Meaning of Alternative Tourism

Alternative Tourism

Introduction

As a concept, ‘alternative tourism’ is surprisingly broad. It is fundamentally problematic when subject to analysis and brings out many emotional responses, a common feature of tourism as a subject. There is not one single or absolute definition, although there are a number of very good attempts, and many writers give a list of criteria against which it should be assessed. It remains an important issue to be dealt with, not the least because of its relationship to basic problems that human society must confront: environmental destruction, wealth inequalities, and irresponsible development, among others. It is also growing in popularity as fashions change and tourists seek different experiences. Just as it has been promoted as a ‘development tool’ and a means of protecting nature, so it has

also been seen as an attractive way to pass leisure time without causing ecological damage.

This chapter is a critical inquiry into the character of alternative tourism and its impact, and is composed of two major sections. The first section deals with its meaning as can be ascertained from surveying and comparing the works of different scholars; the second deals with its impact, in which the influences described by various scholars are compared, including detailed case studies. Finally, the conclusion challenges the viability of the term ‘alternative tourism’ and proposes a new approach. It also attempts to revise our understanding of the impact of this type of tourism, critiquing earlier models and stressing the powerful influences that it has had on the environment and the host populations. Throughout this discussion problems are highlighted and suggestions are made for future research.

The Meaning of Alternative Tourism

In a paper that looked at the evolution of alternative tourism as a concept, Gonsalves (1987) charted its beginnings as a defined concept from the Manila International Workshop in 1980, although he noted that concern over tourism had become public at the World Council of Churches in 1969. In 1984 in Chiangmai, Thailand, the 44 participants of The Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism (ECTWT) agreed that it was seen as a process that promotes a just form of travel between members of different communities. It seeks to achieve mutual understanding, solidarity, and equality amongst participants.

The ECTWT produced a resource book on alternative tourism and promoted models and programs. Such models included:

• Brief contacts with local people,

• Longer visits with host families and the community, and an insight into local life,

• Noncommercial learning options (study tours, work camps, exchange visits),

• Organisations or community groups in various countries concerned about third world tourism, and

• Alternative tourist travel agents in host and sending nations seeking to share rather than shield visitors from the destination’s culture and problems.

Gonsalves (1987) sees the ultimate test of these alternatives in their ability to influence mainstream tourism. He cites an encouraging sign, that of the adoption of the Tourism Bill of Rights and Tourism Code by the World Tourism Organization in 1985 in response to the Penang Code of Ethics.

He concludes that, ‘travel, throughout history, has been a means of education, cross-cultural communication and the development of meaningful relationships. Alternative tourism considers these objectives still valid and works towards these ends.’ He ended on an optimistic note, and was positive about the course and intentions of alternative tourism, a position that has more recently been subject to sceptical criticism by other writers.

For Cohen (1987), alternative tourism is not even a single general concept, but composed of two principal conceptions. First, it is seen as a reaction to modern consumerism, a counter-cultural response to mass tourism composed of such characters as the adventurer, drifter, traveller, or those looking for spontaneity or romantically searching for a lost paradise. He suggests that these types occasionally create their own cultural enclaves involving drugs and sex, treating local people as oddities, and initiating a diminution of the culture of hospitality amongst the host community. There is also the incipient creation of an alternative tourism  ‘establishment,’ which leads to a further reduction in difference between alternative and mass tourism.

Second, it is conceived as ‘concerned alternative tourism,’ which is in essence a reaction to the exploitation of the third world in which the notion of a ‘just’ tourism arises, furthering mutual understanding and preventing environmental or cultural degradation and exploitation. In this type of tourism small groups interact with local people, and smallscale projects involving local consultation and participation are the principal means of promotion.

Cohen sees the principal quandary as being the fact that mass tourism cannot be transformed, whereas alternative tourism is too small scale to offer a realistic general option. This leads to the realisation that tourism is extremely varied and multifaceted and that criticism of mass tourism is too radical, whereas the goals of alternative tourism are set too high and are therefore unrealistic. Cohen is ultimately pragmatic, highlighting

the need to reform the worst prevailing situation in mass tourism. In short, he has powerfully criticised the supposition that alternative tourism can ultimately lead to a transformation of tourism and is suspicious of the benefits that it brings. He offered a good working definition, drawing attention to two central aspects, and has added a healthy air of critical judgement.

Cazes (1989) was well aware of the ambiguity of the concept ‘alternative tourism’ and he likened it to the notion ‘integrated,’ which has been described as a ‘miracle-word, a panacea concept and a mythical term.’ However, he eventually provided guidelines that may be applied to six different sectorial fields:

1. The tourist as an individual: motivated through original aspiration, which may include active tourism (rambling, trekking), exploring, encounter travel, committed tourism (voluntary service overseas, archaeological digs), and other self-sacrificing work.

2. The practitioners: they do not want to be regarded as clients or consumers, and include backpackers, drifters, long-distance travellers; overall a varied group.

3. The journey’s destination: this may be an unexplored ‘virgin’ location and often rests on an idealised vision of peasant societies that represent ‘authentic’  cultures.

4. The type of accommodation: ‘supplementary’ including camping, small local family hotels, holiday centres, village inns, private rented homes, paying guests; the dominant theme is microfacilities as opposed to massive hotels.

5. Travel organisers and partners: especially the nonlucrative organizations (nongovernmental organisations, mutual benefit societies), individual travel organisations; marginal or underground.