Sustainable Design for Ecotourism

Deserves Diversity
The Ecotourism Association of Australia
National Conference - Taking the Next Steps
18-23 November 1995
Alice Springs, Australia

John Gertsakis
EcoReDesign Project Manager
National Key Centre for Design at RMIT
Email: john.gertsakis@rmit.edu.au

ABSTRACT

This paper is aims to highlight a range of issues and dilemmas

associated with the design of small scale tourism facilities for natural
environments. It is collection of observations which draw attention to
the need for diversity in design, particularly in relation to technology
selection and aesthetic qualities. Most of all it argues against the
development and promotion of absolute design criteria, suggesting that
greater attention should be given to sustainable outcomes rather than
'checklists'. The environmental value of selectively transferring
technology from the aerospace, marine and automobile industries is
also considered. Other issues briefly discussed include life-cycle
environmental impacts, minimum ecological footprint, high-tech
design, and learning from product design. Overall the paper asks more
questions than it answers.

Introduction

The evolution of ecotourism brings with it the need to rethink, or at least review the
attitudes, assumptions and philosophies, which often underpin the design of tourism
facilities.[1] This is further reinforced by the widespread recognition that the principles of
ecologically sustainable development should guide how humans interact with their
environment.[2] Given this shift in activity and public awareness, some alternative ideas
deserve exploration with a view to maximizing the environmental performance of tourism
facilities.

Design should not be viewed as a static process governed by standard guidelines. Those
interested in genuine notions of sustainable tourism should be driven by outcomes, rather
than by checklists, which generalize and naively propose recycled construction materials
as the solution for every problem.

Similarly, design principles that espouse that all development should be 'simple' in design,
use local materials, be subordinate to the landscape, and employ low-tech solutions, reflect
a regressive impetus - one informed by history, not diversity and performance. Although
well intentioned, such principles should be used only as reference points, and not followed
religiously.

It is vital that the ecotourism industry be informed by other areas of environmental

information and marketing. Green consumerism is taking hold beyond appliances,
detergents or toilet paper, and has already surfaced in ecotourism.[3] Consumers of
tourism products will become increasingly discerning about the credibility of
environmental claims made by operators. This means that the visual and operational
performance of facilities must match the rhetoric, if ecotourism is to grow and develop
with integrity. A more critical and innovative approach to facility design is paramount,
otherwise with every new development born, could result a lost opportunity. This paper
flags some observations and propositions, which might help identify these opportunities
and maximize design's potential in ecotourism.

The collective message is about challenging the accepted, questioning assumptions and
deviating from the norm. Above all, the arguments put forward are based on the need for
diversity in design. Whether its about definitions, technologies or aesthetics, the
importance of multiple responses should not be underestimated. The ideas are presented as
a series of directions to explore and test, and aim to highlight some dilemmas often under
discussed. By no means are they advocated as a checklist for environmentally sensitive
and educational tourism facilities.

The Dilemma of Definitions

Any discussion about design for ecotourism should momentarily address some definitional
issues. History has shown that buzzwords can help raise awareness about otherwise
abstract concepts, however not unlike the debates surrounding the meaning of ecotourism
or sustainability,[4] distortion and mere complexity can cloud the integrity (and meaning)
of such concepts. Design and its array of adjectives is by no means immune to such
distortions. So what is sustainable design? Is it different to environmentally sensitive
design? How does a designer synthesize the macro concept of ecologically sustainable
development into a physical structure used for interpretation and/or shelter? What are the
performance indicators?

This selective list of questions illustrates that sustainable design is more complex than
specifying recycled materials or adopting passive solar design. Based on an ethic,
sustainable design should blend the creative and the technical to help ensure the generation
of products and buildings, which are ecologically enhancing, economically progressive,
and culturally desirable.

Attempts to define and develop the broad suite of terms based on environmentally and
socially responsible design have gained a substantial boost in the last decade, both in terms
of architecture, but more so in the domain of product design.[5] Not since the early 70s
and Victor Papanek's landmark book, Design for the Real World,[6] has design received
such environmentally inspired attention. Papanek was a fierce advocate of socio-
environmental responsibility across design disciplines from product to architecture. Penny
Sparke in her book, Design and Culture in the Twentieth Century, encapsulates Papanek's
essential design philosophy, one emphasized by:

'a repeated exhortation for the designer to stop occupying himself with
'toys for adults' an to start working instead ... on real problems such as
those presented by the handicapped, the Third World, the elderly and
the demands of world ecology'.[7]

Papanek's most recent book, The Green Imperative: Ecology and Ethics in Design and
Architecture (1995), continues his earlier arguments, with the added dimension of over
twenty years of social, ecological and technological change all impacting upon the
definition of what design is, or more pertinently, what Papanek believes it should be.[8]

One of the more detailed tourism-based elaborations of sustainable design and its
objectives is to be found in The Ecolodge Sourcebook for Planners and Developers .[9]
Despite reflecting a sometime evangelical approach to design correctness, this sourcebook
should not be ignored. Its case studies combined with design guidelines and project-
planning strategies provide a useful starting point for designers or developers wanting to
understand the Ecotourism Society's (USA) perspective on facility design.
For those practitioners interested in a more 'local' set of principles, the Royal Australian
Institute of Architects have in place a conceptually solid Environment Policy. [10]

Ultimately definitions, principles and policies can only have a limited influence on how to
design sustainable and educational tourism facilities. The most memorable buildings be
they for tourism, living or working, are not the result of absolute criteria. Design is a
creative process - a hybrid between art, science and engineering. Although some broad
parameters are required to control those with excessive egos and destructive habits, it is a
myth to believe that a detailed definition of sustainable design will facilitate sustainable
tourism outcomes.

Life Cycle Impacts and Ecological Footprints

In terms of environmentally sensitive design practice and theory, one of the single most
distinguishing features in recent thinking has been the attention to life-cycle impacts.
Whether applied to appliances, packaging, or tourism facilities, a life-cycle or cradle to
grave approach aims to be holistic. It seeks to be comprehensive is assessing
environmental impacts throughout an object's life (product, building or service). From a
more technical perspective, a life-cycle approach tries to identify, quantify and assess the
impacts associated with every stage including:

Raw materials extraction and processing

Manufacture or construction;
Use and operation;
Transport and distribution; and
Disposal, recycling and/or demolition.

Historically, environmentally sensitive design has embraced one or two key issues,
focusing on a very particular stage of a building's life cycle, usually that of materials
composition or operation. Although a commendable first step, such foci do not reflect
the total range of impacts resulting from decisions made at the design stage. For
example, a building material perceived to be environmentally appropriate during the
operation stage, may have been produced through a highly polluting or energy
intensive production process, or may have end-of-life implications when disposed of,
and thus the dilemma emerges.

Ultimately, which is more sustainable - a building material cleanly produced, with no

emissions or impacts during the use stage, but difficult to recycle? Or is it more
sustainable to specify a material, with a relatively high-embodied energy content that has
no impacts during use and is highly recyclable, but consumes vast quantities of energy and
water to reprocess?

Answering such questions is not a matter of considering the material in isolation, nor is it
matter of straight science. Indeed generalizing about any material, energy source,
water/sewage treatment method, construction process (or demolition process), without
considering the specific application, its location, its life span, the user-interaction and other
building life-cycle variations, is a risk-laden approach to design. It not only fails to
recognize the life-cycle impacts of decisions made at the design stage, but also ignores the
synergistic consequences of mixing incremental environmental design improvements. A
significant step in addressing some of these issues from a life-cycle perspective has been
taken by the United States National Park Service in its Environmentally Responsible
Building Products Guide.[11]

So what is the basic message? Avoid generalizing, and always adopt a critical and
questioning attitude in assessing what is, and what is not, environmentally appropriate. A
design process aimed at generating sustainable outcomes has no place for catch-cry claims.
The need to be vigilant of assertions such as: paper is 'greener' than plastics, timber is
'greener' than steel, or low-tech is 'greener' than high-tech - is vital. As slogans they lack
rigour and conveniently dismiss the specifics of site and application. Such claims reflect
the hype of those intoxicated with confrontation, and should not form the core principles
of committed designers and ecotourism operators.

The next step toward relating a life-cycle design approach to ecotourism involves the
notion of the minimum ecological footprint, and the underpinning view that any
development will have an impact which extends beyond its boundary.[12] For example,
consider the source of materials (for construction or for use), or any waste products from
the facility (from construction and use). Furthermore take into account the impact of
transporting materials or waste (including the source of fuel and the release of emissions to
air, water and soil). It quickly becomes apparent that an impact can extend far beyond a
development site. Energy supply and use, water supply and treatment of grey water and
sewage, food supply and people transport - all aspects of a tourism development involves
cycles that extend beyond a site boundary.

