industry practice5 can shed some light on how the provision of alternative tourism experiences relate to it. The power relationships present in modern mass tourism practices and the emerging resistance to these practices provides a useful arena to discuss the context of alternative tourism (e.g. Cheong & Miller, 2000; Hollinshead, 2000; Wearing & McDonald, 2002; Kirstges, 2003; Telfer, 2003; Tribe, 2005; Dredge, 2006; Bramwell & Meyer, 2007; Mowforth & Munt, 2008).
While definitions of the tourism industry define firms as private companies or enterprises whose existence is focused on profit motives, the definition itself is broad enough to encompass organizations that operate with other objectives. For example, organizations can operate with a focus on achieving such objectives as conservation, community development and personal development, offering a range of experiences that engage the tourist in experiences aimed at developing values that are not focused simply on the pleasure of the experience, or the desire to escape from day-to-day existence (Wearing & Deane, 2003). Therefore, the definition is inclusive of organizations such as Earthwatch with those such as One World Travel, whose primary focus is beyond normal profit motives and potentially differs from the mass tourism operators such as Thomas Cook Travel.
However, it often becomes difficult to differentiate the alternative tourism modalities of the myriad of tourism industry organizations. Ecotourism, for example, has been pejoratively labelled ‘green imperialism’ and the eco-tourist ‘eco-missionary’ by Dowden (1992), ‘eco-colonialism’ by Cater (1987) and ‘eco-imperialism’ by Hall (cited in Cater & Lowman, 1994). Other detractors include Kamauro (1996), Duffy (2002) and McLaren (2003). In this respect, ecotourism might be considered no different from other forms of tourism development and, it could be argued, falls into the range of commodified tourism products as explained in the preceding section. As an industry and a leisure activity, tourism generally revolves around the production and consumption of cultural difference, and so the thirst for ‘nature’ and other ‘cultures’ can be viewed as an endless attempt to commodify them by capturing an ‘essence’, but never really succeeding because it is an experience that provides only a fleeting gaze (e.g. Urry, 2002).
Post-industrial patterns of consumption have enabled the use of mass tourism as a vehicle for the packaging of a developing nation’s culture as ‘commodities of difference’, filling a commercially created need in the mass consciousness through the effective ability of developed nations to monopolize market forces, thus changing the shape of developing nation communities. Fussell (1982) discussed the artificialities of this type of tourism experience; Turner and Ash (1975) described it as a ‘plague of marauders’, with other authors commenting on its consumptive focus (Murphy, 1985; Krippendorf, 1987; Urry, 2002).
Developing nations are promoted as ‘commodities of difference’ to fulfil a commercially created need in the consciousness of affluent tourists. Urry (2002), Edensor (1998, 2000) and Cohen (2001) argue the re-arrangement of ceremonies, festivals, arts and crafts to meet the expectations of tourists trivializes the very cultures they seek to witness. As Urry (2002: 1) notes: ‘the consumption of cultural difference is socially organized and systematized’. Through in-depth fieldwork in various local communities, Macleod (2006) investigated the ways in which culture is sold to and consumed by visitors, illustrating the processes that produce ‘globalize cultural experiences’:
… tourists … will remain less aware of the destination culture than may be desirable due to the inadequate marketing material that focuses on tried and tested successful formulaic images and narratives … If the tourist experience is to lead to a richer understanding of other cultures, and an increased chance for indigenous communities to successfully use their culture as an asset if they wish, then those responsible for selling the destination should become increasingly sophisticated and sensitive towards the meaning of culture and the profile of the tourist.
(Macleod, 2006: 83)
Failure by some operators to change their operating philosophy and general behaviour has seen not only the ongoing degradation of already over-burdened developing nation tourist destinations, but a move by the promoters of mass tourism to comparatively pristine environments coveted for their untouched qualities. Greenwood (1989) suggests this form of tourism initially establishes footholds in developing countries by promising increased prosperity for the government of the day and the host communities: this, however, seldom results. Culture becomes a pre-packaged commodity, priced and sold like fast food and room service, as the tourism industry inexorably extends its grasp (Greenwood, 1989: 179).
Conversely, it is argued that the promotion of tourism experiences to developing nations is a form of global income redistribution. Money is made available to developing nations through tourism, thus allowing developing countries to acquire the foreign exchange needed to purchase technology, resources and infrastructure from developed countries (Wasi, in Srisang, 1991: 54). However, Lea (1993), Zheng (2000) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008) suggest that much of the income and perceived benefits generated by mass tourism ‘leaks out’ to large, multinational companies based in developed countries from which the operators come. This occurs through the corporate industry structure that is both vertically and horizontally integrated — for example, where one multinational corporation owns an airline, the tour buses, the hotel restaurant and recreational facilities. Profits in many of these cases are returned to the multinational’s ‘mother’ country (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008). It is generally accepted by these authors that only a minor percentage of tourist expenditure remains in the country.
Thus, multinational organizations have the power and resources to control the tourism industry on a global scale. Profits to local communities are further reduced through the importation of specialized goods and services that cater to the needs of the tourists. Key management positions are often held by outside management companies, subsequently reducing the career opportunities and control local people have over their resources. In many circumstances, little (if any) employment benefits have accrued in local communities because infrastructure (e.g. accommodation) have already been developed (and staffed) in the area. Furthermore, locals living in remote and rural areas often lack formal qualifications, finding it difficult, if not impossible, to compete with outsiders when employment opportunities do arise. Consequently, the general lack of skills and resources has meant that many tourism ventures are owned and operated by expatriates, even ventures that sell themselves as sustainable (Weiler & Hall, 1992). Hong (1985: 25) contextualizes this further and suggests that international tourism requires high capital investment and expensive infrastructure, necessitating heavy borrowing for developing nations in order to finance these projects. To date, few of the rare organized resistances by locals against foreign-owned, often multinational, organizations dominating all aspects of the tourist trade, have been effective. The apparently attractive, definitely sophisticated offers by corporations such as Holiday Inn and Club Med all too often result in little real financial benefit to the host communities (Ascher, 1985; Lea, 1988, 1993).
Responses to the effects of mass tourism have been seen in the limited formation of local lobby groups (e.g. Barkin and Bouchez, 2002). However, existing local laws and government legislation within affected host nations would seem either non-existent or ineffective in controlling ‘protagonist’-designed tourism and its impact on the local populations. There are numerous examples of ways developers have used their power bases very effectively. In Costa Rica, foreign investors in tourist hotels can enjoy tax exemption, import all building materials and equipment duty free and have been the beneficiaries of aid money to help establish business. This is one example of a developing nation’s government aiding powerful corporations while siphoning and diverting precious resources that could have been used to improve the quality of life of the local people (e.g. Marfut, 1999; Ponting et al., 2005; Mowforth & Munt, 2008).
The literature discussed above indicates that corporations promoting inappropriate tourism development in developing countries often have little regard for the ways in which their practices impact upon local communities. These corporations are utilizing
