Journal of Travel Research Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope Or Trojan Horse?
R.W. Butler Journal of Travel Research 1990 28: 40 DOI: 10.1177/004728759002800310 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at: Email Alerts: Subscriptions: Reprints: Permissions: Citations:

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1990 What is This?

Downloaded from at University of Liverpool on June 29, 2012

London. First then. Like the others. Sociologists and anthropologists have long expressed concern over the effects of tourist related development on human values. W. and specific problems such as vandalism. Why then.sagepub. &dquo. privacy. Like the others it sounds good. alienation. in some cases considerable comfort. wrote of the transformation of peripheral tourist places because of large numbers of mass tourists and associated developments. like many appealing alternatives. crowding. along with heritage and sustainable development. traffic. but a little note to the effect that tourists spent several billion dollars in Canada may be part of the explanation. denigration. hard to believe perhaps. in 1963. it has become increasingly apparent that tourism does cause problems of various types and levels of seriousness (Mathieson and Wall 1982). these concerns have met two fairly significant problems: one. being able to obtain goods and service without learning a foreign language. Why anyone would want to welcome people leaving polaroid film wrappers and footprints was not clear. with few negative effects.&dquo. pollution in various forms. litter. until recently. and/or overreaching of acceptable levels of impact. disturbance. Christaller. is alternative tourism. it is hard to disagree with it. there are both problems and costs associated with the alternative. being able to eat reasonably familiar food. prostitution of local culture. However. Obviously such is a laudable and eminently desirable goal to many host communities and decision makers.Golden Hordes&dquo. Why then would one be critical of such alternatives? First because of the nature of tourism.ugly tourists. an advertising slogan of one Canadian provincial government trying to encourage its citizens to welcome visitors. concluding &dquo. the Daytona Strips. and two. or a function of dimensions and numbers. They actually like not having to make their own travel arrangements. second because of the nature of the development process. An alternative to the Costa Bravas. and low paid seasonal employment. Thus. what the implications of this alternative form are to existing and potential destination areas. land. Alternative to large numbers. These problems are common to many forms of development.Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope Or Trojan Horse? R W. 2012 . Thomas Cook’s tourists aroused great opposition from the elite individual tourists whom they encountered on their travels in the nineteenth century. Canada. may be worse than the symptom. the nature of tourism to some degree determines the nature and pattern of growth. will inevitably create a set of problems. and intellectuals it sounds good. 40 Downloaded from jtr. or essentially what is known as mass tourism. They seem. the implications. and. So far. the mass institutionalized tourist of Cohen (1972). All of us. represent dissatisfaction with change from the status quo. the best of all worlds. the fact that many people seem to enjoy being a mass tourist. a soft option. We need therefore to consider if the real problems with status quo or nonaltemative tourism are endemic and unavoidable. Ontario. Like sustainable development. This paper will argue that the problems. what is it? Alternative to what? Obviously not to all other forms of tourism. reduction of aesthetics. rights.. even if we are &dquo. e. Atlantic Citys and Blackpools of the world. in many cases. areas and their populations. being able to stay in reasonable. Alternative tourism and rejection of mass tourism are not new. etc. the &dquo. pressure on people. Let us look briefly at what appears to be major problems of tourism development. and unless checked and controlled. and not having to spend vast amounts of money or time to achieve these goals. not having to find accommodation when they arrive at a destination. access. and fifth and most seriously. we need to carefully evaluate just what is meant by the term and more to the point. the economic value of mass tourism. fourth because of naive assumptions about all of the above. traditions and behavior in host destinations (Smith 1974). it implies thought and concern and a different approach and philosophy. lack of control over the destination’s future. taxes. most people will be tolerant of. i. even if they do not understand what it really means. and that in some situations the &dquo. but rather. environmental and social alienation and homogenization. acknowledge that tourism creates problems.cure&dquo. jaded travel writers.). without diminishing the positive economic effects. at least at national and perhaps regional levels. third because of the dismal record of dealing with tourism by most communities and agencies. and possibly actively supportive of the concept of alternative tourism. 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 R. In many areas for many years tourism was promoted as a panacea. it can mean almost anything to anyone. Butler is in the Department of Geography at the University of Western Ontario.Tourists take nothing but photographs and leave nothing but footprints&dquo. and potential costs have generally been ignored by many proponents of alternative at University of Liverpool on June 29. They include price rises (labor. was. 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. to many academics.&dquo. even though it may have tremendous economic and social benefits. However. in principle and instinctively. because of human nature (Exhibit 1). BUTLER One of the buzzwords of the 1980s. EXHIBIT 1 PROBLEMS OF TOURISM Source: Butler 1989. However. tasteless and ubiquitous development. of Turner and Ashe ( 1975). an alternative to the least desired or most undesired type of tourism. change in local attitudes and behavior. In reality. loss of resources. all who seek real tourism move on. I would argue that essentially they are a function of both factors. goods.

