Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse?

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 Cook's 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