Tourism in small island states: From vulnerability to strengths

Tourism in Small Island States: FromVulnerability to Strengths

Regina ScheyvensMassey University – Institute of Development Studies, Palmerston NorthPN, New Zealand

Janet MomsenHuman and Community Development, University of California, Davis,California, USA

This article argues that the narrow and frequently negative conceptualisations ofsmall island states as environmentally vulnerable and economically dependent areproblematic for sustainable tourism development and for economic development,generally. Scenarios presented to date are often incomplete. Narratives suggesting thatisland peoples are unskilled and lack resources, and that their islands are ‘tiny’ and‘fragile’, can undermine their pride and stifle their initiative, reducing their ability toact with autonomy to determine and achieve their own developmental goals. A range ofmore positive conceptualisations is given, demonstrating the strong social dimensionsof sustainability in small island states, and the resilience and adaptability of islandstates. Examples describe a number of positive development paths to sustainabletourism in small island states.

doi: 10.2167/jost821.0

Keywords: sustainable tourism, island tourism, Pacific Islands, Caribbean,vulnerabilities, strengths

IntroductionTourism researchers have had much to say about sustainability and develop-

ment in small island states. Interestingly, however, as noted by Butler (1993),most of this research has been based on case studies and there has been a lackof conceptual studies on small island states.1 The overriding themes emergingin articles about small island states are concerns about susceptibility to environ-mental problems, and the heavy economic reliance of many small island stateson the tourism sector. This leads Baldacchino (2000a: 27) to suggest that somewriters have taken a ‘fatalistic’ position, and Campling (2006: 236) to decry the‘in-built pessimism’ of much of the small island states literature. There are somenotable efforts to present a more positive point of view, particularly in terms ofeconomic prospects (see, for example, Armstrong & Read, 2000, Baldacchino,2005; Easterly & Kraay, 1999), but in many other publications, narratives ofvulnerability and dependency are paramount. While such themes provide animportant warning to the governments of small island states, which might see

0966-9582/08/05 491-20 $20.00/0 C© 2008 Taylor & FrancisJOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 16, No. 5, 2008

491

492 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

tourism as some kind of panacea to overcome their economic ills, they alsopaint a somewhat lopsided picture of the possibilities of development in thesestates. Specifically, they overlook the potential of small island states to charttheir own paths in the global economy and provide self-determined futures fortheir people.

In this article, we actively endeavour to present an alternative imaginary(see2) for small island states by exposing the other side of the picture, thatis, their strengths. While it is extremely difficult to generalise within regionsand more so, between them, we have drawn on experiences of island devel-opment in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and the Caribbean Sea in the beliefthat there are significant common issues facing these countries. Through look-ing beyond one region, we hope to promote the type of shared learning amongisland states that has been called for in recent times (see Skelton, 2007: 138). Wealso suggest that a holistic examination, including social, environmental andeconomic aspects of sustainability is needed if we are to fully appreciate boththe constraints and the potential that individual small island states present. Toooften, discourse on small island states fails to bring issues of social sustainabil-ity to the fore (Campling, 2006: 264). In Sustainable Tourism in Islands and SmallStates: Issues and Policies (Briguglio et al., 1996), for example, all but one chap-ter focuses only on environmental and economic aspects of sustainability. Neto(2003) squarely criticises the sustainable tourism literature’s over-emphasis onenvironmental issues, while Berno (2003) laments that discussion concerningthe sustainability of tourism rarely considers social, psychological or culturaldimensions.

This article is divided into three main parts. Firstly, it begins with a discussionof the dominant ways in which small island states have been conceptualised inrecent history. Secondly, it notes a number of problems associated with dominantdevelopment narratives about small island states, not least the way in whichthey may undermine island people’s confidence in their own abilities to meettheir needs and choose what direction their development should take in thefuture. Thirdly, the article focuses on six key strengths of small island states thatprovide counter arguments to the ‘pessimists’.

Traditional Conceptualisations of Small Island StatesReflecting on ways in which small island states had been conceptualised,

Campling and Rosalie identified three historical shifts coinciding with the lastthree decades of the 20th century (2006: 117). Writing on small island statesin the 1970s was inspired by political economy critiques, which emphasisedthe economic vulnerabilities of small island developing states (SIDS). Tourismwas thus seen as an exploitative form of neo-colonialism (Britton, 1982), anindustry characterised by the economic dominance of foreign-owned multina-tional corporations which import a large proportion of the goods and servicesthey require and repatriate their profits (Brohman, 1996; Hoti et al., 2005; Potter,1993). Furthermore, tourism was accused of perpetuating unequal relations ofdependency and encouraging inequitable socioeconomic and spatial develop-ment (Milne, 1997). Alternative approaches thus emerged, characterised by afocus on the need for the socioeconomic development of small island states.

Tourism in Small Island States 493

Import substitution industrialisation was regarded as a way of reducing eco-nomic dependency, and governments were urged to ensure that people-centreddevelopment was occurring through, for example, adequate investment inhealth and education (Campling & Rosalie, 2006).

The 1980s, Campling and Rosalie (2006) suggest, saw a tangible shift in ap-proach, with a move away from the structuralist critiques of the 1970s towardsmore acceptance of neo-liberal ideology with its focus on export-oriented pro-duction. A shift towards neo-liberal policies was evident in the Pacific Islandsand in many Caribbean states during this period (Mandle, 1996; Murray, 2000).In an increasingly free trade environment, it became clear that island states couldno longer rely on guaranteed markets or prices for their traditional export earn-ers, primary products, and thus, many island states sought growth in the tourismsector. The 1980s also saw a strong focus on geopolitical security. Island stateswere regarded as occupying an important strategic position, their remotenessmaking them ‘ideal hosts for weapon systems and sites for spying operations’in a Cold War environment (Campling & Rosalie, 2006). Simultaneously, theirinternal security was seen as being threatened by separatist movements. Exam-ples of geopolitical issues from the 1980s include debates which arose aroundfishing rights being granted to Russian boats in Pacific Island waters, protestsover French nuclear testing in its colony, French Polynesia, the separatist move-ment which erupted in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea, military coups in Fijiand in Haiti, the USA’s invasion of Grenada in 1983, and the long-standing USboycott of Cuba (Fry, 1993; Potter et al., 2004; Scarpaci, 2006). These events oftenhad a dramatic, detrimental impact on tourist numbers, at least in the shortterm, but over time, the trend has been for these markets to recover.

