Alternative Tourism Pious Hope or Trojan Horse

Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.com/ 

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 found at: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/28/3/40

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for

Journal of Travel Research can

be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/28/3/40.refs.html

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

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on June 29, 2012

 Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope Or Trojan Horse? R

W. BUTLER

One of the buzzwords of the 1980s, along with heritage and sustainable development, is alternative tourism. Like the others it sounds good; it implies thought and concern and a different approach and philosophy. Like the others, it is hard to disagree with it. All of us, even if we are &dquo;ugly tourists,&dquo; acknowledge that tourism creates problems, even though it may have tremendous economic and social benefits. Thus, in principle and instinctively, most people will be tolerant of, and possibly actively supportive of the concept of alternative tourism, even if they do not understand what it really means. Like sustainable development, it can mean almost anything to anyone. However, we need to carefully evaluate just what is meant by the term and more to the point, what the implications of this alternative form are to existing and potential

destination areas. First then, what is it? Alternative to what? Obviously not to all other forms of tourism, but rather, an alternative to the least desired or most undesired type of tourism, or essentially what is known as mass tourism, the &dquo;Golden Hordes&dquo; of Turner and Ash e ( 1975), the mass institutionalized tourist of Cohen (1972). An alternative to the Costa Bravas, the Daytona Strips, Atlantic Citys and Blackpools of the world.  Alternative to large numbers, tasteless and ubiquitous development, environmental and social alienation and homogenization. So far, to many academics, jaded travel writers, and intellectuals it sounds good. However, like many appealing alternatives, there are both problems and costs associated with the alternative. This paper will argue that the problems, the implications, and potential costs have generally been ignored by many proponents of alternative tourism, and that in some situations the &dquo;cure&dquo; may be worse than the symptom.  Alternative tourism and rejection of mass tourism are not new. Thomas Cook’s tourists aroused great opposition from the elite individual tourists whom they encountered on their travels in the nineteenth century. Christaller, in 1963, wrote of the transformation of peripheral tourist places because of large numbers of mass tourists and associated developments, concluding &dquo; all who seek real tourism move on.&dquo; Sociologists and anthropologists have long expressed concern over the effects of tourist related development on human values, traditions and behavior in host destinations (Smith 1974). However, these concerns have met two fairly significant problems: one, the economic value of mass tourism, at least at national and perhaps regional levels, and two, the fact that many people seem to enjoy being a mass tourist. They actually like not having to make their own travel arrangements, not having to find accommodation when they arrive at a destination, being able to obtain goods and service without learning a foreign language, being able to stay in reasonable, in some cases considerable comfort, being able to eat reasonably familiar food, and not having to spend vast amounts of money or time to achieve these goals. They seem, hard to believe perhaps, 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. Why then, 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. W. Butler is in the Department of Geography at the of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

University

40

areas and their populations, without diminishing the positive economic effects, i. e., the best of all worlds. Obviously such is a laudable and eminently desirable goal to many host communities and decision makers. Why then would one be critical of such alternatives? First because of the nature of tourism, second because of the nature of the development process, third because of the dismal record of dealing with tourism by most communities and agencies, fourth because of naive assumptions about all of the above, and fifth and most seriously, because of human nature

(Exhibit 1). EXHIBIT1 PROBLEMS OF TOURISM

Source: Butler 1989.

Let us look briefly at what appears to be major problems of tourism development. They include price rises (labor, goods, taxes, land, etc.); change in local attitudes and behavior; pressure on people, crowding, disturbance, alienation; loss of

rights, privacy; denigration, prostitution of aesthetics; pollution in various culture; forms; lack of control over the destination’s future; and specific problems such as vandalism, litter, traffic, and low paid to many seasonal employment. These problems are in forms of development, and, many cases, represent dissatisfaction with change from the status quo, and/or overreaching of acceptable levels of impact. We need therefore to consider if the real problems with

resources, access,

local

reduction of

common

and unavoidI would argue of dimensions and numbers. function able, function ofboth that essentially they are a factors; the nature of tourism to some degree determines the nature and pattern of growth, and unless checked and controlled, will inevitably status quo or nonaltemative tourism are endemic or a

a set of problems. In many areas for many years tourism was promoted as a panacea, a soft option, with few negative effects. &dquo;Tourists take nothing but photographs and leave nothing but foot-

create

prints&dquo;

was, until

recently,

an

advertising slogan of

one

Canadian provincial government trying to encourage its citizens to welcome visitors. Why anyone would want to welcome people leaving polaroid film wrappers and footprints was not clear, but a little note to the effect that tourists spent several billion dollars in Canada may be part of the explanation. In reality, it has become increasingly apparent that tourism does cause problems of various types and levels of seriousness (Mathieson and Wall 1982).

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on June 29, 2012

Some of these problems are almost unavoidable, while mitigation attempts for others can cause alternative problems. It is possible to almost completely avoid contact between tourists and locals for example, if this is viewed as a problem or cause of social change (Brougham and Butler 1981 ). Tourist enclaves can be staffed by imported labor and tourists encouraged not to venture out of the enclave, as, for example, in many casinos or Club Med-type resorts. However, some authorities would bemoan the lack of contact between tourists and locals and complain of tourist ghettoes, while others would see such developments as a missed opportunity for much needed employment and further alienation of resources for use as imperialistic playthings. Tourism is an industry, a form and agent of development and change. It has to be recognized as such. Controlled and managed properly it can be a non or low consumptive use of resources, and can operate on a sustainable basis. However, if developed beyond the capacity of the environment, the resource base, and the local population to sustain it, it ceases to be

renewable resource industry and becomes, as Murphy (1985) has noted, &dquo;a boom-bust enterprise.&dquo; Such comments, it is suggested here, apply equally to mass tourism, and alternative tourism. The process of development of mass-tourism resorts and destination areas has been discussed widely, including the life-cycle concept proposed by this author (Butler 1980). What needs to be stressed, however, is that without control and responsibility, there is almost inevitably the overreaching of some or all capacity limits, and degradation, decline, and change in the tourism product, which includes not only environmental elements but human ones as well. There is a strong and clear analogy here to the a

&dquo;Tragedy of the Commons.&dquo; In Hardin’s (1969) essay, the real tragedy of the Comthe 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 the grazing of capacity of the resource. Hardin’s example mons was

was

cattle on the common, while in the case of tourism it could be having too many tourists for the destination to withstand, although in the case of tourism there are many variations on this scenario. While not all of the problems of tourism result simply from exceeding capacity limits, many do. Messerli and Brugger (1984, p. 615) note &dquo;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.&dquo; Nor, one might add, is it in a position to guarantee a level or magnitude of development in anyone’s best interest. The highly fragmented and extremely competitive nature of the tourism too many

industry,

both public and private sectors, mitigates against internal control. Thus in Cyprus, for example, the Tourist Board sees the need for selective marketing and limited specific development, but hoteliers and would-be hoteliers push for rapid growth of all segments of the market.

self

or

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. Such promotion needs to be evaluated carefully and objectively. Making simplistic and idealized comparisons of hard and soft or mass and green tourism, such that one is obviously undesirable and the other close to perfection is not only inadequate, it is also grossly misleading (Exhibit 2). Mass tourism need not be uncontrolled, unplanned, short-term or unstable. Green tourism is not always and inevitably considerate, optimizing, controlled, planned, and under local control. This may be the ideal scenario but is not always realism, and there is little if any evidence that it could always remain so, if the tourism indus-

try grows. When the

two approaches are compared in this is that the concept of soft, green, wonder there little way, alternative tourism seems particularly attractive, certainly compared to the much maligned Costa Brava, &dquo;El Sid&dquo; or &dquo;Ugly American&dquo; images ascribed to mass tourism. This is the Trojan Horse aspect of the title of this paper. To represent something in the way alternative tourism is often presented is in many ways more dangerous and problematical than to promote other forms of tourism. 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 development or even limited mass tourism. To properly and appropriately evaluate the relative merits of mass and alternative forms of tourism it is necessary to not only consider the dimensions, behavior and traits of visitors, and requirements of these forms of tourism, but also their inherent characteristics and their relationships with the agents of changes associated with tourism. 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, we can identify some at least which are generally acknowledged as being significant. They are illustrated in Exhibit 3 and have been subdivided into four broad areas: factors relating to the tourists, to the resource base, to the economic structure, and to the political structure of the destination area. 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, e.g., contact, which varies with amount, nature, location, and duration at least. The purpose of Exhibit 4 is to illustrate that a simple big/ small, rapid/slow type of comparison is not acceptable. Rather, if we examine, even simplistically, the characteristics of mass and alternative forms of tourism with respect to the agents of change relating to tourism, we see potentially a very different picture. In the short-term there is little doubt that alternative tourism appears, and almost certainly is, much less conducive to causing change in destination areas than mass tourism, in part because of its dimensions and in part because of the need for fewer and smaller facilities. However, as time goes by, some factors can assume much greater significance under alternative tourism and result in greater and more serious long-term change. Contact is one such example. While total contact (measured in visitor/host interaction occasions, for example) may be less under alternative tourism, the duration may be much greater per occasion, the nature be much more intensive involving considerable discussion, and the location may be much more sensitive and personal, for example, a home compared to a hotel lobby. One conclusion which can be drawn is that, at least potentially, alternative forms of tourism penetrate further into the personal space of residents, involve them to a much greater degree, expose often fragile resources to greater visitation, expose the genuine article to tourism to a greater degree, may result in a proportionately greater leakage of expenditure, and may cause political change in terms of control over development.  Alternative tourism is often used as a synonym for appropriate tourism. In this context however, it is necessary to ask the question appropriate for whom? Furthermore one should also ask for how long, under what conditions, and by whose decision is it deemed appropriate? Tourism has rightly often been regarded as yet another form of imperialism, furthering the domination by and subservience to developed countries of Third World or lesser developed countries (Roekaerts and Savat 1989). Surely academics from developed countries pontificating on what is appropriate tourism is hardly much

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on June 29, 2012

41

better, particularly when such authorities cannot guarantee the long term results of their recommendations. In fact, one might argue that at the root of much of what is being proposed as alternative tourism is really a disguised class prejudice. Large number of middle and lower class tourists are not welcome, nor are &dquo;hippies&dquo; in any number, but small numbers of affluent, well educated and well behaved tourists are welcome. While this may a harsh criticism, descriptions such as &dquo;the hippie, preaching his counterseem

culture with drugs, loose sexual mores and poor hygenic standards,&dquo; and &dquo;the average tourist - a consuming raping individual, who destroys or violates what he or she has come to look for&dquo; (Roekaerts and Savat 1989) do little to dispell such criticism. Even experienced researchers make similar comments. Holder ( 1988, p. 10) writes &dquo;The country resorts to mass tourism, attracting persons of lower standards of social behavior and economic power. This leads to the socioenvironmental degradation of the tourist destination.&dquo; This

EXHIBIT 2 COMPARISON OF ’HARD’ AND ’SOFT TOURISM

Source: Lane 1988,

quoting Krippendorf. Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on June 29, 2012

42

dislike of&dquo; low class&dquo; tourists and tourism manifests itself in a variety of areas. In Ontario, in one infamous episode, a coach load of tourists (day visitors) had stones thrown at the coach by residents of Niagara-on-the-Lake, and yet this small town is proud of and enthusiastically promotes a Shaw Theatre Festival which attracts large numbers of the &dquo;right kind of tourist&dquo; who will stay in rather expensive restored properties and spend a considerable amount of money in the wide

process.InthebookBermuda’sDelicateBalance, Hayward, the type of visitor Gomez, and Sterner ( 1981 ) are clear they would prefer &dquo;the very tourists that would be our ideal: the long-staying, high spending, committed, quality visitor.&dquo; While all proponents of alternative tourism may not be guilty of class prejudice, in the majority of cases, the type of tourist on

who would

realistically be attracted to most forms ofaltema-

tive tourism is highly educated, affluent, mature, and probably white. If this description fits many of us (except the

affluent) it may explain why many academics basically sympathetic to alternative tourism!

