Analyzing the Social, Economic and Ecological impacts of Tourism Development

Practically all developing countries that are fortunate enough to have tourist attractions (wildlife, a rich cultural heritage, sun, sand, beaches feel that they must develop, and sometimes over-exploit these resources.

Most tourism consultants and planners conveniently overlook the many negative aspects of excessive tourism traffic on the social fabric of the country, as well as  the economic and ecological impacts.

When a society hitherto shielded from other and very different cultures experiences Iarge scaIe tourism, a lot of changes occur. First, the local population starts seeing tourists, and studies from cIose-up their behavior. They observe how the tourists are dressed, what they consume and how they consume it, and mostly think that this is the better way.

In other instances tourists may break many cultural taboos on vacation. Locals may regard such behaviour acceptable, because tourists are doing it.  Here, I am referring to sex in all its forms and variations.  In some Caribbean countries, the story goes, some female tourists pay to have sex with local men. When the local population is exposed to such unusual behaviour, they assume that all female tourists behave in that way.  When then other female tourists rebuff the sexual advances of local males, problems arise.

Young people on trips may behave promiscuously, and create the impression that this is acceptable behaviour.

It is a well-known fact that in some smaII world-famous European ski town, carefree female tourists looking for short-term sex relationships slip telephone numbers and names into the pockets of good-looking waiters at night.

Tourism, if not well controlled, can, and does change the fabric of a community. Most times, this change is negative, infrequently it may be positive.

The economic impact of tourism on a society may be considerable, and often adverse.  When demand increases, so do prices of everything including necessities. The Iocal population, at first, likes tourism because it creates jobs, and  income , but when infIation starts to make itseIf feIt, IocaIs take a second look at tourism and its economic impact.  If tourism is contained in large hotels, and locals never or seldom are in touch with the tourists, then the benefits accrued may be of value to the country, but not to the community.  An example is game parks in Africa where tourists are guided, and stay in hotels specifically catering to their needs.  Even then, the local population may feel the repercussions of tourist flow.

By and large, tourists originate in well-to-do countries and usually compare prices at their destination with those at home.  Most, if not all, find them much lower than at home thus start splurging, which in turn precipitates inflation.  The local population must pay the price.  Some communities claim merchants to have two sets of prices - one for tourists, and one for locals. I doubt that, unless the community is extremely small, and all are convinced that such practice is acceptable.  Even in well-developed tourist destinations in Switzerland, the local population complains of inflated prices during the tourist season. If there are two tourist seasons (summer and winter you can imagine the economic impact tourism may have on a small community.

Mass tourism can also change IocaI buying patterns and the merchandise being offered. This in turn may adversely affect local production and consumption patterns.

The ecological impact of tourism may be devastating to a sight (natural or man-made). Thus far, no destination tourism planner has come up with a workable plan to protect a sight, but many planners are starting to talk about possible restrictions in an attempt to preserve them.

The case of the Acropolis in Athens is well documented.  The excessive vehicular and foot traffic caused irreparable damage to the structure.

In southern France, caves that contain 10,000-year-old drawings are permanently closed to tourists.  Instead, authorities created identical drawings in similar caves for tourists.

The most vulnerable locales are the rain forests and natural sights, which suffer damage to the environment because of increased traffic.

Many studies have proved that too much tourism can damage pristine natural or even man-made beauty. The case of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican is welI known with regard to the damage done to irreplaceable paintings in the cathedral Over a period of many years, the paintings had to be restored.

There is a coroIlary to this, in that when mass-tourism begins in a destination, the well-heeled tourists disappear, and look for other pristine locations.  As everyone knows, while mass tourism generates revenue, the damage to the society and environment increases, but a tourism industry catering to fewer and well-to-do tourists generates as much 0- to the extent of mass-tourism. Without damaging the Swiss tourism planners and communities catering to tourists recognized this

very well when mass-tourism started to make itself felt. They quickly saw what it started to do , and deduced from that, the potential. Once the extent of damage was seen and its potential calculated, authorities and community leaders agreed to concentrate their efforts on attracting rich, but fewer tourists.  This seemed the right decision.

Tourism facilities and natural resources must be looked upon as an "inventory" that is gradually depleted by the use of tourists.

For centuries, the early Christian cave-churches, which were carved into giant tufa cones shaped by winds and other natural phenomena in the Goreme Valley just south of Ankara, Turkey, were perfectly preserved because of the  semi-desert and dry climate.

Over centuries although some man-made damage was inflicted upon the priceless wall paintings and frescos, the greatest destruction is occurring now.  Mass tourism and the inability of local tourism authorities to control the traffic, are causing irreparable damage.  Since the roads are not paved, the fine dust created by the incessant traffic is settling on wall paintings thus damaging these irreplaceable frescos.

There is no effective policing of churches to protect them from vandals.

These unique and irreplaceable churches and their contents are slowly being ruined by an uncontrolled flow of a large number of well-intentioned tourists.

Local tourism authorities are too poor to devote funds to protect these treasures of early Christian culture.

Many experts in the past claimed that tourism is a " clean industry and does not pollute.  The fact is that the very existence of a mass of human beings has a polluting effect on the environment. In the future it is entirely possible to restrict the number of tourists to an area or sight per hour and allow each a certain length of time to visit, or charge according to the length of time of the visit.

Some areas may have to be declared off-limits to all tourists.  The most formidable of all problems is of course how the negative effects of tourism on the society can be minimized.  I can think of no better solution than to restrict the number of tourists to a remote village and possibly screen team, so that only those who care enough not to corrupt the indigenous population is allowed in.

Above suggestions may sound draconian and antidemocratic.  Most experts may disagree, but if certain interesting and unique societies, villages, clans are to survive, and these measures must be taken.

The future holds many interesting and at the same time complex problems that beg for imaginative and unusual solutions.

March 1995