In the 1990s, by contrast, the small island states literature started to con-centrate attention on environmental and economic vulnerabilities (Campling &Rosalie, 2006). This focus emerged both from viewing small island states with aneo-liberal lens, and from the global preoccupation with a ‘green agenda’ whichrose to the fore in association with events, such as the 1992 Earth Summit in Riode Janeiro. In terms of economic vulnerabilities, it was noted that small islandstates tend to have small economies which can lead to diseconomies of scale.Furthermore, their land area is small and dispersed, and their resources arelimited (for example, topsoil and fresh water may be in short supply), meaningtheir economic base is generally quite narrow, perhaps relying on a few primaryproduct exports and tourism. They are generally isolated from major markets,and many have small populations and thus, a small domestic market (Briguglioet al., 1996; Milne, 1997). These limitations mean that they are often heavilydependent on aid and international trade. Economic development within smallisland states is often impeded by inadequate transportation links, lack of acces-sibility to sometimes remote locations, lack of appropriate skills among the localpopulation and inadequate amounts of local capital (Harrison, 2003: 7). Suchfactors combine to mean that small island states have low resistance to externalshocks including natural disasters, political upheavals and terrorism (Harrison2003: 7; Hoti et al., 2005). Environmental vulnerabilities that were identified in-cluded the threat of sea level rise, and the location of small islands in relationto phenomena, such as cyclones, hurricanes and seismic activity which can leadto tsunamis (Briguglio et al., 1996). Tourism-based construction was also shown


to be a major cause of beach erosion, siltation of lagoons and reef damage (McEl-roy & Albuquerque, 2002), and it became clear that tourism as an industry placedhigh demands on fresh water and energy sources, and enormous pressure onwaste disposal systems (Thomas-Hope, 1998).

These views about economic and environmental fragility have been mirroredat major international meetings where the well-being of small island statesis discussed, from the United Nations Global Conference on the SustainableDevelopment of Small Island Developing States in Barbados (1994), through tothe World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (2002). Thus,at an Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Heads of States meeting in Gabon in 1997, aPacific Island delegate titled their paper ‘Vulnerability: A Pacific Reality’ (Tevi,1997).

Now that we are in the first decade of a new century, narratives of economicand environmental vulnerability continue and they have been entrenched tosome extent by rising global concerns about climate change. Two events of2006, the widespread circulation of Al Gore’s popular documentary film, AnInconceivable Truth, and the release of the Stern Review (2007), were pivotal inreinvigorating concerns about human-induced global warming and associatedsea level rises on small island states. Geopolitical issues, which have never com-pletely dropped off the agenda of discussions on small island states since theirprominence in the 1980s, have also been reignited in some areas. In the PacificIslands context, civil conflict in the Solomon Islands, violent pro-democracyprotests in Tonga and a coup in Fiji have occurred against the backdrop ofdiscussions on ‘failed states’, with some commentators suggesting that out-side intervention provides the only solution to these problems. Indeed, therehas been much debate about the presence and powers of the Australian-ledRAMSI (Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands) forces in theSolomons (Dinnen, 2004). In the Indian Ocean too, the Maldivian governmenthas faced increasing challenges from pro-democracy campaigners in recentyears.

An associated atmosphere of doubt has emerged concerning the abilities ofsmall island states to lead self-determined, sustainable futures. While some gov-ernments of small island states have rejected the need for outside assistance insolving their problems, many others have actively played upon their vulnera-bilities when negotiating aid or concessions from Western countries, regionalorganisations, international development organisations and the like. In particu-lar, countries like Samoa and the Maldives that have ‘Least Developed Country’status (see http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/ldc/list.htm) are not alwayskeen to graduate from this status. This point leads on to the second part of thispaper, which highlights problems associated with conceptualisations of smallisland states as being vulnerable and in need of external support.

Problems with Dominant Development Narratives about SmallIsland States

Exposes of limitations to the development of small island states are importantand necessary. However, as the discussion above has highlighted, many com-mentators have only identified the development constraints facing island states,


such as their small size and lack of natural resources, while failing to identifytheir strengths. We suggest that it is problematic that small island states shouldbe so narrowly conceptualised. Firstly, this presents an incomplete picture oftheir situation and thus, ‘solutions’ which may be posed are unlikely to dealadequately with various development challenges they face (see Scheyvens &Momsen, forthcoming). Secondly, there is not always strong evidence to sup-port claims of vulnerability: ‘the vast majority of the grounding of the contem-porary economic conceptualization of SIDS as “vulnerable” is open to questionand . . . highly subjective’ (Campling, 2006: 265). Thirdly, this image of vulnera-ble small island states suggests, inherently, that they need to depend on outsideassistance and guidance in order to find a way out from their supposedly crip-pling vulnerabilities.

Many writers who emphasise the development constraints facing island statesappear to be informed by a narrow, neo-liberal development ethos which as-sumes that development coincides with access to technology, economic growthand an outward focus on meeting the needs of world markets. Under such logic,communally held resources are a curse rather than a blessing, individualisationof land holdings is the only way to appropriately ‘develop’ resources, and thereis little appreciation of the value of traditional beliefs and institutions, nor of theresilience and coping strategies of communities – what we might today call ‘so-cial capital’.3 Baldacchino notes that, social capital refers to ‘the resourcefulnessof a people to respond positively, collectively and responsibly to an identifiedchallenge’. What some refer to as social capital, others call ‘social cohesion’,including ‘leadership, discipline, personal responsibility, forward planning andadaptability’ (Connell, 2007: 116). It has been proposed that studies of the socialcapital of small island states may provide insights into their ability ‘to respondquickly and flexibly to exogenous changes and shocks’ and ‘provide an insightinto the “resilience” which counters the alleged structural vulnerabilities of suchsites’ (Baldacchino, 2005: 34). Connell suggests that the term ‘buoyancy’ mayprovide a particularly apt interpretation of resilience when considering the de-velopment prospects of small island states. He cites a former Cook Islands HighCommissioner to New Zealand who stated

Microstates are like a canoe in the wide-open seaIt can sail freely or be navigated with purposeIt survives only if one has learned nature’s challengesHowever watch out for the wrath of the trickster giantRemember that canoe size matters not to safetyFor there will come a time when the waves are biggerBigger than even the canoe to surely sink it because lifeDepends not on canoe sizeBut on the magic of buoyancy(Jonassen 1999, cited in Connell, 2007: 116).4

Some writers assert that it is unrealistic and arrogant of small island statesto expect to control their own destinies. For example, Michael McVey, a WorldTourism Organization consultant, asserts that ‘Small island communities tendto have an exaggerated sense of independence and self-importance’ (2002: 95).


McVey seems to suggest that small islands should remain as neo-colonial out-posts, knowing their place in the world in terms of catering for the whims ofWestern tourists while not rising above their supposed stature. Other writers arekinder, yet still manage to project an image of dependency. Both Bertram (2004)and McElroy (2006), for example, correlate the economic development of islandstates with their ties to metropolitan countries, concluding that sovereign statesfare poorly in the development stakes in comparison to neighbouring stateswhich – through virtue of a continuing of colonial-era ties to metropolitan coun-tries – have economic and political relationships which benefit their economies.However, such an analysis does not consider that metropolitan powers mighthave chosen to ‘retain the territories that were strongest in terms of economicperformance and to let go the weakest’ (Betermier, 2004: 63). In addition, whileMcElroy and Bertram both focus on economic progress, they fail to consider anumber of social and political dimensions of development. For example, Kanakand Ma’ohi independence activists in the French colonies of New Caledoniaand French Polynesia assert that the indigenous people of these lands have paida high price for the economic gains their countries have achieved (Maclellan &Chesneaux, 1998). For these indigenous activists, sovereignty is their ultimategoal.5

Important arguments have been made in recent times which contest the ideaof the ‘smallness’ and fragility of SIDS. Epeli Hau’ofa cleverly reveals the follyof narrow perceptions of small islands which conceptualise them as minute andvulnerable:

. . . if we look at the myths, legends, and oral traditions, and the cosmolo-gies of the peoples of Oceania, it becomes evident that . . . . their universecomprised not only land surfaces, but the surrounding ocean as far as theycould traverse and exploit it, the underworld with its fire-controlling andearth-shaking denizens, and the heavens above with their hierarchies ofpowerful gods and named stars and constellations that people could counton to guide their ways across the seas. Their world was anything but tiny(Hau’ofa, 1994: 152).

