The growth of international and domestic tourism has been matched by a corresponding increase in the numbers of those who study tourism and its impacts.
Indeed, it may even be said that tourism research is one of the academic growth industries of the late twentieth century (Hall 1995). The literature on tourism has expanded enormously with the result that research has become, ‘highly fragmented, with researchers following separate and often divergent paths’ (Mathieson and Wall 1982:2). Nevertheless, one of the major areas of interest for geographers, as well as other tourism researchers, is on the impacts of tourism and recreation.
Tourism and recreation cannot be studied in isolation from the complex economic, environmental, political, and social milieux in which they occur (Runyan and Wu 1979). If geographers are to make a valid contribution to the study of tourism and recreation and their impacts it is vital that they are aware of the widest possible implications of such events for host communities, particularly as concerns over the sustainability of tourism and recreation grow (Butler 1990, 1991;
Hall and Lew 1998). This has therefore meant that there has been substantial interchange of ideas, frameworks and methodologies between geographers and non-geographers in analysing the impacts of tourism and recreation.
There are a number of ways of categorising the impacts of tourism. One of the most common is that used by Mathieson and Wall (1982), which divided impacts into economic, social and physical
(environmental categories). A more detailed breakdown of the impacts of tourism has been used by Getz (1977), Ritchie (1984) and Hall (1992b). An overview of these categories is provided in Table 4.1 where they are categorised in terms of their positive or negative nature for a destination community. However, it should be noted that such a division is not absolute as whether something is seen as positive or negative will depend on the goals and value position of an individual with respect to different types of tourism development. The following chapter will provide a broad overview of the impacts of tourism and some of the main issues which arise out of such an analysis.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Within tourism research, ‘until recently, attention has concentrated on the more obvious economic impacts with comparatively little consideration being given to the environmental and social consequences of tourism’ (Mathieson and Wall 1982:3–4).
However, considerable debate has arisen over methodological problems in the economic analysis of such events, particularly in the use of economic multipliers and cost-benefit analysis (Archer 1976, 1977a, 1977b, 1984; Murphy 1985; Pearce 1989), the evaluation of opportunity cost (Vaughan 1977), and the relationship of tourism and recreation to regional development and employment (Royer,
Table 4.1: Positive and negative dimensions of the impacts of tourism on host communities
Source: After Getz (1977); Mathieson and Wall (1982); Ritchie (1984); Hall (1992)
McCool and Hunt 1974; Doering 1976; Frechtling 1977; Hudman 1978; Ellerbrook and Hite 1980;
Williams and Shaw 1988).
Many economic impact studies focus on what is known as the ‘multiplier effect’. This effect is concerned with ‘the way in which expenditure on tourism filters throughout the economy, stimulating other sectors as it does so’ (Pearce 1989: 205).
Several different types of multiplier are in use, each with their own emphasis (Archer 1977, 1982).
However, the multiplier may best be regarded as ‘a coefficient which expresses the amount of income generated in an area by an additional unit of tourist spending’ (Archer 1982: 236). It is the ratio of direct and secondary changes within an economic region to the direct initial change itself. In this context, geographers have not played a major role although multiplier analysis is not devoid of a spatial component with its linkage to regional science and its spatial concerns for quantitative analysis of areas and locations. In some cases, geographers have not pursued the regional analytical approaches of the economists in measuring and analysing tourist activity in a spatial context due to the prevailing geographical paradigms in human geography in the 1960s and 1970s. Although economic geography has overlapped with economics in some cases, tourism and recreation is not an area where this occurred on a wide scale. Likewise, collaborative research between geographers and economists has not emerged as a theme in research until comparatively recently. This is often because each subject area has its own concepts, language, approach and few obvious intersections in the research field because tourism and recreation remained a fringe area for research in the 1960s and 1970s for both geographers and economists.