are

at least

Some of the implications of alternative tourism need to be examined more closely. These include the reduction in numbers of tourists, the change in type of tourist, the education of all parties involved, and the impacts resulting from a new set of activities. Reducing numbers of tourists has two aspects, reducing numbers in areas where numbers are currently too great, 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. Revenues can be expected to decline (unless massive market replacement occurs at the same time), which

EXHIBIT 3

PRINCIPAL  AGENTS OF

CHANGE

RELATING TO TYPES OF TOURISM

EXHIBIT 4

POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE TOURISM

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on June 29, 2012

43

result in loss of employment and reduction in local standard of living. Local support is relatively unlikely, certainly not likely to be unanimous. Few places have seen this change, normally where relatively small numbers were involved, and even then not without opposition (Jayal and Singh, in Jayal and Motwani 1986). Limiting numbers before they become a problem is much more attractive but assumes capacity levels can be identified and agreed to. Even if local preferences were accepted, there is no guarantee these would match the goals of alternative tourism proponents. In many cases local entrepreneurs and politicians have been enthusiastic proponents of mass tourism development. 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. Changing the type of tourist is equally difficult to limiting or reducing numbers. Plog ( 1977) and others have shown the tourists have different different preferences. Once an way 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;real tourism&dquo; (Christaller 1963). Second, if a destination aims itself at a specific (and hence limited) market (e.g., ornitholocan

gists, photographers, amateur archaeologists, culture-lovers, etc.) it faces the real risk that not only may there not be a large enough market, but that it may not be a repeat market. Visitors may decide that after the Galapagos, the Canadian Arctic, then the Himalayas, then Antartica, and so on. In addition, while tourists are for the most part sedentary and spend their money in a limited number of locations, much of the expenditure of the alternative tourists may be pre-spent mass

on

packages spent in small amounts in a wide variety of locations. Wall (1989) has shown the true wilderness tourist spends little or nothing in the wilderness, as in the real wilderness there is nothing to spend money on. Educating people is an alternative that is hard for this author to reject, but it is a mammoth and long term project. Most people would probably accept the wisdom of the concept of sustainable development and developing &dquo;suitable&dquo; and low-impacting forms of tourism, but short-term reality dictates that the window of opportunity is often limited and timescales of most entrepreneurs are short. Those of a tourist spending a week on a beach are even shorter. It is not realistic, even if naively optimistic, 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, especially when they may not wish to associate with local residents or move out of the hotel complex. The response is more likely, with some justification, to be that tourism is supplying jobs and investment, and the government of the places obviously wants tourists, so what is the problem? The bottom line perhaps is that one cannot expect one’s cake to remain after eating it. The much needed jobs and income will not necessarily come from alternative tourism. To have some tourism but not too much is like being a little bit pregnant. Fun getting there but an increasing problem living with it as the product grows and changes almost independent of the parent’s influence. However environmentally sympathetic, every tourist can be damaging to the environment (Grosjean 1984), and few forms of alternative tourism are really amenable to a no-change scenario over time. In the social environment a similar situation exists. or

It is generally accepted that social change and impacts from tourism occur because of contact between tourists and the hosts and residents. One can therefore argue that tourism which places tourists in local homes, even when

they are culturally sympathetic, and not desiring a change in local behavior, is much likely to result in changes in local behavior in the long run than is a large number of conventional tourist ghettoes, where contourists in tact with locals is limited, if intensive, and in, what is to locals, and tourists, clearly artificial settings. The true more

more

local environment can still be found in areas into which tourists do not penetrate. To disperse tourists in space and time, i.e., to extend the season to avoid peaking, could and in some cases has, resulted in far more profound and permanent changes over a wider area, than when tourists are confined to small areas in large numbers for clearly

defined

seasons.

