Introduction

- Tourism is a booming industry that is a large source of income for many countries.

- Every year millions of people travel to new destinations.

- Typical tourist vacations are often for relaxation or leisure, but today new forms of tourism are becoming increasingly popular.

Problems with Traditional Tourism

Economic Effects

- Financial burden falls on the local communities. This burden is to build and maintain a tourism industry.

- Local housing becomes expensive with the increased demand for tourism properties such as hotels.

- Often times there is an increase in the price of local goods because the stores know that tourists will pay more.

- Risk of encroachment of offshore corporations who cater to rich tourists and will bring the biggest profits out of the country.

Environmental Effects

- Damage to the landscape such as pollution, erosion and fire sometimes completely destroying ecosystems.

- Traffic congestion and pollution and higher CO2 emissions.

- Loss of virgin landscape that is unprotected from development.

Cultural Effects

- Extremely at risk because of the tourism industry.

- Cultural identity and practices become a tourist attraction and are often exploited.

- Traditional communities are thrust into the modern world and risk losing their traditional culture.

Social Effects

- Local needs are forgotten such as in grocery stores, products used by locals are replaced with products used by tourists.

- Seasonal jobs that are not well paid with long hours.

- Locals can feel as though they are on display and are a caricature of who they really are.

- Families become dependent on the tourist economy and must work long hours limiting their participation in local traditions and cultural ceremonies.

Political Effects

- Extreme differences in wealth and lifestyle can create tension between locals and tourists.

- Hawaii is an example of this, the locals often have problems with the tourists and violence does occur.

http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/ourchallenges/tourism/impactsoftourism.htm

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5244298_positive-negative-effects-tourism.html

Positive Effects of Tourism

Tourism is not all bad, in fact if done correctly it can be a beneficial and productive practice that gives back to local cultures and people.

- Jobs for local people.

- Income for local economies.

- Increased demand for local food and crafts.

- Promote cultural awareness therefore preserving local traditions and culture.

- Income from tourism could go towards preserving infrastructure.

- Could inspire a desire to protect natural features and the environment.

Ecotourism and Sustainable Tourism

- Definition

§ Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people. (TIES) The International Ecotourism Society 1990

- Uniting conservation, communities and sustainable travel.

- Based on a desire to minimize the impact of tourism on an area.

- Goals to promote cultural and environmental awareness.

How?

- Minimize impact.

- Build environmental and cultural awareness and respect.

- Provide direct financial benefits for conservation and for the empowerment of local people.

- Raise sensibility to the host country’s culture and political climate.

Alternative Vacations

- Spend your “vacation” helping others.

- Giving back to local communities.

- Providing relief to disaster stricken areas.

- Volunteering to as “vacation.”

Trekking

- A journey on foot where other forms of transportation are not available.

- Goal is to explore and leave as little trace as possible.

- Get away from typical forms of travelling.

WWOOFING

- World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms

- In return for volunteer help on a farm, the owners provide food and lodging during the stay.

- Opportunities all over the world.

- Focused on spreading knowledge and promoting the idea of organic farms in an ever increasing GMO society.

CouchSurfing

- Opportunities to stay for free in countries all over the world and to share cultures.

- 93,000+ couchsurfers in 207 countries.

§ France is the rated 3rd in number of couchsurfers after the US and Germany.

- “Couch surfing isn't just a means of accommodation; it is an entirely new way to travel. You get to see the world through local residents, not hotel concierges or guidebooks. But what is most profound about the whole experience is the trust that naturally exists.”

-Time Magazine

Articles for Discussion:

What tourism problem is presented?
What solutions are given?
Are there any positive impacts?
What does your group think about this article?

Ecotourism: Ethical Operation or Cultural Exploitation?

By Kylie Schultz

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 02, 2013

The myth and reality of ecotourism

In her paper on ecotourism, New Zealand scholar Regina Scheyvens explains “ecotourism has been defined as ‘environmentally responsible, enlightening travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features both past and present) that promotes conservation…and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations.’” To Scheyvens, it is important to remember that ecotourism is also an industry: “When business is the main driving force behind
ecotourism it is not surprising that the ventures which emerge may serve to alienate, rather than benefit, local communities.”

The promise of economic stability prompts many local communities to pursue ecotourism as a means of self-reliance, but it is often outside companies or governments who reap the benefits of such endeavors. In some cases profits are split unevenly between companies and communities, local workers receive unfair wages, and outside products and services provided by companies hinder local economic growth. Scheyvens adds that “even where ecotourism results in economic benefits for a local community, it may result in damage to social and cultural systems, thus undermining people’s overall quality of life.”

The demand for “authentic” cultural experiences can often be injurious to communities when their cultures are marketed as products for consumption. In their book Ethnicity, Inc., John L. and Jean Comaroff discuss the consequences when culture is capitalized. Once the cultural practices of a community are commodified, so is its identity: “The alienation of indigenous practices, even of the deepest knowledge, is…simultaneously a means of self-construction and a source of material sustenance. Cultural survival…has given way, in many places, to survival through culture,” note the Comaroffs. Additionally, communities are often removed or
resettled from their native lands in the creation of nature preserves or wildlife parks, restricting their access to the resources necessary to their livelihood and ensuring dependence upon their commodified culture and ecotour companies.

Ecotourism touts preservation of culture, but often this"preservation" is in fact exploitative and only exacerbates existing socio-political or economic instabilities. Outside companies may pair up with local communities to help manage and contribute to an endeavor, but the communities do not always receive fair shares of the profits, or the profits are circumvented by local or national governments. There are however many ecotour operations which work closely with or are co-managed by native communities which do enhance and promote the well-being of locals. The difference lies in how the operation represents and interacts with the local community as a whole.

Does the National Park Service Need a Quota System for Peak Seasons?

By Bob Janiskee on February 19, 2008 edited for use

It’s conceivable that the National Park Service might eventually have to take drastic measures to reduce peak-season crowding in our most popular national parks. Overcrowding and overuse lead to congested roads and trails, excessive air pollution, accelerated erosion, and many other problems that reduce recreational pleasure and damage park resources. Anyone who visits Grand Canyon, Yosemite, or Yellowstone during the peak season knows that crowding can make a park visit stressful and inconvenient.

The Park Service is already using a variety of strategies and tactics to discourage overcrowding and overuse. But urging people to choose less popular parks and less busy times of year doesn’t do much good, and might actually create new crowding problems. At root, nearly all of the methods that actually work are forms of rationing. For many years now the Park Service and concessionaires have been using first-come, first-served (queuing and reservation) systems, lotteries, and price increases to regulate access to parks, campsites, backcountry trails, whitewater rivers, and other park facilities and activities.

There have even been some attempts to ration by merit or competency, as in screening for the issuing of climbing and mountaineering permits. But what if all of these measures are not enough? What if problems related to overcrowding and overuse in certain heavily used parks become overwhelming?

In the worst case scenario, the Park Service might have to adopt truly draconian measures. Some observers believe that it is only a matter of time before we see strict entrance and recreational facility quotas employed. A few have suggested that access to national parks and their recreational facilities might best be regulated by a national lottery, and that a “white market” for park permits should be allowed to flourish.

Here is how it would work. The Park Service would use the best available scientific methods to determine the recreational carrying capacity, acceptable limits of change, and other limiting factors in parks that experience serious overcrowding and related facilities overuse during peak seasons. The key question is how much access and use can be permitted without seriously reducing recreational quality or causing unacceptable damage to physical and cultural resources in the parks.

The agency would then set peak-period quotas for admission and recreational facilities use at the “problem parks.” Each quota would express the maximum number of permits to be issued for visiting a particular park and engaging in specified recreational activities during a specified period of time. The quotas would be partially filled through allocations to tour operators, park concessionaires, various other commercial recreation providers, and presumably some national NGOs. The remaining permits would be allocated to the public via lottery.

The ethics of disaster tourism: What is the right thing to do?

February 22, 2012|By Catharine M. Hamm | Los Angeles Times Travel editor

All of which raises this question: Is it love or is it lewd to visit a place after a disaster?

After a recent story in the Travel section reported that some residents of Joplin were angered by a map showing where a tornado devastated the southwestern Missouri town last spring, we asked ethicists about tourism in the aftermath of tragedy.

Wanting to see a place where disaster has struck is not always a sign of insensitivity, said Patricia Illingworth, an ethics professor at Northeastern University, a lawyer and a lecturer in law at Northeastern University School of Law and author of “Us Before Me, Ethics and Social Capital for Global Well Being.”

“I think that there’s a lot of benefit from going,” she said of seeing the aftermath, adding that “gawking … obviously isn’t a good idea.” But, she added, “going and seeing what the people are suffering or seeing the situation, that then raises empathy or allows us to empathize” with the situation, she said.

Fundraisers, for instance, often have at their core human suffering, she noted. And you know those ads featuring emaciated children? Calling this the “pornography of poverty,” Illingworth noted that such images stimulate empathy, which often results in action.

But some may object. “Some local residents may find it embarrassing or offensive for outsiders to ooh and ahh and take pictures of a broken community," said Dr. Tanvir Hussain, a Los Angeles cardiologist and adjunct professor of bioethics at Pepperdine University School of Law. "On the other hand, local businesses [that] thrive off of visitors, such as restaurants and hotels, may welcome outsiders at a time when little business from locals is to be had.”

The issue of disaster tourism isn’t new. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, companies began offering tours of areas that were especially hard hit after the storm and the levee failures. After the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, photos showed tourists sunbathing on Asian beaches while cleanup continued in the background. More than 200,000 people were killed in that calamity, many ripped from the arms of loved ones and swept to their deaths. Some thought the sunbathers insensitive.

Travel, at its core, is supposed to broaden our experience and make us think beyond our own horizons. A visit to a place of barbarism that once may have been unthinkable can now provide a painful but important lesson.

Yet those whose lives are touched by misfortune, although none on the scale of the Holocaust, may object to becoming unintended teachers.

TOURISM BOYCOTTS: HELPFUL OR HARMFUL?

By David Piepers

May 8, 2013

Edited for use

AS we make our way around the globe as tourists, honeymooners, researchers and such, most people probably don’t consider the implications of choosing to visit one place over another. Many people probably aren’t aware of the conditions of poverty and deprivation faced by the civilians of the place they stay, choosing to stick to the primary tourist spots.

But if you knew that a nation was abusing the rights of its people, would it affect your decision to stay there? Have tourism boycotts worked in the past? Or do they hurt more than help that nation’s inhabitants?

A good place to start would be the case of Burma/Myanmar. In the 90s, the junta in control put tourism high on the agenda for the developing country, only to have the nation shunned by the international community because of the human rights violations surrounding tourism infrastructure projects. The calls weren’t just originating from the outside, with pro-democracy opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi joining the campaign.

All this has changed since elections in 2011 though, as the pro-democracy party decided it was time to encourage ‘responsible’ tourism, with a focus on making sure tourists are keen to promote both social and environmental welfare. How well they can enforce such an idea is yet to be seen, with tourism numbers starting to gradually rise again over the last 2 years. That being said, there is still minimal regulation.

Another nation experiencing similar issues, albeit with a much better advertised tyranny, is Zimbabwe. Poor socio-economic conditions have engulfed the nation’s people for years, and significant drops in tourism and the refusal of many major airlines to fly there have resulted in income and job losses, with companies unable to pay wages. Even the cricket World Cup, held in Africa, spurred calls for a boycott of all matches in Zimbabwe, and England and New Zealand didn’t play their scheduled matches.

With the international reputation synonymous with Mugabe, and the damage that has been done to the Zimbabwean tourism industry in the last 13 years, it boggles the mind why the UN would then go on to appoint Mugabe a ‘leader for tourism’, despite his well-advertised reputation.

What do you think?

Does boycotting tourism to nations such as these have the potential to make a difference? Could it be doing more harm than good to the economies and employment prospects of these nations? Is international pressure the only way to affect change in dictatorships? Did you even know about the problems existing in countries like these? Is tourism money really going to help the people? Or will it instead be used to help entrench the power of the political elites?

Annika Gielen's Class Desk

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Interviews and Business Emails

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Class 9: 17/3 MAG2 For/Since/During/While

Class 8: 12/3-19/3 MAG2 Alternative Forms of Tourism

Does the National Park Service Need a Quota System for Peak Seasons?

The ethics of disaster tourism: What is the right thing to do?