In this article, I first discuss the predominant linear state of the tourism sector and its impacts, highlighting the importance of integrating a CE in tourism operations. Following, I briefly conceptualise the barriers and enablers to a circular tourism economy and point out the need for better contextualising these facilitating and inhibiting factors faced by tourism businesses. In this sense, small island destinations (SIDs) are considered a priority focus given their specific geographical features. Hence, it is important to understand the role of these features in the transition to a CE, as this would produce more insightful recommendations for tailored planning for a CE in island tourism destinations.

“Circularity represents an opportunity for tourism businesses […] to increase innovativeness for sustainability and as a consequence their competitiveness, thus contributing to the long-term health and resilience of tourism activities and the sector as a whole. ”

— 'Destination: A circular tourism economy' (Manniche et al., 2017)

A Linear Tourism Economy

The tourism sector often generates significant economic and social benefits to the destination. Yet, it has also been accounted responsible for negative environmental, social and even economic impacts. This is frequently the result of a linear economy model (take-use-dispose), which leads to the over-exploitation of resources (e.g., water), unsustainable levels of waste generation and poor waste management, especially in destinations that lack appropriate infrastructures and suffer from overtourism and/or seasonality. For instance, overuse of water in hotels and resorts often creates an imbalance between local available resources, the needs of local communities and the needs of the tourism industry.

Moreover, seasonal destinations experience peaks of waste generation that are often difficult to manage locally, leading to land and water pollution. Hence, such challenges may jeopardise the wellbeing of local communities, natural areas and the long-term viability of the tourism sector itself. This cost-benefits duality of tourism, therefore, has positioned the industry at the core of discussions, motivating a call for a fundamental change in how it functions.

“Such challenges may jeopardise the wellbeing of local communities, natural areas and the long-term viability of the tourism sector itself”

On this note, recent debates are questioning the feasibility of the current linear model in allowing improved sustainability options throughout the tourism destination’s ecosystem, thus suggesting a paradigm shift. In fact, while new forms of tourism emerged in recent decades (e.g., slow tourism, ecotourism) have assigned higher social and environmental responsibilities, the sector remains largely rooted in the linear model, with a sustainability gap still existing within the tourism industry.

Tourism researchers and practitioners are seeking new approaches that decouple tourism from resource degradation while maintaining the socio-cultural and economic benefits. In line with this urgent call for new operational models, hence, the CE is acquiring increasing attention as a potential answer to many of the sustainability challenges faced by the tourism sector.

From a Linear to a Circular Tourism Economy

The CE is rapidly entering the tourism research agenda. This is because—as explained above—the traditional linear model currently characterising the operational status of the tourism sector brings many impacts and costs to destinations. Therefore, it becomes essential to promote a shift towards circular business models. These models are based on the key principles of the CE focusing on designing out waste and keeping products and materials in use.

As the UNWTO tells us, the shift of the sector towards a CE “is vital due to the interlinkages between tourism and other economic activities and the direct interactions it generates between consumers and producers”. Thus, tourism retains the potential to create positive impacts that go well beyond the sector and spread across its ecosystem. Therefore, given that the dominant linear model of the tourism sector is no longer sustainable, the shift to a CE—which is still lacking significant empirical contribution—is unavoidable.

Consequently, we should “envision a tourism sector where reuse, redevelopment, recovery, valorisation and regeneration are all key words, and where the sector has the capacity to stimulate cyclical resource flows to reconciliate tourism with the sustainable management of resources”. In a circular tourism economy, the sector must redesign its operations and relationships to lead the circular and regenerative material flows. Such fundamental shift requires tailored and context-aware solutions that capitalise on local strengths and assets in order to overcome and mitigate existing barriers that may be faced when seeking the transition towards a CE.

“Such fundamental shift requires tailored and context-aware solutions that capitalise on local strengths and assets”

Barriers and Enablers Towards a Circular Tourism Economy

The CE transition demands changes in the way tourism businesses operate, and a number of factors tend to facilitate and/or inhibit these changes. Examples include:

It is often emphasised the important role of the public sector in facilitating and/or inhibiting businesses in overcoming possible barriers. In fact, although bottom-up initiatives are crucial for a CE, “the ability of micro-level actors to implement circular economy initiatives, such as grass roots projects, relies in the wider policy framework”. Interventions for a circular tourism economy should therefore be place-based, tailored and coherent, avoid regulatory conflicts, capitalise on local strengths and build on local assets. This implies that—while taxonomies of barriers/enablers are useful—these remain highly contextual, calling for the need to examine the role that territorial dynamics play in a CE.

However, limited is the contribution that seeks to conceptualise the links between a circular tourism economy and the territorial context where it unfolds, leaving a significant knowledge gap on how a CE may translate differently across tourism destinations. This is particularly important for small island destinations (SIDs). Here, not only the impacts of tourism activities are usually amplified, “but islands are also considered territories with specific features, requiring tailored planning strategies”.

In fact, sustainability in SIDs is often challenged by their small size, isolation, scarce resources and narrow skills, but also facilitated by other factors, e.g., social capital. Consequently, it is urgent to improve island tourism by capitalising on the local strengths and mitigating the weaknesses. In addition, the specific characteristics of SIDs make them ideal case studies to further develop our understanding of CE in specific contexts.

A Circular Economy for Small Island Destinations

Islands have long been in tourists’ imaginaries. The often-utopian image of islands has led tourism to become a key economic sector – and often a detrimental one. In this light, a CE is a promising approach in SIDs. Island tourism is “a special form of tourism that often requires specific consideration as there are distinctive characteristics of islands […] that can result in unique challenges to developing successful tourism destinations”.

Given the difference between mainland and island tourism development, a CE transition in SIDs needs to build upon localised strengths. A stream of scholars relates the nature of islands’ strengths and weaknesses towards sustainable development to the concept of islandness, defined as “an intervening variable that does not determine, but contours and conditions physical and social events in distinct, and distinctly relevant, ways”.

While islandness tends to be broadly conceptualised, from a CE perspective, the spatial geographical features may particularly influence the barriers/enablers to a CE in SIDs. These features are:

Smallness – the small scale of island territories;
Boundness – the existence of spatial frontiers;
Isolation – the degree and nature of contact with the outside world;
Spatial fragmentation – the geographical discontinuity of the island settings.

By considering these island features, it will be possible to shift away from the broader discussions on CE from a standardised to a place-aware focus. It is currently unknown—despite some preliminary examples—how islandness affects the CE transition. In the meantime, there is a tendency to attribute to the islandness the weaknesses and challenges commonly faced by islands towards sustainable development, such as:

Low accessibility;

Fragmented market;
Diseconomies of scale;
Peripherality from economic and political centres;
Limited resources;
High demographical fluctuation.

“It is currently unknown—despite some preliminary examples—how islandness affects the CE transition”

In contrast, evidence also suggests that islandness can also be a source of strengths and opportunities, e.g., distinctive natural and cultural assets, social capitals, and high level of economic specialisation. Hence, as seen from these contributions, islandness becomes analytically valuable and should be envisioned as a key concept for the study and planning of a CE in SDIs.

Existing Examples

Preliminary examples merging CE and SIDs show the role of islands’ features in the transition towards a CE. In Puerto Rico, the island’s finite boundaries affect the implementation of industrial symbiosis, and, in the Mauritius, the often-fragmented island’s urban and industrial system creates a lack of proximity among actors, hindering resource sharing. Another example from Trinidad and Tobago shows that the degree of urban agglomeration of small islands can facilitate or inhibit the access to market for end-of-life products. This emphasises the importance of the island’s urbanity in facilitating stakeholders’ access to the remarketing of circular products. Yet, ‘the impact of urban agglomeration on the circular economy goes beyond re-circulating resources, but it also represents an environment for social interactions and cohesion’.

In fact, networking and community-led initiatives are key for a CE. Moreover, accessibility has been linked to the functionality of circular business models. From one side, accessibility is essential because a closed-loop economy comprises many different links and nodes. From the other side, examples from the Yap States and the Pacific island of Norfolk show that a particular cultural heritage emerging from the historical physical isolation can often result in the development of sustainable practices for self-sufficiency. This implies that the degree of accessibility can both facilitate and inhibit circular business models.

“The degree of accessibility can both facilitate and inhibit circular business models”

Yet, this appears to be also the case of less physically remote islands. On the island of Scilly, in the United Kingdom, studies demonstrate how the island’s communities tend to own significant advantages in adopting sustainable initiatives through social capital, which translates into collaboration and cooperation. These interactions are crucial when it comes to exchanging good practices, pool resources, and creating relationships.

Final Thoughts

This article tells the significance of adopting CE in tourism destinations. This would be facilitated by further understanding the barriers and enablers to a CE with an emphasis on place-based transitions. SIDs emerge as a priority focus because it is widely agreed that island territories deserve tailored attention and planning. Here, I have narrowed down the broad concept of islandness to spatial geographical features of small islands. These were considered as factors not to be neglected when seeking to understand the barriers and enablers faced by SDIs towards the CE transition.

A limited number of studies on the CE transition shed light on how some of the island characteristics affect the adoption of circular business models. However, there remains the need for further contribution that first identifies the barriers and enablers faced by tourism operators, and, secondly, conceptualises why and how certain factors may emerge in small islands given their specific features.

Hence, the study of CE in tourism in SIDs should be developed with a clear framework and awareness of the islandness’ variables, in order to be critical, holistic and innovative, both for research and planning. This would allow planners and local communities to capitalise on local strengths and mitigate the often-discussed weaknesses of islands. Therefore, research should inform planners with context-sensitive insights to facilitate a transition towards a circular economy.