Abstract: This article analyses the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) in China, more specifically the alignment of the accelerated tourism development with sustainable tourism development. As developing tourism destination with rich historical sites, beautiful landscapes, and authenticity, the popularity of the Tibet Autonomous Region is increasing. We present a framework for sustainable ecotourism development evaluation of Tibet Autonomous Region based on economic growth, social development, and environmental protection.

As the fastest growing sector of tourism, the environmentally responsible travel provides benefits to the local community through their active socioeconomic involvement. Despite the fact that the main driving force behind ecotourism is business, we argue that in order to be sustainable, the ecotourism should recognize economic, social and environmental needs of the local community, considering the quality of life improvement for local residents, adopting the Ross and Wall (1999)’s evaluation framework.

Also argued in the article, the environmental challenges are increasing due to the climate change. The endemic biodiversity and the traditional Tibetan medicine and herding are threatened to irreversible disappear, requiring urgent regulation for environmental protection and foreign direct investments. Active pollution emission reduction and resource consumption control need to be set in a place.

Framework for sustainable ecotourism evaluation of Tibet Autonomous Region

1. Tibetan Ecotourism

The concept of Sustainable Tourism Development was first proposed by the World Tourism Organization in 1993, and then followed by the adoption of Sustainable Tourism Development Action Plan by UNESCO. Since then the tourism sustainability became a hot topic for tourism researchers (Budeanu, Miller, Moscardo, & Ooi, 2016; Lu & Nepal, 2009). Hence, sustainable tourism development is a process for meeting current tourist needs and goals without compromising the ability of the natural systems to future provision of natural resources for meeting future generation tourist needs and goals (Coccossis & Nijkamp, 1995). On the other hand, ecotourism is the fastest growing sector of tourism, accounting for 10-15 % growth rate of GDP. It has been defined as "environmentally responsible, enlightening travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socioeconomic involvement of local populations" (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). Accordingly, the local community should have benefits as an integral part of ecotourism.

Tibet is increasingly becoming the desirable travel destination due to its unique natural environment, and specific cultural characteristic. Wild wide species, protected wild wide animals, highland lakes, mountains, rivers and grasslands also attract world tourism attention. From the 1980s when foreign tourists were allowed to visit the TAR, the number of tourists is increasing dramatically, from 1059 in 1980 to 6.82 million in 2010 (Chengcai, Linsheng, & Shengkui, 2012). Although there is a dramatic tourism development, local community involvement has rested on low passive participation stages that increased ecological environmental problems and decreased local community enthusiasm for active participation. Traditional tourism has brought challenges and issues to the fragile Tibetan environment. Poor economic infrastructure, low skilled local community are limiting factors for strong community participation in ecotourism (Chengcai et al., 2012). On the other hand, Tibetan nomadic lifestyle and the grazing animals are increasingly being threatened by the climate changes.

2. Evaluation framework for sustainable ecotourism development

As the demand for exotic, natural tourism destinations is increasing, the concern that these less developed areas are the most vulnerable to environmental degradation is increasing (Scheyvens, 1999). Often, however, the main driving force behind ecotourism is business, serving benefits to the business owners instead of common benefits including local communities (Wight, 1993). Some authors have opened the question whether ecotourism affects environment and culture in a positive manner or cause deterioration and commodification (Kolas, 2007; Zhang, Ji, & Zhang, 2015). We evaluate the Tibetan sustainable ecotourism development based on economic growth, social development, and environmental protection (Sharpley, 2009; Tsaur, Lin, & Lin, 2006). All dimensions influence each other (Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002). The evaluation framework has been adopted from Ross and Wall (1999).

We argue that the needs and the welfare of local communities need to be the basis for Tibetan ecotourism. There should be a distinction between ecotourism that mainly serves members of local communities, which are empowered to control activities taking place for mutual benefits, from ecotourism that mainly serves companies and entrepreneurs for economic benefits (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996). We emphasize the role of ecotourism in recognizing both economic, social, and environmental needs of the local community. Ecotourism has to be more than just the nature: it must consider the quality of life improvement of the local communities by ecotourism activities. Economic benefits for the local community cannot compensate social and cultural damage that can deteriorate overall life quality (Wilkinson & Pratiwi, 1995). Akama (1996, p. 573), for example, proposes "the local community need to be empowered to decide what forms of tourism facilities and wildlife conservation programmes they want to be developed in their respective communities, and how the tourism costs and benefits are to be shared among different stakeholders".

