these will be easier to provide in rural areas where visitor numbers remain small.
One useful way to examine the supply side of destination communities is to identify whether communities of different types and scales can be classified according to the relationship they are perceived to have with tourism. The extent to which that relationship remains a favourable one is often dependent on how well the host community is structured to cope with, and respond to, the nature of tourism development taking place locally. Clearly, there are challenges with using this approach. The above discussion has highlighted a number of aspects associated with host com- munities. Based on this it is possible to develop a typology of destination communities and tourism.
Australia are some that have received significant attention from tourism scholars.
Win–lose
Win–lose scenariosmay exist where the community benefits but mass tourism does not necessarily. This can arise by restricting numbers of tourists to ensure that host–guest ratios are appropriate to cope with numbers. The community benefits as emphasis is often on encouraging quality tourism, stressing meaningful interaction between residents and tourists, encourag- ing higher spending, minimal leakage and less negative impact. Bermuda is a good example of a destination that has promoted quality tourism by restricting numbers of tourists to the benefit of local communities.
Win–win: indigenous communities – Uluru National Park, Australia
Uluru (Ayers Rock) is internationally recognized as one of Australia’s leading tourist attractions. Tourists are overwhelmingly motivated by the desire to see the spectacular inselberg, but unfortunately they rank learning about Aboriginal culture in the area as low (Hall, 2000). Aboriginal communities take a different view and have decided to become involved in tourism, defining their relationship with tourism as having control and exercising choice (Mercer, 1994). They have representation on the management board that administers the park and have con- trol over how tourism is presented, ensuring that the cultural and religious signifi- cance that Aboriginal people attach to the park is accorded the highest degree of protection and respect (Wells, 1996). As for choice, the Aboriginal communities can decide if they want to be involved in tourism or not. Much of this involvement has recently become symbolized by the interpretive and educational services they offer visitors at the Uluru – Kata Tjuta Cultural Centre located in the park. Their position is summed up in the words of a senior Anangu traditional owner:
we want tourists to learn about our place, to listen to us Anangu, not just to look at the sunset and climb the puli (Uluru) . . . In the Cultural Centre we will teach the minga (tourists) better. We will teach them about the Tjukurpa (law creation period) teach them inma (dancing), show them how we make punu (woodcarving). We will teach them about joint management. We are always saying, ‘Pukulpa pitjama Ananguku ngurakutu – Welcome to Aboriginal land’.
In this case a win–win relationship is being established. Local communities in the park benefit economically, as all businesses in the Cultural Centre are Aboriginal- owned. They also benefit from a sociocultural perspective as the park’s interpre- tive and educational programmes place greater emphasis on Anangu explanation of the surrounding landscape. One could also argue that as a result tourism has benefited. Uluru remains a top tourist attraction, despite the fact that Anangu ask tourists not to photograph them or climb on the rock. Instead they offer tourist walks around its base (the Mala and the Mutitjulu) to highlight their living traditions better.
Lose–win
Lose–winis the third scenario. According to this scenario, the community loses while tourism gains. Many tourist–gambling communities fall into this category as gaming often destroys the fabric of communities both in physical (areas are pulled down to make way for more casinos) and social terms (increased deviant behaviour, addiction and organized crime). In contrast, tourism gains as all-inclusive packages of gambling, entertain- ment, shopping and accommodation are offered to potential visitors.
Win–lose: island tourism with narrow niche markets – Bermuda
In having a tradition in tourism that dates back to the late 1800s, Bermuda has enjoyed the status of being one of the world’s premier island tourism destinations, where tourism represents half of the islands’ economy (Conlin, 1996). Bermuda’s contemporary tourism has been characterized by initial rapid growth followed by a conservative tourism policy that promoted quality tourism (high spenders, low numbers) via narrowly defined niche markets, placing a moratorium on new development, promoting an upgrading policy on hotels and restricting cruise ship arrivals. As a result, there was less of an imbalance between hosts and guests and because emphasis was on high-spending tourists, the island community contin- ued to benefit. However, with a downturn in arrivals since 1990, Bermuda has started to recognize how inextricably linked its economic well-being is to a robust tourism industry. A Commission on Competitiveness created in 1992 encouraged residents to become involved in future tourism planning, stressing they were an important part of the tourist experience. The win situation for this community may be short lived as one of the key findings of the commission was that one of the island’s essential tourism services (the large hotels) was losing business, which in turn was translated into a loss of jobs, income and domestic business (Conlin, 1996). In a sense, tourism has lost out owing to restrictive policies and a narrow niche market philosophy that focused on smallness, exclusivity and affluence.