The economic impacts of tourism and recreation are usually classified as being either primary or secondary in nature (Archer 1982). Primary or direct impacts are those economic impacts which are a direct consequence of visitor spending, e.g. the purchase of food and beverages by a tourist in a hotel. Secondary impacts may be described as being
either indirect or induced. Indirect impacts are those arising from the responding of money in the form of local business transactions, e.g. the new investment of hotel owners in equipment and supplies. Induced impacts are those arising from the additional income generated by further consumer spending, e.g. the purchase of goods and services by hotel employees.
For each round of spending per unit of initial visitor expenditure leakage will occur from the regional economy until little or no further re-spending is possible. Therefore, the recreation or tourism multiplier is a measure of the total effects (direct plus secondary effects) which result from the additional tourist or recreational expenditure. However, despite their extensive use, it should be noted that
‘multipliers are difficult to calculate precisely under the best circumstances. They require substantial amounts of very detailed data. The methods used are also difficult and require a high degree level of statistical and/or macro-economic expertise’ (Smith 1995:16; see also Saeter 1998).
The size of the visitor multiplier will vary from region to region and will depend on a number of factors including:
• the size of area of analysis;
• the proportion of goods and services imported into the region for consumption by visitors;
• the rate of circulation;
• the nature of visitor spending;
• the availability of suitable local products and services; and
• the patterns of economic behaviour for visitor and local alike.
As a measure of economic benefit from recreation and tourism, the multiplier technique has been increasingly subject to question, particularly as its use has often produced exaggerated results (Archer 1977, 1982; Cooper and Pigram 1984; Frechtling 1987; Pearce 1989).
Nevertheless, despite doubts about the accuracy of the multiplier technique, substantial attention is still paid to the results of economic impact studies by government and the private sector as a measure
of the success of tourism development or as a way of estimating the potential contribution of a proposed development in order to justify policy or planning decisions. As Smith (1995:16) noted:
‘Regrettably, the abuses of multipliers often seem to be as frequent as legitimate uses—thus contributing further to the industry’s lack of credibility.’
The size of the tourist multiplier is regarded as a significant measure of the economic benefit of visitor expenditure because it will be a reflection of the circulation of the visitor dollar through an economic system. In general, the larger the size of the tourist multiplier the greater the self-sufficiency of that economy in the provision of tourist facilities and services. Therefore, a tourist multiplier will generally be larger at a national level than at a regional level, because at a regional level leakage will occur in the form of taxes to the national government and importation of goods and services from regions. Similarly, at the local level, multipliers will reflect the high importation level of small communities and tax payments to regional and national governments (Hall 1995).
According to Murphy (1985:95), ‘for practical purposes it is crucial to appreciate that local multiplier studies are just case studies of local gains and no more’ and several questions remain unanswered about the real costs and benefits of tourism on local and regional development.
Indeed, a major question should be who are the winners and losers in tourism development? As Coppock (1977b:1.1) argued in relation to the use of tourism as a tool for economic development:
‘Not only is it inevitable that the residents of an area will gain unequally from tourism (if indeed they gain at all) and probable that the interests of some will actually be harmed, but it may well be that a substantial proportion does not wish to see any development of tourism.’
An area which has seen considerable attention by geographers (e.g. Shaw 1985; Getz 1991a, 1991b; Hall 1992b; Hall and Hodges 1996), is the impact of hosting staged, short-term attractions, usually referred to as hallmark,
special or mega events (Ritchie 1984; Ritchie and Yangzhou 1987; Hall 1989). The hallmark event is different in its appeal from the attractions normally promoted by the tourist industry as it is not a continuous or seasonal phenomenon.