Hau’ofa’s vision is encapsulated in the notion of ‘large ocean island states’(UNESCO, 2003). Meanwhile, claims about the fragility of small island statesfrom the environmental management literature – which provide justification forintervention by outside groups and organisations, such as conservation agen-cies, donors and regional organisations – are not as scientific as they might atfirst appear:

The scientific validity of this generalized depiction of the islands is debat-able on several counts, such as the lack of evidence to substantiate the viewthat island ecosystems are by nature fragile . . . and the underestimation ofnon-human factors on environmental changes on Pacific Islands . . . . Butan equally important issue concerns the way it depicts the South Pacificand the power it accords to external organizations and countries (Turnball,2003: 9).


Discourses on fragility and vulnerability suggest that island peoples needassistance from outsiders to guide them to interact appropriately with nature:‘They are portrayed . . . as victims of their geographical circumstances, their ownactions, and lack of expertise’ (Turnball, 2003: 11). This logic sometimes leads tothe creation of conservation estates, such as national parks or marine protectedareas, assuming that nature needs to be protected from the people who havelived in it and with it for centuries. While such protected areas are attractive totourists, they can seriously undermine local well-being and impoverish sectorsof the population who lose entitlements to resources important for maintainingtheir livelihoods (Stonich, 2003).

Perhaps of greatest concern is that the esteem of island peoples may suffer asa result of such narrow conceptions of the development potential of small islandstates. Nunn (2004), for example, suggests that children growing up in islandstates may come to view the ‘big’ countries they learn about in their school booksas somehow superior. Constantly focusing on the negative when consideringdevelopment potential in the region, ‘could inflict lasting damage on people’simages of themselves, and on their ability to act with relative autonomy in theirendeavors to survive reasonably well within the international system’ Hau’ofa(1994: 152). Narratives which suggest that island peoples lack resources, areunskilled, and that their islands are ‘tiny’ and ‘fragile’, can stifle the initiative ofisland peoples and make it less likely that they will be able to act with pride andautonomy to determine appropriate development paths and to achieve theirdevelopmental goals.

There is a need then to move beyond stereotypical representations of islandstates, which suggest that they cannot appropriately plan for their futures. It isalso important to quash generalisations that engaging in processes of globalisa-tion, such as growing one’s tourism industry, is damaging to island peoples andtheir environments. We need to appreciate the agency of island peoples, theirability to influence development processes and outcomes. While dependency-style critiques of development in small island states have played an importantrole in showing the limitations of engaging with the global economy, they havefailed to identify effective strategies, whereby island states can and do work tosecure greater benefits from industries like tourism (Oppermann, 1993). EvenFirth (2000: 191), who outlines ways in which globalisation is in some waysproblematic for the peoples of the Pacific, then notes: ‘To be fair, all is not gloom.Most Pacific Island societies have characteristics that will counterbalance glob-alization’. It is such characteristics that constitute the strengths of island peoplesand states, and which we highlight below.

Strengths of Small Island StatesWhile it is important not to romanticise the situation of small islands or

their peoples, in order to identify ways in which development could bringgreater benefits to island peoples and states it is essential that we recognisetheir strengths by identifying positive attributes or forces for change, and thento develop strategies which utilise these strengths. Contrary to McVey’s (2002)sentiments expressed earlier, it is argued here that where island peoples have astrong sense of their importance and of the value of their economic and cultural


resources, this should be lauded. Six areas of strength shared by many – thoughnot all – island states are identified below.6

Small is beautifulFirstly, small can indeed be beautiful (to draw from Schumacher, 1973), as

small land size and relative isolation means that small island states can offeran enticing tourism product that is much in demand around the world: thesun-sand-sea, tropical island paradise (Baum, 1997; Butler, 1993; Gossling, 2003;Peron, 2004; Sheller, 2003). Isolation is often considered a drawback to thosetrading products around the globe, but for tourism, it may be a benefit in thatit tends to make the destination more attractive and exotic, especially in thecase of small islands. The demand for holidays to small island states is growing:according to Gartazar and Marin (1999), ‘islands are the second most importantholiday destination after the category of historic cities’ (cited in d’Hauteserre,2003: 49). Annual growth in international arrivals to small island states between1990 and 2002 was generally much higher than the average international arrivalsgrowth rate of 3.7%, as few examples demonstrate: Samoa (6.2%), Mauritius(8.4%), Maldives (9.1%) and Cuba (18.2%) (Nowak & Sahli, 2007: 49–50).

Even the most vulnerable, tiny atolls at risk from sea-level rises can have aneconomic advantage. Tourists travelling here can delight in the fact that ‘their’island is not shared with any other tourism operators. This is exactly what theMaldives has exploited in their ‘one island, one resort’ strategy (Domroes, 2001).Smaller islands seem to hold a particular allure as evidenced by the number oftourists who, when visiting a larger island, choose to take a side trip to a smallerlandmass (Baum, 1997). Thus, in countries, such as Fiji and the Grenadines,tourists may leave their resort for a day to picnic on a tiny cay, their owndesert island, perhaps lured by what Butler (1993) referred to as the ‘RobinsonCrusoe factor’. Islands provide a specific drawcard for specialist types of touriststoo. Thus, for example, an important market which is particularly prevalent inislands of the Pacific and Indian oceans is that of surf tourists: ‘There are over10 million surfers worldwide and a third of these are cash-rich, time-poor andhence potential tour clients’ (Buckley, 2002: 405).

Small islands are good economic performersSecondly, analysis of a wide range of developing countries has revealed that

small states ‘exhibit an enviable record of economic performance . . . ’, and specif-ically, ‘small islands can leverage returns to scale in global markets’ (Croes, 2006:454). When Armstrong and Read (2006: 89) examined factors which may ‘hand-icap’ small states, they found that, while remoteness from global markets couldbe an impediment to economic development, small island states performed verywell on the whole, especially when compared with small land locked states: ‘in-sularity is associated with better-than-average levels of GNI per capita’. Easterlyand Kraay’s study also revealed that ‘microstates have on average higher incomeand productivity levels than small states’ (1999: 3), while McElroy (2006) notedthat small islands tend to be far more affluent than islands which are larger insize and population. The strong economic performance of many small islandstates is often related to the strength of their tourism sector. One reason for thisis the fact that tourism is a multi-sided product; heavy reliance on tourism is


not necessarily a problem in itself, as tourism is, ‘less vulnerable to the poordemand prospects which make commodity dependence so undesirable’ (Roeet al., 2004: 19). Thus, tourism has achieved higher rates of growth than that ofcommodities.

