Essay About Alternative Tourism And Sustainable Development

Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse?
Essay Preview: Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse?
Report this essay
Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope Or Trojan Horse?
R W. BUTLER
One of the buzzwords of the 1980s, along with heritage
and sustainable development, is alternative tourism. Like the
others it sounds good; it implies thought and concern and a different
approach and philosophy. Like the others, it is hard to
disagree with it. All of us, even if we are &dquo;ugly tourists,&dquo; acknowledge
that tourism creates problems, even though it may
have tremendous economic and social benefits. Thus, in principle
and instinctively, most people will be tolerant of, and
possibly actively supportive of the concept of alternative
tourism, even if they do not understand what it really means.
Like sustainable development, it can mean almost anything to
anyone. However, we need to carefully evaluate just what is
meant by the term and more to the point, what the implications
of this alternative form are to existing and potential
destination areas.
First then, what is it? Alternative to what? Obviously not to
all other forms of tourism, but rather, an alternative to the
least desired or most undesired type of tourism, or essentially
what is known as mass tourism, the &dquo;Golden Hordes&dquo; of
Turner and Ashe ( 1975), the mass institutionalized tourist of
Cohen (1972). An alternative to the Costa Bravas, the
Daytona Strips, Atlantic Citys and Blackpools of the world.
Alternative to large numbers, tasteless and ubiquitous development,
environmental and social alienation and homogenization.
So far, to many academics, jaded travel writers, and
intellectuals it sounds good. However, like many appealing
alternatives, there are both problems and costs associated
with the alternative. This paper will argue that the problems,
the implications, and potential costs have generally been
ignored by many proponents of alternative tourism, and that
in some situations the &dquo;cure&dquo; may be worse than the symptom.
Alternative tourism and rejection of mass tourism are not
new. Thomas Cooks tourists aroused great opposition from
the elite individual tourists whom they encountered on their
travels in the nineteenth century. Christaller, in 1963, wrote
of the transformation of peripheral tourist places because of
large numbers of mass tourists and associated developments,
concluding &dquo; all who seek real tourism move on.&dquo; Sociologists
and anthropologists have long expressed concern over the
effects of tourist related development on human values, traditions
and behavior in host destinations (Smith 1974). However,
these concerns have met two fairly significant problems:
one, the economic value of mass tourism, at least at national
and perhaps regional levels, and two, the fact that many
people seem to enjoy being a mass tourist. They actually like
not having to make their own travel arrangements, not having
to find accommodation when they arrive at a destination,
being able to obtain goods and service without learning a
foreign language, being able to stay in reasonable, in some
cases considerable comfort, being able to eat reasonably
familiar food, and not having to spend vast amounts of money
or time to achieve these goals. They seem, hard to believe
perhaps, prepared to give up genuine one-on-one authentic
local cultural contact and the harsh realities of a Third World
or Old World existence in return.
Why then, should anyone want to promote alternative
forms of tourism? The answer would appear to lie in an
assumption that the alternative forms of tourism (and tourist)
will have fewer and less severe negative effects on destination
areas and their populations, without diminishing the positive
economic effects, i. e., the best of all worlds. Obviously such is
a laudable and eminently desirable goal to many host communities
and decision makers.
Why then would one be critical of such alternatives? First
because of the nature of tourism, second because of the nature
of the development process, third because of the dismal
record of dealing with tourism by most communities and
agencies, fourth because of naive assumptions about all of the
above, and fifth and most seriously, because of human nature
(Exhibit 1).
EXHIBIT 1
PROBLEMS OF TOURISM
Source: Butler 1989.
Let us look briefly at what