This paper has been critical, perhaps overly so, of alternative tourism. It was felt necessary to be so because so much has been assumed to be positive about alternative tourism without critical evaluation. These criticisms should not be taken as a rejection of the concept per se, but rather as an expression of concern and doubt that enough is known about the topic to warrant wholesale support for it. In some areas, for some people, in some situations it is certainly better than mass tourism. In many cases, however, such areas would most likely not experience mass tourism anyway. The question then should be, is alternative tourism an appropriate form of development, not instead of mass tourism, but in its own right? Can it be controlled and directed so that benefits go where they are intended to, negative aspects mitigated or avoided, and the developments be sustainable and within capacity limitations, both human and physical? That would represent a truly alternative approach rather than the snakeoil panacea which is too often proposed at present. This is not an attempt to dismiss alternative tourism as being impractical or undesirable, but even in the case of alternative tourism, perhaps even more so in that case, there needs to be much more selective and deliberate planning,  An active rather management, and control over development. than reactive approach (Edwards 1988, p. 13), with an emphasis upon balance, as Holder (1988, p. 19) notes, &dquo;between ecosystems, balancing economic and social goals, balancing the responsibility of the state with the rights of individuals and groups.&dquo; This is not easy to do in any circumstances. As Cazes (1989, p. 125) has pointed out there is really no example of significant size which clearly and completely meets the alternative tourism model, including local priorities and control. Perhaps, in line with Cohen’s (1989) excellent conclusions to his brief critique of alternative tourism, 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. Where would the many millions currently visiting the Costa Brava go and what would they do? Perhaps just as importantly, 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. Alternative tourism could not replace it, in economic terms, in personal preference terms or simply in logistical terms. At best perhaps it can fulfill a number of roles. One is to complement mass tourism by increasing attractions and authenticity, as for example Meganck and Ramdial note (1984, p. 4), allowing tourists &dquo;the chance to enjoy the natural areas and rich cultural history of the region.&dquo;  Another is to serve the needs and desires of specific groups or categories of tourists including those interested in natural history, in language, in photography, for example. Another, and the most common form perhaps in Europe, is to supplement incomes of primarily rural dwellers in marginal areas, through for example, farm tourism, guiding, crafts, and bed

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on June 29, 2012

44

(Butler 1989)

and breakfast

enterprises. A fourth may be to allow tourism development in areas which cannot sustain major change because of environmental and/or social capacity limitations. As Norbu ( 1984) shows however, even as few as 5,000 annual visitors can have an unacceptably high level of impact depending upon their activities and needs. Thus should support the development of alternative tourism where it is clear that is the most appropriate form of tourism, but reaching this requires consideration of much than counting the negative effects of mass or conventional tourism. It determining priorities and needs of the area and its residents, determining capacity limitations of the destination environment (human and physical), and the reaction of the potential market (Exhibit 5). Alternative tourwe

more

means

ism is not effective if there are no tourists. 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. There need to be sufficient attractions to draw tourists, and at present, most alternative tourists, as mass tourists, have many options open to them. Despite the desire not to attract the mass market, it is necessary for even alternative tourism destinations to attract a market. The main problems include identifying the market, reaching it alone, and maintaining it at an acceptable size for a long time. Unless all or most of the viewpoints shown in Exhibit 3 can find the type of tourism development in an area acceptable, the long term future for the tourism and the area is unlikely to be very satisfactory. Opposing viewpoints will be exerting pressure to alter the industry to fit this vision of development. EXHIBIT 5 VIEWPOINTS IN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

that the process would appear to be unidirectional, that is, alternative small scale tourism can change to mass conventional tourism, perhaps will inevitably do so without strict management and control, but mass conventional tourism is highly unlikely to be able to change to alternative small scale tourism. Even if this latter change was possible, the consequences in economic, social, and political terms may be too severe to even allow it to take place. In conclusion, this paper has tried not to take sides, for or against either of the perhaps most extreme type of tourism, but rather to argue for rational, objective evaluation of the merits and problems of all types of tourism in the context of the destination area. Development has the capacity to enhance enjoyment, economic return, and the environment if the type, scale, and timing is correct. It also has the power to degrade, corrupt, or bankrupt and despoil if any or all elements are wrong. Claiming one form of tourism is all things for all areas is not only pious and naive, it is unfair, unrealistic, and unwise.

The

REFERENCES

some

concern should be

and R. W. Butler (1981), "A Segmentation Analysis of Resident Attitudes to the Social Impact of Tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, 8, 4, 569-90. Brugger, E. A., G. Furrer, B. Messerh, and P. Messerli (1984), The Trans-

Brougham, J.

formation of the Swiss Mountains, Berne: Paul Haupt. Butler, R W. (1980), "The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution and Implications for Management," The Canadian Geographer, 24, 5-12. —(1989), "Tourism, Heritage and Sustainable Development," in press, Waterloo, Canada: Heritage Resources Centre. an Ambiguous Cazes, G. H. (1989), "Alternative Tourism: Reflection in Go and M. T. L. F. H. V. Theuns, Concept," Singh, (eds.), Towards  Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries, Frankfurt Main: Peter Lang, pp. 117-26. Christaller, W. (1963), "Some Considerations of Tourism Location in Europe: The Peripheral Regions - Underdeveloped Countries - Recreation Areas," Papers of the Regional Science Association, 12, 95-105. Cohen, E. (1972), "Towards a Sociology of International Tourism," Social Research, 39, 1, 164-82. —(1989), "Alternative Tourism — A Critique," in T. V. Singh, H. L. Theuns, and F. M. Go (eds.), Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case Main: Peter Lang, pp. 127-42. of Developing Countries, Frankfurt Edwards, F. (1988), Environmentally Sound Tourism Development in the Caribbean, Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Grosjean, G. (1984), "Visual and Aesthetic Changes in Landscape," in E. A. Brugger, G. Furrer, B. Messerli, and P. Messerli (eds.), The Transformation of Swiss Mountain Regions, Berne: Paul Haupt, pp. 71-79. Hardin, G. (1969), "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science, 162,1,243-48. Hayward, S. J., V. H. Gomez, and W. Sterrer (1981), Bermuda’s Delicate on

am

am

Balance, Nassau: Bermuda National Trust. the EnvironHolder, J. S. (1988), "The Pattern and Impact of Tourism ment in the Caribbean," in F. Edward (ed.), Environmentally Sound Tourism Development in the Caribbean, Calgary: University of Calgary on

Press.

Jackson, E. L. (1984), "Energy Development, Tourism and Nature Conservation in Iceland," in R Oldson, et al. (eds.), Northern Ecology and Resource Management, Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, pp. 387-403. Jayal, N. D. and M. Motwani (eds.) (1986), Conservation, Tourism and Mountaineering in the Himalayas, Dehra Dun: Natraj Publishers. Lane, B. (1988), "Rural Tourism," Cheltenham: Countryside Recreation Conference, Countryside Commission. Mathieson, A. and G. Wall (1982), Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts, New York: Longman. Meganck, R and B. S. Ramdial (1984), "Trinidad and Tobago Cultural Parks: An Idea Whose Time Has Come," Parks, 9, 1-5. Mishra, H. R (1984), "A Delicate Balance: Tigers, Rhinoceros, Tourists and Park Management vs. the Needs of the Local People in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal," in J. A. McNeely and K. R Miller (eds.), National Parks, Conservation and Development, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute, pp. 197-205. Murphy, P. E. (1985), Tourism — A Community Approach, New York: Methuen. Norbu, N. (1984), "Cultural Preservation in Sogarmatha," Parks, 9, 2, 14-15. Plog, S. C. (1977), "Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity," in E. M. Kelly (ed.), Domestic and International Tourism, Wellesley, MA: Institute of Certified Travel Agents. Roekaerts, M. and K. Savat(1989), "Mass Tourism in South and South East  A   Asia: Challenge to Christians and Churches," in T. V. Singh, H. L. Theuns, and F. M. Go (eds.), Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case Main: Peter Lang, pp. 35-70. of Developing Countries, Frankfurt Sadler, B. (1987), "Sustaining Tomorrow and Endless Summer; on Linking Tourism and Environment in the Caribbean," in F. Edwards (ed.), Environmentally Sound Tourism Development in the Caribbean, Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Singh, T. V., L. Theuns, and F. M. Go (eds.), (1989), Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries, Frankfurt am Main: Peter am

Lang.

Smith, V. (1974), Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press. Turner, L. and J. Ashe (1975), The Golden Hordes — International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery, London: Constable. Wall, G. ( 1989), "Economic Aspects of Tourism and Heritage," to appear in Conference Proceedings, Tourism and Heritage Preservation, Peter-

borough :

Trent

University.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Liverpool on June 29, 2012

45