In addition, small size can facilitate coordination of tourism development,and make it easier to innovate, adapt and change according to market demandsand other priorities (Croes, 2006; Streeten, 1993). The state can institute rapidmicroeconomic reforms, shifting investments in ways that quickly alter theprospects for economic development (Baldacchino, 2000a). Vanegas and Croes(2003), for example, show how the government of Aruba swiftly transformedthis Caribbean island’s dire economic prospects in the mid-1980s by aggres-sively pursuing development of the tourism sector. This resulted in growth intourist arrivals from approximately 181,200 in 1986, to 501,300 just five yearslater, in 1991. By 2000, tourism contributed 43.6% of GDP, provided 35.7% ofemployment and generated almost US $39 million in tax revenue.

Small size also means that it is easier for small island states than for othercountries to give themselves a coherent brand and thus, to signal that they offera niche product. Vanhove (2001: 146), for example, explains that while it is dif-ficult for a country like Belgium to brand itself in the global market, Maldiveshas done so quite easily, successfully targeting the international dive market.Similarly, Dominica has distinguished itself from its Caribbean neighbours sincethe 1970s when it first promoted itself as a nature tourism destination, and itis now regarded as offering ‘a unique brand of Caribbean ecotourism’ (Boxill& Severin, 2004: 1). Meanwhile, St. Lucia has tapped into various niche mar-kets in recent years, winning awards for best ecotourism product and spa re-sort for the Caribbean and best honeymoon destination in the world. In somecases, peripheral islands away from main resort areas have been designated forsmall-scale, alternative forms of tourism, for example, the ‘Family’ islands ofthe Bahamas (Weaver, 2001: 169).

High levels of cultural, social and natural capitalThirdly, there is strong cultural, social and natural capital present within many

small island states (Armstrong & Read, 2006: 80). Together, natural and culturalcapital are a drawcard for tourism, providing the sightseeing and experiencesthat many tourists seek in terms of beaches, rainforests, waterfalls, culinarydistinctiveness, cultural performances, picturesque villages and the like. Forexample, in Anse la Raye, one of the poorest villages in St. Lucia, a seafoodnight was instigated combining availability of freshly cooked seafood (naturalcapital) from over 40 vendors, with entertainment from local artists (culturalcapital). Little economic investment was needed to establish this venture, yetthe Anse la Raye seafood night has grown to the extent that it is now ‘themost popular activity of its kind on the island’ (Renard, 2001: 13). Where smallisland states are offering a more standardised resort experience to visitors, theyare being encouraged to build culture into their tourism ventures. Thus, Boxill(2004) suggests that Jamaica should learn from the experience of other smallisland states and base more of its tourism products upon the history and cultureof the country.


In the sense described above, ‘culture’ is certainly a boost to the economy.However, culture does not just attract tourists: it can also exert an importantcontrolling force over the way in which tourism develops and this, in turn, can bemeaningful in terms of holistic development outcomes for the local population.This is closely connected with the concept of social capital discussed earlier inthis paper. As Skelton asserts, ‘Culture can be the glue that holds communities,households, families and kinships together in the face of intense fracturing,dislocation and insecurity’ (Skelton, 2007: 137), and as such, it can encouragepeople to work together to meet their common interests. By focusing on cultureand the concept of social capital, we can gain insights into how many small islandstates have managed to enhance their standard of living despite the challengesfacing them. Stewart and Strathern, for example, point to the ‘ingenuity andhumanity’ of Pacific Islanders in terms of their ability to respond to outsideforces in positive ways (2005: xiii, cited in Connell, 2007: 117). Baldacchino (2005:38) also claims that, ‘high levels of social capital . . . can catapult an island peopleinto the world with bursting confidence in their ability to handle – together –whatever may be in store’.

Social and cultural capital have had a positive influence on tourism develop-ment in a number of diverse contexts within small island states. For example,when Milne (1997: 289) examined the national development plans of Tonga,Vanuatu, Kiribati and Cook Islands, he found that in each case, the governmentstressed that tourism development should not progress at the expense of localculture and values. The small size of these island states has made it easier tohave cohesive tourism planning and policy-making practices which are flexibleenough to incorporate local cultural values (Campling, 2006: 251). For example,the Samoa 2002–2006 Tourism Development plan has a clear emphasis on localbenefits, cultural integrity and environmental sustainability:

Sustainable tourism development will be undertaken at a rate, and in waysthat will

• generate continuing economic benefits throughout Samoan society;• contribute to a general improvement in the quality of life in Samoa;• reflect, respect and support fa’aSamoa [the Samoan way of life];• conserve and enhance the country’s natural and built environments; and• enhance tourists’ experiences of Samoa (Government of Samoa 2002: 17).

Local control is beneficial for the overall development of small island statesbecause they can then avoid the pitfalls of having an economy dominated by theinterests of foreign investors. Like Samoans, Cook Islanders have a strong senseof pride and distinct local cultures and they too have managed to develop a suc-cessful tourism industry without ‘selling out’ to international investors. Rather,both countries have chosen to support development of many small medium-sized tourism enterprises and there are high levels of local ownerships of thetourism product (Berno, 2003; Scheyvens, 2005). Consequently, much tourismdevelopment remains small and closely embedded in the economies of localcommunities. A similar situation exists in Carriacou in Grenada (Mills, 2002).

Berno (2003) draws on her psychosocial research in the Cook Islands todemonstrate that where resident peoples feel that they exert control overtourism, they are less likely to experience what others may see as negative


social or cultural impacts. Such negative impacts have, as shown earlier in thisarticle, been seen as a major problem with island tourism in the past. A senseof control over tourism may be why the indigenous Carib people of Dominicaalso feel that the social impacts of tourism have been largely positive (Boxill &Severin, 2004). Similarly, in one village in Samoa located adjacent to the famous‘Return to Paradise’ beach (named after the 1950s Hollywood blockbuster whichwas set here), it was decided to close access to the beach on Sundays in order toprotect the peace of the village on this Christian day of rest. Here, a social goalwas prioritised over a commercial one: due to this village’s proximity to thecapital city, Apia, they could have otherwise tapped into the lucrative weekendday-tripper market.

Milne suggests that where there are high levels of local ownership of busi-nesses and strong economic linkages between tourism and other local industries,the benefits can be great

. . . while tourist development in South Pacific microstates is undoubtedlyinfluenced by broader global processes, these nations cannot simply beviewed as victims of change. With careful management and improvedlevels of local participation these nations have the potential to developtourism in a way that offers long-term economic growth without sacrificingthe cultural and environmental inheritance of future generations (Milne,1997: 283).