planned. Messerli and Brugger (1984. and alternative tourism. and there is little if any evidence that it could always remain so. One conclusion which can be drawn is that. and degradation. Such promotion needs to be evaluated carefully and objectively. for example. Such comments. location. and may cause political change in terms of control over development. Tourist enclaves can be staffed by imported labor and tourists encouraged not to venture out of the enclave. The purpose of Exhibit 4 is to illustrate that a simple big/ small. and the local population to sustain it. it is necessary to ask the question appropriate for whom? Furthermore one should also ask for how long. This is the Trojan Horse aspect of the title of this paper. the nature be much more intensive involving considerable discussion. unplanned.sagepub. and by whose decision is it deemed appropriate? Tourism has rightly often been regarded as yet another form of imperialism. They are illustrated in Exhibit 3 and have been subdivided into four broad areas: factors relating to the tourists.&dquo. and to the political structure of the destination area. In the short-term there is little doubt that alternative tourism appears. rapid/slow type of comparison is not acceptable. optimizing. both public and private sectors. Rather. 2012 . While not all of the problems of tourism result simply from exceeding capacity limits. certainly compared to the much maligned Costa Brava. &dquo.El Sid&dquo. while in the case of tourism it could be having too many tourists for the destination to withstand. furthering the domination by and subservience to developed countries of Third World or lesser developed countries (Roekaerts and Savat 1989). Hardin’s example was the grazing of too many cattle on the common. the Tourist Board sees the need for selective marketing and limited specific development. This may be the ideal scenario but is not always realism. images ascribed to mass tourism. while mitigation attempts for others can cause alternative problems. the resource base. if developed beyond the capacity of the environment. Making simplistic and idealized comparisons of hard and soft or mass and green tourism.The market for tourism is not in a position to guarantee a path of development which in the long run is in its own best interest. mitigates against self or internal control. a home compared to a hotel lobby. Tourism is an industry. It has to be recognized as such. we can identify some at least which are generally acknowledged as being significant. under what conditions. one might add. In Hardin’s (1969) essay. To represent something in the way alternative tourism is often presented is in many ways more dangerous and problematical than to two approaches are way.g. the characteristics of mass and alternative forms of tourism with respect to the agents of change relating to tourism. involve them to a much greater degree. many do. Green tourism is not always and inevitably considerate. is that without control and responsibility. short-term or unstable. Alternative tourism is often used as a synonym for appropriate tourism. if the tourism indus- try grows. Contact is one such example. Thus in Cyprus. as Murphy (1985) has noted. is it in a position to guarantee a level or magnitude of development in anyone’s best interest. behavior and traits of visitors.a boom-bust enterprise. 615) note &dquo. Controlled and managed properly it can be a non or low consumptive use of resources. as time goes by. for example) may be less under alternative tourism. contact. To promote the acceptance and development of alternative forms of tourism without being confident of the end result can potentially be more harmful for a destination and its population than no devel- opment or even limited mass tourism. It is possible to almost completely avoid contact between tourists and locals for example. and the location may be much more sensitive and personal. green. promote other forms of tourism. in many casinos or Club Med-type resorts. if we examine.Some of these problems are almost unavoidable. a form and agent of development and change. While total contact (measured in visitor/host interaction occasions. although in the case of tourism there are many variations on this scenario. however. decline. or &dquo. the duration may be much greater per occasion. However. at University of Liverpool on June 29. it is suggested here. we see potentially a very different picture. e.Ugly American&dquo. expose the genuine article to tourism to a greater degree. if this is viewed as a problem or cause of social change (Brougham and Butler 1981 ).Tragedy of the Commons. the real tragedy of the Commons was the inevitability of destruction because of a lack of assigned responsibility and the fact that each individual stood to benefit in the short term by deliberately exceeding the capacity of the resource. which includes not only environmental elements but human ones as well. and under local control. some factors can assume much greater significance under alternative tourism and result in greater and more serious long-term change. there is almost inevitably the overreaching of some or all capacity limits. To promote one form of tourism as a solution to the multiple problems which can be caused by extensive and long-term tourism development is somewhat akin to selling nineteenth century wonder medicines.