SOCIAL AND CULTURAL IMPACTS OF TOURISM
Tourism can emerge as a source of conflict between hosts and visitors in destinations where its development leads to perceived and actual impacts. There has been a wealth of studies of the social and cultural impacts by anthropologists and sociologists, embodied in the influential studies by Valene Smith (1977, 1992) . The attitudes of residents towards tourism represent an important way in which this stakeholder group contributes to policy and public support for or dissent towards tourism. At a simplistic level, resident attitudes may be one barometer of an area’s ability to absorb tourists. However, the analysis of tourism’s social and cultural impacts is related to the way in which it affects or induces change in a number of elements, as Figure 12.8 implies.
The focus of any analysis of host –guest impacts is a function of the interaction between these two groups and will be dependent upon:
● the nature and extent of social, economic and cultural differences between tourists and hosts
● the ratio of visitors to residents
● the distribution and visibility of tourist developments
● the speed and intensity of development
● the extent of foreign investment and employment.
Source : Douglas and Douglas (1996: 51)
In the context of the Pacific islands, Douglas and Douglas (1996) highlighted the differing ethnic origins of residents, and the history of colonialization and tourism development, which provide a backcloth to any analysis of tourism’s sociocultural impacts. The scale of development varies enormously across the region, with over six million visitors in Hawaii (1.2 million population) through to less than 1000 per annum on Tuvalu (resident population 9000). In each case, the physical presence of tourism is huge and dominates the island. Similarly, high levels of foreign ownership have provoked the indigenous population’s antagonism towards tourism in some islands, with some multinational corporations expecting employees to adopt certain behaviour towards visitors. In many of these fragile and ancient cultures, indigenous people’s art and culture have been over-commodified, resulting in the derided ‘airport art ’. Similar criticisms have been levelled at the demand for cultural performances, which create income, but result in indigenous cultures being portrayed as a ‘human zoo ’. Indeed, in many of these island contexts, tourism has led to host –guest relationships that are:
● limited in duration, and so require distinct behaviour from residents where a service or performance is sold
|
|
|
● transitory in nature, especially where a packaged experience or performance is provided
● geographically isolated, since visitors stay in resort enclaves, where hotel companies meet all their needs and only encourage temporary staged visits to engage with locals. This creates relationships that lack spontaneity, and an unequal and unbalanced experience.
Pearce (1989) cited a range of other social and cultural impacts resulting from tourism including:
● The impact of migration from rural areas to urbanized tourism resort areas to secure employment in service industries due to the higher income levels. This can often modify the population structure in destinations, putting pressure on services.
● Changes in occupational structure, as the demand for low-skill, female and seasonal labour expands.
● Changes in social values, with greater levels of community turnover.
● The impact of gentrification in inner city districts where urban regeneration with a strong tourism element transforms the local housing market, and leads to residents having to move to accommodate development.
● Increased levels of crime when special events and hallmark events, such as the Olympics, are held.
● Potentially negative effects related to the increase in prostitution and gambling to meet visitor needs. In some destinations such as Sydney, Bangkok and Amsterdam a distinct sex zone has emerged, changing the social structure of the area.
● A decline in the use of native language because the universal method of conversation in tourism is in European languages (English and French).
But how do we understand the way these changes affect resident attitudes?
Probably the most widely cited study that sought to explain how residents react, respond and interact with tourism is Doxey’s Index of Tourist Irritation. This is based on Doxey’s (1975) study, in which resident responses in the Caribbean and Canada were observed to identify a series of stages through which they passed. These were:
|
|
|
● euphoria , following the initial development of tourism
● apathy , as tourism developed further and becomes part of the local way of life
● annoyance , as tourism began to interfere with everyday life and cause a level of disturbance
● antagonism , where residents became tourist averse and tensions, conflict and anti-tourism feeling became widespread.
More detailed research by Ap and Crompton (1993) questioned the validity of such an approach, arguing that it was too simplistic. Instead, they pointed to the diversity of views in any community at any point in time, especially the significance of difference stakeholders (i.e. businesses and residents) – which make the Doxey model problematic as minority and majority views will exist. Indeed, a community will not necessarily progress through a simple set of phases, but may well react according to the seasonal impact of tourism and reflect the overall analysis of tourism’s general impact on residents ’ quality of life. A wide range of studies have been published that seek to encapsulate residents ’ attitudes to tourism, but comparatively few studies have been longitudinal, to try and understand attitude change through time. One notable exception was Getz’s (1993) longitudinal study of resident attitudes in Scotland. Without such a framework, it is not feasible to assess how attitudes have changed as tourism development progresses.Many ad hoc resident attitude studies are not sufficiently detailed or methodologically sophisticated and are unable to adopt a longitudinal approach to help understand how social values, community feelings and everyday life are affected by tourism.
Attention now turns to the last major impact associated with tourism – the environmental effects of tourism.
TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Throughout this book, the link between tourism and the environment has been emphasized as one that has been assuming greater significance, particularly with the rise of the sustainability debate. Yet this relationship between tourism and the environment has evolved over a much larger time period, namely the last 50 years. For example:
|
|
|
In the 1950s it was viewed as being one of coexistence … However, with the advent of mass tourism in the 1960s, increasing pressure was put on natural areas for tourism developments. Together with the growing environmental awareness and concerns of the early 1970s the relationship was perceived to be in conflict. During the next decade this view was endorsed by many others … at the same time a new suggestion was emerging that the relationship could be beneficial to both tourism and the environment. ( Dowling 1992 : 33)
To foster a beneficial relationship between tourism and the environment requires public sector intervention to plan and manage each element, whilst highlighting the benefits for the tourism industry. For example, the UK government-led study on Tourism and the Environment ( English Tourist Board/Employment Department 1991 ) examined and established the scale and nature of environmental problems induced by mass tourism at major tourist sites, and produced guidelines on how such problems were to be addressed. The study pointed to the need to maintain the resource base for tourism activities. As part of their study, they identified common problems resulting from tourism, including wear and tear on the urban fabric, overcrowding and social and cultural impacts between the visitors and local communities.
Indeed, other authors have portrayed tourism –environment impacts as running along a continuum where the effects may be positive in inner city environments (that benefit from tourism-led regeneration), but more negative as one passes into other tourism environments (e.g. coastal areas, rural areas, upland and mountain environments). Depicting this dependent relationship between tourism and the environment, Mathieson and Wall (1982: 97) argued that:
In the absence of an attractive environment, there would be little tourism. Ranging from the basic attractions of sun, sea and sand to the undoubted appeal of historic sites and structures, the environment is the foundation of tourism.
This is nowhere more evident than in the South Pacific, where stereotypical images of palm trees, beaches, lagoons and sun create an impression of an idyllic tourist landscape. Yet many of the Pacific islands encapsulate the environmental problems which tourism creates.
|
|
|
Many Pacific islands are fragile ecosystems, where the impacts of tourism are highly visible, particularly given the tendency for tourism development to concentrate on coastal areas. As Hall (1996: 68) observed
because of the highly dynamic nature of the coastal environment and the significance of mangroves and the limited coral sand supply for island beaches in particular, any development which interferes with the natural system may have severe consequences for the long-term stability of the environment.
As a result, inappropriate tourism development on coastal areas creates:
● erosion, where vegetation clearance exposes the beach to sea storms, and building activity on beaches makes sand deposits loose and more vulnerable to erosion
● the salination of fresh ground water sources, which are usually in limited supply 494 CHAPTER TWELVE Managing the visitor and their impacts
● sewage outfall into shallow waters, which cause nutrients to build up and algal growth that adversely affects coral reefs.
Furthermore, the modification of mangrove swamps on lowland areas to create harbours and marinas, or for land reclamation, leads to loss of ecological diversity and a rich environment for wildlife. It also removes a barrier to sediment build-up. As a result tourism’s environmental impacts on Pacific islands create:
● environmental degradation and pollution
● the destruction of habitats and ecosystems
● the loss of coastal and marine resources
● coastal pollution
● impacts on ground water.
As island ecosystems are characterized by limited space and species, the impacts are very obvious, especially where the geographical isolation of an island state is suddenly affected by the rapid development of tourism. Some attempts to address these concerns have been seen with the development of ecotourism. In the South Pacific, Hall (1996) indicated that ecotourism could be construed in two ways:
1. as green or nature-based tourism, with a niche market as part of special interest tourism (e.g. scuba diving)
2. as any form of tourism development that is considered to be environmentally responsible.
Both of these should pay attention to the sustainable use of very fragile resources. In many island microstates (IMS) in the Pacific, the significance of environmental issues in tourism are apparent as a number of common themes characterize tourism’s development and the pressures on the resource base:
● scale, where impacts can easily be damaging to fragile resources
● the high levels of dependency on external international tourism interests that do not have a long-term stake in the local environment
● an absence of indigenous sources of capital to develop tourism, removing many opportunities for sustainable tourism development that is community owned and locally managed
● the predominance of colonial patterns of control in the tourism sector limiting the permeation of new ideas such as environmentalism
● an economic system characterized by outward migration, a dependence upon remittances back to families, aid to assist economic survival, and bureaucracy (known as the MIRAB model)
● increasing competition among IMS for tourists in the Pacific and resulting compromises in tourism planning and development to attract visitors.
There is also a growing dependence upon tourism, which is politically promoted as a solution to problems of under-development. The main problem is the consumption of a finite resource – the environment to meet tourism aspirations in IMS in the Pacific.
In many ways the environmental impacts in the Pacific islands can be combined with the more general problems that Mathieson and Wall (1982) identify in resort areas, which include:
● architectural pollution owing to the effect of inappropriate hotel development on the traditional landscape
● the effect of ribbon development and urban sprawl in the absence of planning and development restrictions (as is the case on many Spanish resorts in the Mediterranean)
● the resort infrastructure becomes overloaded and breaks down in periods of peak usage
● tourists become segregated from local residents
● good quality agricultural land may be lost to tourist development
● traffic congestion may result in resort areas
● the local ecosystem may be polluted from sewage
● litter and too many visitors in the peak season.
So how has the tourism industry responded to criticisms over its impact on the environment?
Дата добавления: 2018-06-01; просмотров: 612; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!