Consequently it is possible to talk in conceptual terms about a facility's ecological

footprint, as a relative measure of the area of the total ecosystem affected by the existence
and operation of a development. In broad terms the smaller the ecological footprint the
better.
It is just one way of viewing a tourism facility's environmental impact from a life-cycle
perspective, in which all environmental affects are considered along a chain which
progresses from materials extraction, to construction, to operation, and finally, disposal of
waste or maybe demolition. Between each of these phases in the life of materials (or
energy), there is usually some form of transport, with distance traveled, and the transport
mechanism contributing to the total environmental impact.

As a conceptual design tool, the minimum ecological footprint is an approach rather than a
measurable system. It is about reminding designers that the existence and operation of
such a facility draws on, or projects into an environment far removed from the immediate
location. And that design can reduce such projections at the earliest possible stage, rather
than address undesirable impacts after the facility is built and operational. Adopting a
minimum ecological footprint approach helps ensure that a problem addressed at the site is
not being dealt with by transferring its impact elsewhere.

Beyond Low-Tech and Rustic

The role and image of technology in natural environments can be a contentious issue,
especially when associated with tourism facilities. Technology type, be it high, low,
alternative, sophisticated or appropriate, is often seen as a crucial decision influencing the
overall image, function and performance of a facility. Whether in relation to construction
materials, energy generation, waste treatment or interpretation, the dominant view is
generally in favour of low-tech and local materials.[13]

Such a view offers much appeal and presents an image of minimal development, low
environmental impact, and other qualities associated with all things natural. Furthermore it
exudes connotations of contrast and opposites. However low-tech in ecotourism has more
to do with escaping the artificial, the urban and the complexities of city life, than it does
with ecological appropriateness or sustainability.

The proposition that low-tech has some intrinsic value and intimate relevance to natural
environments is partially flawed. And using the technologies and materials as historically
employed by indigenous cultures, pioneers or folk-oriented traditions as the primary
justification is overly simplistic. Vernacular architecture or traditional technologies are a
rich reference from which to respectfully borrow, but to mimic for the sake of aesthetics or
perceived ecological benefits fails to recognize the contemporary functions of tourism
facilities.
Vernacular architectures have evolved not because of some global treaty or convention,
which declared for all time that small is beautiful, or that simple is synonymous with low
impact. The architecture of indigenous cultures is the result of dynamic natural and social
processes, where geology, ecology, hydrology and other natural forces interact with human
innovation and spontaneity. Bernard Rudofsky, in his highly informative book,
Architecture Without Architects, illustrates the complexities of vernacular architecture
with countless insights on the process of building and living in landscapes best described
as exotic, remote, fragile, hostile and topographically changeling.[14]

If sustainable tourism development is the goal, then the process of selecting technology
type should be determined in the first instance by its ability to eliminate or minimise
adverse environmental impacts. A Canadian symposium convened by the Alpine Club of
Canada on 'Water, Energy and Waste Management in Alpine Shelters' , highlighted the
dilemmas of not relinquishing long held traditions and conventions regarding the use of
technology in wild places:

'We can anticipate objections from those who have decided that
technology is inherently bad and those who think that such
technologies are inconsistent with he experience they are seeking in the
mountain environment. This is in spite of the technology present in the
car or bicycle or skis they used to get there. There is no doubt that, at
least initially, such technologies may appear to compromise the
'naturalness' of a wilderness experience. However, if the alternatives
lead to compromising the wilderness itself, it would seem that the
thoughtful use of technology would be the lesser of two evils.' [15]

Yet again, the importance of diversity emerges. Selecting the most appropriate technology
is the objective, not blindly advocating one over the other. Where a low-tech response
blends well with the landscape, meets the interpretative needs, is compatible with the
overall site and building design, then low-tech is an excellent solution. However, where
the climate is extreme and demands the most advanced and durable materials, and the
hydrology is vulnerable to contamination, then a high-tech solution exploiting sensor and
monitoring electronics is equally as valid.

Imposing either low or high-tech for the sake of it, or on ideological grounds is futile, and
potentially detrimental to the environment. The scenarios are infinite as are the aesthetic
possibilities.
How should an ecotourism facility look? Are there a limited number of visual styles that
are appropriate in natural environments? Are aesthetics more important than other
environmental issues such as the facility's ecological performance? Should facilities be
concealed, camouflaged and subordinate to the landscape? It looks green, feels green - but
is it sustainable? There can be an unproductive tension between how facilities should
perform visually as opposed to operationally. Many involved in the design and
development of ecotourism facilities have pursued what in broad terms could be described
as the low-tech look.

The low-tech look seems to be incorrectly premised on the view that if a toilet block,
information centre or cabin, looks rustic, folky, rough-cut and timber-based, and then its
environmental impact must be minimal. There is no need for visual performance to
compete with operational performance. Indeed clever design should integrate both
elements as a way of constructing an artificial but symbiotic relationship. The technology
could inspire or shape the aesthetic, whilst the visual qualities and form could inform the
technology type, its placement and method of operation. Waste and energy technologies
should not always be seen as some alien or exotic intervention in the natural environment.

Diversity in aesthetics, which explores new frontiers beyond the rustic, can offer enormous
potential for the design of tourism facilities. This is not to endorse boldly sited blots on the
landscape or to worship shelters that look like space ships. It is, however, a challenge,
which the majority of designers would relish if only permitted by conservative natural
resource managers and an often crusading environment movement. It is also an
opportunity for designers and operators to demonstrate the ingenuity and innovation
Australians are known for. The aim is to be clever in the application of such alternatives.

The Environmental Value of Technology Transfer

The enthusiasm for, and popularity of, transferring technologies from indigenous cultures
to ecotourism facilities, should be extended where appropriate to the transfer of
technologies from advanced manufacturing industries. Structures, shelters and other
ecotourism infrastructure could achieve significant environmental gains by selective
sampling from the aerospace, marine and automobile industries. Technologies, materials
and systems from these industries, unlike the development of architecture, is based on
performance and optimisation, factors which should underpin the next phase of tourism
design in Australia.

A pioneer in the design of high-performance buildings and technology transfer is Future

Systems, a UK based architecture and design consultancy. The principal designers, Jan
Kaplicky and Amanda Levette, have generated numerous visions of sustainable and 'self
sufficient pieces of equipment standing in the landscape'. Their diverse design studies
cover high-tech pods and cabins for fragile natural environments, as well as lightly
'skinned' green office blocks for the most densely populated urban zones. What makes the
work of Future Systems even more convincing and technically viable is the involvement
and collaboration with Ove Arup, a global engineering consultancy.

Future System's obsession with technology transfer from manufacturing industry to

architecture, also defines a new aesthetic, one not incompatible to the systems, cycles and
images found in nature. Indeed many of the forms and visual qualities of Future System's
projects, borrow heavily from zoology and botany. It would be difficult to argue against
Kaplicky' view that architectural design has much to learn from industrial design and
manufacturing, which in turn implies that sustainable design for ecotourism could benefit
from the same performance-based approach:

'The reason you get better and better products out of the car industry,
aerospace and racing yacht design is because they are all businesses
that depend on performance to succeed. In architecture, success doesn't
depend on performance but on value. To get better performance you
need a lot of research and development - to get value you only need
scarcity'.[16]

The value of Future System's work in terms of ecotourism, is to illustrate the importance
of design diversity, and that sustainability can be expressed in a variety of forms,
technologies and aesthetics. Their work is not presented as a substitution for current
practices, rather an example that when the focus is on the outcome (the facility), the
process by which it can be achieved is in fact plural.

Extrapolating from Outdoor Equipment Technology

Ecotourism and associated outdoor recreational activities such as bushwalking, cross-

country skiing, snow-camping and scuba diving, necessarily require an environment where
combinations of topography, climate, flora and fauna, create the desire to relax, re-create,
explore, observe and learn. But what of the highly colourful, space-age equipment these
travellers use? On closer observation of these activities, it becomes very apparent that
reliance on technology is pivotal. Advanced materials derived from industries as diverse as
aerospace, defence and marine, are all summoned in the name of human safety, pleasure
and dazzling holiday snaps.
Open any issue of Wild magazine, or its equivalent from the US, Europe or south-east
Asia, and one will find a catalogue of high-design clothing, tents, boots, gadgets, widgets
and gismos promoting breathability, durability, performance, compactness and ergonomic
design, etc. What ever happened to the sanctimonious principles of natural materials,
simple design and minimal synthetics?

It seems that humans adopt one set of principles when comes to their own personal safety,
and a different set for safeguarding the natural environment they are meant to treasure so
much. The role and type of technologies used by travellers to protect themselves could
only be described as high-tech and manufactured from some of the most sophisticated
synthetic substances. The irony is that whilst functonal performance is the driving force
behind travel clothing, tents, skis and navigational equipment, the impetus for the design
of tourism facilities is unclear but probably leaning towards visual performance.

Learning from outdoor equipment design and its highly successful adoption of advanced
technologies and materials, can provide a rich source of ideas for the design of tourism
facilities. Not only could it be a catalyst for sustainable solutions, it also highlights the
potential value of collaborative design teams which blend skills, knowledge and
experience from disciplines such as architecture, product and textiles design.