Boxill (2004) also points to the importance of stronger local participation whenhe suggests that the sustainability of tourism in Jamaica could be significantlyenhanced if tourism planners listened to the views of a variety of civil societyactors.

A small population size combined with strong cultural institutions can alsomean that there are networks in place that constitute effective social capital. Forexample, in island states where there are strong ties to the land, there are likelyto be connections between elites or other business and professional peoplesnow living in urban centres, and their relatives and friends who still residein traditional villages or rural towns. This can help in the establishment andoperation of tourism businesses, with the urban dwellers investing ideas andcapital into rural areas where local people then operate businesses for tourists.Thus, in Samoa, a widow living in a beach side village was able to start abasic beach fale7 business due to a combination of the following: advice from aneighbour who owned a similar enterprise and could not meet demand; moneysent home from a daughter working in Australia; linen sent from a son livingin New Zealand; building help from two nephews living in the main town;and day-to-day assistance with running the venture and managing the accountsfrom a daughter also resident in the village.

Respect for traditional, holistic approaches to developmentRelated to the point above, the fourth strength of many small island states is

the continued respect – although not strict adherence – accorded to traditional,holistic approaches to development and resource management. Contrary toneo-liberal doctrine, traditional belief systems often highlight the importance of


culture, spiritual well-being, environmental stewardship and the well-being offuture generations, rather than prioritising economics. This respect for the pastis acknowledged by Connell who notes that, in the face of external economicand political pressures, some of the most inspiring developments in the PacificIslands region are what he calls ‘alternative indigenous responses’ (Connell,2007: 116). Connell is not romanticising past approaches to development, rather,he uses terms, such as ‘syncretism’ and ‘hybridity’ when referring to ways inwhich Pacific Islanders have engaged with the task of ‘interpreting, rereadingand re-invoking their pasts’ (Connell, 2007: 124).

One traditional concept still applied in Fiji is vanua, a term usually crudelytranslated as ‘land’, but which embraces the physical and human environmentsas well as the spiritual world, as seen in cultural norms and traditional beliefsabout how people relate to nature (Batibasaqa et al., 1999). Vanua is, in turn,strongly related to the notion that people should respect all of creation and havea sense of stewardship in relation to use of natural resources:

The philosophy of the vanua has served as the guiding principle for thevillagers in the management and sustainable use of the rain forest, man-grove forest, coral reef, and village garden . . . . [These] are the very sameresources that support tourism. (Sinha & Bushell, 2002: 35)

While colonialism, the monetary economy and other forces have modified theconcept of vanua over time, Batibasaqa et al. (1999: 106), nevertheless, argue thatit is still ingrained in the Fijian psyche and that terms, such as this could be usedto develop ‘an alternative set of values, based in the past but aware of the present,that can act as an effective counter to dominant ideologies of resource develop-ment and exploitation’. This also leads Sinha and Bushell to conclude that vanua‘could serve as a powerful mechanism promoting the linkage between biodi-versity conservation and tourism management’ (2002: 35). Continued respectfor the concept of vanua and its influences on current practice, including theestablishment of marine protected areas and forest conservation, as in BoumaNational Heritage Park in Fiji (Mohamed & Clark, 1996), provides an exampleof how island communities have regularly demonstrated ‘subtle ways of doingdevelopment differently and embedding these alternatives/tactics/weaponswithin pre-existing cultural practices’ (Skelton, 2007: 136).

Respect for traditional communal land tenure systems is another exampleof the adoption of a holistic, more sustainable approach to development. Suchsystems, much to the concern of certain business interests, mean that it is difficultfor outsiders to buy land for tourism development. In Samoa, customary landtenure accounts for 81% of land, including most coastal land desired by touristdevelopers (Twining-Ward & Twining-Ward, 1998: 269). In such circumstances,there also tends to be higher levels of ownership of the tourism product; outsideinvestors typically need to enter into partnership arrangements to gain accessto land for hotel or resort development, or lease land on terms, which ensuregood benefits to local communities from tourism.

In addition, the communal land tenure arrangements in many small islandstates provide what Firth (2000: 191) has referred to as ‘an informal system ofsocial security’ based on a broad range of livelihood strategies which families


rely on to survive. For example, they may produce primary produce (vegetables,fruit, fish) for sale, trade or consumption, manufacture crafts to sell to tourists,have wage work in the government or tourism sector and receive remittances.This diversity of livelihood strategies, especially where there is still access toland and/or the sea for subsistence purposes, provides resilience or ‘buoyancy’during low points in tourism.

Some of the traditional livelihood strategies discussed above draw on TIK(traditional indigenous knowledge), which is being increasingly recognised ascontributing to sustainable development outcomes. For example, even the Foodand Agriculture Organization, after many years of pushing export-orientedagricultural production, have identified that ‘Food security and the environmentcould be improved in many SIDS by reinvigorating some traditional indigenousfood systems’ (2005). In this way, traditional systems of agriculture could be usedto provide resorts with local, organic produce so sought after by well-heeledtourists.

Strong international linkagesA fifth strength of small island states, as highlighted by Baldacchino (2005: 35–

36) is their strong international ties. This can be seen both through the amounts ofgoods and services traded between small islands and other states, and throughthe movement of their peoples often across large sections of the globe. As op-posed to considering ‘autarkist development strategies’, islands ‘have had toexport – staples, manufactures, services and people – or perish . . . they haveworked best by transcending the limitations of their small physical environ-ment’ (Baldacchino, 2005: 35). They are thus characterised by an externallyfocused economy, and this ‘simultaneously reduces the impact of the economiesof scale constraint’ (Armstrong & Read, 2006: 80) and ‘stimulates competitionand permits small states to exploit new opportunities in the global economy’(Charles, 1997: 9).

Island peoples often have long histories of movement and relatively highlevels of mobility. It is not surprising that where political relationships withmetropolitan countries allow, they move away to pursue employment or otheropportunities. This leads to an openness to diversity and strong internationalties (Baldacchino, 2005; Coles & Timothy, 2004; Connell, 2007). Thus those res-ident in small island states, through their overseas linkages, have ‘a wealth ofopportunities far wider than the geographically constrained fields of the islandhome’ (Conway, 1997: 22). In recent years Connell (2007: 121) asserts the ‘out-ward urge’ among Pacific Islanders has grown and consequently ‘migration hasboomed’ with involvement of both Polynesian and Micronesian peoples, someof whom have gained particularly lucrative contracts abroad as in the case ofFijians employed as security workers in the Middle East.

Such peoples from a range of Pacific and Caribbean islands tend to retainstrong links with ‘home’, however, sending remittances, maintaining multi-ple, transnational identities and travelling or otherwise supporting their homeislands in various ways (Duval, 2003; Mills, 2007). This leads Conway (1997:22) to conclude that ‘The future of every Caribbean society is inextricably tiedto the wider society, which would include the overseas, enclave sojourners,


emigrant-relatives, and expatriates as essential functionaries, not lost emigres’.Even from a distance, emigrants often provide great support to the people oftheir home islands both economically, through remittances, and through trans-ferring skills, knowledge and technologies (Baldacchino, 2000b): ‘The return ofemigrants whether temporary or permanent acts as a source of resilience in termsof the circulation of new ideas, best practice, skills and expertise’ (Campling,2006: 267). In addition, Campling suggests that ‘networks of emigres could actas a central source of advocacy in advanced industrial countries to supportresident island peoples and SIDS in their struggle for recognition of their objec-tives’ (2006: 267). They also tend to travel ‘home’ regularly as part of the oftenunder-rated VFR (Visiting Friends and Relatives) market, and they provide amore stable tourism market than foreign tourists (Scheyvens, 2007).