&dquo. In this context however. as. alternative tourism seems particularly attractive. The process of development of mass-tourism resorts and destination areas has been discussed widely. to the resource base. and almost certainly is. it is also grossly misleading (Exhibit 2). it ceases to be a renewable resource industry and becomes. may result in a proportionately greater leakage of expenditure. Nor. nature. but also their inherent characteristics and their relationships with the agents of changes associated with tourism.&dquo. to the economic structure. and can operate on a sustainable basis. while others would see such developments as a missed opportunity for much needed employment and further alienation of resources for use as imperialistic playthings. When the compared in this soft. for example. apply equally to mass tourism. at least potentially. alternative forms of tourism penetrate further into the personal space of residents. While the state of research in tourism is such that we cannot yet produce the definitive list of all agents of change associated with tourism. but hoteliers and would-be hoteliers push for rapid growth of all segments of the market. p. and requirements of these forms of tourism. The highly fragmented and extremely competitive nature of the tourism industry. There is a strong and clear analogy here to the &dquo. &dquo. in part because of its dimensions and in part because of the need for fewer and smaller facilities. What needs to be stressed. and duration at least. expose often fragile resources to greater visitation.. such that one is obviously undesirable and the other close to perfection is not only inadequate. for example. there is little wonder that the concept of ever. much less conducive to causing change in destination areas than mass tourism. which varies with amount. Howsome authorities would bemoan the lack of contact between tourists and locals and complain of tourist ghettoes. Surely academics from developed countries pontificating on what is appropriate tourism is hardly much 41 Downloaded from jtr. It is certainly not intended to be a total listing of all factors and in some cases a wide range or a large number of elements are subsumed under one category. and change in the tourism product. even simplistically. To properly and appropriately evaluate the relative merits of mass and alternative forms of tourism it is necessary to not only consider the dimensions. Mass tourism need not be uncontrolled. controlled. including the life-cycle concept proposed by this author (Butler 1980).

who destroys or violates what he or she has come to look for&dquo. preaching his counter- culture with drugs.better. nor are &dquo. 2012 42 . but small numbers of affluent.&dquo. While this may seem a harsh criticism. Even experienced researchers make similar comments. Downloaded from jtr. in any number.sagepub. quoting Krippendorf. In fact. and &dquo. well educated and well behaved tourists are welcome.The country resorts to mass tourism. loose sexual mores and poor hygenic standards. Holder ( 1988. Large number of middle and lower class tourists are not at University of Liverpool on June 29. This - EXHIBIT 2 COMPARISON OF ’HARD’ AND ’SOFT TOURISM Source: Lane 1988. particularly when such authorities cannot guarantee the long term results of their recommendations.the hippie. 10) writes &dquo. p. descriptions such as &dquo.hippies&dquo. (Roekaerts and Savat 1989) do little to dispell such criticism. attracting persons of lower standards of social behavior and economic power.&dquo. This leads to the socioenvironmental degradation of the tourist destination.the average tourist a consuming raping individual. one might argue that at the root of much of what is being proposed as alternative tourism is really a disguised class prejudice.

who will stay in rather expensive restored properties and spend a considerable amount of money in the process. a coach load of tourists (day visitors) had stones thrown at the coach by residents of Niagara-on-the-Lake.dislike of&dquo. high spending. mature. Hayward. and probably white. committed.sagepub. the change in type of tourist. reducing numbers in areas where numbers are currently too great.right kind of tourist&dquo.the very tourists that would be our ideal: the long-staying. and limiting potential visitors to levels compatible with capacity parameters. It is extremely difficult to reduce numbers in a free market situation without prejudicing the viability of the industry. 2012 43 . and Sterner ( 1981 ) are clear on the type of visitor they would prefer &dquo. low class&dquo. in the majority of cases. In Ontario. Revenues can be expected to decline (unless massive market replacement occurs at the same time). and yet this small town is proud of and enthusiastically promotes a Shaw Theatre Festival which attracts large numbers of the &dquo. affluent. These include the reduction in numbers of tourists. Gomez. While all proponents of alternative tourism may not be guilty of class prejudice. the education of all parties involved. If this description fits many of us (except the affluent) it may explain why many academics are at least basically sympathetic to alternative tourism! Some of the implications of alternative tourism need to be examined more closely. in one infamous episode. and the impacts resulting from a new set of activities. tourists and tourism manifests itself in a wide variety of areas.&dquo. which EXHIBIT 3 PRINCIPAL AGENTS OF CHANGE RELATING TO TYPES OF TOURISM EXHIBIT 4 POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE TOURISM Downloaded from jtr. the type of tourist who would realistically be attracted to most forms ofaltema- tive tourism is highly educated. quality visitor.InthebookBermuda’ at University of Liverpool on June 29. Reducing numbers of tourists has two aspects.

Rural and indigenous peoples’ environmental ethics are often less than those of their urban counterparts and they see environmental concerns as another way of oppressing them or limiting their development to meet the desires of the urban sophisticates.e. Another. 19) notes. ornitholocan they are culturally sympathetic. perhaps even more so in that case. management. both human and physical? That would represent a truly alternative approach rather than the snakeoil panacea which is too often proposed at present. These criticisms should not be taken as a rejection of the concept per se. It is not realistic. every tourist can be damaging to the environment (Grosjean 1984). even if naively optimistic. in Jayal and Motwani 1986). In the social environment a similar situation exists. p.. so what is the problem? The bottom line perhaps is that one cannot expect one’s cake to remain after eating it. Few places have seen this change. The true local environment can still be found in areas into which tourists do not penetrate. to extend the season to avoid peaking. is much more likely to result in changes in local behavior in the long run than is a large number of tourists in more conventional tourist ghettoes. in economic terms. It is generally accepted that social change and impacts from tourism occur because of contact between tourists and the hosts and residents. p. clearly artificial at University of Liverpool on June 29. To disperse tourists in space and time. for some people.real tourism&dquo. In many cases. Plog ( 1977) and others have shown the way different tourists have different preferences. in line with Cohen’s (1989) excellent conclusions to his brief critique of alternative tourism. including local priorities and control. Changing the type of tourist is equally difficult to limiting or reducing numbers. etc. to expect a tourist wishing to lie on a beach in the Caribbean to be too interested in the impact he or she may have on the social fabric of the island visited. could and in some cases has.sagepub. the Canadian Arctic. Local support is relatively unlikely. p. An active rather than reactive approach (Edwards 1988. Another is to serve the needs and desires of specific groups or categories of tourists including those interested in natural history.g. and the government of the places obviously wants tourists. In many cases local entrepreneurs and politicians have been enthusiastic proponents of mass tourism development. and so on. as for example Meganck and Ramdial note (1984. and bed Downloaded from jtr. This is not easy to do in any circumstances. &dquo. 2012 .the chance to enjoy the natural areas and rich cultural history of the region. but in its own right? Can it be controlled and directed so that benefits go where they are intended to. of alternative tourism. negative aspects mitigated or avoided. Educating people is an alternative that is hard for this author to reject. and the most common form perhaps in Europe. One is to complement mass tourism by increasing attractions and authenticity. if intensive. However environmentally sympathetic. guiding.) it faces the real risk that not only may there not be a large enough market. allowing tourists &dquo. and tourists.&dquo. In addition. certainly not likely to be unanimous. but even in the case of alternative tourism. but it is a mammoth and long term project. is alternative tourism an appropriate form of development. One can therefore argue that tourism which places tourists in local homes. and few forms of alternative tourism are really amenable to a no-change scenario over time. It was felt necessary to be so because so much has been assumed to be positive about alternative tourism without critical evaluation. (Butler 1989) gists.between ecosystems.result in loss of employment and reduction in local standard of living. not instead of mass tourism. Perhaps. and in. culture-lovers. what would the inhabitants of Lloret de Mar and neighboring communities do? In realistic terms we cannot and should not want to obliterate mass tourism. perhaps overly so. however. as Holder (1988. 125) has pointed out there is really no example of significant size which clearly and completely meets the alternative tourism model. i. as in the real wilderness there is nothing to spend money on. and control over development. Even if local preferences were accepted. Those of a tourist spending a week on a beach are even shorter. where contact with locals is limited. photographers. what is to locals. Wall (1989) has shown the true wilderness tourist spends little or nothing in the wilderness. amateur archaeologists. through for example. and low-impacting forms of tourism. The question then should be. At best perhaps it can fulfill a number of roles. This is not an attempt to dismiss alternative tourism as being impractical or undesirable. and the developments be sustainable and within capacity limitations. (Christaller 1963). much of the expenditure of the alternative tourists may be pre-spent on packages or spent in small amounts in a wide variety of locations.suitable&dquo. crafts. in personal preference terms or simply in logistical terms. As Cazes (1989. such areas would most likely not experience mass tourism anyway. to be that tourism is supplying jobs and investment. in language. farm tourism. 13). and not desiring a change in local behavior. than when tourists are confined to small areas in large numbers for clearly defined seasons. the real value of alternative tourism lies in helping us be more realistic in trying to ameliorate the problems of conventional tourism than trying to do away with mass tourism and replace it with something else. Fun getting there but an increasing problem living with it as the product grows and changes almost independent of the parent’s influence. Visitors may decide that after the Galapagos. then the Himalayas. The response is more likely. for example. there is no guarantee these would match the goals of alternative tourism proponents. even when 44 This paper has been critical. Most people would probably accept the wisdom of the concept of sustainable development and developing &dquo. with an emphasis upon balance. if a destination aims itself at a specific (and hence limited) market (e. in photography. but rather as an expression of concern and doubt that enough is known about the topic to warrant wholesale support for it. Once an area is developed it is next to impossible to change the type of visitor back to a type who came earlier in search of &dquo. 4). Limiting numbers before they become a problem is much more attractive but assumes capacity levels can be identified and agreed to. Where would the many millions currently visiting the Costa Brava go and what would they do? Perhaps just as importantly. while mass tourists are for the most part sedentary and spend their money in a limited number of locations. balancing economic and social goals. but short-term reality dictates that the window of opportunity is often limited and timescales of most entrepreneurs are short. normally where relatively small numbers were involved. in some situations it is certainly better than mass tourism. with some justification. there needs to be much more selective and deliberate planning. is to supplement incomes of primarily rural dwellers in marginal areas.&dquo. The much needed jobs and income will not necessarily come from alternative tourism. and even then not without opposition (Jayal and Singh. In some areas. Alternative tourism could not replace it. but that it may not be a repeat market. balancing the responsibility of the state with the rights of individuals and groups. resulted in far more profound and permanent changes over a wider area. p. especially when they may not wish to associate with local residents or move out of the hotel complex. then Antartica.. Second. To have some tourism but not too much is like being a little bit pregnant.

&mdash. There need to be sufficient attractions to draw tourists. Smith. and P. and R. Tourism and Mountaineering in the Himalayas. 4. but mass conventional tourism is highly unlikely to be able to change to alternative small scale tourism. G.). Butler. for or against either of the perhaps most extreme type of tourism. (1989). (1977). Ramdial (1984)." in E. Singh. Northern Ecology and Resource Management. Environmentally Sound Tourism Development in the Caribbean. Singh. (1980). 1-5. "Visual and Aesthetic Changes in Landscape. L. (1963). Go (eds.). D. H. Go (eds. "Alternative Tourism: Reflection on an Ambiguous Concept.). As Norbu ( 1984) shows however. New York: Longman.). Theuns. Waterloo. V. (1974). M." Parks. Sadler. D. Berne: Paul Haupt. Opposing viewpoints will be exerting pressure to alter the industry to fit this vision of development. 12." in F. E. Tourists and Park Management vs. Norbu. New York: Methuen. but rather to argue for rational.000 annual visitors can have an unacceptably high level of impact depending upon their activities and needs. Messerh. The Transformation of Swiss Mountain Regions." Cheltenham: Countryside Recreation Conference. and F. Motwani (eds. P. Domestic and International Tourism. "Mass Tourism in South and South East Asia: A Challenge to Christians and Churches. Ashe (1975). 14-15. T. economic return. objective evaluation of the merits and problems of all types of tourism in the context of the destination area. C. Edward (ed. G. 197-205. 95-105. G.Underdeveloped Countries . EXHIBIT 5 VIEWPOINTS IN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT REFERENCES J. Washington. N. "Towards a Sociology of International Tourism. Kelly (ed. Meganck. Hardin. Edwards." in F. and F." to appear in Conference Proceedings. Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries. Furrer. and at present. as mass tourists. S. it is necessary for even alternative tourism destinations to attract a market. Canada: Heritage Resources Centre. E. A." Parks. G.243-48. "Trinidad and Tobago Cultural Parks: An Idea Whose Time Has Come." in J. even as few as 5. Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries. M. (1985).. H. "Economic Aspects of Tourism and Heritage. 35-70. 2012 45 . M. et al. and G. pp. pp. In conclusion. 39. V. reaching it alone. Plog. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang." The Canadian Geographer." Science. Downloaded from jtr. Christaller. Savat(1989). and F. Cazes.. and K. (1984). "Cultural Preservation in Sogarmatha. Bermuda’s Delicate Balance. Turner. "Energy Development. Environmentally Sound Tourism Development in the Caribbean. ( 1989). Tourism and Nature Conservation in Iceland. this paper has tried not to take sides. and W. the long term future for the tourism and the area is unlikely to be very satisfactory. W. Jackson. M. McNeely and K. pp. Despite the desire not to attract the mass market. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.sagepub. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Messerli (eds. "The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution and Implications for Management. "Rural Tourism. Wellesley. "Tourism. G. (1972). Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. H. Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries. V. A Community Approach. Development has the capacity to enhance enjoyment. V." in T. R and B. 1. Murphy. B. 71-79. V. L. MA: Institute of Certified Travel Agents.(1989). M. Tourism &mdash. Wall. or bankrupt and despoil if any or all elements are wrong. "Alternative Tourism &mdash. Claiming one form of tourism is all things for all areas is not only pious and naive. 387-403. H. S. scale. Dehra Dun: Natraj Publishers. Thus we should support the development of alternative tourism where it is clear that is the most appropriate form of tourism. the consequences in economic.C. and J. "Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. and timing is correct. Nassau: Bermuda National Trust.). Roekaerts. W. 164-82. Nepal. Gomez. pp.tourism and breakfast at University of Liverpool on June 29." in press.). 9. Sterrer (1981).). It means determining priorities and needs of the area and its residents. that is.1. Conservation. "Some Considerations of Tourism Location in Europe: The Peripheral Regions . International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery. Rhinoceros. (1984). the Needs of the Local People in Royal Chitwan National Park. Jayal." Social Brougham. Messerli (1984). Grosjean. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. and unwise. Brugger. Singh. (1969). L. "Sustaining Tomorrow and Endless Summer. Holder." in T. pp. "The Tragedy of the Commons. A. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. pp. B. and F. The Golden Hordes &mdash. social. National Parks.). H. The main problems include identifying the market. (1989). (1984). N. The Transformation of the Swiss Mountains. B. Tourism and Heritage Preservation. (1988). Unless all or most of the viewpoints shown in Exhibit 3 can find the type of tourism development in an area acceptable. it is unfair. and maintaining it at an acceptable size for a long time. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. It also has the power to degrade. Peterborough : Trent University. Theuns. E. Alternative tourism is not effective if there are no tourists. Countryside Commission. Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries. (1987). J. and M. L. determining capacity limitations of the destination environment (human and physical). Environmentally Sound Tourism Development in the Caribbean. London: Constable. Heritage and Sustainable Development. S. Research. Conservation and Development. L. 5-12. (1988). Theuns. and political terms may be too severe to even allow it to take place. have many options open to them. A fourth may be to allow some development in areas which cannot sustain major change because of environmental and/or social capacity limitations. V. Furrer. Phila- ment in the delphia : University of Pennsylvania Press." in T. L. H. Caribbean. corrupt. A. B.). 24. (eds. 569-90. most alternative tourists. 117-26. Cohen. "A Segmentation Analysis of Resident Attitudes to the Social Impact of Tourism. Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. (1988). and P. Go (eds.) (1986).Recreation Areas. Tourism: Economic. "A Delicate Balance: Tigers. "The Pattern and Impact of Tourism on the Environ- The concern should be that the process would appear to be unidirectional. Theuns. Mishra.(1989). F. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. 9. alternative small scale tourism can change to mass conventional tourism. Proponents of alternative tourism who disregard the preferences and needs of the tourists represent the pious hopes referred to in the title of this paper. Go (eds. A. Singh." in R Oldson. M." Annals of Tourism Research. Messerli. Butler (1981). unrealistic. on Linking Tourism and Environment in the Caribbean. perhaps will inevitably do so without strict management and control. R Miller (eds." Papers of the Regional Science Association. Mathieson. Edwards (ed." in E. 127-42. Wall (1982). A Critique.. &mdash. S. R W. Lane. Hayward. Berne: Paul Haupt. but reaching this requires consideration of much more than counting the negative effects of mass or conventional tourism. G.). R (1984). J. and the reaction of the potential market (Exhibit 5). 8.: Smithsonian Institute. Even if this latter change was possible. 162. E. Physical and Social Impacts. 2. and the environment if the type. Brugger.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful