. .

Alternative :Pious Hope Or Trojan Horse?

R W. BUTLER

One of the buzzwords of the 198Os, along with heritage areas and their populations, without diminishing the positive and sustainable development, is alternative tourism. Like the economic effects, i.e., the best of all worlds. Obviously such is others it sounds good; it implies thought and concern and a dif- a laudable and eminently desirable goal to many host com- ferent approach and philosophy. Like the others, it is hard to munities and decision makers. disagree with it. All of us, even if we are “ugly tourists,” ac- Why then would one be critical of such alternatives? First knowledge that tourism creates problems, even though it may because of the natureof tourism, second because of the nature have tremendous economic and social benefits. Thus, in prin- of the development process, third because of the dismal ciple and instinctively, most people will be tolerant of, and record of dealing with tourism by most communities and possibly actively supportive of the concept of alternative agencies, fourth because of naive assumptions about all of the tourism, even if they do not understand what it really means. above, and fifth and most seriously, because of human nature Like sustainable development, it can mean almost anythingto (Exhibit 1). anyone. However, we need to carefully evaluate just what is meant by the term and more to the point, what the implica- EXHIBIT 1 tions of this alternative form are to existing and potential PROBLEMS 0F TOURISM destination areas. First then, what is it? Alternative to what? Obviously not to IGNORANCE of dimensions, nature. power of tourism all other forms of tourism, but rather, an alternative to the least desired or most undesired type of tourism, or essentially LACK OFABlLlTY to determine level of sustainable development, i.e., capacity what is known as mass tourism, the “Golden Hordes” of Turner and Ashe (1975), the mass institutionalized tourist of LACK OF ABILITY to manage tourism and control the development Cohen (1972). An alternative to the Costa Bravas, the Daytona Strips, Atlantic Citys and Blackpools of the world. LACK OF APPRECIATION that tourism does cause impacts. isan industry,and can not Alternative to large numbers, tasteless and ubiquitous devel- easily be reversed opment, environmental and social alienation and homogeni- LACK OF APPRECIATION zation. So far, to many academics, jaded writers, and that tourism is dynamic, and causes change as well as intellectuals it sounds good. However, like many appealing responds to change alternatives, there are both problems and costs associated LACK OF AGREEMENT with the alternative. This paper will argue that the problems, over levels of development, over control, over direction of the implications, and potential costs have generally been tourism ignored by many proponents of alternative tourism, and that in some situations the “cure” may be worse than the symptom. Alternative tourism and rejection of mass tourism are not Let us look briefly at what appears to be major problems of new. Thomas Cook’s tourists aroused great opposition from tourism development. They include price rises (labor, goods, the elite individual tourists whom they encountered on their taxes, land, etc.); change in local attitudes and behavior; in the nineteenth century. Christaller, in 1963, wrote pressure on people, crowding, disturbance, alienation; loss of of the transformation of peripheral tourist places because of resources, access, rights, privacy; denigration, prostitution of large numbers of mass tourists and associated developments, local culture; reduction of aesthetics; pollution in various concluding “all who seek real tourism move on.” Sociologists forms; lack of control over the destination’s future; and spe- and anthropologists have long expressed concern over the cific problems such as vandalism, litter, traffic, and low paid effects oftourist related development on human values, tradi- seasonal employment. These problems are common to many tions and behavior in host destinations (Smith 1974). How- forms of development, an& in many cases, represent dis- ever, these concerns have met two fairly significant problems: satisfaction with change from the status quo, and/or over- one, the economic value of mass tourism, at least at national reaching of acceptable levels of impact. and perhaps regional levels, and two, the fact that many We need therefore to consider if the real problems with people seem to enjoy being a mass tourist. They actually like status quo ornonaltemative tourism are endemic and unavoid- not having to make their own travel arrangements, not having able, or a function of dimensions and numbers. I would argue to find accommodation when they arrive at a destination, that essentially they are a function of both factors: the nature being able to obtain goods and service without learning a of tourism to some degree determines the nature and pattern foreign language, being able to stay in reasonable, in some of growth, and unless checked and controlled, will inevitably cases considerable comfort, being able to eat reasonably create a set of problems. familiar food, and not having to spend vast amounts of money ln many areas for many years tourism was promoted as a or time to achieve these goals. They seem, hard to believe panacea, a soft option, with few negative effects. “Tourists perhaps, prepared to give up genuine one-on-one authentic take nothing but photographs and leave nothing hut foot- local cultural contact and the harsh realities of a Third World prints” was, until recently, an advertising slogan of one or Old World existence in return. Canadian provincial government trying to encourage its citi- Why then, should anyone want to promote alternative zens to welcome visitors. Why anyone would want to wel- forms of tourism? The answer would appear to lie in an come people leaving Polaroid film wrappers and footprints assumption that the alternative forms of tourism (and tourist) was not clear, but a little note to the effect that tourists spent will have fewer and less severe negative effects on destination several billion dollars in Canada may he part of the explana- tion. In reality, it has become increasingly apparent that R W Butler is in the Department of Geography at the tourism does cause problems of various types and levels of University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. seriousness (Mathieson and Wall 1982). Some of these problems are almost unavoidable, while try grows. When the two approaches are compared in this mitigation attempts for others can cause alternative prob way, there is little wonder that the concept of soft, green, lems. It is possible to almost completely avoid wntact be- alternative tourism seems particularly attractive, certainly tween tourists and locals for example, if this is viewed as a compared to the much maligned Costa Brava, “El Sid” or problem or cause of social change (Brougham and Butler “Ugly American” images ascribed to mass tourism. This is 198 1). Tourist enclaves can be staffed by imported labor and the Trojan Horse aspect ofthe title ofthis paper. To represent tourists encouraged not to venture out of the enclave, as, for something in the way alternative tourism is often presented is example, in many casinos or Club Med.type . How- in many ways more dangerous and problematical ‘&an to ever, some authorities would bemoan the lack of contact promote other forms of tourism. To promote the acceptance between tourists and locals and complain oftourist ghetto+ and development of alternative forms of tourism without while others would see such developments as a missed oppor- being confident of the end result can potentially be more tunity for much needed employment and further alienation of harmful for a destination and its population than no devel- resources for use as imperialistic playthings, opment or even limited mass tourism. Tourism is an industry, a form and agent of development To properly and appropriately evaluate the relative merits and change. It has to be recognized as such. Controlled and of mass and alternative forms of tourism it is necessary to not managed properly it can be a non or low consumptive use of only consider the dimensions, behavior and traits of visitors, resources, andcanoperateonasustainable basis. However, if and requirements of these forms of tourism, but also their developed beyond the capacity of the environment, the re- inherent characteristics and their relationships with the agents source base, and the local population to sustain it, it ceases to of changes associated with tourism. While the state of re be a renewable resource industry and becomes, as Murphy search in tourism is such that we cannot yet produce the (1985) has noted, “a boom-bust enterprise.” definitive list of all agents of change associated with tourism, Such comments, it is suggested here, apply equally to mass we can identify some at least which are generally acknow- tourism, and alternative tourism. The process ofdevelopment ledged as being significant. They are illustrated in Exhibit 3 of mass-tourism resorts and destination areas has been dis- and have been subdivided into four broad areas: factors relat- cussed widely, including the life-cycle concept proposed by ing to the tourists, to the resource base, to the economic this author (Butler 1980). What needs to he stressed, how- structure, and to the political structure ofthe destination area. ever, is that without control and responsibility, there is almost It is certainly not intendedto be a total listing of all factors and inevitably the overreaching of some or all capacity limits, and in some cases a wide range or a large number of elements are degradation, decline, and change in the tourism product, subsumedunderonecategoly,e.g, contact, whichvarieswith which includes not only environmental elements but human amount, nature, location, and duration at least. ones as well. There is a strong and clear analogy here to the The purpose of Exhibit 4 is to illustrate that a simple big/ “Tragedy of the Commons.” small, rapid/slow type of comparison is not acceptable. In Hardin’s (1969) essay, the real tragedy of the Com- Rather, ifwe examine, even simplistically, the characteristics mons was the inevitability of destruction because of a lack of of mass and alternative forms of tourism with respect to the assigned responsibility and the fact that each individual stood agents of change relating to tourism, we see potentially a very to benefit in the short term by deliberately exceeding the different picture. In the short-tern there is little doubt that capacity ofthe resource. Hardin’s example was the grazing of alternative tourism appears, and almost certainly is, much too many cattle on the common, while in the case oftourism it less conducive to causing change in destination areas than could be having too many tourists for the destination to with- mass tourism, in part because of its dimensions and in part stand, although in the case of tourism there are many varia- because ofthe need for fewer and smaller facilities. However, tions on this scenario. While not all ofthe problems oftourism as time goes by, some factors can assume much greater sig- result simply from exceeding capacity limits, many do. nificance under alternative tourism and result in greater and Messerli and Brugger (1984, p, 615) note “The market for more serious long-term change. Contact is one such example. tourism is not in a position to guarantee a path ofdevelopment While total contact (measured in visitor/host interaction which in the long run is in its own best interest.” Nor, one occasions, for example) may be less under alternative tour- might add, is it in a position to guarantee a level ormagnltude ism, the duration may he much greater per occasion, the of development in anyone’s best interest. The highly frag- nature be much more intensive involving considerable dis- mented and extremely competitive nature of the tourism cussion, and the location may be much more sensitive and industry, both public and private sectors, mitigates against personal, for example, a home compared to a lobby. self or internal control. Thus in Cyprus, for example, the One conclusion which can be drawn is that, at least Tourist Board sees the need for selective marketing and potentially, alternative forms oftourism penetrate further into limited specific development, but hoteliers and would-be the personal space of residents, involve them to a much hoteliers push for rapid growth Of all segments ofthe market. greater degree, expose often fragile resources to greater visi- To promote one form of tourism as a solution to the multi- tation, expose the genuine article to tourism to a greater ple problems which can be caused by extensive and long-term degree, may result in a proportionately greater leakage of tourism development is somewhat akin to selling nineteenth expenditure, and may cause political change in terms of con- century wonder medicines. Such promotion needs to be trol over development. evaluated carefully and objectively. Making simplistic and Alternative tourism is often used as a synonym for appre idealized comparisons of hard and soft or mass and green priate tourism. In this context however, it is necessary to ask tourism, such that one is obviously undesirable and the other the question appropriate for whom? Furthermore one should close to perfection is not only inadequate, it is also grossly also ask for how long, under what conditions, and by whose misleading (Exhibit 2). Mass tourism need not be uncon- decision is it deemed appropriate? Tourism has rightly often trolled, unplanned, short-term or unstable. Green tourism is been regarded as yet another form of imperialism, furthering not always and inevitably considerate, optimizing, controlled, the domination by and subservience to developed countries of planned, and under local control. This may be the ideal Third World or lesser developed countries (Roekaerts and scenario but is not always realism, and there is little if any Swat 1989). Surely academics from developed countries evidence that it could always remain so, ifthe tourism indus- pontificating on what is appropriate tourism is hardly much

JOURNALOFTRAVELRESEARCH 41 better, particularly when such authorities cannot guarantee culture with drugs, loose sexual mores and poor hygenic the long term results of their recommendations. standards,” and “the average tourist - a consuming raping In fact, one might argue that at the root of much of what is individual, who destroys or violates what he or she has come being proposed as alternative tourism is really a disguised to look foi’ (Roekaerts and Swat 1989) do little to dispel1 class prejudice. Large number of middle and lower class such criticism. Even experienced researchers make similar tournts are not welcome, nor are “hippies” in any number, comments. Holder ( 1988, p. 10) writes “The country resorts / but small numbers of afiluenf well educated andwell behaved to mass tourism, attracting persons of lower standards of tourists are welcome. While this may seem a harsh criticism, social behavior and economic power. This leads to the soci@ descriptions such as “the hippie, preaching his counter- environmental degradation of the tourist destination.” This

EXHIBIT2 COMPARISON OF ‘HARD’ AND ‘SOFT’TOURISM

Mass Tourism Green Tourism General Features Rapid development Slow development Big strides Small Steps Maximizes “DtilIliZes Socially, environmentally Socially, enYirOnmsntally Inconsiderate, aggressive Considerate. cautious Uncontrolled Controlled Unplanned Planned Without scale I” scale Short term Long term Special interests Total interests Remote control Local control Unstable Stable Sectoral Holistic Price conscious Value conscious Quantitative Qualitative Growth Development Tourist Behavior Large groups Singles, families, and friends travel Little time Much time Rapid transportation Appropriate (also slow!) transportation Fixed program Spontaneous decisions Tourists directed Tourists decide tmported life style “Local” life style “Sights” “Experiences” Comfortable and passive Demanding and active Little or no mental preparation Some mental preparation No foreign language Language learning Feeling of superiority Open-minded approach Shopping Bring presents Memories, new knowledge Snaps and postcards Photography, drawings, paintings NOsey Tactful Loud Quiet Basic Requirements Retention of peek periods Staggered holiday periods Untrained labor force - no career structure Further education for labor force Publicity cliches Tourist “education” Hard selling Heart selling Tourism as economic panacea Alternatives to and in tourism sought Tourism Development Strategies Development without planning First plan, then develop Project-led schemes Concepted-led schemes District level planning only Regional co-ordination of district plans Scattered development Concentrated development Building outside existing settlements Development within existing settlements Intensive development in areas of finest Fine landscape conserved landscaws New building and new bed capacity Re-useexisting buildings- better utilization ofbed capacity Building for speculative unknown future demand Fixed. limited development Tourism development everywhere Development only in suitable places and where local services already exist Development by outside developers “Native” developers only Employment primarily for non-natives Employment according to local potential Development only on economic grounds Discussion of all economic, ecological, and social issues Farming declines. labor force into tourism Farm economy retained and strengthened Comm,!jnity bears Social costs Developer bears social costs Traffic “plan” favors cars Traffic”plan” favors public Capacity for high season demand Capacity for average demand ‘“Natural” and historical obstacles removed “Natural” and historical obstacles retained Urban architecture Vernacular architecture High technology and mechanized tourist Selective mechanized development - “low-tech” installations development favored Source: Lane 1988, quoting Krippendorf dislike of“low class” tourists and tourism manifests itself in a tive tourism is highly educated, aflluent, mature, and prob wide variety of areas. In Ontario. in one infamous episode a ably white. If this description tits many of us (except the coach load oftourists (day visitas) had stones thrown at tl.:: aftluent) it may explain why many academics are at least coach by residentsofNiagara-on-the-Lake, and yetthissmall basically sympathetic to alternative tourism! town is proud of and enthusiastically promotes a Shaw Some ofthe implications of alternative tourism need to be Theatre Festival which attracts large numbers of ti.: “right examined more closely. These include the reduction in num- kind of tourist” who will stay in rather expensive restored bers oftourists, the change in type oftourist, the education of properties :tnd spend a considerable amount of money in the all parties involved, and the impacts resulting from a new set process. In the bookBermuda’s Delicate Balance, Hayward, of activities. Reducing numbers of tourists has two aspects, Gomez, and Sterner (1981) are clear on the type of visitor reducing numbers in areas where numbers are currently too they u : dd prefer “the very tourists that would be our ideal: great, and limiting potential visitors to levels compatible with the long-staying, high spending, committed, quality visitor.” capacity parameters. It is extremely difficult to reduce num- While all proponents of alternative tourism may not be guilty bers in a free market situation without prejudicing the viability of class prejudice, in the majority of cases, the type of tourist of the industry. Revenues can be expected to decline (unless who would realistically be attracted to most forms of alterna- massive market replacement occurs at the same time), which