Political strengthFinally, small island states often have political strength beyond what would

be expected for their physical and demographic size.Earlier in this paper, reference was made to discourse on the geopolitical sig-

nificance of small island states. Rather than making small islands mere pawnsin a game played out by larger states, this is a source of strength to many smallislands, particularly the sovereign states, offering them equal voting power withother, much larger countries at the United Nations, and strategic positions inconflict situations: ‘Due primarily to decolonization and the corresponding inter-nationalization of sovereignty, SIDS are able to secure a disproportionately highlevel of power’ (Campling, 2006: 251). Poirine (1998) refers to the ‘creative trans-territorial diplomacy’ displayed by politically autonomous small island stateswhereby they can, for example, secure significant sums of aid per capita due tothe control they have over large areas of territory, including air space and seas.

In addition, there tend to be strong nationalistic tendencies within smallisland states: ‘the nationalism of “imagined communities” is far easier to “imag-ine” because of small population size, physical isolation from the impacts andinfluences of other societies and the associated insularity of island societies’(Campling, 2006: 251). The physical constraints of islands have often promotedstrong communities with a shared language and history, whose identity maybe forged through collective resistance to outside forces (Baldacchino, 2005: 42).Citing the overwhelming pride exhibited by the peoples of (Western) Samoa andEast Timor becoming sovereign states, Baldacchino notes that ‘Small islandershave confounded both neo-classical economists and hard nosed political sci-entists, thwarting their deduced notions of non-viability and diseconomies ofscale’ (2004: 279).

While there have been serious challenges to the political stability of somesmall island states, as noted earlier, many others demonstrate high levels ofinstitutional coherence: ‘the political systems of small states tend to be pragmaticand robust, able to withstand significant challenges which larger states wouldfind difficult to meet’ (Charles, 1997: 10). This may demonstrate further thebuoyancy of small island states in the face of outside pressures, whereby theytend to be ‘more socially and politically resilient in the face of external adversitythan most other developing countries’ (Campling, 2006: 251).


ConclusionsIn light of the evidence presented above, it appears that the vulnerabil-

ity and dependence of small island states has been overstated in much ofthe tourism and general development literature. To suggest that ‘smallness is. . . synonymous with being powerless, vulnerable and non-viable’ (Baldacchino,2000a: 28) is to present an inaccurate picture of development prospects for smallisland states around the world. This feeds into discourses which present islandstates as requiring help and advice from outside organisations and institutions,which invariably have their own political, environmental and economic agen-das. It is important to dispense with this line of thinking if small island statesare to be able to pursue self-determined futures.

While the diversity of small island states makes it difficult to provide definitivestatements about strengths which they all share, we have identified a numberof areas of strength – even if they do not apply to all small island states – as ameans of asserting an alternative imaginary to that posited by the dominantdiscourses of fragility and vulnerability applied to studies of small island states.

In some ways, the agency of island communities will be determined by howthey can use the ‘strengths’ outlined above. Their prospects may look morepositive if they have retained control over land and marine resources, if theyhave strong social institutions and a genuine sense of pride and cultural identity,if their natural capital is in good condition and if there are strong links to thediaspora. With regard to this latter point, Connell notes

. . . islanders must continue to forge island futures in their own moulds – insmall islands and island states where options will always be constrained,some solutions lie on distant continents across sometimes stormy waters(2007: 130–131).

While Connell is referring here to solutions centred on migration, these distantcontinents also offer possibilities centred on tourism, bringing tourist dollars toisland states. Importantly, these tourists are increasingly interested in sociallyand environmentally responsible tourist experiences, which could contribute tomore sustainable development outcomes for island states.

This article confirms Campling and Rosalie’s finding, that in discussions ofthe prospects of small island states, there needs to be more attention to socialaspects of sustainability (2006: 116):

While the economic and environmental vulnerabilities/volatilities of SIDSare of utmost analytical and policy importance, reaffirming the centrality of‘the social’ in general . . . is imperative in understanding both the potentialconsequences of these volatilities and the means of developing and insti-tutionalizing (albeit limited) resilient responses to globalizing capitalism.

In this light, it would be valuable for tourism researchers to pay more attentionto social and cultural issues in small island states, as this would raise awarenessof the strengths and adaptability of island peoples, their traditions, institu-tions and environments, showing that they have a number of qualities and re-sources which they can and do draw upon in determining positive developmentpaths for themselves. Campling (2006: 236) takes this argument a step further,


asserting that sustainable development of small island states will be predicatedupon cooperation of ‘a popular democratic base of island citizens’ both withinisland states and between them, involving coordination across the vast oceans ofthe world.

A promising development which has been raised in this article is the emer-gence of new development paradigms surrounding the concept of social capital,and the associated attention now paid to social and cultural aspects of devel-opment: ‘culture is an essential element that development has to take seriously,engage with, and respect’ (Skelton, 2007: 137). One reason for this interest inculture is concern about the supposed homogenising effects of globalisation.In the last few years, culture has ‘ . . . acquired a new visibility and salience indevelopment thinking and practice’ (Radcliffe, 2006: 1). Such acceptance of theimportance of culture has, in turn, led to openness to different developmenttrajectories for both policy and practice. Examples of tourism developmentin places, such as Return to Paradise beach in Samoa and Anse la Raye inSt. Lucia show that there are a variety of ways, that non-western peoples canuse ‘their encounters with capitalism to develop their own culture in its ownterms’ (Connell, 2007: 127).

The onus is now on the tourism sector and tourism researchers concernedwith small island states to be more open to such alternative conceptualisationsof development paths which do not just prioritise economic growth, but whichrecognise the importance of social, cultural, political and environmental well-being as well.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Associate Professor Regina

Scheyvens, Massey University – School of People, Environment and Planning,P.O. Box 11222, Palmerston North PN, New Zealand ([email protected]).

Notes1. Please note that this article focuses on tropical small island states, as it is these states

which have most often been identified as fragile and vulnerable from both economicand environmental perspectives.

2. ‘Imaginary’ is used here not as an adjective but as a noun; the phrase alternativeimaginary means an alternative way in which things might be understood.

3. While acknowledging concerns about the widespread, non-critical application ofthis term (see, e.g. Fine, 2002), we chose to use it in this article as we regard it asa valuable conceptual tool which highlights the importance of strong culture andsocial institutions and networks in influencing development outcomes. That is, it canhelp to highlight strengths of the local context, and brings attention back to the oftenneglected social dimensions of development.

4. The original appears in Cook Islands Maori in Connell (2007) as well.5. Thus, it is not surprising that in 1998, 72% of the population of New Caledonia

voted in favour of the Noumea Accord, which grants greater political power, and thepromise of a referendum on independence within the next five to ten years, to theKanak people.

6. We are aware that while they often share geographic similarities in terms of smallsize, remoteness and a lack of natural resources, small island states also exhibit hugedifferences in terms of history, culture, politics and economics. Thus, we raise some


general points here about the strengths of small island states, which will apply tosome countries more than others.

7. A Fale, (pronounced fah-lay), is a traditional Samoan thatched roof hut, usually withwoven blinds instead of walls.

ReferencesArmstrong, H. and Read, R. (2000) Comparing the economic performance of dependent

territories and sovereign territories. Economic Development and Cultural Change 48 (2),285–306.

Armstrong, H. and Read, R. (2006) Geographical ‘handicaps’ and small states: Someimplications for the Pacific from a global perspective. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 47 (1),79–92.

Baldacchino, G. (2000a) An exceptional success: The case of an export-oriented, locally-owned, small-scale manufacturing firm in a small island country. The Journal of PacificStudies 23 (1), 27–47.

Baldacchino, G. (2000b) The challenge of hypothermia: A six-proposition manifesto forsmall island territories. The Round Table 353 (1), 65–79.

Baldacchino, G. (2004) The coming of age of island studies. Tijdschrift voor Economische enSociale Geografie 95 (3), 272–283.

Baldacchino, G. (2005) The contribution of ‘social capital’ to economic growth: Lessonsfrom island jurisdictions. The Round Table 94 (1), 31–46.

Batibasaqa, K., Overton, J. and Horsley, P. (1999) Vanua: Land, people, and culture in Fiji.In J. Overton and R. Scheyvens (eds) Strategies for Sustainable Development: Experiencesfrom the Pacific (pp. 100–106). London: Zed Books.

Baum, T. (1997) The fascination of islands: A tourist perspective. In D.G. Lockhart andD. Drakakis-Smith (eds) Island Tourism: Trends and Prospects (pp. 21–35). London: Pinter.

Berno, T. (2003) Local control and the sustainability of tourism in the Cook Islands. InD. Harrison (ed.) Pacific Island Tourism (pp. 94–109). New York: CognizantCommunication.

Bertram, G. (2004) On the convergence of small island economies with their metropolitanpatrons. World Development 32 (2), 343–364.

Betermier, S. (2004) Selectivity and the economics of independence for today’s overseasterritories. Explorations: The UC Davis Undergraduate Research Journal 7 (1), 63–87.

Boxill, I. (2004) Towards an alternative tourism for Jamaica. International Journal of Con-temporary Hospitality Management 16 (4), 269–272.

Boxill, I. and Severin, F. (2004) An exploratory study of tourism development and itsimpact on the Caribs of Dominica. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Ad-ministration 5 (1), 1–27.

Briguglio, L., Archer, B., Jafari, J. and Wall, G. (1996) Sustainable Tourism in Islands andSmall States: Issues and Policies. London: Pinter.

Britton, S.G. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the third world. Annals of TourismResearch 9 (3), 331–358.

Brohman, J. (1996) New directions in tourism for the Third World. Annals of TourismResearch 23 (1), 48–70.

Buckley, R. (2002) Surf tourism and sustainable development in Indo-Pacific Islands. 1.The industry and the islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10 (5), 405–424.

Butler, R.W. (1993) Tourism development in small islands: Past influences and futuredirections. In D.G. Lockhart, D. Drakakis-Smith and J. Schembri (eds) The DevelopmentProcess in Small Island States (pp. 71–91). London: Routledge.

Campling, L. (2006) A critical political economy of the small island developing statesconcept: South–South cooperation for island citizens? Journal of Developing Societies 22(3), 235–285.

Campling, L. and Rosalie, M. (2006) Sustaining social development in a small islanddeveloping state? The case of Seychelles. Sustainable Development 14 (1), 115–125.

Charles, M.E. (1997) The Future for Small States: Overcoming Vulnerability. London: Com-monwealth Secretariat.


Chappell, D. (1999) The Nourmea Accord: Decolonization Without Independence in NewCaledonia? Pacific Affairs 72 (3), 373–391.

Coles, T. and Timothy, D.J. (2004) Tourism, Diasporas and Space. London: Routledge.Connell, J. (2007) Islands, idylls and the detours of development. Singapore Journal of

Tropical Geography 28 (2), 116–135.Conway, D. (1997) Pursuing an appropriate development model for Caribbean small

islands: Can past experience help subvert the neo-liberal agenda? Paper presented atthe Latin American Studies Association XX International Congress, Guadalajara, Mexico,April 17–19, 1997.

Croes, R.R. (2006) A paradigm shift to a new strategy for small island economies: Embrac-ing demand side economics for value enhancement and long term economic stability.Tourism Management 27 (3), 453–465.

D’Hauteserre, A. (2003) A response to ‘Misguided policy initiatives in small-island desin-tations: Why do up-market tourism policies fail?’ by Dimitri Ioannides and BriavelHolcomb. Tourism Geographies 5 (1), 49–53.

Dinnen, S. (2004) Aid effectiveness and Australia’s new interventionism in the SouthwestPacific. Development Bulletin 65 (1), 76–80.

Domroes, M. (2001) Conceptualising state-controlled resort islands for an environment-friendly development of tourism: The Maldivian experience. Singapore Journal of TropicGeography 22 (2), 122–137.

Duval, D.T. (2003) When hosts become guests: Return visits and diasporic identities ina commonwealth Eastern Caribbean community. Current Issues in Tourism 6 (4), 267–308.

Easterly, W. and Kraay, A. (1999) Small states, small problems? Policy Research WorkingPaper 2139. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Fine, B. (2002) They f**k you up those social capitalists. Antipode 34 (4), 796–799.Firth, S. (2000) The Pacific Islands and the globalization agenda. The Contemporary Pacific

12 (1), 178–192.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2005) Small Island

Developing States Struggle to Survive. On WWW at www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2005/1000142/. Accessed 22.11.2005.

Fry, G. (1993) At the margin: The South Pacific and changing world order. In R. Leaverand J.L. Richardson (eds) Charting the Post-Cold War Order (pp. 224–242). Boulder:Westview Press.

Gossling, S. (2003) Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands: Political Ecology Perspectives.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Government of Samoa (2002) Samoa Tourism Development Plan 2002–2006: A Focused Futurefor Tourism in Samoa. Wellington: Tourism Resource Consultants.

Harrison, D. (2003) Themes in Pacific Island tourism. In D. Harrison (ed.) Pacific IslandTourism (pp. 1–23). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.

Hau’ofa, E. (1994) Our sea of islands. Contemporary Pacific 6 (1), 148–161.Hoti, S., McAleer, M. and Shareef, R. (2005) Modelling country risk and un-

certainty in small island tourism economies. Tourism Economics 11 (2), 159–183.

Maclellan, N. and Chesneaux, J. (1998) After Mururoa: France in the South Pacific.Melbourne: Ocean Press.

Mandle, J. 1996 Persistent Underdevelopment: Change and Economic Modernization in theWest Indies. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

McElroy, J.L. (2006) Small island tourist economies across the life cycle. Asia PacificViewpoint 47 (1), 61–77.

McElroy, J.L. and de Albuquerque, K. (2002) Problems for managing sustainable tourismin small islands. In Y. Apostolopoulos and D.J. Gayle (eds) Island Tourism and SustainableDevelopment: Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean Experiences (pp. 15–31). Westport, CT:Praeger.

McVey, M. (2002) The economic impact of island tourism on local communities. In TheEconomic Impact of Tourism in the Islands of Asia and the Pacific: A Report on the WTOInternational Conference on Tourism and Island Economies (pp. 94–119). Madrid: WorldTourism Organization.


Mills, B. (2002) Family Land in Carriacou, Grenada and its meaning within the transna-tional community: Heritage, identity and rooted mobility. Unpublished PhD disserta-tion, University of California, Davis.

Mills, B. (2007) “Leave to come back”: The importance of family land in a transnationalcommunity. In J. Besson and H. Momsen (eds) Caribbean Land and Development Revisited.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Milne, S. (1997) Tourism, dependency and South Pacific microstates: Beyond the viciouscycle? In D.G. Lockhart and D. Drakakis-Smith (eds) Island Tourism: Trends and Prospects(pp. 281–301). London: Pinter.

Mohamed, N. and Clark, K. (1996) Forestry on customary-owned land: Some experiencesfrom the South Pacific. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 19a. London:Overseas Development Institute.

Murray, W.E. (2000) Neoliberal globalisation, “exotic” agro-exports, and local changein the Pacific Islands: A study of the Fijian kava sector. Singapore Journal of TropicalGeography 21 (3), 355–373.

Neto, F. (2003) A new approach to sustainable tourism development: Moving beyondenvironmental protection. Natural Resources Forum 27 (3), 212–222.

Nowak, J-J. and Sahli, M. (2007) Coastal tourism and ‘Dutch disease’ in a small islandeconomy. Tourism Economics 13 (10), 49–65.

Nunn, P. (2004) Through a mist on the ocean: Human understanding of island environ-ments. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 95 (3), 311–325.

Opperman, M. (1993) Tourism space in developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research20 (3), 535–556.

Peron, F. (2004) The contemporary lure of the island. Tijdschrift voor Economische en SocialeGeografie 95 (3), 326–339.

Poirine, B. (1998) Should we hate or love MIRAB? The Contemporary Pacific 10 (1), 65–107.Potter, R. (1993) Basic needs and development in the small island states of the Eastern

Caribbean. In D.G. Lockhart, D. Drakakis-Smith and J. Schembri (eds) The DevelopmentProcess in Small Island States (pp. 92–116). London: Routledge.

Potter, R., Barker, D., Klak, T. and Conway, D. (2004) The Contemporary Caribbean. Harlow:Prentice Hall.

Radcliffe, S.A. (2006) Culture and Development in a Globalizing World: Geographies, Actors,and Paradigms. London: Routledge.

Renard, Y. (2001) Practical strategies for pro-poor tourism: A case study of the St.Lucia Heritage Tourism Programme. PPT Working Paper No. 7. On WWW at www.propoortourism.org.uk/st lucia cs.pdf. Accessed 3.3.2007.

Roe, D., Ashley, C., Page, S. and Meyer, D. (2004) Tourism and the poor: Analyzing andinterpreting tourism statistics from a poverty perspective. PPT Working Paper No. 16.On WWW at www.propoortourism.org.uk/16 stats.pdf. Accessed 3.3.2007.

Scarpaci, J.L. (2006) Environmental planning and heritage tourism in Cuba during thespecial period: Challenges and opportunities. In J Pugh and J.H. Momsen (eds) Envi-ronmental Planning in the Caribbean (pp. 73–92). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Scheyvens, R. (2005) Growth of beach fale tourism in Samoa: The high value of low-cost tourism. In C.M. Hall and S. Boyd (eds) Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral Areas:Development or Disaster (pp. 188–202). Clevedon: Channelview Publications.

Scheyvens, R. (2007) Poor cousins no more: Valuing the development potential of do-mestic and diaspora tourism. Progress in Development Studies 7 (4), 307–325.

Scheyvens, R. and Momsen, J. (2008) Tourism and poverty reduction: Issues for smallisland states. Tourism Geographies 10 (1), 22–41.

Schumacher, E.F. (1973) Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered.London: Blond and Briggs.

Sheller, M. (2003) Consuming the Caribbean. London: Routledge.Sinha, C.C. and Bushell, R. (2002) Understanding the linkage between biodiversity and

tourism: A study of ecotourism in coastal village in Fiji. Pacific Tourism Review 6 (10),35–50.

Skelton, T. (2007) Islands for the young: Culture and development for all – A commentaryon John Connell’s ‘Islands, idylls and the detours of development’. Singapore Journalof Tropical Geography 28 (2), 136–138.


Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Stonich, S. (2003) The political ecology of Marine Protected Areas: The case of the BayIslands. In S. Gossling (ed.) Tourism and Development in Tropical Islands: Political EcologyPerspectives (pp. 121–147). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Streeten, P. (1993) The special problems of small countries. World Development 21 (2),197–202.

Tevi, F. (1997) Vulnerability: A Pacific reality. Paper presented at the Summit of ACPHeads of State and Government, Libreville, Gabon, November 6–7, 1997. On WWWat http://www.acpsec.org/summits/gabon/tevi.htm. Accessed 30.5.2007.

Thomas-Hope, E. (ed.) (1998) Solid Waste Management: Critical Issues for Developing Coun-tries Mona, Jamaica: UWI Canoe Press.

Turnball, J. (2003) South Pacific agendas in the quest to protect natural areas. Developmentand Change 34 (1), 1–24.

Twining-Ward, L. and Twining-Ward, T. (1998) Tourism development in Samoa: Contextand constraints. Pacific Tourism Review 2, 261–271.

UNESCO (2003) Small islands: Looking forward – Beyond 2004. On WWWat http://www.sidsnet.org/docshare/other/20030909151802 B10 Foward.doc. Ac-cessed 21.5.2007.

Vanegas, M. and Croes, R.R. (2003) Growth, development and tourism in a small econ-omy: Evidence from Aruba. International Journal of Tourism Research 5 (5), 315–330.

Vanhove, N. (2001) Globalisation of tourism demand, global distribution systems andmarketing. In S. Wahab and D. Cooper (eds) Tourism in the Age of Globalisation(pp. 123–156). London: Routledge.

Weaver, D. (2001) Mass and alternative tourism in the Caribbean. In D Harrison (ed.)Tourism and the Less Developed World: Issues and Case Studies (pp. 161–174). Wallingford:CABI Publishing.

Tourism in small island states: From vulnerability to strengths

Documents