Ecotourism should result in long lasting and reliable economic gains for the local community instead of small, periodic, and unstable economic gains. Mountain residents increasingly decide to leave the homes in order to improve their incomes (Wang & Cao, 2015). All local stakeholders, including the local community that lack capitals and appropriate skills, should benefit in terms of better business opportunities and employability, not just outside agencies and entrepreneurs (Scheyvens, 1999). As Wilkinson and Pratiwi (1995) discuss, the equal distribution of economic benefits within the local community is equally important as the total amount of benefits for the community.

Ecotourism should bring social gains to the local community, improving education system or local infrastructure, building water supply systems, improving health systems, while respecting traditional culture. Increased social interaction of tourists with local community might provide experiencing different cultures and enriching spiritual feeling, strengthening the tourist willingness to recommend and revisit the destination (Ross & Wall, 1999). However, overcrowd and congestion can lead to local community adversity toward tourism. On the other hand, social losses may occur if tourism activities increase the crime rate, deteriorate authenticity, displace local communities or increase the prostitution rate (Miller, 2001; Ramos & Prideaux, 2014).

Climate change also presents a great challenge for tourism development, especially in vulnerable high-mountain regions with severe climate and scarcer arable land (Meehl et al., 2007). Mountain residents increasingly decide to leave the homes in order to improve their incomes (Wang & Cao, 2015). On the other hand, climate change threatens the endemic biodiversity and the traditional Tibetan medicine and herding (Salick, Fang, & Byg, 2009). However, policy makers often don't consider the concerns of the local inhabitants because they don‘t fit with their economic intentions (Byg & Salick, 2009; Scheyvens, 1999). More effective regulation for environmental protection and technological modernization should be proposed (Zhao et al., 2006).

In a dynamic simulation of the sustainable tourism development (STD) in TAR, Zhang et al. (2015) predicted that the STD will persistently increase from 2014 until 2035 when will begin to decline due to inevitable gradually prominent resource and environmental problems. The deterioration of the environmental and resource protection of TAR as an ecological tourist destination will cause fast accelerated deterioration of STD. However, there are still open issues remaining in this scenarios. Namely, the TAR is the poorest province in Chine, so it might be challenging to ensure sufficient financial support to keep the STD at the appropriate level. Foreign direct investments can be beneficial for environmental protection. Some authors emphasized warned that ecological environmental damage of TAR will be irreversible, hence, protection is essentially needed to sustain TAR tourism development (Jackson, Lopoukhine, & Hillyard, 1995; Zhang et al., 2015). There must be active pollution emission reduction and tourism resource consumption control to prevent the tourism being a victim of the climate change and pollution. Tsaur et al. (2006) proposed strategies for sustainable resource utilization: restricting the scope of recreational use and reducing unnecessary infrastructural developments, and providing tourists with environmental education, in line with the Orams (1995) conceptualization of eco-tourists experience from enjoyment and satisfaction to environmentally advocate, responsible behavior. The local community can act as stewards of natural resources as well (Ross & Wall, 1999). If excessive depletion of resources takes place, not only local community quality of life will deteriorate, but also the tourist interest for the place will decline.

3. Conclusion

The unique natural resources and specific cultural characteristic increased the world tourist interest for a visit of the Tibet Autonomous Region in China. Despite the dramatic tourism development, local community involvement is still on low passive participation stages, leading to increased environmental deterioration and increased social activities of the local community. Since the traditional tourism brought problems and challenges to the fragile natural environment of Tibet Autonomous Region, we propose a framework for sustainable ecotourism development evaluation of Tibet Autonomous Region based on economic growth, social development, and environmental protection. As the fastest growing sector of tourism, this environmentally responsible travel provides benefits to the local community through their active socioeconomic involvement. Despite the fact that the main driving force behind ecotourism is business, we argue that in order to be sustainable, the ecotourism should recognize economic, social and environmental needs of the local community, considering the quality of life improvement for local residents, adopting the Ross and Wall (1999)‘s evaluation framework.