Indeed, in many cases the hallmark event is a strategic response to the problems that seasonal variations in demand pose for the tourist industry (Ritchie and Beliveau 1974). Although, the ability of an event ‘to achieve this objective depends on the uniqueness of the event, the status of the event, and the extent to which it is successfully marketed within tourism generated regions’ (Ritchie 1984: 2). As with other areas of research on the economic impacts of tourism, the analysis of hallmark events has been characterised by overstated large benefit-cost ratios (Hall 1989, 1992b; Getz 1991b). Several reasons can be cited for this:
• there has been a failure to account for the economic impact that would have occurred anyway but has switched from one industry to another;
• there has been an ‘unfortunately common mistake’ of attributing all the benefits received from the event to government expenditure, instead of establishing the marginal impact of that contribution’ (Burns and Mules 1986: 8, 10);
• the taxation benefits of expenditure generation has been counted as additional to the multiplier
‘flow-ons’ when they have already been included;
• ‘output’ rather than ‘value-added’ multipliers, which can result in major over-estimates of the economic impact of events, are frequently uncritically used; and
• there has been a general failure to delimit the size of the regional economy that is to be studied. The smaller the area to be analysed, the greater will be the number of ‘visitors’ and hence the greater would be the estimate of economic impact.
One of the primary justifications used by government in the encouragement of tourism
development is that of tourism’s potential employment benefits (Pearce 1992a; Hall 1994;
Jenkins et al. 1998). However, as Hudson and Townsend (1992:64) observed:
[There is] a growing involvement of local authorities in policies to sustain existing tourist developments and encourage new ones, although often the actual impacts of tourism on local employment and the economy are imperfectly understood. The direction of causality between growing employment and increasing policy involvement is often obscure and in any case variable.
One of the ironies of the perceived employment benefits of tourism and recreation is that areas which have tourism as a mainstay of the local economy tend to have high levels of unemployment.
For example, two of Australia’s major destination areas, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, have had unemployment rates significantly above the national average (Mullins 1984, 1990). Often such a situation is regarded by local politicians as an ‘imported problem’, by which
‘the unemployed flock into these cities for the
“good life”. Yet data…on interstate transferees on unemployment benefits shows that the net number remaining in the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast over any 12 month period barely makes 1 per cent of these cities unemployed’ (Mullins 1990:39).
Instead of ‘dolebludger’ (an Australian term which refers to people who deliberately seek unemployment benefits rather than paid employment) and surfer migration, the answer to the unemployment situation rests on the nature of the two region’s economies. The economies of both areas are founded on two unstable industries:
tourism, which is seasonal, and construction, which is cyclical and is itself related to actual or predicted tourist flows. Therefore, as Mullins (1990:39) reported, ‘high rates of unemployment seem inevitable’, although as the economic base of the regions diversifies, unemployment levels should fall.
Another major consideration in the potential contribution of tourism to the national economy is the organisation and spatial allocation of capital
and, in particular, the penetration of foreign or international capital. The distribution and organisation of capital and tourists is also spread unevenly between and within regions, indeed, tourism is often seen as a mechanism for redistributing wealth between regions (Pearce 1990a, 1992a). Geographers have long noted the manner in which tourism tends to distribute development away from urban areas towards those regions in a country which have not been developed (e.g. Christaller 1963), with the core-periphery nature of tourism being an important component of political-economy approaches towards tourism (Britton 1980a, 1980b, 1982), particularly with respect to tourism in the island microstates of the Pacific (Connell 1988; Lea 1988).
More recently, geographers have begun to analyse critically tourism with reference to issues of economic restructuring, processes of globalisation and the development of post-fordist modes of production (e.g. Britton 1991; Hall 1994;
Debbage and Iaonnides 1998; Milne 1998;
Williams and Shaw 1998). Tourism is a significant component of these shifts which may be described as ‘post-industrial’ or ‘post-Fordist’, which refers to the shift from an industrial to an information technology/service base. In addition, tourism is part of the globalisation of the international economy, in which economic production is transnational, interdependent, and multi-polar with less and less dependence on the nation-state as the primary unit of international economic organisation. As Williams and Shaw (1998:59) recognise:
The essence of tourism is the way in which the global interacts with the local. For example, mass tourism emphasises a global scan for destinations for global (or at least macro-regional) markets, while some forms of new tourism seek to exploit the individuality of places. These global-local relationships are not static but are subject to a variety of restructuring processes.
The notion of the ‘globalisation’ of tourism implies its increasing commodification. The tourist production system simultaneously ‘sells’ places in
order to attract tourists, the means to the end (travel and accommodation) and the end itself (the tourist experience). Therefore, tourism finds itself at the forefront of an important recent dynamic within capitalist accumulation in terms of the creation and marketing of experiences. Tourists ‘are purchasing the intangible qualities of restoration, status, life-style signifier, release from the constraints of everyday life, or conveniently packaged novelty’
(Britton 1991:465). Within this setting, place is therefore commodified and reduced to an experience and images for consumption. However, while place promotion is recognised as increasingly important for tourism and recreation (see chapter 5) , there have been insufficient attempts, with the exception of some of the authors noted above, to locate such issues within the context of mainstream tourism studies or tourism geography.
Related to the economic analysis of tourism has been the study of the forecasting of visitor demand and the marketing of the tourist product. Several studies of hallmark events, for example, have attempted to deal with the problem of forecasting visitor demand (see Ritchie and Aitken 1984; Hall 1992b). Nevertheless, substantial methodological problems still remain; and, ‘although relatively sophisticated statistical measures have been used, forecasts of tourism demand can produce only approximations’ (Uysal and Crompton 1985:13). As Mathieson and Wall (1982:133) observed:
Most of the early studies of the effects of tourism were restricted to economic analyses and enumerated the financial and employment benefits which accrued to destination areas as a result of the benefits of tourism. In recent years a number of studies have emerged that examine the socio-cultural impacts of tourism. In contrast to the economic effects, such impacts are usually portrayed in the literature in a negative light.
THE ANALYSIS OF TOURISM’S SOCIAL IMPACTS
The social impact of tourism refers to the manner in which tourism and travel effects changes in
collective and individual value systems, behaviour patterns, community structures, lifestyle and the quality of life (Hall 1995). The major focus of research on the social impacts of tourism is on the population of the tourist destination, rather than the tourist generating area and the tourists themselves, although significant work is also done in this area particularly with respect to outdoor recreationists. The variables which contribute to resident perceptions of tourism may be categorised as either extrinsic or intrinsic (Faulkner and Tideswell 1996). Extrinsic variables refer to factors which affect a community at a macro level, e.g.
stage of tourism development, the ratio between tourists and residents, cultural differences between tourists and residents, and seasonality. Intrinsic variables are those factors which may vary in association with variations in the characteristics of individuals in a given population, e.g. demographic characteristics, involvement in tourism and proximity to tourist activity (Hall 1998).
Researchers from a number of disciplinary backgrounds have conducted work on the social impacts of tourism. For example, interest in tourism marketing strategies and increased concern for the social consequences of tourism led to the social psychology of tourism becoming a major area of research (e.g. P.Pearce 1982; Stringer 1984;
Stringer and P.Pearce 1984). Research has focused on aspects of the tourist experience as diverse as tourism and culture shock (Furnham 1984), and tourist—guide interaction (P.Pearce 1984).
Research in the marketing of the tourist product sees attention being paid to the demand, motivations and preferences of the potential tourist (e.g. Jenkins 1978; Van Raaij and Francken 1984;
Kent et al. 1987; Pearce 1989; Smith 1995), the evaluation of the tourist product and potential tourist resources (e.g. Ferrario 1979a, 1979b;
Gartner 1986; Smith 1995), the intended and unintended use of tourist brochures (e.g. Dilley 1986), the utility of market segmentation for specific targeting of potential consumers (e.g.
Murphy and Staples 1979; Smith 1995), and tourist and recreationist satisfaction. In the latter area,
geographers have done a substantial amount of work in the outdoor recreation and back-country use field, particularly with respect to the effects of crowding on visitor satisfaction (e.g. Shelby et al.
1989; see also chapter 7).
Marketing research acts as a link between economic and psychological analysis of tourism (Van Raaij 1986) and gives notice of the need for a wider understanding of the social impact of tourism on visitor and host populations. Research on the social-psychology of tourism has run parallel with the research of behavioural geographers in the area, with there being increased interchange between the two fields in recent years (e.g. Jenkins and Walmesley 1993; see also Walmesley and Lewis 1993).
Interestingly, the development of a more radical critique of behaviour in geography also has parallels in the social psychology of tourism as well.
For example, the research of Uzzell (1984) on the psychology of tourism marketing from a structuralist perspective offered a major departure from traditional social psychology. Uzzell’s (1984) alternative formulation of the role of social psychology in the study of tourism has been reflected in much of the research conducted in anthropological, geographical (e.g. Britton 1991) and sociological approaches to the social impacts of tourism (e.g. Urry 1990, 1991).
The early work of Forster (1964), Cohen (1972, 1974, 1979a, 1979b), Smith and Turner (1973), and MacCannell (1973, 1976), along with the more recent contribution by Urry (1990) has provided the basis for formulating a sociology of tourism, while Smith (1977) and Graburn (1983) have provided a useful overview of anthropology’s contributions to the study of tourism. The research of geographers such as Young (1973), Butler (1974, 1975, 1980), D.G.Pearce (1979, 1981), Mathieson and Wall (1982) and Murphy (1985) has also yielded significant early insights into tourism’s social impacts.
Many studies of the social impacts of tourism have focused on the impact of tourism on the third world (UNESCO 1976). This research is no doubt
necessary, yet caution must be used in applying research findings from one culture to another.
Nevertheless, problems of cultural change and anxiety, social stress in the host community, and social dislocation resulting from changes to the pattern of economic production, may be identified in a wide number of studies undertaken in a variety of cultures and social settings (e.g. Farrell 1978;
Mathieson and Wall 1982; Clary 1984; Oglethorpe 1984; Meleghy et al. 1985; Lea 1988; Getz 1993c;
Shaw and Williams 1994; Hall and Page 1996;
Weaver 1998).
The social costs of tourism on the host community will vary according to the characteristics of both visitor and host (Pizam 1978). However, tourism does undoubtedly cause changes in the social character of the destination (Long 1984). These changes may be related to the seasonality of tourism (Hartmann 1984), the nature of the tourist (Harmston 1980), the influence of a foreign culture (Mathieson and Wall 1982), and/ or to the disruption of community leisure space (O’Leary 1976). An appreciation by planners of the social costs of tourism is essential for both financial and social reasons. Rejection of visitors by segments of the host community may well result in a decline of the attractiveness of the tourist destination, in addition to the creation of disharmony within the host community (Murphy 1985; Getz 1994b; Page and Lawton 1997a).
Tourism development may initiate changes in government and private organisations (Baldridge and Burnham 1975) in order to cater for the impact of tourism. For instance, additional law enforcement officers may be required (Rothman et al. 1979), while special measures may be needed to restrict dislocation created by increased rents and land values (Cowie 1985). Geographers have long emphasised the importance of meaningful community participation in the decision-making process that surrounds the formulation of tourism policy and development (e.g. Butler 1974, 1975;
Brougham and Butler 1981; Pearce 1981; Getz 1984; Murphy 1985). Furthermore, studies, such as those of Keller (1984) and Shaw (1985, 1986),
indicate that the social impacts of tourism are complex and need to be examined within the context of the various economic, environmental, political and social factors that contribute to tourism development in a destination (Mings 1978; Runyan and Wu 1979; Wu 1982; D.G.
Pearce 1989).
Community attitudes towards tourism invariably simultaneously reveal both positive and negative attitudes towards tourism (Butler 1975).
For example, various positive and negative attitudes towards tourism were indicated in several studies of resident attitudes towards tourism in northern New South Wales, Australia, in the 1980s (Hall 1990). Pigram (1987) utilised Doxey’s (1975) irridex scale of euphoria, apathy, annoyance, and antagonism to investigate resident attitudes in the resort town of Coffs Harbour (Table 4.2). According to Pigram ‘the overwhelming majority felt that the economic and otherwise benefits of tourism outweighed the disadvantages’ (1987:67). Despite the overall favourable or apathetic response of residents, several negative reactions towards tourism did emerge from the study. According to Pigram (1987), the greatest impact of tourism on the local community was the perceived increase in the cost of goods and services because of the presence of tourists. The respondents also indicated that they believed that petty crime was also worse during the tourist season, an observation supported by Walmesley et al.’s (1981, 1983) study of crime in the region during the late 1970s. Furthermore, the natural environment of the Coffs Harbour area was perceived as slightly worse as a result of tourism with the greatest impact being on the beaches. However, opportunities for public recreation were perceived as the attribute of community life registering the most significant improvement as a result of tourism (Pigram 1987).
Resident attitudes are undoubtedly a key component in the identification, measurement and analysis of tourism impacts. However, investigation of community attitudes towards tourism is not just an academic exercise. Such
attitudes are also important in terms of the determination of local policy, planning and management responses to tourism development and in establishing the extent to which public support exists for tourism (Pearce 1980; Page and Lawton 1997a). For example, Getz (1994b) argued that resident perceptions of tourism may be one factor in shaping the attractiveness of a destination, where negative attitudes may be one indicator of an area’s ability to absorb tourism.
Although Getz suggests that ‘identification of causal mechanisms is a major theoretical challenge, and residents can provide the local knowledge necessary to link developments with their consequences’ (1994b: 247), it assumes that residents are sufficiently aware, perceptive and able to articulate such views to decision-makers and planners. Nevertheless, negative resident perceptions may lead to adverse reactions towards tourism and create substantial difficulties for the development of further facilities and infrastructure (Page and Lawton 1997a). For example, although communities with a history of exposure to tourism may adapt and change to accommodate its effects (Rothman 1978), active or passive support or opposition may exist at any given time, as interest groups take political action to achieve specific objectives in relation to tourism (Murphy 1985; Hall and Jenkins 1995).
In locations where the original community is
‘swamped’ by large scale tourism development in a relatively short space of time, disruption to the community values of the original inhabitants is more Table 4.2: Resident reaction to tourists in Coffs Harbour
Source: Pigram (1987:68)
likely to occur (Hudson 1990a, 1990b). Table 4.3 details the costs and benefits of such tourism development in Broome, Western Australia.
However, it must be emphasised that resident attitudes to tourism development will be influenced by where they fit into the existing social and economic order, their personal gains from the development process, and/or their response to the changing environment in light of their preexisting values and attitudes (Hudson 1990b). In addition, it should be noted that while individuals may perceive there to be negative tourism impacts, they may still be favourable towards tourism’s overall benefits to the community. Faulkner and Tideswell (1996) referred to this phenomenon as the ‘altruistic surplus’ and suggested that this could be the result of a mature stage of tourism development in a destination region, whereby residents have adapted to tourism through experience and migration.
In addition to attitudinal studies, a number of other approaches and issues are of interest to the geographer. For example, historical studies of tourism may indicate the role that tourism has in affecting attitudes and values with a destination
community (e.g. Wall 1983a; Butler and Wall 1985). Studies of tourism policy may assist in an understanding of the way that governments develop strategies to manage the negative impacts of tourism and in the overall manner that tourism is used in regional development (e.g. Papson 1981;
Kosters 1984; Oglethorpe 1984; Hall and Jenkins 1995). Another area of tourism’s social impact which has received more attention in recent years is that of health (Clift and Page 1996). Researchers have examined the spatial misinformation provided by travel agents when advising clients of the potential health risks they may face when travelling to Pacific Island destinations (Lawton et al. 1996; Lawton and Page 1997b). What such research shows is the vital role of understanding place, space and the geography of risk in relation to the epidemiology of disease. Whilst geographers have studied disease for many years, making the link between travel and disease is a comparatively new development (Clift and Page 1996). For example, tourism may assist in the spread of disease, while tourists themselves are vulnerable to illness while travelling. Indeed, one of the major
Table 4.3: Costs and benefits of tourism development in Broome, Australia
Source: Hudson (1990b:10)