Conclusion

Sustainable design is not about following rules and checklists. Such an approach is for
those keen on design by committee. The best designs should be informed by research and
intuition. Ultimately the most sustainable tourism facilities will be those which break rules
and conventions, and challenge preconceptions about what is, and what is not appropriate
in natural environments.

Although 'how to' manuals are useful starting points, they are not bibles. The challenge for
designers and developers is to interpret their content critically, apply their guidelines
selectively, but most of all remain open and receptive to new ideas, diverse aesthetics, and
appropriate technologies. Changing ecologies, dynamic socio-environmental interactions
and fluctuating tourism markets can not be addressed through sustainable design practice
or theory which is absolute or static. Protecting and interpreting some of Australia's most
significant and fragile places deserves a best practice approach guided by innovation,
sensitivity and performance, not to mention diversity in design.

Selected Reading
Ecotourism: A South Australian Design Guide for Sustainable Development., written by
Pholeros, P., Tawa, M. & Opie, N., for the South Australian Tourism Commission,
Adelaide, 1994.

Jencks, C., The Architecture of the Jumping Universe., Academy Editions, London, 1995.

Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design., United States Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Denver Service Centre, 1993.

Vale, B. & R., Green Architecture: Design for a Sustainable Future., Thames and Hudson,
London, 1991.

Wilson, A., The Culture of Nature: North American Landscape from Disney to the Exxon
Valdez., Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992.

1. For the purposes of this paper tourism facilities refers to small-scale built forms both
permanent and transportable used primarily for nature-based tourism or ecotourism in
sensitive or fragile environments.

2. Despite numerous definitions for ESD, this paper accepts the definition adopted by the
Commonwealth Government of Australia as set out in the National Strategy for
Ecologically Sustainable Development, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1992. p6.

3. 'Ecotourism is a ruse by any other name ...', by Paul Mansfield in The Melbourne Age,
Travel Supplement, 4 March 1995.

4. For a more focussed definition and overview of sustainable development in relation to

tourism, refer to: Sustainable Tourism - An Australian Perspective., eds. Harris, R. &
Leiper, N., Butterworth-Heinemann, Chatswood, 1995, ppxvii-xxxiii.

5. There are currently several terms in global currency which refer to a design approach
which considers environmental concerns. These terms can have a different emphasis, and
are often used interchangeably, usually reflecting the latest conference jargon. Some of the
terms include: ecodesign, green design, life-cycle design, ecological design, environmental
design, biodesign, benign design, design for the environment, sustainable design.

6. Papanek, V., Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change., Thames
and Hudson, revised edition Chicago, 1992.
7. Sparke, P., An Introduction to Design and Culture in the Twentieth Century., Unwin
Hyman, 1986, London, pp 194-196.

8. Papanek, V., The Green Imperative: Ecology and Ethics in Design and Architecture.,
Thames and Hudson, 1995, London.

9. Hawkins, D.E., Epler Wood, M. & Bittman, S., The Ecolodge Sourcebook for Planners
and Developers., The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, 1995, pp29-36

10. Cox, L., 'Making a Vision Become a Reality', in Sustainable Design and Ecotourism
Seminar Proceedings, Hobart, Australia, 1994, pp6-11. Cox's paper contains the RAIA
Environment Policy.

11. Environmentally Responsible Building Products Guide., National Park Service, Denver
Service Centre, Department of the Interior, United States, 1992.

12 The 'Ecological Footprint' concept first emerged in urban planning theory to describe
the less tangible (and thus more invisible) environmental consequences of sprawling cities
and suburbs.

13 Andersen, D.L., 'A Window to the Natural World: the Design of Ecotourism Facilities,
in Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, eds Lindberg, K., & Hawkins, D.E.,
The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont, 1993, pp 125-131.

14 Rudofsky, B., Architecture Without Architects - A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed

Architecture, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1964.

15 Thompson, D., 'Tradition and Environment: Complement or Clash', in Water, Energy

and Waste Management in Alpine Shelters Symposium Proceedings., Alpine Club of
Canada, Alberta, 1991, p19.

16 Pawley, M., Theory and Design in the Second Machine Age, Basil Blackwell, Oxford,
1990, p41.

Copyright 1995, National Key Centre for Design at RMIT

PO Box 2476V, Melbourne Victoria 3001, Australia
Vox: +61 3 9925 2362 Fax: +61 3 9639 3412
URL: http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au/Publications/Ecotourism.html
Email: mailto:cfd@rmit.edu.au

HTML by Michael Abdilla - webmaster@cfd.rmit.edu.au

Last updated 6 November, 1995