Since economic benefits cannot compensate potential social and cultural losses, local community must be actively included in programs development for equal economic and social benefits distribution among different stakeholders. In addition, ecotourism should bring social gains to the local community, in terms of improved infrastructure, education and health systems and traditional culture strengthening. Thereupon, it will come to an increased social tourist-local community interaction, providing increased tourist willingness to revisit or recommend the destination. On the contrary, social losses in terms of increased crime rate, deteriorated authenticity and local community‘s displacement will negatively influence not only the local community but also the sustainability of the ecotourism as well. Environmental challenges are increasing due to the climate change. The endemic biodiversity and the traditional Tibetan medicine and herding are threatened to irreversible disappear, requiring urgent regulation for environmental protection and foreign direct investments. Active pollution emission reduction and resource consumption control need to be set in a place.

Literature

Akama, J. S. (1996). Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in Kenya. Tourism management, 17(8), 567-574.

Budeanu, A., Miller, G., Moscardo, G., & Ooi, C.-S. (2016). Sustainable tourism, progress, challenges and opportunities: an introduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 285-294.

Byg, A., & Salick, J. (2009). Local perspectives on a global phenomenon—climate change in Eastern Tibetan villages. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 156-166.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development: Iucn.

Chengcai, T., Linsheng, Z., & Shengkui, C. (2012). Tibetan attitudes towards community participation and ecotourism. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 3(1), 8-15.

Coccossis, H., & Nijkamp, P. (1995). Sustainable tourism development: Avebury.

Jackson, L. L., Lopoukhine, N., & Hillyard, D. (1995). Ecological restoration: a definition and comments. Restoration Ecology, 3(2), 71-75.

Kolas, A. (2007). Tourism and Tibetan culture in transition: a place called Shangrila: Routledge.

Lu, J., & Nepal, S. K. (2009). Sustainable tourism research: An analysis of papers published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 5-16.

Meehl, G. A., Stocker, T. F., Collins, W. D., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, A. T., Gregory, J. M., . . . Noda, A. (2007). Global climate projections. Climate change, 3495, 747-845.

Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism management, 22(4), 351-362.

Orams, M. B. (1995). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism management, 16(1), 3-8.

Ramos, A. M., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Indigenous ecotourism in the Mayan rainforest of Palenque: empowerment issues in sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(3), 461-479.

Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Evaluating ecotourism: the case of North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tourism management, 20(6), 673-682.

Salick, J., Fang, Z., & Byg, A. (2009). Eastern Himalayan alpine plant ecology, Tibetan ethnobotany, and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 147-155.

Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism management, 20(2), 245-249.

Sharpley, R. (2009). Tourism development and the environment: Beyond sustainability? : Earthscan.

Tsaur, S.-H., Lin, Y.-C., & Lin, J.-H. (2006). Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism management, 27(4), 640-653.

Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. (2002). Implementing STD on a small island: Development and use of sustainable tourism development indicators in Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5), 363-387.
Wang, S., & Cao, W. (2015). Climate change perspectives in an Alpine area, Southwest China: a case analysis of local residents' views. Ecological Indicators, 53, 211-219.

Wight, P. (1993). Ecotourism: ethics or eco-sell? Journal of travel research, 31(3), 3-9.

Wilkinson, P. F., & Pratiwi, W. (1995). Gender and tourism in an Indonesian village. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), 283-299.

Zhang, J., Ji, M., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Tourism sustainability in Tibet–Forward planning using a systems approach. Ecological Indicators, 56, 218-228.

Zhao, Y.-Z., Zou, X.-Y., Cheng, H., Jia, H.-K., Wu, Y.-Q., Wang, G.-Y., . . . Gao, S.-Y. (2006). Assessing the ecological security of the Tibetan plateau: Methodology and a case study for Lhaze County. Journal of Environmental Management, 80(2), 120-131.

(Vlado Dimovski , Professor of Management and Organization, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics; Katerina Jovanovska, Assistant Professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics)