Challenges Of Tourism Development - Research Paper Example

Challenges Of Tourism Development ‘While the growth of tourism will inevitably present challenges over the next century, particularly in less developed nations, on balance there is little reason not to be optimistic about its ultimate sustainability.’ Critically discuss the above quotation. Griffin’s quote presents an optimistic outlook on the future of tourism and its impact on communities, especially in the developing world. Although he is realistic that the growth of tourism may create difficulties in certain areas, he ultimately holds a positive point of view, focusing on the many positive benefits which tourism can bring. If the expansion of tourism is handled well, he argues, the benefits can far outweigh the problems. This essay will explore Griffin’s point of view by examining his argument in greater depth, as well as other research on the subject, in order to ascertain whether the picture is as optimistic as Griffin argues. In order to do this, the essay will discuss the impact which tourism can have on the various stakeholders in less developed countries, in order to gain a clear picture of the benefits and problems which the expansion of tourism can have in the less developed world. It will then weigh these against each other, so as to judge how far Griffin’s opinion can be said to be accurate. In order to begin this discussion, it is first necessary to define what is meant by stakeholders in the tourism context. This is a complex area, since stakeholders can be many and various, and come from both within and outside the area in which tourism is expanding. As the tourism industry has expanded, the notion of stakeholders has become increasingly important as a way of defining which groups of people should be involved in the decision making process with regards to tourism expansion. As useful definition of stakeholders in the tourism context comes from Hall (2008: 121) who states that ‘stakeholders are the individuals, groups and organizations with an interest in a planning problem, issue or outcome that are directly influenced or affected by the actions or non-actions taken by others to resolve the problem or issue.’ It is clear from this definition that the stakeholders can vary a great deal from context to context. However, as a basic starting point, key stakeholders can be defined as the tourists themselves, travel agents and other associated travel related businesses (hotels, restaurants, transport companies) both inside and outside the tourist destination, the local population, local business, sometimes local and national government, and often campaign groups associated with protecting the local eco-system. These groups will usually be present as stakeholders, and other groups may also emerge in specific contexts. It is clear, therefore, that different stakeholders have different needs and interests in the expansion of tourism. For example, local hotels and restaurants may welcome an influx of tourists as a way of boosting their income, while local people or environmental groups may object to what they perceive as the destruction of their way of life and local eco-systems. Can two such opposing viewpoints really be reconciled as Griffin suggests? Can the expansion of the tourist industry really look forward to a bright future? The basis of Griffin’s arguments lies in the fact that ‘it is possible...to regard tourism’s future growth as not only assured but also highly desirable.’ (2001: 24) Griffin does not attempt to argue that the expansion of tourism will not present its own unique set of problems, but rather regards these difficulties as ‘not insurmountable and...potentially outweighed by the / opportunities for improving the human condition’. (24-5­) This is the cornerstone of Griffin’s argument – that tourism can and does work to improve the human condition, and it is this that should be regarded above all other things are the most important aspect of tourism. However, he does concede that that successful expansion of tourism will depend on the ability of the tourist industry and governments to meet the challenges it raises. (24) This is a considerable unknown and one which has caused other critics to be less optimistic about the expansion of tourism. The role of the government as a stakeholder in the tourist industry is a crucial one. While local people, campaigning groups and even national and international business interests may have some impact on the shape that tourism expansion takes, the power to successful expand tourism in a region ultimately lies with governments. For Griffin’s optimistic viewpoint to be true therefore, and as he himself concedes, much rests with governments. Page (2009: 416) comments that, while governments are responsible for routine legislation and administration tasks such as visa issuing and immigration control, ‘it is [governments’ ] degree of involvement and commitment to tourism over and above these statutory functions that is important’. Governments must be committed to taking a leading role in the expansion of tourism in order for their power to be used constructively. The problem, argues Page (419), is that in less developed countries government do not act as effectively as might be hoped. The result is that, according to Page, ‘the benefits of tourism are not necessarily orientated to generating local wealth and employment, as in less developed countries...the benefits leak out and low-paid, seasonal employment is the norm rather than full employment for all’. This statement is in direct contradiction to Griffin’s argument that tourism can improve the human condition. It is clear that, according to some critics, in less developed countries tourism does not bring the benefits to the local population that Griffin is so optimistic about. It is now necessary to move beyond a general discussion of these issues, and on to a more specific discussion of case studies. In broad terms, a picture of resort tourism has emerged in less developed countries, otherwise known as enclave tourism. As Page and Connell (2006: 463) discuss, this style of development is due to a lack of existing infrastructure in the less developed country, combined with an unwillingness on the part of the government to make direct investment in the tourist industry. Both Griffin and Page focus on government involvement in the tourist industry as a key part in successful development, but Page and Connell reveal that, in less developed countries, governments are unlikely to make such a commitment, preferring to provide tax breaks and other incentives and encourage private development. This approach discourages wider development which benefits the local population, and encourages self-contained resort style development. The result is that little benefit is seen for the local people. Page and Connell (463) state that ‘the link between tourism and poverty is apparent from the fact that, in LDCs, tourism is a dominant feature in the poorest hundred countries and, in many countries which are recipients of aid, tourism is a dominant feature’. Griffin is right to argue, therefore, that tourism could benefit the human condition. However, it seems in reality that this simply does not take place. The study which Page and Connell focus on is resort tourism in Africa. (2006: 463) In Botswana, over the last decade, tourism has become the second most important economic activity. However, the local stakeholders have seen little benefit. Tourists arrive to resorts and are then transported to see the wild life of the area. Foreign ownership of these resorts sees revenue directed outside of Botswana, and so while the foreign stakeholders of the tourist industry and the tourists themselves benefit from this arrangement, little benefit is seen for the local stakeholders. Low levels of employment of local workers, along with a monopoly of resort ownership which sees little opportunity for local entrepreneurs to invest, means that local stakeholders are largely excluded from the tourist industry. Further, international airlines compete with Air Botswana to transport tourists to and from the country. Finally, the development of low volume, luxury tourism has meant that there is little opportunity for local business to attract budget travellers who might venture outside the resort confines to camp sites or local hotels. A low volume of tourists also reduces the opportunity for local businesses to sell their products to the tourist market. This low volume tourism is no doubt positive for the limited impact it has on the local environment. However, if Griffin hoped that tourism could improve the human condition, it is clear that, in Botswana at least, this is far from the case. This type of enclave tourism is widespread in the less developed world, as government prefer to leave investment and development to private and often foreign companies. However, Griffin’s optimistic outlook could still be realisable if a different model for tourism expansion was followed. Although the current picture is, therefore, not the brightest, there is some evidence that tourism expansion in the less developed world could bring the kind of benefits that Griffin envisages. The example of the Damaraland Camp in Namibia is a case in point. (Telfer and Sharpley, 2008: 40) This is a similar arrangement to that in Botswana, with low volumes of tourists being offered a luxury safari experience, sleeping in well-equipped, en-suite tents in the camp. However, the impact to the Damaraland camp has been much more positive on the local stakeholders than in Botswana. In the early 1990s, the area was riddled with poachers, animals numbers were rapidly declining and unemployment was extremely high. In order to protect their land, the local community established a guard system, in order to stop poaching and defend what little resources they had left. Out of this project grew a safari package, developed and run by the local community. In this way the local eco-system continues to be protected, the indigenous population sees real financial benefits and local business benefit from the tourist trade. Although it appears, at first glance, to be another enclave-type resort set-up, in reality it is a form of tourism which is effectively integrated into the local community. The money the camp generates is reinvested in community projects, and the staff are all recruited from the local community. This type of tourism ensures that the money generated is retained within the local community, and that foreign stakeholders do not monopolise the area. The key difference between these two projects is government involvement. In Botswana, government incentives saw foreign investment which did little to benefit the local community. In Namibia, conversely, the project grew from the grass roots, with no government sponsorship until it was already well established. This contrast presents a serious problem in the tourism expansion debate. Although projects like the Damaraland camp prove that tourism can really benefit less developed countries, they do so in spite of the system, rather than because of it. Governments still have little incentive to support projects such as that in Damaraland, when they can instead encourage foreign investors to carry the burden of investment. Until this issue is seriously addresses with the appropriate legislation, governments in less developed countries will continue to be incentivised to pursue tourism expansion which brings little benefits to the local stakeholders in lesser developed countries. This is the point which Sinclair and Stabler focus on. In less developed countries, more than in any other, the necessary legislative safeguards which promote meaningful tourism development are woefully inadequate. They state (1997: 181) that in ‘many tourist-emergent developing countries...access and property rights regarding resources are obscure or non-existent, government legislation and regulations are absent, ill-conceived or badly enforced and there are no appropriate institutional structures.’ The biggest hurdle which less developed countries face in their bid for successful tourism expansion, therefore, is at the fundamental government level. The necessary structures need to be put in place before Griffin’s optimistic future can be realised. This essay, therefore, would argue that ‘there is little reason not be optimistic about [tourism’s] ultimate sustainability’ (Griffin: 201: 32) is an overstatement of the facts. There are many reasons, at a basic level, to be concerned at the shape which tourism expansion in less developed countries may take in the future. The lack of government responsibility for sustainable tourism development, and the lack of financial incentives for governments to pursue grassroots, rather than foreign investment, tourism development strategies, does not bode well for the local stakeholders in developing countries. However, case studies such as that in Namibia show that tourists developments implemented by local people, and which benefit local people, are possible and so there is some hope that the interests of local stakeholders will be protected and that tourism could ultimately make a meaningful contribution to the lives of people in less developed countries. Word count: 2041 References Griffin, T. (2002) ‘An optimistic perspective on tourism’s sustainability’, in Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective. Eds. R. Harris, T. Griffin and P. Williams London: Butterworth-Heinemann Hall, C. M. (2008) Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships. London: Pearson Page, S. and Connell, J. (2006) Tourism: A Modern Synthesis. London: Cengage Learning Page, S. (2009) Tourism Management: Managing for Change. London: Butterworth-Heinemann Sinclair, M. T. and Stabler, M. (1997) The Economics of Tourism. Oxford: Routledge Telfer, D. J. and Sharpley, R. (2008) Tourism and Development in the Developing World. Oxford: Routledge Select an existing tourist destination or region. Critically evaluate the efforts your chosen destination or region has made in seeking to apply to concepts and practices of sustainable tourism. You should also comment on your destination’s success or failure to date in seeking to introduce and implement sustainable tourism. The tourist destination which will be discussed in this section is the Great Barrier Reef. This destination has been chosen because it represents an extremely popular tourist trap which is also a very delicate eco-system, in need of protection and therefore very likely to benefit from the successful implementation of sustainable tourism. This essay will therefore explore the measures which the Australian Government, together with various environmental groups and the tourist industry, has taken in order to ensure the long term sustainability of tourism in the region. The essay will begin by attempting to outline a definition of sustainable tourism, before moving on explore how far the principles of sustainable tourism have been applied in the case of the Great Barrier Reef. Finally, the successes and failures of the introduction and application of sustainable tourism in the region will be analysed. Although there is no single definition of sustainable tourism, a general idea of what is meant by the term can be taken from Swarbrooke (1999: 13). In his definition, he states (13) that ‘it is usually thought vital that any definition of sustainable tourism emphasizes the environmental, social and economic elements of the tourism system’. However, beyond this general outline, Swarbrooke is unable to come it with a meaningful and universally applicable definition of sustainable tourism. He turns, therefore, to a set of principles which need to be applied for sustainable tourism to take place. (14) Careful management can be regarded as the guiding principle of sustainable tourism. This management means that tourism growth is slow, and is only allowed to expand up to the natural capacity of the region which must host it. While non-sustainable tourism looks for fast growth to as great a capacity as possible, sustainable tourism shuns this in favour of long term sustainability. Sustainable tourism is also not only concerned with the environmental impact. Rather, it considers social, economic, cultural and political issues so that the well-being of the local population, as well as the local environment, is foremost. This must be protected, and tourism development in a region must come second to maintaining the political, social and cultural integrity of the indigenous population. In order to achieve these goals, the local population must have a meaningful say in every stage of the planning and development of tourism in a region. This necessarily means realising that projects may be limited by local cultural or political concerns, but that tourism must not be forced upon a population, taking only business interests into consideration. This results in far more compromise than non sustainable tourism, and decisions on such compromises are taken by balancing the costs and benefits for all parties concerned, not just the business interests in the region. By following these principles, low impact, long-lasting tourism which brings real benefits to the local population, without threatening its integrity, can be achieved. These can therefore be seen as the objectives which the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority would have had in mind when introducing sustainable tourism to the area. Sustainable tourism at the Great Barrier Reef has been the goal of the Australian government, and they have been very vocal about it. By their own criteria, sustainable tourism has been a great success in the region. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (2007) was one of only three tourist destination nominated for a Destination Award in the World Travel and Tourism Council’s Tourism for Tomorrow Awards. The GBRMPA published the following statement on the Australian government website, about what the Tourism for Tomorrow Award nomination meant for the progress they had been making towards introducing sustainable tourism at the Great Barrier Reef; ‘It recognises the environmentally sustainable marine tourism that has been achieved in the Great Barrier Reef through a highly successful partnership between the GBRMPA and Reef tourism operators.’ It is clear, therefore, that the Australian Government is keen to suggest that the target of sustainable tourism in the region has been achieved. Further research into sustainable tourism on the Great Barrier Reef will now be examined in order to ascertain whether the Australian Government’s claims are really as clear cut as they sound. The main way in which the Australian government has managed the various ways in which the Great Barrier Reef is used, and the various economic, leisure and environmental interests in the area, is through its zoning policy. Herremans (2006: 158) describes the major usages on the Great Barrier Reef as ‘commercial tourism, private recreation and commercial fishing’. From this usage come the threat of ‘pollution, overfishing, and destruction of habitat; all derived from human activity’. (158) The Reef, therefore, is used extensively by humans, in many different ways, and so even before the introduction of tourism to the area, it was already facing problems associated with human activity. In order to ease these problems, thereby leaving the way open for the continued development of tourism in the area, the Australian government together with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Association, proposed a zoning method, breaking the Reef up into three distinct parts. In the general use zones, which make up seventy-six percent of the Reef park, most activities which do not directly destroy the Reef are permitted. In this way, both tourists and the local population are not unduly limited in the way they use the area. The second zone, which makes up twenty-three percent of the park, is classified as Marine national park zone. In this area commercial fishing is prohibited and there are also restrictions on leisure activities. Only one percent of the Reef park is designated as preservation and scientific research area. No activity except approved scientific research is permitted in this zone classification. It is clear, therefore, that through their use of zone, the Reef is still highly accessible both to local business and tourists, but that efforts are also made to protect the environmental integrity of the area. In addition to these measures, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Association also, via talks, pamphlets, information boards and interpretative program schemes, attempts to educate tourists which visit the area on the impact that tourism has, and how each tourist can reduce this impact. Independent research by Madin and Fenton (2004) suggests that these measures have been effective in educating responsible tourists. A major part of sustainable tourism involves encouraging the tourists themselves to be responsible for their own actions, and understand the delicate nature of the environment in which they are holidaying. That the GBRMPA has put such measures in place, and that they are effective, shows a serious commitment to sustainable tourism in the region. However, perhaps most importantly, the GBRMPA also places limits on the number of tourists which are allowed to visit the park. To use either of the two zones in which tourism is allowed, tour operators are required to apply for a permit. (Information taken from Mason, 2003: 111) In this way, the park authorities can keep tabs on the number of visitors in the park at any one time, following the sustainable tourism principle of slow tourism expansion up to and not beyond saturation point. The development of sustainable tourism in this region relies heavily on the understanding that visitors numbers must be carefully monitored and controlled. Without such measures in place, it would be impossible for the GBRMPA to ensure that the visitor numbers to the Reef were sustainable and not posing a threat to the continued well being of the Reef, and the livelihoods of the locals who fish and work there. The final phase of ensuring sustainable tourism in the area is the limiting of development. Any substantial building or construction work proposals must be accompanied by Environmental Impact Statements, and upon approval each stage of the work must be completed in association with Environmental Impact Statements. (Information taken from Mason, 2003: 111) This level of control ensures that only structures which will not have a detrimental impact on the eco system of the Reef are allowed to proceed. In this way, harmful, rapid and unsustainable development is avoided, and instead the kind of measured and thoughtful development associated with sustainable tourism is allowed to proceed as slowly or as quickly as the situation dictates. These are all the kinds of measures which sustainable tourism espouses and promotes, and they appear to be being implemented at the Great Barrier Reef. It is necessary, however, to refer to independent research in order to assess whether these measures have successfully met sustainable tourism’s goals of low impact, long-term tourism. The Great Barrier Reef is a World Heritage Site, and so such research comes in the form of a World Heritage Report issued in 2006 and another, also issued by the World Heritage Trust and published by the GBRMPA, on the issue of tourism and management, in 2003. The 2003 report makes the following statement with regards the management of tourism in the region; ‘The GBRMPA is seeking to improve the management of tourism permits and is developing policies that will provide a more business-focussed approach that encourages best practice’. (6) It is clear, therefore, that the system of permits has not been as efficient as it could be. In particular, there are issues with ‘latent’ permits, which are issued and then not used, particularly in less dense tourist areas. Such permits could be revoked, in order to provide a more realistic picture of tourist activity in the area, and also to prevent prospecting on potential future opportunities on the Reef. However, in general the report cites other issues such as global warming and coral bleaching (7) and natural infestations which can destroy coral (7) as threats to the Reef, rather than tourism itself. The 2006 report is also of central importance when assessing the impact of tourism on the Great Barrier Reef. The report is initially pessimistic, citing a number of different threats to the Reef. These include global warming, the effect of European settlement and increasing population density in the area, an increase in shark and ray harvesting and a dramatic fall in the numbers of nesting loggerhead turtles in the region over the last forty years (1). However, the report reveals that these issues are not directly or indirectly related to tourism, and indeed tourism plays little part in the report. It appears only in the context of praise, commenting on the benefits which the ‘Plans of Management’ (2) may bring. These have been implemented by the Australian Government, in conjunction with the GRBMPA, in order to ‘ensure the protection of the natural values and amenity of those areas, and to effectively manage potential conflicts of use and tourism development’. (2) It is clear, therefore that the Reef park has understood the potential areas of conflict between tourism and industry, especially as external factors threaten the well being of the Reef, and has therefore taken steps to make this transition as smooth as possible. It can, therefore, be summarised that sustainable tourism on the Great Barrier Reef has been somewhat of a success story. Both the government and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have collaborated to successfully negotiate the issue of tourism on the Reef, and so far their efforts to limit the negative impact of tourism in the region seem to be working. The Reef undoubtedly faces a number of threats in the future, but it would appear that these come less from tourism than from climate change and land usage. The future of tourism in the area is, therefore, bright and it is hoped that sustainable tourism will continue to be well managed and implemented in the future. Word count: 1937 Comined word count: 3978 References Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (August 2003) ‘Managment status: tourism and recreation’. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/10478/SORR_Tourism2.pdf#SORR_Tourism Accessed 09/01/2010 Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2006) ‘The current status of the Great Barrier Reef’ http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/sotr/ Accessed 09/01/2010 Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2007) ‘Great Barrier Reef Marine Park tourism in running for top accolade’. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/media/media_archive/2007/2007_01_30.html Accessed 09/01/2010 Australian Government Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (August 2003) ‘Managment Status: Tourism and Recreation’. Accessed 09/01/2010 Herremans, I. M. (2006) Cases in Sustainable Tourism: An Experimental Approach to Making Decisions. Oxford: Routledge Madin, E. M. P. and Fenton, D. M. (2004) ‘Environmental interpretation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: an assessment of program effectiveness’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol. 12, No. 2 Mason, P. (2003) Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management. London: Butterworth-Heinemann Swarbrooke (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management. New York: CABI Read More