, Faculty of Business. He does project with companies, NGOs and government regarding the management. Dr. Murat Kasimoğlu is also developing project to the various organisations included tourism industry. He teaches Management, Business Strategy at the Undergraduate,

Graduate and Doctorate levels. He has given lectures at the some universities in EU and other developing countries (Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, etc), joined international conferences and published papers in international journals. He has also developed strategic partnerships around the world. He also joined international the programs for developing global strategies.

Contents

**Preface IX**

Leszek Butowski

Diana Târnăveanu

Chapter 3 **Introduction to Input-Output**

Tadayuki (Tad) Hara

Chapter 4 **Golden Age of Mass Tourism:**

**Section 1 Tourism Industry – Development Strategy 1**

Chapter 1 **Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach 3**

Chapter 2 **Knowledge-Based Decisions in Tourism 21**

**Its History and Development 73**  Erkan Sezgin and Medet Yolal

Ching-Shu Su and Jeou-Shyan Horng

Chapter 7 **New Opportunities for the Tourism Market:**

Chapter 9 **Mature Tourist Destination: A New Tool to**

Montserrat Hernández-López

Chapter 5 **Recent Developments in Research and**

Chapter 6 **Enterprise Proportionalities in the**

Chapter 8 **The Role of Time in the Global**

Daan Toerien

**Framework for Analysis of Tourism as an Industry 49**

**Future Directions of Culinary Tourism: A Review 91**

**Tourism Sector of South African Towns 113**

**Senior Tourism and Accessible Tourism 139**  Elisa Alén, Trinidad Domínguez and Nieves Losada

**Tourism Market – A Demand Perspective 167**  Grzegorz Gołembski and Agnieszka Niezgoda

**Forecast Internal Composition of Its Demand 179**

### Contents

#### **Preface XIII**

X Contents

Contents VII

Chapter 20 **Sustainability in the**

Chapter 21 **Tourism in Rural Areas:**

Devi Roza Kausar

**Management of World Cultural Heritage 431**

**Foundation, Quality and Experience 441**

**A Viewpoint of Tourism Stakeholders of Lesvos Island 461**

Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro

Kostas Rontos, Eleni Kitrinou,

Dimitrios Lagos and Mihail Diakomihalis

Chapter 22 **Islands and Tourism Development:**

VI Contents

Chapter 10 **Security Measures on the International Tourism 195**

**Section 2 Tourism Industry – Sustainable Development 209**

**of Agrarian Structures and the Rural**

Chapter 12 **Using Weather-Related Derivative Products**

M. Fuat Beyazit and Erdogan Koc

Chapter 13 **Tourism Life Cycle Assessment (LCA):**

**Tourism Dynamic in the Czech Republic 211**

**for Tourism and Hospitality Businesses 225**

**Proposal of a New Methodological Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production 247**  Camillo De Camillis, Paul Peeters, Luigia Petti and Andrea Raggi

**Methodologies and Their Uses: 1969-2011 269**  Mohammad Nurul Huda Mazumder, Abdullah Al-Mamun, Abul Quasem Al-Amin and Muhammad Mohiuddin

**Tourism System: Assessment of Environmental and Management Constraints Towards Sustainability 295**

**Tourism Industry from Earthquakes – Impact and Analysis of Mass Media Information 317**

José Cadima Ribeiro and Laurentina Cruz Vareiro

**Development in Small Tropical Islands Coastal Habitats in a Changing Climate: Lessons Learned from Puerto Rico 357**

Edwin A. Hernández- Delgado, Carlos E. Ramos-Scharrón, Carmen R. Guerrero-Pérez, Mary Ann Lucking, Ricardo Laureano,

Pablo A. Méndez-Lázaro and Joel O. Meléndez-Díaz

**in the Economic Development of Europe 399**

**Tourism – A Review of Literatures on**

Valentina Castellani and Serenella Sala

Mitsuyoshi Nagao and Azuma Ohuchi

**Minho-Lima Region (Portugal) 339**

**of Non-Sustainable Tourism and Urban**

Jesús E. Martínez Marín

Chapter 11 **Heritages and Transformations**

Pascal Chevalier

Chapter 14 **Economic Impact of**

Chapter 15 **Carrying Capacity of**

Chapter 16 **Reputational Damage to**

Chapter 17 **The Tourist Potential of the**

Chapter 19 **Nautical Tourism and Its Function**

Tihomir Luković

Chapter 18 **Long-Term Impacts**

Chapter 22 **Islands and Tourism Development: A Viewpoint of Tourism Stakeholders of Lesvos Island 461**  Kostas Rontos, Eleni Kitrinou, Dimitrios Lagos and Mihail Diakomihalis

Preface

visionary perspective.

industries...

Today, it is considered good business practice for tourism industries to support their micro and macro environment by means of strategic perspectives. This is necessary because we cannot contemplate companies existing without their environment. If companies do not involve themselves in such undertakings, they are in danger of isolating themselves from the shareholder. That, in turn, creates a problem for mobilizing new ideas and receiving feedback from their environment. In this respect, the contributions of academics from international level together with the private sector and business managers are eagerly awaited on topics and sub-topics within Strategies

The books based on three main sections. First section is Tourism Industry: Micro and Macro Topics For Strategy Development has consisted of eight chapters relate with developing strategies from micro and macro approaches. Second section is Tourism Industry: Macro Perspective has consisted of six chapters relate with macro perspective of tourism industry from different approaches. Third section is Tourism Industry: Different Topics for Strategy Development relate with eclectic topic of tourism industry. Each paper has valuable conurbation to understand industry from

In this book, I am pleased to present many papers from all over the world that discuss the impact of tourism strategies. It is our hope that you will find the opportunity to

Editing a book relies on intensive team work and the contribution of various bodies such as companies and NGO's. Firstly, I am always aware of the contribution of my

Secondly, I would like to express my appreciation for having the chance to work with practitioners whose visions and contribution made me aware of real need of

Thirdly, I am most thankful to the writers of the book. It is a real pleasure to work with you in such an efficient and productive way that I hope we will continue in the future.

for Tourism Industry-Micro and Macro Perspectives.

extend your vision in the light of such scientific discussion.

colleagues, whose vision inspired us to commence this project.

### Preface

Today, it is considered good business practice for tourism industries to support their micro and macro environment by means of strategic perspectives. This is necessary because we cannot contemplate companies existing without their environment. If companies do not involve themselves in such undertakings, they are in danger of isolating themselves from the shareholder. That, in turn, creates a problem for mobilizing new ideas and receiving feedback from their environment. In this respect, the contributions of academics from international level together with the private sector and business managers are eagerly awaited on topics and sub-topics within Strategies for Tourism Industry-Micro and Macro Perspectives.

The books based on three main sections. First section is Tourism Industry: Micro and Macro Topics For Strategy Development has consisted of eight chapters relate with developing strategies from micro and macro approaches. Second section is Tourism Industry: Macro Perspective has consisted of six chapters relate with macro perspective of tourism industry from different approaches. Third section is Tourism Industry: Different Topics for Strategy Development relate with eclectic topic of tourism industry. Each paper has valuable conurbation to understand industry from visionary perspective.

In this book, I am pleased to present many papers from all over the world that discuss the impact of tourism strategies. It is our hope that you will find the opportunity to extend your vision in the light of such scientific discussion.

Editing a book relies on intensive team work and the contribution of various bodies such as companies and NGO's. Firstly, I am always aware of the contribution of my colleagues, whose vision inspired us to commence this project.

Secondly, I would like to express my appreciation for having the chance to work with practitioners whose visions and contribution made me aware of real need of industries...

Thirdly, I am most thankful to the writers of the book. It is a real pleasure to work with you in such an efficient and productive way that I hope we will continue in the future.

#### XIV Preface

Lastly, I owe a great debt to our organizing team who has worked hard to ensure the success of this international book. Without **INTECH publishing** involvement and heart-felt commitment this book would not have come about. In particular, I would like to state my gratitude for the efforts of Maja Kisic and Vana Persen.

> **Prof. Dr. Murat Kasimoğlu** Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Department of Management, Turkey

## **Section 1**

**Tourism Industry – Development Strategy**

**1**

**Sustainable Tourism –**

Sustainable tourism, sustainable development through tourism, principles of sustainable development in tourism and tourism development in terms of sustainable tourism, in the literature often treated as names for the same phenomenon, are becoming increasingly interesting for scholars and practicians of tourism from various countries. It results from the fact that sustainable tourism (at least declaratively – on the institutional level) is considered as the most desirable form of tourism development on particular reception areas, especially

Simultaneously, it should be noted that the rich scientific literature concerning sustainable tourism focuses attention primarly on descriptive presentation of its various aspects, with particular emphasis on the idea, the origins and the evolution of the phenomenon as well as terminological issues related to it. The authors pay much attention to reveal the relationships between sustainable tourism (as a form of tourism development) and particular types of tourism (as forms of tourist movement). At the same time, it should be marked that there are skeptical voices, which refer especially to the role that sustainable tourism is ascribed – as a remedy for all the problems of contemporary tourism. It also seems that, taking into consideration the hitherto scientific output related to sustainable tourism, the works devoted the theoretical aspects of sustainable tourism are in minority.

Relatively weak theoretical grounds together with the ambiguity and diversity of views on sustainable tourism as well as the descriptive approach, which dominates in the literature, have prompted the author of this article to make an attempt to render the essence of sustainable tourism in a model approach. When creating the theoretical model of sustainable tourism, the author tried to take into consideration all its main features (and interrelations ocurring among them) and to simultaneously follow certain main principles, i.e.: of completeness, versatility, explicitness and simplicity of the model itself. The author is aware of the fact that attempts to render sustainable tourism in a model approach had already been made, but it seems that they concerned, in majority, its particular aspects, such as the origins of the phenomenon, its relationships with certain forms of tourist movement or relationships between sustainable development and tourism. However the literature lacked a holistic approach which would take into consideration all most important features

those which preserved the most natural and cultural authenticity values.

**1. Introduction**

of sustainable tourism.

**A Model Approach**

*Vistula University in Warsaw*

Leszek Butowski

*Poland*

### **Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach**

Leszek Butowski *Vistula University in Warsaw Poland*

#### **1. Introduction**

Sustainable tourism, sustainable development through tourism, principles of sustainable development in tourism and tourism development in terms of sustainable tourism, in the literature often treated as names for the same phenomenon, are becoming increasingly interesting for scholars and practicians of tourism from various countries. It results from the fact that sustainable tourism (at least declaratively – on the institutional level) is considered as the most desirable form of tourism development on particular reception areas, especially those which preserved the most natural and cultural authenticity values.

Simultaneously, it should be noted that the rich scientific literature concerning sustainable tourism focuses attention primarly on descriptive presentation of its various aspects, with particular emphasis on the idea, the origins and the evolution of the phenomenon as well as terminological issues related to it. The authors pay much attention to reveal the relationships between sustainable tourism (as a form of tourism development) and particular types of tourism (as forms of tourist movement). At the same time, it should be marked that there are skeptical voices, which refer especially to the role that sustainable tourism is ascribed – as a remedy for all the problems of contemporary tourism. It also seems that, taking into consideration the hitherto scientific output related to sustainable tourism, the works devoted the theoretical aspects of sustainable tourism are in minority.

Relatively weak theoretical grounds together with the ambiguity and diversity of views on sustainable tourism as well as the descriptive approach, which dominates in the literature, have prompted the author of this article to make an attempt to render the essence of sustainable tourism in a model approach. When creating the theoretical model of sustainable tourism, the author tried to take into consideration all its main features (and interrelations ocurring among them) and to simultaneously follow certain main principles, i.e.: of completeness, versatility, explicitness and simplicity of the model itself. The author is aware of the fact that attempts to render sustainable tourism in a model approach had already been made, but it seems that they concerned, in majority, its particular aspects, such as the origins of the phenomenon, its relationships with certain forms of tourist movement or relationships between sustainable development and tourism. However the literature lacked a holistic approach which would take into consideration all most important features of sustainable tourism.

Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach 5

In the same period various conceptions connected with the so called ecotourism began to appear in the international literature. H. Ceballos-Lescuráin (1987) is considered the author of its first definition. At the same time scholars began to introduce terms similar to *ecotourism* or *alternative tourism* such as *green tourism (tourisme vert, nature-based, naturnäher), soft tourism (saufer Tourismus), nature tourism, environmental friendly/environmentally sensible tourism, responsible tourism (angepast), discreet tourism, appriopriate tourism, ecoethnotourism* (Boo, 1990, Cater, Lowman, 1994, Krippendorf et al., 1998; Niezgoda, 2006). It should be noted that the authors of these definitions stressed first of all the (desired) way of cultivating tourism, types of values (mainly natural) and the (small) scale of the phenomenon. They often used the evaluating approach which juxtaposed the 'new' forms of tourism with these

A broad overview of diverse definitions of sustainable tourism was included in R.W. Butler's paper entitled 'Sustainable tourism: a state-of-the-art review' (1999). This author, who is skeptic towards views that sustainable tourism constitutes a panaceum for contemporary tourism's problems, presents his own view on its essence. He claims that sustainable tourism can be seen in two ways (Butler, 2005). Firstly, from the semanticdictionary side, taking into consideration its feature of sustainability as a warranty of longterm survival on the market. According to M. Mika (2008) such an approach seems to be closer to the representatives of the economic party, who stress the problem of selfmaintenance of tourism development. The second way of understanding sustainable tourism by Butler is much closer to the conception of sustainable development. It suggests treating sustainable tourism as a tool for the development of reception areas without breaking the principles of sustainable development. As one may guess, this attitude is closer to the representatives of the natural sciences and the humanities. Butler's views on ambiguity in understanding the term sustainable tourism are supported by A. Niezgoda (2006), who claims that conception of sustainable tourism ocurred as a result of research on interrelations between tourism, environment and development. According to this author sustainable tourism is treated by scholars as a tool for realization of sustainable

Totally different scientific basis of sustainable tourism conception (or sustainable development through tourism) is presented by Bryan H. Farell and Louise Twinning-Ward (2003). In the article entitled 'Reconceptualizing Tourism', published in 2003 in the *Annals of Tourism Research*, they postulate a total change in the methodological approach towards the studies of tourism, sustainable tourism included. These authors criticize strongly the hitherto, according to them most wide-spread, way of conducting research in the field of tourism, which is based on narrow specialization, linear reductionism as well as determinism assuming predictability of phenomena and presence of cause and effect. They claim that such an approach, due to complexity and unpredictability of behaviour of tourist systems and systems influencing tourism, cannot guarantee satisfactory results. Instead, they propose a new paradigm that is based on the interdisciplinary approach encompassing relatively new fields, such as: ecosystem ecology, ecological economics, global change science and complexity theory. These authors assume that natural and social systems do function in a relatively independent and non-linear way and therefore postulate implementation of the complex adaptive systems theory into the studies of tourism. Simultaneously, they introduce the notions of comprehensive tourism system and complex

'old', often identified with mass tourism.

development or a tool for the development of tourism itself.

adaptive tourism systems – CATS.

When constructing the theoretical model of sustainable tourism, the author tried to take into consideration the hitherto output of the Polish and international literature, available thanks to the studies of source materials. It enabled the adoption of main model assumptions, and later on, when implementing the deductive method, also the construction of the model itself basing on them. To that end, the author used the form of the mathematical function and notation.

#### **2. Sustainable tourism – A review of main ideas**

The conception of sustainable tourism refers to the wider conception of sustainable development, which stresses the need of rational management of natural environment resources. The first in the global scale sign of the necessity of change in the general conception of economic development was the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations U Thant entitled 'Man and His Environment', published in 1969. Significant was also the 1st Report of the Club of Rome entitled 'Limits to Growth', published in 1972. The problems of the threat to the natural environment were the main subject of discussion during the UN conference in Stockholm (the so called Stockholm Conference), organised in the same year. At that time, the term 'sustainable development' was introduced. The next milestone in the worldwide discussion on sustainable development was the publication of the report entitled 'Our Common Future', which contained a summary of the activity of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the so called Bruntland Commission). This document adopted the fundamental, still valid, assumption that sustainable development 'seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future'. In 1992 in Rio de Janeiro the United Nations Conference on Enrivonment and Development (the so called 'Earth Summit') took place. During that conference two documents, significant from the point of view of the sustainable development conception, were adopted. These were the so called Rio Declaration, containing 27 principles defining rights and duties of nations in the field of sustainable development, and AGENDA 21, the global action plan referring to the actions necessary in order to achieve sustainable development and high life quality (Kowalczyk, 2010; Niezgoda, 2006).

Conceptions of tourism development referring to the principles of sustainable development began to appear in the international literature on a larger scale in the mid 1980s. It should however be noted that as early as 1965 W. Hetzer formulated the definition of the so called *responsible tourism*, which in fact was very close to these principles [Blamey, 2001, as cited in Kowalczyk, 2010]. It seems, though, that the moment which began the discussion on new ways of developing tourism was when the conception of the so called *alternative tourism*<sup>1</sup> arose. J. Krippendorfer, who published in the *Annals of Tourism Research* in 1986 the article entitled 'Tourism in the system of industrial society', is considered the author of its definition. As the name itself suggests, it arose in opposition to the so called mass tourism, viewed by the proponents of this conception as the so called 'bad option'. Alternative tourism, often identified with small-scale tourism and treated as the 'good option', was meant to oppose the 'bad option' (Clarke, 1997; Lanfant, Graburn, 1992; Weaver, 2001).

<sup>1</sup> A. Niezgoda [2006] claims that the conception of alternative tourism stems from the so called Hippie contrculture, which arose in the 1960s in the USA and later spread in Europe. In this context, alternative tourism was meant to be the new way of travelling that would not destroy the environment and authentic relations between people.

When constructing the theoretical model of sustainable tourism, the author tried to take into consideration the hitherto output of the Polish and international literature, available thanks to the studies of source materials. It enabled the adoption of main model assumptions, and later on, when implementing the deductive method, also the construction of the model itself basing on them. To that end, the author used the form of the mathematical function and notation.

The conception of sustainable tourism refers to the wider conception of sustainable development, which stresses the need of rational management of natural environment resources. The first in the global scale sign of the necessity of change in the general conception of economic development was the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations U Thant entitled 'Man and His Environment', published in 1969. Significant was also the 1st Report of the Club of Rome entitled 'Limits to Growth', published in 1972. The problems of the threat to the natural environment were the main subject of discussion during the UN conference in Stockholm (the so called Stockholm Conference), organised in the same year. At that time, the term 'sustainable development' was introduced. The next milestone in the worldwide discussion on sustainable development was the publication of the report entitled 'Our Common Future', which contained a summary of the activity of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the so called Bruntland Commission). This document adopted the fundamental, still valid, assumption that sustainable development 'seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future'. In 1992 in Rio de Janeiro the United Nations Conference on Enrivonment and Development (the so called 'Earth Summit') took place. During that conference two documents, significant from the point of view of the sustainable development conception, were adopted. These were the so called Rio Declaration, containing 27 principles defining rights and duties of nations in the field of sustainable development, and AGENDA 21, the global action plan referring to the actions necessary in order to achieve sustainable

Conceptions of tourism development referring to the principles of sustainable development began to appear in the international literature on a larger scale in the mid 1980s. It should however be noted that as early as 1965 W. Hetzer formulated the definition of the so called *responsible tourism*, which in fact was very close to these principles [Blamey, 2001, as cited in Kowalczyk, 2010]. It seems, though, that the moment which began the discussion on new ways of developing tourism was when the conception of the so called *alternative tourism*<sup>1</sup> arose. J. Krippendorfer, who published in the *Annals of Tourism Research* in 1986 the article entitled 'Tourism in the system of industrial society', is considered the author of its definition. As the name itself suggests, it arose in opposition to the so called mass tourism, viewed by the proponents of this conception as the so called 'bad option'. Alternative tourism, often identified with small-scale tourism and treated as the 'good option', was meant to oppose the 'bad option' (Clarke, 1997; Lanfant, Graburn, 1992; Weaver, 2001).

1 A. Niezgoda [2006] claims that the conception of alternative tourism stems from the so called Hippie contrculture, which arose in the 1960s in the USA and later spread in Europe. In this context, alternative tourism was meant to be the new way of travelling that would not destroy the environment and

**2. Sustainable tourism – A review of main ideas**

development and high life quality (Kowalczyk, 2010; Niezgoda, 2006).

authentic relations between people.

In the same period various conceptions connected with the so called ecotourism began to appear in the international literature. H. Ceballos-Lescuráin (1987) is considered the author of its first definition. At the same time scholars began to introduce terms similar to *ecotourism* or *alternative tourism* such as *green tourism (tourisme vert, nature-based, naturnäher), soft tourism (saufer Tourismus), nature tourism, environmental friendly/environmentally sensible tourism, responsible tourism (angepast), discreet tourism, appriopriate tourism, ecoethnotourism* (Boo, 1990, Cater, Lowman, 1994, Krippendorf et al., 1998; Niezgoda, 2006). It should be noted that the authors of these definitions stressed first of all the (desired) way of cultivating tourism, types of values (mainly natural) and the (small) scale of the phenomenon. They often used the evaluating approach which juxtaposed the 'new' forms of tourism with these 'old', often identified with mass tourism.

A broad overview of diverse definitions of sustainable tourism was included in R.W. Butler's paper entitled 'Sustainable tourism: a state-of-the-art review' (1999). This author, who is skeptic towards views that sustainable tourism constitutes a panaceum for contemporary tourism's problems, presents his own view on its essence. He claims that sustainable tourism can be seen in two ways (Butler, 2005). Firstly, from the semanticdictionary side, taking into consideration its feature of sustainability as a warranty of longterm survival on the market. According to M. Mika (2008) such an approach seems to be closer to the representatives of the economic party, who stress the problem of selfmaintenance of tourism development. The second way of understanding sustainable tourism by Butler is much closer to the conception of sustainable development. It suggests treating sustainable tourism as a tool for the development of reception areas without breaking the principles of sustainable development. As one may guess, this attitude is closer to the representatives of the natural sciences and the humanities. Butler's views on ambiguity in understanding the term sustainable tourism are supported by A. Niezgoda (2006), who claims that conception of sustainable tourism ocurred as a result of research on interrelations between tourism, environment and development. According to this author sustainable tourism is treated by scholars as a tool for realization of sustainable development or a tool for the development of tourism itself.

Totally different scientific basis of sustainable tourism conception (or sustainable development through tourism) is presented by Bryan H. Farell and Louise Twinning-Ward (2003). In the article entitled 'Reconceptualizing Tourism', published in 2003 in the *Annals of Tourism Research*, they postulate a total change in the methodological approach towards the studies of tourism, sustainable tourism included. These authors criticize strongly the hitherto, according to them most wide-spread, way of conducting research in the field of tourism, which is based on narrow specialization, linear reductionism as well as determinism assuming predictability of phenomena and presence of cause and effect. They claim that such an approach, due to complexity and unpredictability of behaviour of tourist systems and systems influencing tourism, cannot guarantee satisfactory results. Instead, they propose a new paradigm that is based on the interdisciplinary approach encompassing relatively new fields, such as: ecosystem ecology, ecological economics, global change science and complexity theory. These authors assume that natural and social systems do function in a relatively independent and non-linear way and therefore postulate implementation of the complex adaptive systems theory into the studies of tourism. Simultaneously, they introduce the notions of comprehensive tourism system and complex adaptive tourism systems – CATS.

Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach 7

To sum up the deliberation concerning the issue of sustainable development of tourism one should repeat, i.a. after the United Nations World Tourism Organization (2004) that sustainable development should be applicable (as much as possible) to all forms of tourism, including mass tourism. And the principles defining sustainable development in tourism should refer to natural, socio-cultural and economic aspects connected with tourism – by

As it was mentioned, sustainable tourism is an area of interest of many scholars, activists and practicians in various countries. It seems, though, that both in the international and in the Polish literature the descriptive method dominates. It puts stress on explaining the conception of sustainable tourism, which is often done from different scientific positions. Apparent is the evolution of views on its essence. In the first period natural aspects were emphasized first of all – in the context of preserving natural environment resources against the threats of tourism. Now, however, we are dealing with the situation in which economic and socio-cultural aspects are seen as well. To a large extent it is thanks to i.a. the publications of the United Nations World Tourism Organization, which emphasized the necessity of striving for balance in fulfiling needs of all tourism stakeholders functioning within natural and socio-economic environment. The change in the approach towards sustainable tourism during past few decades is also expressed in the abandonment of evaluation of various tourism forms according to these criteria. Nowadays, it is stressed that the principles of sustainable tourism should be taken into consideration in all kinds of tourism, including so unpopular among the 'orthodox activists' mass tourism. This evolution, with the consideration of relations between alternative tourism, ecotourism and mass tourism and their relation to sustainable tourism, is presented i.a. by A. Niezgoda

(2006). In a simpler form it can be presented graphically as in the Figure 1.

tourism. Both situations are ilustrated by bilaterally oriented arrows in Figure 2.

A similar conclusion concerning possibilities of occurrance of undesirable direction of change can be drawn after the analysis of three theoretical models of tourism: 1) of tourist area life cycle (TALC) by R.W. Butler (1980); 2) of tourist space by S. Liszewski (1995), and 3) of changes in the natural environment under the influence of tourism by D. Zaręba (2010).

Model relationships between sustainable tourism and unsustainable tourism (often identified with mass tourism) are an area of interest of other authors as well. Among them are, i.a., D.A. Fennel (1999) and D.B. Weaver (1999), who claim that there is no way to designate a clear boundary between sustainable and unsustainable forms of tourism. The former introduces, in relation to various aspects of tourism (attractions, transportation, accommodation, product), kind of degrees (stages) of sustainable tourism. The latter, in turn, claims that mass tourism (closer to unsustainable tourism) constitutes a kind of continuum of alternative tourism (closer to sustainable tourism), so they cannot be treated as separate, opposing categories. These authors' opinions can lead to two kinds of conclusions. On one hand, it is postulated that the principles of sustainable development should be taken into consideration as much as possible in all forms of tourism (Figure 1). In such a case we deal with the desired direction of change from unsustainable tourism to susainable tourism. On the other hand, assuming D.B. Weaver's point of view on mass tourism (more unsustainable) as a continuum of alternative tourism (more sustainable), one can see a more undesirable direction of change from sustainable tourism to unsustainable

striving to achieve the state of balance between them.

**3. Selected models of sustainable tourism**

Apart from the broad and varied in views discussion on the essence of sustainable tourism present in numerous scientific publications, also institutional documents devoted to sustainable tourism that are of declarative, explanatory or quasi-normative character are winning wide renown (Table 1). Among numerous publications of this type one should note i.a. the Charter for Sustainable Tourism (adopted in 1995), whose signatories agreed that development under the influence of tourism should refer to the principles of sustainable tourism, which meant that it should take into consideration the long-term needs of the natural environment, affect positively a given economy and be accepted in terms of ethics and culture by local communities. The same document claims that tourism should contribute to sustainable tourism through strict integration with the natural and the antropogenic environment on reception areas. Also in 1995 World Travel and Tourism Council, United Nations World Tourism Organization and Earth Council adopted the document entitled 'Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development'. This document defines i.a. the priorities of sustainable tourism. In 1999 the United Nations World Tourism Organization published the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism, which took into consideration the postulates of sustainable tourism. In 2004 the same organization defined the principles of sustainable tourism as those which refer to all forms of tourism (mass tourism included). At the same time, it was highlighted that in order to ensure a long-term balance the principles of sustainable development in tourism must concern environmental, economic and sociocultural issues to the same degree (Sustainable development of tourism. Conceptual definitions, 2004). Finally, in 2008, during the World Conservation Congress, which took place in Barcelona, the document containing Sustainable Tourism Criteria was adopted.

Apart from the broad and varied in views discussion on the essence of sustainable tourism present in numerous scientific publications, also institutional documents devoted to sustainable tourism that are of declarative, explanatory or quasi-normative character are winning wide renown (Table 1). Among numerous publications of this type one should note i.a. the Charter for Sustainable Tourism (adopted in 1995), whose signatories agreed that development under the influence of tourism should refer to the principles of sustainable tourism, which meant that it should take into consideration the long-term needs of the natural environment, affect positively a given economy and be accepted in terms of ethics and culture by local communities. The same document claims that tourism should contribute to sustainable tourism through strict integration with the natural and the antropogenic environment on reception areas. Also in 1995 World Travel and Tourism Council, United Nations World Tourism Organization and Earth Council adopted the document entitled 'Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development'. This document defines i.a. the priorities of sustainable tourism. In 1999 the United Nations World Tourism Organization published the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism, which took into consideration the postulates of sustainable tourism. In 2004 the same organization defined the principles of sustainable tourism as those which refer to all forms of tourism (mass tourism included). At the same time, it was highlighted that in order to ensure a long-term balance the principles of sustainable development in tourism must concern environmental, economic and sociocultural issues to the same degree (Sustainable development of tourism. Conceptual definitions, 2004). Finally, in 2008, during the World Conservation Congress, which took place in Barcelona, the document containing Sustainable Tourism Criteria was adopted.

**Document Publishing subject Year Place of**

WTTC, UNWTO, Earth

Tourism UNWTO 1999 Santiago de

tourism. Conceptual definitions UNWTO 2004 Madrid

World Conservation Congress (Rainforest Alliance, UNEP, UNWTO)

International Conference of Environment Ministers on Biodiversity and Tourism

Publishing <sup>2001</sup>

Sustainable Tourism 1995 Lanzarotte,

Council 1995 Madrid (1996)

Charter for Sustainable Tourism World Conference on

The encyclopedia of ecotourism Weaver D.B. (ed.) CABI

Table 1. Selected documents concerning sustainable tourism

Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable

Development

Criteria

Berlin Declaration

Global Codes of Ethics for

Sustainable development of

Global Sustainable Tourism

**publication**

Canary Islands

1997 Berlin

Chile

2008 Barcelona

Oxon (UK) – New York (USA)

To sum up the deliberation concerning the issue of sustainable development of tourism one should repeat, i.a. after the United Nations World Tourism Organization (2004) that sustainable development should be applicable (as much as possible) to all forms of tourism, including mass tourism. And the principles defining sustainable development in tourism should refer to natural, socio-cultural and economic aspects connected with tourism – by striving to achieve the state of balance between them.

#### **3. Selected models of sustainable tourism**

As it was mentioned, sustainable tourism is an area of interest of many scholars, activists and practicians in various countries. It seems, though, that both in the international and in the Polish literature the descriptive method dominates. It puts stress on explaining the conception of sustainable tourism, which is often done from different scientific positions. Apparent is the evolution of views on its essence. In the first period natural aspects were emphasized first of all – in the context of preserving natural environment resources against the threats of tourism. Now, however, we are dealing with the situation in which economic and socio-cultural aspects are seen as well. To a large extent it is thanks to i.a. the publications of the United Nations World Tourism Organization, which emphasized the necessity of striving for balance in fulfiling needs of all tourism stakeholders functioning within natural and socio-economic environment. The change in the approach towards sustainable tourism during past few decades is also expressed in the abandonment of evaluation of various tourism forms according to these criteria. Nowadays, it is stressed that the principles of sustainable tourism should be taken into consideration in all kinds of tourism, including so unpopular among the 'orthodox activists' mass tourism. This evolution, with the consideration of relations between alternative tourism, ecotourism and mass tourism and their relation to sustainable tourism, is presented i.a. by A. Niezgoda (2006). In a simpler form it can be presented graphically as in the Figure 1.

Model relationships between sustainable tourism and unsustainable tourism (often identified with mass tourism) are an area of interest of other authors as well. Among them are, i.a., D.A. Fennel (1999) and D.B. Weaver (1999), who claim that there is no way to designate a clear boundary between sustainable and unsustainable forms of tourism. The former introduces, in relation to various aspects of tourism (attractions, transportation, accommodation, product), kind of degrees (stages) of sustainable tourism. The latter, in turn, claims that mass tourism (closer to unsustainable tourism) constitutes a kind of continuum of alternative tourism (closer to sustainable tourism), so they cannot be treated as separate, opposing categories. These authors' opinions can lead to two kinds of conclusions. On one hand, it is postulated that the principles of sustainable development should be taken into consideration as much as possible in all forms of tourism (Figure 1). In such a case we deal with the desired direction of change from unsustainable tourism to susainable tourism. On the other hand, assuming D.B. Weaver's point of view on mass tourism (more unsustainable) as a continuum of alternative tourism (more sustainable), one can see a more undesirable direction of change from sustainable tourism to unsustainable tourism. Both situations are ilustrated by bilaterally oriented arrows in Figure 2.

A similar conclusion concerning possibilities of occurrance of undesirable direction of change can be drawn after the analysis of three theoretical models of tourism: 1) of tourist area life cycle (TALC) by R.W. Butler (1980); 2) of tourist space by S. Liszewski (1995), and 3) of changes in the natural environment under the influence of tourism by D. Zaręba (2010).

Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach 9

Fig. 2. Sustainable and unsustainable tourism as a continuum of bi-directional changes

tourism as the one that takes into account the principles of sustainable development.

sustainable tourism as the following formula:

Polish scholars also made an attempt to present the essence of sustainable tourism in a model form. These were M. Durydiwka, A. Kowalczyk & S. Kulczyk (2010). These authors assumed that the conception of sustainable tourism (ST) concerns mainly three types of tourism, i.e.: 1) related to the natural environment values (STnatural.); 2) related to the cultural environment values (STcultural); 3) requiring from tourists certain skills (STqualifying). Taking into account these types of tourism they presented the idea of

A model conception of diverse degrees (stages) of development (functioning) of sustainable tourism, in relation to different (in terms of environment and socio-economics) reception areas was proposed also by C. Hunter (1997, as cited in Mika, 2008). This author, after a contrastive analysis of the position of tourism and the position of sustainable development within diverse areas, distinguished four variants of functioning of tourism within sustainable development. This conception can be graphically illustrated with a graph of decreasing function that indicates relationships between tourism and sustainable development (Figure 4). Controversy in Hunter's model lies in the fact that it excludes the possibility of a wide-scale tourism development that would take into account the principles of sustainable development. Therefore, this model undermines the idea of sustainable

Fig. 1. Sustainable tourism and various forms of tourism – the evolution of approach

The curve of dependences occurring between the number of tourists on a given reception area and the time (Butler), the level of tourist space transformation (Liszewski), and the level of the environment devastation (Zaręba) is very similar. After the analysis of the curve in each model (after simplification) one can distinguish 4 stages of changes in the direction from the state of the original balance to the state of a new balance – in transformed, i.e. naturally devastated, environment (Figure 3).

Fig. 1. Sustainable tourism and various forms of tourism – the evolution of approach

naturally devastated, environment (Figure 3).

The curve of dependences occurring between the number of tourists on a given reception area and the time (Butler), the level of tourist space transformation (Liszewski), and the level of the environment devastation (Zaręba) is very similar. After the analysis of the curve in each model (after simplification) one can distinguish 4 stages of changes in the direction from the state of the original balance to the state of a new balance – in transformed, i.e.

Fig. 2. Sustainable and unsustainable tourism as a continuum of bi-directional changes

A model conception of diverse degrees (stages) of development (functioning) of sustainable tourism, in relation to different (in terms of environment and socio-economics) reception areas was proposed also by C. Hunter (1997, as cited in Mika, 2008). This author, after a contrastive analysis of the position of tourism and the position of sustainable development within diverse areas, distinguished four variants of functioning of tourism within sustainable development. This conception can be graphically illustrated with a graph of decreasing function that indicates relationships between tourism and sustainable development (Figure 4). Controversy in Hunter's model lies in the fact that it excludes the possibility of a wide-scale tourism development that would take into account the principles of sustainable development. Therefore, this model undermines the idea of sustainable tourism as the one that takes into account the principles of sustainable development.

Polish scholars also made an attempt to present the essence of sustainable tourism in a model form. These were M. Durydiwka, A. Kowalczyk & S. Kulczyk (2010). These authors assumed that the conception of sustainable tourism (ST) concerns mainly three types of tourism, i.e.: 1) related to the natural environment values (STnatural.); 2) related to the cultural environment values (STcultural); 3) requiring from tourists certain skills (STqualifying). Taking into account these types of tourism they presented the idea of sustainable tourism as the following formula:

Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach 11

Fig. 4. Variants of functioning of tourism in sustainable development

The model is presented in the graphic (Figure 5) and descriptive form, through a presentation of: purposes and conditions of its construction, main assumptions that the model is based on, adopted variables, model factors of balance and its disturbance (notation), factors affecting variables, and possibilities and restrictions on using the model.

The purpose of the sustainable tourism model construction is to present in a complete, explicit and as simple as possible form the essence of sustainable tourism in the short-term perspective. The author intended the proposed model, designed as a theoretical construct, to render in the most complete way the ideas of sustainable tourism, and at the same time to be appropriate for teaching and guiding purposes as well as to constitute a theoretical basis for detailed application models. The model is intended to be versatile, i.e. to be applicable in all conditions, on every reception area, for every type of tourism. Another condition, which was required in order to meet all the other criteria, was the necessity to use mathematical function dependencies and notation (explicitness of the model). The simplicity of the form, facilitating understanding of the model, is ensured through minimilization of the number of variables and by the graphic illustration of the model. An additional intention of the author was to take into

**4. Theoretical, short-term model of sustainable tourism**

**4.1 Purposes and conditions of the model's construction**

$$\begin{aligned} \text{ST} &= \text{STnatal} + \text{STcultual} + \text{STqualifying} + \\ &+ \text{(STnatal / k \ge ST \cdot collutural / k \ge ST \cdotqualifying / k)} \end{aligned} \tag{1}$$

k – the correction factor.

According to its authors, this formula refers to the holistic conception of sustainable tourism, which means that it should be understood as a combination of various forms of tourism, complemented by common objectives, such as: care for the natural environment, limiting the negative effects for local population, bringing economic benefits to reception areas and meeting the needs of tourists.

Fig. 3. Tourism in the function of time, spatial changes, and environmental changes

According to its authors, this formula refers to the holistic conception of sustainable tourism, which means that it should be understood as a combination of various forms of tourism, complemented by common objectives, such as: care for the natural environment, limiting the negative effects for local population, bringing economic benefits to reception

(1)

Types of tourist space by S. Liszewski (1995)

ST STnatural STcultural STqualifying + STnatural /k x ST cultural /k x STqualifying /k

k – the correction factor.

Conception

Tourist area life cycle by R. Butler (1980)

IV Consolidation and

Changes in the natural environment (based on: D. Zaręba, 2010)

stagnation New balance Urbanization

I Exploration Original balance Exploration II Introduction Threat Penetration III Development Degradation Colonization

Fig. 3. Tourism in the function of time, spatial changes, and environmental changes

Stage

areas and meeting the needs of tourists.

Fig. 4. Variants of functioning of tourism in sustainable development

#### **4. Theoretical, short-term model of sustainable tourism**

The model is presented in the graphic (Figure 5) and descriptive form, through a presentation of: purposes and conditions of its construction, main assumptions that the model is based on, adopted variables, model factors of balance and its disturbance (notation), factors affecting variables, and possibilities and restrictions on using the model.

#### **4.1 Purposes and conditions of the model's construction**

The purpose of the sustainable tourism model construction is to present in a complete, explicit and as simple as possible form the essence of sustainable tourism in the short-term perspective. The author intended the proposed model, designed as a theoretical construct, to render in the most complete way the ideas of sustainable tourism, and at the same time to be appropriate for teaching and guiding purposes as well as to constitute a theoretical basis for detailed application models. The model is intended to be versatile, i.e. to be applicable in all conditions, on every reception area, for every type of tourism. Another condition, which was required in order to meet all the other criteria, was the necessity to use mathematical function dependencies and notation (explicitness of the model). The simplicity of the form, facilitating understanding of the model, is ensured through minimilization of the number of variables and by the graphic illustration of the model. An additional intention of the author was to take into

Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach 13

3. The author has also assumed an auxiliary assumption concerning the possibility of occurrence of reverse dependency between the benefits reapt by tourists and the benefits reapt by the local community (presented in the graph as a decreasing function), which in sustainable tourism results in the necessity to seek an 'area' of balance in

fulfiling the needs of both groups of stakeholders (auxiliary model – Figure 6).

already devastated environment.

f(x): y = ax + b; a<0, x>0, y>0

sustainable tourism

BLCmin – minimal benefits of the local community (independent variable)

BLCmax – maximal benefits of the local community (dependent variable)

BSLC&T – sustainability between the benefits of the local community and the benefits of tourists

Fig. 6. Auxiliary model – the benefits of tourists and the benefits of the local community in

BTmin – minimal benefits of tourists (independent variable)

BTmax – maximal benefits of tourists (dependent variable)

BUST – unsustainability of the benefits of tourists

BUSLC – unsustainability of the benefits of the local community

where:

model. For, it is obvious that in a long-term perspective, after exceeding the accepted level of degradation it will not be possible to reap further benefits, at the expense of

consideration the possibility of occurrance of change of independent variables and their influence on dependent variables (the dynamic factor). It allows to observe, and especially to project the effects of these changes, in the context of their consequence for sustainable tourism.

Fig. 5. Theoretical (short-term) model of sustainable tourism

#### **4.2 Assumptions for the sustainable tourism model construction**

At the same time, the accepted level of the degradation of the natural and socio-cultural environments, which includes tourist resources of a given reception area (in the wide sense of tourist potential), cannot be exceeded.

2. It has also been assumed that the increase in (short-term) benefits reapt by tourists and the inhabitants of the areas that they visit – related to developing tourism – results in (in principle) the increase in the level of the degradation of the natural and socio-cultural environments. In this context, the degradation can be treated as a kind of an unavoidable environmental cost that must be borne in connection with developing tourism. This assumption indicates the short-term perspective of functioning of the

consideration the possibility of occurrance of change of independent variables and their influence on dependent variables (the dynamic factor). It allows to observe, and especially to project the effects of these changes, in the context of their consequence for sustainable tourism.

Fig. 5. Theoretical (short-term) model of sustainable tourism

groups of stakeholders, i.e.:

of tourist potential), cannot be exceeded.

reap benefits);

(to reap benefits).

**4.2 Assumptions for the sustainable tourism model construction**

1. The assumed objective of sustainable tourism on a given tourist reception area has been the striving for the state of balance in fulfiling needs (reaping benefits) of two main

tourists – who visit the tourist reception area in order to fulfil their tourist needs (to

 community inhabiting or working in favour of tourism on the reception area (local population, transactors operating tourists, public authorities) – which agrees on or acts in favour of tourism development, because it acknowledges a chance to fulfil its needs

At the same time, the accepted level of the degradation of the natural and socio-cultural environments, which includes tourist resources of a given reception area (in the wide sense

2. It has also been assumed that the increase in (short-term) benefits reapt by tourists and the inhabitants of the areas that they visit – related to developing tourism – results in (in principle) the increase in the level of the degradation of the natural and socio-cultural environments. In this context, the degradation can be treated as a kind of an unavoidable environmental cost that must be borne in connection with developing tourism. This assumption indicates the short-term perspective of functioning of the model. For, it is obvious that in a long-term perspective, after exceeding the accepted level of degradation it will not be possible to reap further benefits, at the expense of already devastated environment.

3. The author has also assumed an auxiliary assumption concerning the possibility of occurrence of reverse dependency between the benefits reapt by tourists and the benefits reapt by the local community (presented in the graph as a decreasing function), which in sustainable tourism results in the necessity to seek an 'area' of balance in fulfiling the needs of both groups of stakeholders (auxiliary model – Figure 6).

f(x): y = ax + b; a<0, x>0, y>0

where:

BLCmin – minimal benefits of the local community (independent variable)

BTmin – minimal benefits of tourists (independent variable)

BLCmax – maximal benefits of the local community (dependent variable)

BTmax – maximal benefits of tourists (dependent variable)

BSLC&T – sustainability between the benefits of the local community and the benefits of tourists

BUSLC – unsustainability of the benefits of the local community

BUST – unsustainability of the benefits of tourists

Fig. 6. Auxiliary model – the benefits of tourists and the benefits of the local community in sustainable tourism

Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach 15

2. Max accepted degradation (Dmax – independent variable) of both environments denotes the max level of benfits (Bmax – dependent variable) which can be reapt by tourists and the local population in sustainable tourism, i.e. without causing irreversible

│Dmax│-│Dunav│ = 0;

but: │Dmax│ > 0 /\│Dunav│ > 0

Table 3. Model conditions for sustainable tourism

**4.6 Model disruption of sustainability**

General conditions Component of environment Component of benefits

│Dmax│-│Dunav│ ≥ 0 │Bmax│-│Bmin│ ≥ 0

│Dunav│ ≤ │Dreal│ ≤ │Dmax│ │Bminn│ ≤ │Breal│ ≤ │Bmax│ Minimal conditions Component of environment Component of benefits

│Dunav│ = │Dreal│ = │Dmax│ │Bmin│ = │Breal│ = │Bmax│

General condition

f (ST)= {x: x € [│Bmin│, │Bmax│]; │Bmax│ – │Bmin│ ≥ 0}

Minimal condition

f(ST) = {x: x = │Bmin│; │Bmax│ - │Bmin│ = 0}

│Dreal│ < │Dmax│ It occurs when the real

(Dmax).

Type of disruption Condition Description

│Breal│ < │Bmin│;

f(USTB) = {x: x € [O, │Bmin│]}

│Bmax│-│Bmin│ = 0;

but: │Bmax│ > 0 /\ │Bmin│ > 0

benefits (Breal) are smaller than the minimal benefits (Bmin). At the same time the level of real degradation (Dreal) is lower than the level of accepted degradation

environmental changes.

Sustainable tourism

Sustainable tourism by components

Function f(ST) – describing the existence

sustainable tourism for both components

Lack of balance

(unsustainability) in the component of benefits, balance

Function f(USTB) – describing

(sustainability) in the component of environment.

the lack of balance (unsustainability) in the component of benefits while

maintaining balance (sustainability) in the component of environment.

of

**4.5 Conditions for sustainable tourism**

#### **4.3 Explanations for the main model**

#### **4.4 Independent and dependent variables used in the model**

In the model there are two pairs of interelated independent and dependent variables.

Table 2. Independent and dependent variables in the model of the sustainable tourism

1. Min accepted benefits (Bmin – independent variable) reapt by tourists and the community that hosts them; they result in certain unavoidable level of degradation (Dunav – dependent variable) of the natural and antropogenic environments on an analysed tourist reception area.

1. Benefits from tourism – benefits reapt by tourists visiting a given reception area and benefits of the local population (including transactors, public authorities and other

 min accepted benefits (Bmin): denotes the minimal accepted level of fulfiling needs of tourists and local population, beneath which the reapt benefits will be evaluated as insufficient; its size is measured with the numerical value of the Bmin point on the Ox

 max benfits (Bmax): denotes the maximal accepted (in sustainable tourism conditions) level of fulfiling needs of both tourists and local population; its size is measured with

real benefits (Breal): the real level of benefits reapt by tourists and local community in

1a. In the component of benefits there are two basic groups of participants (tourists, local community), which can have opposing interests. In order to take into account the level of balance (sustainability) between the benefits of tourists and the benefits of the local community, as an element of general balance (sustainability), the author has produced an auxiliary model of partitive balance (sustainability) in the benefit component (Figure 6). The assumptions of this model have been transferred to the Ox

2. Costs of tourism development – degradation of the natural and antropogenic (social, cultural, economic) environments on a tourist reception area, resulting from developing

 max accepted degradation (Dmax): denotes the highest accepted in sustainable tourism (i.e. not resulting in irreversible changes) level of degradation of both environments; its size is measured with the numerical value of the Dmax point on the Oy axis of the

 unavoidable degradation (Dunav): denotes the level of unavoidable degradation of both environments resulting from developing toursim; its size is measured with the

 real degradation (Dreal): the real level of degradation of the natural and antropogenic environments occurring on a reception area in relation to tourism developing there.

Independent variables Dependent variables

1. Min accepted benefits (Bmin – independent variable) reapt by tourists and the community that hosts them; they result in certain unavoidable level of degradation (Dunav – dependent variable) of the natural and antropogenic environments on an

numerical value of the Dunav point on the Oy axis of the model graph;

In the model there are two pairs of interelated independent and dependent variables.

Min accepted benefits (Bmin) Unavoidable degradation (Dunav)

Table 2. Independent and dependent variables in the model of the sustainable tourism

**4.4 Independent and dependent variables used in the model**

Max accepted degradation (Dmax) Max benfits (Bmax)

analysed tourist reception area.

the numerical value of the Bmax point in the Ox axis of the model graph;

**4.3 Explanations for the main model**

axis of the model graph;

axis of the main model.

tourism:

model graph;

organizations), resulting from development of tourism:

relation to tourism developing on a given area.

2. Max accepted degradation (Dmax – independent variable) of both environments denotes the max level of benfits (Bmax – dependent variable) which can be reapt by tourists and the local population in sustainable tourism, i.e. without causing irreversible environmental changes.

#### **4.5 Conditions for sustainable tourism**

Table 3. Model conditions for sustainable tourism

#### **4.6 Model disruption of sustainability**

Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach 17

min

B

B f dx

**4.8 Implementation of the model – Possibilities and limitations**

Dmax point on the Oy axis).

max

will depend on: 1) the resistance of the natural and antropogenic environments to the negative influence of tourism, denoted with the location of the Dmax point on the Oy axis of the model graph (independent variable); and 2) the minimal accepted level of benefits that local population and tourists expect to reap, denoted with the location of the Bmin point on the Ox axis of the graph (independent variable). The model tourism sustainable area will depend on one hand on the willingness of both groups of stakeholders to resign from the short-term benefits that they want to reap from tourism (possibly small numerical value of the Bmin point on the Ox axis), on the other hand on the features of the environment that determine its vulnerability to degradation by tourism (possibly high numerical value of the

1. The implementation of the model for the scientific-educational (explanatory) purposes – the model can be used in order to explain the essence and the principles of sustainable tourism, and especially to determine the interrelations occurring between all the stakeholders of tourism and the natural and antropogenic environments in which tourism is being developed. The construction of the model enables analyses of these interrelations in dynamic hold, which reveals consequences for all the tourism stakeholders induced by a change of independent variables used in the model. Another advantage of the model is its versatility, i.e. the fact that it is applicable in relation to all types of tourism (tourist movement) and reception areas. For, in every situation the same factors (determinants), occurring in the model as independent variables determining framework for the development of sustainable tourism, are taken into account. Also, in all analysed cases the assumed model conditions must be fulfilled. Versatility and explicitness of the model manifest themselves also in the utilization of the graphic way of presenting function dependencies and notation that together define

the main assumptions, interrelations and conditions included in the model.

2. The implementation of the model for the purposes of application – the model can be used in order to find out to what extent will the development of various types of tourism on a given reception area fulfil the principles of sustainable tourism. Particular types of tourism should be analysed both in terms of demand, as a form of tourist movement, and in terms of supply, as corresponding types of tourist products (in the widest sense of this term). Practically, one should make an attempt to construct individual models for each type of tourism. This will be possible after choosing appropriate measures (indices) determining the values of particular variables. After building individual model graphs one will be able to compare the obtained ranges (size) of sustainable tourism, characteristic for particular types of tourism. Results of such an analysis may be especially useful in order to determine the types of tourism preferable for a given area – taking into accaount the conditions of sustainable tourism. It seems that the main barrier affecting negatively the application type of implementation of the proposed model of sustainable tourism can be difficulties related to the quantification of the adopted variables in detailed models. It would be easiest to express time in financial

Table 4. Model disruption of sustainability

#### **4.7 Factors affecting independent variables, as determinants of sustainable tourism**

│Dreal│ > │Dmax│,

f(USTC) = {x: x € [│Bmax│, │D│]}

**4.7 Factors affecting independent variables, as determinants of sustainable tourism**  1. The accepted level of degradation (understood as the highest accepted in sustainable tourism, i.e. not causing irreversible changes, level of degradation of the natural and antropogenic environments) depends on the type of ecosystem and features of the social enrivonment occurring on a tourist reception area. In the natural component low level of accepted degradation is characteristic for natural and close to natural ecosystems that are very vurnerable to external stimuli. In turn, higher level of accepted degradation is characteristic for significantly transformed ecosystems which are not carriers of special natural values. In the antropogenic component, the most vulnerable to degradation will be close, traditional communities that do not maintain lively contacts with the outer world. In such a case, in order to fulfil the sustainable tourism

condition, the accepted degradation level should be as low as possible.

2. The expected minimal level of benefits (taking into account the assumptions of the auxiliary model – Figure 6) that both gropus of tourism stakeholders (tourists and local population) expect to reap on a given reception area depends on their expectations of tourism. Although, the lowest accepted level of benefits reapt by permanent residents will depend on the features of that community, such as: age structure, education level, environmental and cultural awareness, system of values, self-esteem, hitherto quality of life, professional activity, expectations of development of local tourist economy, local authorities and elite activity. As far as tourists are considered, the case is similar. The level of minimal benefits that they expect will depend on socio-cultural features of that collectivity. They will constitute the basis for the tourists' subjective assessment of the local tourist product (including, i.a. values, tourist management, prices). This product will have to meet the needs of tourists enough for the tourists to think that for the price they are ready to pay they will get the minimal accepted level of benefits related to

3. Taking into account the above-mentioned model assumptions, the sustainable tourism

│Breal│ > │Bmin│ It occurs when the real

degradation (Dreal) is bigger

degradation (Dmax). At the same time the real benefits (Breal) are bigger than the minimal benefits (Bmin).

than the accepted

Type of disruption Condition Description

Lack of balance

(unsustainability) in the component of environment while maintaining of balance

(sustainability) in the component of benefits.

the lack of balance (unsustainability) in the component of environment while maintaining balance (sustainability) in the component of benefits.

Function f(USTC) – describing

Table 4. Model disruption of sustainability

tourist trip to that location.

area – presented on the graph as:

min max B B f dx

will depend on: 1) the resistance of the natural and antropogenic environments to the negative influence of tourism, denoted with the location of the Dmax point on the Oy axis of the model graph (independent variable); and 2) the minimal accepted level of benefits that local population and tourists expect to reap, denoted with the location of the Bmin point on the Ox axis of the graph (independent variable). The model tourism sustainable area will depend on one hand on the willingness of both groups of stakeholders to resign from the short-term benefits that they want to reap from tourism (possibly small numerical value of the Bmin point on the Ox axis), on the other hand on the features of the environment that determine its vulnerability to degradation by tourism (possibly high numerical value of the Dmax point on the Oy axis).

#### **4.8 Implementation of the model – Possibilities and limitations**

It seems that the main barrier affecting negatively the application type of implementation of the proposed model of sustainable tourism can be difficulties related to the quantification of the adopted variables in detailed models. It would be easiest to express time in financial

Sustainable Tourism – A Model Approach 19

The article presents the theoretical, short-term model of sustainable tourism. It has been designed basing on the adopted assumptions that define the essence of sustainable tourism. They concern striving for the state of balance between the needs of tourists and the needs of local community, while maintaining the values of the natural and socio-cultural environments that occur on reception areas. In other words, the article means that kind of tourism which is satisfactory for tourists and the local population (including transactors working in favour of tourism) and which does not cause irreversible degradation of the

The model is intended to fulfil the criteria of completeness, versatility, explicitness and simplicity. To that and, the author has used the graphic form of mathematical function and notation. The model constructed in this way can be implemented for explanatoryeducational purposes as well as application purposes (after selecting appropriate indices). The author hopes that the theoretical model of sustainable tourism presented in this article will constitute a complement to the output of the studies of sustainable development in

*Agenda 21* (1992). UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro

*Development* (1996). WTTC, UNWTO, Earth Council

pp. 5–22, CABI Publishing, , Oxon–New York

*Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable*

*Berlin Declaration* (1997). International Conference of Environment Ministers on Biodiversity

Blamey R.K. (2001). *Principles of ecotourism*. In: *The encyclopedia of ecotourism*, Weaver (ed.),

Boo E. (1990). *Ecotourism: the potentials and pitfalls, Country case studies*, World Wildlife Fund,

Butler R.W. (1980). The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implication for the

Butler R.W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: a state-of-the-art review, *Tourism Geographies*, 1, 1,

Butler R.W. (2005). Problemy miejsc recepcji turystycznej ze zrównoważonym rozwojem, In:

Cater E., Lowman G. (ed.), (1994) *Ecotourism: a sustainable option?*, Published in association

Ceballos-Lescuráin H. (1987). The future of ecotourism*, Mexico Journal*, January 17, pp. 13–14 *Charter for Sustainable Tourism* (1995). World Conference on Sustainable Tourism, Lanzarotte Clarke J. (1997). A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism, *Journal of Sustainable*

Durydiwka M., Kowalczyk A. & Kulczyk S. (2010). Definicja i zakres pojęcia 'turystyka

Farrel B.H., Twinning-Ward L. (2004). Reconceptualization Tourism, *Annals of Tourism*

Fennel D.A. (1999). *Ecotourism. An Introduction*, Routledge, London–New York

zrównoważona', In: *Turystyka zrównoważona*, Kowalczyk (ed.), pp. 21–43,

*Turystyka w badaniach naukowych*, Winiarski, Alejziak, (ed.) pp. 35–48, AWF w

Managment of Resources*, The Canadian Geographer*, 25, pp. 151–170

Krakowie, Wyższa Szkoła Informatyki i Zarządzania w Rzeszowie

with the Royal Geographical Society, Wiley, Chichester, New York

natural and antropogenic environments.

tourism, especially in their theoretical aspects.

and Tourism, Berlin

*Tourism*, 12, 6, pp. 224–233

*Research*, 31, 2, pp. 274–295

Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa

Washington

pp. 7–25

**6. References**

values, but this may not always be possible and appropriate. It is also possible to use other indices published i.a. in the publications of the United Nations World Tourism Organization and other organizations (programmes), such as 'Making Tourism More Sustainable' (2005 as cited in Kowalczyk, 2010; *The VISIT initiative*, 2004). When selecting indices one should make sure that they fulfil the criteria for the ideal index of sustainable development as much as possible. These criteria are: 1) simplicity of identification and measurement, 2) natural and/or social, cultural, economic, political significance, 3) stability, 4) simplicity and low cost of measurement, 5) sensitivity and quickness of reaction to changes, 6) intelligibility and explicitness (based on Hughes, 2002, as cited in Kowalczyk, 2010).

At the same time, one should not forget that the variables used in the main model are internally diverse. One group includes netto benefits reapt by both tourists and local population (including transactors), while the other concerns total environmental costs manifesting themselves in the degradation of the natural and antropological environments. In order to determine values of these variables one should consider each of their elements individually and assume an appropriate breakpoint (e.g. according to the assumptions made in the auxiliary model concerning the component of benefits – Figure 6.) One can also consider the solution of application simplication of the entire model. In such a case only one (breakpoint) component of a given variable would be taken to quantification. E.g. for the independent variable 'required benefits' such an operation would include defining the minimal accepted level of benefits reapt by local population and then treating it as the assumed breakpoint level (with the underlying assumption that sole appearance of tourists on a given area testifies of the fact that tourists reap their accepted level of benefits.) The same operation can be used while dealing with the other variable, making the choice of its component dependent of the type of reception area (for sure, for the areas naturally valuable it should be the maximal, accepted for given ecosystems, level of natural environment degradation.)

Another significant problem in the practical implementation of the model is to find the appropriate functional interrelation between assumed variables (costs vs. benefits) in the detailed models, both for breakpoint and for intermediate values, which will decide what the function of sustainable tourism for a given type of tourism on a given reception area will look like. In the main model only the general rule of interrelation between costs and tourist benefits (presented in the graph as an increasing function) was taken into account. It is the ability to determine the shape of the curve through defining the values of variables (breakpoint and intermediate) for various types of tourist movement on a given reception area that will allow the use of the assumptions of the main model on a wider scale for the purpose of application.

Both above-mentioned problems (quantification of variables and finding functional interrelations between them) are important in terms of the application use of the presented model, since they directly affect the ability to define the model size of sustainable tourism.

#### **5. Summary**

Because of the fact that the sustainable tourism literature is dominated by the descriptive style and because it is multidirectional, which leads to ambiguities in defining the phenomenon, the author has made an attempt to construct a theoretical model of sustainable tourism which would render both its essence and main features.

values, but this may not always be possible and appropriate. It is also possible to use other indices published i.a. in the publications of the United Nations World Tourism Organization and other organizations (programmes), such as 'Making Tourism More Sustainable' (2005 as cited in Kowalczyk, 2010; *The VISIT initiative*, 2004). When selecting indices one should make sure that they fulfil the criteria for the ideal index of sustainable development as much as possible. These criteria are: 1) simplicity of identification and measurement, 2) natural and/or social, cultural, economic, political significance, 3) stability, 4) simplicity and low cost of measurement, 5) sensitivity and quickness of reaction to changes, 6) intelligibility

At the same time, one should not forget that the variables used in the main model are internally diverse. One group includes netto benefits reapt by both tourists and local population (including transactors), while the other concerns total environmental costs manifesting themselves in the degradation of the natural and antropological environments. In order to determine values of these variables one should consider each of their elements individually and assume an appropriate breakpoint (e.g. according to the assumptions made in the auxiliary model concerning the component of benefits – Figure 6.) One can also consider the solution of application simplication of the entire model. In such a case only one (breakpoint) component of a given variable would be taken to quantification. E.g. for the independent variable 'required benefits' such an operation would include defining the minimal accepted level of benefits reapt by local population and then treating it as the assumed breakpoint level (with the underlying assumption that sole appearance of tourists on a given area testifies of the fact that tourists reap their accepted level of benefits.) The same operation can be used while dealing with the other variable, making the choice of its component dependent of the type of reception area (for sure, for the areas naturally valuable it should be the maximal, accepted for given

Another significant problem in the practical implementation of the model is to find the appropriate functional interrelation between assumed variables (costs vs. benefits) in the detailed models, both for breakpoint and for intermediate values, which will decide what the function of sustainable tourism for a given type of tourism on a given reception area will look like. In the main model only the general rule of interrelation between costs and tourist benefits (presented in the graph as an increasing function) was taken into account. It is the ability to determine the shape of the curve through defining the values of variables (breakpoint and intermediate) for various types of tourist movement on a given reception area that will allow the use of the assumptions of the main model on a wider scale for the

Both above-mentioned problems (quantification of variables and finding functional interrelations between them) are important in terms of the application use of the presented model, since they directly affect the ability to define the model size of sustainable tourism.

Because of the fact that the sustainable tourism literature is dominated by the descriptive style and because it is multidirectional, which leads to ambiguities in defining the phenomenon, the author has made an attempt to construct a theoretical model of

sustainable tourism which would render both its essence and main features.

and explicitness (based on Hughes, 2002, as cited in Kowalczyk, 2010).

ecosystems, level of natural environment degradation.)

purpose of application.

**5. Summary**

The article presents the theoretical, short-term model of sustainable tourism. It has been designed basing on the adopted assumptions that define the essence of sustainable tourism. They concern striving for the state of balance between the needs of tourists and the needs of local community, while maintaining the values of the natural and socio-cultural environments that occur on reception areas. In other words, the article means that kind of tourism which is satisfactory for tourists and the local population (including transactors working in favour of tourism) and which does not cause irreversible degradation of the natural and antropogenic environments.

The model is intended to fulfil the criteria of completeness, versatility, explicitness and simplicity. To that and, the author has used the graphic form of mathematical function and notation. The model constructed in this way can be implemented for explanatoryeducational purposes as well as application purposes (after selecting appropriate indices). The author hopes that the theoretical model of sustainable tourism presented in this article will constitute a complement to the output of the studies of sustainable development in tourism, especially in their theoretical aspects.

#### **6. References**

*Agenda 21* (1992). UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro

Ceballos-Lescuráin H. (1987). The future of ecotourism*, Mexico Journal*, January 17, pp. 13–14

**2**

Diana Târnăveanu

*Romania*

*West University of Timişoara*

*Faculty of Economics and Business Administration*

*Department of Informatics and Economic Statistics, Timişoara*

**Knowledge-Based Decisions in Tourism**

"The world faces mounting changes and challenges which call for innovative strategies and policies. Governments, business and civil society need to devote attention to knowledge management in tourism, to better understand and act upon the forces shaping today's world, especially on the critical issues of development, climate change and governance" said

In the past century, economic sciences have known an explosive evolution, passing from an intuitive, fact-based analysis to an abstract one, based on multi-disciplinary and complex theoretic constructions. It is the era of applying scientific mathematical methods as instruments of argumentation and decision, passing from intuitive axioms to more

In a competitive economy, the success of an organization depends decisively on the quality of their managerial decisions. Alongside the development of business information systems, the decision making process implies a large volume of data and a complex process of analysis and synthesis. This information gathering, processing and analyzing capability

In tourism, modern organizations are confronted by an ever increasing pressure to find new ways to compete effectively in a dynamic global market. Many are turning to e-commerce and virtual structures, such as virtual organizations and virtual team structures, to improve organizational agility and expand into the global market (Baggio&Caporello, 2005). Others adopted knowledge-based tourism business-to-business (B2B) communities solutions, requiring the adoption of a multidimensional, multilevel perspective on system design that incorporates knowledge creation and transformation processes and takes organizational stages of effective technology use into consideration (Gretzel&Fesenmaier, 2004). A recent paper proposes a model of a Knowledge-based System that makes it possible to evaluate an organization at a Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Maturity Level (Andrade, et al., 2010). Contemporary Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) increase

Among the great variety of applications developed for the tourism sector, Decision Support Systems (DSS) can play a fundamental role for their capacity to give organizations the

needed for the decisional process exceeds human capacity by a great margin.

**1. Introduction**

formalized ones.

UNWTO Secretary-General, Taleb Rifai.

efficiency, reduce costs, and improve customer care.

*Global Codes of Ethics for Tourism* (1999). UNWTO, Santiago de Chile

*Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria* (2008). UNEP, UNWTO, Rainforest Alliance, Barcelona

Hughes G. (2002). Environmental indicators, *Annals of Tourism Research*, 29, 2, pp. 457–477

### **Knowledge-Based Decisions in Tourism**

#### Diana Târnăveanu

*West University of Timişoara Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Department of Informatics and Economic Statistics, Timişoara Romania*

#### **1. Introduction**

20 Visions for Global Tourism Industry – Creating and Sustaining Competitive Strategies

*Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria* (2008). UNEP, UNWTO, Rainforest Alliance, Barcelona Hughes G. (2002). Environmental indicators, *Annals of Tourism Research*, 29, 2, pp. 457–477 Hunter C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm, *Annals of Tourism Research*,

Kowalczyk A. (ed.), (2010). *Turystyka zrównoważona*, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN,

Krippendorf J. (1986). Tourism in the system of industrial society, *Annals of Tourism Research*,

Krippendorf J., Zimmer P. & Glauber H. (1988). *Für einen anderen Tourismus, Problemen-*

Lanfant M.-F., Graburn N. (1992). International tourism reconsidered: the principles of the

*Making tourism more sustainable. A guide for policy makers*. (2005). United Nations

Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J. & Behrens W.W. III. (1972). *Limits to Growth*,

Mika M. (2008). Sposoby ograniczenia negatywnego wpływu turystyki, In: *Turystyka*, Kurek

*Nasza wspólna przyszłość* (1991). Raport Światowej Komisji ds. Środowiska i Rozwoju, PWE,

Niezgoda A. (2006). *Obszar recepcji turystycznej w warunkach rozwoju zrównoważonego*,

*Rio Declaration on Environment and Development* (1992). UN Conference on Environment and

*The VISIT initiative. Tourism eco-labelling in Europe – moving the market towards sustainability.*

Weaver D.B. (2001). Ecotourism in the context of other tourism types, In: *The encyclopedia of ecotourism*, Weaver (ed.), CABI Publishing, Oxon–New York, pp. 73–83

alternative, In: *Tourism altenatives: potentials and problems in the development of tourism*, Smith, Eadington (ed.), University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp.

*Global Codes of Ethics for Tourism* (1999). UNWTO, Santiago de Chile

*Perspectiven-Ratschlage*, Fischer Verl., Frankfurt am Main

Liszewski S. (1995). Przestrzeń turystyczna, *Turyzm*, 5, 2. Uniwersytet Łódzki

(ed.), pp. 471–482, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa

*Our Common Future* (1987). United Nations Conference on the Human Environment

*Sustainable development of tourism. Conceptual definitions* (2004). UNWTO, Madrid

Zaręba D. (2010). *Ekoturystyka*, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa

Environment Programme, World Tourism Organisation

Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu

24, 4, pp. 850–867

13, 4, pp. 517–532

Universe Books

Development, Rio de Janeiro

Thant U. (1969). *Man and his environment*, UN

(2004). ECEAT, ECOTRANS

Warszawa

Warszawa

88–112

"The world faces mounting changes and challenges which call for innovative strategies and policies. Governments, business and civil society need to devote attention to knowledge management in tourism, to better understand and act upon the forces shaping today's world, especially on the critical issues of development, climate change and governance" said UNWTO Secretary-General, Taleb Rifai.

In the past century, economic sciences have known an explosive evolution, passing from an intuitive, fact-based analysis to an abstract one, based on multi-disciplinary and complex theoretic constructions. It is the era of applying scientific mathematical methods as instruments of argumentation and decision, passing from intuitive axioms to more formalized ones.

In a competitive economy, the success of an organization depends decisively on the quality of their managerial decisions. Alongside the development of business information systems, the decision making process implies a large volume of data and a complex process of analysis and synthesis. This information gathering, processing and analyzing capability needed for the decisional process exceeds human capacity by a great margin.

In tourism, modern organizations are confronted by an ever increasing pressure to find new ways to compete effectively in a dynamic global market. Many are turning to e-commerce and virtual structures, such as virtual organizations and virtual team structures, to improve organizational agility and expand into the global market (Baggio&Caporello, 2005). Others adopted knowledge-based tourism business-to-business (B2B) communities solutions, requiring the adoption of a multidimensional, multilevel perspective on system design that incorporates knowledge creation and transformation processes and takes organizational stages of effective technology use into consideration (Gretzel&Fesenmaier, 2004). A recent paper proposes a model of a Knowledge-based System that makes it possible to evaluate an organization at a Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Maturity Level (Andrade, et al., 2010). Contemporary Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) increase efficiency, reduce costs, and improve customer care.

Among the great variety of applications developed for the tourism sector, Decision Support Systems (DSS) can play a fundamental role for their capacity to give organizations the

Knowledge-Based Decisions in Tourism 23

of that organization, adapting to changing enrivonments and increasing the competence of the organization (Niculescu, 2009, Scorta, 2009, as cited in Muntean&Târnăveanu, 2009b). The study and practice of knowledge management has grown rapidly since the 90's, driven by social, economic, and technological trends. Tourism has been slow in adopting this approach due to not only a lack of gearing between researchers and tourism, but also to a "hostile" knowledge adoption environment (Cooper, 2006). The acquisition of this approach would close the gap and also provide both insights and potential applications

**Epistemology** (knowledge theory) is a part of Gnosticism and studies the human knowledge in different sciences; it is a theory of scientific knowledge. Its purpose is the study of knowledge nature, structure and origin, whereas cognotics identifies the cognitive structures and the processes that influence human performance and their embedment in

**Knowledge** is the basic concept in knowledge management. To better understand the concept of knowledge we will present the concepts of data and information, both of which

**Data** can be considered rough facts than can be processed in different types of information. The most important problems are related to the volume and the nature of information. Without **logic** and **reasoning**, data can be completely useless. Therefore quantity is not a determining factor, even if without data an organization can't exist. Most often data is obtained by measuring and observing the system's variables. Processing of data implies organizing, sorting, recording and classifying the data in order to perform calculations and

**Information** is data with meaning, usually processed and formatted. Unlike data, information makes understanding relationships possible. They have meaning, purpose and relevance and can be organized and analyzed from a statistical point of view so that the documents, reports and messages make sense. It is important to notice that information has a semantic content that

**Knowledge** represents a group of information, processes and experiences focused on a particular subject. Knowledge refers to the way people understand a specialized activity domain acquired through study and experience. They are based on learning, thinking and familiarizing with a domain inside a department, division or organizations in general. Knowledge derives from information much like the way information derives from data, including aptitudes, training, perception, experience and common sense. Knowledge implies people interacting with reality and confers intelligence to objects that incorporate it,

Concluding on the differences between data, information and knowledge, we can underline

is not dependant on the physical support through which it is transmitted.

most of the time reducing their size and making them easier to handle.

for tourism.

intelligent systems.

make decisions.

the following:

**data** is an objective and static resource;

**2.1 Data, information, knowledge**

are often confused with knowledge.

possibility to base all the decisions concerning policies, infrastructure development and stakeholder's progress on sound and rational bases (Baggio&Caporello, 2005).

We noticed time and effort are wasted when information is not at hand. The decisional factor could use some help in making decision based on what-if predictions. Hybrid support systems are systems that result from integrating decision support systems (DSS) with other tools and technologies in order to maximize efficiency of the decisional process. Our proposal is a hybrid system which comprises a combination of a model oriented decision support system (spreadsheet based flexible systems, used in what-if predictions) and knowledge-oriented decision support systems (software modules based on knowledge manipulation) to reach these goals.

One of the main elements in building a knowledge-based system is the representation of knowledge, the quality of cognitive systems being essential to the proper function of a decision support system. Steps have been taken in order to transcend the natural language and achieve a symbolic axiomatic language. We believe that the main direction in reconstructing the economic theory is by using logic and semiotic tools (Târnăveanu, 2010b). The decision modelling system built by us uses the intelligence of a decision support system of an invariant nature. We proposed a formalized axiomatic system, using semantic decision trees. To build a generally valid system (a formalized one) it is necessary to create an interconnected system of variables. We divided this complex system into several trees and used production rules theory. We implemented it in Microsoft Excel 2007, using Visual Basic Application – a powerful tool that uses procedures in order to control Excel's objects behaviour.

We believe we found an original way of representing knowledge with mathematical tools (logic and axioms) in order to elaborate the axiomatic formalized system, using methods such as decision trees and transposing them into production rules, as well as building a decision support system capable of intelligent informing. One of the biggest advantages is the systems' flexibility through its invariant nature. The negative aspects are determined by the fixed form of the interconnected system of variables and the lack of implementing it using a web-based solution. We believe this could be a fertile ground for future research.

#### **2. Knowledge and competitive advantage**

Modern organizations worldwide are slowly discovering that controlling knowledge is a major component of strategic growth and creating a competitive organization. In the second part of the last century, tourism has become one of the most important economic activities in the world (Baggio&Caporarello, 2005). UNWTO expects international arrivals to grow by 4% in 2011, slightly above the long-term average. Information and communication technologies have profound implications for the tourism industry. Organizations use knowledge-driven applications in order to respond quickly to continuously changing market conditions and customer needs.

Knowledge based organizations are intelligent, complex and adaptive systems constituted by networked people, knowledge workers and intelligent agents that together are able to combine knowledge and solve problems, creating business value and adapting the function

possibility to base all the decisions concerning policies, infrastructure development and

We noticed time and effort are wasted when information is not at hand. The decisional factor could use some help in making decision based on what-if predictions. Hybrid support systems are systems that result from integrating decision support systems (DSS) with other tools and technologies in order to maximize efficiency of the decisional process. Our proposal is a hybrid system which comprises a combination of a model oriented decision support system (spreadsheet based flexible systems, used in what-if predictions) and knowledge-oriented decision support systems (software modules based on knowledge

One of the main elements in building a knowledge-based system is the representation of knowledge, the quality of cognitive systems being essential to the proper function of a decision support system. Steps have been taken in order to transcend the natural language and achieve a symbolic axiomatic language. We believe that the main direction in reconstructing the economic theory is by using logic and semiotic tools (Târnăveanu, 2010b). The decision modelling system built by us uses the intelligence of a decision support system of an invariant nature. We proposed a formalized axiomatic system, using semantic decision trees. To build a generally valid system (a formalized one) it is necessary to create an interconnected system of variables. We divided this complex system into several trees and used production rules theory. We implemented it in Microsoft Excel 2007, using Visual Basic Application – a powerful tool that uses

We believe we found an original way of representing knowledge with mathematical tools (logic and axioms) in order to elaborate the axiomatic formalized system, using methods such as decision trees and transposing them into production rules, as well as building a decision support system capable of intelligent informing. One of the biggest advantages is the systems' flexibility through its invariant nature. The negative aspects are determined by the fixed form of the interconnected system of variables and the lack of implementing it using a web-based solution. We believe this could be a fertile ground for future

Modern organizations worldwide are slowly discovering that controlling knowledge is a major component of strategic growth and creating a competitive organization. In the second part of the last century, tourism has become one of the most important economic activities in the world (Baggio&Caporarello, 2005). UNWTO expects international arrivals to grow by 4% in 2011, slightly above the long-term average. Information and communication technologies have profound implications for the tourism industry. Organizations use knowledge-driven applications in order to respond quickly to continuously changing

Knowledge based organizations are intelligent, complex and adaptive systems constituted by networked people, knowledge workers and intelligent agents that together are able to combine knowledge and solve problems, creating business value and adapting the function

stakeholder's progress on sound and rational bases (Baggio&Caporello, 2005).

manipulation) to reach these goals.

research.

procedures in order to control Excel's objects behaviour.

**2. Knowledge and competitive advantage**

market conditions and customer needs.

of that organization, adapting to changing enrivonments and increasing the competence of the organization (Niculescu, 2009, Scorta, 2009, as cited in Muntean&Târnăveanu, 2009b).

The study and practice of knowledge management has grown rapidly since the 90's, driven by social, economic, and technological trends. Tourism has been slow in adopting this approach due to not only a lack of gearing between researchers and tourism, but also to a "hostile" knowledge adoption environment (Cooper, 2006). The acquisition of this approach would close the gap and also provide both insights and potential applications for tourism.

#### **2.1 Data, information, knowledge**

**Epistemology** (knowledge theory) is a part of Gnosticism and studies the human knowledge in different sciences; it is a theory of scientific knowledge. Its purpose is the study of knowledge nature, structure and origin, whereas cognotics identifies the cognitive structures and the processes that influence human performance and their embedment in intelligent systems.

**Knowledge** is the basic concept in knowledge management. To better understand the concept of knowledge we will present the concepts of data and information, both of which are often confused with knowledge.

**Data** can be considered rough facts than can be processed in different types of information. The most important problems are related to the volume and the nature of information. Without **logic** and **reasoning**, data can be completely useless. Therefore quantity is not a determining factor, even if without data an organization can't exist. Most often data is obtained by measuring and observing the system's variables. Processing of data implies organizing, sorting, recording and classifying the data in order to perform calculations and make decisions.

**Information** is data with meaning, usually processed and formatted. Unlike data, information makes understanding relationships possible. They have meaning, purpose and relevance and can be organized and analyzed from a statistical point of view so that the documents, reports and messages make sense. It is important to notice that information has a semantic content that is not dependant on the physical support through which it is transmitted.

**Knowledge** represents a group of information, processes and experiences focused on a particular subject. Knowledge refers to the way people understand a specialized activity domain acquired through study and experience. They are based on learning, thinking and familiarizing with a domain inside a department, division or organizations in general. Knowledge derives from information much like the way information derives from data, including aptitudes, training, perception, experience and common sense. Knowledge implies people interacting with reality and confers intelligence to objects that incorporate it, most of the time reducing their size and making them easier to handle.

Concluding on the differences between data, information and knowledge, we can underline the following:

**data** is an objective and static resource;

Knowledge-Based Decisions in Tourism 25

decisional alternative from many possible ones. These programs are called **Decision Support Systems** (**DSS**) and their results are precise if all hypotheses are well grounded. The second direction is simulating the thought process of the specialist with the help of a **Knowledge Based Systems** (**KBS**). An evolved KBS should incorporate knowledge pieces capable of explaining the economic phenomenon in all its complexity. The evolution of DSS and KBS depends on the evolution of knowledge representation. In the near future, the problem of unconscious knowledge based on intuition and imagination will be of

Researchers concentrated their efforts in finding techniques of representing knowledge as a way to formulate a problem so that it is easy to solve, and the ways to search for the

The fundamental problem of artificial intelligence is not identifying some efficient techniques, but discovering methods to represent vast quantities of knowledge in a form that allows its efficient usage (Goldstein&Pepert as cited in Zaharia, 2003). The techniques of knowledge representation imply specialized manipulation routines that allow intelligent **inference**. Inference mechanisms refer to the most adequate processing of knowledge with the purpose of deriving new knowledge pieces which are most relevant to solving the problem. **Representing knowledge** implies designing a class of data structures to store the information and developing procedures that allow their intelligent manipulation in order to perform inferences. But a data structure is not knowledge, in the same way that an encyclopaedia does not mean knowledge. We can say that a book is a resource full of knowledge, but without a reader to understand it, it is just ink on paper

Most researchers in the artificial intelligence domain start by assuming that **what is needed to be represented is known**, so the programmer's job is to figure out **how to code the**

The ability of the system to provide useful information depends on the quality and the

There are many knowledge representation methods; they have been developed over time

they permit usage of many programming languages or expert system generators, and

In order to study economic phenomenons and processes, they have to be organized within a logical structure. This organization could be done with the help of trees (Băileşteanu, 2005). A **binary tree** is a data structure in which each node has, at most, two child nodes, usually distinguished as "left" and "right". Nodes with children are parent nodes, and child nodes

volume of knowledge that is owned and can be used in reasoning processes.

the results obtained can be used in reasoning mechanisms.

and they use problem specific aspects. They all have two common characteristics:

great importance.

(Tacu et al., 1998).

the result is stored;

**2.3.1 Binary trees**

**information** and **the procedures to follow**.

**2.3 Knowledge representation**

solutions so that the results could be displayed in real-time.

**Meta-knowledge (wisdom)** represents the highest level of abstraction, encompassing vision and the ability to see beyond the horizon. It is the accumulation of a person's professional experience in an activity domain. Some authors refer to meta-knowledge as being synonym with wisdom.

#### **2.2 Knowledge management**

**Knowledge management** is a new organizational model, constantly improving itself, interdisciplinary and based on knowledge [Dănăiaţă et al., 2006]. It is the sum of all activities that have the purpose of discovering, coding, storing, disseminating, improving and using of knowledge inside an organization. Any organization, regardless of the size or activity profile, can increase its success rate if it uses the intellectual resources of its member adequately. Knowledge management exploits human resources in order to fulfil the objectives of the organization. It involves three factors: human resources, technology (IT infrastructure) and organization's processes.

**Globalisation** takes place in the context of the information society and offers the partakers involved in the business environment vast opportunities. Under these conditions, organizations should develop new business models to stay competitive. Therefore, adopting a knowledge management solution in an organization requires different types of software, intelligent and conventional, systems, tools and the usage of adequate techniques. Knowledge management will become the basic activity on all levels of organizations. An important aspect will be that of **moral** usage of knowledge at the global level, so that we will develop a conscious society.

Romania's chance is in developing technologies based on multidisciplinary scientific knowledge. Some of the European Union's objectives are collaboration, attraction of new resources, forming human resources, promotion of technology transfer on regional level among other such milestones. The competitive advantage in the knowledge based economy will be determined by the continuing capacity of acquiring new abilities (for members of the organization and therefore for the organization itself) and the promptness in effectively exploiting the top knowledge acquired.

In the future economy, an economy based on knowledge, intelligent decision support systems will experience an exponential growth. Technological and organizational knowledge will become as important as scientific knowledge. The first direction is developing programs that assist the economic specialist in choosing the most plausible

 **information** is an ensemble of meaningful data and has a value related to the purpose; **knowledge** is subjective, dynamic, created in the context of the social interaction between an individual and the organization, connected to the context and is relative

**information** is smaller than **knowledge**, being a component of knowledge (like pieces

**knowledge** always contains **expertise**, elements that generate solutions, with economic

**Meta-knowledge (wisdom)** represents the highest level of abstraction, encompassing vision and the ability to see beyond the horizon. It is the accumulation of a person's professional experience in an activity domain. Some authors refer to meta-knowledge as being synonym

**Knowledge management** is a new organizational model, constantly improving itself, interdisciplinary and based on knowledge [Dănăiaţă et al., 2006]. It is the sum of all activities that have the purpose of discovering, coding, storing, disseminating, improving and using of knowledge inside an organization. Any organization, regardless of the size or activity profile, can increase its success rate if it uses the intellectual resources of its member adequately. Knowledge management exploits human resources in order to fulfil the objectives of the organization. It involves three factors: human resources, technology (IT

**Globalisation** takes place in the context of the information society and offers the partakers involved in the business environment vast opportunities. Under these conditions, organizations should develop new business models to stay competitive. Therefore, adopting a knowledge management solution in an organization requires different types of software, intelligent and conventional, systems, tools and the usage of adequate techniques. Knowledge management will become the basic activity on all levels of organizations. An important aspect will be that of **moral** usage of knowledge at the global level, so that we will

Romania's chance is in developing technologies based on multidisciplinary scientific knowledge. Some of the European Union's objectives are collaboration, attraction of new resources, forming human resources, promotion of technology transfer on regional level among other such milestones. The competitive advantage in the knowledge based economy will be determined by the continuing capacity of acquiring new abilities (for members of the organization and therefore for the organization itself) and the promptness in effectively

In the future economy, an economy based on knowledge, intelligent decision support systems will experience an exponential growth. Technological and organizational knowledge will become as important as scientific knowledge. The first direction is developing programs that assist the economic specialist in choosing the most plausible

(being derived from the creative capacity of the individual);

**knowledge** has a longer life than **information**, sometimes unlimited.

of puzzle);

substance;

with wisdom.

**2.2 Knowledge management**

develop a conscious society.

exploiting the top knowledge acquired.

infrastructure) and organization's processes.

**information** differs from **knowledge** through size, nature and intelligence;

decisional alternative from many possible ones. These programs are called **Decision Support Systems** (**DSS**) and their results are precise if all hypotheses are well grounded. The second direction is simulating the thought process of the specialist with the help of a **Knowledge Based Systems** (**KBS**). An evolved KBS should incorporate knowledge pieces capable of explaining the economic phenomenon in all its complexity. The evolution of DSS and KBS depends on the evolution of knowledge representation. In the near future, the problem of unconscious knowledge based on intuition and imagination will be of great importance.

#### **2.3 Knowledge representation**

Researchers concentrated their efforts in finding techniques of representing knowledge as a way to formulate a problem so that it is easy to solve, and the ways to search for the solutions so that the results could be displayed in real-time.

The fundamental problem of artificial intelligence is not identifying some efficient techniques, but discovering methods to represent vast quantities of knowledge in a form that allows its efficient usage (Goldstein&Pepert as cited in Zaharia, 2003). The techniques of knowledge representation imply specialized manipulation routines that allow intelligent **inference**. Inference mechanisms refer to the most adequate processing of knowledge with the purpose of deriving new knowledge pieces which are most relevant to solving the problem. **Representing knowledge** implies designing a class of data structures to store the information and developing procedures that allow their intelligent manipulation in order to perform inferences. But a data structure is not knowledge, in the same way that an encyclopaedia does not mean knowledge. We can say that a book is a resource full of knowledge, but without a reader to understand it, it is just ink on paper (Tacu et al., 1998).

Most researchers in the artificial intelligence domain start by assuming that **what is needed to be represented is known**, so the programmer's job is to figure out **how to code the information** and **the procedures to follow**.

The ability of the system to provide useful information depends on the quality and the volume of knowledge that is owned and can be used in reasoning processes.

There are many knowledge representation methods; they have been developed over time and they use problem specific aspects. They all have two common characteristics:

#### **2.3.1 Binary trees**

In order to study economic phenomenons and processes, they have to be organized within a logical structure. This organization could be done with the help of trees (Băileşteanu, 2005).

A **binary tree** is a data structure in which each node has, at most, two child nodes, usually distinguished as "left" and "right". Nodes with children are parent nodes, and child nodes

Knowledge-Based Decisions in Tourism 27

T1 and T2 are binary trees. The branches of these trees are oriented downwards. T3 is not a binary tree because it has two roots, and there is a node with two predecessors. T4 is not a

The **semantic tree method** is an automatic method of semantic analysis, which consists of determining the logical values of sub formulas of the given formula. It reduces complexity through the elimination of logical constants (truth-functional connectives and quantifiers) and places sub forumulas of a considered formula on branches of a binary tree. The semantic tree method is a very interesting and universal method. It forms an important part

One of the most efficient of the representation methods is called **production rules.** The idea behind this method is to separate the common calculation components with the purpose of

In 1943, E. Post suggested what he called **rewriting rules**, derived from formal languages. Production rules were built based on those rules. Knowledge is based on three fundamental concepts: **facts**, which is the primary information that describes the elements of the considered domain, **rules**, which describe the how facts can be used and **reasoning**

A **production rule** has two parts: establishing the condition (IF) and the action (THEN). Sometimes an implication symbol ( →) is used to describe a production rule as an equivalent

Condition (premise) action (conclusion) (2)

IF condition (premise) THEN action (conclusion) (1)

binary tree either, because it has a node with two predecessor nodes.

of the mechanization of reasoning (Bondecka-Krzykowska, 2005).

correctly and efficiently handling the processes in which they are involved.

**strategies** or heuristic methods that express the way in which rules can be used.

Fig. 3. Semantic trees T3 and T4

**2.3.2 Production rules**

of IF-THEN.

or

The general form of a production rule is:

where both conditions and actions are facts.

may contain references to their parents. Any node in the data structure can be reached by starting at root node and repeatedly following references to either the left or right child.

A binary **tree** is a structure T={X,r}, where X is the set of nodes within T, and r is a binary relation within X so that:

The line that links together each node with its successor is called an **arch** of T. A **final node** is a node without successor. The sequence of arches that link the root with a final node is called a **branch** of T.

Fig. 1. Semantic tree T1

We can notice that x is the root of tree T1, y1 is the successor of y and R1, R2 and R3 are the branches of T1 tree (figure 1).

Fig. 2. Semantic tree T2

In figure 2 – x is the root of T2, t is the successors of y and the predecessor of m; and r, n, o, t, s1, s2, s3, s4, u1, u2, u3, u4, z are final nodes of T2; (y, t) in an arch in T2 and R1...Rij are the branches of T2.

may contain references to their parents. Any node in the data structure can be reached by starting at root node and repeatedly following references to either the left or right child.

A binary **tree** is a structure T={X,r}, where X is the set of nodes within T, and r is a binary

1. if x, y X and x r y, then x is called the **predecessor node** of y and y the **successor node**

2. there is exactly one node in T does not have a predecessor. This node is called the **origin**

The line that links together each node with its successor is called an **arch** of T. A **final node** is a node without successor. The sequence of arches that link the root with a final node is

We can notice that x is the root of tree T1, y1 is the successor of y and R1, R2 and R3 are the

In figure 2 – x is the root of T2, t is the successors of y and the predecessor of m; and r, n, o, t, s1, s2, s3, s4, u1, u2, u3, u4, z are final nodes of T2; (y, t) in an arch in T2 and R1...Rij are the

3. each node that is different than T's root has exactly one predecessor.

relation within X so that:

or **root** of T;

called a **branch** of T.

Fig. 1. Semantic tree T1

Fig. 2. Semantic tree T2

branches of T2.

branches of T1 tree (figure 1).

of x;

Fig. 3. Semantic trees T3 and T4

T1 and T2 are binary trees. The branches of these trees are oriented downwards. T3 is not a binary tree because it has two roots, and there is a node with two predecessors. T4 is not a binary tree either, because it has a node with two predecessor nodes.

The **semantic tree method** is an automatic method of semantic analysis, which consists of determining the logical values of sub formulas of the given formula. It reduces complexity through the elimination of logical constants (truth-functional connectives and quantifiers) and places sub forumulas of a considered formula on branches of a binary tree. The semantic tree method is a very interesting and universal method. It forms an important part of the mechanization of reasoning (Bondecka-Krzykowska, 2005).

#### **2.3.2 Production rules**

One of the most efficient of the representation methods is called **production rules.** The idea behind this method is to separate the common calculation components with the purpose of correctly and efficiently handling the processes in which they are involved.

In 1943, E. Post suggested what he called **rewriting rules**, derived from formal languages. Production rules were built based on those rules. Knowledge is based on three fundamental concepts: **facts**, which is the primary information that describes the elements of the considered domain, **rules**, which describe the how facts can be used and **reasoning strategies** or heuristic methods that express the way in which rules can be used.

A **production rule** has two parts: establishing the condition (IF) and the action (THEN). Sometimes an implication symbol ( →) is used to describe a production rule as an equivalent of IF-THEN.

The general form of a production rule is:

$$\text{IF condition (premine) THEN action (conclusion)}\tag{1}$$

or

$$\text{Condition (premine)} \rightarrow \text{action (conclusion)}\tag{2}$$

where both conditions and actions are facts.

(3)

Knowledge-Based Decisions in Tourism 29

We consider that the area of production rules should to be extended in order to create axioms for economic sciences. This fact was suggested by experience when we observed that the production rule sphere is much more extended than what we found in the available literature. From our point of view, even the calculation of an indicator is a production rule. We consider that when axiomatic research focuses on a problem, all the necessary rules for solving the problem should be presented. In this chapter we present a system of production rules that we consider the principal core that exists in all axiomatic systems

The decision and the context of decision making are two key aspects that characterize the utility of the decision models. Data, information and knowledge are used in the decision making process, corroborated with the manifestation of reasoning based on the intelligence

Starting with the five managerial functions; crowning decision as the umbrella above all other managerial functions, we will detail different types of decisions and the utility and

In the managerial practice of an organization, in the context of intense and comprehensive computerization, decisions and decisional processes are conceived and performed more often with a systemic vision. One of the most important characteristics of a successful

**Decision** can be defined as a line of action, consciously chosen from multiple possible

We can outline the following characteristics: it is a volitional act that always has an ending (its purpose is the fulfilment of an objective); it is a conscious thinking process based on evaluation criteria made by an individual or by a software program, but which requires specific knowledge; it is referring to a future state, even if it is based on information from present or past; is the object of all managers, from superior hierarchical organisms to the ones situated at the bottom of the organizational pyramid; it is the mechanism that turns the organization around and assures integration of all efforts in order to fulfil the objectives.

Lately decision is observed as a passing from methods and procedures based on experience,

**Managerial decision** can be defined as the decision that has direct consequences on decisions and actions of at least another person. It is different from the personal decision in that: managerial decision implies at least two persons: the manager that decides and one or more employees that apply in practice the decision; managerial decision has influences at the group level, does not affect the action of just one employee; managerial action

(Băileșteanu&Târnăveanu, 2006).

**3. Decision support systems in tourism**

and experience of the decisional factor.

importance of each of these decisions.

**3.1 Decision**

manager is its ability to make **quality decisions**.

alternatives, in view of an objective (Dănăiață et al., 2006).

intuition and empiric methods to methods based on science.

To be **useful**, the decision has to fulfil some requirements:

determines effects at least at the level of an organization department.

A production rule can be interpreted as: if the premise is true (the facts that compose the premise are confirmed or verified by the facts database), then the fact (or facts) from conclusion are also true and can be added to the facts database.

A more general **production rule** can be written as:

where:

As in the definition of information, rules are usually deduced from other rules, so that the action (conclusion) from one rule can be found in the premise of another rule. In this case, the final action will imply rule linking based on reasoning. Splitting knowledge in fragments or knowledge pieces makes the knowledge database to be organized in a modular way, so it can be **easily updated**.

One of the largest **disadvantages** is that while the system accumulates knowledge, its performance diminishes, and the response time grows exponentially (because of the large number of rules accumulated).

Most times, when solving a problem, an expert will use knowledge that supervises the process in obtaining the solution. This is a superior knowledge and makes use of the problem solving domain in order to determine the best way to solve the problem. Its name is meta-knowledge. Meta-knowledge is represented with the help of **meta-rules**. So a metarule represents a rule that describes how other rules can be used. It determines strategies of usage of specific rules within an applicative domain and ir does not establish any conclusions.