Lose–win: gambling tourism – Atlantic City
Atlantic City, New Jersey is often quoted as a premier example of a travel destina- tion that went through one life cycle (from a fashionable to a rather seedy seaside resort) and then got a completely new lease of life as an exciting gambling desti- nation (Morrison, 1989). While there is no disputing that gambling has rejuve- nated many tourist destinations, and the trend is for more gambling centres to develop (Eadington, 1999), the impact of gambling on the resident population in Atlantic City, for example, is nearly beyond belief. The community has clearly been the loser, with the loss of agricultural land and urban decay best describing the area surrounding the casinos, with more and more residential areas declining,
Lose–lose
Lose–loseis the last scenario. In this case, both the community and tourism lose out. One obvious example of this would be uncontrolled mass coastal resort-based tourism where emphasis is short-term economic gain at the expense of long-term community and environmental loss. Many of the resorts along the Mediterranean coast fit this scenario, where traditional fishing villages have been replaced with masses of visitors who have a superficial relationship with their hosts, and are low spenders with signifi- cant negative impacts. This situation has improved somewhat recently as recognition has grown that there needs to be a good relationship between residents and tourists.
being bought up and torn down by the casinos to accommodate increasing parking needs. Crime figures are high, prostitution is all too evident and problem gambling has affected many in the community. Local businesses cannot compete against the all-inclusive package that the casinos offer. There have been some winners within the community, but the majority of them are employed by the gaming industry. The accommodation and hospitality sector has clearly been the winner over the local population. Since city leaders welcomed the casino corporations into Atlantic City, people from all walks of life have come not to walk along the famous boardwalk, but rather to spend money in the casinos.
There is little evidence to suggest this will change in the near future.
Lose–lose: uncontrolled coastal tourism development – Benidorm, Spain
Spain enjoyed dramatic and uninterrupted growth in visitor numbers from the early 1950s to the late 1980s (Burton, 1995). As a result, quiet fishing villages along the Mediterranean coast were transformed over a short time into tourist destinations for the short-haul European market interested in a sun–sea–sand (3-S) experience. Over time, much of the coastline became synonymous with the worst excesses of mass tourism: unsightly resorts, polluted beaches, degradation of natural areas and the ubiquitous lager lout. As a result, markets declined over competition from elsewhere and the changing tastes of a more demanding clientele (Klemm, 1992). Tourist numbers declined throughout the 1980s, only for this trend to be reversed in the late 1990s. While many of the resorts are display- ing signs of recovery, Benidorm being a good case in point, the host population has lost out in the sense that their culture and traditions have been changed as a result of tourism and the relationship most visitors have with their host communi- ties remains rather superficial (Curtis, 1997). While much change has occurred in the region, either as a result of government action to improve the environment or because the Spanish tourism industry has aimed to promote more sustainable tourism, only time will tell if rejuvenation has come to the region and an alterna- tive scenario to lose–lose can be applied.
Given these four scenarios, the ideal would be to move towards a win–win situation. While highly laudable, many destination communities will unfortunately remain in their less than favourable situation as the trade-offs needed for change are too overwhelming for tourism to accept.
There are, however, some examples of success where a lose–lose scenario has been reversed. Two examples of coastal tourism development in recovery are Benidorm and Majorca (Mallorca) (Curtis, 1997). In the case of Benidorm, renewal in tourism has come about in the late 1990s as a result of product renewal and new marketing initiatives that have changed the image of the destination from a 3-S monoculture to one that is varied, promoting quality and diversity of experience. In contrast, the recovery process in Majorca (Mallorca) has been driven by legislative changes and a ‘desaturation’ programme, where unsightly tourism infrastructure has been removed to improve its overall image.