EXHIBIT 3 PRINCIPAL AGENTS OF CHANGE RELATING TO TYPES OF TOURISM

Conventional Tourism Alternative Tourism Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term

TOWiStS Numbers Growth Large Slow growth Small ’ , Behavior Sedentary Sedentary Explorer Explorer 1 I Location Limited/* Resorts Communities Widespread Time Short Short. definite Long. indefinite Medium, definite Contact Some, economic Great, shallow Some, intensive Intensive Similarity Little Little Very little Very little

Resource Fragility Possible pressure Ruination/little Little pressure Pressure Uniqueness Possible pressure Ruination/little Little pressure P,e**u,e Capacity Problem Probably exceeded Minor problem Problem

Economy Sophistication Developed None Very little Leakage Some Maybe lot Maybe lot Political Local ccntro, Little Most Some vulnerable planning extent Little Little Little i; EXHIBIT4 POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE TOURISM

Impacts Social Environmental Economic Tourists -~ Numbers Positive Positive NegatiVe Behavior Ouestionable Slightly positive Negative LOcation Negative Negative Negative Time Positive Negatiw Positive Contact Negative N/A Neutral Similarity Negative Slightly negative Positive Resource Fragility Neutral Negative Neutral Uniqueness Neutral Negative Neutral C%Wity Neutral Slightly positive Neutral ECO”O”ly Sophistication Pwitive Neutral Negative Leakage Slightly po*itiw Neutral Negative Political Local Control Positive lJ”k”cw” Neutral _ma”ni”g extent Slightly negative ““known Neutral _.____.

JOURNALOFTRAVELRESEARCH 43 . .

can result in loss of employment and reduction in local they are culturally sympathetic, and not desiring a change standard of living. Local support is relatively unlikely, cer- in local behavior, is much more likely to result in changes tainly not likely to be unanimous. Few places have seen this in local behavior in the long run than is a large number of change, normally where relatively small numbers were in- tourists in more conventional tourist ghettoes, where con- volved, and even then not without opposition (Jayal and tact with locals is limited, if intensive, and in, what is to locals, and tourists, clearly artificial settings. The true Singh, in Jayal andMotwani 1986). Limitingnumbers before local environment can still be found in areas into which they become a problem is much more attractive but assumes tourists do not penetrate. To disperse tourists in space and /capacity levels can be identified and agreed to. Even if local time, i.e., toextend the sea~onto avoidpeaking eouldand preferences were accepted, there is no guarantee these would in some cases has, resulted in far more profound and match the goals of alternative tourism proponents. In many permanent changes over a wider area, than when touris& cases local entrepreneurs and politicians have been enthus- are confined to small areas in large numbers for clearly iastic proponents of mass tourism development. Rural and defined seasons. (Butler 1989) indigenous peoples’ environmental ethics are often less than those of their urban counterparts and they see environmental This paper has been critical, perhaps overly so, of alter- wncerns as another way of oppressing them or limiting their native tourism. It was felt necessary to be so because so much development to meet the desires of the urban sophisticates. has been assumed to be positive about alternative tourism Changing the type of tourist is equally difficult to limiting without critical evaluation. These criticisms should not he J or reducing numbers. Plog( 1977) and others have shown the taken as a rejection of the concept per se, but rather as an way different tourists have different preferences. Once an expression of concern and doubt that enough is known about area is developed it is next to impossible to change the type of the topic to warrant wholesale support for it. In some areas, visitor back to a type who came earlier in search of “real for some people, in some situations it is certainly better than tourism” (Christaller 1963). Second, if a destination aims mass tourism. In many cases, however, such areas would itself at a specific (and hence limited) market (e.g., omithol& most likely nof experience mass tourism anyway. The ques- gists, photographers, amateur archaeologists, culture-lovers, tion then should be, is alternative tourism an appropriate form etc.) it faces the real risk that not only may there not be a large of development, not instead of mass tourism, but in its own enough market, but that it may notbe arepeat market. Visitors right? Can it be controlled and directed so that benefits go may decide that after the Galapagos, the Canadian Arctic, where they are intended to, negative aspects mitigated or then the Himalayas, then Antartica, and so on. In addition, avoided, and the developments he sustainable and within while mass tourists are for the most part sedentary and spend capacity limitations, both human and physical? That would their money in a limited number of locations, much of the represent a truly alternative approach rather than the snake- expenditure of the alternative tourists may be pre-spent on oil panacea which is too often proposed at present. packages or spent in small amounts in a wide variety of loca- This is not an attempt to dismiss alternative tourism as tions. Wall (1989) has shown the true wilderness tourist being impractical or undesirable, but even in the case of spends little or nothing in the wilderness, as in the real wilder- alternative tourism, perhaps even more so in that case, there ness there is nothing to spend money on. needs to be much more selective and deliberate planning, Educating people is an alternative that is hard for this management, and control over development. An active rather author to reject, but it is a mammoth and long term project. than reactive approach (Edwards 1988, p. 13). with an -Most people would probably accept the wisdom of the con- emphasis upon balance, as Holder (1988, p. 19) notes, cept of sustainable development and developing “suitable” “between ecosystems, balancing economic and social goals, and low-impacting forms of tourism, but short-term reality balancing the responsibility of the state with the rights of dictates that thb window of opportunity is often limited and individuals and groups.” This is not easy to do in any cir- timescales ofmost entrepreneurs are short. Those of a tourist cumstances. AsCazes(1989, p. 125) haspointedoutthereis spending a week on a beach are even shorter. It is not realistic, really no example of significant size which clearly and com- evenifnaivelyoptimistic, toexpect atouristwishingtolieona pletely meets the alternative tourism model, including local beach in the Caribbean to be too interested in the impact he or priorities and control. Perhaps, in line with Cohen’s (1989) she may have on the social fabric of the island visited, espe- excellent conclusions to his brief critique of alternative tour- cially when they may not wish to associate with local resi- ism, the real value of alternative tourism lies in helping us be dents 01 move out ofthe hotel complex. The response is more nwre realistic in trying to ameliorate the problems of conven- likely, with some justification, to be that tourism is supplying tional tourism than trying to do away with mass tourism and jobs and investment, and the government of the places obvi- replace it with something else. Where would the many ously wants tourists, so what is the problem? millions currently visiting the Costa Brava go and what would The bottom line perhaps is that one cannot expect one’s they do? Perhaps just as importantly, what would the inhabi- * cake to remain after eating it. The much needed jobs and tants of Lloret de Mar and neighboring communities do? income will not necessarily come from alternative tourism. In realistic terms we cannot and should not want to obliter- To have some tourism but not too much is like being a little bit ate mass tourism. Alternative tourism could not replace it, in pregnant. Fun getting there but an increasing problem living economic terms, in personal preference terms or simply in with it as the product grows and changes almost independent logistical terms. At best perhaps it can fulfill a number of of the parent’s influence. However environmentally sympa- roles. One is to complement mass tourism by increasing thetic, every tourist can be damaging to the environment attractions and authenticity, as for example Meganck and (Grosjean l984), and few forms of alternative tourism are Ramdial note (1984, p. 4), allowing tourists “the chance to really amenable to a n-change scenario over time. In the enjoy the natural areas andrich cultural history ofthe region.” social environment a similar situation exists. Another is to serve the needs and desires of specific groups or categories of tourists including those interested in natural It is generally accepted that social change and impacts history, in language, in photography, for example. Another, from tourism occur because of contact between tourists and the most common form perhaps in Europe, is to supple- and the hosts and residents. One can therefore argue that ment incomes of primarily rural dwellers in marginal areas, tourism which placer tourists in local homes, even when through for example, farm tourism, guiding, crafts, and enterprises. A fourth may be to allow some tourism development in areas which cannot sustain major change because of environmental and/or social capacity limitations. As Norbu (1984) shows however, even as few as 5,000 annual visitors can have an unacceptably high level of impact depending upon their activities and needs. Thus we should suppat the development of alternative tourism where it is clear that is the most appropriate form of tourism, but reaching this requires consideration of much more than counting the negative effects of mass or conven- tional tourism. It means determining priorities and needs of the area and its residents, determining capacity limitations of the destination environment (human and physical), and the reaction of the potential market (Exhibit 5). Alternative tour- ism is not effective if there are no tourists. Proponents of alternative tourism who disregard the preferences and needs ofthe tourists represent the pious hopes referred to in the title of this paper. There need to he sufficient attractions to draw tourists, and at present, most alternative tourists, as mass tourists, have many options open to them. Despite the desire not to attract the mass market, it is necessary for even alter- native tourism destinations to attract a market. The main problems include identifying the market, reaching it alone, andmaintainingit at an acceptable sizeforalongtime. Unless all or most of the viewpoints shown in Exhibit 3 can find the type of tourism development in an area acceptable, the long term future for the tourism and the area is unlikely to be very satisfactory. Opposing viewpoints will be exerting pressure to alter the industry to tit this vision of development.

EXHIBIT 5 VIEWPOINTS IN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT _ _ _ layal, N. D. and M. Motwani (eds.) (1986). Conservation. Tourism and Mounroineetiog in the Himalayas. D&a Dun: Natraj Publishers. Lane, 8. (1988). “,“ Cbeltenbam: Countryside Recreation Conference, Countryside Commission. Economic Entrepreneurs (local and nonlocal). gcwxn- Mathieson, A. and G. Wall (1982), Tourism: Economic. Ph_wid and ment, residents Soeid Impoe&, New York: Longman. A”“OYa”ce Residents, tourists(if disappointed) Meganck, R and B. S. Ramdial ( 1984). “Trinidad and Tobago Cubural Parks: An idea Whose Time Has Come,” Parks, 9, 1-5. Mental/spiritual Ecclesiastical, academic Mishra, H. R(,984),“ADelicateBalance:Tigers, Rbinoceros,To”ristsand Environmental Government (7). residents (?I. external groups Park Management vs. the Needs of the Local People in Royal Chitwan Pleasure Tourist National Park, NePa,,” in J. A. McNeely and K. R Miller (eds.), Nnriona, Parks, Conserwtion and Developm~n,. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, PP. 197-205. Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism -A Communiry Approach, New York The concern should be that the process would appear to be Methuen. unidirectional, that is, alternative small scale tourism can change to mass conventional tourism, perhaps will inevitably do so without strict management and control, but mass con- ventional tourism is highly unlikely to he able to change to Roekae”s, M. and K. Savat( 1989),“Mass Tourism in South and South East alternative small scale tourism. Even if this latter change was Asia: A Challenge to Christians and Churches,” in T. V. Sin&, H. L. possible, the consequences in economic, social, and political Tbeuns, andF. M. Go(eds.), Towards Appmprinre Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries. Frankfurt am Main: Peter La”& Pp. 35-70. terms may be too severe to even allow it to take place. Sadler, B. (1 987). “Sustaining Tomorrow and Endless Summer, on Linking In conclusion, this paper has tried not to take sides, for or Tourism and Environment in the Caribbean,” in F. Edwards (ed.), against either of the perhaps most extreme type of tourism, Environmenmllv Sound Tourism Develwmenr in the Coribbeon. but rather to argue for rational, objective evaluation of the merits and problems of all types of tourism in the context of the destination area. Development has the capacity to en- hance enjoyment, economic return, and the environment if the type, scale, and timing is correct. It also has the power to degrade, corrupt, or bankrupt and despoil if any or all ele- ments are wrong. Claiming one form oftourism is allthings for all areas is not only pious and naive, it is unfair, unrealistic, and unwise.

JOURNALOFTRAVEL RESEARCH 45